[thebrain13 (OP)]

I always read and hear people talking about, basically that the world is coming to an end, due to the fact that people will use up all the resources on earth.

However it occurred to me that, we cant really use up all our resources since everything on earth now, is still going to be there in the future, granted we dont shoot it into outer space, which we dont seem to be doing alot of.

Anyways, I think the real issue is about energy. Thats what everyone is talking about, thats what will cause the earth to end. Doom Doom Doom [:-'(] And suddenly it occurred to me. [] There is no such thing as a non-renewable energy source, granted the sun doesnt stop shining, granted we don't blast our resources into outer space, and granted it isn't nuclear.(which may not be a bad thing if we run out of that)

Think about it, creatures have been flying, crawling, walking, for billions of years. And you cant do any of that stuff without energy. Lucky for us and all of our moving ancestors, plants will use the suns energy, and some carbon, and turn it into an easy to use, carbon based fuel. Even if we use up all the oil and coal in the world, which has accumulated over time, we can still run our powerplants off wood, grass, leaves, all kinds of easily renewable forms of energy.

So chill out, the worst thing that can happen is that our technology doesn't improve and we are forced to become somewhat less efficient.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Interesting how nobody will respond, when you go against the grain and predict that humans, or should I say rich people, greedy corporations, fat spoiled wasters, dumb ignorant bush loving capitalist americans are not destroying earth and the human race.

When science meets environmentalism, it is no longer science, it is politics.

And dont get me started on the biggest environmental joke ever, global warming.

[another_someone]

We cannot run out of the materials we need.  There is only one thing we really do need, and that we do use, and that is energy.  If we have enough energy, from one source or another, we can always create anything else we need.

[VAlibrarian]

I hesitate to reply, Brain, because your original posting indicates a complete lack of interest in contrary views. But here goes. The crawling, flying and walking creatures that have existed for millions of years have derived their sustenance from consuming either plant matter or animal matter. Therefore their ultimate energy source was solar energy, which drives photosynthesis and is therefore the basis for all existing plant and animal life. Yes, we still have a sun.
But you totally ignore the fact that Human existence (as opposed to wild animal existence) in the industrial world now depends on fossil fuels that were created millions of years ago from plant life in swamps that evolved into petroleum or coal by being subjected to enormous pressures. This is a source of energy that is completely non renewable. Try running the farm equipment in Kansas without gasoline. Try running America's vehicle fleet on ethanol from corn without gasoline to drive the equipment that cultivated and harvested the corn. Try running your television, light bulbs, stove, refrigerator, computer, etc., without using nonrenewable fossil fuels. Unless you live in France of course where most electricity is derived from nuclear power. try powering the industrial world on wood or grass clippings if you wish, but it is not remotely practical.
It is not so much rich people who endanger the survival of the human race as ignorant and uncaring people. And do not get me started about global warming, as you clearly are not interested in the topic. But if you would bother to read something on the subject actually written by a scientist, you might find your opinion subject to change.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

oil and coal are also derived from the sun, and they are completely renewable. Its just a matter of time. In the old days trains ran on wood. And you can easily run all those things on wood and grass clippings if you wish, all you need is heat and you can create the exact same kind of electricity that runs all those things you mentioned. Animals use carbon based fuels known as carbohydrates. And they use them pretty much the same way most powerplants do. And if a car can run on ethanol so can a tractor. Obviously if oil and coal disappeared today, the world would be caught with its pants down, but I can safely assume that wont happen, and I can safely assume we will have years to mull over new options. I merely pointed out that we can always have a constant supply of energy, as long as the sun and earth are right here. And these other options are not nearly as impractical as you think, but if you would bother to read something on the subject actually written by a scientist, you might find your opinion subject to change.

About global warming, here is a subject that is a politicians dream. There is no precedent they can use to predict the outcome, and thousands of variables they can use any way they choose. There are thousands of scientists, with all kinds of different opinions on the subject. Christ, al gore wrote a book about global warming.

Unfortunately most scientists are just as politcally biased as everyone else. Now I am not a republican, nor a democrat, nor anything else. I am just me, and I actually think for myself. However I can easily say, most scientific people are very liberal. And that is a problem, it would be a problem if they were all conservative as well. Think about it, it wasnt too long ago that people were talking about the next ice age coming soon. But thinking like that doesnt get anyone elected does it? Liberals cant blame rich republican greedy corporations for an ice age like they do everything else.

