Buying another car? Wait, choke on this
By RACHEL CHAN SUET KAY
It is scary when even up in Cameron Highlands you can feel the brunt of pollution. It’s getting hotter and the air full of smog from motorized vehicles. It’s no longer the getaway destination famous for its romantic mists and cool highland breeze. It’s just hot!
Why?
Because there are more cars than people who need them. Our ability to purchase motorized vehicles far outweighs our ability to preserve the environment.
Let’s take a brief look at what comes out of our car exhaust pipes. There is carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, benzene, formaldehyde and polycyclic hydrocarbons. Low levels of nitrogen dioxide alone can irritate the eyes, nose and lungs. High levels, on the other hand, may cause build-up of fluid in the lungs, swelling of throat tissues and even death.
So really, flaunting your wealth through fuel guzzling motorized vehicles can’t buy you happiness, if happiness includes good health.
A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that heart disease can occur from years of breathing in just the soot and dust from exhaust pipes. And it’s extremely difficult to successfully treat lung cancer.
Many people would say that living a good life includes accumulating fancy cars. Nevertheless, consider this: In 1998 and 2005, we experienced the hottest temperatures on average ever recorded in our planet’s history, according to NASA. That is, the hottest temperatures on earth in a couple million of years. And an MIT study stated that carbon dioxide in our atmostphere increased about 31 percent from year 1800 to 2000.
What does this mean? Is it a global conspiracy to stop us from buying cars and, horror of horrors, force us to walk?
And what’s to blame for the spate of severe droughts, tsunamis and hurricanes enveloping mother earth these past three years? Global warming.
Surely we are to blame for contributing to the increase of carbon dioxide transmission on earth.
While conversatives continue to dispute any ties between natural disasters and global warming, the simple fact is this - “the build-up of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere from human burning of fossil fuels threaten to trigger more powerful storms and raise sea levels, exposing coasts to more erosion,” according to Alister Doyle, an environmental correspondent for Reuters.
Fortunately, the plight of the environment has reached the higher echelons of pop culture, prompting former Vice President Al Gore to highlight the effects of global warming in his film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” The tagline of the film, “Humanity is sitting on a time bomb,” captures the one true bomb out to destroy mother earth - us.
The earth’s temperature has increased by 1ºF over the past 100 years and we are responsible for creating this inferno.
And we can’t just undo all the damage that’s done.
Our future generation will suffer the consequences from our mistakes. They will have to endure the melting of the Arctic, possibly the extinction of salt-water fishes by 2048, a rise in sea levels, floods, more floods, and cancer.
A strange twist in this epic of global warming, however, is the blooming of a rare breed of flowers in Uttar Pradesh, one of India’s driest districts. Scientists have dubbed them “the plants of the future.” In Indian mythology, flowers and plants have great prophetic significance. The flower is known as Elephant Yam, and exudes the smell of rotting flesh. Perhaps the flowers were placed there as a mythological warning of times to come.
—
RACHEL CHAN SUET KAY is a contributing writer for theCICAK.
Rachel, 22, aspires to be a social scientist. Visit her site.
If you liked this article, here are some related posts:
Responses || Discussion || Debates || Commentaries
Post your opinion
Does your comment encourage responsible, intelligent discussion?
All comments are moderated for impersonations and defamatory, racially, sexually and religiously offensive content.
By the way... since you're sharing your comments, get paid for it.
- The rise of left-wing politics in Malaysia
- Fuel price hike in Malaysia: Bane or blessing?
- Malaysia’s first LGBT weblog
- Kick the overspending, underachieving habit, Malaysia
- The best thing Pak Lah has done: Drastic reduction of petrol subsidies
- FFF2008 announces competition winners!
- Different races all loving each other?
- Part 2, Analyzing Malaysian Parties: Should DAP compromise its principles?
- Why I’m for Tibet being part of China, and against the Chinese Communist Party’s actions
- Is Islam, Judaism and Christianity still relevant today?
Subscribe via RSS
Latest News
Register to receive the best articles, comments, and competitions in your inbox!
