Ancient ice shelf breaks free in Canadian Arctic

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

so let's ask some questions.
are you knowledgable enough to know:
1) burning oil products puts CO2 into the atmosphere?
2) burning oil products puts sulfer dioxide into the atmosphere?
3) burning oil products puts CO into the atmosphere?
4) that these gases are fatal to humans and life in general?
if you are intelligent enough to know this and you burn oil products; you are putting poison in my tea and thus you are a murderer.

Those gases are essential to life.

surferdude

polaris wrote:

biggest myth: tackling climate change = excessive spending ...

just like the clean air act recycles exiting legislation - all we need is to act ... we don't need to spend indispensable money ... we just need leadership and a willing populace ... most things that would reduce emissions would be cost beneficial to the user ... tell me anything u would think of doing that would reduce your emissions/footprint that would cost you money over the long term?

What bang for the buck will we get? Does it help us if climate change is still going to happen due to nature? Will people die because we've used money to try to prevent an unpreventable climate change that could have been used to adapt to climate change?

I'm not asking these question to defend doing nothing. These are real questions about how to best use both public and private dollars to address climate change. Much like car drivers have insurance to help them adapt to a car accident, it should not be frowned upon for public dollars to be used to adapt to climate change.

I'm all for an even course of lessening man's impact on climate chaneg and adapting to climate change. The ratio between the spending on the two may be dependant on where you are.

Rats of Multa

brain of c wrote:

the ice in my coke melted.:(

probably the taliban is to blame. global warming too,.. they won't rest until everyone must suffer to live in barren desert-landscapes and cavernous-mountains with excessively warm beverages.

at least now that saddam is gone we can refocus on killing stuff in afghanistan again!

surferdude

Rats of Multa wrote:

probably the taliban is to blame. global warming too,.. they won't rest until everyone must suffer to live in barren desert-landscapes and cavernous-mountains with excessively warm beverages.

at least now that saddam is gone we can refocus on killing stuff in afghanistan again!

What is he doing drinking Coke? That stuff will kill you or make you obese or eat through the nail he ate for breakfast.;)

polaris

surferdude wrote:

What bang for the buck will we get? Does it help us if climate change is still going to happen due to nature? Will people die because we've used money to try to prevent an unpreventable climate change that could have been used to adapt to climate change?

I'm not asking these question to defend doing nothing. These are real questions about how to best use both public and private dollars to address climate change. Much like car drivers have insurance to help them adapt to a car accident, it should not be frowned upon for public dollars to be used to adapt to climate change.

I'm all for an even course of lessening man's impact on climate chaneg and adapting to climate change. The ratio between the spending on the two may be dependant on where you are.

first of all - we're still on opposite sides of the fence as to the cause of climate change ... so, lets just leave that one alone as we've gotten nowhere in 2+ years ...

adapting to climate change means accepting the consequences - those consequences means a significant loss of life - why should we accept loss of life when it is well within our power to stop it from happening ...

again - can you name something that you could do to alleviate climate change that would be not economically beneficial to you?

onelongsong

surferdude wrote:

What bang for the buck will we get? Does it help us if climate change is still going to happen due to nature? Will people die because we've used money to try to prevent an unpreventable climate change that could have been used to adapt to climate change?

I'm not asking these question to defend doing nothing. These are real questions about how to best use both public and private dollars to address climate change. Much like car drivers have insurance to help them adapt to a car accident, it should not be frowned upon for public dollars to be used to adapt to climate change.

I'm all for an even course of lessening man's impact on climate chaneg and adapting to climate change. The ratio between the spending on the two may be dependant on where you are.

funny thing is it doesn't take spending. this isn't a problem you can throw money at.

surferdude

polaris wrote:

adapting to climate change means accepting the consequences - those consequences means a significant loss of life - why should we accept loss of life when it is well within our power to stop it from happening ...

No. Adapting to climate change means accepting the outcome (not the consequences) and acting to prevent loss of life (or consequences).

Things that will not economically or socially benefit me; higher density living, limiting downtown access by car, carbon tax. I could go on and on. Now you may turn around and tell me why these things are good for you but that does not mean they are good for me.

surferdude

onelongsong wrote:

funny thing is it doesn't take spending. this isn't a problem you can throw money at.

You don't think finding an alternative energy source to oil and implementing it into everyday life will take money?

polaris

surferdude wrote:

No. Adapting to climate change means accepting the outcome (not the consequences) and acting to prevent loss of life (or consequences).