The problem with the THEORY of global warming is the scale of things, Im not arguing that carbon dioxide doesnt raise the temperature of the earth, Im sure it does, I disagree with the scale of the warming. Im going to list you some facts about global warming. Now Im only talking about global warming from Co2 alone, because thats what all the fuss is about, thats what people affect, and consequently the only thing politicians can use to get elected.

Over the last two hundred fifty years the earths temperature has raised less than a degree. Which is less than the temperature has been measured to fluctuate in a single year.

Since the industrial revolution people have raised the amount of co2 in the atmosphere by 60 ppm( which stands for parts per million) In other words for every particle of Co2 in the atmosphere, that we created, there are 16660 particles of everything else. Compare that to the greenhouse gas water vapor at 25000 ppm. Which by the way happened to rise alot more than 60ppm in recent history, consequently dwarfing any effect Co2 may of played. But thats insignificant, that kind of logic doesnt win any votes.

And here is a helpfull fact about co2, basically every plant in the world grows better in higher concentrations of it, to me thats a good thing, consider farming. However the only plants I remember global warmists saying does better is poison ivy and plants with thorns.

Wiegard, do you even know how the greenhouse effect works? Or did Al Gore not explain it to you in that book you read?

[VAlibrarian]

Yup, there is no point to this conversation.

As it happens, I did read Gore's book. It's not that great. The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery is much better, it is written by an actual scientist, and Flannery unlike Gore has the guts to actually propose a plan of action to address the threat of global climate change. We are not even in the same space time continuum on this topic. You clearly feel that thousands of brilliant scientists have made up global warming in order to pad their expense accounts. The last time a doctor suggested heart surgery, did you turn him down because he was just after your money?
My personal opinion is: let scientists be scientists, pay attention to what they discover, and follow through on their recommendations. This is not the time to discuss the concept that global warming may be imaginary, that was 15 years ago. This is the time to actually do something about it.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Again I never said global warming is imaginary, I said raising the earths temperature by 15 degrees, Melting all glaciers and flooding new york city, due to our comparatively minuscule contribution of Co2, (less than 1/16000 total particles in the atmosphere) thats imaginary. And the idea that the earth is significantly warmer today than hundreds of years ago, thats imaginary, the scientists know the right numbers, but not the public. Most people think the earth is like 4-5 degrees warmer, and it is going to spiral out of control. The first number is an exaggeration twenty times to big, and the second statement is only pure speculation, the future hasn't happened yet, and there is no precedent, how accurate have scientist been in the past during these same types of situations?

Anyways, if the earth can spiral out of control, with all the runaway greenhouse effects multiplying the effect on each other to the point where we can never cool the earth down again (like many global warmists predict) dint you think it would of happened allready? Maybe during the periods on earth where the temperature was way hotter, and the atmosphere contained way more Co2?

About scientists, they have always been liberal, most of them are college professors. All political people, scientists included, create biased opinions. You don't need to pay republicans, to think, and speak conservatively.

[science_guy]

The earth's Orbit is at a certain stage so that the next ice age was supposed to happen 5000 years ago.  The reason we aren't freezing cold right now is because of human presence.  By domesticating cows. thereby increasing the population of them, we have increased methane in the atmosphere.  By planting corn, the decaying stalks have also contributed to the greenhouse gases.  Only recently have Industrial processes added to this effect.  Scientists have predicted that the combination of sheer heat created from the burning of fossil fuels, and the carbon dioxide almost matching the amount that exits the atmosphere in some way, Has caused the Earth to Barely retain it's heat level, and even gain minimal amounts of heat.  Once we run out of fossil fuels, in 100 to 120 years, The temperature will dramatically drop, since we are so far into what would of been the 2nd ice age.  And don't bother saying I should see what a scientist says, because I know one personally and this is what he tells me.

[another_someone]

You clearly feel that thousands of brilliant scientists have made up global warming in order to pad their expense accounts.

I cannot speak for Brain13, but for myself, I think far too many people imagine conspiracy and malice when all you need is to look at people innocently being part of the system.

I don't believe that scientists invented global warming for any reason than they believed in it; just as other potential scientists may not have believed in it.  It is not that one group were more cynical than the other group, but it is simply the question as to which group were given thriving careers and which fell by the wayside because no-one wanted to hire them.

