• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The real problem AGW'ers won't admit. Man is local, Climate is Global

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yeah, you heard me. Man, is local, Climate is Global.

(Let's see how many AGW'ers stop reading right there and scream about Man is all over the globe and other silly non-sense.)


The more localized you get, the more of an effect MAN has on his environment. Let's take Joe. Joe buys a plot of land that was otherwise untouched by the hand of man. He changes the landscape by clearing trees, planting new ones, building a home. He has impacted the Environment.

But what Joe has done doesn't go much further than that.


Now let's say Joe, instead of buying that land for a home, decides to be a farmer! He clears it, he cultivates it, he uses the land. Again, his impact is on his land and not much further.

Do you see the trend here?

Now get LOTS of Joes together. You get a town or a city, New York City for example, heavily impacts its surroundings. Go 20-30 miles east... not really. Except, of course, at Night you get light pollution. ;)

Mans impact is and always will be localized. SOME things DO affect wider regions. Chernobyl created a huge radiation dead zone. But life still goes on. China has few if any Air Regulations, but even there the impact is in and around Cities.

Don't you people see?

The problem isn't some Global Climatic DISASTER waiting to happen unless "WE ACT NOW". It never has been. It's about fixing things around the LOCAL area. But that's not very profitable... monetarily or politically. What power or money is gained by getting people to clean up the town park? Or to get the local plant to clean up its direct impact?

Not much. Cause the people in Ohio aren't impacted by the people in Iowa. But convince them they ARE, and suddenly you have a CAUSE, you have a CAUSE that you can profit from. A Cause you can derive political power from.

And that's all AGW is, a CAUSE. It's being exploited for the gain of greedy, selfish people. It's always been that way. Instead of people worrying about the little stuff around them, no no, that's not enough. Now it's GLOBAL disaster waiting to happen and it's all our fault unless WE ACT NOW!

Don't you SEE? I do, I always have. That's why the consensus science claims don't move me. Science isn't done by committee. That's what the calls to GLOBAL ACTION repel me. It's not the GLOBE that needs help, it's localized issues that need to be cared about.

But what happens is people STOP caring. Cause really, it's not their problem, it's the Government's problem, it's someone else's problem. It's not about what car you drive that has low emissions or high gas mileage. That doesn't do anything.

It's not laws and regulations nor is it treaties and scaremongering that will make things on this planet better. It's worrying about the things that actually matter. We can't change the Climate, we can't control it, effect or bother it.

WE can effect our immediate surroundings. Worry about that, and watch life get better.
 

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,333
Reaction score
3,591
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That sounds great on paper, unfortunately this all gets dashed to bits when you notice that this planet is not solid, but also has gasses and liquids that tend to flow and blow.

This disperses stuff globally causing things like dust from the Sahara to end up in Florida, fertilizer from Nebraska contributing to dead zones off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico, giant areas of plastic debris in the middle of the pacific, or there not being a single island to be found, regardless of how remote that does not have man made flotsam and jetsam to be found on its shoreline.

Obviously our effects extend well beyond our localized environments.
 
Last edited:

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
That sounds great on paper, unfortunately this all gets dashed to bits when you notice that this planet is not solid, but also has gasses and liquids that tend to flow and blow.

This disperses stuff globally causing things like dust from the Sahara to end up in Florida, fertilizer from Nebraska contributing to dead zones off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico, giant areas of plastic debris in the middle of the pacific, or there not being a single island to be found, regardless of how remote that does not have man made flotsam and jetsam to be found on its shoreline.

Obviously our effects extend well beyond our localized environments.


Not really. The effect, is minimal globally. The closer to the source, the greater the impact.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,458
Reaction score
36,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not really. The effect, is minimal globally. The closer to the source, the greater the impact.

Of course, there are tens of millions of sources scattered about the surface of this planet...
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Of course, there are tens of millions of sources scattered about the surface of this planet...

That don't effect the Climate.

Sorry bub. I noticed you waited to attack a reply I made to a question from another rather then address the OP. Thanks for the $20 friend, you are so predictable.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,458
Reaction score
36,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That don't effect the Climate.

Sorry bub. I noticed you waited to attack a reply I made to a question from another rather then address the OP. Thanks for the $20 friend, you are so predictable.

I felt my reply was sufficient response to your OP. Is there something further you'd like me to comment on?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,458
Reaction score
36,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A more in-depth response to MrV's ridiculous post.

By Deuce.

Yeah, you heard me. Man, is local, Climate is Global.

(Let's see how many AGW'ers stop reading right there and scream about Man is all over the globe and other silly non-sense.)


The more localized you get, the more of an effect MAN has on his environment. Let's take Joe. Joe buys a plot of land that was otherwise untouched by the hand of man. He changes the landscape by clearing trees, planting new ones, building a home. He has impacted the Environment.

