The climate debate (Kyoto, etc)

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Yup, the debate on the climate and what developed nations should do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is almost over. The new agreements will hold after the Kyoto protocol has ended its 1st turn (sometime around 2012 i suppose).

Here is the news report: BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4512696.stm)

The interesting bit that stands out is this

But the US has reportedly taken offence at criticism from Canada's prime minister, who said Washington must listen to its global conscience.

Not so encouraging. In the end it would seem that economics is more important than controlling excess green house gasses in the atmosphere amongs other environmental problems.

Maybe we are all waiting for a climate disaster of epic proportions affecting the developed world before large nations decide to act.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

On a related note, we Dutch are just as bad in releasing loads of green house gasses. But at least our government recognises it and wants actively to participate in finding solutions to the problem. One of the solutions my university is currently working on is to see if it is possible to store CO2 in empty gas reservoirs or in coal beds. To make profit out of the idea, there are currently experiments being done to see if the CO2 can replace methane in coal. From methane as you all know energy can be taken (Biogas). The Netherlands is a member of the Kyoto protocol.

See here for more news on Europe's pollution hotspots: BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4512464.stm).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/sci_nat_enl_1134108319/img/1.jpg

[idefiXX]

i think the real problem in the world will be china and not the usa.
the us will try to reduce their amount of CO2 produced every year. maybe they won't agree to the kyoto protocol but they will definetly do something
(although the us never were THAT nature-friendly).
but china...wohooo, a growing economy, additionally with a government that doesn't care about nature (although they signed the kyoto protocol), 1,3 billion citizen, not enough money to buy a eco-friendly car... do i have to say more ??

[Tokelil]

The government we have atm. in Denmark are doing absolutely nothing to prevent greenhouse gasses. (we are buying quotas from Polan) They cut back a lot of the funding for reseach in windmills, (where we are the technological leades afaik) removed funding for reseach in "coast mills" etc. They are doing nothing to support green cars.
Generally if it doesn't produce money within 10 years, it's a waste of time. :dead: (Did I mention I didn't vote for the current government? ;))

Anyway, IMO the US is the biggest problem atm. because of the mentality of a lot of people in the states and esp. the Bush administration. There's a lot of people in the administration (AFAIK) that doesn't recognize the greenhouse effect as a real threat.

About China Im not so sure. I agree that they could be a problem, but on the other hand I believe they will "fall in line" in time with presure from EU.

[Todd The Kiwi]

sorry i can't find the statistics but...

i've heard some disturbing figures about how much new zealand pays
and our emissions, the ratio is waaaaay out of proportion.
not to mention the friggin' french testing their nuclear crap down here
and the japs stealing our fish with drift nets.
to those of who who live away from the sea or don't know shit all about it.
drift nets leave NOTHING even the little fish get caught.
and nuclear stuff isn't good, especially since we don't allow it on our shores
f*cking cheeky pricks!

sorry off topic rant, so sue my arse!
it's just not FAIR!!! :depressed

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Well i just saw on the news and it looks like Japan, China and Europe are coming to an agreement of some sorts. The USA is clearly not involved. I wonder what deals will be made...

More recent news here: BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4512696.stm)

[rorythedog]

A deal has been made!

Not a bad result either. Even the USA seems to be coming around.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4515898.stm

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

It's good every nation wishes to continue the discussion. On the one hand, effective solutions are sadly still hotly disputed over, but on the other there seems to be more political interest now. Next meeting will be in a years time in Kenia, Nairobi. Lets hope more successes will be achieved. :globe: :bulb:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

The year 2005 has been the warmest year (in the Northern hemisphere) since, well, on record really. It certainly was noticeable here in the netherlands.

See this BBC news report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4532344.stm)

[ace2701]

The year 2005 has been the warmest year (in the Northern hemisphere) since, well, on record really. It certainly was noticeable here in the netherlands.

See this BBC news report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4532344.stm)


Yeah, but check out all the snow,sleet and freezing rain in the Northeast US and it's not even winter yet! And here in Southern Texas, we've had one of the dryest summers in a long time. Go figure.:puzzled:

[jkrzok]

Actually, global warming will lead to more snow and rain in some areas. Afterall, with the icecaps melting, that water will go elsewhere, like the atmosphere which will at some point fall.