Ofcourse, you can argue that some of the doubters of global warming are hired by some of the oil companies (although increasingly it is no longer politically worthwhile even for the oil companies to hire them) – but then you will accuse those scientists of cynically taking the devil's money and dancing to the devils tune.  This is no more true than it is true that the scientists hired by European governments are choosing to dance to the tune of those political masters – it is simply that those who don't say the right things will not have a career, so they will never be regarded as respected scientists.

The last time a doctor suggested heart surgery, did you turn him down because he was just after your money?

There are those people who go to there doctor, and simply take the attitude that they hand responsibility for their health to the doctor; and those who go to the doctor to get an informed judgement (maybe a second and third opinion as well), and then choose to make up their own mind, knowing that they take responsibility for the consequences (the doctor is not the one who is going to die if his judgement is wrong) – and yes, there are time one might go to the doctor, who will say you must have heart surgery, and you ask how much, and then say that whatever the risk, you cannot afford the cost.  That is life (or death).

Even in the UK, where we have a National Health Service, there are many cases where a doctor will say this patent needs some treatment, and then will say that the Health Service is unable to fund that treatment.

My personal opinion is: let scientists be scientists, pay attention to what they discover, and follow through on their recommendations.

And farewell to democracy.

Scientists should never be in the position of setting objectives (at least, not in the role of scientists – although in the role of lay citizen, that is another matter); but scientists should merely give, as accurately as they can, a summary of the options and outcomes.  It is for the citizen to judge what are desirable objectives, and acceptable costs.

Aside from that, one has still to ask whether Environmentalism can in any case be called true science, since it is not something that is verifiable by experiment, which is supposed to be the cornerstone of true science.

[VAlibrarian]

If democracy fails, it will not fail due to scientists doing their jobs. It will die because the electorate fails to do its job. It will die due to lazy voters staying at home or voting according to their personal bigotries or creature comforts rather than interest in the future of the human race.

As to envornmentalism not being true science, well it has a pretty good track record. Rachel Carson's criticism of DDT as the cause of falling bird populations was pretty well supported by the rebounding populations following the discontinuation of DDT use. The alarms raised by environmental scientists regarding the risk to the high altitude ozone layer posed by chlorofluocarbons is pretty well supported by the improvement to ozone levels following the discontinuation of CFC use. Alot of humans escaped death by Melanoma or other skin cancers as a result of the CFC ban. I expect that the climatologists would save a number of future human lives if they are ever actually listened to by policy makers. But how do you completely prove that a human life was saved, without killing the person and then raising him from the dead? Common sense has a role to play.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

nicely said George.

Chris, your faith in people is obviously less than mine.

Id like to think most people could outrun a flood that raises maybe a centimeter per year.

Although, I'm probably being to insensitive to people who are only a millimeter tall.

[otis01]

 Democracy will undoubtedtly fail, or rather be replaced by a better system, eventually. It is absolutely inevitable. To think otherwise is grossely illogical. Every political system falls. And its a damn good thing too. Progress can only happen by letting go of what you so desperately want to not change, based on the fear of what you (we) cannot know(whether something new will work). The system of govenment that will be the "model" in 2200 (providing global warming doesn't kill all humans) may certainly resemble and reflect democracy as we know it now. But, I absolutely shun the idea of not building a system of government that utilizes the BEST aspects of democracy, while always looking to progress with a system that is LESS complicated and intricate, while maintaining and increasing equality, living conditions, health, etc.....

 Global warming is a reality, the only discussion is whether it is a natural cycle, or created by industry, etc... Quite reasonably, I could see it as both. The natural cycle of birth, growth, decay, and death can be attributed to almost everything in this universe. Nothing lasts forever, and the faster it changes the better off the human race really is. Even if 90% of the human race were destroyed by whatever means (nuclear war, global warming, diease, famine, etc...) there's still 600 million left to learn from all of yesterday's history.
 
 Fleas don't jump off a dog of their own accord, unless they're jumping to another host( the moon and mars, what a joke). Sometimes a dog has to scratch a whole bunch of fleas off herself so that the fleas left alive have something to suck blood out of.

The human race has created a society that does not live in a balance with our host. What choices are left? Change or die.

[mark71]

here is global warming addressed...

here is population growth adressed...