Things that will not economically or socially benefit me; higher density living, limiting downtown access by car, carbon tax. I could go on and on. Now you may turn around and tell me why these things are good for you but that does not mean they are good for me.

adapting is accepting the consequences when mitigation is the right thing to do ... its like dropping a nuclear weapon and saying let's just deal with the after effects ...

as for the solutions - i asked what things are YOU willing to do that would be uneconomical to you ... obviously, things others are willing to do may not appeal to you but is there something that you would do that would cost you in the long run?

surferdude

polaris wrote:

adapting is accepting the consequences when mitigation is the right thing to do ... its like dropping a nuclear weapon and saying let's just deal with the after effects ...

as for the solutions - i asked what things are YOU willing to do that would be uneconomical to you ... obviously, things others are willing to do may not appeal to you but is there something that you would do that would cost you in the long run?

I'm all for a carbon tax and enviro tax applied at the consumer/consumption level. This is no way is of any economic advantage to me but I am still for it. Truthfully there's not much I can think of that I don't do that wouldn't affect me either economically or lifestyle wise.

polaris

surferdude wrote:

I'm all for a carbon tax and enviro tax applied at the consumer/consumption level. This is no way is of any economic advantage to me but I am still for it. Truthfully there's not much I can think of that I don't do that wouldn't affect me either economically or lifestyle wise.

exactly!! ... so, tackling this thing is not hard ... so, many things are in place ... mumble jumble about impacts to the economy is a diversionary tactic ...

surferdude

polaris wrote:

exactly!! ... so, tackling this thing is not hard ... so, many things are in place ... mumble jumble about impacts to the economy is a diversionary tactic ...

That's not what I've said at all. If Canada stopped using greenhouse producing gas tomorrow what would happen? Would your bus run to get you to work? Would you have heating for your home? How much would Canada be able to produce? Change in any behavior has an economic impact.

civ_eng_girl

this does not bode well for my ice-fishing trip in two weeks.... :(

yield2me

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2003/nov_5_03.htm

onelongsong

surferdude wrote:

You don't think finding an alternative energy source to oil and implementing it into everyday life will take money?

HELLO. IT'S FOUND AND DEVELOPED.
i've been using solar power for years. i'm no where near the grid. prior i used wind energy. methane burns clean and there's vast frozen deposits all over the world.
where have you been?

yield2me

onelongsong wrote:

HELLO. IT'S FOUND AND DEVELOPED.
i've been using solar power for years. i'm no where near the grid. prior i used wind energy. methane burns clean and there's vast frozen deposits all over the world.
where have you been?

You're right and I am all for an alternative energy source, but it WILL take money. Think about all the consumers that will need to re-buy their automobiles etc. Think about all the jobs lost due to the oil companies folding, the economic impact of that alone is scary.

Don't get me wrong, this needs to be done and not because I think that cars are causing global warming, I don't, but because energy should be cheap for everyone and will eliminate wars over oil etc...but to say it won't cost money to switch over to that system is ridiculous.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

Those gases are essential to life.

tell you what. close yourself in a garage with your running car and in a few hours; come back and tell me how essential those gasses are to your life.
i'll leave a light on.

MakingWaves

I just think all of this global warming crap has political ties just like everything else.
In the early 70's it was global cooling.
I remember seeing a commercial in the late 80's that said by the year 2012 there would be no trees left in the Amazon Rainforest. Bunch of crap.
People except all of this stuff as fact. This earth isn't going anywhere and neither is the human race.
Don't get me wrong. It is our responsibility to clean things up, find alternative fuels to make the earth cleaner and less polluted but to use scare tactics isn't the way to go about it.
I have a couple of questions and I am serious about it. If polar ice caps broke off and melted wouldn't there just be water displacement? Like when ice melts in a glass of water, the water level doesn't rise.
And if you look at what one volcano eruption pumps into the atmosphere do we really think we can destroy the atmosphere when nature beats the crap out of herself on a regular basis?

Again, we need to do our part to keep things clean and be responsible but all of the global warming epidimic stuff is political bullshit in my opinion.

farfromglorified

onelongsong wrote:

tell you what. close yourself in a garage with your running car and in a few hours; come back and tell me how essential those gasses are to your life.
i'll leave a light on.

:rolleyes:

Tell you what. Eliminate CO2 and see how much oxygen you have left to breathe. I'll leave the light on.

citizen_drew

I'm more of a turn into the skid type of person...
Alaska is looking better and better.