Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[chaseter]

^That is exactly how I present stuff to disbelievers and a great youtube video chronicled the same question. So what if we are wrong, better safe than sorry???

 

[Nightmare]

We're all doomed. It had to happen sooner or later.

 

[Bill]

You guys are so full of crap it's funny. You keep trying to find ways to switch the game so that no matter the outcome, you still win your lame argument. I've heard that crap before. Just like it's climate change now, instead of Global Warming. That way you can always be right. Why?? Because the climate always changes. From warm to cold from cold to warm. Like it's ALWAYS done for centuries!!

So now you're trying to tell me that "global Warming" is going to "freeze" me to death!!!

Man....if being "smart" means believing that crap, then I like being ignorant.

No, I am not saying that at all. But you're too ingrained in your own dogma to look at alternative reasoning.

I'm not trying to push the Global Warming scenario as much as I'm trying to explain the reason that these places see so much snow is because it is lake effect and you get lake effect snow from a large body of water that is relatively warm. What I am saying that the Great Lakes and other large bodies of water that create this type of precipitation are not freezing over as quick, or at all in some cases, and it is creating a great deal more snow fall when fronts move in from the North.

This isn't about winning an argument. It just means that more snow doesn't negate the Global Warming scenario.

Incidentally, from what I've read snowfall in areas away from the Great Lakes has lessened compared to past seasons.

To add, look up lake effect snow for yourself. At least gain some knowledge before your next reply.

 

[Memphis Slim]

Let me ask you this, Slim. What if you're wrong? What if global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, does turn out to be real. Then what? Let's say, if after the next 50 years when the world population will be around 9 billion, we find that the "evironmental fanatics" were right, and we have caused irreparable damage to our environment. Then what? If we have followed your mentality, we've done nothing.

Sci Fi writers wrote stories about over-population. Dude...do you know how many people "die" everyday? We will always have disease, war, famine, crime and other ills as great equalizers. And you don't understand my mentality. I never said do nothing. I said we don't need to do the extreme stuff you guys are talking about. If we follow our current path, we'll be fine.



But, on the other hand, if we've followed the suggestions of those who believe it is real, and they end up being wrong, then what? We have a cleaner planet?


We end up broke and actually making things worse. Case in point:

By Rosalind Peterson
May 14, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

​

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]There is a movement by many states and localities to ban incandescent light bulbs and convert to total use of fluorescent bulbs (CFL) to save energy. And yet

there are few who have read the small print on the tiny inside package label of fluorescent bulbs or heard about the EPA’s problems with regard to mercury contamination. What should you know about fluorescent light bulbs?

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]1) Heat resistant glass is used in these bulbs. The quartz arc tube, when operating creates light by generating a considerable amount of Ultraviolet (UV) radiation. How much exposure to this UV radiation goes through the heat resistant glass and what are the human health problems associated with this exposure? How does the public know that the exposure is safe for children and adults? [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]2) If the glass is broken serious skin burn and eye inflammation from short-wave ultraviolet radiation may occur. Many of these fluorescent bulbs are constructed without automatic shut offs if the light bulbs are broken, thus exposing people to this type of harmful UV radiation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]3) In the workplace many employees subjected to this type of lighting develop eyestrain and headaches. In many cases the flickering of these types of lights causes workplace eyestrain and irritation from the lighting being too bright. These issues do not appear to have any solutions at this time other than the use of incandescent light bulbs. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]4) According to California Assembly Bill 1109 (2007) Section (e): “…Most fluorescent lighting products contain hazardous levels of mercury. Most incandescent lighting products contain hazardous levels of lead. California prohibits disposing of hazardous lighting products in the solid waste stream. The hazardous materials in these products can be managed through recycling, but current recycling opportunities and levels are virtually nonexistent for most consumers...” Fluorescent light bulbs contain both mercury and lead. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]5) According to California Assembly Bill 1109 (2007) Section (f): “Fluorescent lighting products delivering the same level of light at the same level of efficiency can have widely varying levels of mercury…” It appears that the product labels do not designate the levels of mercury in their products so that consumers can pick the ones with the lowest level of mercury to use and for toxic waste disposal. (Vote no on California Assembly Bill 722.) [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]6) Whether or not shifting from incandescent lighting to fluorescent light will result in a net reduction of mercury emissions due to the displacement of coal fired electricity generation is questionable at this time. More highly polluting production plants using mercury will need to be put online making fluorescent bulbs to replace incandescent bulbs. In addition, the lack of recycling will put this mercury into landfills where it will leach into drinking water sources and contaminate landfills as is the case at the present time. [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]7) Clean up instructions for mercury broken bulbs are not provided on the outside of fluorescent manufacturer’s packaging at this time. Therefore, consumers are not aware of the following EPA facts: [/FONT]​

