Global Warming

[kaidus]

To my knowledge we've already gone past the point of no return (ie. if every human being on the earth cracked out a guitar and lit up a joint global warming would still destroy the earth), so exactly what point is there in altering our life styles for the sake of preserving our descendants? Sooner or later a generation is going to be wiped out along with the rest of the planet, what difference does it make how many generations manage to last? Anything anyone of them do will be equally worthless in the long run. Whether it happens in 200 years or 2million years it's effect will be equally indirect. No matter when it happens the generation that has to deal with it will still be pissed at their ancestors no matter how much they tried.

In sum: Believe it's happening, believe media is as misleading concerning global warming as it is every other controversial issue, I don't think we should switch to greener energy, I don't think there's any doubt about whether it's being pushes into society, and I'm not a scientist.

 

[mawk]

isn't it kind of really stupid to say "welp there's nothing we can do, might as well not even try"

like actually it's incredibly stupid and you should be embarrased that you think that way

it's not like oh god we've reached critical mass this is as bad as it can get. physics and ecology still work the same way they did before we passed this imaginary benchmark of yours. climate change, pollution, all that shit, they're not a simple "on/off" deal. they go by inches and degrees based on our actions. although stuff might not make a full turnaround within our lifetimes, it would at least slow the rate it's getting worse at.

"welp, guys, I don't see the point of managing the economy. there's always going to be another decline after a period of prosperity, so why even bother?"

 

[bacon]

Kaidus, that comment is extremely stupid. People who have the mind set that the future generaton does not matter and the only thing that does is me and my life should seriously take a step back and analyze their thoughts and beliefs. All we are doing is increasing the amount of pollution. If we were to decrease the pollution, then the earth would be a more habital place to live in later years. Sure, the earth is going to end, but all we are doing is decreasing the time the human race has left to live on it. So instead of thinking in a pessimistic way, try to be somewhat optimistic and show support for the future generation considering they are the ones who are going to create the laws and take care of you when you are old and gray.

I do agree that there is a very little chance of reversing the effects already created, as global warming has happened in early years. Though, by cutting pollution we can increase the amount of tiume the human race has left so that we have a better future to look forward to.

 

[mawk]

"welp I have cancer. with treatment I have fifteen years to live. I'm gonna die young anyway, so why bother?"

when, in reality, those fifteen years will probably see medical advances which treat cancer more effectively and further increase your life expectancy.

 

[kaidus]

All these examples are associated with matters that will actually effect my life. Global warming, however quickly it's devastating impact arrives, will not effect me in any way. No matter how hard we work to prevent it, my great great great whatever grandson/daughter/bizarre mix that future evolution causes will perish along with the world. If I had cancer I would not take this stance as it directly effects me and my enjoyment of living. The economy's ups and downs directly effect me and those that I are about, etc etc. They're completely irrelevant as my point is that whether it's 10 generations from now or 100 it's still going to occur and it's still going to render every action of every predecessor entirely worthless. The ENTIRE REASON why global warming is a threat that has to be fought off is due to the threat it poses the survival of our species. The species is doomed so why lower the quality of our lifestyle for the sake of fighting a lost cause?

You can call me stupid for thinking this way, but I look upon you all with an equal distain for viewing the situation with such naivity. It is very pessimistic but pasting posters of "FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING" with teddy bears and lollipops doesn't change the facts. I'm as happy as all of you are, perhaps more so as I can actually focus on my life and my generation.

Kaidus, that comment is extremely stupid. People who have the mind set that the future generaton does not matter and the only thing that does is me and my life should seriously take a step back and analyze their thoughts and beliefs.

Why is that exactly? You can't make such a bold statement without bothering to back it up with any kind of justification. I'm almost offended =O.


EDIT: Also, by all means correct me if I'm wrong about the fact that I base all this on. Global warming is never something I've taken an interest in and it's just something I recall hearing. If there is a solution then by all means let's strive to save a few more generations before the sun dies out and the solar system plummets. Woopee.

 

[clipnotdone]

Its pretty undeniable that humans have effected it slightly but to me it boils down to the fact the the earths climate has ALWAYS been changing.

When the climate stops changing, thats when Ill start shitting myself.

 

[rpgfanatic]

My personal beliefs on Global Warming is that is just a natural climate change. Modern science hasn't been around long enough to track climate patterns all the back into history so we may never know what would happen next. For all we know there could be another ice age before the ice caps melt.
And just looking at the place I live (Minnesota) the last few years haven't been very consistent. The last few winters have been freakishly cold, but yet we've had some pretty warm ones yet also. Our summers can get so hot (like 110 degrees on certain days) but yet this year we barely had a day over 100 degrees. This last summer I've had has been one of the coldest ones I've experienced here yet. So that would just be my opinion. I'm not discrediting the theory of Global Warming or anyone's opinions either, just expressing my opinion.

