First off, as a science minded individual and engineer, I can't agree with you about Tellner's stance. What he says is true and in order to scientifically examine the world, it requires objectivity and a divorce from emotion.
Every other week, a new news story breaks about how this or that doom and gloom theory about global warming is found to be mostly crap science. Engineered to support a pre-determined opinion.
I would be very interested to read these. Particularly if they are from respected sources. There is plenty of science to back up both sides of the argument and in this case, it depends on which side you choose to READ and pay attention to. My own survey of what is out there has led me to believe that the global warming "supporting" camp has more ground to stand on...and again, I will say most importantly has the most logical conclusion - TO CONSERVE AND REDUCE. Again I will ask....what does the opposing argument recommend? Continue along the current path and in fact, INCREASE our usage and abuse of the environment? I see no other logical end to an anti-global warming argument. But I'm sure that this question will be circumvented and ignored yet again. As it is by all of those of the believe that we should do nothing. If your opinion is different, please explain....(see below as well please)
And no one can get around the FACT that this has happened before. Over and Over in fact. With no cars, no huge herds of cattle, no oil industry. But it still happened. None of you doom and gloomers can get around the FACT that just one, ONE volcanic eruption dumps more crap into the atmosphere than mankind EVER has.
That it is happening now is not disputed, really. (though the fact that we only have accurate records going back less than 100 years doesnt help the doom and gloom crowd's credibility.
WHY it is happening IS disputed.
True, a cyclic global climate is a point of fact, based on ice cores and various other geologic dating and research methods. I am curious where you get the idea that we only have accurate records back to 100 years though. That is certainly true about some things, but I don't believe that it applies in this case, as we can determine temperature, atmospheric conditions, pollution levels, and a number of other global circumstances back for a very long time.
I would argue with the magnitude of the previous climate changes though. We are definately at a steady increase and a spike which is higher than past "hot times."
I also believe that your view of basically anyone who believes in the phenomenon of Global warming is a bit skewed. In your posts, you refer to anyone who subscribes to the theory as "doom and gloomers." Which is as good a name as any I suppose, but much like religions, there are only an extremist few who are standing on crate wearing "The End is nigh!" signs. Most scientists and others simply warn of a gradual change over a long period of time in terms of climate. Most talk of the depletion of resources, which seems to be a fairly obvious conclusion....I don't call it doom and gloom, just simple mass balance - you have so much of a resources, you use it up....and it is now in another form and no longer available. Call it what you wish, but I personally tend to believe that by the time oil is no longer available, we'll have alternative sources....I simply advocate that we move to that point BEFORE it is a serious issue.
Yet again....Someone PLEASE tell me why the blame is important??? We can argue forever over why a global climate change is occuring. It is happening, we can have some effect, small as it may be, to reduce it....so WHY NOT????
But here is the thing.
You live in the world of theory
I live in the real world. In the real world, the United States USED to have the strongest economy in the world. At the time, our economy was based on manufacture. Now, thanks in part to draconian environmental lobbies, we dont manufacture anything, and our economy is weak. That is surely good for the panet, but it is bad for us, here and now.
I dont wish to return to the days of yore, so to speak, but I do wish there was a happy medium. The Doom and Gloomers, (like yourself perhaps?), will be happy with nothing short of returning the United States to a Dark ages world where there in no industry. Yet turning a blind eye to China and India, who are the REAL criminals today when it comes to pollution.
Your milage may vary, and unlike you, I dont claim to know all the answers, but facts are facts, and the fact is no one can prove it.
Ok, this comes close to an explanation as to why we should not conserve, reduce and be aware of our environment. It is quite obvious that if we try to stop polluting, we will be thrust into the stone age. Though I would be interested in a more in depth explanation of how environmentalism has caused industry to move to other countries. As in any system, it has probably had an effect, but I just fail to see the causal loop. I would attribute it much more to labor costs, material availability, an expanded world economy, etc etc etc.
I also have yet to run into ANYONE who "turns a blind eye" to China and India. There are countries who try and those who don't. But I fail to see how China's unwillingness to conform to environmental policy set forth by ISO 9000, UN, etc has any impact on whether we should or not. Looking at graphs of world pollution levels, it is easily seen when the US put certain environmental laws into place. If you have any doubt as to the impact that the US can have, please reference figure 2
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html
Take some time to look around EPA's climate change area
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html even if you don't buy into this science mumbo jumbo, it may be interesting to see some of the data that they have collected. And please feel free to site any source which offers credible opposition.
Buzzy,
i dont know anyone who denies global warming is happening. So I am not sure where you are comming from. Many people dont agree that it is all man made, like the doom and gloom squad want us to think. And based on the news, that number is growing.
I suppose that the amount of people who believe and don't believe an issue is a matter of conjecture. Which news sources are you referring to? I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that those who support environmental awareness is growing rather than shrinking.
My point is that the fault is insignificant. You said that no one denies that global warming is happening, but that a vast majority believes that mankind has no impact.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
Again, who is this majority. The climate change may not be completely man's doing, but
I don't know of anyone who denies that man has any influence at all.
So again....man made or not - WHO CARES??? We are obviously contributing - even you say that it is not "all" manmade, therefore some must be. So why not reduce that part? Why not conserve our resources? Again, you say yourself that you WANT alternative fuel sources....do it for the money or do it for the environment, either way, it helps. Who does building a green facility hurt? It saves orders of magnitude on energy costs, helps the environment, conserves resources, if it fits in the budget, who does it hurt??? If you can't afford it - completely understood, as I said, I have personally cut environmentally friendly additions from a design to save costs. They are expensive, but WHY NOT? Where is the pay off in discounting our global impact?
There are many very emotional people on both sides of the issue. The difference is that those on the "doom and gloom squad" seek the help the environment and provide a better place to live for longer. Those on the "______ Squad" seek to ______________???????? I no longer expect any response, but if you can fill in the blanks, go for it.
).