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]A. “Never use a vacuum cleaner to clean up mercury. The vacuum will put mercury into the air and increase exposure. The vacuum appliance will be contaminated and have to be disposed of in a hazard waste disposal site.”[/FONT]
​

​

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]B. “Never use a broom to clean up mercury…”[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]C. “Never wash mercury contaminated items in a washing machine. Mercury may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.”[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]D. Everyone should be removed from the area where the spill occurred; this includes pets. The impacted areas should be sealed off from other areas and all ventilation systems should be turned off from the impacted area.[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]E. “Never walk around as your shoes might be contaminated with mercury. Contaminated clothing can spread mercury around.” In case of fire the entire area will be contaminated with mercury and should be sealed off from any type of use.[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]F. If a spill occurs on carpet, curtains, upholstery or other like surfaces, these contaminated items should be thrown away in accordance…” and with assistance of your local hazard waste disposal site. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]8) The outside label on most fluorescent light bulbs does not carry this hazard information leading the public to believe that these bulbs are safe and that they do not need special recycling as hazardous wastes. And the outside label does not let you know that used bulbs should be placed in containers where they can’t be broken prior to disposal. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]According to an article written by Joseph Farah, in WorldNetDaily, on April 16, 2007, is the following statement: “…But with limited recycling prospects and the problems experienced…some think the government, the green community, and industry are putting the cart before the horse…” when they ferociously market fluorescent light bulbs. According to this article one local citizen in Prospect, Maine has to raise $2,000 to have an environmental cleanup firm do the work and her homeowners insurance won’t cover the cost. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Now we have Vice-President Al Gore with books, movies, and speeches promoting the use of fluorescent light bulbs knowing fully well that they are not safe. Some do catch fire if not used in the proper lighting fixtures, which do not include, for example, track, recessed or dimmer fixtures. (Many packages are not clearly marked on this subject.) And known solutions to the problems associated with fluorescent light bulbs are five to ten years away. And prior to any ban on incandescent light bulbs there should be collection and disposal sites available everywhere for these types of products. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Americans also want built-in protections from mercury contamination for air, soil and water supplies prior to any mass changeover to this type of light bulb. Why are these types of light bulbs being promoted when they may not be safe for consumers to use and dispose of when broken? [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]New lighting systems could be found that work better than either incandescent or fluorescent bulbs. Technological inventions could reduce the amount of electricity used by incandescent bulbs and a whole new generation of lighting systems could be put online like LED lights which may or may not be proven safe with regards to public health. With recycling about ten years away industry could be working on mercury free fluorescent lighting systems to meet energy reduction requirements. We need safe inventions first before we ban incandescent light bulbs. [/FONT]​

​

​

​

[/FONT]​

See, I've always approached this issue with the basic philosophy that one side has to be wrong. Now, weighing each side, which one would have a worse outcome if we followed them, and they ended up being wrong. I feel, following people like yourself would be the worse of the two, if proven wrong 50 to 100 years down the road.

Yep....your side is wrong.

 

[MissHush]

Snowstorm wallops Midwest, stranding travelers

this is my opinion. i'm stuck in the frozen tundra of the midwest as well. my parents drove through snow on the way to florida all the way from nashville, tn to atlanta, ga. which makes me wonder, how do people seriously believe in global warming? i'm pulling for global freezing

 

[Hotwire]

Yep....your side is wrong.

Um, my population scenario comes from looking up world population growth, not sci-fi novels. Give it a try. And while your at it, think about that growth model. A near 50% increase in 50 years. That would certainly effect your grandkids. I'd be more worried about where they will live and what their environment would be like, rather than wether or not they'll grow up to be gay. And we'll go broke making things worse? Um, try we'll go broke trying to put gas in our cars because we won't find an alternative to oil.

 

[Hush]

Its cold outside,not warm. AT ALL!

 

[Superhobo]

Sci Fi writers wrote stories about over-population. Dude...do you know how many people "die" everyday? We will always have disease, war, famine, crime and other ills as great equalizers. And you don't understand my mentality. I never said do nothing. I said we don't need to do the extreme stuff you guys are talking about. If we follow our current path, we'll be fine.

