Well … instead of mandatory birth control, we could make birth control a lot more easily available in areas that currently don’t have access to it. Isn’t most of the world’s population growth currently happening in 3rd-world countries? (Whose industries, by the way, are a lot dirtier than those in the more industrialized nations.)
Irony, anyone? 
How would we make birth control more available? And, the biggest question in my mind: Do the people to whom we’re going to make it available want it? I mean, I’m sure some do, but speaking generally are there areas where accessible birth control would result in a dramatic change in the birth rate? I would not tend to think so, but that’s based on gut reaction and not any actual research.
A special on self-importance in Aisle 3.
Ok, now that I’ve got that off my chest.
I feel that many times reports of global warming are laughed off. Perhaps it isn’t as bad as it is predicted to be, I figure that it’s probably somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
Any steps we’d take to lower global warming could only have a postive impact. If cars produced less pollution maybe I wouldn’t get sick to my stomach when driving on the Jersey turnpike. Then that nasty stuff that’s in the air wouldn’t be washed into the ground water and I’d be able to go swimming at the Jersey shore. I think something should be done, whether it’s to avoid living in our own filth, or to keep the planet from spontaneously combusting, I think it’s irrelevant. We should clean up our environment, it just makes sense. Remember in history class when we laughed about how people thought bathing caused diseases or that leaving the shutters closed in the middle of August kept the nasty summer diseases out of the house? Well, in 100 years, this debate will be one of those things. People will look back on us and laugh at how we didn’t think cleaning up our own filth was a good enough idea.
If we want to stop pollution let’s start by making mass solicitation by post illegal. 
Erek
This is silly. It implies humans, and their myriad activities, are outside of nature. Obviously untrue. I’d also like to point out that most species eventually reach a stage where they “inflict[s] harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical [to them] resources,” especially in a local environment. This does not pertain to humans alone. Finally, how do you know the “damage” to the environment caused by human activities is “irreversible.” Geologically speaking, your sample time is too much small to draw such broad conclusions.
I have neither the time nor the energy to re-enter the whole global warming debate here again, so I will just refer people to a previous thread where we expended a lot of effort on the subject: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=104877
Suffice it to say, as the NAS report and IPCC reports (referenced by me therein) make clear, there is a general consensus on the subject of climate change. Of course there is not unanimity in the scientific community (as there isn’t even on evolution vs. creation) although most of those few vociferous scientists left opposing the consensus are those with clear ties to the fossil fuel industry like Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, and the like. Admittedly, there is still considerable uncertainty within the consensus view regarding the magnitude of the expected warming … However, it is clearly to the point where most experts agree that wise precautionary measures are necessary to stabilize and start to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and start to put the proper incentives in place to convert our economy from waste and fossil fuels to conservation, efficiency, and alternative energy sources.
Hell, even many of the oil companies (although not Exxon) have come on board with acknowledging the reality of the problem. “BP” now tells us that its name standard for “beyond petroleum”!
Make “standard” into “stands for”. Urgh!
Close, but not quite. The summary of the IPCC report states that there’s a general consensus that global warming theory is generall correct. The body of the report then goes on to say that nobody knows anything, including how or why temperatures might be rising, and acknowledges that it could be all non-anthropomorphic, who knows. In fact, Richard Lindzen, who’s pretty prominent on the IPCC board, was pretty pissed that the summary was so misrepresentative of the actual content of the report. It creates the appearance of a consensus where none exists.
I don’t know if I would say most, though I will concede several. Similarly, several of the most prominent global warming proponents have their research funded by the EPA, which is hardly a neutral entity (keep in mind that if suddenly, all the world’s environmental problems were to go away, the EPA would pretty much cease to exist). Regardless, this is immaterial, as it doesn’t prove them wrong - you think oil companies are going to fund the research of scientists who say that they’re polluting the environment and need to dismantle their businesses?
Jeff
(1) I think you are confusing the IPCC and NAS reports here.