But what Joe has done doesn't go much further than that.


Now let's say Joe, instead of buying that land for a home, decides to be a farmer! He clears it, he cultivates it, he uses the land. Again, his impact is on his land and not much further.

Do you see the trend here?

Now get LOTS of Joes together. You get a town or a city, New York City for example, heavily impacts its surroundings. Go 20-30 miles east... not really. Except, of course, at Night you get light pollution. ;)

Mans impact is and always will be localized. SOME things DO affect wider regions. Chernobyl created a huge radiation dead zone. But life still goes on. China has few if any Air Regulations, but even there the impact is in and around Cities.

Don't you people see?

The problem isn't some Global Climatic DISASTER waiting to happen unless "WE ACT NOW". It never has been. It's about fixing things around the LOCAL area. But that's not very profitable... monetarily or politically. What power or money is gained by getting people to clean up the town park? Or to get the local plant to clean up its direct impact?

Not much. Cause the people in Ohio aren't impacted by the people in Iowa. But convince them they ARE, and suddenly you have a CAUSE, you have a CAUSE that you can profit from. A Cause you can derive political power from.

And that's all AGW is, a CAUSE. It's being exploited for the gain of greedy, selfish people. It's always been that way. Instead of people worrying about the little stuff around them, no no, that's not enough. Now it's GLOBAL disaster waiting to happen and it's all our fault unless WE ACT NOW!

Don't you SEE? I do, I always have. That's why the consensus science claims don't move me. Science isn't done by committee. That's what the calls to GLOBAL ACTION repel me. It's not the GLOBE that needs help, it's localized issues that need to be cared about.

But what happens is people STOP caring. Cause really, it's not their problem, it's the Government's problem, it's someone else's problem. It's not about what car you drive that has low emissions or high gas mileage. That doesn't do anything.

It's not laws and regulations nor is it treaties and scaremongering that will make things on this planet better. It's worrying about the things that actually matter. We can't change the Climate, we can't control it, effect or bother it.

WE can effect our immediate surroundings. Worry about that, and watch life get better.

MrV is making two rather outrageous errors in his post. The first is scale. He's trying to paint this picture:



While ignoring this:




The other glaring error is sheer numbers. There are nearly 7 billion of us on this planet. Joe the Farmer may have a relatively small impact on a local scale, but combining the above industry and billions of Joe the Farmer's, **** adds up.

Also, as Marduc posted, gases spread.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
A more in-depth response to MrV's ridiculous post.

By Deuce.



MrV is making two rather outrageous errors in his post. The first is scale. He's trying to paint this picture:



While ignoring this:




The other glaring error is sheer numbers. There are nearly 7 billion of us on this planet. Joe the Farmer may have a relatively small impact on a local scale, but combining the above industry and billions of Joe the Farmer's, **** adds up.

Also, as Marduc posted, gases spread.

Man's contribution is less then 3% last time I checked, total.

3%

Now instead of worrying about things that don't matter, like Climate change, worry about the things that DO matter. Like what YOU do to your LOCAL environment. Not the CO2 your car emits, but the trash you leave about, the impact your business has on the surroundings.


When people quit worrying about things they cannot change, like Climate, and refocus on what they can, life will be better for all.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,167
Reaction score
21,570
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Dear God, I agree with Mr.V (mostly). Even if AGW is a problem, the solution to that, and many environmental, issues is to combat the source, you can't stop carbon emission with some ridiculous tax, but you can stop many environmental problems by cleaning up the source.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Dear God, I agree with Mr.V (mostly). Even if AGW is a problem, the solution to that, and many environmental, issues is to combat the source, you can't stop carbon emission with some ridiculous tax, but you can stop many environmental problems by cleaning up the source.

Believe it or not, I love the Earth too. I'm just not gonna get chicken littled over a bogeyman. My personal training and experience with meteorology guides me scientifically, common sense the rest of the way.

That old saying...

Dear God, give me the strength to change the things I can, and the Wisdom to know those which I cannot.

That's quite in play here.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,458
Reaction score
36,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Man's contribution is less then 3% last time I checked, total.

3%

[citation needed]

Dear God, I agree with Mr.V (mostly). Even if AGW is a problem, the solution to that, and many environmental, issues is to combat the source, you can't stop carbon emission with some ridiculous tax, but you can stop many environmental problems by cleaning up the source.

Cap and trade was a Republican idea, because it's a "free market" "solution." Me, I'd just invest more taxpayer funds into infrastructure that makes electric vehicles feasible, and stop building new fossil fuel plants and replace coal/oil plants with nuclear/solar/wind as they get old and need replacing. I guess that makes me some RADICAL ENVIRONUT!
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
[citation needed]

Good catch, it's:
Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).

I was WAAAAY off bud.
Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
Cap and trade was a Republican idea, because it's a "free market" "solution."

