Global warming not man made?
- Thread starter K.I.L.E.R
- Start date
Joe DeFuria
Legend
MfA said:Even if we arent the leading cause for global warming ... how about we finally start showing some backbone as a species and prevent it anyway. Lets start some global scale geo-engineering already
/Sarcasm mode
I'm sure that any such undertaking would interfere with the "natural" progression of the 3 spotted horned toad, yellow-bellied sap sucker, and/or the 5 assed monkey.
We can't even genetically engineer food staples without being accused of great crimes against mother nature...imagine the opposition we'd get to something like global scale geo-engineering!
CosmoKramer
Newcomer
RussSchultz said:
Who the fuck is talking bout alternative fuel research? There are already plenty of working hydrogen based solutions, heck some even extract hydrogen (fuel cells) from gasoline so even the oil companies should be happy!
All it takes is for us (humankind) to start making the decisions to provide the infrastructure. Signing the Kyoto agreement is a small step in that direction.
It's about making intelligent decisions.
CosmoKramer said:
Tone the language down there, Mr. Potty Mouth.
K.I.L.E.R said:
Originally it was Henrik Svensmark that showed there was a correlation between influx of cosmic rays and cloud cover. Together with the increase in the Sun's magnetic field (which helps shield the earth from cosmic rays)over the last century this could account for some of the heating. Climate models shows that high level cloud heat the planet, low level ones cool it. The cosmic rays mostly cause lowlevel clouds to form (and hence heat).They also shows that at most 30% of the current global warming can be attributed to this effect.
Now, if the people in North America could just start to do rolling blackouts on the scale of the one that just hit, there'll be a chance that USA and Canada could reach their Kyoto targets.
Cheers
Gubbi
CosmoKramer
Newcomer
John Reynolds said:
Ok child beater.
Dr. Ffreeze
Regular
CosmoKramer,
I find it quite perplexing that someone against all forms of child physical discipline is so hateful, angry, and venomous in his communications.
/shrug
Dr. Ffreeze
I find it quite perplexing that someone against all forms of child physical discipline is so hateful, angry, and venomous in his communications.
/shrug
Dr. Ffreeze
Genetically engineered food wouldnt be such an issue if it wasnt for the continuing attempt to push it through without clear labeling, I personally dont care shit ... apart from the practical problems of cross pollination and such, the air is a shared resource and polluting that should come at a cost (especially important for farmers who dont want to participate in the buy new seeds each year business).
The greens, political parties and their voters rather than hardcore environmentalist activist, are already convinced of the reality and dangers of global warming and they like to preserve the _present_ environment ... they should be no more difficult to convince than the head in the sand conservatives Geo-engineering isnt like genetic engineering, we might not understand the climate entirely but on the whole it is a much simpler and stable system. There are lots of options to tamper with it which could be stopped at any moment, cross species gene proliferation has a bigger potential to get out of control.
The greens, political parties and their voters rather than hardcore environmentalist activist, are already convinced of the reality and dangers of global warming and they like to preserve the _present_ environment ... they should be no more difficult to convince than the head in the sand conservatives
Geo-engineering isnt like genetic engineering, we might not understand the climate entirely but on the whole it is a much simpler and stable system. There are lots of options to tamper with it which could be stopped at any moment, cross species gene proliferation has a bigger potential to get out of control.MfA said:Genetically engineered food wouldnt be such an issue if it wasnt for the continuing attempt to push it through without clear labeling, I personally dont care shit ... apart from the practical problems of cross pollination and such, the air is a shared resource and polluting that should come at a cost (especially important for farmers who dont want to participate in the buy new seeds each year business).
The greens, political parties and their voters rather than hardcore environmentalist activist, are already convinced of the reality and dangers of global warming and they like to preserve the _present_ environment ... they should be no more difficult to convince than the head in the sand conservatives
What exactly is the problem with genetic engineering that some people seem to have? I've looked at the research on it and it seems like the perfect way to combat starvation in many countries. For instance, the EU blocks tons of food from the USA from entering Africa because it is genetically engineered.
What exactly is the big deal?
Willmeister
Newcomer
There was a Dutch study a few years back that contradicted industry claims that their supposedly sterile product was, in fact, quite viable and pollen from the crop was found actually pollinating regular crops up to 1.6 km away in a single season. Whether we want it or not, GMOs have already been introduced into the biosphere. The genie is already out of the bottle... This was the study that was the impetus for my former employer, a large transnational, to refuse any GMO crops. Not only would the refuse, they would permanently refuse to accept any future crop from an offending farmer if discovered...
We have the Canola rapeseed problem that's growning in Western Canada that's immune to herbicide. But the whole point of pest-resistant crops is to actually promote resistance. As harmful as glysophate is thought to be, Monsanto will have to come out with something even harsher than Round-Up to kill the RoundUp resistant canola. And like the GMO potato, the RoundUp Ready canola was supposed to be sterile, yet it's moving from field to field as an unwanted guest.
Then we have the issue of BT-based insecticides, a naturally occuring pesticide secreted by microorganisms. It's the Aspirin of the agricultural world; a superproduct. Farmers douse their feilds on a semi-regular basis to basically 'shock' the pests. It dissipates and then the cycle is repeated. But, BT-modified plants constantly secrete BT making spraying unnecessary (for the moment). In the case of BT-modified crops, "Whatever doesn't die, gets to breed." Voila! Like the overuse of antibiotics, we're no witnessing the rise of another type of Superbug. And these Superbugs will have no real competition when it comes to food since the non-BT-resistant pests will have been killed off. The only way to avoid use of even harsher chemicals would be to introduce predators.
