Global Warming

Apr 19, 2009 18:37

I've always been something of a global warming skeptic who was willing to accept that reducing CO2 levels was generally a good thing. I've moved hard away from global warming in the last year because of a few things.

Some of my reasons for doubt... )

hoax, global warming, science

Leave a comment

Comments 7

ahappyincubus April 20 2009, 11:14:56 UTC
I want to believe. What is fact, pollution. One does not trash the place where they live. Simply expand upon your definition of where you live to include the whole planet.

Improper management of resources needs to stop as well.

Reply

jminnis April 27 2009, 05:50:11 UTC
The thing is, if CO2 does no damage, it isn't pollution.

Reply

ahappyincubus April 27 2009, 17:08:21 UTC
True, carbon dioxide by itself is quite harmless in small concentrations. CO2 becomes harmful to mammals as it increases in volume. (plants just love CO2) CO2's molecular structure is linear due to it forming double bonds with the oxygen atoms. This allows the molecule to be utilized easily. A double bond allows 4 electrons to be accessed. And the valence electrons of the oxygen atoms as well as the carbon atom are accessible too. Basically the molecule resembles a cylinder with round ends.

Fun experiment: gather as many people as you can into a room. No air circulation and no fresh air in and no old air out. See how long it takes before people become lethargic as the O2 concentration decreases and the CO2 concentration increases.

Reply


robbbbbb April 21 2009, 03:56:01 UTC
Hater.

Reply


akjdg April 23 2009, 07:57:09 UTC
Climate change is a irrefutable reality. The climate changes. Always has, always will. Climate is changing right now, and it has been getting warmer in recent years. In my backyard (Alaska), there are mountains of evidence to support this ( ... )

Reply

jminnis April 27 2009, 05:49:24 UTC
My problem with the fight against Anthropogenic climate change is that the plans to fight it will cost vast sums of money. Plus, if the proponents of "global warming" are wrong, we're replacing productive economic activities with non-productive ones on a global scale.

To quickly address your points:

1) I don't believe that it is economically viable now or within the next few decades to move to a non fossil fuel energy economy without going nuclear. Nothing else comes close in terms of energy for cost.

2) I do what I can to conserve energy because it saves me money. It also results in less pollution and less damaging mining, though those are generally afterthoughts.

3) The problem is that "global warming" has become the only environmental cause that most people care about. In addition to wasting money, if the majority of people are convinced that "global warming" is wrong, they will become highly skeptical of future environmental warnings.

Reply

akjdg April 27 2009, 07:33:04 UTC
1. On alt energy costs, I have focused on Alaska, where alternative energy sources abound, and the costs of fossil energy are typically extreme. In Alaska, the future of alternative energy is bright ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up