• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.



So the Industrial Revolution was a disastrous idea then? (Global Warming and Climate Control)

yosef shompeter

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
2,819
More Than 170 Nations Gather to Sign Paris Climate Accord - Bloomberg

Why start another thread on this? Well when one thread gets very very long and is only contributed to by the specialists and activists... some fresh ideas can come from a new one.
Also few people have the diligence tho read through 80 or 90 pages to get up to date.
Well we have got this far. It's now deadly serious. John Kerry in his speech emphasized that the rate of climatic change is increasing. Last year was the hottest year on record and will probably be superceded by this year.
The star-gazers among you can not fail to have noticed that when you gaze across the solar system, the one planet that stands out is the blue planet, earth. The only one that we know definitely supports "intelligent" (is this the right word?) life.
It's now a race against time.
a) Can we reduce the rate of emissions so as to reverse the warming trend or is it already too late?
b)How can we rope in other big climate offenders who insist on their right to industrialize first -- just like the west climbed the ladder.
c)And some surprising discoveries... such as the discovery that the biggest culprits seem to be: Not the auto or aircraft industries, but the cattle and sheep.... who burp (without so much as excusing themselves) and emit methane gas, which is much more heat-trapping than carbon dioxide CO2, and which is an industry that the Greens would have held up as exemplary.
 


Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
7,203
I see mankind as like the flowering stage of Earth with his technology. Every technological discovery is potentially of eternal benefit but there is a cost factor to human development - namely the devastation of the environment. So we need a balance, if we can find a balance - to protect the Earth and it's many other species while at the same time preserving and refining our technological knowledge and skill then that is the path of true success for our species.

The flower need not kill the plant in it's development. It need not. With some adjustment we could have the cake and eat it too.
 

drummed

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
37,442
I see mankind as like the flowering stage of Earth with his technology. Every technological discovery is potentially of eternal benefit but there is a cost factor to human development - namely the devastation of the environment. So we need a balance, if we can find a balance - to protect the Earth and it's many other species while at the same time preserving and refining our technological knowledge and skill then that is the path of true success for our species.

The flower need not kill the plant in it's development. It need not. With some adjustment we could have the cake and eat it too.
That's just clichéd guff. Have you got any actual practical ideas? I think we is doomed due to this Malthusian disaster.
 

yosef shompeter

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
2,819
Maybe another useful metaphor or analogy would be that each new discovery lets some new genie out of the bottle and each such discovery empowers humanity either for good or for destruction.
I would have thought the best example would be nuclear technology. It has opened avenues to new explanations of the universe, explained the concepts of the sun's rays, and along with nuclear power it's given us the thermonuclear bomb. And now Kim Boy Fat in North Korea has one and wants to develop home-grown long-range missile technology.
But who would have thought that FCKW's would result in the Ozone layer being destroyed?
Who would have thought that burning coal (or turf, or wood or oil!) would lead to the climate falling out of kilter?
Seems as if technological discovery is the saviour and technological discovery is the great destructor too --- if it gets into the wrong hands, or unwitting hands
 

ne0ica

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
8,452
Yawn. This is such a repeat of the 70's when people were told the polar ice would melt or the early 90's when we were told the ozone layer would vanish and the sun would burn us all to death.
 

Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
7,203
It's amazing that they can get hundreds of nations together to sign agreements to pledge billions - in the area of global warming. Why cannot they tackle deforestation and the loss of biodiversity directly with the same level of commitment? It's one of the things that makes me a tad suspicious of the motives behind the anti climate change movement.

Colony collapse disorder is a real problem affecting bees and they won't even ban a few unneeded pesticides to prevent it, they won't tackle dumping of plastics at sea in a serious manner, etc etc. It's left up to charities.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,712
More Than 170 Nations Gather to Sign Paris Climate Accord - Bloomberg

Why start another thread on this? Well when one thread gets very very long and is only contributed to by the specialists and activists... some fresh ideas can come from a new one.
Also few people have the diligence tho read through 80 or 90 pages to get up to date.
Well we have got this far. It's now deadly serious. John Kerry in his speech emphasized that the rate of climatic change is increasing. Last year was the hottest year on record and will probably be superceded by this year.
The star-gazers among you can not fail to have noticed that when you gaze across the solar system, the one planet that stands out is the blue planet, earth. The only one that we know definitely supports "intelligent" (is this the right word?) life.
It's now a race against time.
a) Can we reduce the rate of emissions so as to reverse the warming trend or is it already too late?
b)How can we rope in other big climate offenders who insist on their right to industrialize first -- just like the west climbed the ladder.
c)And some surprising discoveries... such as the discovery that the biggest culprits seem to be: Not the auto or aircraft industries, but the cattle and sheep.... who burp (without so much as excusing themselves) and emit methane gas, which is much more heat-trapping than carbon dioxide CO2, and which is an industry that the Greens would have held up as exemplary.
The planet is warming, the climate is changing and mankind must change what it can, mitigate where it can, and otherwise adapt.

