Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005 Status: offline
|
jlf, I wonder from whence you got such an edusation. You have pointed me a few times. You say industry contributes more greenhouse gases. OK, in the distant past though there was alot more of it fom natural sources. Also, how does acual manufacturing figure in, like in relation to cars ? These thoughts have gone though my head thinking about massive traffic jams cause by the futility in mankind's attempts at rational thought. They attack cars for greenhouse gses as they passed by belching factories. I used the past tense because as we no longer do much manufacturing here, we must be one of the "greenest" countries around. However, one of my assertionsis that on a global scale, it matters not where from it comes. Everything made in China, well China is still on Earth last I heard. Note that China notably and a few other manufacturing centers around the globe were exempted from plenty of treaties dealing with this. Why do our politicians cripple us so ? And if they think the Chinese have any more stake in this than we do, such that it would warrant such exemptions, I would like to know where they ATTEMPTED to get an education. And then there is a school of thought that presumes that we are a part of nature so whatever we do, for good or for bad is also a natural cause. Since we got here by natural means, whatever we do is by natural cause. I don't think many capitalists or indusrialists would be able to rationalize some of their decisions without embracing something like this. However correcting this situation in a sane way does not include engineering our own extinction. Or maybe it must. Bigger answers, therefore bigger subsequent questions. I swear (damn shit piss) that every time a question is answered, more questions pop up. Every discovery leads to a new mystery. No matter how educated one is, it seems the more I know at least, the more I find out that I don't know. I think we as a race know alot less about quite a few things than we are aware, or in some cases are willing to admit. I mean, do we contribute more or less than 50% to this problem or not ? Answers could be out there, but I think the right answer will be hard to find. Who in the heck could have such data, especially trustable data ? That is the problem. I am not saying I dasagree, but I am not saying that I agree. I have no higher ground on which to stand, nobody does. I also stand by my assertion that we are doing something simply by our production of heat, even with total disregard to greenhouse gases. I think this point is grossley under studied. But then that's me. But of course then we have a direct result, that of using and discarding massive BTUs of heat, and then of course compounded by the greenhouse effect. A double whammy. How are we expected to fix this ? Personally, I think we need to get ourseelves healthy again economy wise, and then begin to deal with these problems. These problems did not happen overnight and neither will the new Rome be built in a day. But that is another subject. Really, are there actual figures somewhere on how much we contribute to this problem vs how much nature itself does ? How would one even go about getting such data ? Analysis of our fuel and other consumption wielded against natural occurances ? When a volcano erupts in a big way I doubt someone is there holding a flow meter over it, they are most likely in lava getting killed and their equipment melted, therefore there is some doubt always, when it comes to these scientific estimates. Science in the true sense is usually based on something that is directly measurable at best, but I don't see how certain things can even be indirectly measurable. I mean really, can someone watch a volcano erupt from a safe vantage point with binoculars or whatever and come up with a valid estimate of it's output ? T
|