Global Warming, the real deal, or propaganda? Options

[kimmytree]

With our nation's politics so split, it seems like just as many people that believe in Global Warming think its a lie. What are your views on it? Are we really damaging our Environment with our huge production of carbon dioxide? Or are scientists and enviromentalists simply exaggerating?

I was flipping through my Chemistry book today in class, and found a very interesting section on Global Warming. It's an A Beka Book, published by a Christian college... last updated in 2000. I completely disagree with what the book says, but I thought it'd be interesting to share and debate on.

Global Warming
Recently, some scientists have speculated that mankind's production of CO2 (from fossil fuel combustion, agriculture, and cement manufacturing) may significantly enhance the greenhouse effect, causing average global temperatures to rise. Although man's annual contribution of CO2ot the environment is far smaller than nature's (roughly 7 billion tons vs. 200 billion tons), these scientists worry that this small increase may cause unpredictable changes in the global climate. Environmental activists have gone much further, predicting global flooding, disease epidemics, mass famine, and even the extinction of the human race if drastic action is not taken to slash CO2 emissions.

Earth's climate history
Actually, mankind's effects on the global climate are probably far smaller than some would like to think. Although the earth's climate is not well understood, the science of climatology has shown that the earth's climate tends to fluctuate over long term cycles. For example, between AD 900 and AD 1100, a period climatologists call the Medieval Climate Optimum or Medieval Warm Period, global temperatures are thought to have been significantly warmer than at present. The weather was so mild that grapes and citrus fruits were grown in England; the Vikings established successful farms and colonies in Greenland; and the Anasazi Indians built a large agriculture-based civilization on the Colorado Plateau (which was then characterized by a warm, moist climate). By the 1300's, however, global temperatures dropped sharply, plunging the world into a period called the Little Ice Age. The Vikings' crops and livestock in Greenland began to fail, the colonists died, and the island became covered with ice. Widespread exhaustion and malnutrition due to poor weather and crop failures left Europe vulnerable to huge plague epidemics that killed millions of people. Cooler, drier weather on the Colorado Plateau spelled the end of the Anasazi civilization in America, while at the same time the Thames River near London froze over in the winter with ice thick enough to support annual "ice fairs." In the years to come, the unusually cold winters would cause great hardship for early American colonists. About 1850, the climate began to warm once again, gradually ending the Little Ice Age; by the early 20th century, citrus fruits were being grown in the United States as far north as the Carolinas. This warming continued until 1938 or so, when temperatures leveled off and began to drop once again (probably related to ta decline in solar output). As late as the 1970's, unusually cold winters prompted environmental activists to call for drastic government action to save the planet from "global cooling" and an imminent Ice Age. In the late 1980'sand 1990's, temperatures once again began to climb (corresponding to an increase in solar output), prompting renewed calls to save the planet - this time for global warming.

The Kyoto Protocol
The United Nations responded to fears of global warming by convening a 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janiero, Brazil. Under the direction of radical environmentalist Maurice Strong, leaders of 150 nations drafted the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which called for nations to "voluntarily" clash CO2 emissions, at great cost, to 1990 levels. In 1995, at a second UN conference in Berlin, developing nations voted to exempt themselves from any restrictions while approving mandatory CO2 cutbacks for developed nations such as the United States. These mandatory cutbacks were later incorporated into an amendment to the Freamework Convention called the Kyoto Protocol, drafted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1998.

The Kyoto Protocol demands that the United States reduce its CO2 emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by the year 2010 (a 30-40% reduction below estimated 2010 levels). It also calls for restrictions on hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulfur hexafluoride.

Interestingly, most other nations fare far better under the treaty than the United States. China, Singapore, Mexico, and many other rapidly industrializing nations are specifically exempted from the Protocol, while the nations of Western Europe are allowed to count the shutdown of pullution-emitting Communist factories in Eastern Europe in the early 1990's as if they were cutbacks in their own CO2 production.

