Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Guest Guest_guest_

Global Warming

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

There had been proofs that people uses cars, these fumes which is also harmful to the ozone layer.

That couldn't be more wrong. Cars emit ozone, LOL!

And the term you want is CFC or Chlorofluorocarbon.

As for the rest, you need to do a lot of reading on environmentalism... from people who aren't lying. (i.e. who aren't environmentalists)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
um. The co2 we released chokes people doens't it?

Not at all. CO2 at levels reffered to has never been claimed by any reputable scientific group to be directly harmful to people (or other animals as far as I know...). The alleged harm caused by CO2 is that it increases the greenhouse effect, which is the natural effect of various gasses in our atmosphere trapping heat generated by the light from the sun hitting the Earth. Certain groups claim that human-produced CO2 emissions have raised the average temperature of the Earth appx. 1 degree Centigrade (Celcius) over the past 100 years. The problems with that claim are legion, including the failure to take into account the Earth's natural fluctuation of temperature, the margin of error in measuring temperature over the past century, and determining exactly how much of a rise in CO2 is necessary to actually raise the temperature of the Earth. Clearly, despite hype of certain media outlets and other groups, especially politically active groups (which have a great deal to gain if they can convince voters that there is an imminent problem that they can solve) the actual facts regarding human-caused Global Warming or Global Climate Change are far from proven.

Mike Owens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not sure where to put this.

I have never really bought in to the whole global warming scare, mainly because of the fact that the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. But, now according to researchers the earth should be going back into a cooling cycle and is failing to do so. This is where I start to wonder if maybe it could be true. I have two questions: 1) What is your personal opinion of global warming and why 2) Do you now of any good resources on the subject that is not biased on way or another?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of threads on this topic already, you can probably find them using the search function, however, I'm curious as to where the "should" comes from: if we can prevent another ice age (as has been the trend for the past several hundred thousand years . . . a long ice age, with a brief break, then another ice age) is that a bad thing? I mean, is mass starvation as more than 2/3 of the earth's land becomes completely uninhabitable something to look forward to?

A planet or a climate is not a person that needs a vacation every so often in order to keep working. Besides, I distinctly recall watching an episode of Nova not too long ago where the long-held-off ice age was attributed to, get this, earthworms. They aerate the soil so well that they prevent huge masses of carbon from get tied up where it can't recycle back into production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A planet or a climate is not a person that needs a vacation every so often in order to keep working. Besides, I distinctly recall watching an episode of Nova not too long ago where the long-held-off ice age was attributed to, get this, earthworms. They aerate the soil so well that they prevent huge masses of carbon from get tied up where it can't recycle back into production.

Those little bastards. I have been trying to kill them to avoid this catastrophe, but every time I cut one in half, two more take it's place. It seems we are doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) What is your personal opinion of global warming and why 2) Do you now of any good resources on the subject that is not biased on way or another?

1) At best it is a badly studied, politically charged hypothesis with little good evidence. At worst it is a "convenient falsehood" for politicians and an invitation to totalitariansm.

2)The above are nice. Also, State of Fear by Michael Crichton is worth a read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, California is suing auto-manufacturers for creating a "public nuisance" in their state by selling cars that cause "global warming" and cost the state billions of dollar. This is wrong on so many levels, that one does not know where to begin.

The lawsuit claims that the auto companies are violating federal and state laws against creating a public nuisance, which in California bans action ``which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons.'' Nuisances are ``anything which is injurious to health,'' obstructs free use of property or interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, the complaint said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that global warming is opening up artic sea routes that were closed for all of human history. Unsurprisingly, the media is focused on the threat to polar bears rather than the enormous economic opportunities this entails. This may be one of many surprise bonuses of climate change: in 20 years, Siberia might have a thriving trade with Japan and Washington.

Edited by GreedyCapitalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a good speech on Global Warming by Senator Jame Inhofe, Chairman of the Senate's "Environment and Public Works Committee". Here's a funny bit from the middle:

Here is a quote from Newsweek magazine: “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.”

A headline in the New York Times reads: “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output.” Here is a quote from Time Magazine:

“As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.”

All of this sounds very ominous. That is, until you realize that the three quotes I just read were from articles in 1975 editions of Newsweek Magazine and The New York Times, and Time Magazine in 1974. http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/pr...,944914,00.html

They weren’t referring to global warming; they were warning of a coming ice age.

Let me repeat, all three of those quotes were published in the 1970’s and warned of a coming ice age.

In addition to global cooling fears, Time Magazine has also reported on global warming. Here is an example:

“[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”

Before you think that this is just another example of the media promoting Vice President Gore’s movie, you need to know that the quote I just read you from Time Magazine was not a recent quote; it was from January 2, 1939.

Yes, in 1939. Nine years before Vice President Gore was born and over three decades before Time Magazine began hyping a coming ice age and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems almost everyone here is in agreement that even if temperatures are rising, or even cooling, as long as humans are free, we can adapt to the environment. Environmentalists however, would not have us be free; they would introduce even more restrictions to our everyday lives. That policy is detrimental to even to their goals, which could indicate, they have other goals in mind. Especially when one realizes that only more wealth can create a healthier environment for people.

There was some discussion way back in this post about suing people who cause damage to the environment, and thus to another party. All such cases would have to be taken in context. Virtually everything I do could potentially harm another person. My body produces CO2. Am I to be sued? Such cases would have to be taken in the context of the time they arise. Are there readily available, reasonably affordable technologies that I could buy to stop my breath from entering my neighbours yard? Is the onus all on me or also on my neighbour? Even if my activities cause global warming, a court would have to decide if the entire human races’ activities should be shut down in order to avoid an increase of say 3C over 100 years. Is that reasonable? The answer is obviously no, as shutting down human activity would end up hurting more human life than a potentially beneficial increase in temperature.

