M
Miles Prower (Fearless Blue)
29 Mar 2009 16:25
Link
Your ignorance of general scientific consensus is astounding, Nix. I can only hope that your understanding of underlying principles is not as flawed as your interpretations seem to imply.
From the early to mid twentieth century through to the present day major environmental concerns have done a full 180. In the mid 40s there was major concern of an impending ice age and ecological disaster blamed on human activity and the such much as we see today.
In the end, it turned out that it was actually the residual effects of eccentric vulcanism dating back to the late nineteenth century.
The next focus became the OZone layer. The astounding thing about this is that the concerns came into being in-line with more permanent research-oriented habitations in the southern polar regions. Lifestyles were changed accordingly in order to combat the "damage" humanity had caused - having little to no actual effect, it is worth noting - only for more recent studies and examinations to show that fluctuations in the OZone are an entirely natural cycle within the earth's environment at large.
Man-made global warming is a very recent interpretation of what appears to be a much more natural phenomenon.
Research shows that naturally occuring carbon sinks - the ocean being the primary concern here - are giving off far larger quantities greenhouse gasses than human activity. According to the Internationsal Panel on Climate Change, natural sources emit 150 Gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This is more than 30 times greater than human activity adds. Also, according to the IPCC, humans have emitted a total of just 270 Gigatonnes of CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Era 150 years ago., in contrast with what works out as 40.5 Terratonnes from the environment over the same period of time.
The reason we're starting to see climate change appears to be more closely related to a specific saturation level in relation to the earth's oceans and its ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, with implications somewhat more closely related to solar activity than human activity. In combination with an effect known as global dimming - a result, quite conversely, of less particulate matter in the atmosphere - the recent trends in climate change seem to be far more effectively addressed via three naturally occuring phenomenon than any sole byproduct of human society.
But yes, Nix. I know. The time for talk is over. Heaven forbid we should all actually learn something which could prove important in future analysis of the earth's environment.
What the world needs is more understanding and less rash action. Destroying the economy to "save" the environment is like shooting one's self in the foot - the economy, and technological development thereof, is the only effective way to move away from what the "environmentalists" see as dirty fuel sources in favour of more renewable ones.
There was a rather interesting article about a pan-European HVDC-renewable power grid in a recent edition of New Scientist which made for particuarly interesting reading. I suggest you look that up as your next talking point.
But, alas, no. Let us end freedom to debate because if it isn't what currently appeals to "environmentalists" the world over then it must be wrong.
But keep in mind - the mechanisms you would deny us are the very tools by which we could save ourselves from what you see as the most immediate threat to humanity.
I do so love your idealised little world, Nix. Is there room in there for one more?
From the early to mid twentieth century through to the present day major environmental concerns have done a full 180. In the mid 40s there was major concern of an impending ice age and ecological disaster blamed on human activity and the such much as we see today.
In the end, it turned out that it was actually the residual effects of eccentric vulcanism dating back to the late nineteenth century.
The next focus became the OZone layer. The astounding thing about this is that the concerns came into being in-line with more permanent research-oriented habitations in the southern polar regions. Lifestyles were changed accordingly in order to combat the "damage" humanity had caused - having little to no actual effect, it is worth noting - only for more recent studies and examinations to show that fluctuations in the OZone are an entirely natural cycle within the earth's environment at large.
Man-made global warming is a very recent interpretation of what appears to be a much more natural phenomenon.
Research shows that naturally occuring carbon sinks - the ocean being the primary concern here - are giving off far larger quantities greenhouse gasses than human activity. According to the Internationsal Panel on Climate Change, natural sources emit 150 Gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This is more than 30 times greater than human activity adds. Also, according to the IPCC, humans have emitted a total of just 270 Gigatonnes of CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Era 150 years ago., in contrast with what works out as 40.5 Terratonnes from the environment over the same period of time.
The reason we're starting to see climate change appears to be more closely related to a specific saturation level in relation to the earth's oceans and its ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, with implications somewhat more closely related to solar activity than human activity. In combination with an effect known as global dimming - a result, quite conversely, of less particulate matter in the atmosphere - the recent trends in climate change seem to be far more effectively addressed via three naturally occuring phenomenon than any sole byproduct of human society.
But yes, Nix. I know. The time for talk is over. Heaven forbid we should all actually learn something which could prove important in future analysis of the earth's environment.
What the world needs is more understanding and less rash action. Destroying the economy to "save" the environment is like shooting one's self in the foot - the economy, and technological development thereof, is the only effective way to move away from what the "environmentalists" see as dirty fuel sources in favour of more renewable ones.
There was a rather interesting article about a pan-European HVDC-renewable power grid in a recent edition of New Scientist which made for particuarly interesting reading. I suggest you look that up as your next talking point.
But, alas, no. Let us end freedom to debate because if it isn't what currently appeals to "environmentalists" the world over then it must be wrong.
But keep in mind - the mechanisms you would deny us are the very tools by which we could save ourselves from what you see as the most immediate threat to humanity.
I do so love your idealised little world, Nix. Is there room in there for one more?
