John Reimer escribió:
> 
> 
> Why is CO2 a bad thing?  Don't plants use it for photosynthesis?  Wouldn't it make our planet a greener place?  Wouldn't it encourage growth of trees and plants that industrialization destroys?
> 
> Pollution seems to an important issue to deal with for health reasons alone, but I don't know how increased CO2 is going to destroy us any faster than disease, war, and bad health habits.
> 
> -JJR

I don't know for sure how everything affects everything else, but I think that even the slightest changes can alter the world in ways that can't really predict. And it won't only affect human beings, but also plants and animals. But everything is ultimately related, so I don't think it's that easy to just "more trees, great!" That's why I think we should try to disturb nature as few as possible, just because we don't know.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

I'm glad this version emits less greenhouse gases.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:43:45 -0800, Chris Miller <chris@dprogramming.com> wrote:

> I'm glad this version emits less greenhouse gases.


Yet, this version seems to engender a burst of greenhouse gas /comments/... curious. :)

Walter Bright wrote:
> Kristian Kilpi wrote:
>> And of course cigarette companies. They *knew* 30 year ago that cigarettes is harmful and will cause cancer, they just didn't publish that information.
> 
> Cigarette smoking being harmful to health has been known for 400 years. There was no secret about it. The doctors certainly knew about it. Anyone who did an autopsy on a smoker knew about it. My father said that when he grew up before WW2 the kids called cigarettes "coffin nails."

The propaganda to the contrary must have been just too effective.

I've just been reminded of the slogan "Guinness is good for you" that was around when my family went on holiday to Ireland something like a decade ago.  By a quick search, I've found this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3266819.stm

But "A Guinness a day" must be an easy way to use up a significant portion of one's safe alcohol limit.

> Way more than 30 years ago, I knew cigs were harmful and would kill you, and that's why I didn't take up smoking. It was common knowledge.
> 
> It's like beer. I remember back as a teenager, a friend of mine was swigging beer. He'd joke about the billions of brain cells he was deliberately killing with each gulp. He also smoked, and his doctor told him his shortness of breath was caused by his smoking.
> 
> Smokers and drinkers know, and knew. They just don't (and didn't) care. I've talked to young smokers today. They know all about the health risks. They just don't care.

That still leaves one to wonder their motives for taking it up, and why they care about these.

FTM, do they have any idea how much money they're spending on their habit?

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

David Medlock wrote:
> Don Clugston wrote:
> 
>> David Medlock wrote:
>>
>>> - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 + more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and double blind studies, not a 'consensus'.
>>
>>
>> Please rephrase. There is plenty of evidence of CO2 caused by humans. There is no evidence of CO2 caused by humans, which you find convincing.
>>
>> Yet I think you've got your facts seriously wrong here. I've never heard anyone doubt the link between CO2 and humanity before. Likewise, the link between CO2 and direct effect on global temperature are also very well established; it's a very simple calculation.
>>
> What I meant was: there is no evidence human-caused Co2 is causing global *catastrophic* climate change.  This is the basis of the Kyoto protocols.

Does it really matter what's causing it, if we could do something to stop it, and we don't?

> 
> There are factors you just can't work into a calculation, Don.  Of course humans produce C02, biologically and industrially.  Equating it with global climate change is another issue.  People have calculated we would run out of food before the 21st century too, that never happened either.
> 
> I was wrong about the 1 degree C increase in the 1900s, it was 0.6 degrees Celsius(source:IPCC).  We have been keeping records since 1880.
> 
> www.junkscience.com  has some calculations to disprove the doom and gloom.  They have a standing challenge for someone to prove it otherwise.
> 
> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
I doubt the reliability of your chosen source.

> 
> Five or ten years of data is almost nothing in terms of historical weather.  You need at least 30 to 50 to make any valid conclusions.  You know what, 30 years ago they were talking global cooling and a coming ice age!

There will be a next ice age.  The big melt comes first.

> 
> In the 1600s a plant was weighed, then watered for 5 years.  In that time the plant increased from 5 to 169 lbs, but the soil remained the same weight.  This means the weight came from water, C02 and sunlight.
> 
> Experiments on plants have shown that even at C02 levels of 30,000 ppm there was no negative effects. (Wittwer and Robb, 1964)

I've seen several reports that dispute this.  Some plants will grow better than others in high CO2 environments.  (One of the beneficiaries is poison ivy...it also becomes equipped with a more concentrated poison.)  Most plants will have fewer vitamins and minerals per ounce.  May be good for the plants, but not for us.