What we're seeing is not just an overall warming of the atmosphere but potentially profound changes in weather patterns. It seems that global warming is changing Atlantic Ocean currents; warm water from the Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico won't be heading towards Europe, with the end result that much of Europe will turn into a winter wasteland.

[rorythedog]

Our spiders are getting bigger. I hate spiders.

[Todd The Kiwi]

30°C rain would be alright :gasmask:
grab a bar of soap and head for the lawn ha ha ha :carrot:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

It's more like 3C rain here now. CHances of snow in the weekend too. F*ck that, just give me 22C all year round and sunshine ha ha.

[WHAT?]

Yes, all that pollution ain't good, and is slightly contributing to a warming effect. I think there is so much we need to control to help clean this up! Acid rain ain't good for anybody! But I still think it's a cycle thing. Not just an every 11 year sun cycle thing either. More like 300 400 hundred year cycle. Remember we had a mini ice age going on back a few hundred years ago lasting into the 1800s. Things change, and will change. The pollution is bad all on it's own, enough to want to clean it up for a lot of reasons. I just don't buy global warming due from our pollution. Hell, there has been bigger polluting volcanoes throughout history. Yet, nuts today, running around saying cows give off to much methane gas!
Even if so, I still believe it's going to be a tough task to get any REAL free enterprise country to drastically change it's ways. One may totally agree on it's effect, but will not be willing to participate (e.g. USA) fully. Hey, risk short term scrutiny from your constituents, and long term- slow demise of power?? Nah, don't think so!
Good luck with that one. But, hey it's got to start somewhere. I know it's a noble concern, and I back the effort mentally, just not practically... Yet!
:robot:

[rorythedog]

Yes, all that pollution ain't good, and is slightly contributing to a warming effect. I think there is so much we need to control to help clean this up! Acid rain ain't good for anybody! But I still think it's a cycle thing. Not just an every 11 year sun cycle thing either. More like 300 400 hundred year cycle. Remember we had a mini ice age going on back a few hundred years ago lasting into the 1800s. Things change, and will change. The pollution is bad all on it's own, enough to want to clean it up for a lot of reasons. I just don't buy global warming due from our pollution. Hell, there has been bigger polluting volcanoes throughout history. Yet, nuts today, running around saying cows give off to much methane gas!
Even if so, I still believe it's going to be a tough task to get any REAL free enterprise country to drastically change it's ways. One may totally agree on it's effect, but will not be willing to participate (e.g. USA) fully. Hey, risk short term scrutiny from your constituents, and long term- slow demise of power?? Nah, don't think so!
Good luck with that one. But, hey it's got to start somewhere. I know it's a noble concern, and I back the effort mentally, just not practically... Yet!
:robot:


Tough task or not, anyone who doesn't see it is an idiot.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Tough task or not, anyone who doesn't see it is an idiot.

Or just ignorant or uncaring...:ponder:

[Todd The Kiwi]

you guys *heard about the fart tax imposed in New Zealand ?

*yes, pun intended.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

you guys *heard about the fart tax imposed in New Zealand ?

*yes, pun intended.

No, do tell us what's that about ha ha

[WHAT?]

Or just ignorant or uncaring...:ponder:
Well, it's great to know the caring people in this forum. Most all of you regulars are very caring, intelligent, and noble people, as I quickly picked up in my short stint here!. I just think caring, and one's intellect will have only small effect in this matter. But don't stop the fight!
As growing nations do just that (grow!), and the small business man, farmer, factory slave, etc, trying to feed his/her family has little incentive to global affairs. Weighing on one hand pollution, and the worlds future, and on the other hand living to see tomorrow... hmmmm let's see what comes on top. Now extend that thought, because most people not only live for today, but have the mental capacity to plan for tomorrow (weeks - months I mean) of course. Throw in those power hungry politicians/dictators/kings what have you... planning for years and years, knowing what it takes for their people and themselves to survive!!.... The worlds future is second place.
However, countries strong enough wealth wise, for their citizens to have middleclass incomes now and over a generation or so, usually produce the kind people whom like to wish the world to be perfect (maybe because they have the time to) I DO appreciate the heart within them! As I said it is noble and good to clean it up. I just think realistically we'll only slow it down (which is better than the path it's on!). But, uncaring, and idiotic-ness has nothing to do with it!
Just one man’s opinion of course.
Actually on a personal note I'm in organizations that do their part fighting against pollutants, I don't just speak it, except for perhaps...sound pollution (e.g. ROCK and Roll baby!!!!!)!
I do play my music way too loud. But I digress.
Keep up the good intentions, but understand, I'm not against you in this matter, quite the opposite, just saying... Well read above...

