Climate Change
in the early morning on Friday, the 6th of April 2007 by Chad
Here’s my take on the subject and all… You have several different groups of people.
- Those that categorically reject any climate change. Very very small group.
- Those that admit climate change, but see purely natural change such as the higher sunspot activity and other natural cycles as the only cause. Another pretty small group of people.
- Those that admit climate change as being caused by both naturally occuring phenomena and manmade activity. Typically they’ll believe that the manmade change is smaller than natural activity. Me personally? I’d fall into this group mostly, as I have found these people to be the most enlightened, not dogmatic.
- Those that believe that man is the cause of all evil in the world, including climate change. An interesting group: they’ll have the idiotic bumper sticker “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” but then demand in blogs and letters to the editor that “THERE IS NO MORE DEBATE, CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL” against anyone with differing views. I have another term for these types, assholes. They’re the same ones who seem to think that in the face of all evidence, scientists are not human and therefore infallible. As long as it agrees with their sacred views.
Anyways, pollution in all forms should be reduced as much as possible for its own sake. This makes sense. I personally feel that pebble bed reactors are a major answer to the problem. The whole nuclear waste “scare” is a bogey man rooted in politics of power. There are several valid methods to dispose of the relatively small amount of waste generated. It is politics that prevent either from being used.
But when groups that just crave power demand things from you in the name of a disputed “science” you have to take things with a grain of salt. And when those who claim to “speak truth to power” (another idiotic saying) are among the worst offenders…
![[del.icio.us]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Sphere]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/sphere.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Email]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
April 11th, 2007 at 3:35 am
I’m actually somewhere between choice two and choice three. Just because I lean so close to the “natural force” theory. I would need someone to explain to me how my carbon footprint is causing the ice cap on Mars to melt. My car might be big, but it is not that big. And the fact is, that even before man, the Earth had warm periods and ice ages. In the middle ages, Greenland warmed up enough to have a viable colony for many generations, and then it got colder and the colony disappeared. All of Canada was covered by ice at one time. Was it the dino droppings that caused it to melt? Or was it primitive man’s fire?
Don’t get me wrong, I am for conservation. To a point. If they come up with a vehicle that can get great mileage and fit all the kids, and not be built of plastic, I’ll buy it. But mostly because I believe that this country needs to get off the crack pipe of foreign (yes, Middle Eastern and Venezualan) oil. It does not make sense to be reliant on our enemies…
Another problem I have with the global warming group is that they are a for profit group (like everything else in this world). Their scientists are paid to come up with the right findings. They are run by has been politicians. And they are run by people who really think that America and other industrialized nation need to be taken down several pegs. It is a way to introduce a global tax on “rich” nations. The Kyoto mess is a way to financially handicap some industrialized nations. While other countries (such as China) have no carbon caps under the treaty.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Chad
Excellent summary. I’m definitely with you on this topic.
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
I also beieve that global warming is due to a combination of natural and human effects, however, I tend to place more of an emphasis on the impact of humans. I also can’t stand those who get on their soapboxes and preach about how we are ruining the planet, and I think that they are doing a disservice to the basic science. I am a scientist, and it has been my experience that the scientific communtiy has some pretty strong checks in place to keep itself honest. Perhaps someone could elaborate on the paying off of scientists for the purposes of promoting the global warming hypothesis, because it is news to me. When did this happen? Who was involved? What was the financial motivation?
I think that if you look at the numbers, you will see that global climate is strongly correlated with greenhouse gas concentration. Since nature is not emitting any greenhouse gasses on its own, any temperature increase due to the increase of CO2 concentration can be directly attributed to human activity. Right now we’re at 370ppm of CO2. CO2 has never been above 300ppm in the last 650 thousand years until now. Most mathematical models predict a radically different global climate when we get somewhere in the 400’s (the specific value differs from model to model).
A reasonable plan is that we hold emissions at their current level over the next 50 years, and that we then reduce carbon emissions to zero over the 50 years following that. By that time, sufficient carbon sequestration technologies should exist that we could remove enough gas from the atmosphere to restore carbon levels to pre industrial revolution values. This should keep us below the threshold value in the 400’s without hindering economic progress too much.
I also agree that nuclear energy will be important in implementing this plan. Nuclear has its problems, but it is a hell of alot better than coal! Waste is a serious concern, however. What is needed is a long term storage plan. We almost had one with this Yucca Mountain mine in Nevada, but the project was derailed due to concerns about transporting the waste. Once a reasonable waste disposal plan is implemented, I will whole heartedly support nuclear until the efficiency of renewables increases to the point that they become more economically viable.
Also, I think that Americans should reexamine thier transportation preferances. I have and need an SUV, but I don’t use it for my everyday commute. There is no reason for me to ride alone in the SUV while worrsening traffic and air quality problems. Going to work, I ride the bus. When I need the SUV, then I use it.
Would someone please respond about this issue of politicians paying off scientists, because I am very interested.