It'd help your credibility if you wouldn't spread lies like this.

"Cap and trade" began not as a catchphrase, but as a simple concept: that the market could help curb pollution. Its roots date to the 1960s, when U.S. government scientists came up with a scheme for regulating sulfur dioxide emissions through setting a cap and then trading the right to emit over the limit. By the 1970s, environmentalists -- and their politician allies -- embraced the concept, and it became standard in regulatory legislation. Now, as climate change makes the regulation of carbon emissions crucial, cap and trade may be more necessary than ever, if global wrangling doesn't do it in first.

1967: Ellison Burton and William Sanjour, two computer modelers for the U.S. National Air Pollution Control Administration, imagine cap and trade (though not the term) as a way to cut down sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants.

1968: University of Toronto economist John Dales publishes Pollution, Property and Prices, proposing an intellectual framework for emissions trading. He and another early architect of the idea, economist Thomas Crocker, later express skepticism that cap and trade can be successfully used to regulate carbon.

1976: U.S. states have difficulty meeting the targets imposed by the 1970 Clean Air Act, so the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows certain environmental improvements, or "offsets," a company can make to help meet its targets. The idea is incorporated into the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments, sponsored by Rep. Paul Rogers (D-Fla.).

1980s: The EPA and the U.S.-based Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) push for cap-and-trade programs to phase out lead in fuels and control the sulfur dioxide emissions that cause acid rain. Both programs are successful. Meanwhile, European countries move to taxation to regulate emissions rather than cap-and-trade systems.

1990s: China begins to experiment with a cap-and-trade system to cut down on sulfur emissions from power plants.
Anthropology of an Idea: Cap and Trade - By Elizabeth Dickinson | Foreign Policy
Me, I'd just invest more taxpayer funds into infrastructure that makes electric vehicles feasible, and stop building new fossil fuel plants and replace coal/oil plants with nuclear/solar/wind as they get old and need replacing. I guess that makes me some RADICAL ENVIRONUT!

No, your belief that MAN is causing the Climate to Change and furthermore that through legislation, taxation, regulations and treaties we can somehow "stop" the Climate from changing... is what makes you a Radical Environut*.

*His term, not mine.
 
Last edited:

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yeah, you heard me. Man, is local, Climate is Global.

(Let's see how many AGW'ers stop reading right there and scream about Man is all over the globe and other silly non-sense.)


The more localized you get, the more of an effect MAN has on his environment. Let's take Joe. Joe buys a plot of land that was otherwise untouched by the hand of man. He changes the landscape by clearing trees, planting new ones, building a home. He has impacted the Environment.

But what Joe has done doesn't go much further than that.


Now let's say Joe, instead of buying that land for a home, decides to be a farmer! He clears it, he cultivates it, he uses the land. Again, his impact is on his land and not much further.

Do you see the trend here?

Now get LOTS of Joes together. You get a town or a city, New York City for example, heavily impacts its surroundings. Go 20-30 miles east... not really. Except, of course, at Night you get light pollution. ;)

Mans impact is and always will be localized. SOME things DO affect wider regions. Chernobyl created a huge radiation dead zone. But life still goes on. China has few if any Air Regulations, but even there the impact is in and around Cities.

Don't you people see?

The problem isn't some Global Climatic DISASTER waiting to happen unless "WE ACT NOW". It never has been. It's about fixing things around the LOCAL area. But that's not very profitable... monetarily or politically. What power or money is gained by getting people to clean up the town park? Or to get the local plant to clean up its direct impact?

Not much. Cause the people in Ohio aren't impacted by the people in Iowa. But convince them they ARE, and suddenly you have a CAUSE, you have a CAUSE that you can profit from. A Cause you can derive political power from.

And that's all AGW is, a CAUSE. It's being exploited for the gain of greedy, selfish people. It's always been that way. Instead of people worrying about the little stuff around them, no no, that's not enough. Now it's GLOBAL disaster waiting to happen and it's all our fault unless WE ACT NOW!

Don't you SEE? I do, I always have. That's why the consensus science claims don't move me. Science isn't done by committee. That's what the calls to GLOBAL ACTION repel me. It's not the GLOBE that needs help, it's localized issues that need to be cared about.

But what happens is people STOP caring. Cause really, it's not their problem, it's the Government's problem, it's someone else's problem. It's not about what car you drive that has low emissions or high gas mileage. That doesn't do anything.

It's not laws and regulations nor is it treaties and scaremongering that will make things on this planet better. It's worrying about the things that actually matter. We can't change the Climate, we can't control it, effect or bother it.

WE can effect our immediate surroundings. Worry about that, and watch life get better.

And just how many "Joes" are there in the world??

One Joe does not make a difference - 6,870,100,000 people will make a difference if each one of those clears even one acre of land of trees - then there is that many less trees to absorb CO2
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
And just how many "Joes" are there in the world??

