h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

JD- I give you the nobel peace prize.
Its nice to know that someone is actually reading all the posts carefully.
After all, isn't our purpose to understand, and then do, not just accuse and point fingers?

JD-
Thank you.
I never said global warming didn't exist.
I did point out that it has happened before.
I also pointed out that there is a certain amount of scientific evidence. The rest is speculation.
Of course something should be done though. Pollution is pretty bad any way you put it.
And we also have a compost pile.

but of course, i'd like to point out that compost also generates a lot of greenhouse gases.

I said: "Vice versa, it should be noted that when talking to people who have the opinion that the consequences of such an event are potentially severe enough that probability or likelyhood is not applicable, and thus is a bit of a red herring" ... which isn't a complete sentence. Anyhow, I meant to say something like this, "it should be noted that when talking to people who have the opinion that the consequences of such an event are potentially severe enough that probability is no longer applicable, the only point of debate that can be reasonably undertaken would be about how those consequences alone." In other words, there's no point in debating about whether something is *likely* to happen with someone who is not considering probability as being germane to the issue at all. This is not to say that one shouldn't debate people that hold such viewpoint or to demean them at all; far from it, in fact. It is more a suggestion that people be sensitive to what they're debating about.

I wouldn't rush to give me any sort of peace prize, though thanks for the flattering comment. I merely speak from a lot of hard-earned experience here. My Grandmother used to say that if she ever seemed wise it was just 'cos she'd made so many mistakes she couldn't help but learn from 'em. And there ya have it.

- JD

OK, final post on correcting myself. One mistake I have yet to learn from is that my long-windedness keeps getting the better of me. I keep leaving words in my long sentences that make them grammatically incorrect. This is particularly worrisome when the offending sentence was intended to clear up an earlier grammatical offense. I think this would exemplify a proper use of the term, "irony."

- JD

What you were saying showed that you actually read what I wrote instead of just jumping on the "lets-bash-leo" bandwagon. For that alone, I say thank you. So few people actually seem to do it, you know. Anyway, I cant give you a prize, I dont head any prize-giving committee. Nice to meet you though.

Hmmm... maybe we *should* start a committee. What sort of prize could we give out here in the "Ask H2G2" forum?

A few salient points;

The Pentagon (yes, those pinko homosexuals etc etc) think that the greatest threat to US interests in the 21st century will come from the bad effects of climate change. Of course they're not campaigning for office....


Airlines in the UK don't pay VAT (equivalent roughly to US sales tax) at all. Neither do they pay taxes on aviation fuel. I would assume that the same is true in Europe and the US. The reason for this is that there was an international treaty after ww2 to help establish the aviation industry. What kind of subsidy is that over more than 50 years. I don't necessarily think we should have a green tax on airlines, we should just stop the subsidies! That'll make £20 look like a piece of p!ss.

Pre-industrial amount of CO2 - 280 parts per million
Amount now - 350 ppm (this may be a bit out of date, and should be higher)
This is unquestionably due to human action. The ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antartica show a correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and mean global temperature for the last few hundred thousand years. The accepted reason climate change didn't start earlier is due to the effect of aerosols like SO2 which block some heat from the sun.

I read recently that the amount of material moved by people (trees, sand etc) is more than that moved by nature through processes like erosion. If not, we'll catch up sooner or later.


Oh, one other thing - we would NOT be speaking German if it wasn't for you, we'd already managed to stop a planned invasion before the US joined WW2.

Although you WOULD be speaking French if it wasn't for us!

<>

This sounds dangerously like you might be suffering some minor delusions of self-importance, Leo.

It seems to me that you have started many threads on hootoo recently and that you are very opinionated. Fine. But you seem to have forgotten that this is actually a public debate forum, so people who do not agree with what you post *do* have a right to question you on what you post.

I have not seen anyone on this thread be any ruder to you than you have been to them, and to be honest, most researchers here, inculding myself, have been very polite to you.

You often state opinions as fact and then do not back these statements up. And when you are called on this and asked to back up your statements with links to research studies, etc, you then call this 'Leo bashing'? And also don't bother to do any research and provide any links. Curious.


az

I call it bashing when people strongly disagree without properly reading what I said.

That is to say: not bothering to actually see what i'm saying before calling me wrong.
I *DID* back up my points, you probably just didn't bother reading them.