Signed, Realist :ponder:

[rorythedog]

I don't think my comments or those by Rex were aimed at you man. Actually, you're probably right in your prognosis. I tend to believe that if you think something is possible then it becomes possible. If we give up then we're screwed.

Realism isn't always what's called for I feel. :cool:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

I don't think my comments or those by Rex were aimed at you man.

No they weren't. Only at money hungry corporations and politicians and anyone else you might think would fall in those categories.

[Todd The Kiwi]

rex (and potentially the rest of you too)

"fart tax" as it's been coined is taxing farmers for the methane produced by cows/sheep etc

if you look hard enough you'll find some pictures of a pissed off farmer driving his tractor up the stairs of parliment!
you go girl!

[WHAT?]

Now, let me get this straight. Yes, I know about the methane, but is there more cows today than...? I mean, more cows today than other species that would make up the difference? You know there are LESS of a whole lot of other species in the world today, compared to 200 years ago, because of mans population spread. Some extinct. Do cows omit more per crap, then say a 1000 raccoons, mink, fox, lion, ape, deer, buffalo etc. (ooooo, good one - buffalo!) that would make a difference? I would think deer and buffalo Antelope, Moose, caribou and the whole family there of... of the past would out number the amount of cows today, although close! And wouldn’t they have the same chemical make-up for methane production??? Horses? I hear methane naturally is omitted out of the vast oceans. Did anybody catch my comment about volcanoes? I know it has nothing to do about cows, but more about overall pollution, and O-zone issues.
Now, getting back to the cow issue! Do you give a crap? Do you really believe this crap? You know it's all an angle don't you!! By the vegetarians! ;) Do you think PETA could go into India, and convince them to kill all the cows? :silly: I guess PETA wouldn't want that. How about GreenPeace?

[jkrzok]

Not that I think that animal methane production is THE issue in global warming, but as to the question of numbers of animals today vs. 100 years ago I think you have to look at the concentration of animals in any given area.

As man spreads out and takes over wild areas the number of animals in that area has certainly gone up. Just visit any farm; you'll see many more instances of the larger species than what that area as wildness ever supported. And remember that when raising farm animals they live out their lives in a much smaller geographical area than do their wild counterparts. When you have farmers feeding and watering the animals, any need to range over a large area of land is gone. And when you factor in that many of the smaller wild species (think mice and rats, etc) adapt and even thrive on a farm, you'll see why there's a veritable explosion in methane production down on the farm.

Just take a trip out to Montana sometime, do a head count if you want to. Better yet, take a drive down to a pig farm. There's one about half way between my house here and the the summer place. Take a wiff. You'll understand. And that's not even remotely close to the scale of large production farms you see out west.

[WHAT?]

So. Where do you stand? Pro farm animal or con? Problem or not?
Not sure what you are saying. As for me... I was thinking of solely hunting for my primary food, (well maybe plant a few vegetables too, at my apartment complex) on my own to relieve this problem, but they took my hunting license way after shooting the wrong things! (and people). So I guess I'm stuck with the farm food, or starvation. Have a good one!:carrot: :laugh: :globe:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

More methane comes from rice fields. Just check it out. The nice part about cows in that their crap can be stored and then the methane that comes off it can be used to power the farm house or be used as biofuel. Other sources of methane are from Methane hydrates on the continental slope in the ocean. It's like ice in the sand with methane trapped in it. Lots of methane. Once the conditions change out of the stability field, the ice melts and methane is released. It's like a positive feedback loop. Weather gets hotter, polar ice melts, sea level rises, methane hydrates become unstable and more greenhouse gas is released into the atmosphere. Gas hydrates also exist in permafrost. Same idea. Permafrost melts due to an enhanced green house effect, more green house gasses released into the atmosphere and the bigger the green house effect becomes and the hotter on Earth it becomes.