That is all there is to it.

I see nothing in a meandering OP that adds anything useful, or anything that has not been said better elsewhere.

In particular, I would like to see the evidence that anyone ever claimed c) is the "biggest culprit". An issue, maybe, but it seems to be thrown in gratuitously with no particular point.

What is correct in the OP is not new, and what is new is not correct.
 

yosef shompeter

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
2,819
Yawn. This is such a repeat of the 70's when people were told the polar ice would melt or the early 90's when we were told the ozone layer would vanish and the sun would burn us all to death.
Say, You left out the smilie. You know, to display humour or irony.
We got the ozone layer fixed before it did great damage. But it was a big struggle and the Du Pont company were stridently against it and spend loadza money lobbying against regulation.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
Maybe another useful metaphor or analogy would be that each new discovery lets some new genie out of the bottle and each such discovery empowers humanity either for good or for destruction.
I would have thought the best example would be nuclear technology. It has opened avenues to new explanations of the universe, explained the concepts of the sun's rays, and along with nuclear power it's given us the thermonuclear bomb.
Except that the nuclear bomb came first, and nuclear power second. I'm not sure whether that's better or worse.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
Say, You left out the smilie. You know, to display humour or irony.
We got the ozone layer fixed before it did great damage. But it was a big struggle and the Du Pont company were stridently against it and spend loadza money lobbying against regulation.
And there were idiots prancing about in the "perfectly natural sunshine" to "show" how it was all "nonsense". The great thing about idiots is that you don't even have to pay them to shout their idiocy to the crowd.
 

yosef shompeter

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
2,819
I think we've collectively nailed all the main points.
The ozone layer was the "dry run" but we fixed that one on time through a bit of research and international cooperation so as to retool for subsitutes for the FCKWs.

I'm kind of amazed at the complacency that the global warming one will be fixed on time. We are inclined to think in linear fashion, but who is to say that nature/science operates this way? Well we are in the process of finding out.
Strikingly noticeable is that all of the low lying island states, who are not industrialized anyway have signed up to the accord. But the enthusiasm is not as great in China and Russia. They want the Western Nations to pay for them to retool.

A small minor sticking point. Has anyone considered the plight of the oil-rich Arab Gulf states. Are they to go back to growing dates and herding camels out there in the desert? All that oil at the turn of a tap and they won't be allowed use it? or no foreign country will be allowed buy it?
I don't know how this is going to be enforceable.
It's simlar to the efforts of keeping the OPEC Cartell together. If one party cuts production to keep prices high. It's tough chit on him. The others will use the opportunity to increase sales.
So if one environmentally conscious country lowers production, another might fill the gap.
Certainly they'll continue to produce for their own needs, ... unless of course solar and wind costs decrease so much that they do them out of business

Fasten your seatbelts.
 

yosef shompeter

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
2,819
Except that the nuclear bomb came first, and nuclear power second. I'm not sure whether that's better or worse.
Well, there is a story to that. During the thirties a lot of Jewish atomic scientists fled to America. Most of them from the University of Goettingen. This led the Americans to believe that Hitler was way ahead of them in the race to build the bomb. As it turned out, Adolf directed his research towards the V2 rocket instead. Heisenberg, Germany's top nuclear scientist may have known or "guessed" that the bomb was possible but did not press for it to be built. We just don't know. After the war the Brits arrested the German nuclear top people in some country home in England and had them all under surveillance with hidden microphones. Together they worked out how to create the bomb pretty fast.
Well that's the low-down anyway. Roosevelt was under pressure to develop the bomb as he thought that Hitler was onto it and would get there before him.
 

yosef shompeter

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
2,819
The planet is warming, the climate is changing and mankind must change what it can, mitigate where it can, and otherwise adapt.

That is all there is to it.

I see nothing in a meandering OP that adds anything useful, or anything that has not been said better elsewhere.

In particular, I would like to see the evidence that anyone ever claimed c) is the "biggest culprit". An issue, maybe, but it seems to be thrown in gratuitously with no particular point.

What is correct in the OP is not new, and what is new is not correct.
Do a google of it.