 

[j4kl1ng3r]

I don't know how it started, but global warming has been an idea in our society for a while now. Apparently, 100 years of car use and less than 200 years of factory use is enough to destroy a planet of +millions of years. Tell me, how that makes sense. I believe yes; maybe if humanity reaches years and years and YEARS into the future, then global warming could be a possibility. But now, no way.

Do you have any idea how many of the earth's resources we've used up in less than 200 years?

Spoiler: Deforestation

Africa is suffering deforestation at twice the world rate, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Some sources claim that deforestation has already wiped out roughly 90% of West Africa's original forests. Deforestation is accelerating in Central Africa. According to the FAO, Africa lost the highest percentage of tropical forests of any continent during the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s. According to the figures from the FAO (1997), only 22.8% of West Africa's moist forests remain, much of this degraded. Nigeria has lost 81% of its old-growth forests in just 15 years (1990-2005). Massive deforestation threatens food security in some African countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_by_region

Spoiler: Oil Consumption

Total World Petroleum Consumption = 85,897,000 Barrels Per Day
1 Oil Barrel = 42 Gallons
That is 3,607,674,000 Gallons Per Day

INTO THE AIR

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbpro ... d=54&aid=2

Now, looking at just those two statistics above. And keeping in mind that no other species or event has ever burned that many toxins, or cut down that many trees. Do you further understand how 100 to 200 years of rapidly increasing levels of this activity could, maybe, possibly, thinking scientifically, in regards to what we know about trees and c02 and toxins and petroleum, damage our planet? MAYBE?

My personal beliefs on Global Warming is that is just a natural climate change. Modern science hasn't been around long enough to track climate patterns all the back into history so we may never know what would happen next. For all we know there could be another ice age before the ice caps melt.

Scientists can measure indicators in sheets of ice, as well as large rock formations, to see whether or not there has been changes in almost anything...ranging from temperatures to the amount of carbon dioxide that's in the air. As I would suggest to anyone who is looking for information on Global Warming, watch An Inconvenient Truth. There are several facts in that movie that can't possibly be argued against.

 

[mawk]

@kaidus: pleading selfishness isn't actually a surefire way to win an argument. just thought I'd tell you.

you can give a shit about something without absolutely devoting your life to it. at the most, it might just cut out some of the time you have set aside for making terrible jrpgs or looking up old image macros on google.

 

[kaidus]

Picking on a completely irrelevant point never did anyone any favours either? I don't even recall saying anyone was selfish anyway. It might have been implied but it's a fairly minor point in the grand scheme of things. I'm not marching to ban prevention methods, I'm pretty much indifferent - this just happened to be an active thread.

Also, there are a lot greater implications of global warming prevention in 2009 that 10 minutes of my time a week. Do you have any idea how much money is ploughed into it? I haven't the faintest idea, in fact I'm not even sure I'd be able to count that high. I'd sooner see it diverted to other causes though.

 

[rpgfanatic]

Do you have any idea how many of the earth's resources we've used up in less than 200 years?

Africa is suffering deforestation at twice the world rate, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Some sources claim that deforestation has already wiped out roughly 90% of West Africa's original forests. Deforestation is accelerating in Central Africa. According to the FAO, Africa lost the highest percentage of tropical forests of any continent during the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s. According to the figures from the FAO (1997), only 22.8% of West Africa's moist forests remain, much of this degraded. Nigeria has lost 81% of its old-growth forests in just 15 years (1990-2005). Massive deforestation threatens food security in some African countries.

The last thing I am worried about is deforestation. Trees are a renewable resource. And with more strict laws when it comes to lumbering, lumbering companies cannot cut trees down without planting new ones. We are actually increasing the amount of trees we have on this planet.

 

[mawk]

The last thing I am worried about is deforestation. Trees are a renewable resource. And with more strict laws when it comes to lumbering, lumbering companies cannot cut trees down without planting new ones. We are actually increasing the amount of trees we have on this planet

have you heard of a country called Brazil

p.s. while it is true that trees are renewable resources, they recover at a strikingly slow rate! especially when the land in question is burned and claimed for farming (as is the case in Brazil) or otherwise made unhospitable for a speculative seed. sometimes this can even be caused by the lack of trees in the first place, through erosion of the topsoil!

while current logging laws for the most part respect trees as a resource, many major causes of deforestation are unrelated to logging companies. in addition, while trees do grow back, it takes a terribly long time before they are fully grown and able to fill their role most effectively, and until then their existence is fragile at best! a forest which has had a patch slashed-and-burned through it will not recover fully within any of our lifetimes, perhaps not even those of our children!

this has been mawk explaining things with lots of exclamation points because he's been reading dinosaur comics!