(2) The full NAS report is available online (as are both the summaries for policymakers and technical summaries of the 3 IPCC working groups) and I’ve linked to them in that previous thread so that everyone can read and parse what they have said. Yes, there are caveats on the degree of confidence they have on whether most of the warming seen in the last century is anthropogenic or not. [It’s definitely not anthropomorphic. ] The IPCC report concludes that it likely (meaning with 66-90% confidence in their lingo) that most of the warming seen so far is due to human activity and the NAS report basically endorses the IPCC conclusions.
(3) Lindzen’s argument, as spelled out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that you can easily find online, is actually much weaker than you suggest. He makes some vague implication that the tone of the summary is not as he would like it and then cites a specific example of a caveat that was left out of the summary; however, if you investigate that caveat you find it is essentially unrelated to what the summary was discussing and therefore there is a good reason why it was left out. (Basically, the summary is talking about surface temperatures and the caveat referred to tropospheric temperatures measured by satellite and their incomplete agreement with the surface temperatures.) [Lindzen, by the way, is perhaps the only global warming skeptic who has published at least a respectable amount in the refereed literature and thus represents one extreme view on the NAS report committee. He endorses the report (which is reassuring, since he is one of the authors) but at the same time seems unhappy that the media and others have interpretted pretty much in the way that it reads (albeit admittedly with some of the media’s typical oversimplification of complicated scientific messages) rather than the way that he would have wanted it to read if he had written it alone.]
You are trying to make an analogy that simply doesn’t hold. If you name any one of the 4 or 5 most prominent global warming naysayers in the U.S., I’ll tell you who they are funded by, be it Western Fuels Association, the Cato Institute, the George Marshall Fund, or multiple or them. An analogous thing is simply not true for most of the prominent scientists in the field.
And, yes, this doesn’t prove them wrong. But, if one is asked whether one should believe a panel of scientists convened by the IPCC or NAS to review the peer-reviewed literature or whether one should believe a small cauldron of industry-funded scientists, most with scant publication records in the field, and I know who I would pick.
Along these lines, here is a succient statement in an editorial [Science, Vol. 291, p. 2515 (March 30, 2001)] from Donald Kennedy, the Editor in Chief of Science (which along with Nature are probably considered the two premier general peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world):
While you are looking in Science, you can check out the joint statement issued by the scientific societies of a whole bunch of countries (U.S. not included because NAS says they did not wish to appear to be prejudging the result of their report then still in progress): Science, Vol. 292, p. 1261 (May 18, 2001).
Actually, I oversimplified a bit the reasons that the NAS didn’t sign on to that particular statement…See Science, Vol 292, p. 1275 (May 18, 2001) for the full scoop.
Rexdart
I wont be going under any circumstance.
I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and as you’ve posted in a sensible manner…i’m prepared to respond in kind.
I see, i was foolish to infer you where being blunt and flippant towards me…ie, rude.
Good, we are now even…your ""This David Wilson Fellow comment “”…is forgiven.
I have no problem with this post being updated over a month or more, as such, any enquiry someone has will be answered.
Please calm down.
OK.
Overall an excellent job of spotlighting…9/10.
Had you been polite and civil in the first place, we wouldn`t need to waste each others time.
I restate that i don`t know everything, and that i’m not real keen on an adverse approach to info exchange.
Their are numerous informed people here…but i never consider a rude person informed of proper knowledge.
El Kabong
Well Sir, the 2000 scientists who reviewed 20 000 scientific papers believe that there is overwhelming evidence that human activity is the cause…Schneider, World Meterorological Organization and UN Environment Program, from Apes to Superspecies, Suzuki.99
Sylvia Earle{Explorer in residence for the National Geographic Society, spending 25yrs underwater} says…This planet is governed by the oceans climate, most of our Oxygen comes from the sea…Approx 70% of our Oxygen is generated by organisms living in the oceans, and much of the carbon dioxide is absorbed there.These organisms are temparature sensitive.