[WHAT?]

I can't wait:cool: Need to work on my tan!

[rorythedog]

BELCHING COWS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4582174.stm)

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Those cows are Scotland's famous biological weapons. Don't let them be taken away ha ha :laugh:

Rory, you know i am joking ofcourse ;)

[WHAT?]

So... it's not just bullshit!:ponder: :rolleyes:
http://www.aaa-backgrounds.com/clipart/drawshop2/0129.gif

[BALTY]

This gas isn't good for miners either!
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/01/03/GR2006010300161.gif
Forgive me for high jacking. My heart goes out to the families involved.
I have a brother in law, who is an engineer for mines. He worked in that area 15 or so years ago, but never involved in that mine. He didn't know any of the miners in this tragedy, but is from a little town outside of Buckhannon.

I was going to place this post under the bugs, bugs, bugs, section. You know the one that begs me to. Titled ..."Mine crashes". But this subject is too serious. Now That's no bull!

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Yes my condolences. Shame it had to go to the press the way it did giving families the false hope that the mine workers survived...

[rorythedog]

That was a shocking mistake to make.

It was interesting to see how the families were more than happy to thank God for a miracle then moments later to blame a human for a mistake. Misguided? I think so. Fools.

[WHAT?]

DOG said:happy to thank God for a miracle then moments later to blame a human for a mistake. Misguided? I think so. Fools.
Now....? Why did you have to bring that up??:confused:
It's so wrong of you on many levels!:dead: :disappoin

[jkrzok]

My cynical side thinks the company released the "they're alive" report on purpose, knowing full well the miners were dead.

After all, now everyone is talking about the false report and how could they let it out and the poor families, etc etc etc.

People are NOT talking about why they died in the first place. You know, a company cited for some 200 safety violations at that mine in the last year alone.

[rorythedog]

DOG said:happy to thank God for a miracle then moments later to blame a human for a mistake. Misguided? I think so. Fools.
Now....? Why did you have to bring that up??:confused:
It's so wrong of you on many levels!:dead: :disappoin

I brought it up because it's topical.

The thought of a post like yours is precisely why I didn't mention it earlier. In your world do you just not discuss anything that might be contentious? Madness.

For the record - I feel for these families too man. It's a tragic thing to happen. But I think it is interesting to see the reactions of these people.

Why should it be that if something good happens it's down to God but if anything bad happens it's down to Joe Bloggs? i.e. you or me.

And spare me the "holier than thou" rhetoric, please. :cool:

[rorythedog]

My cynical side thinks the company released the "they're alive" report on purpose, knowing full well the miners were dead.

After all, now everyone is talking about the false report and how could they let it out and the poor families, etc etc etc.

People are NOT talking about why they died in the first place. You know, a company cited for some 200 safety violations at that mine in the last year alone.

It's a good point but I doubt if it was deliberate, just lucky (for the company). They do have a disgraceful record though. Having said that, you wouldn't get me working in a mine for love nor money. Any mine.

[WHAT?]

DOG,
I guess I get caught up in the same stereo typing as you too, but in reverse.
It's the same old sound I hear from those that are anti-religious. Do religious people around you make your world worse? If they do get out of there, because living with that hell (no pun) isn't good for anyone! Yes, I hear too, those whom use God and think of God in the wrong, or a peculiar way. They set themselves up for a fall when things don't go right in their world. That’s not the best way either.
I just hate to see you or anyone lump them (us) in a nutshell.
I heard many of those people being interviewed after they found out the "big lie" that they now doubt God. I heard one lady say "Jesus" directly that she had second thoughts about. So not all of them let God of the hook.
Yes, I'm a Christian, but I guess just the fact that it's a hot topic any time it's introduced in a post and it's usually trouble! You know talking about politics, and religion at a family outing is inviting trouble. But, the fact that it's brought up in reference to peoples bad times is seemingly cruel by default.
I personally have always stated that If one believes in God then they should always believe foremost, that free will is the most important gift he gave. And with free will, shit happens, such as "Mine crashes" - :ponder: see Balty's post hehehe.
Anyway, No big deal, I just don't see why this negetive talk had to be brought into this. Unless controversy is your thing?
PS. just because Balty highjacked this thread doesn't give you the right to stoop to his level!:rolleyes: [sarc] or does it?

