A Russian scientist has a different explanation for “global warming” and predicts an ice age around 2055-2060, lasting 45-65 years.
He also said that in 2008, global temperatures would drop slightly, rather than rise, due to unprecedentedly low solar radiation in the past 30 years, and would continue decreasing even if industrial emissions of carbon dioxide reach record levels.
I wonder if he is on the take from Big Oil.
In other environmental news, I thought this might interest some of you.
This comes from a campaign of The Objective Standard, in hopes that “the battle for civilization and against “environmentalism” will be brought to the fundamental alternative whereupon the matter ultimately must be decided: life or death.”
To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.
The fact annoys some people. But it shouldn’t: Hence our “Exploit the Earth or Die” campaign.
Discuss.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
LOL…full-blown ice ages last a tad longer than 65 years. He’s talking about another Little Ice Age. Here’s a hint though about predicting the weather…whenever you see someone predict something with great certainty and apparent great precision far in advance…ignore it…they don’t have any idea what they’re talking about. The science of meteorology and climatology just isn’t that good yet. Those sciences have only been around for about 150 years or so anyways. I’m not a fan of global warming either.
We really can live in better “harmony” with our environment. Energy conservation and real alternative energy production aren’t that hard to do. Continuing to exploit the Earth is *not* a sustainable venture. Where do we go when all the finite resources here are gone?
February 1st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Blah-blah, you’re still beating this one to death. Where’s that broken record? Yet another rightie idea to add to the dumpster of history.
That idiot site you referred to has “Exploit the earth or die.” as its slogan. “Exploit the earth AND die” would be more appropriate. What you all fail to realize in your continuous rush to put human needs at the forefront of everything else on the planet is that environmentalism is in a sense a battle to save civilization. This notion that we need to keep producing crap to survive really show me that you really don’t have a clue, if you really buy into this horseshit. Do you ? Please say yes, I need another thing to write about.
As to your Russian guy there, no way to tell if he’s on the take for big oil, but considering the role oil palys in Russia’s economy, it’s not a far-fetched assumption. Too bad there are thousand and thousands of scientists who disagree.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“Too bad there are thousand and thousands of scientists who disagree.”
There are actually a fair number of scientists who agree with this theory. And it fits the data better than the carbon-produced warming theory.
In fact, the only thing wrong with this position is that it does not further the political interests of the left.
If this gets out, you all might have to stop telling everybody what kind of light bulbs to use!!!
As for the Objectivists site, no, I do not agree with them. They are the opposite end of the crazy spectrum from radical environmentalists.
While there are some things I can agree with them on (ie capitalism is the best economic system), as can you (ie atheism), I am not a fan of Objectivism.
And I totally disagree that we need a bunch of material crap to survive. Although, I do love my computer.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 am
“In fact, the only thing wrong with this position is that it does not further the political interests of the left.”
No, the only thing wrong with is there’s not nearly enough evidence supporting it as the carbon-based theory. Where’s that broken record?
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:36 am
For sure we’ll have another real Ice Age on this planet in tens of thousands of years, but that’s a little different than that Russian guy telling us all what year a “mini cool” down will occur. Like I said before…I said no to the global warming theory a loooong time ago, when I was in college. I really don’t want to debate that again though.
You should use a compact fluorescent bulbs for two reasons…it saves you actual money and it saves energy in the long run…good for your *and* the enironment…