Costs of Kyoto
Proponents of the Kyoto Protocol have argued that slashing CO2 emissions by as much as 40% below estimated 2010 levels will have little if any economic cost. The Clinton Administration estimated that the only noticeable effect would be an increase in gasoline prices of 6-8 cents per gallon, while some environmentalists have even argued that the treaty will save money and jobs. However, since the treaty lays heavy burdens on U.S. industries while copletely exempting most overseas industries, it is likely that it will only accelerate the flight of energy-intensive U.S. industries to other nations, with the inevitable loss of American jobs. Some critics predict that by 2010, the Kyoto Protocol could result in the loss of 2.4 million U.S. jobs and cost the average family as much as $2700 per year in price increases and losti ncome. Energy shortages like those of the 1970s may once again become commonplace, particularly if environmentalists continue to obstruct the construction of new nuclear plants.

Possible benefits of rising CO2
These huge costs are particularly ironic in the light of the fact that increased CO2 levels (and even global warming, should it occur) would likely be a net benefit to mankind. It is a known fact that plants grow much more efficiently at higher CO2 concentrations; if the CO2 content of the air is experimentally doubled, crop yields increase up to 50% while requiring much less water and fertilizer. In addition, history reveals that periods of warmer average global temperatures tend to be associated with better living conditions for humanity as a whole. During the medieval Climate Optimum (when average global temperatures were 6-9 degrees warmer than at present), average life expectancies increased significantly due to reduced disease, higher crop yields, and better nutrition. The global cooling that ended this period (the Little Ice Age), by contrast, was associated with a 10-year drop in average life expectancies.

Looking ahead
Unfortunately, the Kyoto Protocol seems to reflect a "ready-fire-aim" approach that characterizes many environmental issues. Although the fate of the treaty is not yet certain, it is likely that the global warming debated will continue for some time to come. As Christians, however, we can be certain that "while the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and sumer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" (Genesis 8:22). Although we should do all within our power to protect the world God has given us, we must always remember that the fate of the earth rests in the hands of its Creator.

That last paragraph scares me the most... the idea that the earth will only cease to exist when God's ready for it to. The first few paragraphs just lead up to global warming... most of the bizzare content is in the last two paragraphs.

Agree, or disagree on the book's claims? Discuss.

[kimmytree]

^ Most of the pollution we produce from factories and stuff I believe is carbon dioxide. Even if global warming turns out to be untrue, we're still damaging our earth with all the pollution we're creating. To me, just like a smoker is killing their lungs... we're killing our ozone layer.

[stormbringer]

Oh, global warming is real alright.

Most people who refuse to accept the fact that is happening are usually the ones who just don't want to have to think about doing anything to stop it.

yeahh.. like all those factories in china and all.. they give off so much pollution and nobody really cares..

[*steve330*]

Well, yeah, the temperature change is evident and is as good as fact. I guess the only problem though is how much we did to contribute to the temperature changes and whether or not we can do anything about it.

Omg someone smart. :D

To summarize global warming (coming from someone working in an environmental company and someone who wrote a 7 page report on global warming):

Global warming is happening, sure. Earth gets warmer every day. Are we causing it? No. Are we contributing? Sure. Like 2%. Mt. Pinatubo (in the Philipines) erupted in the 80's, putting out more emissions than mankind had SINCE the industrial revolution. We're polluting and whatnot, but we're not causing it. The earth warms up and cools down on a cycle. It was considerably hotter during the medieval times. The united states got scared that we were going into another ice age in the 60's/70's. Global warming is just a fad to talk about. If you've noticed, they stopped calling it global warming and now refer to it as climate change.

If you care to argue the point, I'd be more than willing to argue with you in a constructive manner and I'd even send you my report.

