Global Warming - Enough is enough

Hello, I am currently taking a geography class called "World Climate Change". Now I knew about the mainstream global warming-lower co2 emission and the going green buzz.

I also know about the disturbingly large amount of evidence that is piling up against the CO2 case. This brings me back to my class. Knowing the information not mainstreamed by the media this class is absolutely driving me crazy. My teacher constantly praises Al Gore and continues to emphasize the importance of the CO2 tax and "Sustainable Development".

In fact, now that I am forced to read all these reports about the World Summit, Bali, Kyoto etc... I am beginning to realize how much society is getting suckered in. I am even learning disturbing news from the class : My teacher loves to emphasis how "informed" the new generation is about global warming and is very gleeful that children in developing nations are taught about Global Warming and CO2 etc....

The sad part about all this is how I can't even voice my opinion due to ridicule and the almost certain drop in my grades as a result. I simply don't understand these people. No, I am not saying we should pollute and rape the Earth without thinking twice BUT the solution should definitely NOT be a global CO2 tax, given that CO2 is one of the least contributing factors to global warming.

What about giving a tax relief for all those who want to reduce CO2 emissions instead of taxing the "guilty" and the innocent alike. If our lovely Governments wanted to lower CO2 emissions, why not CUT taxes for those who comply?

"What do you mean no tax money? How else are we going to fund the NWO infrastructure?"

Ridiculous....

Sustainability has been a buzzowrd for many years now and in many different industries, and to me, making our resources last as long as we can, by recycling or using less makes perfect sense.

I have never been an advocate of anthropogenic global warming and al bores film is just a joke, which can be seen here

There are some other very good links on the same page that are worth a read, if only to give a different perspective.

I've yet to find anyone on here who refutes what the different links have to say, so I assume they are pretty good.

In my opinion, anyone who cites al bore is a bit of a pillock and shouldn't be allowed in front of a class, but that's only MY opinion.

Originally posted by vegno
The sad part about all this is how I can't even voice my opinion due to ridicule and the almost certain drop in my grades as a result. I simply don't understand these people. No, I am not saying we should pollute and rape the Earth without thinking twice BUT the solution should definitely NOT be a global CO2 tax, given that CO2 is one of the least contributing factors to global warming.

welcome to the (un)education system! I agree, it's sad you can't even question it, without some idiots screaming "OMG! You WANT pollution!??"

Nah scientist, what they usually do is come after you with flaming torches shouting;
"KILL THE HERETIC"

reply to post by scientist


Yeah, but those idiots are just misguided.

I have found if you disagree with global warming or propose a new idea like the op has (the tax relief option, which i think is pretty good), you always get put in the "i dont care about the environment category)

In my opinion the earth goes through long term cooling and warming periods. As of present we are in a heating period, which may be accelerated or enhanced with the higher number of CO2 particulars being pumped into the atmosphere. Its hard to say for sure that global warming is occuring due to the lack of historical climatic data. Weather data only goes back 150 years maximum (only 100 years here in Australia). Maybe you should bring that fact to your lecturers attention.

Either way, taxing large CO2 producers or providing tax relief for people not producing as much CO2 will be good for the environment

Actually I am really debating as to whether I should bring a or a couple of valid points in class. The thing that really has me hesitating is that the whole class is essentially the same people who support peta, vegetarians, and green peace people. I am NOT exagerating. These people usually do not take kindly to any alternative ideologies concerning climate.

On a side note, some totally unachievable project was brought up. I quote from my notes.

"UN Millennium Development Goals

"A concrete action plan to the world to reverse the grinding poverty, hunger and disease affecting billions of people" by the year 2015

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
   
2. Promote gender equality and empower women
   
3. Ensure environmental sustainability
   
4. etc...
   

My jaw dropped. Here I have a teacher telling me in a very serious tone that we will eradicate poverty by 2015. Notice how this "millennium plan" incorporates poverty, women, and global climate. W.T.F?
How about...how many billions will be spend on a project that will go nowhere.
I swear...it really takes effort on my part to not drop this class.

In any case, if I do decide to go along with my plan, what points do you think
are hard the most hard hitting ones?

Record refreezing of the north pole?

Natural heating/cooling periods?

Or what about General Solar system warming (due to the sun)?

And a last one, what about NASA confirming that there will be cooling period beginning this spring?

Let me know, I appreciate your feedback.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by vegno]

[edit on 21-1-2008 by vegno]

Yup, I think you should stand up and challenge your teacher/lecturer.

Tell them exactly how you feel. Tell them that CO2 is not the cause of warming, and that it is due to....errrm, whatever you think it is.

Maybe ask him if you can submit coursework on this exact issue. If solar, find the recent data supporting such an argument. Just make sure it is supported by real evidence.

If you can put a good piece of work together, I would submit it to a top journal and show all those silly scientists how wrong they are.

in my experience, it hasn't been worth the trouble to do that type of thing in a non-debate class. You aren't going to convince the teacher... maybe some students.

but you also may ruin your grade in doing so. it's happened to me plenty of times.

Melatonin..
You know very well that there are some very serious scientists and serious science on both sides of this debate. I would have thought better of anyone in this forum than to discourage this young person from holding a different view and expressing this in a class of his/her peers.

I would have though we should be encouraging rather than disparaging (if you can find the data... what is that !!!!). We need people who think differently and we have to be tolerant of those with whom we violently disagree. Please tell me this post caught you on a bad day and the 24 hour rule should have been in place.
I love your debate style as it is factual, punchy and very entertaining, but this sarcasm to a high school student (I presume) .... hhhhmmm please...

