Global Warming

[speed]

No one ever wants to hear the side that argues against global warming. It's next to impossible to find unbiased info on the subject.

In spite of x acres of rainforest being destroyed each day, less than 1% of the rainforest has been destroyed.

People talk about the icecaps melting, but we probably only have records of the icecaps since we've developed satellite imagery. Maybe I'm overlooking some other method, but I can't imagine we've been able to calculate that for more than 50 years. Perhaps ice levels do fluctuate a bit.

Most of the things you read about GW are written by people with some sort of extreme agenda. The evidence for GW is still rather sketchy and tends to fail to look at climate outside of the box of the last 30 years.

I agree, finding an unbiased opinion is hard in terms of this subject--thus my shock when I read the British government's report, and my resulting thread.

Second, I know you have conservative views from prior posts.

And third, I have a masters degree in economics and international development. Ive read the pro and cons in terms of the economics in a variety of academic papers. The cons for global warming were never by respected scientists, and were generally all economists. They had a number of good ideas; but, the evidence just seems to be mounting on the opposite side. Every country but the United States, would not ratify Kyoto--with the negative econ implications--if the threat was not real.

 

[derek]

I still think it is clear mankind could still do alot more to harm the environment alot less.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

another reason why I wish something bad would happen to the human race. (ie loss of 90% of the population would be a good start)

We are fucking this planet.

 

[speed]

Even if you are right Judas, and we have minimal impact. Pollution caused by automobile emissions, many chemical byproducts, etc, all do harm human health. This is fact. Hence, I dont see what would be wrong with say switching over to 85% Ethanol gas that many of our cars have been designed to use, or using Hemp, or promoting more eco-friendly, and pollution free practices. Even if global warming isnt affected, we are still creating a better, more healthy environment for everyone.

 

[Susperia]

The problem you have is with nature, not man. You're so far off the mark it's funny.

You're so arrogant and brainwashed it's not even funny.

 

[Susperia]

No one ever wants to hear the side that argues against global warming. It's next to impossible to find unbiased info on the subject.

In spite of x acres of rainforest being destroyed each day, less than 1% of the rainforest has been destroyed.

People talk about the icecaps melting, but we probably only have records of the icecaps since we've developed satellite imagery. Maybe I'm overlooking some other method, but I can't imagine we've been able to calculate that for more than 50 years. Perhaps ice levels do fluctuate a bit.

Most of the things you read about GW are written by people with some sort of extreme agenda. The evidence for GW is still rather sketchy and tends to fail to look at climate outside of the box of the last 30 years.

I agree that global warming is NOT a definite fact, yet. However, what you said about only 1% of rainforest being destroyed is so so untrue. In America alone about 90% of our forests are gone. If you live in America, near any coast, just look around you. What you're looking at used to be vast acres and acres of forest.

 

[Scott W]

In my short ecology carrier, I can say with a fair bit of confidence that no scientific literature supports the idea that our planet is heating up this quickly due to natural causes. The peer review literature overwhelmingly supports the idea that human CO2 emissions are causing serious problems.

The problem is, the conservatives fool us by focusing on the "debate" (that doesnt exist in the literature), rather than letting people decide what to do about it. Thats what we need to discuss, how do we get pollution down to manageable levels? That has to do with the greening of business and the restraint of capitalism...two things that wont come easily.

 

[MasterOLightning]

I agree that global warming is NOT a definite fact, yet. However, what you said about only 1% of rainforest being destroyed is so so untrue. In America alone about 90% of our forests are gone. If you live in America, near any coast, just look around you. What you're looking at used to be vast acres and acres of forest.

That is just not true. There are more trees in America today than 100 years ago. The lumber industry plants more trees than it cuts down. That just makes business sense for them. I've taken a geography class. America still has extremely abundant forest lands.

Besides, the rainforests are being cut down to build infrastructure for developing countries, usually. Not a terrible end there.

 

[Scott W]

That is just not true. There are more trees in America today than 100 years ago. The lumber industry plants more trees than it cuts down. That just makes business sense for them. I've taken a geography class. America still has extremely abundant forest lands.

Besides, the rainforests are being cut down to build infrastructure for developing countries, usually. Not a terrible end there.

No, what you said is just not true. There is no way in hell that there are more forests now then there were 100 years ago, or before colonization...did you get that statistic from rush limbaugh? jesus. Taking a geography class and commenting on ecology is like me saying ive taken sociology so I can speak with authority on psychology. They are unrelated.

 

[speed]

No, what you said is just not true. There is no way in hell that there are more forests now then there were before colonization...did you get that statistic from rush limbaugh? jesus. Taking a geography class and commenting on ecology is like me saying ive taken sociology so I can speak with authorite on psychology. They are unrelated.

I think he misread Susperia's original post. Because actually, from 100 years ago, he is right; obviously pre-colonization he is very wrong.

This is sort of turning into a pitched battle isnt it? Me, Susperia, and Scott W, against Judas and Master of Lightning. But we really havent gotten anywhere, but we all seem to agree that global warming is occurring.

A little argument is always fun. I only wish I still had computer access to academic journals, to do a little browsing.

 

[MasterOLightning]

From http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1115-forests.html

The United States has the seventh largest annual loss of primary forests in the world, according to FAO. In the 2000-2005 period, the United States lost an average of 831 square miles (215,200 hectares, 2,152 square kilometers or 531,771 acres) of such lands which are sometimes termed "old-growth forests."