Part 1: Creating a new manifesto for Malaysia
Malaysia has a government that treats the constitution as nothing more than the toilet paper that adorns your bathrooms. They run roughshod on it, treating it like joke, a document of whimsy and games. Thus, as a result...Young Malaysians, here are ten steps to become better citizens
A very basic list of things that twenty-something’s can do as citizens.The hunt for subversives: Malaysian Government arrest Bersih, Hindraf activists and lawyers
Does the "Malaysian way" condone detention without trial, arbitrary arrests, tear gas, water cannons, violence and lies?Adultery does not justify battery
How far would you go if your lover cheated on you? Be honest.
Comment of the week
I defend my right as a Malaysian to talk about anything that concerns Malaysia.
Powered by FireStats
Some beef I have with your article:
You cite facts from NASA and MIT saying: “In 1998 and 2005, we experienced the hottest temperatures on average ever recorded in our planet’s history, according to NASA. That is, the hottest temperatures on earth in a couple million of years. And an MIT study stated that carbon dioxide in our atmostphere increased about 31 percent from year 1800 to 2000.”
1.) You state the NASA and MIT statistics. Fair enough. But what’s your point? Are you implying that the carbon dioxide emissions between 1800 and 2000 caused the ‘hottest temperatures on average ever recorded in our planet’s history’? If so, cite a study that says so. Don’t, instead, use your intuition and imply that there is a causational relationship between both facts. You’re not an environmental geologist.
2.) You say we are currently (well, somehwat currently) experiencing “the hottest temperatures on earth in a couple million of years.” Though it somewhat conflicts with your previous NASA statistic (is it or is it not the ‘hottest temperatures’ that we are experiencing currently?), I want to ask you this; if it is the ‘hottest temperature’ on earth in a couple of million years - then, if you think logically, it was somewhat as hot as it is now like it was those ‘couple of million years’ ago no? But we weren’t around those couple of million years ago - however it was still hot! So how now, browncow?
“The earth’s temperature has increased by 1ºF over the past 100 years and we are responsible for creating this inferno.”
1.) Are we REALLY responsible? Do you know that there are a number of Environmental Geologists who think otherwise?
2.) I suggest you read CREDIBLE / VALID scientific research, and not what Al Gore/CBS says/reports.
I’ll be frank with you. I am growing tired of all this media sensationalism of the issue. There are more important things to worry about i.e, the impending energy crisis - what are we going to do when oil runs low and becomes too expensive?
Consider this (from a geology textbook):
1.) The ACCURACY of these geological/computational models to attempt to account for factors that control climate warming and cooling are poorly known.
2.) The ACCURACY of these predictions of the effects of future warming/cooling is unknown.
3.) The consequences of reducing carbon dioxides (and other supposed greenhouse gases) is unknown.
I won’t deny that what we’re doing currently is *probably* contributing to *some* of the warming that is occuring currently. However, why do we not consider that there maybe OTHER causes to warming other than it being anthropogenic? Even the author has mentioned in the article that it was almost as hot as it is today a few million years ago - what was the cause of that? I’ll let you find that out for yourselves.
It all boils down to this: there is not enough evidence to say that we are definitely the cause of warming. In fact, alot of scientist are admitting that there is much to be researched before laying down any substantial claim. In fact, what IF our contribution to warming is extending the present interglaciation into a super-interglaciation period, therefore forestalling the next ice-age? Wouldn’t that make you want to emit more greenhouse gases?
Let’s face it, the greenhouse effect keeps earth habitable. Without it, earth would be as cold as, i dunno, the moon. The media has been demonizing the greenhouse effect. Our emission of greenhouse gases is nothing compared to what the ocean emits (yes, water vapour is a greenhouse gas, in fact it accounts for 97% of all greenhouse gases). So how now, browncow?
The truth of the matter is, aside that it’s not really inconvinient, that there are other pressing matters to be worry about. I respect Al Gore for doing what he’s doing now, since it’s noble and all. But surely the efforts put into this issue could be diverted elsewhere - where humans are REALLY suffering.
Climate evolves. Climate never stays the same. Let’s keep that in mind and read both-sides of the story before we go blaming ourselves for that 4 celcius temperature increase.
Was this a good comment?