Bill Mckibbens End of Nature is about Global Warming, and says…You can find a few scientists who don’t believe in evolution, some who don’t believe in the Holocaust…but there are Tens of thousands of scientists who have produced airplane hangers full of reports, studies, graphs and charts.
So called green-house gases are produced by natural processes of metabolism, decay, fire,transpiration and evaporation…WE are stressing its effeciency by chopping down trees and disturbing phytoplankton in the oceans{where 70% of our Oxygen comes from}.
Stuart Pimm{Conservational Biologist, Apes to Superspecies99} says…It’s not just in land and soils, it’s in oceans and rivers.The pattern is ubiquitous.Whenever we have sufficient data, we recognize somewhere between 10-40% of all the worlds species are already on the verge of Extinction.
Don’t forget, when dealing with climate and eco-systems, you’re up against Transcalculations…beyond calculation, both systems are choatic and interconnected with numerous variables…but 1000s of Experts are in agreement, that we need to alter our lifestyle and techniques for dealing with nature.
pacific 812.
And wealth…any product or asset is dependant on the environment , cars are made from raw materials, ok.
Stephan Schneider{climatologist} speaking on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a panel set up by The World Meterological ORG,and the UN Enviro Program.
From David Suzukis Apes to Superspecies.
Mr. Wilson, I think you will find that approach much more conducive to rational discussion. Welcome to the board, we hope you stick around. You will find very few message board to be the equal of this one, in RE: debating and facts.
I believe, as do many others (just do a google search, they’re our there) that the modern scientific community is doing far to much extrapolating from rather limited data. The human species has been around for several millenia, and has been actively changing the environment for almost as long.
While it is true that our impact has grown as our population base has grown, and the 3rd world developing economies are having a rather profound impact at the moment, it’s entirely possible that the planet will fix itself. ex: that massive fog bank in Asia. If it kills millions of folks, than the Earth is fixing the ‘problem’ in that immediate area.
I believe in most of the concepts of global warming. But I also believe that it is part of a natural process, and that it has happened before. This time we’re just more worried about it.
In 100 years, we’ll see what scientists have to say about it. Then maybe we’ll be able to prove, conclusively, that humanity is the sole cause.
Tristan
Most of this is from Suzukis Apes to Superspecies1999.
I’ve compiled some info.
It starts with a look at BIOSPHERE 2’S FAILURE.
What lesson does the failure of the Biosphere 2 project teach us?
Firstly a basic rundown of the project and its aims.
In 1991, 8 of the worlds most competent humans sealed themselves in a giant bubble covering several acres, replete with a variety of ecosystems and samplings of plant, animal and insect species.
The rationale was that long flights in space, and possible colonization of planets or moons was inevitable, plus to demonstrate our store of knowledge about the natural systems we depend on for survival.
Sorry to spoil the party, but Oxygen levels plummeted, nitrogen levels increased, and basically the plants and insects went a bit loopy, shall we say they started to swarm the place.
The bionauts spent increasing amounts of their time swatting flies and hacking back weeds.
The defeated bionauts came out malnourished and sick, and lived happily ever after.
This failure of the Biosphere 2 is the result of arrogantly believing in the virtues of scientific reductionism, in the 17th century, Rene Descartes postualted that by stepping outside of nature and becoming observers, we could more thoroughly understand nature, hence the dogma of Objectivity.
Newton followed up with the clockwork universe,{despite still constantly apprasing his notion of GOD} , a belief that if we pull things apart, break them down into their smallest constituents, we will unlock the mystery of the natural world.
And through industrialization, it appeared Humans via special focus on the intellect were meant to rule and dominate nature.
=========================================
Now forward to the current.
Despite nearly 100yrs since Einstein, what has science as a method of discovery told us about nature.
That the deeper we go into nature, either via the microscope or via a non-reductionist approach to knowledge, we see constant relationships to everything, not isolated building blocks which can be deconstructed and successfully put back together without some penalty.
