who believes this stuff anyways???( sorry, I have to vent)

I was reading some news on AOL today and came across an article about a connection between Global Warming and Tourism. According to the AP report, tourism will be hurt drastically by Global Warming. Rising water levels caused by increased water temps will erode away beaches and warmer mountains will yield less snow which will hurt skiers.
The report was conducted by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit for the Worldwide Fund for Nature. The biggest losers in the article, it says are the Alps , along with the Mediterranean coast, African Safaris, the Atlantic Coast and Brazil. Thanks to logical transportation, such as airlines, we will be getting shorter seasons for our vacations according to the report. Quote: “With the number of international travelers expected to increase from 594 million in 1996 to 1.6 billion by 2020, the conservation group warned that the problems may only get worse.” To fix the “problem” we have to cut back on travel and find better energy sources, other than fossil fuels.

First off, I must say I am an anti-environmentalist. Do I think that some people/companies damage the earth and take advantage of it resources? Yes. Do I think humans are destroying the earth? No. Do I think Global Warming exists to the extent of the article? Absolutely not.

main things in article that I find wrong or misleading:
*Tourism will be hurt
People will still do stuff regardless if its 1 degree warmer or if the beach is 1 foot shorter.
*the earth will have shorter seasons
What? Will the earth start losing days or something?
*the word unbearable was described for the summer heat
Who says the heat is unbearable? If you don’t like hot weather, don’t go to hot places!!!
*airplanes are cause for GW
if that’s the case, why not stop all flights. We’ll see how the economy is then. What about cars and trains? Are they not a cause?
*“The group also urged governments to improve energy efficiency”
Aren’t most governments trying to do that now?
*4 inches a decade of rising waters.
Completely bull dookie. They have no explanation other than ‘warmer waters expand.’
*Less snow for skiers
I’m sure no one will miss a 1/4 inch of snow.
*Global Warming is considered evil
Its still being debated! I for one think it is not that bad, if it even exists at all! Warmer weather is good for everyone. Plants prefer warmer weather and higher concentrations for CO2 last time I checked. More CO2 means beefier plants, bigger plants means more O2 for us and a cleaner air supply.

Reports like this piss me off in general.

For those with AOL, The report can be found on AOL at aol://4344:3167.globew.21044878.620406039

“I’m not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.”-- Calvin and Hobbes
\/-------\ | |-----| |

And I love how they try to make the situation even worse in the article by putting that picture they put right next to it. They got the pictures of children with sad faces overlooking a globe that’s half normal and half red, and the words “GLOBAL WARMING” at the bottom. puh-leeeze

I used to believe every word these environmentalists would say, like how temperatures will go up to 140 by the end of the decade because of global warming. Let’s see, it’s 1999, where’s all the 140 temps at???

Their slogan should be:

"We put the “<font color=“red”>MENTAL</font>” in "<font color=“green”>ENVIRONMENTALISTS</font>"

Ok, now I’m done venting.

Well, Cowgod, it’s downright heartwarming to see someone so fond of their ignorance.

My favorite part, though:

How delightful for everyone…


Too often, we lose sight of life’s simple pleasures…Remember, when
annoys you, it takes 42 muscles in your face to frown BUT it only takes 4
muscles to extend your arm and SMACK the person right upside the head.

Try this site for debunking all the psuedo-scientific enviromental panic. http://www.junkscience.com

Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
- Ambrose Bierce

I read an article that talked about the damage that the Great Barrier Reef of Australia was sustaining because of global warming. The conclusion was that Australia needed to severly curtail the burning of fossil fuels in order to protect the two billion dollar tourist industry. That struck me as ridiculous, since the economic impact could easily outweigh the money being generated by tourism. However, I disagree that protecting the planet we live on is a bad idea. In order to do that, sometimes, you have to put things in purely economic terms to get the point through to the cement heads who drive SUVs and drink their coffee from a new styrofoam cup every damn day.

I still find reason for hope though. The peregrine falcon, which was within an inch of extinction a generation ago, was recently taken off the endangered species. This recovery was largely due to the efforts of the same wigged out, lying environmentalists that are warning about global warming now.

I’d find the whole Global Warming thing a lot more credible if a lot of the same people promoting it hadn’t been running around 10 to 15 years ago moaning about how the next Ice Age was about to hit.

Environmental science has become so politicized that you have to take any pronouncements with a grain (or a ton) of salt. Too many of 'em don’t want to see anything that might call their own political positions into question.

Rich Barr
AOL Instant Messenger: Hrttannl

Well, really, the whole thing about global warming is that, maybe it hasn’t been proven yet, but what if it is right and we fail to take adequate measuers early, when we have the chance? Can we imagine that the fates of a few businessmen is more important than the fate of humanity? Most people are not in business they just work. No matter what we do, the businessmen will continue to be businnes men and if we error on the side of caution in a game that has higher stakes than most business guys will still do business. So the jobs are not a question. I think be safe instead of sorry. Besides, don’t you think the resources of the government bring a lot more information to the question than what a solitary business man can bring?