And also! Does anyone else see the irony of this Live Earth event? I mean what with the amount of energy used to power the concert, for people to get to the events, for people to switch on all their laptops/computers/tvs to watch the event, for people to program their tivos … aiyaya imagine all that electricity used …
PS. From the Live Earth website:
“With support from the U.S. Green Building Council, creators of the LEED Green Building Rating System, Live Earth will implement new Green Event Guidelines. All Live Earth venues will be designed and constructed by a team of sustainability engineers who will address the environmental and energy management challenges of each concert site, as well as the operations of sponsors, partners and other Live Earth affiliates. Each venue will not only be designed to maintain a minimum environmental impact, but will showcase the latest state-of-the-art energy efficiency, on-site power generation, and sustainable facilities management practices. ”
That’s all they have on how they will keep the event ‘green’. Just a paragraph. Nothing else. Not even an elaboration on how this “latest state-of-the-art energy efficiency, on-site power generation, and sustainable facilities management practices” works. A page would have been fine.
All this is so dodgy no?
Was this a good comment?
Hi Rachel, I appreciate your enthusiasm on the topic. Goodness knows we need more people who share your passion to make a change.
However, I do find your endorsement of the elephant yam as a “plant of the future” unfounded. Just because a plant is discovered or studied recently doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been around for a significant part of our natural history. Sounds like the elephant yam is well-adjusted to dry/hot conditions and it might be thriving better now because of global warming; it may now be more prevalent in certain environments. But I would be hesitant to conclude more than that. Some genetic experiments and phylogenetic analyses might shed some light as to how long it has been around. Also, a reference would be appreciated so that the original article can be found and the scientists who did the work can be credited (or poo-pooed for a bad study). A reference for the laundry list of motor emissions and the effects of NO2 would also be nice.
Was this a good comment?
Hi Jeremy, thumbs up for being analytical.
Live Earth might be succinct in trying to communicate what its goals are, but from personal experience, I realize that many people don’t like reading a long article on most things, especially if it’s something new or not of their interest. A summary of a message can often be more effective. Discussions that result from that brief communication is a goal and can be even more powerful in spreading awareness and bringing change.
A quick Google search on “sustainable architecture” or “green building” will list websites explaining what it is and what is involved. For example, this is a wikipedia entry that popped up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_architecture
“latest state-of-the-art energy efficiency” - I think this refers to a building that uses less energy for ventilation/heating to maintain a comfortable environment for inhabitants/users, switching all light-bulbs to energy-efficient ones, etc…
“on-site power generation” - my guess is the installation of solar panels
“sustainable facilities management practices” - perhaps they’ll install and maintain toilets that use less water but flush efficiently, more hand driers so that we can save some trees from being made into paper towels, continuous use of only energy-efficient light bulbs… again, just a guess.
I’m not saying that I know what Live Earth’s plans are, but that this is the vibe that I get from the pledge. Some accountability would be nice. We should all be looking forward to see if and how they meet their goals in the near future.
Was this a good comment?
As a person concerned more with the the mishandling of solid waste as it is, I’ve got to say that a car is a car. You buy it, you use it, and if you maintain it regularly it will be efficient and therefore less of an environmental disaster. I am, perhaps, one of the above described as “flaunting my wealth through fuel guzzling motorized vehicles” considering that I drive a 10-year-old Volvo.
I am not repentant on this, considering that I usually drive only when I have to. Plus, the car is serviced on a routine basis, unlike so many others which are releasing smoke that show signs of neglect.
It’s true that perhaps we could argue that people are buying more cars than they need. But how do we define that? One car per family? Or two? Or if they have kids in college, perhaps even three or four? The thing is, what exactly is the alternative?
If anyone mentions public transportation here in our country as ‘reliable’ or even ‘punctual’, I will pray the word liar appears on your forehead.
Sure, carbon emissions are on the rise, but at the same time we haven’t even catered any plans to deal with carbon emissions since the 70’s. Even then, the only step we took were to ban CFC using appliances because it causes holes in the ozone.
Nobody even dares to mention that sending an angkasawan into space has the same effect, now, do they?
To decrease emissions would mean either to start planting trees on land that we don’t have, to overhaul our entire country’s mass transportation system with money that will simply disappear down the drain, to lower duties on environmentally friendly cars that cost as much as a semi-D house even without the duties and taxes, to increase taxes on polluting industries that would probably then move to China, to remove the subsidy from the petrol, gas and diesel prices to discourage it’s use and finally, to use renewable energy, such as nuclear which we can’t do due to ZOPFAN, plus, I’m not exactly sure how long before some radical Islamist decides to blow himself up in one of these.
