Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    No, it is the height of human conceit to think that we can do whatever we want and the earth will just adapt; it is the height of human conceit to think that we can continually exceed the limits of the earth's natural bounty each year and expect the system to recover; it is the height of human conceit to think that we ourselves are immune from the effects of our own polluting.

    Even if the American right wants to continue to water down the climate change debate in order to subjectify it for political reasons, there are plenty of other valid, proven reasons to reduce the output of human pollution. Never before in human history has cancer, heart disease, diabetes, genetic disorders, infertility, and mental illness been as high as it is now.

    One in three people develop heart disease or stroke in their lifetimes and the age bracket is becoming younger each year; one in four will get cancer. How long will we wait before we decide to change our lifestyle of excess? When it's one in two? Or every person?

    Honestly. How long are the apologists and deniers going to keep spinning the propaganda that things are going to be ok? They're not. The industrial revolution is only a couple of hundred years in the making, and the consumer era is about 50 years in the making. Fossil fuel use has the same shelf life. Our entire paradigm of how we think things should operate is going to come crashing down, the only thing we have a choice in is whether the transition is smooth or if it will be traumatic.
    Outside of the fact that carbon dioxide isn't pollution, you're pacing your rant just fine.

    However, one in four people now live long enough, thanks to modern technology that prevents them from starving to death or dying of malnutrition or pneumonia or many many other deadly but presently treatable diseases, that they have the chance to live long enough to die from cancer.

    Given the choice, most people gladly accept living to 70 and dying of cancer over catching pneumonia or malaria and dying in childhood.

    One of the reasons fewer people die of pneumonia is that they've been able to burn fossil fuels to keep their homes warm. If global warming means they don't have to burn as much fuel to stay warm, who's going to be crazy enough to complain about that?

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Outside of the fact that carbon dioxide isn't pollution, you're pacing your rant just fine.
    You please quote where I said ANYTHING about carbon dioxide? I didn't think so. Next time don't put words in my mouth by fabricating an argument I never even made.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    However, one in four people now live long enough, thanks to modern technology that prevents them from starving to death or dying of malnutrition or pneumonia or many many other deadly but presently treatable diseases, that they have the chance to live long enough to die from cancer.

    Given the choice, most people gladly accept living to 70 and dying of cancer over catching pneumonia or malaria and dying in childhood.
    I'm not saying that modern advances haven't made worthy progress with curing diseases that have plagued our nations for thousands of years, but it's myopic to say that only the elderly have to worry about cancer. Cancer was considered an illness of the elderly a couple of centuries ago. Now children are born with cancer. More and more young adults are developing cancers, especially reproductive ones. Testicular cancer is the biggest thread to men in their 20's and 30's; breast and cervical cancer for women. Clearly our lifestyle is not healthy.

    We have cured the virulent diseases for the most part, only to replace them with other diseases of excess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    One of the reasons fewer people die of pneumonia is that they've been able to burn fossil fuels to keep their homes warm. If global warming means they don't have to burn as much fuel to stay warm, who's going to be crazy enough to complain about that?
    What a red herring. No one is suggesting that we return to the stone ages in order to save the environment. I think the most practical ideas that are on the table involve supplementing fossil fuel energy with green energy resources. They might lack the capacity to completely replace fossil fuels but we can still reduce the impact to our human health. I mean, people are busy fighting over the government controling the world because of global warming debates, but there are very real human health impacts taking place due to pollution that has been known for half a century now.

    Chicago and New York City have some of the highest respiratory infection rates in North America, and TB is making a come back. Cold weakens your lungs. So does pollution. Childhood asthma rates are the highest in recorded history, and the rates continue to rise. Pollution also affects food and water quality, cancer rates, heart disease rates, our natural resources, etc.
    Last edited by Orion; 07-17-10 at 02:54 AM.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    You please quote where I said ANYTHING about carbon dioxide? I didn't think so. Next time don't put words in my mouth by fabricating an argument I never even made.
    It's a thread on "global warming".

    Nut cases who worry about natural cycles and like to pretend they're man-made also believe that CO2 is a "pollutant".

    Silly of them, but no sillier than believing that human activity can alter an entire global ecology.

    Tell us, oh Guru of things Gore, what caused end of the turn around from the Little Ice Age?


    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    I'm not saying that modern advances haven't made worthy progress with curing diseases that have plagued our nations for thousands of years, but it's myopic to say that only the elderly have to worry about cancer. Cancer was considered an illness of the elderly a couple of centuries ago. Now children are born with cancer.
    No, it's not. When one burbles up a meaningless "one in four will blah blah blah" for a whoe population, one is forced to consider the implications and bases for such claims.

