[TwistedFates]

Originally Posted by Submariner

TwistedFates,

Your post makes sense to an extent, but you've reminded me of a recent program that discussed the temperature history of the earth. There was a time in the not too distant past when earth's temperatures rose and fell by as much as 50 degrees F over a span as little as 10 years. In fact, most of earth's history has been characterized by such volatility. Now I agree with your point that we shouldn't exacerbate the issue, but are humans really even making a dent? Even the most dramatic predictions on the effects of global warming are nothing compared to the expected volatility of earth. What's a few degrees over a few decades or centuries when the temperature can rise or fall by 10-100 times that amount? Do we really have any impact at all?

Submariner,

That question is the heart of the Global Warming debate. And you will not be able to coax me into giving you an answer. I do not have all the facts, and all of us never will have all the facts. We only have the few things we know to go on. And we do the best we can under the circumstances. But ignoring it would not be very prudent.

When it is all said and done, and as someone in an earlier message pointed out, we are a dot in the history of the earth. What we do may or may not matter in the larger context of the earth. But do we take the chance? That's all I am willing to say on the topic of Global Warming.

However, I liked where the earlier few messages was going and that it becomes more an idea of pollution that we as little dots on the earth are affected by. Those that are proponents become very polarized to the whole idea, "if I am against Global Warming, then I will do as I please." But say we forget the Al Gore rhetoric, and also other Sturm und drang messages on global warming over the last decade. What we are left with are very immediate and pressing issues concerning our immediate health now. Yes, it is the crap we are tossing into the waters and air. Lots of CO2 may not affect us right now, but we don't just toss pure CO2 into the air, it goes bundled together with a host of other noxious things. A recent study said that almost half of all Chinese cities have moderate to serious air pollution. China is a big place. For half the cities to be polluted is serious business. And you can't blame the earth for polluting China. There's no such thing as cycles where Chinese cities become more polluted and less so. And we haven't even talked about the water.

The bottom line, whether or not it is true what we do contributes significantly to the heating or cooling of the earth is a matter of debate. There will be people who think there's something going on with Global Warming, and there are those who thinks it is hogwash. That's fair. Without definitive scientific proof there will always be polarization. Look at something like the theory of evolution. What's dangerous is that we only see the one problem of Global Warming that Al Gore, David Suzuki, and other passionate environmentalists like them talk about and forget all the other messages that are equally as poignant and dire. Just because you won't die from a heat stroke or a massive hurricane tomorrow doesn't mean the effects of the horrible air and water you're exposed to right now doesn't have a long term impact on you. If you think second-hand smoke is bad.. well...

[Submariner]

TwistedFates,

I agree with your position that pollution is an issue on which we need to work regardless of the global warming debate. The point to which I was specifically referring was your position that humans are causing an increase in temperature and that the earth's temperature was rising more rapidly than historical precedent. The miniscule impact that humans have on earth's temperature (if any) does not, in my opinion, qualify as a measurable amount of "salt in the wound". Be that as it may, I am all for improving the environment, not for the supposed long-term benefits (ie. combatting global warming) but more for day to day comfort and quality of life.

[TwistedFates]

Submariner,

Only God has the definitive answer. We know what we know. We each have to make our informed choice. You know, the funny thing is we actually don't even know enough to say whether or not we are or are not making an impact. So much of what we do is indirect. We destroy trees, we destroy precious marine life that are key to maintaining a steady ecological environment, etc. At any rate we.. I, can only hope you're right.

[HoLangZai]

I previously worked with Christine Loh/Citizens party during the time when they got the government to fully introduce LPG taxi's in HK, which is one of the best accomplishments ever made on the environment here. So please don't tell me I don't care about the environment, or that I'm blind to whats outside. Thankyou.

[Expatriate]

Originally Posted by HoLangZai

I previously worked with Christine Loh/Citizens party during the time when they got the government to fully introduce LPG taxi's in HK, which is one of the best accomplishments ever made on the environment here. So please don't tell me I don't care about the environment, or that I'm blind to whats outside. Thankyou.