[dustbunny]

WOW i am so glad there is this topic on createblog. *HUGS TOPIC

anyways i'm one of those hardcore do-something-about-the-friggen-environment-you-people-people.

i try to create awareness about global warming and our affects on it as much as possible, but it really shocks me to see how many people out there 1. don't believe in global warming 2. don't think global warming is affected by humans or 3. think global warming just has nothing to do with them

WATCH THIS VIDEO. it's 40 minutes long but hey its summer we have nothing better to do right? its pretty much about how many of the scientists who say global warming isn't happening, are the same ones that were used by tobacco companies to say that cigarettes had nothing to do with cancer. mmhmm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811

[31miracles]

yeahh.. like all those factories in china and all.. they give off so much pollution and nobody really cares..

uhh China looks like an angel compared to the United States. So don't just say China, because then you would sound ignorant.

the bottomline is, the United States is the world's biggest polluter, by FARRRRR. If we are going to slow down global warming, the United States has to be the first to act. I took a whole college course on this.

169 countries are under the Kyoto Protocol (an international treaty to reduce pollution), exceptions: the UNITED STATES who refused to join and Austrialla. Guess who abides by the Kyoto Protocol... China.

Examples: (Stats from the EPA)
With only about 4.6% of the world's population, United States produces...
29 percent of the world's nitrate emissions
41 percent of the world's methane
20 percent of the world's formaldehyde
23 percent of the world's arsenic
17 percent of the world's carbon monoxide
As you can see, the United States pollutes way more than their "fair share".

Another example: China's main heating is from coal. In the U.S., coal is not the main source of heat. But guess what, it is estimated that 18 Chinese people use the amount of coal of 1 American.


The United States and China by far are the leaders in carbon dioxide emissions. Today, the United States emitts more carbon dioxide than China, but China is predicted to overtake in the future. Why this graph is deceptive, because China has over four times more people than the United States.

So I'm saying, let's not point fingers, especially at China, but if we were to point fingers, it would be the United States.

[31miracles]

As for my view on global warming, I believe that there is no way we can stop it. Humans, especially Americans because they pollute the most and Bush refuses to joing the Kyoto Protocol =[), will not be willing to change their style of life. Pollution is only going to get worse. Plus, the rise in carbon levels (which cause global warming) can also be nature. From the fossil records, we can see that the carbon levels are always seesawing, just that today, it's rising at a quicker rate.

I believe that we, humans, should spend our efforts and money on adapting to the new planet rather than trying to stop global warming.

[*steve330*]

You're f**king stupid if you thought it a good idea to sign the Kyoto Protocols.

[31miracles]

You're f**king stupid if you thought it a good idea to sign the Kyoto Protocols.

your reason?

yea I know the United States couldn't sign it, because it would be impossible for the to follow it. But still, the United States could have sign it under special conditions to show thhat the US is serious about reducing pollution.

and what's with the swearing. I'm can be immature too, f**k YOU

[kimmytree]

You're f**king stupid if you thought it a good idea to sign the Kyoto Protocols.

Wtf? Who the hell do you think you are?

Bush and his little cronies would probably rather die than sign something like that. Who do you think halfway ownes Halliburton? CHENEY. So of course our current administration is against it. They've all got people in their back pockets who would suffer if we actually signed it.

So what's your reason for being against it? What, are you a Republican or something?

[RyanWasHere]

Global warming is a myth.

[*steve330*]

Wtf? Who the hell do you think you are?

Bush and his little cronies would probably rather die than sign something like that. Who do you think halfway ownes Halliburton? CHENEY. So of course our current administration is against it. They've all got people in their back pockets who would suffer if we actually signed it.

So what's your reason for being against it? What, are you a Republican or something?

I don't consider myself a Republican. I do, however, consider myself heavily conservative. That aside.

The Kyoto protocols would have had such a blow to the American industry. It would have reduced what they're allowed to do to such an extent that our output would have fallen way below everyone else's. Meanwhile, third world countries or developing countries (most notably China and India) had no restrictions on them whatsoever. Because of that, more and more jobs would leave America and go overseas where they can pay them very little and have abused workers to get the goods they want. The higher ups wouldn't have taken the hit like all the workers in factory related jobs. The unemployment rate would have gone way up due to the Kyoto protocols.

I should not have simply called you f**king stupid, but at the time I didn't have time to explain why the Kyoto protocols were so bad.

