Quote:
Originally Posted by Tread
Yes, nobody knows how the complete global climate system works, but all data and calculations show we have an effect, the question is how big it is.
Only because there are a few black sheep under scientists does not mean all climate data that is recorded is invented. The global climate models, with data from the past, get very close to the climate at that time. The problems with the future data is how we behave further, the atmosphere and what randolph posted. From the industrial revolution to now the CO2 has risen exponential and is twice as it was before. Such a high vale is million years ago, and it was warmer then, even the sun had a lower sun radiation.
I would say the list of financial interests against global warming is even higher. Short-sighted everyone would have to pay for climate friendly behaviour, that is connected with costs for everyone, but most for the industry, and for politicians with bad financial statements in their time of power.
On a longer sighted it saves money and we have to change our behaviour anyway, so why not now?
The significant factor is not because we are here, it is more how we treat our environment and our recourses.
To stay in your Gaia dimensions, bacteria could not be more than an irritation to a human. They could never harm us seriously, nor do we need them for, i.e. digestion!? They are just too small.
I'm against controlling nature, but that doesn't exclude a responsible treatment to nature.
The last time? Every live form with a working metabolism does it, some more some less. We use fossil fuels and acting a lot faster than any organism on earth before.
Very important ones are algae, trees and plants. Without them the atmosphere would change drastic and it would get warmer.
Everyone thinks a nuclear war can affect the world, but many think everything else we do are puny activities.
Mankind has 23300 nuclear bombs. The smallest is 0,3kT and the biggest was 60MT. I didn't looked up much so calculated with 30MT in the middle (must be way over a realistic value).
If all bombs (30MT in middle) are detonating the energy would be 2796*10^18J (2796EJ (Exa Joule)).
The word energy use is nearly 500EJ per year and still fast rising.
Over 70% of it is produced with fossil recourses.
The energy of a nuclear war is deadly but the world energy use has no effect on it?
We may not the biggest promoter of global climate (I think I heard guesses around 15-20%), but even a small amount could have bad effects for us.
Why keeping the planet tidy, if Gaia does the right things for us?
|
Thanks for the dissection and commentary, Tread.
One simple question which very few Western Politicians will face up to and give a straight answer ( without tacking on their own particular slant, that is )
Jenae has fingered it : Isn't it true that Western Politicians are shit scared to admit that the West ( in particular ) has overused fossil fuel resources to such an extent that they are in very real danger of being held to extortionate fuel prices by the OPEC cartel and other contollers of pertroleum products less than friendly to the West ? And that so as not to trigger this extortion, Global Warming is being trumpeted as the one thing to fear, taking the heat ( no pun intended ) off themselves as having promoted for years the abuse of finite resources. You see if they made an all out drive to develop non-carbon bases sources of electricity ( the widespread Nuclear power issue still being very contentious after Chernobyl ), then other Global producers of Oil would be quick to try to discourage such initiatives, as their source of Livelihood would be severly dented as a result. How would they do it ? Why, by putting up the price of oil ! Would the West have the political will to prevent this ? I think not.
I think the West has shot itself in the foot through sheer greed and rampant consumerism, and it will be made to pay the price.