That's why GMOs will actually promote pest resistance. But not to worry. The industry that brought you the pest-resistant crops will have another GMO to fix that problem.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
We have the Canola rapeseed problem that's growning in Western Canada that's immune to herbicide. But the whole point of pest-resistant crops is to actually promote resistance. As harmful as glysophate is thought to be, Monsanto will have to come out with something even harsher than Round-Up to kill the RoundUp resistant canola. And like the GMO potato, the RoundUp Ready canola was supposed to be sterile, yet it's moving from field to field as an unwanted guest.
Then we have the issue of BT-based insecticides, a naturally occuring pesticide secreted by microorganisms. It's the Aspirin of the agricultural world; a superproduct. Farmers douse their feilds on a semi-regular basis to basically 'shock' the pests. It dissipates and then the cycle is repeated. But, BT-modified plants constantly secrete BT making spraying unnecessary (for the moment). In the case of BT-modified crops, "Whatever doesn't die, gets to breed." Voila! Like the overuse of antibiotics, we're no witnessing the rise of another type of Superbug. And these Superbugs will have no real competition when it comes to food since the non-BT-resistant pests will have been killed off. The only way to avoid use of even harsher chemicals would be to introduce predators.
That's why GMOs will actually promote pest resistance. But not to worry. The industry that brought you the pest-resistant crops will have another GMO to fix that problem.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
Recent research has developed a means to further genetically modify plants so that a crop can yield fruit/seeds/etc. and yet these seeds are infertile. It's a killer gene that prevents any second generation offspring, and that includes cross-pollination to other varieties.
The debate is whether farmers, especially in the poorer areas of the world, can afford to buy all new seed each year for their crops. This "killer gene" is good from a bio-engineering preventative catastrophe point of view, but these farmers have a point. If all the latest greatest bio-wonder-seeds use this gene, then any farmers that can't afford it will be stuck with less productive varieties, and their crops will become less and less valuable relative to their competition (simply because thier competitions yield's will continue to increase and theirs won't). Nothing is ever as simple as it would seem.
About global warming... I can't believe some people actually believe the Kyoto Protocol is a good thing. It's well intentioned, and something like it will be needed at some point, but the Kyoto as it was written was a horrible solution. In fact, it wasn't a solution.
This whole idea of "saving the environment now before it gets worse and costs even more to save later" is typically missing something very critical: a serious effort cut fuel consumption and lower pollution generation today, with today's technology, carries a tremendous cost when projected forward several decades into the future, when the cost of doing something will be substantially less (even if the problem is substantially larger) simply due to technological advancements.
Remember, the industrial revolution wasn't that long ago. Electricity is fairly new, and nuclear power and similar technologies are veritable infants. Fusion research and solar power technologies are just now getting geared up full steam. In fifty years, we may well have enough energy created on this planet through "clean" means to provide power to every home and every industry, have enough to power huge desalination plants to provide plenty of fresh water to every person on the planet, and still have enough left over to power unimaginably energy hungry chemical sequestering plants that remove contaminants from the atmosphere through chemical reactions and lock them away in solid form for easy disposal... or to simply return them to the Earth's crust where they belong.
The debate is whether farmers, especially in the poorer areas of the world, can afford to buy all new seed each year for their crops. This "killer gene" is good from a bio-engineering preventative catastrophe point of view, but these farmers have a point. If all the latest greatest bio-wonder-seeds use this gene, then any farmers that can't afford it will be stuck with less productive varieties, and their crops will become less and less valuable relative to their competition (simply because thier competitions yield's will continue to increase and theirs won't). Nothing is ever as simple as it would seem.
About global warming... I can't believe some people actually believe the Kyoto Protocol is a good thing. It's well intentioned, and something like it will be needed at some point, but the Kyoto as it was written was a horrible solution. In fact, it wasn't a solution.
This whole idea of "saving the environment now before it gets worse and costs even more to save later" is typically missing something very critical: a serious effort cut fuel consumption and lower pollution generation today, with today's technology, carries a tremendous cost when projected forward several decades into the future, when the cost of doing something will be substantially less (even if the problem is substantially larger) simply due to technological advancements.
Remember, the industrial revolution wasn't that long ago. Electricity is fairly new, and nuclear power and similar technologies are veritable infants. Fusion research and solar power technologies are just now getting geared up full steam. In fifty years, we may well have enough energy created on this planet through "clean" means to provide power to every home and every industry, have enough to power huge desalination plants to provide plenty of fresh water to every person on the planet, and still have enough left over to power unimaginably energy hungry chemical sequestering plants that remove contaminants from the atmosphere through chemical reactions and lock them away in solid form for easy disposal... or to simply return them to the Earth's crust where they belong.
Willmeister
Newcomer
I'm not saying antibiotics should be stopped at all. Where do you get that from? I was just pointing out that the same phenomena that created more virulent pathogens will be behind the creation of Superpests. There is precedence.
Besides, antibiotics can not replicate. GMOs easily have the potential to be a self-replicating error...
Besides, antibiotics can not replicate. GMOs easily have the potential to be a self-replicating error...