This is what Fritjof Capra says of Electrons___The whereabouts of electrons can be indicated only as a calculated probability, the sub-atomic particle is a set of relationships reaching outwards to other things, and the other things are again relationships to yet other things.
This reality also reflects the whole of nature, and obviously ecosystems and US.
So what is a cat a plant or a human?we are an aggregate of some 60 Trillion cells, the cells of multi-cellular organism contain structures called organelles that perform highly specialized roles such as the generation of energy , photosynthesis and chromosome movement. These organelles are evolutionary remnants of bacteria.We live in a mutually beneficial collaboration between organelles and ourselves.
When we look in the mirror, we are gazing at an immense aggregate of trillions of cells and QUADRILLIONS of Bacteria, organized as a mutually benefical community of organisms.
So obviously if we continue to deplete the environment, we are headed for disaster which we may not be able to repair.
Now in 1992 we had the Rio earth summit, this summit was followed by the WARNING TO HUMANITY STATEMENT
This statement was signed by 1600 senior scientists including HALF OF THE LIVING NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS.
The statement which is available via a google search, essentially warned us that for our population and our rate of consumption, we have 30 -40yrs to avoid ecological disaster.
Despite the gravity of this warning, none of the major American or Canandian networks chose to broadcast the statement.
Essentially because the warning forces us to reduce consumption, which means reduced profits and subsequent stock market share devaluing.
Capitalism’s basis is profit via self interest, the greatest good for the greatest number, this greatest good is defined as the accumulaion of material possessions by as many as possible.
The only way that constant growth of a Share value can be achieved is via constantly producing saleable products or services, this method was acceptable when we had seemingly endless resources, but in a era of finite ecology, growth of an economy is the worst possible thing we could encourage.
I hope you guys think this over and do your research as to the validity of what i’ve presented, a move towards an ecologically friendly way of life is the only solution.The pursuit of profit, of excess material consumption and being comfortably numb with ever increasing levels of technological efficiency is our death sentence, and is certainly the death sentence of a variety of plant and animal species.
From egocentricity to ecological centricity we will be forced to progress, Capitalism is the appearance of democracy, which actually is us selling our very souls to DAS MACHINA.
** Mr. Wilson**, I think that most folks here are willing to accept the Theory of Global Warming. The debate as to it’s cause is the subject of a whole other thread.
What I ask you is this… how do we fix it, if indeed it is mans ‘fault’?
What is the solution to this “problem”? You’ve made your stand, now back it up with a solution.
I already agreed, in my previous post. Did you miss that part?
I would also be interested in hearing your comments on a point you ignored; that the fossil fuels which are most likely to contribute to “global warming” are of finite supply, and thus “global warming” can only be a short-lived phenomenon (on the geologic timescale).
Fine. Feel free to start a new thread discussing your ideas for solutions to this problem. You’re driving a taxi; I’m running a window air conditioner so that I can work efficiently in my home office while it is 98 deg. F outside. Should either of us give up doing these things, and if so, why?
Now, it’s apparent you are completely unaware of this, but you have presented yourself as someone who apparently assumes that the readers of this message board are simpletons. Since you don’t actually know any of us, what basis do you have for assuming that we are not, in fact, the greenest sumbitches you are ever likely to meet?
If your only intention is to harangue us with vague jeremiads about the upcoming DOOM TO THE HUMAN RACE (pardon me for hijacking your style of emphasis), then I submit there is no particular point for debate.
EL=KABONG
My understanding is that motor vehicles account for 70% of Global toxins[based on a TV add, happy to be corrected], so they certainly are the major chemical problem.
But considering we can each cite numerous credentialed studies, who give estimates of ecological collapse within 20-70+ yrs, we are left with making a choice of taking the initiative…or leaving it to Big Business and the Government{LOL}.
I don’t think for a second we are going to reach extinction, as we are going to get a kick in the teeth{climate}, and i anticipate another decade of weather breaking patterns…which will likely prompt more people to heed eco-friendly warnings.