While human activity may be increasing temperatures, increasing temperatures are not a problem for human beings, especially for those who live in the freest capitalist societies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a columnist for my high school paper, and this issue we are doing a story on global warming and whether or not it is a viable threat to human existence. I have gotten into numerous debates with the writers about it, because they say that it IS a real threat, and that humans should do something about it. I argue that raising taxes, placing regulations on the automobile industry, and getting the government involved is the wrong idea. I also hold that if global warming is in fact a real threat, then humans should act not out of a sense of responsibility socially, but out of self interest, meaning that we should only do something about it for the sake of continuing human existence on earth. A. has global warming even been proved to be having an affect on the planet as of yet? And B, if it is, what should we as humans do about it, if anything? If someone could give me some ideas, I'm having a bad case of writer's block so it would help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A. has global warming even been proved to be having an affect on the planet as of yet? And B, if it is, what should we as humans do about it, if anything? If someone could give me some ideas, I'm having a bad case of writer's block so it would help.

Welcome to the forum. I think it is well established that we are experiencing global warming but it has not been established that human industry is largely responsible. With regards to what can be done, it is important to establish that if something should be done, it should ultimately be done to advance the life of man and not for the sake of preserving the planet at some previous temperature.

Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist is a highly regarded, analytical and encyclopedic resource on these issues. Here are some excerpts:

Global warming has become theg reat environmental worry of our day. There is no doubt that mankind has influenced and is still increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and that this will influence temperature. Yet, we need to separate hyperbole from realities in order to choose our future optimally. Temperatures have increased 0.6 degrees celsius over the past century and it is unlikely that this is not in part due to an anthropogenic greenhouse effect, although the impression of a dramatic divergence from previous centuries is almost surely misleading.
On its effects:

Global warming will not decrease food production, it will probably not increase storminess or the frequency of hurricanes, it will not increase the impact of malaria or indeed cause more deaths. It is even unlikely that it will cause more flood victims, because a much richer world will protect itself better. However, global warming will have serious costs - the total cost is about $5 trillion. (I have not provided enough context for this figure to make sense - DW)

Moreover, tbe consequences of global warming will hit the developing countries hardest, whereas the industrailized countries may actually benefit from a warming lower than 2-3 degrees celsius. The developing countries are harder hit primarily because they are poor - giving them less adaptive capacity.

Despite our intuition that we naturally need to do something drastic about such a costly global warming, economic analyses clearly show that it will be far more expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures.

Since poverty makes individuals most vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change, Capitalism will be the best system to advance the life of man in light of global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic offers a lot of angles.

First theme, the factual: yes the planet is on a warming trend, no there has been no scientific proof that mankind is to blame (the Sun is in a period of increased activity, Mars is hotter too!). Searching this forum will elict threads with links to tons of online resources challenging the widely accepted theory that man is heating the planet.

Second theme, the real consequences: whatever its causes (man made or not), what would be the consequences of significant global warming (like 5 to 10 degrees, not the decimal degrees per decade we are experiencing)? Its hot, we get air conditioning (people already live in the desert for crying out loud). More heat and more CO2 means more crops. If the sea rises, we build dams (we already have whole countries below sea level!). Man can control nature - that is how we live.

Third theme, the real consequences of "green politics": energy is life. Forbid man to tap the available energy resources, people are impoverished. And people die.

Fourth theme, the real motivations of "green warriors": these people hate man. They hate reason, they hate the fact that man can change nature to suit himself. These people are willing to sacrifice human beings in order to "save" moss. Litterally.

There is a lot more, I'm sure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often hear people say that "the earth" has to restore herself to balance, or some such nonsense. They are assuming then that a "normal" Earth has ice caps. Besides there obviously being no normal condition for the earth, I would have to wonder if ice caps are "normal" for our planet in the first place.

Really, it is all about whether the planet suits human needs. As far as ice is concerned...plants can grow in the desert, I don't see them growing in the arctic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as ice is concerned...plants can grow in the desert, I don't see them growing in the arctic.
I assume you're kidding or hyperbolating, or else you are unaware of the plants that grow up here in the Arctic. I'm not aware of any actual economic advantages of a permanent temperature rise in the north (the southern cold region is basically irrelevant), except if it were massive. If in addition to temperature rise you could tilt the Earth's axis to increase the solar radiation hitting the ground in the north, maybe you could change what grows in the Arctic in a useful way, for example tomatoes could be regular garden crops. On the other hand, this would probably result in Italy becoming an utterly desolate desert wasteland, and The Netherlands would become like Sicily (without the rocks).

A mean 10 degree rise in temperature in the Arctic would just be annoying (you still couldn't grow wheat outside); the question is, if the temperature in the Arctic goes up 10 degrees thereby screwing up skiing, what would happen to the serious food-producing regions of America, like Texas and Kansas? We could survive, but I don't see how it would be a good thing. And with respect to the cod harvest, it would be a total disaster.

The real argument about global warming is not that it's a good thing, but that it's simply a fact (to the extent that it isn't fiction), and that there are no political take-home lessons to be had from global warming, except that politicizing a complex scientific question so as to remove all scientific content from the discussion. It's sad when the rational question "what should we do" is brainlessly turned into the fascist question "what policy must we impose".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I assume you're kidding or hyperbolating, or else you are unaware of the plants that grow up here in the Arctic.

whoa! Yes, I meant to say ICE, not arctic.

Edited by $$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...