[31miracles]

I don't consider myself a Republican. I do, however, consider myself heavily conservative. That aside.

The Kyoto protocols would have had such a blow to the American industry. It would have reduced what they're allowed to do to such an extent that our output would have fallen way below everyone else's. Meanwhile, third world countries or developing countries (most notably China and India) had no restrictions on them whatsoever. Because of that, more and more jobs would leave America and go overseas where they can pay them very little and have abused workers to get the goods they want. The higher ups wouldn't have taken the hit like all the workers in factory related jobs. The unemployment rate would have gone way up due to the Kyoto protocols.

I should not have simply called you f**king stupid, but at the time I didn't have time to explain why the Kyoto protocols were so bad.

Ok so yes it would hurt United States industry. But can you explain to me why 4.6% of the humans(the US) has the right to emmit over a quarter of the world's pollutants?

[*steve330*]

I'm not saying it's right to pollute at that scale. I also don't think that in order to try to right this wrong we should cripple our industry. I think another method should be looked into if people care that strongly about it.

[Kontroll]

I definitely believe that global warming exists. People who think it doesn't have probably been somewhat brainwashed (for lack of a better word). I've read that there's been evidence of global warming ever since factories started growing in great numbers during the Industrial Revolution, and temperatures nowadays are significantly warmer than they're supposed to be. They have been for the past several years. Global warming is not a lie.

whose to say that you weren't brain washed?

[kimmytree]

I don't consider myself a Republican. I do, however, consider myself heavily conservative. That aside.

The Kyoto protocols would have had such a blow to the American industry. It would have reduced what they're allowed to do to such an extent that our output would have fallen way below everyone else's. Meanwhile, third world countries or developing countries (most notably China and India) had no restrictions on them whatsoever. Because of that, more and more jobs would leave America and go overseas where they can pay them very little and have abused workers to get the goods they want. The higher ups wouldn't have taken the hit like all the workers in factory related jobs. The unemployment rate would have gone way up due to the Kyoto protocols.

I should not have simply called you f**king stupid, but at the time I didn't have time to explain why the Kyoto protocols were so bad.

How so? It's not like we produce that much to begin with... we import most of our goods. Hahah, that's funny. American jobs going overseas is already happening. Most of our clothing, vehicles, furniture, electronics, and other items are made overseas. Most Americans dont work in factories, so I really dont understand how that would create a higher unemployment rate.

Did you know... alot of American cars cant be sold in Europe, because of their higher standards reguarding fuel economy and emissions? We have the technology to meet stricter requirements reguarding the vehicles we make... meeting those requirements would in no way hurt the American industry.

And if we built more nuclear power plants - that would dramatically cut down on emissions. And that's another thing that wouldnt hurt our economy. Nuclear power is safe, and doesnt create any pollution. My Dad is constantly moving around the country working at different ones, when they are shut down for repairs. Regular power plants produce alot of pollution. They require just as many workers as a regular plant, so that's another thing that wouldnt hurt the American industry.

So what makes you think the unemployment rate would rise and the industry would be hurt?

I'm not saying it's right to pollute at that scale. I also don't think that in order to try to right this wrong we should cripple our industry. I think another method should be looked into if people care that strongly about it.

So money's more important than the environment? What method do you suggest then?
We're one of the largest, most powerful, and prosperous nations in the world - but we're insisting on just sitting back and doing nothing. Alot of Americans could care less what the price to pay is in the future, because it wont effect us.

[*Moderator*]

I don't believe in man made global warming. The world has gone through its own self destruction every hundreds of years, no? Such as the ice age. I think this is just another cleansing of the earth. The earth will heat up, and then grow back and start fresh.

[Mulder]

^how can you believe that, with the drastic changes that started with the Industrial Revolution?
It's silly to believe that that had no effect on the environment.

