Global Warming- stop getting so upset

I read abut an experiment that was looking at the effects of CO2 doubling on plants. It showed that when given double the CO2, the plants became twice as large. So this increase in CO2 is increasing the size of our plants and crops, which is essential in feeding the increasing populations of the world.

Huh, you don’t say? Talk about lucking out :roll:

@Field:

F_alk - That’s the reason for not polluting. The earth will survive us. But future human generations may not, along with other species - talk about genocide…Remember, the fate of all species is extinction. Even ours…

A nice quote of one of the ecologists movements in germany:

The nature does not need humans.
But humans need the nature!

@EmuGod:

I read abut an experiment that was looking at the effects of CO2 doubling on plants. It showed that when given double the CO2, the plants became twice as large. So this increase in CO2 is increasing the size of our plants and crops, which is essential in feeding the increasing populations of the world.

Damn stupid plants, why can’t they grow in a few km height, where the CO2 is important for the greenhouse effect….

50/50 chance. The Earth is always either warming up or cooling down.

It is not just a question of warming up, pollution can be dangerous on other level.

@yourbuttocks:

@Yanny:

So just by chance earth is entering a “warm cycle” during the time that we are polluting it most? I don’t believe in coincidences.

50/50 chance. The Earth is always either warming up or cooling down.

And that’s where you use science and it’s models.
To raise the chance of knowing what is happening.
And i would say, we are much better than at a 50/50 chance at the moment, and become more accurate “any minute”.

I prefer to be with crazy people that care about reducing pollution, than to be with crazy people that do not care about our planet.

Well, I’m all in favor of conservation, but within certain bonds. Anyone who thinks we can switch from our polluting habits to a clean environment overnight is totally unfeasible. You can’t just do away with all the industrial buildings or high emission vehicles, it takes time and money. I know of no congressmen that purposely goes out and preaches pollution and environmental destruction, so that shouldn’t be a problem. The problem is figuring what programs to actually implementation, public support (a biggie) the standards and codes, projected effects, and possible consequences (factories being shut down, high cost, loss of jobs, energy crisis). Then you have to fight your way through lobbyist, a major pain.

@FinsterniS:

I prefer to be with crazy people that care about reducing pollution, than to be with crazy people that do not care about our planet.

there is never a middle ground with you, is there?!
it might be nice to spend some time with the first kind of crazy people, and maybe a little time with the other crazy people.
or maybe some time with both.
or how about just spending time with crazy people who care enough about the environment to recycle, bike and walk rather than drive, and only use appliances (see air conditioners) when necessary, but would prefer not to bomb oil refineries . . . .

• lazy crypt

I said i “prefer to be with crazy people that care about reducing pollution”, i did’nt said i prefer to be with extremist. Also “middle” is always subjective, and i don’t know, exept maybe for religion; where i am in an extreme.

Pollution cost a lot to a society, i think this is a very short vision to say trying to counter pollution is damaging the economy. At short term yes, but not at long term. Just in large cities where there is a lot of pollution, there is less oxygen in the air, people tend to be more anxious, more fragile. So it will really damage economy at long term to fight against air pollution (just an exemple)?

@Yanny:

So just by chance earth is entering a “warm cycle” during the time that we are polluting it most? I don’t believe in coincidences.

Ha! If there is warm and cold cycles, there is a 50% chance of one happening, so how is something with that sort of odds have to coincide with the other?

“If extereme enviormentalism causes economic collapse, you are not really doing any good.”

Yeah, be sure to watch out for this, some extreme environmentalist (like my sister) will try to lead you into the path of ruin. One example is nuclear power. A lot of people want to ban nuclear power plants all because of what happened in Chernobyl (gross Soviet negligence; using carbon moderators) and 3 Mile Island (gross American corruption to cut corners in order to save cash). The truth is that a nuclear meltdowns can be averted (some say it is impossible to happen unless someone is purposely trying to cause one) given adequate safeguards. However, the main question for environmentalist is what is to replace them? And what cost? Every form of power has its drawbacks. Power plants produce toxic waste (which shouldn’t be too much of a problem – IF stored properly), oil power plants often pollute, dams destroy the surrounding ecosystem, wind turbines only works at maximum efficiency when it’s windy, and solar power only works at maximum efficiency when it’s sunny. Nuclear fusion (possible, though electromagnetic “force fields” are still in prototype testing and could also lead to critical breakdown)?

“Pollution cost a lot to a society, i think this is a very short vision to say trying to counter pollution is damaging the economy. At short term yes, but not at long term. Just in large cities where there is a lot of pollution, there is less oxygen in the air, people tend to be more anxious, more fragile. So it will really damage economy at long term to fight against air pollution (just an exemple)?”

This is also true. Los Angels alone spends billions of dollars in respiratory related problems due to smog and pollution. However, environmentalism sort of reminds me of A&A (how off topic of me!). In A&A, you have your short term and long-term investments. Short term is for what is to happen now, for example purchasing tanks to prepare for a next turn invasion. Long term is purchasing for the future, for example purchasing a bomber to conduct strategic bombings for the next 5 or so turns. Short term is the quick fix, the economic depression me and YB talked about. Long term is more of what Fin is saying. The question is, how can you find a healthy medium.

Fusion would be safe, as it needs the force fields to be maintained. You have to put in a different kind of energy than you get out (input: electromagnetic energy, output: heat)
It is safe in that sense. Still makes a lot of radioactive contamination though

lazy Falk

@F_alk:

Fusion would be safe, as it needs the force fields to be maintained. You have to put in a different kind of energy than you get out (input: electromagnetic energy, output: heat)
It is safe in that sense. Still makes a lot of radioactive contamination though lazy Falk

True, I think Fusion power is the way to go as a future’s efficient, consistent power source. However, there are two problems that are key to its potential: cost (both in research and procurement) and reliability. On the plus side, Fusion has been demonstrated to be safe to even non-scientist and the cost can eventually become comparable to conventional (fossil fuel, fission). However, I’m unsure of what you mean by “radioactive contamination.” Certainly, fusion is not as harmful as fission. The wastes from a fusion power plant would not require isolation from the environment for a prolonged time span, there are no nuclear proliferation problems, and even the most unlikely accidents would be very limited in their effect (not requiring public evacuation).

@yourbuttocks:

How is your sister extreme? (specificly)

Why don’t ya ask her yourself? But for a hint, one eventual goal is world-wide Vegetarianism.