Envirokooks cover bases - Global Warming to cause Ice Age!

[keith]

Global warming will plunge Britain into new ice age 'within decades'


Let me see. If the earth warms up, it is because of Global Warming. If the earth cools down, it is because of Global Warming. LOL, how can they be wrong?

Thank goodness we have experts. They all agree on the solution - cripple efficient US industries and transfer wealth to inefficient third world dictatorships. That's the ticket.

Keith.

 

[Steve S]

It is how the new world order works.

 

[buster]

This theory has been out for awhile. It was on the cover of Discover magazine a few months ago. If the gulf stream cools off from the ice caps melting and dumping tons of cold water (global warming), it will cause North Amercica to get a bit chillier.

People that push these things off as no big deal will eat their words one day. It's a credible theory and likely to happen IMO. Scientists are not out to scare people, but to find the truth. Kieth what makes you an expert on this idea? One of global warmings biggest symptoms is huge fluctuations in weather. We have two polar caps, if they melt, it makes the ocean colder. The gulf stream keeps Europe warm. When it cools, so does the weather.

[ January 27, 2004, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[Eiron]

I agree with buster (!)

IIRC, the result of global warming is not, "warmer weather vs cooler weather," but rather, "more extreme weather variations vs more stable weather patterns."

 

[benjamming]

Or it could be that the earth is going through a normal cycle. It has been here for a while & we haven't.

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

It was on the cover of Discover magazine a few months ago.

---

Uh, Huh! That explains it. Another agenda-based pseudoscience publication.

 

[Ferb]

I'll have to dig up a link to a PDF i read about "global warming". Basically the author, a meteorologist of 25+ years, says that urban centers are getting warmer due to construction (concrete and asphalt) but rural land is getting colder.

Thus, the global mean temperature isn't changing at all, if anything it's dropping.

I can definately believe this-- but i still think we should curb 'pollution' as much as possible.

ferb!

 

[Shannow]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MolaKule:

quote:

---

It was on the cover of Discover magazine a few months ago.

---

Uh, Huh! That explains it. Another agenda-based pseudoscience publication.

---

We've ALL got agendas on this issue, whether it be to maintain our current lifestyle, leave something for our kids, convince the voters that the world is about to end (and it's the other party's fault), convince the voters that all is good (and it's all our doing).

Doesn't mean that we shouldn't start conserving our (finite) fossil reserves.

 

[Shannow]

quote:

---

Originally posted by keith:
They all agree on the solution - cripple efficient US industries and transfer wealth to inefficient third world dictatorships. That's the ticket.

---

Keith, the U.S. produces more CO2 per capita than anyone else.

Food production and distribution uses more energy than is contained in the food.

Doesn't sound that efficient to me.

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shannow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by keith:
They all agree on the solution - cripple efficient US industries and transfer wealth to inefficient third world dictatorships. That's the ticket.

---

Keith, the U.S. produces more CO2 per capita than anyone else.

Food production and distribution uses more energy than is contained in the food.

Doesn't sound that efficient to me.

---

We produce more CO2 in large part because we have more automobiles than anyone else. We also have a large country so the amount of fuel used to distribute the food is large.

"More efficent" is a relative term and can be applied to a lot of areas. Compare our yields per acre and yields vs. the manpower required to anywhere else in the world...

 

[MarkC]

And yet, the government subsidizes many types of farming.
And yet again, people still go hungry.

 

[Shannow]

jsharp,
yields per acre etc are a measure of efficiency, to be sure.

Surely the primary aims of agriculture are to reap a nett gain in energy. Our ancient forfathers would not have survived in a system where farming consumed more energy than it produced.

Having more cars than anyone else doesn't justify more energy useage, because firtsly you have to justify having more cars than anyone else.

Passengers and freight are moved with a tenth of the energy consumption when on rail than on road.

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shannow:
jsharp,
yields per acre etc are a measure of efficiency, to be sure.

Surely the primary aims of agriculture are to reap a nett gain in energy. Our ancient forfathers would not have survived in a system where farming consumed more energy than it produced.

Having more cars than anyone else doesn't justify more energy useage, because firtsly you have to justify having more cars than anyone else.

Passengers and freight are moved with a tenth of the energy consumption when on rail than on road.

---

I understand your points. A few things though.

Even though our country is roughly the same size as yours, we might be arranged a little differently. A fairly large number of people here live quite a distance from where they work, and quite a few that live in the interior portion commute distances every day to larger cities in the interior.

We could cut fuel usage in agricuture by going back to more hand labor. The extreme case of that is the third world where the fuel usage to farm is minimal but it's very labor intensive. I don't think anyone wants to go there so the question is really "what is the optimum level of different kinds of labor." We've decided a trade off that uses more fuel but less labor and can be lower cost is "most correct" for us today.

Rail is used in this country for bulk products that need to be carried long distances but not for much else. Whole books have been written about why the railroads have struggled and failed here. Most of it comes down to the fact that in most situations here, people prefer autos and trucks when they consider the time, $$ and energy usage vs. other forms of transport.

That really brings us to a more contentious point. I guess we don't feel like we have to "justify" our auto usage and fuel consumption to anyone else, anymore than a country like AU has to justify theirs to a country like Biafra. This last point has caused more than a few arguments...

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkC:
And yet, the government subsidizes many types of farming.
And yet again, people still go hungry.

---

In the simplest terms, it comes down to "people don't live where the food is." Geographic, political, and economic boundries determine who eats and who doesn't, not typical supply and demand calculations...

 

[Shannow]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:
Even though our country is roughly the same size as yours, we might be arranged a little differently. A fairly large number of people here live quite a distance from where they work, and quite a few that live in the interior portion commute distances every day to larger cities in the interior.

---

A lot of people have a commute of 40 or 50 miles. A lot use the public transport system, but also, a lot must travel by road.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:

Rail is used in this country for bulk products that need to be carried long distances but not for much else. Whole books have been written about why the railroads have struggled and failed here. Most of it comes down to the fact that in most situations here, people prefer autos and trucks when they consider the time, $$ and energy usage vs. other forms of transport.

That really brings us to a more contentious point. I guess we don't feel like we have to "justify" our auto usage and fuel consumption to anyone else, anymore than a country like AU has to justify theirs to a country like Biafra. This last point has caused more than a few arguments...

---

You are right. I agree with your post.

A return trip for my better half and I to the city costs $50 on a train, carries the risks of robbery (reasonably high), and has the added benefit that the trains run every 4 hours, and often require a bus interchange on the weekend. The hundred miles takes nearly 4 hours.

We elect to drive, spending $30 on fuel, and $25 on parking, but have the convenience on suiting ourselves.

 

[Last_Z]

buster,
Keith could send "your" question right back and ask YOU: "What makes you think you are an expert?"