[31miracles]

^how can you believe that, with the drastic changes that started with the Industrial Revolution?
It's silly to believe that that had no effect on the environment.

as I wrote a few posts above, the carbon level of the planet is always seesawing. I think this rise is mostly natural, with little to insignificant human causes. I do believe that humans are speeding the rising carbon rate a little, but there is no way to stop it. Admit it, you would not change your lifestyle. Imagine having to take a bus everywhere, be on a "food stamp" system for everything, going to the supermaket everyday (which happens in a lot of other countries) to buy food fresh in order to avoid packaging. As I stated a few post ago, America pollutes the most, by far, and ther is no way we Americans will change our style of life. Pollution is only going to get worse. We should use focus our efforts on adapting to a wearmer planet instead of slowing down global warming.

[Chickkabooh]

Lmao KIM!
I was just looking at new posts...and I actually made it to the bottom of the page when I realized and saw the name Kimmytree


Global Warming is real.


=]

[*Moderator*]

As someone stated above, the carbon level is always seesawing and I think that the earth's odd temperatures are normal. Of course, we're not gonna automatically stop doing the things that pollute the earth and quite frankly we never will. I don't know what to believe but I don't believe its manmade global warming either. The world will overheat on its own.

[*steve330*]

The people such as the one right before me have got it right. As I've previously stated, we're not the cause of global warming. Sure we're polluting, but that's not a very significant change in the earth's temperatures. Oh noes we're putting out carbon emissions! Then how come it was even hotter than it is now in the medieval times? How come a couple decades ago people were worried about being delved into another ice age? How come all the media whores stopped calling it global warming and now refer to it as 'climate change'?

[31miracles]

The people such as the one right before me have got it right. As I've previously stated, we're not the cause of global warming. Sure we're polluting, but that's not a very significant change in the earth's temperatures. Oh noes we're putting out carbon emissions! Then how come it was even hotter than it is now in the medieval times? How come a couple decades ago people were worried about being delved into another ice age? How come all the media whores stopped calling it global warming and now refer to it as 'climate change'?

uhh that's pretty much what I said before the post when you called me "f**king stupid" =)

[*steve330*]

No I said that regarding the kyoto protocol.

You're f**king stupid if you thought it a good idea to sign the Kyoto Protocols.

[xKatt]

As someone stated above, the carbon level is always seesawing and I think that the earth's odd temperatures are normal. Of course, we're not gonna automatically stop doing the things that pollute the earth and quite frankly we never will. I don't know what to believe but I don't believe its manmade global warming either. The world will overheat on its own.

Agreed to the extent that the earth's temperatures fluctuate and that it is beyond human control.

I believe that we are creating holes in the ozone layer. Sure it's bad, sure we're worrying, but quite frankly, no one's doing anything about it!!
Right now, people are taking on the mindframe of "Well ... since nothing's going to happen until after I'm dead, I won't take immediate action for it."
And what's the chance that we'll abort the oil business, factories, steam engine trains, steam boats, cars, smoking, anything that contributes to air pollution for the sake of something that will happen "sometime in the future". Even if global warming is proven true, are we really going to stop thounsands of industries? We have lives to live. The world must continue to turn, polar ice caps or not!
Even if global warming isn't true, I think the commotion should be a wakeup call to those severely polluting the earth.
Global warming could happen if we don't take precautions (if it isn't already happening).

[st3ev0]

it Could happen but it won't be because of us. We may cause the earth to raise up .3 degrees.

Also people should get their heads out of their asses if they think hybrids are "green." The cost of making a hybrid far outweighs the emissions they don't put out. In order to make the battery alone for the hybrid cars:
A. Mine nickel in ontario (the mining plants put out so much smog that it causes acid rain which has in turn killed the surrounding forests. They then tried to disperse that pollution to lessen it but it just spread the same amount further over canada. green imo)
B. Ship it to england for refining (refineries put out tons of smog/pollution)
C. Ship it to china to be refined further into nickel foam (more refining?)
D. Ship it to japan to be made into batteries in their battery making plants (more factory type stuff)
E. Ship it back to the US to be put into cars in the honda/toyota/ford/chevy/nissan plants