Peace Out!

[rorythedog]

DOG,
I guess I get caught up in the same stereo typing as you too, but in reverse.
It's the same old sound I hear from those that are anti-religious. Do religious people around you make your world worse? If they do get out of there, because living with that hell (no pun) isn't good for anyone! Yes, I hear too, those whom use God and think of God in the wrong, or a peculiar way. They set themselves up for a fall when things don't go right in their world. That’s not the best way either.
I just hate to see you or anyone lump them (us) in a nutshell.
I heard many of those people being interviewed after they found out the "big lie" that they now doubt God. I heard one lady say "Jesus" directly that she had second thoughts about. So not all of them let God of the hook.
Yes, I'm a Christian, but I guess just the fact that it's a hot topic any time it's introduced in a post and it's usually trouble! You know talking about politics, and religion at a family outing is inviting trouble. But, the fact that it's brought up in reference to peoples bad times is seemingly cruel by default.
I personally have always stated that If one believes in God then they should always believe foremost, that free will is the most important gift he gave. And with free will, shit happens, such as "Mine crashes" - :ponder: see Balty's post hehehe.
Anyway, No big deal, I just don't see why this negetive talk had to be brought into this. Unless controversy is your thing?
PS. just because Balty highjacked this thread doesn't give you the right to stoop to his level!:rolleyes: [sarc] or does it?

Peace Out!

First off - I did not stereotype anyone.

Secondly - Yes, my timing is unfortunate, but when else? It's current and therefore relevant. Would it make more sense if I waited a month? I doubt it.

Third - Calling them "fools" was harsh. I apologize. I do feel for them though and I did hear some of the interviews after the event as well. There's hope yet.

Fourth - I genuinely wasn't trying to single out Christians. I am well aware that ALL religions have followers who can't see the wood for the trees.

Fifth - I don't see how what I said was negative. I really don't understand that. I do have an open mind. If I did see a miracle I might be down to the Church like a rocket. I suspect I won't though.

Anyway, no offence meant mate. :calm:

[WHAT?]

OK! cool!!:cool:

Maybe the miracle would be .... you going to church, eh?:ponder: :silly:

[acushla]

We can now align the worlds microorganisms (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2006/08/07/woods_hole_researcher_discovers_oceans_of_life/) in the oceans with the cows in Scotland.

In your face global warming!

[Todd The Kiwi]

this (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/print.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10402544) was in today's paper

[squeege2]

Eventually, all of us, as individuals, will have to take a more serious look at greenhouse immissions , as an extremely serious problem. From the type and amount of garbage we each produce, to how many roads get paved, to how many vehicles we own and drive. Guess what I'm tryiing to say, is that not only will all countries eventually have to admit we have this problem and deal with it, but that it starts at an individual level too. Pick up that coffe cup on the side of the road..or the plastic bag floating by, as you take your swim. Walk if you can, instead of driving, or ride that rusty old two wheeler. It doesn't have to be initiated by any government, just you. It can make a difference.
( It can even be used to make excuses for taking showers with your favorite sweety..." conserving water ".)
If we all start now , and at an individual level, educate our young, practice a few simple environmentally freindly methods like recycling..it will help. Don't wait on world governments..they've got too much paper work.

[acushla]

Eventually, all of us, as individuals, will have to take a more serious look at greenhouse immissions , as an extremely serious problem.
Sorry to wake you up to a very unpleasent Reality, squeege2...but the fact of the matter is (and most people don't want to hear this) it is already too late. You can pick up all the garbage you can find and not shower for a year...makes no difference, nada...zero.

If all the cars in China stopped driving forever this very instant, and we had no more manufacturing plants, and there was a world wide decree for no more children...and all airplanes stopped flying
now...well...yes...over time that would make a difference.

