Should you believe in climate change?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Yes exactly I have been repeating this notion over the telegraph all day but nobody takes notice! ...

If the notion that trading off natural resources now to advance science so it can solve our natural resources problems later was valid, all our fresh water sources that were naturally potable before pollution would be naturally potable again today. Science has already given us the technology to restore them to that state; but, even where there's a will and a way it still takes time. If scientists find a solution (other than prevention) to global warming, will there still be enough time to implement it and at what cost to other aspects of humanity? Based on past performance of that notion; also, the lack of reliable time line projections for both scientific achievement and global warming, that notion seems to require a leap of faith that many don't share.

I hope you're right; but, forgive me if I prefer to hedge my bet with an ounce of prevention because it seems to still be worth a pound of cure where natural resources are concerned.

LLAP

[xoxoxoBruce]

I prefer to hedge my bet with an ounce of prevention because it seems to still be worth a pound of cure where natural resources are concerned.

That doesn't matter because you don't have the power to act on your convictions. The ones with the power benefit more by maintaining the status quo. And if the oceans rise, or weather becomes intolerable, they'll tell the staff they're moving to one of their homes in a more pleasant location.

You see, it's not two sided, I take the third side.
It ain't my fault, it ain't my decision, ain't nothing I can do about it, it's all THEIR fault.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by sexobon

If the notion that trading off natural resources now to advance science so it can solve our natural resources problems later was valid, all our fresh water sources that were naturally potable before pollution would be naturally potable again today.

They are, or is this one of those leading questions? Once we figured out we were doing this type of damage, we moved an awful lot of the water polluting to other countries. We made it illegal in the rich places, thus promoting manufacturing in poorer countries without such regulations.

It all worked, and now rivers and lakes that were heavily polluted are now clean. The Cuyahoga River is no longer on fire. Boston Harbor hosts wildlife now. You could swim in major metropolitan rivers now.

The Clean Water Act is considered one of the most successful pieces of legislation ever. And now, previously clean rivers and lakes in China are now choked with algae and pollution, worse than the west's ever were. We successfully moved the problem out of our backyard.

That's why I said we are going to need World Police to pressure AGW by force. As energy gets more expensive, the worst people on the world will get money and power by using it any way they see fit. Problem is global so moving it isn't going to work.

Unless we move it to outer space...

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Once we figured out we were doing this type of damage, we moved an awful lot of the water polluting to other countries. We made it illegal in the rich places, thus promoting manufacturing in poorer countries without such regulations.

Delaware River above Port Jervis (northern tip of New Jersey) was some of the cleanest water. Rated Grade A by the National Park Service. In Reagan's day, one could see it getting dirtier. And yet it was still Grade A because it was so clean. During Clinton's time we saw it get cleaner.

So why does Philadelphia not take their water from the Delaware River? Because it is so dirty. Cleaner water is obtained from the Schukylll River. So what happens in 100 miles from the cleanest of the clean to so dirty? Clearly this does not happen if we have so successfully cleaned up the rivers.


Meanwhile Americans pay $35 for gasoline. Only $4 moves the car. $31 is wasted as heat and noise. If we addressed real reasons for global warning (a major shortage of innovation), then $12 of $35 moves a car. But we do not do that. Since 1970, what has been the purpose of every American auto company? Not to make a better product. To make more profits. To enrich top management.

Why do companies with misguided objectives so harm the environment? Many if not most innovation that makes better cars and reduces harmful impacts to the environment eventually appear as patriotic American cars made by better American patriots who are citizens of Korea, Japan, and Europe. After all, less destruction to the environment also means higher gasoline mileage. Why is that not important and good?

The if not a most significant reason for Global Warming are so many Americans who hate innovation. As apparent even by fools so who hated environmental controls in 1970s automobiles. Large numbers of Americans so hate America when they advocate hate of innovation and the resulting progress. These fools love the status quo. Denial of global warning and reasons why it exists are typically found in those who hate innovation and the advancement of mankind.