Welcome to ScubaBoard, an online scuba diving forum community where you can join over 100,000 divers from around the world discussing all things related to Scuba Diving. To gain full access to ScubaBoard you must register for a free account.
As a registered member you will be able to:
Participate in over 500 dive topic forums and browse from over 3,000,000 posts.
Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
Post your own photos or view from 80,000 user submitted images.
Gain access to our free classifieds marketplace to buy, sell and trade gear, travel and services.
Use the calendar to organize your events and enroll in other members' events.
All this and much more is available to you absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact the ScubaBoard Support Team.
Thal and Tassie, it's good to see well substantiated facts introduced to counter the arguments posed by some in this thread. Kudos to you. I must admit I have tired of fighting ignorance and it is time to go diving!
Thanks, I've always believed that ignorance is a curable condition, but the problem is that stupid is for life.
__________________
"Too often ... people enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought" - Leapfrog
"It truly does boil down to motivation ... if you believe something is hard, or unnecessary to learn, you won't learn it ... even if it's completely within your capability" - Bob (Grateful Diver)
Sorry to disappoint Tassie, but I am not a creationist. And, I still don't buy it that we know what is going on. My contention is with the absolute certainty that much of the arguments are made.
Thanks to the mods for re-opening the post.
Firstly, that the world is warming is beyond doubt - this is confirmed not by computer models, or fancy math, but rather from millions of meteorological readings taken over the past 1.5 centuries or so. The fact that computer models, ice cores, tree rings, etc, all confirm this only lends weight to the conclusion.
Its also pretty clear that human activity is responsibly for at least part of the warming. But even if that conclusion is 100% wrong, its pretty much a moot point.
Think of it this way, if we take action there are two possibilities:
a) We are wrong, and it costs us $
b) We are right, and save modern society as we know it, and costs us $
In contrast, if we do nothing:
c) We are right, and we get of scott-free
d) We are wrong, and modern society as we know it falls
So doing something at worst costs money, and at best saves modern society. Doing nothing at best costs nothing, but at worst leads to the end of modern society.
Simply put, there is only one option which is morally correct - to do something. Because to do nothing risks everything - not exactly an ethical bet to be making with our kids and grandkids future.
And just one last comment, about absolute certainty. I've worked as a scientist for over a decade, and I can tell you that 100% certainty does not exist in science - the best you get is a high probability. Certainty can only exist once the event has come to pass - which is far, far to late to do anything about it.
Bryan
__________________
My homepage - www.warthaug.com - articles on SCUBA, the outdoors, and science.
Think of it this way, if we take action there are two possibilities:
a) We are wrong, and it costs us $
b) We are right, and save modern society as we know it, and costs us $
There is a third possibility ...
c) We are right, and there ain't jack we can do that's going to significantly alter the course of events.
According to some accounts I've read, this is a plausible outcome ...
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
__________________
Life is short. Break the rules, forgive quickly, kiss slowly, love deeply, laugh uncontrollably, and never regret anything that makes you smile.
c) We are right, and there ain't jack we can do that's going to significantly alter the course of events.
According to some accounts I've read, this is a plausible outcome ...
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
Fourth possibility. We're right, we take action, and the outcome is the opposite of the goal. We have, unbelievably, been wrong many times in the past.
There will always be extremist (both ways), moderates, concerned and the indifferent. They all have some validity in their opinion somewhere. I feel a solution will fall somewhere near the middle and will no doubt be a technological solution. Just think, if a new clean fuel energy source is discovered, the need for many carbon based fuels becomes a minor part of energy program. The oil producing nations fall out of the headlines. Time passes and the new clean fuel has produced a new side effect no one considered and the cycle begins anew.
I’m headed in the direction of recycling waste to energy. This way, both problems get solved.
__________________
Dave
Going to Great Depths to Help our Oceans! SCUBA Diving for a Cause – the San Diego Oceans Foundation kicks off “Dive-a-Thon” this July
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.
Just think, if a new clean fuel energy source is discovered, the need for many carbon based fuels becomes a minor part of energy program. The oil producing nations fall out of the headlines. Time passes and the new clean fuel has produced a new side effect no one considered and the cycle begins anew.
]
Bio diesel becomes the fuel of the future and all the world will come after the bread basket of the US, Argentina, Australia, where it'll be produced...the new Saudi Arabias of energy supply.
But you're absolutely right. Many of the significant side effects of any big change are unforseeable.
I just read that biodiesel will have a big impact on the pH of ocean due to all the water contamination with fertilizer, crop run-off, etc (which is a bigger problem for reefs than even the temperature shift)
I got a brochure on this car in the mail the other day....they must have me mistaken for somebody. It is a very cool car, if H2 was just easier to produce. Nuclear production..maybe.
Frankly I see Bio-Diesel as an interim fix. It, being carbon based, it still pollutes albeit less than gasoline. I see car/trucks moving to a more organic fuel like alcohol or alcohol/electric hybrid. Besides, with existing technologies, cars and truck emissions are being reduced considerably.
The big energy users/consumers/polluters are power plants and ships. This is where a safe alternative fuel source needs to be focused.
A promising idea is plasma power plants. In addition, using small, safe nuclear reactors for commercial shipping would also go a long way in reducing emission and carbon consumption. The down side is what to do with the waste. This too is a potential new market. Imagine a company that has figured out a method to remove the radioactive activity of nuclear waste. The other big issue is how do you give/sell this technology to hostile governments?
__________________
Dave
Going to Great Depths to Help our Oceans! SCUBA Diving for a Cause – the San Diego Oceans Foundation kicks off “Dive-a-Thon” this July
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.
c) We are right, and there ain't jack we can do that's going to significantly alter the course of events.
But we will never know if we don't try. And when you think of the course of action that could make an impact, it isn't exactly challenging. For example, over the past few years I've made kinda-enviro sensitive decisions:
1) When my old car went to the giant scrap heap in the sky I bought a fuel-efficient car to replace it.
2) I've been replacing my incandescents with miniflouros, as the incadencet lights burn out
3) I'm moving at the end of October, and made a point of getting a place close to my work (no more f*&%%$#ing commutes, just a short bike ride away)
So my life is now cheaper and more convenient, and yet I've managed to cut my CO2 release by over 60%.
Obviously some of those are more difficult for most people (i.e. moving), but at the end of the day all three of those things save me money and time, and also cut CO2. Win-win for everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank49
We're right, we take action, and the outcome is the opposite of the goal
If the problem is excess CO2, then reducing CO2 reduces the problem. We are now at the point where climate change is considered inevitable. All we're trying to do is limit the extent of the problem.
Take biofuels (to hijack another part of the thread). The carbon in those fuels comes from the CO2 in the air, so in a perfect world your net CO2 is zero. It doesn't work out this way, but at least for biodiesel you should end up releasing less CO2 then if you use regular diesel. Not a perfect solution, but it does have the effect of limiting CO2 release while we look for a better solution.
Bryan
__________________
My homepage - www.warthaug.com - articles on SCUBA, the outdoors, and science.
We have, unbelievably, been wrong many times in the past.
Linear Mode