> 
> Logically the conclusion is that the ecosystem is quite capable of adapting to increased C02 levels.

??  Well, yes, given sufficient time and freedom to move.  Of course a large number of species will go extinct in the process, but given enough time new species will arise.  That seems a very strange position for a person to take, however, as "enough time" is in the millions of years.

> 
> Given that and the less than one-degree temperature increase in the last 100 years, why exactly should I pay double(or more) for my fuels/goods?
> Why should progress be stagnated over what is just a theory?
> 
> Why are countries like India and China left out of Kyoto, they will soon be the major contributors to C02 emissions?  Why was this year a nonexistant hurricane season?

Weather is variable from year to year.  A single year doesn't prove ANYTHING.  (Neither does a warm autumn in Finland.  But if you already believe, you may see it as an indicator.)

> 
> Believe what you will, but don't confuse consensus and politics with science.
> 
> Sorry for the off-topic thread. I will cease posting to this topic now.
> 
> -DavidM

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:42:07 -0800, Carlos Santander <csantander619@gmail.com> wrote:

> John Reimer escribió:
>>   Why is CO2 a bad thing?  Don't plants use it for photosynthesis?  Wouldn't it make our planet a greener place?  Wouldn't it encourage growth of trees and plants that industrialization destroys?
>>  Pollution seems to an important issue to deal with for health reasons alone, but I don't know how increased CO2 is going to destroy us any faster than disease, war, and bad health habits.
>>  -JJR
>
> I don't know for sure how everything affects everything else, but I think that even the slightest changes can alter the world in ways that can't really predict. And it won't only affect human beings, but also plants and animals. But everything is ultimately related, so I don't think it's that easy to just "more trees, great!" That's why I think we should try to disturb nature as few as possible, just because we don't know.
>


What constitutes a disturbance of nature?  What defines nature?  Is nature something that excludes all human activity? Why?

Of course, nothing is so simple.  But if CO2 emmission is a central problem of greenhouse gases (greenhouses are for growing things, remember :) ), then the questions need to be answered, especially since all those plants provide us with the O2 we breath.  But apparently nobody really knows the answer because there are too many variables in the whole system to take into account? Meanwhile, we do know that sunlight, water, heat, and CO2 cause plants to grow readily.  More plants mean more water containment as well. Animals eat plants for survival.  And humans use animals and plants as further resources. It goes on.

In regard to global warming, the current predictions are of some sort of cataclysmic eventuality that humans are generating as result of CO2 production; isn't it more likely that some cataclysmic event will occur external to the system (solar or meteor related) than what's initiated by man's apparent CO2 contribution? If nature is unpredictable, and we are part of nature, what comparative portion of CO2 emissions do we contribute compared to the other parts of nature?  Are not those emissions "bad" also?

Do forest fires (which occur regularly in many parts of the world) constitute "bad" sources of co2?  Are these fires only "bad" sources if set off by man?  Are they "good" and normal if set off by lightning because that seems more natural?  Is man part of nature?  Nature disturbs itself all the time.  So how do we make moral decisions on what is really bad?  Where does the moral order of "bad" and "good" come from anyway?  What are the influences of these "natural" disruptions on this nature that we consider so fragile?

Of course, all of the questions have little meaning beyond a concrete motivational framework.  We need concrete reasons to be stewards of this earth, not abstract unknowns and ambiguous interpretations/predictions of future events.

What is the motivation for avoiding pollution of the earth and environment?  Primary motives will simply be that of conservation of life and resources for the purpose of existance (beyond any worldview-related obligation).  It's within the human's best interests to protect their environment to the best of their ability if they want to preserve their state of being. Once again, though, concrete reasons for environmental management (even though this might constitute environmental interferance!) serve a stronger motive than those debatable reasons related to green-house gases.  If we make decisions on predictions of unknowns, we very well may be doing worse for ourselves and the environment and wasting tons of money in the process (something politicians are very good at).  If we make decisions based on known destructive tendancies of pollutive emissions, than I think we have solid evidence for policy making.

