General discussion


What About Global Warming?

By FluxIt ·
I read through several Global Warming threads and saw many things that were curious. Then I came across this article:

While I have not made a decision on the human contribution to Global Warming, I have a tendency towards a neglible impact. I believe that Global Warming is a natural process and that the natural has a greater impact on the climate than human influence. Certianly, humans cause an impact but it is usually a whisp in the spanse of time and space.

What do you think about the article?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Chaos theory

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Chaos Theory and American ...

is the study of non linear dynamical systems.

Specifically to identify the order in chaotic systems. If you google Lorenz and butterfly effect you'll see the famous diagram.
That was based on three equations to govern a simple climate.

It was chaotic (apparently random), because there was no particular pattern the solutions of the individual equations but when viewed as system the solution always stayed within certain bounds.

I have nothing against profit, I profited from my reading of James Gleick's Chaos, I profited from my business. I haven't profited from risking the entire biosphere and millions of lives though.

It's called ethics.

American contribution to potential climate change yes but no you can't claim to have made global warming, unless Al's been waffling again?

Collapse -

Gleick's Book

by FluxIt In reply to Chaos theory

I read that too. It was great. I believe that Lorenze had 8 simultaneous equations to model the global weather patterns. Anyhow, that is unimportant.

While pollution is an important concern, we have to ask what is an acceptable level that promotes human dignity without causing immediate or future loss of human dignity?

Dumping of toxins on otherwise productive farm land then building a subdivision on top off the waste is unethical and diminishes human dignity. That action may even cause human suffering unnecessarily.

Things like electricity, air conditioning, and sewage systems improve human dignity. But they can also cause poor living conditions if not properly designed. Where do we draw the line?

Collapse -

Where do we draw the line

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Gleick's Book

under the profit column on the balance sheet.

The world is run by bean counters, they are judged on money at the end of each financial period.

Ask one how much a forest is worth, he'll calculate the value of the saleable wood and the land it's on and give you a price.

Collapse -

Pure Greed?

by FluxIt In reply to Where do we draw the line

Bean counters are a pain in the kazzotski.

How does one cost environmental concerns?

For a common citizen to add solar power to his home, install composting toilets, and separate trash for recycling it cost $45k the first year. He could sell compost and recyclable trash offsetting the cost but there is little to no financial return on those things. In fact, it would be mostly a move on conscience more than anything else.

So again where do we draw a line?

Collapse -

You can't cost environmental concerns

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Pure Greed?

Businesses only recognise two sorts of value in ethics.

One is fuzzy, as in marketing your self as ethical, the other is slightly more defined in terms of the cost of being prosecuted for doing something illegal. Though in the latter case, many of the fines are a joke.
If it costs $200k a year to deal with waste properly, vs a 50k fine if you get caught and found guilty, which one should a business man pick?

Tax incentives for being green for individuals and businesses, I believe is a practical way to go. Certainly taking away every ones car and making them live in a wattle and daub hut, is not going to make you popular.

The lines are wherever we choose to draw them, at the moment there are next to none.

Collapse -

Pollution Management or Global Warming Theory

by sn53 In reply to Gleick's Book

Is there a connection between pollution and global warming? Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a by-product of breathing.

Waste management is a reasonable thing to do. But I do not see the connection between cleaning up after ourselves (which all of the wealthy nations do well and the former socialist ones do very poorly) and potentially causing global climate change.

Collapse -

If CO2 was only a byproduct of breathing

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Pollution Management or G ...

And the random Bush Fires that occur naturally there wouldn't be much of a problem. But CO2 is also a by product of Combustion of Fossil Fuels so those Fuel Cracking Plants and Coal Fired Power Stations in use now are contributing far more of the CO2 into the atmosphere than animals breathing.

Also under strictly Medical Terms if you have a need for something you are addicted to it so every human in the world is addicted to breathing air.

Do you now enjoy being classed as an Addict?


Collapse -

Don't forget food and sex

by sn53 In reply to If CO2 was only a byprodu ...

Hal wrote, "under strictly Medical Terms if you have a need for something you are addicted to it so every human in the world is addicted to breathing air.

Do you now enjoy being classed as an Addict?"

Don't forget food and sex. I need those too.

Collapse -

So SN as a self confessed addict

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to If CO2 was only a byprodu ...

Why do your words have any weight?

That junkie down the road hooked on The Big H has as much to say and as much weight placed on their arguments as you do. So I take it that you'll be starting to inject h latter today right?


Collapse -

CO2 is not a pollutant?

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Pollution Management or G ...

Lost for words.


Any response is obviously a complete waste of my time.

Related Discussions

Related Forums