This is going to be short and to the point (I hope).
First off, i agree that this world might have problems in the future if we don't tackle this issue. If the facts are tampered with then from what I've seen from "REAL" scientists, there is a cause for concern. I say "real" scientists because i do not see the leading people in this debate, Al Gore and David Suzuki, as scientists. A real scientist will keep and open mind. A real scientist will look at all the perspectives, and not just the one that has to do with Co2 being the only reason. A real scientist will try everything in their power to present the real facts, not just the ones they want to hear. We DO NOT get this from Suzuki, and definitely not Gore.
My other gripe on this issue is that it is turning into a Fad, if it hasn't already. The problem is people listen to this stuff, and then run around like a chicken with their heads cut-off squabbling senseless bullshit in the name of anything Green. Get a Grip! This problem would be more of a problem to most if the people trying to advocate it didn't look like tools. Nothing makes me want to believe someone more then a person with the word moron written across their head. When i grow up i wanna be just like them. /sarcasm.
How many environmentalists take the bus everywhere they go? How many environmentalists own Prius' and other hybrids. How many of these people actually live without high energy using appliances and other forms of technology? How many of these people actually live what they preach. With an open mind and a realistic standpoint, i would venture to say not that many. It seems that most of these people would rather have other people give up their conveniences then their own.
Now, a real tree-hugger would go out and buy a Prius, yes it is expensive, but does it not pay for itself in the end, and besides, its doing a lot more good for the environment then any other car they may be driving. Why aren't these people living with candle light and fire pits. I'm serious about this, if these people want to reverse the effects, wouldn't they have to reverse their way of living. And if they cannot do that, then why do they tell others too. Set examples. Of course what I am saying is unrealistic, I realize this, and thats my point. It is unrealistic to think that 2 morons are going to change the world. Its unrealistic to think im going to trade in my high-performance car for something that doesn't perform against a turtle. It's unrealistic to think that educated people will actually take what Gore and Suzuki say and just start doing it. An educated person(anyone in grade 1 or higher) should realize that this is not the only way to help. This is the only way that people think they can change.
Take this quote from Gore as an example:
- “In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore
Why don't environmentalists look into nuclear power. This has been brought up by leading scientists, real scientists as a excellent alternative to what we have now. Why are people against this? Is the risk of a rare disaster so high that a tree-hugger, who thinks the world is going to end anyways because of global warming, isn't willing to take the chance. Why are these people against Hydro-electricity, WHY? It's renewable, and of a natural source. These are things that are perplexing. They don't make sense, but oh well, blame the SUV's, Blame 8 cylinder engines because we should never enjoy horsepower again. No that would be too much for our world to handle, it cant take the rumble of a V-8 motor.
In my opinion, if Global Warming was such a huge threat, you would have leading scientists taking charge of the debate, and not leaving it to a moron and a animal person. If it was serious the world would know, and it wouldn't be feed propaganda from Al Gore. If this thing was so big that it was to make such a change in the way we live, then the people who advocate it would do just that, advocate, not just sit there and wait for the world to help them. Idealism will not work in this situation, we need real solutions, real plans, not ones like stop driving big vehicles. A plan that gives realistic measures to take and follow, a plan that lets us live normal lives while helping make them better. A plan that makes sense to people and that is being delivered by someone that is credible. Until then we are stuck watching garbage and listening to idiots talk about the garbage.
Would Suzuki and Gore really be talking about this if their careers weren't on their last breaths?
9 comments:
It's ridiculously late but the 2.5 hour nap I took this evening was a bad idea.
Just a quick comment on the energy sources you mentioned:
Probably the biggest reason why nuclear power isn't more popular is that its actually very expensive. (Good old ECU class is coming in handy today!) The dangers and hazards associated with the technology play factors, along with the storage of nuclear waste, but the main reason governments haven't been looking more into nuclear power is the cost vs. burning coal. Burning coal is pretty cheap, and cheap usually wins out, unfortunately.
Hydro-electricity, on the other hand, is cheap and essentially emission-free. The problem with hydro is the large areas of land that are flooded when a dam is built. There are a whole whack of ecological issues involved with that (although my own personal opinion is that hydro is definitely the lesser of two evils if the other option is burning coal). That, and there are only certain places in the world that have large enough rivers in remote enough areas to actually produce hydro (unless you're China and just tell people to move because they're flooding their town).
There are plenty of other ideas for generating power out there, and I was actually hoping to one day discuss the role of technology in reducing our impact on the environment. But I should go to bed, first.
"Probably the biggest reason why nuclear power isn't more popular is that its actually very expensive. (Good old ECU class is coming in handy today!) The dangers and hazards associated with the technology play factors, along with the storage of nuclear waste, but the main reason governments haven't been looking more into nuclear power is the cost vs. burning coal. Burning coal is pretty cheap, and cheap usually wins out, unfortunately."
So would you agree that this issue really isn't at the forefront anything. I mean if it was so important, wouldn't the benefits outweigh the costs.
"Hydro-electricity, on the other hand, is cheap and essentially emission-free. The problem with hydro is the large areas of land that are flooded when a dam is built. There are a whole whack of ecological issues involved with that (although my own personal opinion is that hydro is definitely the lesser of two evils if the other option is burning coal). That, and there are only certain places in the world that have large enough rivers in remote enough areas to actually produce hydro (unless you're China and just tell people to move because they're flooding their town)."