I’m being negative, perhaps. I mean we could always drown hectares and hectares of forests and then call it renewable energy, like what we’re planning to do with Bakun.
The truth is, Malaysia is not exactly environmentally friendly. Look at it’s people who can’t even use a normal trash can, let alone recycle. They ride motorbikes and trucks with oil and soot coming out, you know they’ve never serviced it ever before. We can’t even keep a public toilet clean.
Also, being environmentally friendly is not exactly cheap. Considering the fact that we won’t even implement a minimum wage policy, where does one expect the extra cash to be ‘green’ from? Have you seen how much an eco lightbulb costs?
It’s basically 3 servings of nasi campur with a drink for one lightbulb.
As for the elephant yam, who cares? The Rafflesia that we’re so proud of stinks just as bad.
Was this a good comment?
Yeah, I think cars are really bad but not primarily for the reasons you state. The real pollution happens during the manufacturing and servicing of cars. All that steel has to be made somewhere, and iron mines and steel plants are very dirty affairs. Making car components produce all sorts of industrial wastes that are not properly disposed off in less developed countries like ours. I have also always wondered what small workshops do with all the engine oil, brake fluids, excess paint and waste materials that come off cars. They probably have a waste contractor that takes these away from their premises, but what do these companies do with the waste? Dump them in a hole in a jungle when nobody’s looking? Into a river?
In Western Europe you can’t dump things illegally because of law enforcement and simply because there is no wilderness in Europe. Population density is uniformly high and everyone will see whatever it is you do. In Malaysia, there is so much unpopulated jungle one can do anything in them without anybody noticing.
Was this a good comment?
You know.. melting ice and floods sounds very much like Noah’s Ark. Wonder if God is angry. *laughs* Seriously, we mankind have been very irresponsible. We don’t give a damn bout anything till we come to a point where we say,
‘Man, i’m gonna be affected by all these. Shit. Now what should i do??’
‘Let’s make a boat.’
On the other hand, B says,”We need an alternative planet! Any other planets suitable for humans out there?? Let’s explore the space! Come on come on, hurry now!”
While our studious students in colleges and universities… have their heads buried deep in books and nothing else. We can’t even get them to quit smoking. Environmental awareness? U must be kidding.
The environmental issue is no joke but how do we get it thru these dense people. How do we remove that ‘dunno-dun-care’ attitude? They need to be reminded of Noah’s Ark.
Oh dear, what do we do what do we do?
Was this a good comment?
Switching away from cars, there’s also this. Anyhow, that merits a whole new article, no?
Cow Burping (http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/994)
cheers
Was this a good comment?
Rachel, I think your article is a bit stretched and quite a bit ‘too conclusive’ on the issue of global warming. More links and research needs to be shown for an article of this nature, which is still a controversy in many an ignoramus’ minds. Maybe you also shouldn’t have titled it “Buying another car”. You automatically piss off all the car lovers out there, and there’s A LOT of them.
Jeremy, wow. It is shocking to know that people like you still exist. For someone who tells everyone to “read both-sides of the story before we go blaming ourselves for that 4 celcius temperature increase” you seem to be quite ill-informed about the issue. I’m guessing that you haven’t watched An Inconvenient Truth either.
Arguing that the ocean contributes water vapor that sustains a greenhouse effect in order to make carbon dioxide seem like less of a pollutant, is like saying that your body is largely made up of water, and gashing open your sides and letting some blood out doesn’t matter, coz there’s plenty of liquids left in you. My head hurts from that analogy of yours. (Mine will probably hurt yours too, and from that I hope you get the idea.)
