Worming, my bump
UK is getting obsessed with the emissions and CO footprint. I will say more then that, I would say that it is just fashion. Have a look at this new regulation for example:
The advertisement says that every house sold in UK will have to have its energy efficiency chart! It is law! Crazy, is not it?
My previous professor has changed my views on the topic by opening my eyes to the the following facts; firstly the earth temperature is changing constantly through its millions of year’s life span, it is a natural process. Secondly, the earth’s surface temperature is related to many factors. Try imagine the outside space with its lowest temperature possible (-182 Celsius) and almost highest possible deep inside the earth (thousands of degrees Celsius). Now, are we really expecting earth’s surface temperature to stay constant and balanced with the precision of 0.1 degrees? We are not the problem of this global worming, we might be only small part in this huge environment change. Other ideas are required to help people surviving the coming changes, preventing it will bring us nowhere.
Counting emissions here while China/Russia etc countries do not care about it is not the solution. Too much money is spent on rebuilding current facilities while for my opinion the new developed technology will eliminate the usage of the old one naturally with some time; therefore it does not worth spending money on rebuilding anything just because of the emission level.
For my opinion we are currently going too deep into it, the feeling is that somebody is doing a lot of money from this global worming campaign. I might guess that the next step will be to rank people for their breathing rate!
I might be breathing to fast, but please don’t tell me that leaving the lights on is going to be considered the crime against humanity. Do I hear agreement here?
The advertisement says that every house sold in UK will have to have its energy efficiency chart! It is law! Crazy, is not it?
My previous professor has changed my views on the topic by opening my eyes to the the following facts; firstly the earth temperature is changing constantly through its millions of year’s life span, it is a natural process. Secondly, the earth’s surface temperature is related to many factors. Try imagine the outside space with its lowest temperature possible (-182 Celsius) and almost highest possible deep inside the earth (thousands of degrees Celsius). Now, are we really expecting earth’s surface temperature to stay constant and balanced with the precision of 0.1 degrees? We are not the problem of this global worming, we might be only small part in this huge environment change. Other ideas are required to help people surviving the coming changes, preventing it will bring us nowhere.
Counting emissions here while China/Russia etc countries do not care about it is not the solution. Too much money is spent on rebuilding current facilities while for my opinion the new developed technology will eliminate the usage of the old one naturally with some time; therefore it does not worth spending money on rebuilding anything just because of the emission level.
For my opinion we are currently going too deep into it, the feeling is that somebody is doing a lot of money from this global worming campaign. I might guess that the next step will be to rank people for their breathing rate!
I might be breathing to fast, but please don’t tell me that leaving the lights on is going to be considered the crime against humanity. Do I hear agreement here?
posted by KGena at 3:18 PM
4 Comments:
Very disappointing, I see no agreement/disagreement or comments on this post.
Ok Ok here is the reaction...
I totally disagree with you!!!!
And the reason is very symple. No offence for China and Russia, but these are under developed countries... economicly cultureally and in all other aspects. You do not expect from them to do anything of that type by themselves at this point of their development.
Developed countries like US, Britain, wester Europe and others should be the ones who set new standarts and push for global developement.
Just like awareness of breast cancer did not start in Russia, awareness for environmental issues will not start in Russia.
First the develped countries (through fasion/governmet ads, laws and incentives) will create awareness... after that scientist like yourself will create the solutions and products to help environment then it will become a standart in the developed world and only after that china/russia and the rest of the underdeveloped countries wil copy the solutions and products.
Is that fair? (towards Britain and Uk) ... probably not, but that is the burden of developed countries to push in new directions. Just like you won't expect African nations to develope drugs against HIV, deabities, and hart deseases (that they will use after US will spend billions on medical research)
You can't expect from these countries to do anything of that type if their main problems are to provide necessities for their people.
Misha Goldenberg
any comment/responce?
Misha
Mishka, I agree totally and completely with your sayings about the poor countries and that the more developed one should push the science because they can.
My problem and that is why I have brought the subject is the over publicity on the global warming issue. This "over publicity" makes me suspicious that this topic is making money … and somebody willing to make even more money … so if this is a business, there should be an advertisement … and my opinion that all the rush we see on the topic is simply a good “advertisement campaign”. Ofcourse it cannot be one company it is all the companies in the area who make this “wow” effect …
I really do not think that there are any changes at the global temperature influenced by the greenhouse gases.
By the way, if I was working in the area and could get grants from the topic I would definitely be on the other side of the barricades, helping to rise the publicity on the global warming. More publicity brings more money, isnot it ?
I have even found a support on that here .. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020731080631.htm
but ofcourse an opposite saying here ...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6270
sorry for this delayed reply.
Post a Comment
<< Home