 

[bacon]

To add to mawks statement:

Each year an estimated 170,000 square kilometres (66,000 square miles) of rainforest disappear, the equivalent of more than four times the area of Switzerland. At the current rate of destruction, the world’s lowland rainforests will have disappeared in 20 years’ time. Today, rainforests cover less than 8 per cent of the Earth’s surface, which is less than half of the area the rainforests covered when they were first exploited.
Worldwide, there is 20 per cent to 33 per cent less tropical rainforest today than existed historically, with Brazil and Indonesia accounting for 45 per cent of the total loss.
Consequently, destruction of large areas of rainforest can result in serious environmental problems, loss of habitat, and the extinction of indigenous cultures.
On a global scale, deforestation damages the Earth’s ability to clean the atmosphere. Rainforests and other large forested regions act as the planet’s lungs, converting carbon dioxide back into oxygen and filtering out pollutants. Scientists believe deforestation alters weather patterns and contributes to global warming, accounting for up to 25 per cent of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere each year. At the local level, deforestation produces disastrous side-effects. With little or no plant life to hold it in place, hillside soil is quickly eroded by rain or run-off, filling rivers and lakes with silt, which is harmful to fish. Bare rainforest soils are also relatively infertile and can only be used a year or two for agriculture purposes. Furthermore, denuded soils retain only a fraction of the water they formerly soaked up, leading to cycles of flooding and drought instead of a steady water supply. -(Nature Gallery)

 

[kaidus]

Are you kidding me? Trees live too damn long anyway. Why should they get 500 years to sit and be idle when we have to spend 60 of an average 76 years of life working.

Give me a break!11!

Also, it seems a little dodgy to me that none of these anti-deforestation arguments ever specify what percentage of the world's forests need to be sustained for the predicted problems to not occur (I mean in general, not the posts in this topic specifically). Seems like a pretty vital piece of information that would only be left out if it was low enough to render their whining null. This is a complete assumption so green people give me a number instead of yelling at me please.

 

[Velocir_X]

On a global scale, deforestation damages the Earth’s ability to clean the atmosphere.

Except that Rain forests are a tissue compared to the taiga, which remains practically untouched...

 

[rpgfanatic]

On a global scale, deforestation damages the Earth’s ability to clean the atmosphere.

Except that Rain forests are a tissue compared to the taiga, which remains practically untouched...

Exactly. And don't forget other areas in the world. Earlier this summer I went on a Cross-Country trip from Minnesota to Florida. And looking at the landscape and the surroundings on the way, about 70% of the time we were in forests. Deforestation is a problem in some areas but it only causes local problems, not global. If you look around much of the world is still covered in forests and plant life. Alot of our problems have little to do with deforestation.

 

[j4kl1ng3r]

I don't really think a single post I read after Baconator's deserves any type of legitimate response.

Please don't come The Symposium unless you are prepared for an INTELLIGENT discussion.

 

[rpgfanatic]

More than 1/3 of the worlds total land area is currently covered in forests and that number is rising again. Although we may have cut down alot of our forests (about 50% of the total forests in historical times) We are trying to restore the forests in places that have lost them, in hopes to reverse the negative effects deforestation has caused. The reason I personally am not worried about deforestation is because the world is making such a great effort to fix this problem, which has still barely harmed the world as a whole. Yes in some places it has caused devastating effects by destroying the landscape, allowing erosion and filling bodies of water with silt and killing the marine-life etc. but at a Global Stand point we have time to fix our mistakes and restore the forests before it does become a true world-wide problem

 

[Velocir_X]

I don't really think a single post I read after Baconator's deserves any type of legitimate response.

Please don't come The Symposium unless you are prepared for an INTELLIGENT discussion.

And you call such a statement Intelligent discussion? hypocrite

we provided facts, (which are relatively obvious anyway),
Just because they conflict with your opinion doesn't mean you can shrug us off as unintelligent and waste a post on something like that,

Hypocrite

 

[mawk]

way to say hypocrite twice

and personally, I'm going to agree with gibberish. I see people taking far too optimistic a standpoint with no actual objective reason. worse, I hear people restating the same arguments long after they've become irrelevant. one thing people keep saying is "forested land is on the rise" -- is it really? I don't know personally; this is a legit question coming from me. and cite a source, for godsake. I've heard the amount of forest lost per year ballparked at 15.5 million hectares of forest worldwide, but I'm not sure if that takes replanting into account. regardless, it seems like a tall order to fill.

even if the amount of forested land is in the positive percentage points year by year, situation of reclamation efforts is an issue. it's gonna do us a lot of good if we keep the North American landscape green but the Brazilian rainforest is slashed and burned to the ground. we can't take that land back. it's become farmland now.