How will Canada keep warm now?!?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Shall I pull out another quality study showing what pieces of **** Euro cars are compared to American cars? Not even your luxury brands are put together as well as our econo brands. You Euros need to learn how to put together a quality car.

Mercs and BMWs are crap compared to US cars? Love to see some evidence of that! Moreover our looking at luxury brands like Rollys Royce, how can that be badly made with that many high skilled workers putting in that many man hours?

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by DanS


I just don't know what will happen -- assuming that global warming is real -- and neither do you. Neither do the scientists, because they're basing their work on models of unknown validity. I find it incredible that you have so much faith in the outlines of a phenomenon about which we don't know much.

You're a religious fanatic.

I honestly, really resent that. Really...no kidding. Have I insulted you in any way?

I am no zealot, and certainly no tree-hugger, or anything like that. I just take the point of view, that there is a risk that we know little about, and therefore it is far better to play safe. Since the potential risk involves the whole world, then the whole world has to play ball. That's all I'm saying.

Asmodean

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oerdin


You see now you're using logic. That's no good since they love to run around in fits of hysteria. They'd love to forget about the hysterical claims about the Ozone layer being gone by 2000 or the Amazon rain forest being gone in 1995. There are always these dire prodictions about the end of the world that never come true and which can be averted by very small changes. Over reacting and having tantrums usually does more harm then good.

To be fair quite a lot was done to head those disasters off. CFC emissions have dropped drastically and the brazilian govenrment has dramatically altered it's policies toward forest preservation since those predictions were made. Global warming could still bite us all in the arse and we shouldn't be prepared to write it off as another chicken little hysterical fit just because the models we use to predict the net effects are inadequate. Rather we need to spend big bucks to learn now what the resulting climate will look like so we can decide what price we want to pay to alter that outcome and to what degree.

[DanS]

I am no zealot, and certainly no tree-hugger, or anything like that. I just take the point of view, that there is a risk that we know little about, and therefore it is far better to play safe. Since the potential risk involves the whole world, then the whole world has to play ball. That's all I'm saying.

It might not be a correct course of action to play it safe. It might be several orders of magnitude incorrect. We don't know.

I honestly, really resent that.

You're basing your opinions on emotion and vague belief rather than science. How could I describe this in terms that wouldn't make you resentful?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drogue

Mercs and BMWs are crap compared to US cars? Love to see some evidence of that! Moreover our looking at luxury brands like Rollys Royce, how can that be badly made with that many high skilled workers putting in that many man hours?

http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2004037

The top ten brands are 1) Lexus 2) Cadilliac 3) Jaguar 4) Honda 5) Buick 6) Mercury 7) Hyundai 8) Infinity 9) Toyota 10) Mercedes Benz

Ten worst: 1) Hummer 2) VW 3) Porche 4) Scion 5) Mazda 6) Nissan 7) Kia 8) Suzuki 9) Saturn 10) Land Rover.

Top ten has 4 Japanese, 3 America, 1 British (American owned), 1 German, 1 Korean.

The Bottom Ten: 4 Japanese, 2 American, 2 German, 1 British, 1 Korean.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Oerdin


OK, I'm a geologist and I'm going to tell you that you are full of crap. Atmospheric CO2 changes widely depending upon organic activity and, most importantly, volcanism. When Krakatoa went off temperatures world wide went down 5-10 degrees and CO2 went up 10%-15%.

That's how insignificant we are in the big picture. One volcano can put out more then all humans combined. A portion of this warming is likely natural and a portion is likely man made (mostly from deforestation not industry). Lowering emissions will help some what if you can do it globally (not bloody likely) instead if you really want to do the most good instead you should plant a tree.

I know it vairies, but the level of CO2 level was lower during glacials, wasn't it?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Geronimo
To be fair quite a lot was done to head those disasters off. CFC emissions have dropped drastically and the brazilian govenrment has dramatically altered it's policies toward forest preservation since those predictions were made. Global warming could still bite us all in the arse and we shouldn't be prepared to write it off as another chicken little hysterical fit just because the models we use to predict the net effects are inadequate. Rather we need to spend big bucks to learn now what the resulting climate will look like so we can decide what price we want to pay to alter that outcome and to what degree.