The web is loaded with reports.
Here's one:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/eat-less-meat-vegetarianism-dangerous-global-warming
This might have implications for dear old Ireland.
Indebted to the tune of 100% GDP
Our tax fiddle with multinationals on the ropes
Brits going for Brexit
And now we can't go out and herd the cows !

It's back to growing potatoes again.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,733
More Than 170 Nations Gather to Sign Paris Climate Accord - Bloomberg

Why start another thread on this? Well when one thread gets very very long and is only contributed to by the specialists and activists... some fresh ideas can come from a new one.
Also few people have the diligence tho read through 80 or 90 pages to get up to date.
Well we have got this far. It's now deadly serious. John Kerry in his speech emphasized that the rate of climatic change is increasing. Last year was the hottest year on record and will probably be superceded by this year.
The star-gazers among you can not fail to have noticed that when you gaze across the solar system, the one planet that stands out is the blue planet, earth. The only one that we know definitely supports "intelligent" (is this the right word?) life.
It's now a race against time.
a) Can we reduce the rate of emissions so as to reverse the warming trend or is it already too late?
b)How can we rope in other big climate offenders who insist on their right to industrialize first -- just like the west climbed the ladder.
c)And some surprising discoveries... such as the discovery that the biggest culprits seem to be: Not the auto or aircraft industries, but the cattle and sheep.... who burp (without so much as excusing themselves) and emit methane gas, which is much more heat-trapping than carbon dioxide CO2, and which is an industry that the Greens would have held up as exemplary.
We have to abandon our love affair with red meat. There are far more upsides than downsides. We'll live longer, healthier, environmentally-friendlier lives; we'll end the destruction of our planet, conserve our clean water and decrease the amount of poverty on the planet.

And that's just for starters.
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,449
We have to abandon our love affair with red meat. There are far more upsides than downsides. We'll live longer, healthier, environmentally-friendlier lives; we'll end the destruction of our planet, conserve our clean water and decrease the amount of poverty on the planet.

And that's just for starters.
But be as miserable as feck.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,712
Do a google of it.

The web is loaded with reports.
Here's one:
Eat less meat to avoid dangerous global warming, scientists say | Environment | The Guardian
This might have implications for dear old Ireland.
Indebted to the tune of 100% GDP
Our tax fiddle with multinationals on the ropes
Brits going for Brexit
And now we can't go out and herd the cows !

It's back to growing potatoes again.
Your report does NOT say that cattle-rearing is the "biggest culprit" behind global warming which is what you claimed. Yes, greenhouse gases originating from agriculture are a major contributor, but even that it is not the "biggest", nor is it beyond the wit of man to solve.

Perhaps you should stop pontificating on a subject you obviously do not know much about?
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,449
Do a google of it.

The web is loaded with reports.
Here's one:
Eat less meat to avoid dangerous global warming, scientists say | Environment | The Guardian
This might have implications for dear old Ireland.
Indebted to the tune of 100% GDP
Our tax fiddle with multinationals on the ropes
Brits going for Brexit
And now we can't go out and herd the cows !

It's back to growing potatoes again.
Methane, I believe, is very short lived in the atmosphere because it breaks down easily and I note that the item you refer to does not actually state just how big a part of the problem it is. Also, it is not at all clear just what activities they include in rearing meat rather than eating grain (wheat) directly, which, it should be pointed is also under attack from health 'experts' because of gluten sensitivity.
 

Turbinator

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,801
It's amazing that they can get hundreds of nations together to sign agreements to pledge billions - in the area of global warming. Why cannot they tackle deforestation and the loss of biodiversity directly with the same level of commitment? It's one of the things that makes me a tad suspicious of the motives behind the anti climate change movement.

Colony collapse disorder is a real problem affecting bees and they won't even ban a few unneeded pesticides to prevent it, they won't tackle dumping of plastics at sea in a serious manner, etc etc. It's left up to charities.
Well said - its about powerfull vested interests who are making billions from scams like wind power. Another unfolding disaster that's being ignored is the steady poisoning of the oceans with plastic - nothing will be done though to upset the powerfull industries responsible for this
 
Last edited:

Turbinator

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,801
Your report does NOT say that cattle-rearing is the "biggest culprit" behind global warming which is what you claimed. Yes, greenhouse gases originating from agriculture are a major contributor, but even that it is not the "biggest", nor is it beyond the wit of man to solve.

Perhaps you should stop pontificating on a subject you obviously do not know much about?
So lets de-industrialize, shut down farming and increase energy poverty?? On the basis of alarmist predictions that hold little water. Indeed the climate was more extreme prior to the industrial revolution than it is now

Climate predictions may be wrong, new study finds - AJE News
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,733


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top