I’m sorry to shatter your illusion regarding your own well-informedness on the issue, but several hundred scientific authors, and several thousand who reviewed their work, all leading thinkers on climate change, disagree with you. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have concluded that there is a very high probability that humans are the ones causing climate change, but more importantly that we ARE in a position to do something about it, and we ARE going to suffer terrible repercussions for ignoring it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm
A bunch of the controversy you may want to see regarding the IPCC itself can be found in the link below. What is clear is that the IPCC is government funded, and is often criticized as being too conservative regarding our estimates. Most governments do not want to jeopardize the business that line their political pockets after all - businesses which rely on, for the status quo, highly polluting ventures. Many scientific papers have been published since the IPCC report’s release which clearly indicate that the even IPCC is underestimating the impact and possible progression of climate change. Not to mention that the IPCC decided to ignore real possible non-linear climate change events (such as the shutting down of the ocean conveyor, portrayed in an overly exaggerated form in the movie Day After Tomorrow.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
Scientific reports on how our estimates are too low :
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11083
Scientific report on feedback loops (how one thing worsens another):
http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11876&feedId=online-news_rss20
Like it or not, climate change is real. People aren’t jumping on some silly bandwagon. If anything, people are opening their eyes a little too late.
I also want to correct a perception that Rachel seems to bring in her article that it is the rise of climate warming in pop culture that prompted Al Gore to make a movie about global warming. In truth, Al Gore has been tackling the global warming issue since early in his political career, thanks to inspiration from a Professor he had in college. The records of his actions in the Senate and Congress are public information. He worked so hard on these things that Bush Snr called him a environmental nutcase.
And btw, the two original designers of the TCP/IP protocol have released a statement supporting Gore’s claim on helping create the Internet. (He never said he invented the Internet.)
http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/history/gore.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10/02/net_builders_kahn_cerf_recognise/
Yes yes, Gore is my hero. Sorry for digressing.
Lastly, WATCH An Inconvenient Truth. It is the testimony of a man who has done nothing to gain through his efforts, (he’s already not running for President of the US although he’ll most likely win full support from his party if he runs, and has people calling him to ask if the should save their money to fund him), and who genuinely cares about where the world may be going if we do nothing to stop this hell we’re creating on earth.
Was this a good comment?
Willie Poh,
Despite your comment (which was based on pure assumption about me), I still appreciate your views on this. However, I am going to refrain from calling you obnoxious and pompous.
What I’m about to say is not meant to defend my opinion, but to clarify it:
1.) I hope you understand that I do not deny the existence of global warming. I do believe it exists. If you read my comment properly, I even admitted that I do not deny that what we are doing is probably contributing to some of the warming.
2.) I would like to point out that I said that there is not enough evidence to say that we are definitely the cause of warming. Emphasis on the word ‘definitely’. The IPCC report says ‘high probability’ / ‘very likely’, but not ‘definitely’ or something synonymous with ‘definitely’.
3.) I apologize for my water vapour analogy, if it makes your oh-so-mighty head hurt. What I meant in that paragraph was to make sure everyone understood that water vapour constitutes 97% of all GHGs and that we need this greenhouse effect to keep us alive. But whatever, you seem to know that (and more) already.
4.) I only believe what I believe is due to the fact that scientists are only agreeing in consensus amongst themselves that global warming is caused by anthropogenic activities.
Science is all about facts. What my problem is (and my impetus to writing that first comment), is that people like you are pushing global warming caused by anthropogenic activities as if it is a fact. Is it really? I have already said that the consensus amongst scientists is that it is very likely that global warming is anthropogenically caused. A fact is ‘is’ or ‘is not’. There is no ‘very likely’ when it comes to facts. If something is ‘very likely’ that mean it is not a fact. If you read individual climate scientists’ reactions to the IPCC report, even they themselves agreed that the climate/geological models used were abit iffy. How can something be a fact, when the methods used to research aren’t even exact? We’re essentially guessing that global warming is caused by us, and all agreeing to that.
Forgive me, almighty one. I was only playing devil’s advocate - ENCOURAGING you to read both-sides of the story and considering the fact that there just MIGHT be other contributing factors (i.e, what about orbital forcings? solar forcings? Has there been a similar output of research on non-anthropogenic forcings as there has been on anthropogenic forcings?) But you just shot me down so fast. You did not even acknowledge that you have studied both sides of the issue.