"

In Brief

MARINE SCIENTISTS APPEAL TO WTO TO HALT OVERFISHING

A group of international marine scientists have appealed to WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy, asking him to push for a slashing of fisheries subsidies that they believe are the principle cause for declining fish stocks in the world's oceans. Signed by a group of 125 fisheries experts from 27 countries, the declaration was delivered to the WTO head on 24 May in Geneva.

The statement, which was sponsored by marine conservation professor Daniel Pauly of the University of British Colombia and marine biologist Boris Worm from Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, calls on Lamy to use his 'skill and leadership' to encourage a successful outcome to the fisheries subsidies negotiations. Under the Doha Round talks, the WTO is engaged in ongoing discussions on fisheries disciplines (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 11 May 2007, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-05-11/story3.htm). As part of these negotiations, proposals that call for sweeping prohibitions on fisheries subsidies have been introduced by the US and Brazil and backed by a strong coalition of support from member states, including New Zealand and Chile.

Supporters both within and outside of the WTO believe the recent proposals represent an historic moment at which environmental concerns can be addressed through trade negotiations. "The WTO has a once in a lifetime chance to demonstrate that it can not only balance trade and the environment, but make one of the greatest contributions to protecting the world's oceans," said Andrew Sharpless, the CEO of the marine conservation group Oceana.

Not only is fish a heavily traded commodity, it also plays a vital role in sustaining the welfare and livelihoods of about one billion people worldwide, mainly in developing countries. Yet, scientists have reported that fish stocks are dramatically decreasing due to government-sponsored subsidies that provide incentives for overcapacity fishing. It is estimated that if overharvesting is not halted soon, the world's fish stocks face irrevocable collapse within 50 years.

Signatories to the letter addressed to Lamy assert that the WTO has the opportunity to reverse this cycle through implementing stronger fisheries disciplines globally. "The WTO needs to seize the opportunity presented by the fisheries subsidies negotiations to address global overfishing, because as the world's leading scientists have declared, if we wait it will be too late," said Sharpless.

Delegates to the WTO are to meet on 11 June to continue negotiations on fisheries subsidies under the Doha Round talks.

Additional resources

The letter to Lamy is available at http://oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/reports/Scientists_Letter_FINAL_5_24_07.pdf

ICTSD reporting; "Scientists urge WTO to act to slash fishing subsidies," REUTERS, 24 May 2007; "Leading Scientists Appeal to World Trade Organization to Stop Destructive Fishing Subsidies," OCEANA, 24 May 2007.


http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-05-25/inbrief.htm

 

[Superhobo]

"


World Fisheries Face Collapse Within Decades - UN
Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version

MONACO: February 25, 2008


MONACO - A deadly combination of climate change, over-fishing and pollution could cause the collapse of commercial fish stocks worldwide within decades, said Achim Steiner, head of the United Nations Environment Programme.


"You overlap all of this and you see you're potentially putting a death nail in the coffin of world fisheries," Steiner told reporters on Friday on the fringes of a climate conference involving more than 150 nations and 100 environment ministers.

Some 2.6 billion people worldwide depend on fish for protein, said a UNEP report "In Dead Water" published on Friday.

Climate change has compounded previous problems such as over-fishing, as rising temperatures kill coral reefs, threaten tuna spawning grounds, and shift ocean currents and with them the plankton and small fish which underpin ocean food chains.

"The question is not whether we should stop fishing but to address climate change, which is creating a degree of impact we've not seen before," said lead author of the UNEP report, Christian Nellemann.

"We are getting more and more alarming signals of dramatic changes in the oceans. The recovery from the changes we're making will probably take a million years."

The report found the most affected areas included those responsible for half the world's fish catch.

A slowing of ocean currents as a result of climate change may over the next 100 years interrupt the transport of nutrients to the most valuable coastal fishing zones, and the flushing away of pollution.

In other impacts, Nellemann said he expected more than 50 percent of coral reefs to die by 2050 as a result of rising temperatures, with resulting impacts on tourism.

Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels create an acid when dissolved in water, and could over the coming decades make the sea more acidic than at any time in the past 65 million years, and by 2100 could prevent molluscs in some seas from forming shells.

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/47142/story.htm

 

[Carcharodon]

You guys are so full of crap it's funny. You keep trying to find ways to switch the game so that no matter the outcome, you still win your lame argument. I've heard that crap before. Just like it's climate change now, instead of Global Warming. That way you can always be right. Why?? Because the climate always changes. From warm to cold from cold to warm. Like it's ALWAYS done for centuries!!

So now you're trying to tell me that "global Warming" is going to "freeze" me to death!!!

Man....if being "smart" means believing that crap, then I like being ignorant.

Did you even read the following post? Jesus, you just make this easier and easier.

I'm still trying to find out what is really going on myself. I have found that there are some organizations that have no real tie to big corporations or stand to gain profit from changes in our pollution output carrying the banner for human beings to adjust their habits for Climate Change. I also think that the media, special interest groups, politicians and corporations have taken scientific findings and skewed them to fit whatever agenda they are pushing, good or bad, to their advantage. Both sides have their "pet scientists" on the payroll to "find" whatever is cohesive with what they're attempting to sell, so it makes it difficult for one of us to find out what is really going on.

What I would like to say for sure is that this is not the fault of science because this is not how science is supposed to work. There are, I'm sure, good scientists out there who are doing the research, but in this media dominated world, will they be heard if their viewpoint disagrees with whatever consensus popular media has deemed as the "truth?"

I am reading a lot of people in the field who say that there is nothing out of the ordinary going on. Still others who say the opposite. We'll have to wait and see.

So, now we've established that Slim is either illiterate or very, very selective in the posts he choses to read. I like to think it's a mix of both.

In any case, Bill gave a completely verifiable and scientifically-backed explanation for the bizarre weather (just after Slim's 1,000,000th cold-weather post), and Slim craps all over it with his patented brand of, "put fingers in my ears and go, 'lalalalalala!'"

After three days of being away, I gotta say...it's good to be back.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Damn Slim is OWNING you people... he and Huckabee are going to take over the whole world... then they are going to make the Bible to new constitution... hell... its going to be the doctrine for a new global law... once they nuke away the entire Middle East and burn every copy of the Koran... LORD WE GONNA BE SAVED... thanks to Memphis Slim. And when the world is flooded and everyone is under water we'll blame God for the destruction instead of ourselves...

 

[Carcharodon]

Damn Slim is OWNING you people... he and Huckabee are going to take over the whole world... then they are going to make the Bible to new constitution... hell... its going to be the doctrine for a new global law... once they nuke away the entire Middle East and burn every copy of the Koran... LORD WE GONNA BE SAVED... thanks to Memphis Slim...

An SUV in every garage, and a Bible shoved down every free throat! Praise Jesus!!

 

[Superhobo]

They seem alright with it.

 

[Hotwire]

Damn Slim is OWNING you people... he and Huckabee are going to take over the whole world... then they are going to make the Bible to new constitution... hell... its going to be the doctrine for a new global law... once they nuke away the entire Middle East and burn every copy of the Koran... LORD WE GONNA BE SAVED... thanks to Memphis Slim. And when the world is flooded and everyone is under water we'll blame God for the destruction instead of ourselves...

Yeah, something like that. But at least the water we will be drowning in will be so full of pharmaceuticals in it that we won't care.

 

[FaT_tONle]

]

"Let me tell ya'll brothas and sistas... these people are the Devil's children themselves... they keep tellin yall' about Global Warmin'??? Risin' sea levels..."

"The only sea dat's gonna be risin'... is the holy water from the Holy Grail blessed by Jesus Christ himself... and its dis water..."

"Dats gonna flood all dem Muslims in the Middle East and wash dem Devils back to Hell.... Can I get and AMEN?????"

Chorus: AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bill]

Did you even read the following post? Jesus, you just make this easier and easier.

So, now we've established that Slim is either illiterate or very, very selective in the posts he choses to read. I like to think it's a mix of both.

In any case, Bill gave a completely verifiable and scientifically-backed explanation for the bizarre weather (just after Slim's 1,000,000th cold-weather post), and Slim craps all over it with his patented brand of, "put fingers in my ears and go, 'lalalalalala!'"

After three days of being away, I gotta say...it's good to be back.

I just want to say that I have yet to completely make up my mind on what is causing Global Warming. But heavy snowfall certainly doesn't negate that it is happening given where it is occurring.

 

[Carcharodon]

I just want to say that I have yet to completely make up my mind on what is causing Global Warming. But heavy snowfall certainly doesn't negate that it is happening given where it is occurring.