I am scientist myself, not in the Environmental side admittedly, and have been aware of climate arguments for years. When I did my first degree, CFCs and the ozone layer were the thing whereas global warming was second rank. Now, it's become a political reality (an oxymoron if ever there was one) and they're levying tax.

You should try getting in touch with your government, as I have, to ask them why carbon taxes aren't ringfenced to fund science and technology aimed at finding alternative energy sources. The answer is hilarious and infuriating at the same time. Apparently, we need to be made to modify our behaviour and (some) governments impose taxes to discourage certain activities. What they do with the money they collect is up to them, of course.

You should examine your teacher's credentials on Global Warming. Ask them whether they think that methane is a significant greenhouse gas (its far worse than CO2). Ask them how much CO2 volcanoes produce each year compared to the human race. If you suspect you're surrounded by Greenpeace you might ask if cutting carbon emissions is the Holy Grail, then why not let's use more nuclear power?

By the way, I don't dispute Global Warming but I'm still in the undecided stage about whether it's a long term trend or a significant one. In geological terms, we are still in an Ice Age.

But that doesn't mean that fossil fuels aren't running out.

Originally posted by Deharg
Please tell me this post caught you on a bad day and the 24 hour rule should have been in place.

Quite possibly

I also don't think there are serious scientists on both sides of the debate, like it's some sort of balanced discussion. Far from it. There are a dozen or so qualified people who question some aspect of the science. Most are readily associated with industry funded think-tanks, and some tend to spread misinformation and misleading claims (e.g. Tim Ball, Bob Carter etc)

I love your debate style as it is factual, punchy and very entertaining, but this sarcasm to a high school student (I presume) .... hhhhmmm please...

I just couldn't be bothered presenting a wad of facts, it was something like 4-5am, heh.

But I'm not discouraging him from holding a different view, I would rather him stand up for what he thinks is true. It would be good for him to spend time looking for information to support his position. He would have two choices, go straight to a website like 'worldclimatereport' or use real scientific research.

I was going to present some evidence, but thought better of it. For example, I was going to say he could use this information from Sami Solanki's lab clearly showing the relationship between solar activity and temperature:



But I would cut off from 1975, because that's a bit of a problem for his argument...

If he wants to do it, but doesn't want to submit it to his teacher, I'll mark it. I'll be firm but fair, like I am with every script I mark. It would make an interesting thread methinks. At this point, his post is full of unsupported assertions.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by melatonin]

No, I thought about it a bit. Sad as it is, I will keep my opinions to myself, scientist is right. To be honest, I would like to write about alternate hypotheses for the term paper, but I will stick with the generic "save the world - reduce co2" theme. The truth of the matter is, I am more concerned about the co2 tax than the real reasons behind global warming. I have a general idea and I think it would suffice(Besides, I am taking the class as an elective). Though you must admit, there is plenty of time to debate about the cause(s) of global warming, however there is little time left until they rush these new regulation and tax(es) into effect.

By the way, have you noticed how much of a hurry they are to implement the tax? A bit too much of a hurry. I would suppose they want to implement it asap so that they can credit the later, naturally occurring cooldown directly to the tax as a testament of its efficiency.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by vegno]

Well, I don't think anyone would jump for joy at having to pay more taxes at a personal level.

However, the issue is to think why people are supporting the introduction of such taxes. Some countries in Europe already have them, and its not negatively affected their economy. Oil prices are up and down faster than a 'dam prostitutes draws, but it's more a case of up than down at the moment. I think it's almost 300% more per barrel than in 2000.

Yet economies still haven't collapsed.

The idea is to make us use carbon-based sources of energies more intelligently. It should help reduce emissions, and no matter how much you believe that CO2 is not a worry, the evidence suggests otherwise.

The need for reductions of emissions is pressing. It's nothing to do with wanting to take cash off you to buy ferraris, it's about reducing emissions. Now, I'd love that money to be funding new science and technologies, we really need them, as these dirty cheap energy sources ain't gonna last. That's something to push for.

I really don't care how we go about it - cap and trade, tax, whatever - but we do need to reduce emissions. The evidence is pretty clear on that.

The taxes are already here. The world hasn't yet imploded because of them.

ABE: oh, and a tax won't reduce the predicted warming from GHG increases, reducing the emissions of CO2 will.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Deharg
I would have thought better of anyone in this forum than to discourage this young person from holding a different view and expressing this in a class of his/her peers.

well I guess it depends on one main thing: are you more concerned with graduating, to avoid being force-fed this type of garbage, or do you want to risk taking the class over again, because you would not cooperate with the lesson plan?

I am in no way advocating that you suppress your views altogether, just leave it out of class, and take it up during break / lunch / after school. There is a VERY SLIM chance your teacher will appreciate being questioned.

Originally posted by vegno
I would like to write about alternate hypotheses for the term paper, but I will stick with the generic "save the world - reduce co2" theme.

See, there you go. The quicker you understand that school is just about regurgitating memory work and mindless statistics, the quicker you will graduate and join the rest of the real world, which is honestly just like a bigger version of High School, except if you don't do your homework now, you starve or go to jail.

When I was in school, I had these same exact problems. What did I do? I joined a debate team... my own debate team. it was just me, against groups of kids from other schools. Even with myself against their teams, I came in second place out of the entire district.

That is where you can fight back... just don't try to change the rules when you are on their court, using their ball. Catch my drift? I agree, it's a sad reality.