This is my problem with tree-huggin' people, they never seem to like anything else but their own narrow-minded ideas. Yes it is limited in some areas, but we should use it wherever possible.
It cant just be lets switch to something else and do it now. If this is going to work it will be a process, i don't see whats the point of arguing against hydroelectricity as it benefits the environment in the places its implemented.
I await your ideas, but if they haven't been tried and tested yet, what are the odds they will ever be used? The cost for one, like you mentioned, would be staggering for a new energy source. Plus im sure all the energy that went into doing this would make things worse. Why can we not build on what we have already and start from there?
I suggest both of you watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Our family downloaded it a few days ago. It was just produced for Channel 4 in Britain. The documentary does an execellent job addressing Climate change theory, Climate Change industry, Climate Change trends. They talk a lot about the history of the climate change movement. The "2500 leading scientists". The very important role of the sun, clouds and the ocean in climate change. But especially, the devasting effects environmentalism is having on Africa where they are keeping Africa from doing what we do. That is, burning Coal, refining gas, spraying for mosquitoes etc. In the end I really felt that the environmentalist movement is not only slightly crazy but decidedly unchristian. Watch it, I would like to discuss it.
As for, alternative energy sources, I suppose the inference here is to wind farms and solar power. They may work someday, but they are not going to run a factory. Any of the stuff we need to actually build environmentally friendly products like Prius cars, Solar Panels, Wind Turbines etc. have to be made with large amounts of power. Power which cannot be achieved by wind or solar energy.
We are likely headed twoard some sort of balance. Solar and wind may help with small stuff. Solar panels seem to do a good job with small batteries etc.
Otherwise we need to keep looking for something that will replace fossil fuels some day.
Mike
"So would you agree that this issue really isn't at the forefront anything. I mean if it was so important, wouldn't the benefits outweigh the costs."
That's why so many people have become quite vocal about what's going on. That's why environmentalists or tree huggers or concerened citizens or whatever you want to call them are trying to influence the public. The governments of the world are the ones that pass laws and direct the future of our planet. Politicians only act on the issues that will get them re-elected. If we're going to elect officials based on economic growth over health and environmental concerns, then the elected officials are going to focus on maximizing economic growth. Since that tends to be the focus in North America, the US government has put in place very little incentive to not burn coal for electricity.
And as for the Global Warming Swindle documentary...I've already seen it (I gather my info from both sides of the debate). There were some issues with the scientific reasonings (which I plan on writing about briefly on my blog), but yes solar activity does affect climate. It is a factor. It is esimated that approximately 25% of the current rises in temperature are due to increased solar activity. It still leaves about 75% essentially unaccounted for.
Perhaps my major issue with the documentary was that the majority of the film (essentially the entire second half) focused on political conspiracy theories. The other topic that I don't think was mentioned was, regardless of whether global warming is a myth or not, our current energy production mehtods are extremely dirty and the pollution from burning coal has killed off entire ecosystems in parts of the world and has ruined entire freshwater lakes and rivers. Even if the earth isn't going to burn up and die from the greenhouse effect, we're still responsible for all kinds of health issues, detroyed ecosystems, infertile soil, contaminated drinking water, smog, acid rain and all sorts of air quality issues.
If so many people were actually "vocal" then I think we would see change. I mean if some many of our fellow citizens were vocal, then why did we pull out of Kyoto, why are the states not doing it either. And before you criticize one movie for not aligning with ur beliefs, look at the movie Gore made, then read my quote, then make a judgment of the accuracy of his comments and facts.
If you are going to scrutinize the documentary's facts so closely I suggest you do the same with the Gore documentary. He falsifies information with an efficiency usually reserved for Michael Moore.
FYI
http://potsie13.blogspot.com/2006/08/right-ideawrong-approach.html
I had posted this on my blog last August in regards to the Gore documentary...and its not the most flattering of posts.
I read that a while ago, thats why (at least i don't think) i ever questioned if you took the whole movie to truth. I don't see how you could if you did, but ur educated, i think you wouldn't have.
But if you did not, then whats the point of watching such a movie. If it only appeals to your idealistic side then what purpose does it serve?
Does it bring awareness? Not if it is blown out of context such as that movie is.
Does it strive for accuracy and strong factual evidence? Obviously not when then movies maker said he blows up the facts to help them out.
So what is the purpose of this movie then? It doesn't provide accurate and strong and factual evidence, so why should i watch this?
Where is the evidence that i need, that isnt from a moron and a zoologist that will sway my way of thinking? Why has this evidence not been brought to the forefront of this debate. Hell i have articles from the Sun and the Free Press that bash Global Warming, but hey, at least these guys consult "real" Scientists.
I await the day where i will here, accurate, factual, and important information along with a plan that is realistic.
Brad i suggest you watch that movie that was stated above, The great Global Warming Swindle. I am going to post its points on this blog soon. But instead of listening to a politcally based bunch of BS, listen to real scientists, one even from right here in Winnipeg. This movie shows stuff that when i researched, actually made sense. This is unlike what Al Gore has said, or even Suzuki.
You need to be open minded in this debate, ill get u a copy and yuo can watch it.
Post a Comment