Highest deforestation of natural forests, 2000-2005. All countries. Credits: R. Butler
EDIT: should be a graph here.

Overall, when plantations are added to the picture, the US gained a net 614 square miles (159,000 hectares) of forest per year. The FAO report suggests America's primary forests are losing ground to modified natural, seminatural, and plantation forests.

This is coming from what appears to be an ecoliberal site. It supports my claim that the amount of trees in the country is growing.

 

[Scott W]

I think he misread Susperia's original post. Because actually, from 100 years ago, he is right; obviously pre-colonization he is very wrong.

This is sort of turning into a pitched battle isnt it? Me, Susperia, and Scott W, against Judas and Master of Lightning. But we really havent gotten anywhere, but we all seem to agree that global warming is occurring.

A little argument is always fun. I only wish I still had computer access to academic journals, to do a little browsing.

Actually, according to paleobotany, by 1930, only 13% of the forest that covered america at colonization remained. And in the 60 years since that, we have lost half of that 13%. So its never gone back up. We are still losing forest land. If you dont believe me, you should see how things are growing in northern Arizona, and consider how much of the forest is being lost to growth alone, and not the paper industry.

 

[Scott W]

From http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1115-forests.html

This is coming from what appears to be an ecoliberal site. It supports my claim that the amount of trees in the country is growing.

Number of trees and the amount of forest are completely different things.

 

[speed]

Actually, according to paleobotany, by 1930, only 13% of the forest that covered america at colonization remained. And in the 60 years since that, we have lost half of that 13%. So its never gone back up. We are still losing forest land. If you dont believe me, you should see how things are growing in northern Arizona, and consider how much of the forest is being lost to growth alone, and not the paper industry.

Well I am sure the old growth is being lost, but I just read in National Geographic, that forest coverage is going up. And for all those suburbs, there are little towns disappearing.

 

[Scott W]

Well I am sure the old growth is being lost, but I just read in National Geographic, that forest coverage is going up. And for all those suburbs, there are little towns disappearing.

Assuming that is true, population is increasing. There are more people living everywhere, regardless of rural vs urban. Phoenix is expanding, LA is expanding...hell, the entire west coast of california is primed to become one continuous city. More and more i hear people say they want land. A house on a big lot, all of that comes from land. My girlfriend lives in leesburg virginia. Thats a suburb of DC right under the beltway. her county is one of the fastest growing counties in the country. Every time I go there, I see new houses where forest used to be. While I admit that it may be possible that forest coverage is increasing in some areas, from what ive heard, we are still losing the battle, adjusting for tree farms, which arent forests.

 

[Scott W]

"The U.S. Agriculture Department," according to ABC News, "says America has 749 million acres of forestland. In 1920, we had 735 million acres of forest. We have more forest now. How can that be? One reason is technology that allows us to grow five times more food per acre -- so we need less farmland. Lots of what once was farmland has reverted to forest."

Now this I can agree with. Although i think it has partly to do with outsourcing, just as much as any increase in technology, but that does make sense. However, be that as it may, while forest is increasing where farmland used to be, its still decreasing everywhere that there is expansion in forested areas. Not all loss is to agriculture or mining, or paper. In addition, what the USDA counts as "forest" is interesting: "As trees grow, they expand to reach the 10-percent canopy cover used to define forest land, which changes the pastureland classification to forest use." Sounds like what they are counting as forest, and what a real forest actually is, are 2 different things. It even says that grazing continues on some areas counted as "forests". No grazing can occur on the forest floor of a dense forest that was found here before it was cut down.


Id also like to point out that the US dept of Ag admits that humans are a substantial cause of global warming.

A couple more interesting facts I found from the department of agriculture and the US forest service respectively:

1. "Land shifting into urban uses seldom shifts back. In 15 years, only 3,000 acres shifted from urban into agricultural uses, whereas 13.9 million acres (28 percent) shifted from agricultural to urban uses. "

2. "Net loss of U.S. forests from roads, buildings, and urban expansion is expected to be 28 million acres over the next 50 years, by the year 2040."

 

[Susperia]

Besides, the rainforests are being cut down to build infrastructure for developing countries, usually. Not a terrible end there.

Yeah and don't forget for McDonald's cows *rolls eyes.

Rainforest soil is different from regular forest soil. Once you cut down trees, it is very difficult to get them to grow again. As well as to grow anything, including food.

Believe it or not, Rainforests are responsible for 80% of our oxygen.

 

[infoterror]

Those that believe in Global warming are those that are following the majority of evidence.

Useful reading

I don't believe in global warming. I believe humanity is overpopulated, and there's going to be a whole load of ecosystemic changes. Global warming - more accurately called "climate change" - is one part of it. Pollution, extinction, and lack of resources will also follow.

 

[derek]

Infoterror, set out the path you would (ideally) like humanity to follow in the future, if you will. I'm interested just to see what you'll say. I can gauge some of your views from posts, but I'm curious as to what you hope the bigger picture will paint itself in as.

 

[Norsemaiden]

We will all have to get used to the idea that the Earth's resources are finite and that we must stop producing so much. Would anyone dare to put on a rock concert with the slogan "Make Poverty the Future"?