I suppose that because I have not watched Mr. Gore’s documentary and read BBC news sources, I can be considered as only having an illusion of ‘well-informed’ness. But rather than watching regurgitated facts from mainsream media, (i.e, Al Gore documentaries and the newspapers) and sucking it up without a HINT of skepticism (and salt!) - I take it upon myself to use the old-school traditional route of academia to find out. I took a class in Environmental geology, I read papers from both sides (I’m aware of who James Hansen is, as I’m sure you are), I read wiki and I read the stuff on newspapers (However, you’re right - I didn’t watch An Inconvinient Truth).
I have formulated my analyses and opinion based on whatever I have learnt. I don’t profess to be well-informed and I apologize if I come across as trying to sound well-informed. But I just state what I know. The main point of my comment was that we should know both sides before fervently taking sides. I wasn’t out to attack Al Gore in my first comment (maybe i was jostling a little in the second ;)). In fact, I even mention that I respect what he is doing. So therefore, the whole Al Gore fanboy section of your comment was NOT necessary.
I’m not a geologist. I’m not a climate scientist. Whatever. But I AM in a scientific discipline (neuroscience, if you must know), and am taught to be ANALYTICAL. That is what you seem to be lacking. You are so taken in by whatever Mr. Gore says, that any analytical perspective within you fails. There is a difference between ‘I think we caused it ..’ and ‘We caused it ..’.
At last, I hope you at least CONSIDER what I have said before you shoot another pompous/obnoxious reply based on assumption back my way. I really don’t care if you agree or disagree, but I would like to have a civilized argument with someone based on personal analyses as a motivator, rather than pure fanboy-ness.
PS. I don’t appreciate your snarky responses about me. (”It is shocking to know that people like you still exist”.) I honestly really couldn’t care less if this certain phantom attribute of me that makes me a member of some phantom population shocks you. It doesn’t make your argument any better. You don’t know me. I intend to keep it that way. Let’s have a civilized debate, leaving personalities out of it. Thank you.
Was this a good comment?
Science has left the realm of facts a long time ago. Nowadays, it’s also a lot about probabilities. I think they call it statistical correlation. If you ask an operations researcher, “Does implementing X reduce Y?” he’ll say,
“Well according to Harmann et al in a 1998 paper, the correlation between X and Y is statistically significant, but only if W is present at above the 5 ppm level. Krushnev et al, OTOH, using a larger sample from a different time period, found the confidence level to be only at 95%. But Merriwether et al in last month’s “Journal for Operations Research” thinks Krushney’s experiment to be faulty. Because you see, Krushney did not measure X directly, he used Z as a proxy for it, and Merriwether put forth some very convincing arguments that, in his experiment, Z is in fact a poor proxy for X.”.
So what is the conclusion? Nobody knows just yet. Facts take decades to percolate up. Large parts of the sciences are messy and argumentative.
Was this a good comment?
And even when they do percolate up, they are expressed in the language of probabilities.
Not “Smoking kills” but instead “Smoking increases your risk of lung cancer”.
Was this a good comment?
Jeremy, it would appear that I am mistaken about you, and for that I would like to apologize. You appear to be a lot more well read on the issue that you demonstrated in your initial two posts. Considering that your own tone was rather ‘conclusive’ (recommending that people read valid and credible research in caps only suggest that whatever that they’ve read from mainstream media is in fact, invalid), I felt the need to very strongly point out that a stance taken from some very ‘already-decided’ angle doesn’t necessarily mean it is true.
Considering how well informed you are then, I am even more shocked that you have still arrived at the conclusion you have. Even the editor of the Skeptic Magazine (Michael Shermer) have come around regarding global warming although he was initially undecided. I hope it is not due to a lack of materials to read / study.
Oh and by the way, science is not all about facts. Nothing is definite either. In fact, scientific theories cannot even be proven. Nobody can ever prove that Newton’s theory of gravity is ‘true’. We can only confirm the predictions made by a theory, and should the predictions be reliable enough, use the principle in creating technology. While we found Newton’s theory reliable for the longest time, Einstein came along and provided a more accurate theory, etc. And string theory is succeeding that, although that is more philosophy than science since that it provides very few testable hypotheses. Facts are merely empirical evidence, but science is not only based on facts, it is also based on the theories that makes sense of them. Otherwise, science would be useless.
I am not promoting this as a fact btw. You’ll notice that I commented that Rachel was too ‘conclusive’.
