Time Magazine Article on the Environment

[mickeyfan2]

1. We may be in a cycle of "global" warming. Who's to say it hasn't happened before or that it's not a natural part of the earth and it's climate? Of course, it's much easier to say, "it's all our fault and if we don't change x by x we're all doomed." No one wants to discuss this, though. No one wants to accept the fact that human beings and our time on this planet may well be limited. What we are witnessing may be a result of nature.

Actually I saw a scientist who showed that the Earth does have cooling and warming cycles, from the artic ice, and he said we just left a cooling cycle are now in a warming cycle. It maybe both man and Earth changing the climate. Even space could cause us another ice age.

I think we should try to reduce emissions, but why should developing nations be exempt. China has some of the most poluted air on the planet. Between them and Inda they have 1/3 of the worlds population, they cannot be exempt.

Also as the world population increases, we will strain the Earth even further.

 

[Bravosntha2g]

revy care to address my opinion on the topic. I noticed you just totally skipped it.

I just don't see the need to focus so much $ and energy on a losing battle. This earth will be wiped out by an asteroid sooner rather than later. That's a fact.

Instead of spending $ for a temporary solution, why not do what is necessary to perpetuate our species and explore space further and begin looking at colonization?

 

[Bob Slydell]

This takes leadership...something the world is sorely lacking at the moment.

Global warming is a new phenomenon, then? Has it just appeared in the past 6 years or is it possible that no leadership has been willing to touch this issue because it's like Social Security -- a career-killer.

 

[Grandpa Simpson]

Global warming is a new phenomenon, then? Has it just appeared in the past 6 years or is it possible that no leadership has been willing to touch this issue because it's like Social Security -- a career-killer.

Or maybe that the available alternatives are either too expensive to use or not dependable enough for large cities to use. ABC News did a report on Woking, England this weekend. It was interesting that this city was attempting to implement some "green" solutions. ABC (somewhat surprisingly) presented both the pro and con to this, including how incredibly noisy and expensive some solutions were to implement, with payback not being seen for many years to come.

 

[wvrevy]

Not so much. When you quoted me, you didn't actually address my third point. You instead, conveniently, changed it to suit your point. Address the ice age crisis of a mere, in terms of earth history, 30 years ago. What happened to that? Suddenly everything just became too warm?

I don't know...I was 4 30 years ago. Maybe you could point to research from then that backs up what you're saying. I haven't seen it. Having said that...science isn't religion. Thinking changes considerably in three decades time.

# 2. Yes, there is debate over what is happening and why. There is considerable debate. The climate may well be warming - now. Is this a new trend? Is this something that is natural? Is this something man made? Is this supposed to happen? Just because it's not beneficial to human life does not mean it's not natural. People are really egotistical.

Not among serious scientists there isn't. Yes, there is some debate about the cause of this warming, but nobody that has actually looked at the issue even peripherally can argue that the warming isn't occurring. As for whether it's natural or not...frankly, I could care less. When it comes to something like this, yes, I have no problem being "egotistical". Sue me for wanting to minimize the damage to human life.

 

[Cindyluwho]

I don't know...I was 4 30 years ago. Maybe you could point to research from then that backs up what you're saying. I haven't seen it.

I hate to admit this, but I was 15 30 years ago and I remember the headlines very well. We heard about it on the news every night, read it in the paper every day. Heck, we even studied it in school. The coming Ice Age was as huge a deal then as this supposed global warming thing is today. It's hard to have trust when the first president you can really remember was Nixon and the politicians that came after have proved to be just as honest. Don't get me wrong, there are some Presidents that I have liked but it's hard to be trusting of an establishment that has lied over and over for their own benefit. Methinks it's time for another tea party, of the Boston variety!

 

[Grandpa Simpson]

Scientists also indicate that weather patterns tend to be cyclical. The fact that in the 19th century most scientists believed that we were exiting what was called the "Little Ice Age" (you can Google that term for more info) that lasted for about 6 centuries, it's not unlikely for the Earth to enter a warming period that is less than a century and a half old (if one accepts 1850 as the end of the Little Ice Age).

 

[wvrevy]

Bravos - Honestly, I thought that you were joking Yes, there is a threat from meteoric impact, but it is no greater than at any time in history. While I certainly think that NASA should be studying the problem - and they have with their impact program (the name of which escapes me at the moment) - I'm not sure that there is much more that could be done about it. Oh, I could think of ways to lessen the chances, small as they are. But it would take a financial and manpower committment the likes of which haven't been seen since the Apollo project, and I'm not sure there is any chance of that happening.

Bob - No, it's not a new problem. The problem is that previous administrations have tried to use the issue as a political football, just like the current one is. That lessens the credibility of the argument for attempting to do some good, and makes it harder to convince people of the need. If you'll notice, in the original article I linked, the NASA scientists says that people in the Clinton administration tried to inflate the dangers, which - as we've seen with terrorism - does nothing but instill a "boy who cried wolf" mentality in the general public. Both inflation of and denial of the evidence can be hazardous, and both sides are guilty of one or the other.

 

[shrubber]

It's a good thing we have Time Magazine Scientists around.
All this time I thought the globe was warmed by the sun....
silly foolish me.....

 

[DawnCt1]

I think we should try to reduce emissions, but why should developing nations be exempt. China has some of the most poluted air on the planet. Between them and Inda they have 1/3 of the worlds population, they cannot be exempt.

Also as the world population increases, we will strain the Earth even further.

The fact that they are essentially exempt and no pressure is put on them to reduce their pollution leads me to believe that its a method to 'level the playing field" or bring the United States economy to a crawl in order to achieve parity.
It makes sense that the earth has been warming for a long, long time. After all, we had an ice age in which huge portions of North America were covered by glaciers. Prior to that, we have fossilized jungle type plants. It makes sense that we would be warming faster now than in history past, because ice sheets radiate less heat and as the ice diminishes so does the cooling effect. The little bit of ice in a glass melts faster than an entire ice bucket full.

 

[wvrevy]

It's a good thing we have Time Magazine Scientists around.
All this time I thought the globe was warmed by the sun....
silly foolish me.....

Yeah...'cause your credentials are better than his, right? He was one of the top scientists in the field, so you may just want to direct your "humor" elsewhere.

 

[Grandpa Simpson]

Global economic parity -- now there's an interesting agenda to ponder.

 

[ford family]

If the there is a proven need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels then why is there not an urgent programme to build more emission free nuclear power stations?

ford family

 

[shrubber]

Earth not warmed by sun. Got it. Thanks.

 

[MouseWorshipin]

All I know about global warming is that for a while (in the 80's) it got harder to find hair aerosol hair spray, and it was a big pain. Then hair spray became OK.

If it means "less snow and ice," I'm all for global warming.

 

[mickeyfan2]

I hate to admit this, but I was 15 30 years ago and I remember the headlines very well. We heard about it on the news every night, read it in the paper every day. Heck, we even studied it in school. The coming Ice Age was as huge a deal then as this supposed global warming thing is today. It's hard to have trust when the first president you can really remember was Nixon and the politicians that came after have proved to be just as honest. Don't get me wrong, there are some Presidents that I have liked but it's hard to be trusting of an establishment that has lied over and over for their own benefit. Methinks it's time for another tea party, of the Boston variety!

I am the same age and remember this too. We were told by the all knowing scientist that the gases were blocking the Sun and the Earth was cooling off. Now we say the other with the same confidence.