One Joe does not make a difference - 6,870,100,000 people will make a difference if each one of those clears even one acre of land of trees - then there is that many less trees to absorb CO2
Told you guys, it be all about the "omg so many" and missing the important part.

Not much. Cause the people in Ohio aren't impacted by the people in Iowa. But convince them they ARE, and suddenly you have a CAUSE, you have a CAUSE that you can profit from. A Cause you can derive political power from.

And that's all AGW is, a CAUSE. It's being exploited for the gain of greedy, selfish people. It's always been that way. Instead of people worrying about the little stuff around them, no no, that's not enough. Now it's GLOBAL disaster waiting to happen and it's all our fault unless WE ACT NOW!
 

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Look at Vicchio go!

Putting forth his own theory. No data or research.

Let me see if I understand, there should only be climate change right over power plants and congested freeways...???:roll::confused:

Yeah, okay...:lamo
 

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,333
Reaction score
3,591
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Not really. The effect, is minimal globally. The closer to the source, the greater the impact.

Which explains why we hear so much about the eutrophication and dead zones in the Missourri river around Nebraska and Kansas, and not the lesser problems in the Gulf of Mexico after water flow flushes the pollutants down stream to the mississippi and eventually to the Gulf.

...and the huge concentations of plastic off the coast of San Diego, and Los Angeles, and not the lesser problem in the middle of the pacific after currents again flush the debris away.

or to add another example from the not so distant past all that acid rain caused by the concentrated SO2 in industrial areas such as Gary, Indiana and not the lesser effect of the acid rain that fell "locally" hundreds of miles away from the pollution emitters in upstate NY and Vermont after the wind blew it all away.

Your entire premise is demonstrably false.
 
Last edited:

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Which explains why we hear so much about the eutrophication and dead zones in the Missourri river around Nebraska and Kansas, and not the lesser problems in the Gulf of Mexico after water flow flushes the pollutants down stream to the mississippi and eventually to the Gulf.

...and the huge concentations of plastic off the coast of San Diego, and Los Angeles, and not the lesser problem in the middle of the pacific after currents again flush the debris away.

or to add another example from the not so distant past all that acid rain caused by the concentrated SO2 in industrial areas such as Gary, Indiana and not the lesser effect of the acid rain that fell "locally" hundreds of miles away from the pollution emitters in upstate NY and Vermont after the wind blew it all away.

Your entire premise is demonstrably false.

Acid rain was such crap you know that don't you? (I'm talking about all the scare tactics over it. I remember the scary news stories and sitting through lessons in school over it. Acid Rain is a NATURAL occurring event, and it didn't take much to limit what we caused.)

Also I did cover the fact that some things do have a wider effect, but not a GLOBAL effect.
 
Last edited:

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Look at Vicchio go!

Putting forth his own theory. No data or research.

Let me see if I understand, there should only be climate change right over power plants and congested freeways...???:roll::confused:

Yeah, okay...:lamo

No, Climate changes. Man's impact is generally very localized. Try reading the whole thing prior to posting, saves others the trouble of correcting you.
 

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,333
Reaction score
3,591
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Acid rain was such crap you know that don't you? Also I did cover the fact that some things do have a wider effect, but not a GLOBAL effect.


PH measurements and elevated sulfur content in lakes was faked I am guessing?
 
Last edited:

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,333
Reaction score
3,591
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I edited in a kicker cause I realized I didn't quantify my comment.

The kicker is that we controlled the SO2 emissions from smokestacks in Indiana, and Michigan, and Ohio, and the "natural" acid rain problem in Upstate NY and New England became not so much a problem anymore.

This flies directly in the face of your claim that activities in Iowa do not effect events in Ohio, just as fertilizer runoff from the midwest causing dead zones in the gulf does, the problem is NOT concentrated at the source, but rather the "local" concentration is hundreds, if not 1500 miles from the source
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The kicker is that we controlled the SO2 emissions from smokestacks in Indiana, and Michigan, and Ohio, and the "natural" acid rain problem in Upstate NY and New England became not so much a problem anymore.

This flies directly in the face of your claim that activities in Iowa do not effect events in Ohio, just as fertilizer runoff from the midwest causing dead zones in the gulf does, the problem is NOT concentrated at the source, but rather the "local" concentration is hundreds, if not 1500 miles from the source

It's still not a global problem. You're listing two incidents of regional effects my point quite stands. I covered this all ready.
 

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,333
Reaction score
3,591
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's still not a global problem. You're listing two incidents of regional effects my point quite stands. I covered this all ready.

So regional = local now... gotcha

keep telling yourself that your point stands if it makes you feel better, I will let you be and stop pointing to its shattered remnants lying at your feet and let you maintain the self delusion now.
 
Top Bottom