The theory on the facts regarding the temperature of the world, the level of carbon dioxide, the changing ocean temperatures and etc have led the vast majority of scientists to theorize that humans are causing this. “Very likely the cause of” is good enough as a strong scientific theory. It’s pretty much as good as ’smoking causes lung cancer’ I would think. (Considering that tobacco companies are still funding plenty of researches to say otherwise, and there’s some ‘papers’ to prove that opposite fact too.) Every scientist is careful to state that it is only a ‘possibility.’ However, when thousands of papers on the issue each ‘carefully’ conclude that it is a possibility, and in recent years, a very high probability, and when a commission of several hundred scientists sit down with advice for several thousand more, and goes through ALL of these papers, and conclude that it is VERY likely that we are the cause of global warming, and that there will be repercussions, I will not presume to doubt them. (After doing some reading of my own of course.)
True - there may be non-human causes of global warming. Your opinion seems to coincide with people like David Deutsch who have said that the whole thing is real, but too much is being made out of it, and that we should learn to live at higher temperatures, instead of trying to maintain the current temperature. I can agree with these opinions - in fact I used to. In terms of priorities, worrying about the increase of a few degrees in temperature seems to be too much compared to poverty, AIDS etc.
However, considering the possible repercussions of global warming, be it man-made or otherwise, it is my opinion that articles like Rachel’s are important. Repercussions I am talking about include the cutting off of fresh water supplies to 1/4 (or was it 1/3) of the world population, more violent storms and heat waves killing hundreds of thousands (happening already), sudden flooding and freezing of populated areas displacing hundreds of millions of people, the destruction of biodiversity on earth, the change of climate related eco-balances causing the spread of diseases and the repercussions that come with the change in the habitability of locations - scarcity of resources leads to conflict…
But the last two paragraphs are all just that - opinions on whether action is necessary or beneficial. Your initial comment however, brushed all discussion aside and made Rachel’s points sound ill-conceived, whereas it is my STRONG opinion that they aren’t. Which is the reason for my strong response.
Again, I apologize for my own harshness. And I hope you’ll watch An Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore is as scientific as a politician (or mainstream, if you like) can get.
Was this a good comment?
Here is an excellent article written specifically to help in figuring out what’s real and what’s not real in the whole climate change debate :
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462
Check out the first link on ‘assessing the evidence’ in the article. It’s a good discussion on what’s real and what’s not real. (Climate myths: Assessing the evidence at http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11637)
Was this a good comment?
I liked how you ended your article with the whole of the last paragraph. It was really good. Anyhow, it’s good to know that you’re doing your part in trying to make a difference, especially amongst Malaysian youths, regarding this growing issue of our environment. I also think that it’s really sad that it takes a major event for people to see how our actions contribute to the decrease of our environment, when it was a well known scientific fact, but it’s never too late. It’s easy to see how the media really made people realise what their actions do towards mother earth. As of late, there has been Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and LiveEarth.org, letting people know what’s happening towards our earth.
Was this a good comment?
oh please… don’t write such articles as if you are such an expert in the environmental field. what are you, a sociologist isn’t it? number one. open you’re eyes wide, the industries are doing more harm than cars itself. sure cars contribute to the rise in temperature, but if we were to really solve the problem what do we do? shut down all the industries and go back to primitive living? and what about chopping down trees to build houses and buildings etc… isn’t that contributing too? and what about CFC use? doesn’t that contribute a lot to global warming? don’t put the blame all on cars pal. sure, they do contribute a bit but the blame is not wholly on cars, mind you. and as for cameron highlands getting warmer, do you visit Cameron highlands every month with a thermometer in hand? as far as i know, the development of cameron highlands is causing the warmth and not the cars. how many cars can you get up there anyway? by the way, how about putting down some real statistics from reliable sources? as far as the ones you quoted are concerned, i believe they are from unreliable sources. as for buying new cars, do you even notice how bad the public transport is here? sure, if we were in japan and singapore, it’d be easier to stop buying cars. and by the way, a properly maintained car doesn’t cause much problem, which is why it is advisable to change cars every few years as older cars are known to function less efficiently and produce more smoke due to inefficient fuel burning. could it be that the main reason you can so freely and easily protest against buying new cars is that you do not have a license to drive?
Was this a good comment?