But if people ignored the climates upward spiral and Governments continued to chase limitless growth policies in a finite era…then we would collapse before we ran out of fossil fuels{based on TWTHS and World Wildlife Funds study}
I intend to…and the solutions are already in practice, as ““The Natural Step and Natural Capitalism””
Excerpt from David Suzuki’s “Good News For a Change, Hope for a troubled planet”
Back in the 80’s, Dr Karl-Henrik Robert a Swedish doctor specializing in cancer in children, realized he was seeing a significant increase in cases of childhood leukemia.
He traced the cause to increased toxins in the environment due to industrial pollution.
He persuaded 50 other Swedish scientists to help draft a concensus documentt describes our basic knowledge of the Biosphere’s functions and the way humans interact with them.
This document was edited 21 times before being sent to every household and school in Sweden.
Then in the early 1990’s, Robert worked with phsicist John Holmberg to define a set of systems conditions for determining sustainability, basing them on the laws of thermodynamics and natural cycles.
The summarized 4 tenets of The Natural Step program are…
In order for a society to be sustainable, nature’s functions and diversity are NOT systematically…1-subject to increasing concentrations of substances extracted from the earth’s crust
…2-subject to increasing concentrations of substances produced by society…ie, reducing non-biodegradable toxins, and being wary of Biological magnification{the concentration of non-biodegradable toxins in the food chain}.
3-impoverished by physical displacement, over harvesting or other forms of ecosystem manipulation.
4-In a sustainable society, resources are used fairly and efficiently in order to meet basic human needs globally.
More than 70 Swedish municipalities have adopted TNS methodology, as have 60 corporations including IKEA.
.
It will be up to your conscience, based on proper knowledge…i’ve already abandoned plans for Bigger House and Car, spend time on the net informing people, talk to my customers in the cab, make sure my recycling is done, avoid buying un-eco friendly products…and i’m a email member of David Suzukis’s org, which is really global dissent via email.
You confuse intelligence and success with decency…i don’t tolerate rude people{H, lol}…it is a sign of immaturity, immaturity is the result of a number of factors…including self-deception, i have little time to humour fools…and posted as much against Rex, as he typified the behaviour i’m intolerant of.
Please note El-kabong, i’m just one person doing my bit, i can’t do it all…and there are also numerous silent viewers who i’m trying to inform…The Warning To Humanity Statement wasn’t published by major American and Canadian broadcasters, the bulk of people i speak to in Brisbane…have never heard of TWTHS.
.
As i said…there are the forumers, and the silent majority, as evidenced by the viewing count.
I have no-idea who supports what…but when someone attacks me, i assume they are anti-ecology in a meaningful way.
I stand by my posts and attitude.
PS…i have no beef with you El-Kabong.
David Wilson.
See my post to El-Kabong.
And over time i’ll provide plenty of actionable ideas including ones already operating,ie…Natural Capitalism, TNS…but for the moment, i’m experiencing ISP quibbles.
Also the Mercedes A190 is a recyclable car…so the technology exists, as do cars using 3 liters per 100km of fuel{full sized vehicles}
Yes…finite, but large (especially coal reserves)! I’m not sure what the CO2 level would rise to if all the fossil fuels available were burned…But, scenarios talk of things like tripling the amount of CO2 from pre-industrial levels presumably without running out.
Hell, even one of the MidEast oil sheiks was quoted a year or so ago as saying that we would have to give up on oil for environmental reasons long before we are going to run out of it.
Actually, I have seen figures on this and, while I don’t remember them in detail, I don’t think what you say here is quite right. If you are talking CO2 emissions, I seem to recall that (at least in the U.S…I’m not sure about globally) the division between industry, vehicles, and residential use is pretty close to 1/3 each. On various other pollutants like NOx, sulfur dioxides, … the breakdown may be different but power plants are very important sources too.
So, yes, vehicles are a very important component of the problem but I don’t think they alone are the majority component.