Skeptic Or Believer?

[pj8708]

A preeminent scientist who was a global warming skeptic, is now a believer. The remaining skeptics are up in arms demanding a retraction of his research. Does it matter who funds your research? The mainstream scientist are greeting this with a big yawn saying all others are all ready on board and this is a feud within the "nonbeliever" tribe.

Who do you trust?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/richard-muller-global-warming_n_1066029.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk3%7C108718

[SW03ES]

My personal opinion on global warming is one of common sense. Nature didn't intend all of these gases and pollutants to be pumped into the atmosphere. It simply makes sense that over time the addition of these compounds and chemicals in the atmosphere will have an effect on the planet's climate, since they weren't supposed to be there in the first place.

Reducing the amounts of these chemicals and compounds that are released into the atmosphere can only be a good thing...

[pj8708]

Today, depending on your particular hope for the future of our species, you could celebrate the addition of the 7,000,000,000 billionth person on our planet. Hooray? I don't think so. By 2025 we'll have 8 billion! As Steve W says above this subject of climate change is just common sense. It has become a matter of diminishing returns. The more we put out into the environment the more the environment turns it back on us in unsuspected ways.

The crux of this already circling-the-drain scenario, is that the unconvinced side believe that man has had no part in the global warming problem, and that it is just part of a natural cycle that will pass in a few years. After all they say, We still have snow. This is the same crowd that doesn't want science being taught in public schools. Science like Evolution, or human reproduction, contraception, etc.

Paul

[LEXIRX330]

Well put me in the common sense category too. You can just see it look at the sky over large cities. I flew into Philly awhile back and wow…

But Paul just so you know the Dems are wrong on this too....

[pj8708]

Well put me in the common sense category too. You can just see it look at the sky over large cities. I flew into Philly awhile back and wow…

But Paul just so you know the Dems are wrong on this too....

Woe is me... LOL

[dcfish]

Man has only been Recording Weather for just over 100 some years... Compared to Say 2000 years ago, Now Tell me what it was like then. There is nothing new under the Sun. Explosion energy VS. Implosion Energy.

[lenore]

Hey, Los Angeles is cleaner, than when I was a kid...I remember the yellow, thick as mustard air...now it is breathable. I remember in 1965 the windshield turning sticky...So emission controls are vastly better now. We all want clean, but not to the point of killing jobs, and destroying industry...

[1990LS400]

Hey, Los Angeles is cleaner, than when I was a kid...I remember the yellow, thick as mustard air...now it is breathable. I remember in 1965 the windshield turning sticky...So emission controls are vastly better now. We all want clean, but not to the point of killing jobs, and destroying industry...

The reason you have breathable air are federal regulations controlling polution. It was very scary back in the 1970's when I could barely breath during rush hour. It's wonderful now compared to then. I'm for killing as many jobs as necessary as long as I can breath without pain and go outside. I've spent a bit of time in large third world cities where the air polution is far worse than anything we have ever had in the U.S. We are fortunate here.

[nc211]

We are fortunate here, because we are still very much the new kid in the cafeteria (rich kid too). My eyes were opened in 2007, when we went to Europe for the first time. I have pictures of old churches being cleaned by hand of black as midnight film all over them. This film, was mostly from diesel fumes from the cars. We act like we're the leader of humanity, but in reality, we're just the newest flavor. A couple hundred years vs a couple of thousands of years. It shows..

I agree about the rationale of you get what you put in. Spew crap into the air, and it'll come back to haunt you.

But, what can we do about it in a practical fashion that offers the same utility as what we already have, that won't cost more to obtain? Why buy a Volt for $40k, when I can buy a Cruise for $20k and get twice the mileage I was getting from my trade-in Tahoe?

[lenore]

Kill jobs no....using technology to solve the problems yes....Over-regulating, please no. use some common sense.

[SW03ES]

I agree regulation has to make good sense, but we can't do things in an inefficient antiquated way just because doing it that way may employ more people than doing it in a cleaner, more efficient way. Its not just about the environment, its about our own health.

Its a scary time, you think about these auto-checkouts at grocery stores, EZ-Pass instead of toll collectors, no more people manning parking lots and garages...thats automated, e-communication instead of mail, iPads have all your magazines now...that single handedly destroyed the commercial printing and paper industry. My Dad's company did $400M in business in 2007 when he retired, employee owned...400 employees...one of the biggest independent paper merchants in the country...great American family company...this year they were bought out of bankruptcy for $2M with a payroll of 40 people (thank God he retired when he did). You want to talk about killing jobs? Technology and progress is killing jobs.

Should we turn our backs on technology and progress because it kills jobs too? Somehow we have to find a way to create a population that is qualified for the jobs of the 21st century, and create a business climate that brings those jobs here...instead of China or India. The old jobs are gone.

[lenore]

No technology is the future, I fully understand your dad industry, I Worked for Xerox Corporation for 32 years and saw the future of that industry, Hince that is why they evolved into the technology office of the future....

[SW03ES]

Yeah my Dad was in the publication paper business, in the end he ran that division of the company, so he sold paper to printers and also directly to end users, National Geographic, Kiplinger's magazine, lots of others were at one time on his paper, tons of catalogs, corporate annual reports, etc. His company tried to reinvent themselves, they always had a small business products division that sold office and printer paper, envelopes, computers, office furniture etc, like Quill or Staples. They sold the Fine paper and publication divisions about 6 months before they finally folded up but the business products division wasn't enough to bring them out of bankruptcy, and they got bought up by a larger company.

Luckily for himself, he retired in '07 and was able to negotiate a good package to do that and got to enjoy a couple years of retirement...he saw it coming.

[pj8708]

Although we tend to think and speak of technology as a new thing, we know that it has been the driving force of change for thousands of years. Much more so in the last two hundred of course. The benefits of the distance of the arrows flight over the hand thrown spear, or the precise and emotional conversations possible with the telephone over the telegraph. Just think of how much safer a guy and his family was once they developed the tool to chisel stone so they could shape stone into houses. Hard, sturdy houses. Safe from plunder and marauders. And those marauders may have used saddles on their mounts, saddles invented for more comfortable and longer journeys.

The problem in my observations is not technology taking away jobs, it's too many people and not enough jobs. All of us at one time or another think about the desire to duplicate ourselves. Little Paul Jr. or Becky Lou. Probably no one would argue that at least in this country it's up to you what you do in terms of having a family or not. But now that we have hit 3,000,000,000 people in the USA, and 7,000,000,000 for the Earth, it is time to ask if we can afford to continue to procreate at our present rate and still think we can create enough jobs to keep up with the number of baby's born around the world every year. ( Estimates put world population at 8,000,000,000 as soon as 2025).

This is a topic that I have not got a clue how you would begin to solve. It involves individual rights, religious beliefs, oppressive and Totalitarian Governments, the natural laws of nature and creation, as well as the betterment of the species. One place we could start, is to take a long over due look into the abyss of the limited amount of nonrenewable resources and finally agree that the planet cannot sustain all of us forever. There is only so much land in the right types of climate zones on which you can grow food. And that is quickly vanishing.