Posted by Victoriah's Nemesis on July 17, 2005 at 07:33 [64.12.117.10]
In Reply to: Re: Global warming does not exist posted by Victoriah Nichole Little on July 15, 2005 at 04:14
Victoriah:
Part of the problem with your lack of scientific background is that you cannot tell the difference between scientists with actual knowledge and mystics with profit motives.
That ice age is still likely coming, oh, in a thousand years are so. What's in question is whether humans will be around to see it. And the big ice age of the 80s was called "Nuclear Winter", and was to have been caused by sending huge amounts of dust into the atmosphere from a nuclear war, which was averted, in spite of some very hawkish attitudes in Mr Reagan's whitehouse.
The lethal noise pollution was from jet engines and sonic booms from supersonic aircraft, such as the concorde. That plane is so loud that it does not fly supersonically unless it is over uninhabited areas, such as the sea.
If you will notice, the next time you go flying, everyone who works on the airfield proper is wearing hearing protection. There are also a variety of noise and jet-blast re-directing structures around the edge of the airfields if they are in heavily populated areas.
As I recall, on the eve of 2001, there was a reported major computer systems failure. I think it was somebody like UPS. So the effort expended to ensure there were no major problems was not completely unjustified. What you don't recognize is that all of your money comes to you through computers in your banks, and the same is true for almost every person and business in the US.
Also, digital computers of the variety that I program are used to operate the electric grid. So there was a possibility of having neither electricity (used in small amounts to control furnaces) nor money on that January day.
Now, as for global warming:
The scientific evidence for both the change in climate and for human causation of said change is clear and convincing. The dismissal of the problem is based on politics -- since effectively doing something about global warming requires a change in our entrenched power structure. It will result in a drop in the net price of energy, particularly oil, since less of those very convenient hydrocarbons will be burned world-wide.
It will also require some personal sacrifice on everyone's part -- since we burn quite a bit of oil just running around in cars and airplanes in the US. Our energy-intensive big agriculture will have major competition from smaller gardens.
What is the evidence, you may ask.
First, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen dramatically in this century, basically in proportion to the amount of CO2 being produced by human activity. This amount isn't a few percent; it's orders of magnitude (factors of 10). Given the tendency of CO2 to capture heat, the presence of a measurable effect on the atmospheric temperature is inevitable.
Second, temperature estimates exist back to AD 1000 or so. They come from several different sources, including tree rings. All of them agree that the latter half of the 20th century was the warmest on record.
Tidal evidence in Venice indicates that dangerously high tides are threatening the city more often.
I tell you the danger is QUITE real. Victoriah, if half the worlds population lives within 100 feet of sea level, and the sea level rises 100 feet, what is going to happen from a political and terrorism standpoint?