Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

ngdawg · 10-13-2007, 06:54 PM

Of course there was legislation to make the changes. (Good grief, what is it with these smarmy little digs of presumptuous inuendo?) Lives were being affected and, ultimately, industry. (Try backing up your toilet and see if it doesn't affect more than just your bathroom, for an analogy).
The crux of the matter is not what humans contribute to global warming, it's how much is manmade vs. cyclical. Do we affect hurricanes? No. Little is mentioned of the actual changing of the earth's shape in these types of debates-it's no longer a perfect sphere; that, too, affects global climatic changes. Are humans responsible for the almost imperceptible moving north of the equator? No. How much does that affect global climate change vs. manmade pollutants, though? Envision a seesaw with cyclical climate vs manmade and watch it sway back and forth.....
The debates will go on because the earth is dynamic, the solar system is dynamic and data collecting is ongoing. In the meantime, volcanoes continue to erupt, land masses shift and the sun loses heat. Gore, et al, would have you believe mankind can change all that and thus, the Chicken Little syndrome.
In one of my links, mention is made that the US supposedly contributes to about 24% of the earth's pollutants. Not good, of course. But it's not 76% and I daresay it's been going down since that report and Bush reportedly rejected the Kyoto coalition because he's of the opinion we can do better(of course, Bush-bashers say nay to that idea and claim he's only rejecting it because of big business. *shrug*)
Of that I have no opinion at all, but as a whole, we are doing a helluva lot better than 25 years back and still the climate changes. Previous thought that it's the result of over 100 years ago seemingly is being dropped by some sources-others contend the worst of the height of the Industrial Revolution will linger for centuries and that the lack of reversal is due to not being diligent enough(that seesaw thing again). Somewhere in the middle of both trains of thought is probably where the truth lies. DDT, rampant burning of fossil fuels, copper and other metals being mined, the dumping of waste into public waterways-these all had lingering affects to life. Cars have to meet or exceed regulated emissions, we no longer have unleaded gas (don't get me started on that crapola ethanol), old forest growth is being left alone for the most part(they really need to leave the redwoods alone), the US is acquiring more parkland and the public as a general whole has become more 'informed' with entire industries devoted to a green way of life. All this happened long before Gore jumped on the fuel-efficient bandwagon.
But we still build roads and structures, still tear down smaller forests for shopping malls and I truly doubt Gore rides a bike across the country to give his speeches on global warming.

10-13-2007, 06:54 PM	#58 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	Of course there was legislation to make the changes. (Good grief, what is it with these smarmy little digs of presumptuous inuendo?) Lives were being affected and, ultimately, industry. (Try backing up your toilet and see if it doesn't affect more than just your bathroom, for an analogy). The crux of the matter is not what humans contribute to global warming, it's how much is manmade vs. cyclical. Do we affect hurricanes? No. Little is mentioned of the actual changing of the earth's shape in these types of debates-it's no longer a perfect sphere; that, too, affects global climatic changes. Are humans responsible for the almost imperceptible moving north of the equator? No. How much does that affect global climate change vs. manmade pollutants, though? Envision a seesaw with cyclical climate vs manmade and watch it sway back and forth..... The debates will go on because the earth is dynamic, the solar system is dynamic and data collecting is ongoing. In the meantime, volcanoes continue to erupt, land masses shift and the sun loses heat. Gore, et al, would have you believe mankind can change all that and thus, the Chicken Little syndrome. In one of my links, mention is made that the US supposedly contributes to about 24% of the earth's pollutants. Not good, of course. But it's not 76% and I daresay it's been going down since that report and Bush reportedly rejected the Kyoto coalition because he's of the opinion we can do better(of course, Bush-bashers say nay to that idea and claim he's only rejecting it because of big business. shrug) Of that I have no opinion at all, but as a whole, we are doing a helluva lot better than 25 years back and still the climate changes. Previous thought that it's the result of over 100 years ago seemingly is being dropped by some sources-others contend the worst of the height of the Industrial Revolution will linger for centuries and that the lack of reversal is due to not being diligent enough(that seesaw thing again). Somewhere in the middle of both trains of thought is probably where the truth lies. DDT, rampant burning of fossil fuels, copper and other metals being mined, the dumping of waste into public waterways-these all had lingering affects to life. Cars have to meet or exceed regulated emissions, we no longer have unleaded gas (don't get me started on that crapola ethanol), old forest growth is being left alone for the most part(they really need to leave the redwoods alone), the US is acquiring more parkland and the public as a general whole has become more 'informed' with entire industries devoted to a green way of life. All this happened long before Gore jumped on the fuel-efficient bandwagon. But we still build roads and structures, still tear down smaller forests for shopping malls and I truly doubt Gore rides a bike across the country to give his speeches on global warming.