In summary, saying that greenhouse gases are "bad" because of an unpredictable affects on fragile ecosystems is no more helpful than saying we can fix the world by plugging volcanoes with corks or by installing giant lightning rods in forests.  Nature itself is unpredictable, produces massive amounts green-house gases /unpredictably/ through many "natural" sources, and destroys and regenerates itself cyclicly. Let the scientists debate it all they want and plot their graphs of variable reliability concerning past changes.  I think people need to stop depending on them for making moral decisions: their "right" and "wrong" are mercurial. There are better reasons to look after the world we live in.

-JJR

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:05:03 +0200, Walter Bright <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Kristian Kilpi wrote:
>> And of course cigarette companies. They *knew* 30 year ago that cigarettes is harmful and will cause cancer, they just didn't publish that information.
>
> Cigarette smoking being harmful to health has been known for 400 years. There was no secret about it. The doctors certainly knew about it. Anyone who did an autopsy on a smoker knew about it. My father said that when he grew up before WW2 the kids called cigarettes "coffin nails."
>
> Way more than 30 years ago, I knew cigs were harmful and would kill you, and that's why I didn't take up smoking. It was common knowledge.
> Smokers and drinkers know, and knew. They just don't (and didn't) care.

When I was a kid, I'm glad that we were informed about the harms of smoking in the school. So I didn't start smoking. I 'dared' not to smoke.

But not all know the hazards of smoking (or drinking). Any country that does not have a smoking culture developed yet, or in which children aren't educated so much, is free game for cigarette companies. And that's highly immoral in my opinion! They direct ads to young people (potential smokers) and send a message: if you start smoking, you will get rich and popular. And lets then sponsor some movie stars, racing drives, etc. so that they will advertise cigarettes.


> I've talked to young smokers today. They know all about the health risks. They just don't care.

That's a shame.

I think something else could be more effective than telling about health risks (of course, one should also tell about health risks too). Using humour is one thing. To make them see how funny and/or stupid it's walking around and sucking a paper wrapper.

For young adults I would create the following humorous TV ad (everybody, use your imagination):

A young, cool guy and his babe are getting intimate in their bed room. The guy dumbs his cigarette, and the girl is laying in the bed, ready (lingeries still on of course, this isnt't a porn movie you know). The guy looks down (at his groin), but nothing happens. "C'mon!", he yells in frustation, "Don't fail me know!". But nothing helps. The camera transfers outside the department, and there is painful (and loud) "noooooo!" which fades in the night. In the screen appears: "Cigarettes cause impotence." And maybe after that: "That's why girls pick guys that don't smoke."


Another thing that can be a worth of mentioning, is the need to smoke time after time. You will be a slave so to speak. Let's say you need to go smoking at every hour. Now, for example, when you're going to watch a movie in a local theather. You have to smoke before going in (for obvious reasons), and still you'll have an urge for smoking at the middle of the movie. If you can't resist, you will have to go to outside the theather to smoke. But if don't go, you'll be watching the clock the rest of the movie. And what if you can't smoke inside your house, etc.? I think it's very annoying to stop everything you were doing after an hour and go to out to smoke. Day after day, hour after hour.

John Reimer escribió:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:42:07 -0800, Carlos Santander <csantander619@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> I don't know for sure how everything affects everything else, but I think that even the slightest changes can alter the world in ways that can't really predict. And it won't only affect human beings, but also plants and animals. But everything is ultimately related, so I don't think it's that easy to just "more trees, great!" That's why I think we should try to disturb nature as few as possible, just because we don't know.
>>
> 
> 
> What constitutes a disturbance of nature?  What defines nature?  Is nature something that excludes all human activity? Why?
> 

Like I said, I don't know.