Well, there is a nice editorial of Clear The Air just today in the SCMP:

The director of audit concluded a couple of years ago that we, the taxpayers, were not getting our money's worth when it comes to reducing air pollution. In that vein, the government has produced no evidence that a single minibus or taxi was ever replaced by one using LPG as a result of the one-off incentive in 2002.

The vehicles were used for their full working term before being scrapped. They were replaced with vehicles that met Hong Kong's newest emissions standards - as required by law.

This access to free money for minibus licence-holders expired last year, thankfully, and the results are in: 50 per cent of the old diesel minibuses were still on the road as of last November. That's a 50 per cent failure rate. So the scheme did not work, and we paid out HK$120 million to minibus operators to proceed with business as usual. Taxi operators got HK$720 million under the conversion programme. And the old taxis were replaced with vehicles using LPG - but only after their normal two years in use. The subsidy didn't make that happen.

So, how much of those HK$ 840 million went into which pocket?

[punk]

Originally Posted by HoLangZai

I previously worked with Christine Loh/Citizens party during the time when they got the government to fully introduce LPG taxi's in HK, which is one of the best accomplishments ever made on the environment here. So please don't tell me I don't care about the environment, or that I'm blind to whats outside. Thankyou.

So you are aware that radioactive materials are a bi-product of nuclear energy.

It's all relative but given the current environmental conditions in HK, your organization has a long way to go.

[punk]

Originally Posted by Submariner

Punk, you are not being intellectually honest. Some "facts" in Gore's movie have indeed been discredited, yet you insist that they have all been validated. Even Gore's claim that all scientists agree on global warming is inaccurate as proven on this thread.

And speaking of scientists, you claim that all those who disagree with global warming are paid off by the oil companies. Instead of just mouthing off such loads of bullsh*t, why don't you back this up? Your behavior is typical of close-minded extremists who always resort to baseless accusations when faced with hard facts and data.

Finally, I have no doubt that many scientists are funded by the oil companies. But many more rely on funding from Universities which are usually bastions of the liberal movement.

Those who disagree with global warming usually do so because of the hard data. You ought to be more open-minded and consider that things are not as black and white as you'd like to think.

Point well taken. I am not a scientist nor an expert on global warming. I am confident that some facts in Gore's film have been discredited. I don't think this is an all or nothing scenario. But the general consensus in the scientific community leans toward global warming being a problem of epic proportion.

I did not mean that all scientists are on the payroll, but 60 Minutes recently did a story where a leading NASA scientist illustrated the point. A Bush policy advisor literally redlined his press release, changing his contention that global warming is a problem.

Please refrain from this liberal vs. conservative matter. Political bias, in the form of an apparent dislike of liberals is less interesting than the subject at hand, and merely distorts the issue. Indeed, I am open-minded as are you, given the 'black and white' comment.

I hope that in the future issues are viewed without the political baggage of what one views as a liberal or conservative issue. In a better world dialogue will move toward an honest and open assessment of truth regardless of whether it is considered right or left.

[TwistedFates]

Ooof! This thread is getting a bit too hawt. Lets all take a chill pill and agree to disagree on Global Warming. Anyone can take research data and bandy it around for their side. It gets us nowhere fast and makes everyone hot around the collar.

But I am sure we can all agree to the fact that there sure is a lot of pollution. Lets work on that first.

[Submariner]

I agree that this global warming issue has probably been beaten to death here.

However, Punk, I do need to set something straight. In my post which you referenced, politics was not the focus. But, now that you mention it, how can you separate politics from the global warming debate? Politics, not environmentalism, is at the core of this issue. This is unfortunate but true. You are correct that we deserve better. Politicians (including former ones) need to stay out of the debate and let the science speak for itself.

[sylvesterjay]

...which was the whole point of my original post. Gore should have kept politics out of the movie and focussed on what's happening and what we can do.