Lots of typo’s. Sorry, Just getting used to thhis.

Quote: (Al G)“I think be safe instead of sorry”

So you want to stop the world from living a civilized lifestyle because some scientist thinks there is a problem??
Quote: (AL G)“Don’t you think the resources of the government bring a lot more information to the question than what a solitary business man can bring?”

No. Solitary business men do a lot more than governments; they hire other people to do their work faster and more efficiently than the gov.

Quote: "Can we imagine that the fates of a few businessmen is more important than the fate of humanity? "

A few? Hardly. Try 6 billion business men and women. Fate of humanity? Puhleeze.

Quote: “So the jobs are not a question.”

Will you be the one handing out all the pink slips after you destroy the economy- just to save it from itself?.

You must be one of them!

“I’m not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.”-- Calvin and Hobbes
\/-------\ | |-----| |

Extreme environmentalists and their campaigns do indeed make everything seem like it’s urgent and needs immediate attention. (That’s part of the problem. They don’t seem to care that they hurt their own cause by misleading the public.) Meanwhile we (the public) go through our lives saying nothing’s happening the environment’s fine. Gwynne Dyer compared humans to frogs in boiling water in a recent article. Frogs will jump out if placed in boiling water, but will allow themselves to be boiled to death if placed in cold water which is then slowly heated to a boil.

My point is that while everything bad happening to the environment is happening gradually and steadily, as opposed to being an emergency, it is still serious. Even if we stop polluting today, the climate patterns of the next thirty years have already been decided by our past air pollution.

No, I’m not a tree hugger/hippy.

Personally i am no tree hugger. but:

Granted yes, some plants like warmer weather some do not do well with it. Many seeds need cold stratification just to germinate (For instance, pomme fruits and stone fruits and quite a few temperate plants). Many plants depend on the cold for proper flowering. If the weather in winter is too warm, you dont get as many new plants as you did with the proper winter temperatures. I can think of two plants who arent even doing well in the current “normal” temperatures. The Monterey Pine and Cypress (P. radiata and C. macrocarpa) used to cover much of California during the ice age. As the temperatures warmed and the area became drier, the trees territories shrunk to very small populations. Those trees were used to a cooler climate than they have today. So, because a Palm likes warm temperatures doesn’t mean it’s a good thing for other plants :).

Global warming is increased by CO2 and methane emissions. Large mammals must all reduce exhaling and farting by 10%. You may start right now. Weäre counting.

Whether or not a plant can take hotter or colder temps. doesn’t matter much because they will migrate ( not individual plants but where a specific species thrives) to the temp. zone to which they are best suited. This may eventually move the plant’s range but I don’t think it will endanger the species unless that species has allready been endangered or it’s population is currently limited. There might be a few exceptions of plants with long life cycles or reproduction cycles, but that has always been the case.

It’s all just part of the natural cycle. The globe has been warming since the ice ages. Maybe the next step is in about a thousand years from now, the ice caps would have melted enough to cover most of the earth. Then the earth will cool, and the next ice age will begin.

Caused by man? Nah. Not when you take a good hard look at the evidence.

You are right here. But, in the vein of the topic, if a plant that isnt suited to a warm climate can’t keep up with the rate of the warming, then you have problems. Think also about the tundra plants, where would they go if it got too warm? :). But you are correct, plant populations do eventually “migrate” to where they are suited. But if they cant migrate fast enough they die out.

Where would the tundra plants go?
The Antarctic or northern Canada/Siberia or if got really warm… I don’t think our race will be around that long.

There’s an interesting sci fi novel the I read some time ago that deals with this subject. It’s called “Fallen Angels,” and was written by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournel, and a third person whose name I can’t remamber right now–Michael Flynn sounds right, but I’m not sure.

I won’t get into the story, but the background is that environmentalists have gained political control, and have suppressed technology and cut off most emissions. Unfortunately, it turns out that emissions were the only thing holding off the next ice age–most of Canada is now uninhabitable, and there are glaciers rumbling over the northern US states. (No, of course the environmentalists don’t change their policies.)

This is just fiction, of course, but like all good fiction it contains some things to think about.

Rich Barr
AOL Instant Messenger: Hrttannl


the earth has temptuers cycles in weather (like el nino). cycles so great in size (not the ice age, smaller increments of less severity) It hasn’t been closely studied also when a volocano blows. it’s ash cooles the atmosphere. any recent eruptions?


Before you call me a “nimrodic debutant,” you might wanna learn how to spell “temperature.”

Rich Barr
AOL Instant Messenger: Hrttannl

Or how to use “it’s” correctly