I know, that's what I was emphasizing. He was trying to paint you as just another die-hard Global Warming proponent, when that was clearly not the case.

 

[Memphis Slim]

An SUV in every garage, and a Bible shoved down every free throat! Praise Jesus!!

Funny how this topic switched so smoothly into Christian bashing.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Considering "most" Christians think that the world is going to end in their lifetime and that they will all be going to Heaven ; it seems that they don't care about the Earth they leave for the future generations.

Christians should be "good stewards".


And yes I know I used the word "most".

 

[sinewave]

not sure if this has been posted here yet.

Southern Baptist leaders shift position on climate change

* Story Highlights
* Southern Baptist leaders: People have biblical duty to stop global warming
* 46 leaders denounce denomination for being too timid on environmental issues
* Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S.

(CNN) -- Several prominent leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention said Monday that Baptists have a moral responsibility to combat climate change -- a major shift within a denomination that just last year cast doubt on human responsibility for global warming.

Forty-six influential members of the Southern Baptist Convention, including three of its past four presidents, criticized their denomination in a statement Monday for being "too timid" in confronting global warming.

"Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed," the statement says. "We can do better."

The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, adopted a resolution last year urging Baptists to "proceed cautiously in the human-induced global warming debate in light of conflicting scientific research." The resolution said "many scientists reject the idea of catastrophic human-induced global warming."

On Monday, however, dozens of Southern Baptist leaders expressed a different view.

"There is general agreement among those engaged with this issue in the scientific community," their statement says. "A minority of sincere and respected scientists offer alternate causes for global climate change other than deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels."

The signatories pledged to do their part to fight global warming "without any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem or our responsibility to address it. Humans must be proactive and take responsibility for our contributions to climate change -- big and small."

The signatories include Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention since 2006; James Merritt, president of the convention from 2000 to 2002 and Jack Graham, president of the convention from 2002 to 2004. The group posted the statement on its Web site.

The signers of "A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change" acknowledged that some of them were skeptics at first.

"Some of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that these are real problems that deserve our attention," the statement says. "But now we have seen and heard enough to be persuaded that these issues are among the current era's challenges that require a unified moral voice."

The Southern Baptist Convention's 16 million members make up roughly 7 percent of the U.S. adult population, according to the convention and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

The competing and evolving views on climate change within the Southern Baptist Convention mirror a debate that has played out among members of the theologically like-minded National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group that represents about 30 million people in 45,000 church congregations, including many Baptist congregations.

Its Washington policy director, the Rev. Richard Cizik, has pressed for years for more action to combat climate change, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an offense against God."

His advocacy raised eyebrows given that global warming sometimes conjured "impressions in people's minds of being liberal, democratic, left wing, big government, tied to population control, all these kinds of things," Cizik told CNN last year.

Several conservative evangelicals signed a letter in 2007 urging the association to rein in Cizik or encourage him to resign. The signers included James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Gary Bauer, a former presidential candidate and president of American Values.

"We have observed that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children," their letter said. "The issue (global warming) should be addressed scientifically and not theologically."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/10/baptist.climate/index.html?iref=newssearch

 

[moraldeficiency]

Considering "most" Christians think that the world is going to end in their lifetime and that they will all be going to Heaven ; it seems that they don't care about the Earth they leave for the future generations.

Christians should be "good stewards".


And yes I know I used the word "most".

See I always thought most meant, like the majority. I don't know any christians that think the world is ending in our life times, I'm sure they're out there, but come on, to take what has to be an odd minority and say that most believe it is just silly.

 

[Carcharodon]

Funny how this topic switched so smoothly into Christian bashing.

It wasn't Christian bashing. It was you bashing. For somebody who regularly bashes other religions, you sure are sensitive.

 

[chaseter]

Considering "most" Christians think that the world is going to end in their lifetime and that they will all be going to Heaven ; it seems that they don't care about the Earth they leave for the future generations.

Christians should be "good stewards".


And yes I know I used the word "most".

That was the world's worst analogy

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Man....if being "smart" means believing that crap, then I like being ignorant.

and you always KNEW it was crap.
even though the vast majority of scientists disagreed with you.
and well, pretty much any study about the environment.
but you always KNEW it was wrong right?

why?

well, because you hate Gore, so you don't need to know science, as long as you can hate Gore.
you're right man, you do LIKE being ignorant.
because it's easier, because you're weak and selfish.

mostly.

 

[SuBe]