    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    More and more young adults are developing cancers, especially reproductive ones. Testicular cancer is the biggest thread to men in their 20's and 30's; breast and cervical cancer for women. Clearly our lifestyle is not healthy.
    Clearly our young people have to get off their fat asses playing video games and drinking coke, and get outside playing football, fightig, and learning how to be independent, self-reliant, and free. And again, the numbers become problematic. There's something like three times as many people alive now than there were a hundred years ago. So when you say "there's more cases of rot your balls off" today, is that in real terms, or is it statistically adjusted to account for the number of young that no longer die of measles and reubella and polio and pertussis? What is the effect of simply from the urbanization of society, when there were finally more people living in cities than on the farms (thanks, of course, to the technological society that some disapprove of...)

    Certain kinds of people like to freak out over microwatt exposures to cell telephone usage. Good thing we never tell them about the beta radiation coming from old fashioned TV CRT screens.

    And, oh by the way. You're citing alleged statistics pertinent to a specific animal species, who's living in it's own filth. You're failing to show that human activity has any significant impact on global climate.



    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    We have cured the virulent diseases for the most part, only to replace them with other diseases of excess.
    Well, yes, that's what happens.

    People don't live forever. They have to die of SOMETHING. So today, more people die of cancer than pneumonia. And what were previously minor causes, become significant once the biggest killers of the past are controlled. (See anyone die of smallpox recently?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    What a red herring. No one is suggesting that we return to the stone ages in order to save the environment. I think the most practical ideas that are on the table involve supplementing fossil fuel energy with green energy resources. They might lack the capacity to completely replace fossil fuels but we can still reduce the impact to our human health. I mean, people are busy fighting over the government controling the world because of global warming debates, but there are very real human health impacts taking place due to pollution that has been known for half a century now.

    Chicago and New York City have some of the highest respiratory infection rates in North America, and TB is making a come back. Cold weakens your lungs. So does pollution. Childhood asthma rates are the highest in recorded history, and the rates continue to rise. Pollution also affects food and water quality, cancer rates, heart disease rates, our natural resources, etc.
    And why is TB making a comeback? Ain't got NOTHING to do with the urban environment, no, not at all. It has everything to do with the fact that evolution never stops.

    Fact of the matter is that SOME anti-pollution arguments are good and valid, and NO anti-pollution argument has an business being on a thread focused on global warming, because pollution isn't affecting global climate.

    Another fact, since this is a thread on global warming, is that the last major glacial interstadial was eventually warmer the current one is at present, the sea levels were sigificantly higher, and the planet didn't have any humans runs fossil fueled industries to drive it. Our knowledge of climate is simply inadequate to explain that.

    Our knowledge of climate is inadequate to explain why the Little Ice Age stopped. Clearly event was not driven by human activity, and since we do not know the processes that started the current warming trend, we're hard put to claim their stopped, and thus we're also unable to say how much, if any at all, human activity has played in recent short-term warming and cooling trends.

    The one thing we do know, with certainty, is that human activity cannot so degrade climate that life, including human life, becomes impossible.

  4. #44
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Fact of the matter is that SOME anti-pollution arguments are good and valid, and NO anti-pollution argument has an business being on a thread focused on global warming, because pollution isn't affecting global climate.
    CO2, Methane, and CFC's all are greenhouse gases. Sulfur dioxide actually has a cooling effect because it reflects some sunlight back out into space, so ironically our cutting back on those emissions accelerated (very, very slightly) the current warming trend. (although obviously the reduction in acid rain is more important)

    Another fact, since this is a thread on global warming, is that the last major glacial interstadial was eventually warmer the current one is at present, the sea levels were sigificantly higher, and the planet didn't have any humans runs fossil fueled industries to drive it. Our knowledge of climate is simply inadequate to explain that.
    This statement is incorrect. Greenhouse gases are not the only climate forcing that we know about. The earth's orbital mechanics change slightly in a very regular pattern, causing slight differences in the amount of sunlight the earth receives, changing temperature. Continental configuration changes the earth's temperature as land and sea reflect heat differently. (although obviously this occurs on a longer scale) The sun's output also changes over time and is measurable. Volcanic activity can affect climate, especially during large-scale eruptions.

    Our knowledge of climate is inadequate to explain why the Little Ice Age stopped. Clearly event was not driven by human activity, and since we do not know the processes that started the current warming trend, we're hard put to claim their stopped, and thus we're also unable to say how much, if any at all, human activity has played in recent short-term warming and cooling trends.
    The little ice age does not appear to be a global event, as the timing of glacial maximums varies from region to region. It was also not particularly powerful, as it ends up being less than 1C change over several centuries.


    The current warming trend's start coincides with the industrial revolution.

    The one thing we do know, with certainty, is that human activity cannot so degrade climate that life, including human life, becomes impossible.
    Well, short of large-scale nuclear conflict, no, we're not going extinct. Nobody is arguing that we're going extinct. (nobody sane, anyway) Standard skeptic straw man.

    Just because I wasn't here yesterday doesn't mean I am incapable of judging what is causing things to happen today. I've never been one to buy the "we're too dumb to figure this out!" theory on anything.
    Last edited by Deuce; 07-17-10 at 01:21 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •