|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|Celtic Radio Community > Philosophy, Science & Religion > Global Warming|
|Posted by: Macfive 14-Apr-2006, 07:39 AM|
| Well, this is a bit odd for me to post a message of this content because it was not too long ago that I honestly thought that Global Warming was something that someone made up to create more profits.
Over the past year I have watched this topic on the news develop until at this point events are happening faster than scientist can even report on.
With the arctic poles melting, hurricanes flourishing, extreme & dangereous weather on the rise and the atlantic conveyor belt slowing all signs point towards the beginning of climate change now. We might have already reached the point of no return and everyone needs to be aware of what is down the road for us and our children.
Take a message from the Arctic Inuit tribe in this article:
View all of the articles on Arctic melting on google:
What is really scary is that scientist have probably under-estimated the amount of sea rise and warming because of failing to include certain unknown factors until now.
Like a big switch, the earth is making a change and while I am not trying to say this is the end of the world, I think everyone needs to step back and examine what is really happening here before we are confronted with a situation that could become very unmanagable very fast!
|Posted by: Senara 14-Apr-2006, 08:11 AM|
| Scientists have been warning us of this fact since the late 70's/early 80's. This planet has become one giant dumping ground for our now disposeable societies that it's no wonder the climate is changing at such an accelerated rate. Here in the US, we've had the technology to burn cleaner fuels, reduce fossil fuel consumption, re-use key materials and yet it all ends up down the road in the dump heap. Why? Because we like things to be cheap, to not change. Everything must be in our hands now and if it's not we'll bitch about it.
What we should be doing is telling our representatives to quit listening to the lobbists for a change and actually listen to those that voted for them. One can only write so many letters and feel useless because no one really takes the time to read them. It will take many voices to get the point across that we're fed up with the lies that they keep feeding us.
In this case the lie is "Oh the planet's doing just fine...there's nothing to worry about." Ya...this coming from the Oil/Gas companies. But what do I know....I'm not getting a 350+ million pension plan, use of the corporate jet and my country club dues paid for my pension plan.
|Posted by: Antwn 14-Apr-2006, 05:09 PM|
| There is a thread on Ye Olde Celtic Pub on this subject too if you want to read a few more posts. I mentioned a 60 minutes broadcast a few weeks ago where a leading NASA scientist complained about not being able to have published any of his findings in public journals until they'd been edited by the White House. He agreed to an interview because he was sick of the situation, and even then a "propaganda officer" (for lack of better term) from NASA was there off camera to babysit him during the interview. They also showed exerpts from his papers before and after editing.
Public response is controlled when the public is denied authoritative information without tampering. No one is sure what to believe or what is true and even those who are sure aren't allowed to publish it without a panoply of government equivocations added.
The government doesn't trust the public with information and the public doesn't trust the government's management of the situation. Truly a sign of downfall - or if that's too strong, then dysfunction. Remember Katrina when the government says "trust us we'll handle it".
In addition, its not just a US problem. For example, the world cannot afford to allow burgeoning economies like China and India, both with huge populations, to emulate the style of growth the US has had with its accompanying levels of CO2 emissions, though I don't know what can be done about it. Those countries' huge energy demands will only increase. China is the worlds fastest growing economy.
Since atmospheric gasses don't remain over the countries which produce them, solutions require an unprecedented cooperation between countries and adherence to agreed upon policies and treaties.
Recently I was watching a travel video about Greece and the Greek islands. In it a helicopter flew over most of the country so it showed Greece from above. It was absolutely beautiful, but what was also interesting to me was to see the number of solar panels on top of the houses. Looked like about every fourth house/building. Of course Greece gets the sunlight to make them efficient, but it was fascinating to see.
|Posted by: Shadows 15-Apr-2006, 04:56 AM|
| There is a thread in the Grove about the end date on the Mayan Calander that also supports this.
Mac5 thanks for that link to the Inuit, I had read it and lost the link!
Also take into consideration the increase in volcanic activity and earth quakes ( the last real big one that produced the sunami) tilted the earth off its true axis and cause it to wabble more then it already does.
All these things combined make a good case for a major change, maybe not an end as such.
|Posted by: Aaediwen 15-Apr-2006, 11:39 AM|
|I'm finally starting to see a shift to at least Hybrid vehicles on the road, and I smile. I understand that the migratin to cleaner fuels will take time, and hybrids still rely on gasoline. It's a step in the right direction, and I only hope that it's not too little too late. I also wonder if it would be possible to construct some kind of atmospheric scrubber to attempt to restore balance. Also, how much would such action even help our scenerio at this point?|
|Posted by: reddrake79 16-Apr-2006, 05:38 PM|
| better energy use is a good thing, cleaner fuels are a good thing, humans don't affect the earth to such a degree as to cause climate change. Our global polution pales in comparison to how much the earth puts out from volcanoes, evaporating oceans, etc. In local places (L.A.) yes we can affect local environment.
Has anyone ever read [/U] State of Fear [U] by Michael Chrichton? Excellent book.
He thouroughly researched this topic and wrote a fictional novel that is well documented and footnoted when it pertains to scientific readings.
Actually I remember the scientists predicting the coming iceage instead of global warming when I was growing up.
|Posted by: Antwn 18-Apr-2006, 06:26 PM|
Hello Aediwen - it may be a more a political/economic situation since alternative fuels already exist. Ask Willie Nelson, he already has a company which markets them in several gas stations out west. It requires no alteration to your existing engine to use the fuels either and provides another market for farmers. Forgot the name of it.
I'd thought you were a woman all this time until I looked at your profile! Guess its because I'm studying Welsh and in that language "en" is a feminine ending.
|Posted by: greenldydragon 19-Apr-2006, 11:29 AM|
|There was a show on National Geographic (I think it was their station, might have been the History Channel since a lot of their stuff has to do with science) about how global warming might actually lead to an ice age. However, I was also watching a science show with my mother that talked about the weakening of the earth's magnetic field (or whatever it is called) and how more radiation from the sun is coming in, but also about scientific research that supports a pattern of a weakening field before the poles switch. The north and the south poles aren't always magnetically in the same place. Evidence from centuries past show that as the poles are in the process of switching, the field weakens extremely and then once they are switched, it returns to its' normal strength. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html What I just talked about may be somewhat off topic, but Antwn you mentioned Willie Nelson's gas stations, I think you might be talking about ethanol or possibly biofuel. I did a report on the topic of Alternative fuels and one of the most interesting statistics I found was that if 4% of the world's deserts were covered in solar panels, the electricity garnered would be able to supply the entire world's electricity..This link has a bunch of news stories about alternative fuels, including the one I got this statistic from. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2006/energy/default.stm|
|Posted by: Antwn 20-Apr-2006, 06:08 PM|
|If true, the desert idea seems like a good one, particularly in remote areas of the Sahara. Might also be an economic boon for countries in that region to export electricity if the idea is feasible and they can get companies to invest in its development. The first step is for them to become politically stable enough warrant it.|
|Posted by: le pwner 23-Apr-2006, 07:18 AM|
|Though we might be helping it along, global warming could be just the natural changing of temperatures. If you look at past temperatures, like over millions of years, the climate has constantly been changing. Its been reasonably constant recently (in terms of how long the earth has been around) so weather is about due for a drastic change. It is something to be concerned about though.|
|Posted by: Elspeth 23-Apr-2006, 09:09 AM|
As one with a degree in Conservation, this is the fist place I always go to as well when I hear 'doomsday' reports. The first question I ask myself is- are these changes in relation to recent time or geologic time.
But, either way.... Western civilization (btw, I read that when Gandhi asked what he thought about Western Civilization, he responded he thought it was a good idea) anyway, WC has become so removed from the land, the weather, the elements we’ve come to believe our technology or city/suburban living can insulate us from the mother nature. We buy our plots of land, build our houses and nothing external is supposed to mess with life the way we want to live it. People are continually building where it makes no sense to build. I saw it in a small scale in my work and we all saw it in what happened to New Orleans. I mean, to build a vast city below sea level? What happened when the hurricane came was cataclysmic to the people involved, but not a cataclysmic earth event.
Events abound and changes may be on the horizon, but, I have to wonder as to the perspective. Man has only been able to take extensive readings for the last, what 60 or so years? We really don't know if the changes are cataclysmic or part of the natural ways of the earth. I remember the hoopla in the ‘70’s. The world was coming to an end because of all the catastrophic tornados.
But what we do know is the changes that could come about would be cataclysmic for our way of life as we know it. Nomadic societies just picked up the tent stakes when the well ran dry. It’s a bit more complicated now. It'd be tough for the entire population of the seaboards to pick up stakes and move inland.
What lies ahead may not the end of the earth, but the end of living as we know it.
Humans have not had to adapt to their environment for a long time. We've become arrogant in the belief we can adapt the environment to suit our needs and wants. Always a dangerous supposition.
I’m not sure I buy into the idea that man brought about the changes and that it is possible for man to shift it back. In the first place, where is ‘back’? The earth has been in a state of flux since its inception. We certainly have made a mess of many, many things and have a great deal to change. But I can’t help but think, based on no real scientific fact, that we will doom ourselves to destruction with our wallowing ways long before man has the power to destruct earth.
|Posted by: Shadows 23-Apr-2006, 09:18 AM|
| It is not just the change in temps that cause alarm... it is the effect of that temp change to the artic ice, the cloud formations, the rainfall or lack there of!
Earth is ever evolving on her own, but what we spew or belch into the air and into the ground does and will have an effect on the overall climate and our quality of life...
Earth quakes and volcanic activity are natural, but the things man has done to mother earth are not!
Major change is coming... are you ready for it?
|Posted by: Antwn 23-Apr-2006, 03:47 PM|
| Good point Elspeth. There is no "back" and its not necessary to go there, its a good idea however not to despoil that which we depend on for life, regardless of what effect it does/doesn't have on global warming. As a Mom you can surely relate to the phrase "go clean up your room its a mess" - well our collective room is a biggie. Global warming or no, we still live amid our own poisons, even breathe and eat them.
Its not necessary to regress to teepee living, or eshew technologies - just alter them to be environmentally friendly, then we'll find out what the effects are. If then we discover warming is occurring independently of our actions, then we'll have to adapt as you said. Either way, what does seem obvious is that our current way of life is not sustainable, unless we like the drama of living in our own filth and tempting fate. The long term untenability of our own habits should be enough of a reason to alter them. Yet we're like little kids playing with matches in the yard during a drought saying "don't worry Mom, I won't start a fire".
I also agree with you that we'd destroy ourselves long before we'd do so to the Earth. We love the Earth as an abstraction, but fail to include ourselves as part of it. Your point about how we've insulated ourselves from it could be the cause or the expression of such alienation.
Anyway, enough pontificating....here's an interesting article I saw demonstrating Nature's resiliance. What's interesting to me is the assertion that the benefits to animals from the lack of human presence has been greater than the dangers to them of radiation.
|Posted by: stoirmeil 24-Apr-2006, 10:35 AM|
| I was trying to track down the quote from Ecclesiastes: "Generations come and generations go, but the earth abides." (Ecc. 1:4).
In so doing, I ran across citations for that wonderful 1949 novel by George Stewart, called "Earth Abides." I recommend it highly, by the way.
That led to this amazing website set up by some teacher out there who is doing a whole course on apocalyptic visions of the future, including this great old book. The Google tag was "End of the World Homework." Which is pretty thought-provoking. Just don't tell me your dog ate your homework -- or the tidal wave washed it away, or it was burned in the core of the mushroom cloud, or anything else. And it had better be typewritten.
But it's a great website. I admire the teacher and I envy the kids taking the course.
|Posted by: Elspeth 27-Apr-2006, 07:25 AM|
| The earth does abide....
I am from a part of the US where the river was so polluted back in the 70's, it caught fire. But now, that same river is almost swimable. A National Park surrounds it. Canada geese used to be a rarity, now they're pests in some places. I went for a walk the other day and heard a flock of wild turkeys - only a few miles from a densely populated urban corridor. Hawks fly and hunt in the skies above our suburban houses. Eat real well too off of all the squirrels and songbirds. My city neighborhood is teaming with wildlife. I grew up in this same area. I remember how how sterile it was back in the late 60's and 70's. I remember the stench from the rubber plants 20 miles away on humid summer days.
We have made great strides. But, it just may be those were the easy ones. To make the changes necessary to combat the effects of fossile fuels is to change our society and our very way of life. I agree it needs to be done. I just don't believe those kinds of massive changes happen unless some cataclysimic event forces the issue. Are we all going to give up our cars? Are business people going to stop driving and flying all over the world? Are we going to give up factories and go back to cottage industries?
In truth, one of the best things that could happen to our ecosystem is for the price of gas to rise, worldwide, to twenty dollars a gallon. Great for the ecosystem - murder for the economy.
What's to be done? It seems modern human nature to squander resources. Rememeber the gas efficient cars of the 70's? How the heck did we go from that to SUV's and Hummers? As soon as everything lightens a bit, we opt for luxery and 'cool'.
How do we change that in time to keep from making this planet some place we don't want to live? Every little change helps, that is certianly true. And little changes can add up. But, is that only putting a band-aid on the ineveitible? What are we all, personally, willing to do? I know I drive more than I need to. Too many trips back and forth to three schools. It doesn't sound like much, but it adds up. My kids could walk, it isn't that far. But it is inconvienent for them. Not an excuse. Could make a change at least for the high schooler. The younger ones I drive because I don't trust my society with my children.
At least our church is close enough to walk to.
|Posted by: Swanny 27-Apr-2006, 06:56 PM|
| The only significant way to reduce the impact of human populations is to reduce human populations. Some biologists argue that we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our planet. Even if not, we are certainly coming very, very close.
There is no such thing as a "balance of nature", but rather there is a dynamic equalibrium that allows for such things as population and climatic shifts. All species that grow at an exponential rate have a population crash at the peak of the growth. There is no bell curve when it comes to exponentially growing populations. That is true of hares and rabbits, grouse and other upland game birds, and I believe it is also true of humans.
I've seen estimates that the black plague of 17th century Europe wiped out over 40% of the population, and that the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918-19 took out about 25%. It really is only a matter of time before Nature flushes the planet again and I don't believe there is anything at all that we can do about it.
The best evidence shows that Global Warming is a real thing, but the cause of that warming is still under debate, even among scientists who are leaders in the field. Whether or not it is a natural or human-caused event is immaterial, that it will affect human populations is inevitable. We will either adapt or perish, just like all other species.
So long as sex remains popular, the problem of overpopulation can not be solved.
|Posted by: Elspeth 28-Apr-2006, 04:45 AM|
| Yep, Swanny you are right. Unfortuantely, the only way carrying capacity can be known for certian is to exceed it.
And yet... This is where belief systems come in. Humans are an animal species, and they're not. Now don't everybody get their knickers all atwist, I'm only saying what I believe. We aren't an overcroweded ball, teeming with life and drowing in filth rotating haphazardly around the sun to our eventual doom. God is in control and we and this planet aren't going to expire until its time.
But, while we are still here, it is our responsibility to not degrade the garden we were given to live in. If we do, it won't bring about the end of the world, just make this an ugly, unhealthy place to live.
Personally, I don't like to dwell on this stuff. Science is a practice even more than medicine. So much gets published because academia has to publish or perish. What 'science' deems truth is often disproved years later. I remember in the span of one week two articles coming across my desk. One stated the greenhouse effect would keep the sun's rays from the planet and would eventually lead to the next ice age. The other stated it would trap in the heat from the earth and cause global warming. Opposing views published in reputible journals, both claiming to be fact.
So, live responsiblily to our fellow human beings and the planet, enjoying the time we are given here on what is still an amazingly beautiful place to live.
|Posted by: Swanny 28-Apr-2006, 08:56 AM|
| Elspeth, I won't get my briefs in a bunch, but my own beliefs differ from yours considerably. It is my belief that while we are certainly blessed by the Master of Life in many respects, we are nonetheless large, gregarious, hairless, omnivorous and very intelligent primates. While we have an understanding and closeness of and to the spiritual realm that other species probably don't share, most human behaviors both normal and aberrant are easily explained when viewed in a biological model.
Like you, I believe the Master of Life gave us a special responsibility to care for our planet (the source of all life). Part of that responsibility is to control our own numbers as well as controlling all of our other behaviors to ensure proper stewardship of our environment. It is a responsibility we have failed to achieve and the consequences of that failure will simply be a normal result of the dynamic forces that control ALL life. I believe we aren't nearly as "special" as some of us wish to believe we are.
|Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 28-Apr-2006, 09:44 AM|
Not real sure about that part. Maybe we're just very delusional.
|Posted by: Celtic cat 28-Apr-2006, 09:58 AM|
|I am not having any children ever. If any child ever comes into my care he or che will be adopted. Another point...I just learned about Sustainability in my geography class, and our ecological footprint. Most of what everyone has said here would agree with those ideas. But anyway, has anyone heard of Biodiesel it is supposed to be simple to make, from left over cooking grease and it burns cleaner than gasoline. It might be a good idea, but I have yet to find more info about it.|
|Posted by: CelticCoalition 28-Apr-2006, 11:25 AM|
| Unfourtunately, I don't believe much will be done about these problems until the damage comes to a point that is unbearable. That is the way I see human behavior: it changes when things become unbearable and not before.
The gas price example given earlier is an excellent example of my point. Car companies didn't really see a market for hybrid cars, and you only saw one or two on the market, until last year. Now all you hear about are the new hybrids coming out and potential new fuels such as hydrogen or electric cars. People always grumble about high gas prices, but now they are finally reaching a point where people are taking action.
It's going to be the same for everything else. When you walk outside and there's garbage everywhere, we'll start creating less.
|Posted by: reddrake79 08-May-2006, 12:39 PM|
| Are we sure there is more emphasis in the industry on hybrids now, or are we just hearing more because the news media wants to capitalize on the high oil prices? Maybe the emphasis has been there for a while the average person just didn't know about it. I remember hearing about companies looking for alternative fuel sources when I was younger, early eighties. True it was only a few years ago that there were maybe two companies with hybrids and only in a couple of models. but they have been increasing in numbers before this new oil crisis. (maybe in part they are responsible for the higher US oil prices )
biodiesel is cheaper, however you have to process it yourself and convert your car to use it. A diesel engine does not have to convert much, but a gas engine has to change alot. The way the two engines use fuel is very different.
beliefs aside, there is alot about our planet that has been overstated. We are not globaly crowded, anybody living in the midwest of the US can see that, there are vast areas on every continent that have little to no population. I once saw a map of the world, the size of the country depended on its then current population per square mile. India, China, and a few other countries were almost 3 times there actually land size. America was about even (1 person every square mile avg.) Canada was a half inch strip of land on US northern boarder. again, humans contribution to the polutants in our atmosphere are insignificant to what the planet naturally produces. Yes, in certain areas there is overcrowding and rampant polution (New York, LA, Mexico city, Tokyo,etc.), but globaly there is not.
|Posted by: Raven 16-May-2006, 07:55 AM|
I have been following this topic for some time myself Mac and I tend to agree with your first assumtion (all about Money) on a certain level.
I don't doubt that the earth is going through a warming trend. What I doubt is what scientists purport as the cause or that the earth is actually headed for any permanent change.
I don't think that we have enough accurate data history to speak with authority that this is not just something that happens in a cycle. Given the age of the earth, even a few hundred years of record keeping is really not enough and baring some sort of cataclysmic event, I simply doubt the voracity of such claims.
Will shrinking poles effect us in the short run? Probably on some level. I certainly feel for the Inuit people having spent time with them in the 70's.
BTW I thought it odd that the one gentleman said "We will no longer be Eskimos" Implying that the word "Eskimo" has something to do with the cold. It is actually an Indian name that means, "Eater of raw flesh" and you can take this to the bank,,,they don't feel obligated to cook anything
The word Inuit simply means the people in their language.
Finally an end of the world senario is much more likely to be cold than hot (a few years in the future:)) that is if you believe in the 2nd Law of Thermo Dynamics.
But for now, Crank up the Air conditioning every body
|Posted by: Emmet 13-Feb-2007, 08:54 AM|
Yes; it is the “end of the world”, but global warming isn’t our most immediate concern. Our entire civilization is based upon and completely dependent upon the unfettered and unlimited consumption of a finite, non-renewable natural resource; fossil fuels. Petrochemicals are the sine qua non of the Industrial Age. At some point it is inevitable that global demand will outstrip supply; demand will continue to rise while production precipitously declines. The best estimates of when this will actually occur are somewhere between now and 2010. The discovery of new oil reserves peaked in the 1962 and has declined to virtually nothing in the past few years. Every year we consume 6 barrels of oil for every single barrel we find. The global supply of oil will peak, and then steadily decline, but global demand will not. By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead. In 2003 we burned 76 million barrels; by 2020 we will be using 112 million barrels a day, after which projected demand accelerates (provided of course that there is any oil to fuel the accelerated demand; some models show global oil production to be essentially zero by 2030; Chevron predicts that the world will consume approximately one trillion barrels of oil over the next 30 years - about as much untapped petroleum as is thought to lie in all of the world's known oil reserves.). Current world demand for oil is about 84 million barrels per day, and current world production capacity is about....well, 84 million barrels per day. We’re maxed out; there is essentially no reserve production capacity in the system. Even a small drop in production can be economically devastating. For instance, during the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%. Once the decline gets under way, production will drop by between 3% and 8% per year, every year. An 8% yearly decline would cut global oil production by a whopping 50% in less than nine years. If a 5% cut in production caused prices to triple in the 1970s, what do you think a 50% cut is going to do, socially, economically, and politically?
The "End of the World" will begin with increasingly drastic fluctuations in the price of oil as demand meets and starts to exceed production capacity. Industrialized countries will go to war to secure their access to oil, but production will start to fall off, either due to disruptions in the supply stream due to war, and/or the decreasing productivity of the oil fields exacerbated by rising demand. This will not follow a bell-shaped curve; all of the "easy" oil, readily accessible and relatively close to the surface, is long gone; extracting the remainder will rapidly reach a point of diminishing returns that will require more energy than it will produce. This will result in a "crash and burn" global economic depression that will make October 28th 1929 look like a minor market correction. Industries will shut down, there will be increasingly frequent blackouts and shortages of heating oil and food as an ever-increasing share of increasingly scarce resources are diverted to the war machine, desperately trying to squeeze out just one more quarter's profits for the military industrial complex. The newly impoverished populace; hungry, cold, permanently unemployed and completely lacking the survival skills necessitated by this new reality, will start to rebel, but will be repressed by the increasingly draconian "emergency measures" of an increasingly Fascist government. As people become more desperate, the social fabric will fray, and then quickly unravel as a society awash with firearms that prides itself on "rugged individualism" (actually a synonym for selfishness, self-centeredness, and narcissistic egocentrism) and have always assumed that their privileged position (just 6% of the world's population but consuming more than 25% of it's resources) is the manifest will of God become increasingly pissed off that the teat's gone dry, abandon any pretense of polite society and start preying upon one another. The chaos and violence escalates as Government's span of control contracts and finally disappears altogether as the lights finally go out for the last time.
Now the real problems begin.
Between 1950 and 1984 world grain production increased by 250%, essentially due to fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon fueled irrigation. In the United States in 1994, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American. Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:
· 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer
· 19% for the operation of field machinery
· 16% for transportation
· 13% for irrigation
· 08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)
· 05% for crop drying
· 05% for pesticide production
· 08% miscellaneous
Energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets, and household cooking are not factored into these figures. In the US, the average piece of food is transported almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate. In Canada, the average piece of food is transported 5,000 miles from where it is produced to where it is consumed. Just think what crop yields will be like without irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides, gasoline for the tractors, or diesel fuel for the trucks to bring it to market (or for that matter the industrial manufacturing base necessary to create everything from gigantic combine harvesters to garden hoes). Like every other aspect of modern civilization, agriculture is completely dependent upon petrochemicals, and there are no viable alternatives available, either now or on some futurists drafting board.
There are 6.5 billion people on the planet now; in 1600 there were 500 million. Even in the unlikely event that accountants and software engineers can suddenly master medieval agricultural techniques, feeding even 500 million will present unique challenges. Do not underestimate the importance of technological breakthroughs like the wheeled plow versus the turning board, horse versus oxen, or the spinning wheel versus the drop spindle. These technologies were the cumulative result of the collective experience of thousands of years; the learning curve for farmers in the last half of this century is going to be brutally steep.
Some climactic models show that reductions in crop yields could be as high as 50% as global temperatures increase. Most of the American Midwest, central Europe, Africa and Asia will become deserts; the absence of glacial runoff and annual snowmelts making water much scarcer than it is now. Already 20% of the global population has no access to safe potable water. A corn crop that produces about 118 bushels per acre a year of grain requires more than 500,000 gallons an acre of water during the growing season. While areas of Canada and Russia will become more temperate, clearing and cultivating land on a large scale is a highly fuel-intensive industrial process; and at least 1.2 acres per person is required in order to maintain current American dietary standards, and that’s using modern petrochemical-based agricultural methods. Without oil, as many as 10 acres per person might be needed. Also, it's not simply a matter of moving a crop up a few degrees of latitude; it's an entirely different environment; different seasons, sunlight, soil, pests, diseases. Unfortunately, our modern genetically modified crops are optimized to grow precisely where they are now, and are entirely dependent upon massive applications of man-made fertilizers and pesticides. The "field wheat" of the Middle Ages was genetically diverse; big wheat, little wheat, tall wheat, short wheat, drought resistant wheat, mold resistant wheat, bug resistant wheat. A wet or dry year might produce a poor crop, but at least it produced a crop; modern GM crops are likely to fail entirely if the growing conditions are even slightly out of their narrow optimized range.
One of the universal commonalities of previous famines is the consumption of seed stock, followed by farm animals (including those necessary for planting and cultivation), all wildlife, and finally plants, insects, and grasses. Repeatedly throughout history this imperative for immediate short-term survival has drastically impeded long-term agricultural recovery. It’s unlikely that seed stocks and large animals like oxen and draft horses will survive the starvation of six billion people.
In pre-industrial times, people supplemented their diets with wild game and fish, a luxury we will not be able to rely upon. With a 5 degree Fahrenheit temperature increase due to global warming, as much as 30% of species are likely to go extinct. With the precipitous worldwide drop in agricultural production, we'll do our very best to eat all the rest.
In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse. Despite bigger vessels, better nets, and new technology for spotting fish the global catch fell by 13% between 1994 and 2003. Freshwater fish stocks have declined by up to 90% in many of the world's largest rivers. The rate of population collapses has accelerated in recent years. As of 1980, just 13.5% of fished species had collapsed, even though fishing vessels were pursuing 1,736 fewer species then. Today, the fishing industry harvests 7,784 species commercially. At the current rate of decline global fishing stocks will completely and irreversibly collapse by 2048. Today, 1 billion people rely upon seafood as their only source of protein. The world's population grows at an estimated 1.14% annually; the number of humans increases by 203,800 every day, while 6 million children starve to death annually. The imperative to feed this population will result in the oceans being swept clean of virtually every edible organism from krill to blue whales within the next 50 years.
Any ecosystem can only sustainably support the population that it can feed. The Malthusian implications for the future should be obvious to anyone with even the most rudimentary math skills.
|Posted by: stoirmeil 13-Feb-2007, 09:55 AM|
Well, something has to severely crash the population to supportable levels . . . wouldn't you rather that the predators picking off the weak were your very own species, and not some nasty hyenas or something?
I've thought for decades, at my most pessimistic moments, that our species is one or maybe both of two things: 1.) a highly complex disease state on the planet, a disease being defined as a failed symbiotic organism that is stupid or uncontrolled enough to kill its host; or 2.) an evolutionary experiment in extremely rapid overgrowth of new brain architectures on top of old, whose success is going to be totally predicated on the new architectures exercising enough control over the older ones to regulate itself. Practically speaking, we have all this fancy cortical development (not to mention thumbs) that is no end of destructive ingenuity, but should have been used mostly for putting brakes on the limbic system, which fundamentally runs on fear and lust. Fear and lust is an OK driver for any self-respecting lizard who wants to survive long enough to put his genes into the next generation, but not for the animal with the thumbs and ingenuity to put himself out of the gene pool forever.
Add that to the conscious knowlege and understanding of death as a cessation of Self, which we seem to have uniquely, and the notion that the only way to control death is to deal it to somebody else, and there you have our prize package Homo Sapiens.
How DID we get this far?
|Posted by: CelticCoalition 13-Feb-2007, 06:12 PM|
| I think we got this far due to the fact that humans have survived because of intelligence. Most species on the planet evolved some physical way of surviving. Camoflage, physical strength, agility, speed, etc. Also, species usually are confined to only certain geographical environments. Animals evolve to survive in one area based on natural selection. When the environment changes, animals either die or thrive based on how their physical traits match with the environment.
The most sucessful animal speicies are the ones that are the most adaptable. Humans, I would argue, are not very adaptable at all. However, we survived because we have the intelligence to adapt our environment to us. If it's cold, we make warm shelters and clothing. If it's warm we make cooler shelters and clothing.
Physically we are very weak, so we created weapons and armor to make up for it.
My point is that we have created a world where there is nothing natural that can kill us. To that end, we got bored. We have all this intelligence to help us survive, and nothing really to survive against. We have created a system that rewards intelligence, for the most part. That, and from an evolutionary standpoint, the entire human race is bored out of its mind.
So, we create our own conflict. We create enemies of ourselves so that we have a reason to continue to evolve. Plus, if we have the fear of death then we won't be so bored.
|Posted by: Nova Scotian 23-Mar-2007, 04:04 AM|
|I think it is pretty sad that Al Gore, the supposed profit of global warming now, couldn't answer why his own house consumes 20% more energy then the common American household. He also refused to sign a commitment stating he'd decrease that and be an example. He never actually said "no" he wouldn't. He just dodged the question with a question. I'd say that's being hypocritical?|
|Posted by: Antwn 25-Mar-2007, 12:43 PM|
|Wow Nova S. we agree on something!! An Inconvenient Truth was a convenient untruth for Gore, making him big lecture circuit money while fostering half truths at best and occasionally insultingly stupid statements. Not to mention his devotion of an inordinate amount of time to himself in his film, which has nothing to do with global warming, unless he's factoring in his own hot air as a greenhouse gas. Like you say, he seems to fall short of practicing his preaching. Where are his solar panels? His Toyota Prius? Does he have wind generators on that Tennessee farm?|
|Posted by: parkers1 25-Mar-2007, 01:40 PM|
|Aye all is a tad scary but such is life. Personally I feel it is a natural thing that we as humans are making things happen faster then would be normal. This is why I try to block all this out and live in the moment trying to do things for the better not worse! Life is as Life should be - why worry just do the best you can......|
|Posted by: stoirmeil 26-Mar-2007, 11:22 AM|
Yes, I suppose it is a "natural" thing that we behave like a highly evolved species that half the time creates the miraculous with our advanced development, and the other half the time runs destructively amok. It is just as natural, by this standard, given our proven capacity to alter our environment, that we recognize what a mess we have made on so many different fronts, and exert ourselves to correct it, instead of sitting there taking one day at a time, saying "Why worry? Life is as it should be." I find that dangerously passive. You say you have grandchildren?
Antwn -- What Al Gore does or does not do to practice what he preaches should not have all that much to do with our recognizing that the problem exists, and there is a narrow window of time to contemplate reversing or even slowing the melting of the polar ice before it isn't possible any more. Al Gore did not discover or invent the problem, he is just a spokesperson. If he has been opportunistic, or as NS loves to throw his favorite quasi-biblical word around, "hypocritical," it still does not alter the fact.
|Posted by: Nova Scotian 26-Mar-2007, 06:24 PM|
Boy Stoirmeil, quasi-biblical word? Hypocritical? You crack me up. I was just calling a spade a spade. So your are saying it's OK for him to not practice what he preaches?
|Posted by: John Clements 27-Mar-2007, 08:19 AM|
You nailed it stoirmeil,
Although I would have just said that the truth hurts, and there for lets kill, or discredit the messenger. So calling Al Gore a hypocrite, because he uses more power then average household, is an absolute… knee “jerk” reaction to reality.
So when ever anyone one tells me, that they think that global-worming has been over exaggerated. I ask them to imagine seeing the tail pipe in their minds eye, and then I ask them to multiply that image… by billions.
So keep telling it like it is, even if it hurts, or you won’t be aloud to go to heaven.
|Posted by: stoirmeil 27-Mar-2007, 08:25 AM|
If you read carefully, you will notice that what I said was:
"What Al Gore does or does not do to practice what he preaches should not have all that much to do with our recognizing that the problem exists, and there is a narrow window of time to contemplate reversing or even slowing the melting of the polar ice before it isn't possible any more."
This has nothing to do with it being "OK not to practice what he preaches."
But you don't read carefully.
|Posted by: John Clements 27-Mar-2007, 08:37 AM|
| You nailed it stoirmeil,
Although I would have just said that the truth hurts, and there for lets kill, or discredit the messenger. So calling Al Gore a hypocrite, because he uses more power then average household is absolutely a knee “jerk” reaction to reality.
So when ever anyone one tells me that they think that global-worming has been over exaggerated. I ask them to imagine seeing the tail pipe in their minds eye, and then I ask them to multiply that image by, billions.
So keep telling it like it is, even if it hurts, or you won’t be aloud to go to heaven.
|Posted by: haynes9 27-Mar-2007, 08:56 AM|
| Stormy, I understand where you are coming from, but look at it from this point of view.
As you know, I'm one of those wacky right wing preachers. (I feel like I should embrace the stereotype, not run from it ) If I preach that a man should be faithful to his wife, what I do does not change the fact that this is true. I think we can all agree on that principal. However, would you not agree that the message loses it's potency if I, as the one conveying the truth, run around on my wife? No, it doesn't' change the truth, but how are my hearers going to react? They would think it is not as important an issue as I make it out to be since I don't practice what I preach.
I am not educated enough to know all the ins and outs of Global Warming. I think there are whack jobs on both sides of the issue, quite frankly. But, If Al Gore is the messenger, why am I supposed to think this is a serious issue if he does not put into practice what he says? It dilutes the message. If he really believes it is serious (and I am not saying he does not believe what he is saying) then why not demonstrate it in his lifestyle instead of tying to get everyone else to do so?
Not trying to be contentious, just asking some questions. Have a great day!
|Posted by: stoirmeil 27-Mar-2007, 11:14 AM|
| This is a matter of having some mental independence and being able to separate the message from the messenger. Some time before adolescence you learned the limitations of the ubiquitous parental "Don't do as I do -- do as I say." And you learned to move beyond it to find the right way to behave, irrespective of the inconsistencies of the one socializing you. You can't lay it on anyone else.
I'm sorry -- I do not excuse any fully functioning adult from the responsibility of discriminating between message and messenger, explanation and excuse. If a pimp comes into the room with a prostitute on each arm and tells you about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases, it does not dilute the truth of the message one iota. Sorry if the analogy offends anyone. And it is just an analogy, and not a snarky description of anyone we are or are not approving of at the moment. That's another distinction that needs a little working.
|Posted by: haynes9 27-Mar-2007, 11:19 AM|
| Appreciate the condescending tone, Stormy. It's always such a joy to be able to engage in civil discussion.
Have a great day.
|Posted by: stoirmeil 28-Mar-2007, 08:08 AM|
Well, haynes, that's just a sarcastic response to condescension, as you seem to have perceived my words, including the "have a great day." And that's regrettable, because even though I spoke strongly and out of a good deal of exasperation, it was certainly not aimed at you personally. If I provoked you into departing from your usual and much needed position as peacemaker, I am genuinely sorry.
That said -- I regret the tone if it offended, but I still stand by what I said about not automatically judging the message by its envelope.
|Posted by: John Clements 28-Mar-2007, 08:43 AM|
| I stand with you stoirmeil, right down to the… “Have a great day?”
|Posted by: haynes9 28-Mar-2007, 09:47 AM|
Stormy and John,
Forget it. It was my bad. I was the one out of line.
I still believe that the message is best conveyed through a messenger that backs it up with his/her life, but my response was moronic. Very sorry about that. New day and I'll try and be more "in tune" with my responses. Don't always agree with you two, but I respect you both.
Have a great day (Really!).
|Posted by: Antwn 28-Mar-2007, 10:46 AM|
Does a problem exist? What exactly is it? Is the polar ice melting? Is there a narrow window of time to correct the situation? Antarctic ice is only melting over water and getting thicker over land. The same is happening in Greenland, which might seem to indicate that the oceans are getting warmer, a different situation from the escalation of the greenhouse effect so relentlessly touted.
Gore didn't discover a problem at all, he's prosthelytising misinformation and profiting off of it. Anthropogenic global warming by C02 and other greenhouse gas emissions is unproven and highly suspect. Even the IPCC reports express uncertainties about correlations between C02 and warming. C02 is not a "pollutant" as Gore endlessly reiterates and humans contribute about 3-4% of the total atmospheric C02 yearly. The rest is caused naturally. The highest concentrations of C02 ever recorded have occurred during an ice age, according to deep core drilling. What does that say about the correlation between C02 and warming? Is warming happening? Is it anthropogenic?
Gore relies on long term projections from computer modeling, a technique whose reliability is so trusted that your local weatherman won't use it to predict beyond 10 days reliably.
What's sad is that Gore is sensationalising unproven postulates, relying on only one set of opinions, ignoring highly pertinent facts because they don't fit his apocalyptic paradigm, misleading the public with unsubstantiated doom scenarios and is making a killing off of it. You're right, not practicing what he preaches is the least of his transgressions.
Information is out there which completely contradicts Gore's assertions which is ignored. Gore of course can't be bothered by facts when there are accolades and money to be had. Even if his motives are sincere, then he's certainly guilty of extremely faulty research. Yet if his research had been more complete, it would have deflated the hyperbolic fantasies he's relied on.
|Posted by: dundee 28-Mar-2007, 03:19 PM|
| here is something i got off the internet. the original site is http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
the rest were the links in the article i believe read it for yourself.
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
....Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
brrrrr i am chilly... *gets sweater*
|Posted by: stoirmeil 28-Mar-2007, 06:54 PM|
| Antwn -- fair enough. There's a university level earth and atmospheric sciences department with some heavy-hitting researchers in it, not fifty feet from my office door at my job -- I do curriculum advising and graduation audits with science undergrads, in addition to teaching psychology, as my daily work and I run into these guys all the time. I will take a poll among some of the professors, as well as collecting some current research citations from them, and get back to y'all. I think this is fair, since I am taking a definite side in this discussion. May not be tomorrow, as we are just starting spring break, and a lot of faculty and staff (including me) will be out for the next ten days. I hope you don't mind if I share your post with them, instead of trying to remember it.
I doubt that Gore is doing his own primary research on any deep level -- he hasn't got the training for that, and he must be relying on reports and having them interpreted for him by qualified people, if he is on the up and up. In any case it isn't Gore I take my cues from on this issue -- I didn't even see the film. But I'm still not willing to say he's just exploiting a bully pulpit and letting off a cloud of methane without a lot more damning evidence.
haynes -- My response was stronger in tone than it needed to be, it ticked you off understandably, I should have tempered it, and there's no need to apologize.
|Posted by: John Clements 29-Mar-2007, 05:54 AM|
| Hi Dundee, just like you and I, scientists have been disagreeing from the beginning. So it always comes down to who you agree with. Or, for that matter, who you think is telling the truth.
So why don’t we conduct our own scientific experiment. Let’s say… foe example. You sit in a running car, in closed garage. And of course the conclusion we’re looking for is… How long do you think they would last?
What I’m saying is, we’re poising the air 24-7, so, even if Gore is exaggerating about global worming. I think that he deserves every single cent he’s made, don’t you?
Antwn, I’m sorry but I have to say this. The last two paragraphs of your post on this subject, sounds an awful lot… like the BS… that got us into the Iraq debacle.
Just like malice, blind faith and ignorance, kills too.
|Posted by: haynes9 29-Mar-2007, 07:16 AM|
That's the problem here, John. There are scientists, equally qualified on both sides, who say opposite things. Thee are also hacks on each side who would sell out in a heartbeat for any agenda that would benefit them personally. You are right in that it comes down to who you want to believe, unless one is willing to put in a lot of time into personal research.
Not sure the enclosed garage is a good analogy. Obviously, man should be responsible in his handling of the earth's resources, but this old planet is amazing in the way it replenishes itself. There is a huge difference between a wooden enclosure and the atmosphere, although I see where you are coming from in the analogy.
Until politics is removed and scientists approach this issue non-agenda driven, it's going to be difficult to determine the truth of the matter.
|Posted by: dundee 29-Mar-2007, 08:29 AM|
| JOHN JOHN when have we disagreed....
please reread this part i had it in my original post
"....Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field...
we all agree we must take care of mother earth.... but me thinks al gore is suffering from the "Chicken Little" syndrom... and his own narcissistic view of his opinion... remember we wouldnt be able to even be able to discuss this if he hadnt invented the internet.
|Posted by: stoirmeil 29-Mar-2007, 08:46 AM|
It's helpful to think of the planet as an enormous organism, though not, I believe, in quite the literal way as the Gaea people think if it. Stressors (not in the sense we think of as "stress," meaning stuff that aggravates the nerves, but concrete conditions that compromise good function and normal equilibrium) come naturally from all kinds of directions, and there's generally ebb and flow between stressful periods and periods of let-up that permit any organism to rebound and repair itself. If the cycles of stress and rest are disrupted so stress predominates, the organism can be permanently compromised. If it still doesn't let up, the organism is in danger of its systems failing altogether.
Now, I don't believe we can "kill" the earth, because if it got that desperately sick we would be killing ourselves first, and then it would bounce back without us, in that enormous geological and evolutionary time frame it has of functioning and changing. But I also don't believe we can do whatever we want in terms of things that affect the biosphere adversely, and then expect infinite rebound capacity in our own time frame. In fact, I think we've long since passed the point where permanent compromise is setting in, on a number of fronts, and that especially means compromised capacity to support the enormous variety of life forms in their natural, self-regulating numbers. And that means US, as well as any other life form.
Since we are in the Philosophy, Science and Religion forum, I think it's OK to bring this up, as gently and respectfully as possible. One of the "unspokens" that seem to be underlying some of this discussion: I expect some of us here, and probably some among the policy makers of the government, believe that the earth and the people of the earth are under divine protection against ecological worst-case scenarios.
I'm offering no opinion about it -- but I wonder if we see this affecting the way we view the problem of ecological damage, and how we see it?
|Posted by: haynes9 29-Mar-2007, 09:07 AM|
| Stormy, you raise some interesting issues. As a Christian, my theology naturally affects my world view. And I would not have it any other way.
Though I believe in Divine intervention and the hand of God in all things, it does not give man a "blank check," if you will, to do anything he wants. I think the willful (or ignorant, for that matter) mistreatment of earth's resources are wrong. God has created man as a free moral agent. Therefore, he can choose the course of his actions, for better or for worse. With this freedom to choose comes responsibility. And if man is irresponsible, there are consequences to deal with.
I guess I'm saying this in a nutshell. I do believe there is a God Who does not just sit by in idleness. He is active. My personal believe and faith in JEHOVAH requires me to act responsibly, rather than the old "Well, God will take care of it" mode of thinking.
In the study of the nation of Israel in Old Testament times, they were told by God through His prophets that obedience would bring blessing and disobedience would bring disaster. I do believe there will come a time when the world as we know it will be destroyed. Could Global Warming be a part of that? I would not be dogmatic in my answer to that question, but I see it as more divine judgment than human actions.
Please forgive me for this seeming Sunday School lesson ! I thought the question you asked, Stormy, was valid. If people are using their "faith" as an excuse for environmental irresponsibility, I think they have missed the high standard set by Scripture.
Enjoying the dialog! Have a great day!
|Posted by: j Padraig moore 29-Mar-2007, 10:19 AM|
Point #1: I just finished reading The Worst Hard Time, by Tim Egan. It's the story of the Dust Bowl in the Great Plains. I believe you can come real close to "killing" the earth. The Great Plains still have not recovered from the Dust Bowl.
Point #2: I myself am a Christian. Though a member of an evangelical church, I am not in lockstep with the rest of the congregation when it comes to political issues. I have often wondered if this is the reason Christians generally reject any type of environmental issue. Lately I understand that many Christians are getting on to the environmental bandwagon, finally seeing that what we do to the earth, affects all of us, and that we need to take care of God's creation.
my two cents...
|Posted by: maisky 29-Mar-2007, 11:27 AM|
The problem is that most of the "scientists" who dont believe global warming is real are scientists as their second job. Their first job is as fundamentalist preachers.
|Posted by: haynes9 29-Mar-2007, 12:19 PM|
Can you name a fundamentalist preacher who is a scientist that has commented on global warming?
And, of course, every scientist who does not adhere to any kind of Biblical belief ethic is automatically without any preconceived prejudice? When you paint with a broad rush, it just doesn't work.
Have a great day!
|Posted by: stoirmeil 29-Mar-2007, 12:40 PM|
This is a good example you are bringing, of the relative size of the perpective. It's true the Plains ecology was injured in the way that produced the dust bowl, but in terms of earth-scale time it was a very short time ago, just an eyeblink. However -- in terms of OUR human time-scale, it's a very troubling, lingering scar and should be more of a warning than it is. It's hard to keep both of those timescales in mind but I think we have to. I do think the earth can repair its biosystems over the very long haul -- aeons -- but will that have anything to do with us as a species, or will it in fact take "getting rid" of us, or our eliminating ourselves through bad ecological behavior, to accomplish it?
|Posted by: Antwn 30-Mar-2007, 11:32 AM|
| Irrespective of whether anthropogenic global warming is occurring or not, there are other human caused environmental effects we need to address to be sure. My argument for one is not that all environmental concerns are trivial, but it is to question the veracity of anthropogenic global warming in general and Gore's assertions in particular. Just wanted to get that out before the accusations fly.
Secondly, because we're polluting and poisoning the planet with seemingly little concern for the consequences doesn't mean that every assertion about the effects of human pollution is true either.
Here are some sites -
Stoirmeil - I'd value the input from your collegues who study this issue and look forward to you posting it. We (the public) need to get to the bottom of this issue...like yesterday. You might want to see An Inconvenient Truth Stoirmeil. You can rent the DVD at your favorite rental location. I'd be interested to know what you think about it.
|Posted by: Antwn 30-Mar-2007, 11:43 AM|
Sorry JC, I'm missing your point. My past arguments about Iraq centered around what to do now, not the wisdom of initiating the war. I believe I made that point. But this is a discussion better held on that thread.
|Posted by: John Clements 31-Mar-2007, 09:17 AM|
| Sorry Antwn, but if you can’t see the similarities, between the anti global warming arguments, and the administrations pre–war arguments to go to Iraq. I’m afraid I can’t help you. Maybe if I had just said global warming, instead of “this subject”, you might not have missed it.
|Posted by: dundee 01-Apr-2007, 08:52 AM|
|*looking for the kool-aide pitcher*.... naaa on second thought i am not thirsty......|
|Posted by: Antwn 01-Apr-2007, 11:54 AM|
What I don't see is the reason for the comparison. But if you're not going to elaborate, then I guess we can both just move on can't we.
|Posted by: maisky 01-Apr-2007, 04:21 PM|
I think the point here is that if the Shrub administration says something, you can pretty well count on it being a lie.
|Posted by: maisky 02-Apr-2007, 06:17 PM|
|Now it seems that the majority of the Supreme court think the Shrub administration lies it's tail off.|
|Posted by: John Clements 04-Apr-2007, 08:19 AM|
like I said the above two paragraphs of your post, on the subject of global worming, sounds an awful lot… like the BS… that got us into the Iraq debacle.
That is, cherry picking the evidence. Now I know that every one cherry picks to advance their agenda, but some agendas save lives, while others take them.
|Posted by: Antwn 04-Apr-2007, 11:12 AM|
Yes people will cherry pick what they believe about global warming. But all "evidence" may not be equally valid. It may be true that we just don't know enough to draw the conclusions that are rapidly being considered givens. You'd probably say that about entering into Iraq as well. Water under the bridge.
Two things about your Bush/Iraq reference: that's another board - my points on it were about what to do now and the wisdom of pulling out, not whether it was wise to go in initially. Said that there too. Said it below as well.
Ultimately, since evidence and opinion on both sides of the global warming issue is freely available to all, then it seems beholden upon us (the public) to self educate concerning it, to whatever extent our concern inspires. Hopefully that will happen and we won't make dumb decisions prematurely or because we were brow beat by someone's political agenda. You'd probably point to Iraq and say "been there done that" ....alright already.
|Posted by: Emmet 04-Apr-2007, 03:39 PM|
| The Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released in March stated that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal".
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." According to their footnotes, by "likely" thay mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement", is in excess of 90%.
Eleven of the twelve years in the period (1995-2006) rank among the top 12 warmest years since records have been kept(since 1850).Warming in the last 100 years has caused about a 0.74 °C increase in global average temperature. Observations since 1961 show that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system, and that ocean temperatures have increased to depths of at least 3000m (9800 ft). There has been an increase in hurricane intensity in the North Atlantic since the 1970's, and that increase correlates with increases in sea surface temperature. Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 (379 ppm) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm).The amount of methane in the atmosphere in 2005 (1774 ppb) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb). The primary source of the increase in carbon dioxide and methane is anthropogenic, primarily related to fossil fuel use. "Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere."
U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman (a Bush apointee) told a news conference that the report was "sound science," and "human activity is attributing to changes in our earth's climate and that issue is no longer up for debate."
I realize just how much some people on this forum hate Democrats, but to claim that it's all false simply because Gore said it and a couple of right-wing oil-industry-funded crackpots claim to refute it flies in the face not only of the consensus thousands of the world's leading experts on climate change, but common sense.
|Posted by: maisky 04-Apr-2007, 04:48 PM|
I love when you talk dirty like that!!
Many of the same folks who busily deny global warming also believe the US occupation of Iraq is "just" and think that evidence of the holocaust is "fabricated".
Mind transplants are in order here.
|Posted by: haynes9 04-Apr-2007, 10:32 PM|
| Hate Democrats? Nah, not in my case, anyway. I've always voted for the person who most closely aligns with my personal philosophy.
I don't think everyone who is convinced of global warming as a freak. I don't consider everyone who is not convinced of global warming is a freak. People can disagree and be civil. (Yes, I know. A novel concept indeed).
Al Gore means very little to me in this debate. The science behind what he says should be the determining factor. I don't think he is an ideal spokesman, but that has been hashed and rehashed over and over again in this thread, so no need to go there.
Let's talk about consensus for a bit. Could be a strong argument, Emmet, if the science supports it. Conventional science is not always right (and I don't claim to be an expert or even to be able to discern whether the report to which you refer is right or wrong). Was it not conventional science that denied that the earth was round? did the conventional science of the day believe the sun revolved around the earth? How many times has the age of the earth been shifted a few million years or more? All I am saying is that science and scientist are not infallible. We should strongly take into consideration what they say - all of them - on both sides of the issue, and then do our best to make an informed decision. That scientist that we consider "whacko" (naturally, he/she's the one who disagrees with our own personal view), may be found to be right somewhere down the line. Galileo comes to mind.
Insulting and condescending rhetoric on both sides will do little to bring the controversy to a close. Just my two cents.
Have a great day!
|Posted by: Antwn 05-Apr-2007, 11:23 AM|
You don't realize people on this board hate Democrats, you assume they do. Quite a difference there. It might surprise you to know that I personally have never voted for a Republican, nor do I belong to any political party. But why actually find out what a person believes when one can simply throw accusations and labels their way. I am not claiming "its all false because Gore says it" but also posted sites which refute or doubt global warming claims, since I'm not a cliamatologist either. I don't suppose anyone bothered to read them. You're right, this isn't about Gore. There is consensus among thousands of scientists of the other opinion as well. For example, the 17,000 who signed a petition urging the administration not to sign the Kyoto accords stating:
''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.''
The Leipzig Declaration stated "the dire predictions of future warming have not been validated by the historic cliamate record. In fact, most climate scientists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloo-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever - in direct constradiction to computer model results."
Please note that weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes take actual measurements while computer models attempt to predict from information pre-programmed into them - an entirely different situation, particularly when you're talking about a dynamic non-linear system as complex as climate. Computers are machines, only as good as what's programmed into them to evaluate. What's reliable is actual climate measurements.
Among the scientists who endorsed The Leipzig Declaration were: David Aubrey of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Larry Brace of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center; meteorologist Austin Hogan, who co-edits the journal Atmospheric Research; Richard Lindzen, the Sloane Professor of Meteorology at MIT; and Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.
Likely not a Holocaust denier in the bunch as Maisky so condescendingly accuses. Apparantly his own "mind transplant" was unsuccessful. At any rate, I think the accusations of "hatred" are more fittingly placed elsewhere.
Another important consideration comes from the IPCC mandate itself. In "About the IPCC" on its own website come this statement:
"The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature."
Thus it "cherry picks" what to include in its reports and what not to, out of all pertinent data. Wouldn't it be prudent to assess all available data from reliable sources? Why rely on a single sourced global clearing house? IPCC "Lead authors" are selected by governments and its governments who choose how reports can "best be said" according to its methodology. No politics in that situation, oh no! Here's a statement of concern by an attendee at the meeting where IPCC reports were finalized:
"This candid report confirms that the Statement For Policymakers was actually written with a small number of climate scientists. That such a small number of scientists are actually involved in the writing may make sense from the perspective of efficiency, but it also is guaranteed to result in a report that emphasizes the particular perspectives of the small group of scientists who wrote it. The biases that result would have been balanced if other climate scientists were able to write alternative perspectives, but this was not done. A “unanimous consensus” is hardly how science should be presented by a subset of the climate science community."
“A full report that’s the basis for the summary was drafted by 154 lead authors and more than 450 contributing authors and runs to about 900 pages." Not exactly thousands of scientists is it?
Australian Professor Lance Endersbee makes a good point in the newsletter New Concepts in Global Tectonics by saying:
"There are several disturbing aspects of the IPCC report which indicate that the conclusions are based on serious misconceptions about the behaviour of the Earth. The report reflects little understanding of the dynamic relation between the Earth, the Sun and the Cosmos. In these circumstances it is incredible that some leaders of scientific societies and academies have tried to use their authority to demand acceptance of the IPCC report."
I think the jury's still out on anthropogenic global warming and its effects. This subject is too vast and possibly too important to be trusted to a few scientific cliques. A wide range of data and assessments are in order, and from that information, some conclusions drawn. However with the vast economic and political implications involved, objectivity becomes a tall order.
haynes9: You said "Was it not conventional science that denied that the earth was round? did the conventional science of the day believe the sun revolved around the earth?" While I like some of your statements, actually it was the church that denied the fact that the sun revolved around the earth. They forced scientist Galileo to deny his Copernican views or face the punishments of the inquisition. Science postulated these concepts and later advanced them amid church opposition.
|Posted by: haynes9 05-Apr-2007, 11:38 AM|
Of course, you are correct an bout Galileo. Sorry about that. I just got on a roll and didn't bother to make sure that my brain was in gear.
The basic premise, though, I believe is a correct one. Galileo was certainly the scientific mind that challenged the old notions and the established church (which, for me, was despotic. Once again, another topic for another day) did fight him tooth and nail. But he did challenge what were considered scientific facts of the day. I guess my main point is that with the increase in knowledge, what was once the accepted norm can certainly be found to be wrong at a later date. Bottom line is, you are absolutely correct with regards to what I said, Antwn.
BTW, reckon why the established church failed to read the Scripture that talked about the "circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22)?
|Posted by: Emmet 06-Apr-2007, 08:36 AM|
Clearly, you don't understand what a study of peer reviewed literature means.
A “unanimous consensus” is an oxymoron.
Yeah; 10% uncertainty. Science doesn't deal in absolutes; 90% certainty is about as good as it ever gets.
Did the article mention that Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, is funded by Exxon?
Many signers of the Leipzig declaration, including Chauncey Starr, Robert Balling, and Patrick Michaels, have received funding from the oil industry, while others have no scientific training or can't not be identified. Those identified as scientists and climate experts include at least ten weather "presenters", including Dick Groeber of Dick's Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio. Groeber, who had not completed a university degree, labeled himself]/i] a scientist by virtue of his thirty to forty years of self-study. Of the declaration's 33 European signers, four of them could not be located, twelve denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who verified signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an entomologist. Of the names on the list had [i]any scientific connection with the study of climate change, several were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait. While their core statement: "There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever."might have been debatable when first issued in 1995, it is demonstrably and irrefutably false in 2007.
RELIABLE sources. Not all science is created equal. Placing petrochemical industry funded charlatans like Frederick Seitz, Bob Carter, and Fred Singer on the same level as real climatologists and then claiming that there is some sort of serious debate in the scientific community regarding the reality of global warming is suggestive of either a very shallow understanding of the scientific process, our deep intellectual dishonesty. It is precisely the same reasoning of those who say evolution is "just a theory" and insist on teaching "intelligent design" to my children as if it had even remotely the same degree of scientific validity.
Then the petrochemical industry and their coterie of ersatz climate experts and political prostitutes have achieved their objective.
|Posted by: Antwn 06-Apr-2007, 12:07 PM|
| Unanimous consensus is in quotes in a quoted paragraph. The author agrees perhaps?
Peer review does not obviate editing. Lead authors are often authors of the original studies themselves or peer review one another's studies or those of like bias. If the same clique reviews one another's work, how is objectivity preserved?
IPCC again: “Contributed material may be edited, merged and if necessary, amended, in the course of developing the overall draft text.” You'd expect this of course, but why doesn't the IPCC publish alternative or dissenting views?
Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic said when discussing the IPCC “IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”.
Georgi Grusa is one of Russia's leading climatologists. He says just "a medium term prognosis on climactic trends is not possible, because it is completely unclear how the factors will behave that influence climate change."
Yuri Golubchikov of Moscow State University Georgraphy Department says "The upper levels of the ocean contain 57 to 60 times more carbon dioxide than the air. If the temperature of the ocean rises a little, gigantic amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere through the evaporation of water. The total volume of this release and absorption of carbon dioxide is five times higher than the industrial emission of carbon dioxide."
So how do IPCC authors distinguish between anthropogenic and natural C02 emissions? By proxy output estimations made by governments and industry. Did I say industry?? The same institutions who you suggest buy off scientists? Well who better to provide data on greenhouse gas emission projections? So if industry buys off scientists and provides data for emission projections which ultimately end up with IPCC authors, then whose information is trustworthy? Projections are not assured nor are computer models who rely upon them.
Claude Allegre, who was among the first scientists to warn people of global warming 20 years ago now says “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." "
Aside from my statements about Gore, that's all I'm suggesting. The science is not settled.
Working Group I of the IPCC 2007 report just came out. Why don't we give some time to see what the reaction is from all parties to the first part of the latest report.
|Posted by: Antwn 07-Apr-2007, 10:40 AM|
| From an interview with Al Gore in Grist magazine:
Grist: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?
Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Straight from the horse's mouth. Its okay to exaggerate the facts and the danger until the public feels an appropriate level of fear to be amenable to Gore's solutions. So manipulation and coercion apparantly trumps truth and the integrity of factual presentation in Gore's view.
|Posted by: gtrplr 07-Apr-2007, 01:02 PM|
| Long time, no blather. Just dropping by and thought I'd add some fuel to the fire. Check out this link:
17,000 scientists have signed a petition asking the government to reject global warming. From the website:
The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
Check it out. Speaking of out, gotta run. I'm outta here.
|Posted by: stoirmeil 09-Apr-2007, 09:49 AM|
| Wow, I don't know about the planet, but this conversation is certainly generating a bit of heat. I need to review what's been going on for the last week, but this one comment caught my eye:
This may mean exactly what you think -- that "over-representation of factual presentations" is an actual distortion of the facts and a lessening of their truth value. But there's a possibility that it means something rather different, in line with that thing we call "validity effect", which you can find discussed in any intro to psychology textybook: people have a tendency to believe the thing they have heard most often, regardless of the inherent truth value. Repetition heightens familiarity, and familiarity increases willingness to accept, and eventually promotes trust. (It's the reason we are so bloody interested in how much money these pre-nomination campaigns are managing to raise -- money is advertising and related exposure, and the more a candidate can afford to repeat himself the better his chances are.)
So what Gore may be saying, in this clunky off-the-cuff sentence of his, is that to keep repetitively hammering ("over-represent") the actual facts ("factual presentations") means a greater likelihood that the message will get through. The one with the most repetitions of his position to the most people at the end of the day wins. Not necessarily a distortion -- though distortion is always possible -- just the biggest and loudest broken record. And I believe he is quite right in pointing out that no one who doesn't see a problem will be interested in solutions.
|Posted by: Antwn 09-Apr-2007, 11:49 AM|
| "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into a hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."
--- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT
Testimony of Dr. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Despite the age of this report (2001) the general points made concerning misuse of IPCC summaries, computer modeling reliability and media reporting and are still pertinent. In part:
"The misuse of the IPCC summaries, however, is not entirely accidental. The IPCC does a number of things which encourage misuse.
! Use a summary to misrepresent what scientists say.
! Use language which conveys different meaning to laymen and scientists.
! Exploit public ignorance (and the embarrassment about this ignorance) over quantitative matters.
! Exploit what scientists can agree on in order to support one’s agenda.
! Exaggerate scientific accuracy and certainty.
! Exaggerate the authority of undistinguished scientists."
Full report: www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
Stoirmeil-- Fine, the efficacy of Gore's techniques are established, but the veracity of his assertions and the integrity of his intent are not. There's big difference between repeating a problem until the public agrees that there's a need for a solution, and to do the same thing when the problem is fabricated, or exaggerated to compel public overreaction, fear and amenability to excessive policies in response. Gore ignores compelling scientific evidence that contradicts or mitigates his claims, indicating another agenda is more likely than merely raising public consciousness of an impending danger. We'll have to see what that is. See below -
Here's an editorial by Lindzen from the Wall Stree Journal editorial page. Of note is the following statement:
"So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky."
Full article: www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
|Posted by: stoirmeil 09-Apr-2007, 02:15 PM|
This isn't exactly on point -- but I want to know, what are you establishing here? The word chet-vov-gimel ("hog", but pronounced like khog) in that passage means "circle," as opposed to sphere, which is a different word even within Isaiah (or the Isaiahs, properly) -- at IS22:18, the word "caddur" is used to represent "sphere" or "ball". I don't think you can use this passage at IS40:22 to claim the prophet knew the earth was spherical -- in fact, it seems to support a circular, flat-world view with the 360-degree horizon as the edge.
I don't fluently read Hebrew per se, but I am a very fluent reader of Yiddish, which uses the same alphabet and has plenty of Hebrew and aramaic incursions in it, and I know how to sort the radicals out of the Hebrew to get basic meaning. The word here is "hog" and it means "circular." One could confuse the issue by using the english word "round," which also catches in "spherical," but I don't think it's what the original text means.
But I'm not sure what you're demonstrating anyway, so let me not add any more methane to the warming of this discussion or the atmosphere in general. Just a purely linguistic interest, even though imprecise translation is an infinite source of hot gaseous emissions when it gets out of hand.
|Posted by: John Clements 10-Apr-2007, 04:24 PM|
| Sorry all, but I have to say this. That anyone, who thinks that curtailing the poisoning of the earth, is not a good idea, for what ever reason. Has got to have their head examined, period
|Posted by: Antwn 11-Apr-2007, 10:27 AM|
| Just because one thinks global warming may not be happening doesn't mean they're in favor of pollution any more than a person who is against the death penalty thinks that nothing should ever be done about crime.
The problem is the "for whatever reason" part. No civilization was ever destroyed by excess rationality. Environmental agendas foisted upon humanity by deceit and trickery undermines any rational decision and displays an abject distrust, arrogance and condescention. If one group of humans has proclaimed themselves so singularly enlightened that they're compelled to coerce their supposedly moronic fellows by the exaggeration of events to the point of hysteria, because they believe only by such machinations will their imagined catastrophe be rectified, who's irrational? Why would one assume that proposed solutions to pollution were going to be appropriate if they arose from a laid groundwork of fraud or extremeism? Its not that nothing should be done, but responses should come from an acknowlegement of what is true, to the best of our knowledge. When you have people comparing doubt about global warming, which is backed up by science, to the denial of the Holocaust for example, you're not talking to rational people. When you're listening to people trying to convince you that their facts are scientifically sound when they call CO2 a "pollutant" and claim you can tell the influence of the American Clean Air Act from the level of Antarctic ice sheet melting, you're listening to someone who doesn't know what they're saying.
Its difficult to make good decisions amid hysteria and misinformation, and its good decisions which are needed.
|Posted by: John Clements 30-Apr-2007, 08:28 AM|
| With Honey Beas mysteriously disappearing, I’d say this issue is heating up, wouldn’t you?
|Posted by: Brendan 02-May-2007, 09:15 PM|
| I'm embarrased a bit about my ignorance regarding these issues..
and apologize to this group. That said...
I'd like to think of myself as "well informed" however it would seem that
the "truths" or "facts" are distorted as I see it...intentionally? possibly
but on which side? I would hate to think that Big Oil would distort the facts about
irreversable global damage just to continue profit or blanket huge scale liability litigation. Where would the sense in this be if this environment is destroyed by their
forcing the blind eye? Gentlemen I'm not a democrat however If the plan or deception, if you will, on the part of Al Gore's campaign is to produce a result that
forces environmental focus and a much closer look and possibly the beginning
of global corrections to our abuse of our environment, then I'm on board with this.
Thank you Antwn and Emmet for sharing your thoughts and research on this..
I do not read much but this kept me interested and curious.
|Posted by: Antwn 04-May-2007, 12:13 PM|
Oil companies are multinational mega-billion dollar behemoths. If global warming threatened their existence in any way, I doubt seriously if they'd risk their future by investing a few six figure payouts to a handful of scientists to discredit it. That effort is puny when compared to the resources they have to apply to such a problem.
Big oil will respond to global warming the same way it responds to everything else, make money off of it. For example, who has the refineries already in place which could produce ethanol in quantities that would be meaningful? Who has the distribution network already in place to thousands of service stations throughout N.America to sell it retail?
Some power companies are building new plants with natural gas instead of coal. Gas occurs most often in conjunction with petroleum. Who pulls natural gas out of the off shore wells in the Gulf and refines it?
Big oil will profit no matter which way the wind blows on this issue, and if they're fined or financially punished, they'll pass on those added costs to us. So will power companies. By jumping on the global warming bandwagon they'll look like good guys, make a profit, and by creating an image as good team players, they'll likely avoid potential litigation.
|Posted by: John Clements 04-May-2007, 05:17 PM|
Good stuff Antwn,
Didn’t the Baseball team owners, do that back in the day, and wasn’t called: price fixing?
You know I’ve been around for some 62 plus years now, and I can’t say that I can remember a spring, when the trees came to full leaf, in such a short period of time. Do you, or does anyone else feel the same way?
|Posted by: stoirmeil 15-May-2007, 11:27 AM|
Ah, no, JC, that's just too sad to bear. I'll be your honeybee, if it's the last thing I do. (buzzzzzz . . . gasp. . . . )
Just kidding -- this with the bees is very serious. I don't think they know quite what is causing it, or if it's a direct or indirect result of warming. But it's going to change a great deal about the way the populatin gets fed, if it doesn't turn around.
I guess it depends on where you are -- I grew up outside of Providence, and winters were harsher and spring more gradual there in my childhood (the fifties). New York where I am now for 20 years is a little further south. But even here, it seems spring and fall are short, and both of them tend toward a longer summer, than when I first came here.
|Posted by: John Clements 15-May-2007, 04:57 PM|
| Hi stoirmil,
I’ve got the answer to the bee problem in two words, “Caned Goods”, lots of caned goods.
Sorry, it’s the best I could do on such short notices. You know I’ve never been stung by a bee, and now I guess I probably never will. What a said state of affairs.
|Posted by: stoirmeil 16-May-2007, 07:33 AM|
| Being stung by a bee is kind of exciting the first time or two, but it's overrated.
As to the prospect of foraging to survive on canned goods when nothing (NOTHING) will grow any more -- I strongly recommend Cormack McCarthy's newest book, "The Road." I sat up til four in the morning with it and literally could not put it down -- with the haunting feeling that if I closed the book they would die. Never read anything like it.
|Posted by: Antwn 16-May-2007, 12:59 PM|
| Hi Stoirmeil, nice to see you back!! I hadn't heard about the honey bee disappearances until JC posted it. From what I read theories center around GM foods and cellular tower emissions and mites. No one mentioned a global warming correlation in the sites I Googled. These are commercial bees, so beekeepers are devastated. I don't how much info they have on wild bee disappearances.
One interesting theory centers around GM foods, which have been modified to kill insect pests, having the same effect on bees. Problem is, in many cases no one can find the bees' bodies. They just disappeared, whole hives left empty, or in some cases the entire hive abandons the queen. Sometimes bees will leave the nest if they're diseased. Where's Columbo when you need him? Seriously though, I hope we don't get too distracted to deal with this. While we're all arguing about global warming, nothing gets pollinated anymore.
|Posted by: Antwn 21-May-2007, 01:05 PM|
| Watch this video (76minutes) from Britain.
|Posted by: Roberto Phoenix 21-May-2007, 04:10 PM|
| Firts bees disappearing and now strange stuf in the sky. Nothing new about that except it is staying there every night
Opinions? Is it Venus or not. I'm planning on going up on a local blff tonight to see if I can check it out tonight.
|Posted by: TandVh 24-Jun-2007, 04:00 PM|
|Posted by: stoirmeil 24-Jun-2007, 05:53 PM|
|Can't open the link, so I can't tell what that was referring to. But Venus has been "evening star" for several weeks now, setting after the sun and looking quite glorious over the Hudson, large and rock-steady with nary a twinkle. Most folks do take it for an airplane or UFO. I doubt that it's doing anything to the terrestrial climate, though.|
|Posted by: Emmet 04-Aug-2007, 12:41 AM|
|Posted by: dundee 06-Aug-2007, 11:07 AM|
| "for what its worth"here is an intresting article Dr Reid Bryson the man that started it all Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate.
read what he has to say.
|Posted by: Antwn 08-Aug-2007, 01:15 PM|
| I think this link didn't work last time I posted it, let me try again. Fascinating film.
|Posted by: Lady of Avalon 08-Aug-2007, 05:54 PM|
| I did not listen to all of it but I have to say that I totally agree that global warming is political propaganda and again the media plays a wonderful role in this as well.
And unfortunately even in our modern society people just falls for it because they don't understand or just want to believe that television is all true. When I discovered celtic radio at first "global warming" was a topic that I started just to ear what people had to say about it.(which I deleted since)
And I received an e-mail from someone who did not identify him or herself answering my question about the media and the influence it has on our society.Here was the answer from my anonymous sender.
Most of the global warming dialog is really a rant.
People still believe what they wish to believe.
True, the Earth's climate changes...no kidding. All the evidence points to this.
The bone of contention is the cause of global warming. The current climate trends are not human induced!!!![ Despite the true believers to the contrary.] That big bright yellow thing in the sky is most probably the prime driver.
If I wrote a grant to the National Science Foundation proposing to increase the Earth's temperature by 1 degree, I would be laughed out of the Academy.
Human hubris never fails to amaze me.
A much more profitable discussion should be taking place along the lines of what we are going to do with a booming population, a sky-rocketing demand upon natural resources
[especially from China and India]...and conservation in general.
Thank you, dear Lady, for daring to point out the naked emperor.
|Posted by: dundee 10-Aug-2007, 11:00 AM|
I just heard about this i havent had a chance to watch the whole thing yet but i will this weekend
it is called the "Great Global Warming Swindle"
these are all well known climatologists i dont think "an inconvenient truth" used a lot of them. if you are truly interested in the climate change it should be worth watching.
|Posted by: John Clements 10-Aug-2007, 02:55 PM|
| Could it be? That Bushes recent 360 on global worming, is a sign of repentance? I doubt it, because I don’t think he knows the meaning of the word. And what’s worse, I don’t think he cares.
I’m sorry dundee, but I think the title… “Inconvenient… Truth”, is reason enough not to include those climatologists.
Like I’ve said before, it all comes down to who, and what you believe.
|Posted by: dundee 10-Aug-2007, 03:18 PM|
| yep your right john... just "dont throw the baby out with the bathwater"... i never would expect anything posted to change anyones mind who has made up there mind. it is more for the people that are not sure. i would encourage you though to watch it ... it will cost you nothing but a some time... then you can say you looked at both sides... ahhhh judy collins just came to mind... i really dont know clouds at all.....
oh by the way i dont see how your comment about bush had anything to do with what i posted. but seeing as you brought it up check out this site.
|Posted by: Lady of Avalon 10-Aug-2007, 04:15 PM|
| You guys are funny subject from global warming to Georges Bush to Judy Collins.
One would believe himself in a tavern.(just teasing).But I totaly agree that in the book M.Gore did not include these scientist.As for your M.Bush well in my eyes he's another puppet who can't even pronounce the word properly anyways...I don't have too much respect for the man..Sorry no offense.
But I will certainly listen to it entirety because I'm still very curious about what the British have to say. Because they too like to put it on human activity like flying and such. They've been doing some pub while I was there telling no...asking people not to take the plane if you don't have to but your car or the train.Hmmm
If you prefer reading ,there is this book that I bought called "Climate" and is written by two scientist one is climate scientist the other geologist-biologist.It is a very interesting book that explain the climate through the ages.
Authors are Jennifer Hoffman and Tina Tin.
|Posted by: John Clements 11-Aug-2007, 10:45 AM|
| Oh yes the Judy Collins (both sides now) is a perfect analogue. But you see, dundee. One could say that I’m from Oklahoma, even though I was born in Brooklyn, because I can’t help but to believe my own eyes. So, as much as it pains me, nothing is going to change the fact, that I believe that I saw demolition on 9/11. Oh yes, planes flew into those towers, but I don’t believe that was what brought them down.
As what Bush has to do with your post about global worming? All I know is that Bush has ignored the subject until recently. Gee, do you think Al Gore’s Incontinent Truth had anything to do with that? Come on man, it all quit obvious.
|Posted by: dundee 11-Aug-2007, 11:50 AM|
john take look a at my last link...
snopes is pretty reliable and unbiased.
would seem to me that bush has a bit of
an upper hand on gore at least with his life style.
and are you trying to make me laugh "Al Gore’s Incontinent Truth"
you describe it very well... peace
and i dont know how we got into 9/11...
there isnt a ghost on everydoor knob ya know...
lady of A i have no problem with your opinion of bush... *S*
i am pretty pissed at him right now myself.
just be sure to look at the whole picture... follow the money ....
|Posted by: John Clements 11-Aug-2007, 01:15 PM|
| See that I can get a laugh without even trying.
Enough for to day.
|Posted by: Antwn 15-Aug-2007, 11:58 AM|
| This article may be demonstrative of the fact that we just don't know as much about climate as we like to suppose, and that perhaps our certainty is tainted with hubris. This becomes more provocative when we consider how reliant many doom and gloomers have been upon computer modeling, which is only as effective as the data input into it, and is by no means reflective of interconnected matrices as complex as climate. Anyway -
|Posted by: Antwn 19-Aug-2007, 02:23 PM|
| Well, defenders of catastrophic global warming via greenhouse gases - you now have an opportunity to make big bucks - but only if you can prove it.
Junk Science .com is offering $100,000 to the first person who can - prove it that is.
|Posted by: gwenlee 17-Nov-2007, 07:31 PM|
| I remember in the 70's scientist were warning us about global cooling. Now a term that I here a lot is climate changes. I guess that is going to be the new term so all of the doomsday forecaster can be right about the weather.
With that said I do believe we should all be good stewards when it comes to taking care of the earth. It is our only home
|Posted by: CelticRadio 23-May-2008, 08:38 PM|
| Well, I have done a 360 on the Global Warming Issue and I think unless things change very soon then we could be looking at a pretty significant Global Cool down.
I've been following the fact that Global Warming/Cooling may indeed be mostly related to Sunspot activity.
Data from Nasa shows no significant sunspots this year:
If indeed we are headed toward a Maunder and Dalton climate minima, such as occurred in the 1600's, then we got bigger problems.
- Oil prices continue to rise.
- Crop reduction.
- Grain Shortages.
Global Warming could end up being the biggest consumer scam in history. We are paying at the pumps, the grocery store and in taxes to reduce emissions.
Maybe we need to start pumping as much CO2 in the atmosphere as possible to prevent a mini iceage. Better break out the AWD SUV's and get a wood stove!
|Posted by: Dogshirt 23-May-2008, 08:43 PM|
AT LAST!!!!!!!!!!! Others see it for the crap science it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|Posted by: Patch 23-May-2008, 08:55 PM|
I personally believe we are looking at normal climatic cycles. None of us will live to know for sure though.
|Posted by: Dogshirt 23-May-2008, 09:33 PM|
Exactly what I've been saying all along. I'm glad others see this as well.
When the Norse colonized Greenland around 1000AD they farmed there. But 450 years later they had to abandon those colonies because the climate had change to the point they were getting 85% of their foods from the sea and had to import grains for bread. It was no longer feasible to raise livestock.
And that "cold" cycle didn't end until the mid 1800s. Yes! We ARE warming, for NOW, but it will turn again.
|Posted by: Patch 24-May-2008, 01:05 AM|
I read about glacial core samples which prove these climatic cycles go back many tens of thousands of years. I will look for the article again.
|Posted by: Camac 24-May-2008, 05:41 PM|
I tend to agree that Global Warming is cyclic but I also believe that man made polution is helping to speed it up.The Arctic Ice is melting 4 times more rapidly than what would occur in a natural cycle.
|Posted by: Patch 24-May-2008, 07:43 PM|
We are probably approaching the capacity of our planet to support human life. That can not help. It is my understanding that the "ice cores" in storage indicate both rapid warming (decomposition of massive amounts of organic matter?) and slow warming. Only history will prove what was really the cause at this time. All it takes is one really big volcanic eruption or similar calamity to move the climate to a cooling cycle.
|Posted by: jime307 26-May-2008, 10:57 AM|
|What annoys me the most about global warming is that lots of adults come to us kids and say "You have to change it, I screwed it up and you have to fix it" that's not fair, you're still alive so you can help. Another one that ticks me off is "It's not gonna happen in my lifetime so why do I care" Well, it WILL happen in MY lifetime. Here in Jackson we have this thing that was started last year call GWHL (global warming heroes leauge) I was all for joining it but it was for 7th+ graders last year this year I'm in 7th grade and I was the first person in the meeting for it. We did votes for who would hold office right of the bat, and only the popular kids got elected, I know them, and I can almost guarantee that all of them will quit by the third meeting they joined to be with thier friends not to help the world. The kid who got elected vice president doesn't even believe global warming exists, I've heard it out of his mouth at least times. I don't mind that they're gonna be in charge if they'll do a good job and actually work. But somehow, I don't think they will and all the people (probably considered the "Nerds") will do all the work, but it's gonna pay off in the end, I know it is...|
|Posted by: Skeleman 19-Aug-2008, 12:09 PM|
| I didn't read through all eight pages of posts, so I don't know if anything like this has been said or not but I'll say it anyway.
The biggest problem with global warming/climate change is not "Is it man made?" or "What should be done about it?" or "Will it destroy all life on Earth?" but rather the science getting politicized. Politicized science is a severely dangerous thing. As Alston Chase said, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to a quest for power."
|Posted by: iolanda 23-Aug-2008, 02:20 PM|
who has seen this movie(about the Global Warming) : "An inconvenient truth" by D. Guggenheim with Al Gore as protagonist? It's really interesting.
|Posted by: Antwn 10-Dec-2008, 12:12 PM|
|Well, whaddya know - Pres Elect Obama sits down with the Tennessee Twit to discuss global warming before even taking office. Its telling that he eshews true scientists and gets his information from Gore! Talk about a secondary source - its laughable. Oh well....a gripe in the wilderness.|
|Posted by: Dogshirt 10-Dec-2008, 08:10 PM|
| They ALL ignore the truth when it suits them! Whether it is the LACK of WMD or the LIE of global warming.
|Posted by: Lady-of-Avalon 11-Dec-2008, 03:13 PM|
I agree with this statement as well Skeleman...it is obvious that global warming has become a politicize issue and a propaganda with television as a medium for any who would crack for all this BS...
Even with "men made pollution" or "over population" global warming is a cycle in earth's life and history. If we go back millions of years ago when the planet was shaping itself...what do you think was in the atmosphere and stratosphere, toxic gas...simple has that...produce not by cars or companies for they did not exist then but by active volcanos erupting like crazy to shape where we are all living now. And it still does.
Even in the solar system things changes, always in constant movement, so for sure the earth will "feel" the repercussions of these changes...again normal...
So what better way for governments to use this an avenue to have people spend more money...buy these bags for you can re-use them, buy these cars for they won't produce as much gas emissions...then why won't they stop remote starters sales in the first place is behond me????? People have become sissies....they start their car because they are afraid of sitting in a cold car...boohoo...even for 10 minutes the car just sits there running for nothing...talk about gas emissions!!!!!!
So why? I think people need to wake up and smell the coffee....
My two pence.
|Posted by: oldraven 11-Dec-2008, 03:32 PM|
You may want to reassess that belief.
Arctic ice is not receding nearly as fast as NASA reported. They were actually caught in that lie recently. Some models were using winter data for previous years and summer data for later. There was actually a gain in Arctic sea ice this year.
As for using ice core samples to prove that there are concentrations of carbon at certain periods of time in earth's history, you have to look at that from the other angle. Have you ever seen the snow at the side of the road after it begins to melt off? It looks very dirty, doesn't it? If the surface of the ice were to melt, the particles within would not evaporate, but stay on the surface of the ice, appearing to concentrate when it's the loss of ice, not the addition of carbon particles, that has really occurred. Warm temperatures causing a concentration of carbon in an ice cross section, not carbon causing warm temperatures. A causing B, but claiming B caused A. Why, because looking at it from this perspective proves your point.
Bottom line? Carbon does not contribute to Global Warming. 650 of the worlds leading scientists (including those who were part of the IPCC) make this claim, whereas 52 bought ones are saying the opposite.
|Posted by: Dogshirt 11-Dec-2008, 11:32 PM|
| As I've said from the begining, the BIGGEST hoax since the Cardiff Giant!
|Posted by: Camac 12-Dec-2008, 09:48 AM|
You can call it a big hoax if you want but whatever the reason there is Global Warming. Just look to the Northweast Passage for the first time in at least 40,000 years it's open. Speaking of the Northwest Passage now that it is open everybody and their brother is screaming it's international waters. It's Canadian inside our Territorial Boundaries. Just like the Panama Canal belongs to Panama and the Suez belongs to Egypt.
|Posted by: oldraven 12-Dec-2008, 11:37 AM|
| I agree with all of that Camac. It's putting the blame on us, and not the sun, that is the hoax. Too bad, because if they had concentrated on REAL pollution, we would be making progress and not discrediting the entire Scientific community.
Air pollution kills more people in California than car crashes. 440 in comparably low smog Toronto annually. The Alberta oil sands are leaking 11 million litres of contaminated water from holding ponds PER DAY. This is a fact of life on Earth that we should be concentrating on. Not Carbon Credits. "I can drive my Cayenne, because some guy in Argentina is going to plant a tree for me. He's only getting paid 5c to plant the 30c tree, even though it cost me $xxx.xx, but we're talking about saving polar bears, here." Yeah, ok buddy. It's counter productive to force positive change based on a very thin lie. We are developing emissions technology, at a considerable cost, that will reduce a harmless substance, when truly toxic ones like NOx and Carbon-monoxide are not seeing reductions of any kind. All to stop the sun from heating up.
|Posted by: Camac 12-Dec-2008, 01:24 PM|
I really don't give a damn arguing who or what is causing Global Warming. It's a fact and who or what is to blame I will leave to wiser heads than me to figure out. If we humans of the industrial countries are partly or all to blame then it is only smart if we start cleaning up our act and either control or eliminate pollution. You mentioned the oils sands and I read or heard that if something isn't done about the tailing ponds they could be responsible for upward of 1 1/2 Billion birds dying. The technology is out there to eliminate a great percentage of co2 and carbon mo but either the political or finacial will isn't there to use it. Maybe this economic crisis and its affects on the auto industry will make the Detroit 3 get their butts in gear and produce cleaner more efficient cars. When will we learn you can't mess with Mother Nature, she always wins in the end.
|Posted by: oldraven 12-Dec-2008, 02:17 PM|
| Actually, most developed nations are moving ahead with CO2 reductions, and forcing consumers to pay the extra, or they get taxed anyway. Pay more taxes, or pay more taxes. The EU are at the forefront. The AGW debate has absolutely nothing to do with pollution, man.
I would be more inclined to give the 52 scientists the benefit of the doubt, if they hadn't shut the door on any kind of opposing evidence. Those 400 scientists were BANNED from the Bali talks, man. This is going to end up being a term with 'gate' tacked onto the end.
|Posted by: InRi 12-Dec-2008, 03:21 PM|
We Humans are really the pride of creation. We accomplish with absolut accuracy to bit the hand that feeds us. Within r.a. 150 years we have succeeded to desolate big parts of our planet.
We are polluting the seas and amaze that fauna and flora die there. We are polluting the atmosphere and amaze that the climate goes haywire. (or doesn't go?)
And what's doing the pride of creation? No, no don't act - quick and precise so as needed - First we must look for a culprit and when we have found him we can continue as before...
Sorry, but I think the humans can learn their lesson by pain only.
|Posted by: Antwn 16-Dec-2008, 08:23 PM|
I don't think its inevitable that we do, but learning by pain does seem to be our default methodology. One would think we'd behave more intelligently when the stakes are higher but apparantly not - or to be fair, it remains to be seen the extent to which we will.