> Of course, nothing is so simple.  But if CO2 emmission is a central problem of greenhouse gases (greenhouses are for growing things, remember :) ), then the questions need to be answered, especially since all those plants provide us with the O2 we breath.  But apparently nobody really knows the answer because there are too many variables in the whole system to take into account? Meanwhile, we do know that sunlight, water, heat, and CO2 cause plants to grow readily.  More plants mean more water containment as well. Animals eat plants for survival.  And humans use animals and plants as further resources. It goes on.
> 
> In regard to global warming, the current predictions are of some sort of cataclysmic eventuality that humans are generating as result of CO2 production; isn't it more likely that some cataclysmic event will occur external to the system (solar or meteor related) than what's initiated by man's apparent CO2 contribution? If nature is unpredictable, and we are part of nature, what comparative portion of CO2 emissions do we contribute compared to the other parts of nature?  Are not those emissions "bad" also?
> 
> Do forest fires (which occur regularly in many parts of the world) constitute "bad" sources of co2?  Are these fires only "bad" sources if set off by man?  Are they "good" and normal if set off by lightning because that seems more natural?  Is man part of nature?  Nature disturbs itself all the time.  So how do we make moral decisions on what is really bad?  Where does the moral order of "bad" and "good" come from anyway?  What are the influences of these "natural" disruptions on this nature that we consider so fragile?
> 
> Of course, all of the questions have little meaning beyond a concrete motivational framework.  We need concrete reasons to be stewards of this earth, not abstract unknowns and ambiguous interpretations/predictions of future events.
> 
> What is the motivation for avoiding pollution of the earth and environment?  Primary motives will simply be that of conservation of life and resources for the purpose of existance (beyond any worldview-related obligation).  It's within the human's best interests to protect their environment to the best of their ability if they want to preserve their state of being. Once again, though, concrete reasons for environmental management (even though this might constitute environmental interferance!) serve a stronger motive than those debatable reasons related to green-house gases.  If we make decisions on predictions of unknowns, we very well may be doing worse for ourselves and the environment and wasting tons of money in the process (something politicians are very good at).  If we make decisions based on known destructive tendancies of pollutive emissions, than I think we have solid evidence for policy making.
> 
> In summary, saying that greenhouse gases are "bad" because of an unpredictable affects on fragile ecosystems is no more helpful than saying we can fix the world by plugging volcanoes with corks or by installing giant lightning rods in forests.  Nature itself is unpredictable, produces massive amounts green-house gases /unpredictably/ through many "natural" sources, and destroys and regenerates itself cyclicly. Let the scientists debate it all they want and plot their graphs of variable reliability concerning past changes.  I think people need to stop depending on them for making moral decisions: their "right" and "wrong" are mercurial. There are better reasons to look after the world we live in.
> 
> -JJR

You're right, but what I think is this: Earth is 4.5e9 years old, while humans have only existed for 1.3e5 years (according to Wikipedia), and no other species seems to have affected the Earth so rapidly as humans have (specially in the last couple of centuries.) You point out volcanoes, lightings, and forest fires, but they have been here far longer than us, so (in a way) Earth has already adapted to them. Has it adapted to us? The result of what we humans are doing is still unknown, and that uncertainty is what I fear.

I'm sorry if I'm being too close-minded here, but this feels too much like treating with a new person: until you know how they will react to each thing you might say or do, you have to be careful in everything. That's it. I'm also sorry I can't come up with more logical reasons, and instead base my decisions on fear.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

>> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
> I doubt the reliability of your chosen source.

Why? On the contrary, what I like about that source (thank you David
for letting me know about it), is that they don't *just* say "I doubt
the reliability of <whatever-they-don't-agree-with>." They also offer
/a little bit more/ information about the WHY... ;)

--
Tom;

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:58:28 -0800, Carlos Santander <csantander619@gmail.com> wrote:


>
> You're right, but what I think is this: Earth is 4.5e9 years old, while humans have only existed for 1.3e5 years (according to Wikipedia), and no other species seems to have affected the Earth so rapidly as humans have (specially in the last couple of centuries.) You point out volcanoes, lightings, and forest fires, but they have been here far longer than us, so (in a way) Earth has already adapted to them. Has it adapted to us? The result of what we humans are doing is still unknown, and that uncertainty is what I fear.
>


Okay... wikipedia is making some pretty assertive claims if it knows how old this earth is, or the universe for that matter.  Most honest scientists wouldn't even claim that. I'm not surprised, I guess, given that being the "popular" belief.  The age seems to change every year.

None of that is science.  None of it is scientifically verifiable.  It's based on assumptions and presumptions, much of it inprecise and outrageous.  It's the age-old problem of origins, metaphysics, and philosophy.  Science has no business there; nor can it prove the truth of such an ancient existance: it has no mastery of time such that it can look back "millions of years" to be first hand witnesses to such events.


> I'm sorry if I'm being too close-minded here, but this feels too much like treating with a new person: until you know how they will react to each thing you might say or do, you have to be careful in everything. That's it. I'm also sorry I can't come up with more logical reasons, and instead base my decisions on fear.
>


Hey, no problem... this is not necessarily a good place to get into this, Carlos, and I appreciate your input.  But, I must say you sure opened a "whole can of worms" with your earth dates. ;)

-JJR