I dont have links, because my stuff comes out of solid text: my Global History book, my English regent, (which is a standardized test written by people with much the same opinions as you folks, and their texts taken from reliable sources,) National Geographics magazine, and so forth.

oh, and one last thing before I go to sleep:
Dont think I sitting here denying and shutting my eyes. I'm learning all sorts of stuff about aids and international trade and stuff. If you read back, there are lots of things i *dont* argue about, because 1.I dont know about them, or 2.There's nothing to argue about.

There have so far been only *2* points I've argued. A teens ability to have self control, and how much of what we know of global warming is actually fact.

Global Warming is happening now. People are gonna be losing their land and homes in the next 20 years not 200. And the Ozone layer has been thinning and the whole in it getting bigger every years since people actually starting looking at it. There are seasonal fluctuations but overall it ain't getting no better.

<>




In what way did I not read the following properly, Leo? (from posting 116)


<>
<>

It seems very clear that you do not believe that global warming is already a very serious problem. And that, according to what you have read, you are prepared to accept that the ozone layer is 'on the mend'. I don't believe I misread these two statements.


<>

No you didn't. I asked you to do some research and provide us with links that backed up these points. Where are they?

<>

All of which, I am quite sure, can also be found on Google.

<>

I certainly have not said this, though I have questioned some of your 'debating techiques' and also some of your arguments, such as:

<>

First of all, I didn't question a teen's ability to have self control. I said I doubted that anyone could control themselves 100% of the time and so abstinence was not a viable or realistic form of reducing the risk of Aids.

I also disagreed with what you posted on global warming and the ozone layer in posting 116. I have not seen you back this up.


az

I find this all very fascinating. I have no particular thoughts on the subject, but I beleive there are valid sources for both sides, because much of the science on global warming is projections.

If you dont mind, may I suggest that instead of bringing as sources the various articles on the net, each with its own slant, we, as a rational, thinking community, should examine the facts ourselves.

The first step of the scientific method is observation. Therefore the basis of global warming is observing certain facts.

1. average global temperature has risen in the past century. (qu. how many degrees?)
2. The polar icecap has receded due to melting. (qu. how many feet?)
3. The sun's ultraviolet rays penetrate our atmosphere, and are absorbed by the earth, which releases the heat as infrared radiation.
Certain gases, such as methane and C02 help retain this heat by not allowing it to leave the atmosphere.
While these gases are released by natural processes such as decomposition, they are, by and large, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels by humanity. (That is to say: we produce far more of these gases then any dead cow does.)

I beleive these are all the natural observations. Do correct me if there are any more, pleases. But first, let me continue with the next step: drawing connections.

1. The melting of the icecaps is definitely due to the rising temperature. This is such a logical connection that it is almost worthy of the title "fact".
2. The rise in temperature can be correlated to the increased use of fossil fuels.
(I have not researched this, I admit, perhaps someone would like to provide a source for me. All the source would need to state is that the temperature began rising approximately 1870- 90, around the time that industrialization became more widespread. Also, it would likely have to suggest that the escalation of temperature rise corresponds with our escalated use of fossil fuels.)

I *think* that these are basically all the observable facts. If anyone has any *quantifyable* facts to add, please do so. Otherwise please state that you find this acceptable, so that we can move on to the less sure stage of drawing projections and making predictions.

Do lets keep this reasonable.

HOwl to the rescue again, bringing peace and brotherhood upon all people.

OK, i was going to bring my googled sources, but I like the way howl is doing this, I think it befits the way this is supposed to be intellectual discussion, not just bashing beleifs.

So, if it's ok with you, I'll leave off my sources until we move on to the opinions and projections.

Just post here my ozone source, since it's not global warming. http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/10/10222001/ozone_45313.asp

And now I'll go google some of the facts howl needs for his statment.

"Since 1900, Earth’s mean temperature has risen .9 degrees Fahrenheit. This may seem like a tiny bit, but since the Ice Age, Earth’s temperature has only risen 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit. The rate of increase in mean temperature seems drastically faster."


found in this source:
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Andes/9520/

(what comes after cant be used yet since it is a projection).

here's more. scroll down to the ice cap section

http://www.co2andclimate.org/climate/previous_issues/vol5/v5n13/hot1.htm

I think that covers most everything.

What are you trying to prove here exactly?

>> we produce far more of these gases then any dead cow does. <<

Dead cows don't produce methane - but live cows do, lots of it, constantly.

Donald