I agree that action should be taken but excessaive damage to the economy isn't necissary or helpful. Instead the best possible thing the US could do is raise the gasoline tax by $0.50 and spend the money on mass transite. Switching from coal to cleaner natural gas power plant, or best of all Nuclear, would help as well. Better housing codes requiring more insulation will lower energy usage and large scale tree planting will suck up excess CO2.

Those things wll help and costs are moderate while Kyoto won't help on a global scale and the costs are not moderate. That's why I am against Kyoto but for the alternative.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by DanS


It might not be a correct course of action to play it safe. It might be several orders of magnitude incorrect. We don't know.

Yeah....I see how playing it safe could be an incorrect course of action. NOT!!!!

You're basing your opinions on emotion and vague belief rather than science. How could I describe this in terms that wouldn't make you resentful?

I know...tact comes hard to some people.

Asmodean

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oerdin


OK, I'm a geologist and I'm going to tell you that you are full of crap. Atmospheric CO2 changes widely depending upon organic activity and, most importantly, volcanism. When Krakatoa went off temperatures world wide went down 5-10 degrees and CO2 went up 10%-15%.

That's how insignificant we are in the big picture. One volcano can put out more then all humans combined. A portion of this warming is likely natural and a portion is likely man made (mostly from deforestation not industry). Lowering emissions will help some what if you can do it globally (not bloody likely) instead if you really want to do the most good instead you should plant a tree.

I see this a lot and everytime I have checked it out it has turned out that volcanos - even during large eruptions - emit significantly less CO2 than modern net CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels. Are you sure you got your information about krakatoa from a reputable source and if so can you direct me to the same source?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Odin
I know it vairies, but the level of CO2 level was lower during glacials, wasn't it?

Sure it was. Humans have had an impact both in industry but primarially through deforestation. The best thing we can do is go after cleaner energy when ever possible and planet a trees every where we can to replace the vast forests we've cut down.

[DanS]

Yeah....I see how playing it safe could be an incorrect course of action. NOT!!!!

This is a really insane position to take.

An example. I'm getting into a car this evening and driving 500 miles. I know for certain fact that taking a plane is much less risky to myself and others. However, I am still driving because of cost and convenience. This is a rational decision and I'm not playing it safe. I'm not sweating this decision and I think I'm being reasonably responsible in my actions.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I see this a lot and everytime I have checked it out it has turned out that volcanos - even during large eruptions - emit significantly less CO2 than modern net CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels. Are you sure you got your information about krakatoa from a reputable source and if so can you direct me to the same source?

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6174/jokes/greenhouse-gases-analysis.htm

Man made sources account for about 3.5%-4% of global green house gas production. We're small potatos.

Our big impact is that we are cutting down trees thus killing the biggest absorbers of green house gases.

It's funny to note that humans farting produces just over 3% of total green house gas production

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Sure it was. Humans have had an impact both in industry but primarially through deforestation. The best thing we can do is go after cleaner energy when ever possible and planet a trees every where we can to replace the vast forests we've cut down.

We should also build more long term wooden structures since a forest can only remove so much CO2 before forest turn over caused by decay of old wood causes the forest to no longer contribute to a net removal of CO2. This progress can be especially undone if such a forest is allowed to eventually undergo a large forest fire.

The only way to make CO2 removal from trees semi permanent is to build enduring wooden stuff out of the trees and then keep planting new ones to repeat the process. Trees can't make CO2 magically disappear. All they do is temporarily sequester it in the form of carbon locked up in the wood and other plant tissues.

[Asmodean]

The fact remains that you, and likeminded people are willing to bet the future of many coastal areas on your fears of losing lifestyle and money.

The fact remains that allthough I and likeminded people perhaps have an irrational fear of the unknown, and perhaps are not basing our arguments on science, we are basing our arguments on scientists. And there are plenty of them, even respected scientists, that recommend a safe course of action, involving lowering CO2 emissions.

That you are even willing to overhear them, says a lot about you, IMHO.

Asmodean

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oerdin

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6174/jokes/greenhouse-gases-analysis.htm

Man made sources account for about 3.5%-4% of global green house gas production. We're small potatos.

Our big impact is that we are cutting down trees thus killing the biggest absorbers of green house gases.

It's funny to note that humans farting produces just over 3% of total green house gas production

heh, seriously what source do you use?


(erm I sure hope you knew you cited a humor page just now )