You be sure to let me know when all that happens.:)

It's a little like watching a loved one riddled with cancer who has passed the point of a 'cure'.:bulb:

[BALTY]

That's Pretty negative of you Acush! I mean, every bit counts. It may be quite some time before we see a tinsy bit of a change. But I for one welcome this change for fresh air, albeit tiny, just once before we all die from the North Korean Nukes!
Hell, wouldn't that be something to see (after the free world is gone). THE NORTH KOREANS FIGHTING IT OUT WITH THE MOSLUM WORLD! My money would still be on the Jews (and cockroaches):cheeky: .

[Willow of Oz]

That's Pretty negative of you Acush! I mean, every bit counts. It may be quite some time before we see a tinsy bit of a change. But I for one welcome this change for fresh air, albeit tiny, just once before we all die from the North Korean Nukes!
Hell, wouldn't that be something to see (after the free world is gone). THE NORTH KOREANS FIGHTING IT OUT WITH THE MOSLUM WORLD! My money would still be on the Jews (and cockroaches):cheeky: .

Some people are Glass Half Full people.
Some people are Glass Half Empty people.
Acushla is a Bar Gutted By Mafia type of person.
Balty is an Open Bar Free Drinks For Life type of person.

:cheeky::cheeky:

[acushla]

Some people are Glass Half Full people.
Some people are Glass Half Empty people.
Acushla is a Bar Gutted By Mafia type of person.
Balty is an Open Bar Free Drinks For Life type of person.

:cheeky::cheeky:
Ouch. I did mention that a lot of people don't like to hear it.

In my defence...understand that I don't just sit around in a vacuum and make this stuff up. These are the conclusions of reputable scientists who study these things.

I concede that there is an army of other scientists who, if you look closely, do not come right out and say their counterparts are wrong...they adhere to the idea that success is possible...but all of the 'solutions', no matter how simple, always depend on one key word... 'If'. Well 'If' just doesn't cut it. I believe it was in this very thread that somebody reported that even IF all of the proposals in the Kyoto Accord were accepted and carried out...it would simply delay effects for two years and then we're back where we began.

I do admit that I find it curious how few people want to hear 'the truth' about the situation...but instead cling to some abstract idea that this situation can be turned around and things will be 'as they were'. In the world of ideas (abstract or otherwise) anything is possible. Unfortunately we do not live in a world simply of ideas...and what works as an idea in theory often fails miserably in what we call the 'Real World'.

People can argue this all they want...and people can not take showers for a year if they think that will help...but speaking for myself...until I see some major changes in the way Governments and Business approach this problem...I will be taking as many showers as I like and if something I want is packaged in plastic...I'm buying it.

Tell me you're different.

[Protocol]

I will be taking as many showers as I like and if something I want is packaged in plastic...I'm buying it.

Be sure to use soap next time... Even if it comes wrapped in plastic. :rolleyes:

[acushla]

Be sure to use soap next time... Even if it comes wrapped in plastic. :rolleyes:
Isn't there something in the soap that isn't good for the environment?

In fact...is there anything at all that we produce that, somewhere in that process...isn't good for the environment?

I lived in LA, California in 1966. I am not exaggerating when I tell you that flying into LAX you descended down into a thick orange haze and then out again. I lived in the valley...which, as far as the smog was concerned, was one of the better places to be. Still, there were days when your eyes would burn (not like in New Jersey, though).

I went back to LA about two years ago...guess what...there is an example of a State that did turn things around. Key reason? People were determined and laws were passed that manufacturers had to adhere to or face massive fines. (Something that PM Harper and the Conservatives will be introducing into Canadian Law next week.)

The problem today is that the determination exhibited by California is sorely lacking throughout the world at large. And if you don't have the determination and conviction then, no surprise, things just keep spiraling down. The result, of course, is that the longer Government's wait the more impossible will be the task should they ever wake up. I'm not holding my breath.

Let's not forget about the Brazilian Rain Forrest. The laws have been passed...but nobody enforces them. I saw a program on Discovery or National Geographic, that stated one and a half acres of Rain Forest is lost every second. Every second. In the time it took to type that 5 acres of Rain Forest disappeared. Oh oh...there goes another 5 and another...you get the picture. In 40 years there will be no Rain Forest. Simple as that.

I've read that approx 137 plant, animal and insect species disappear every single day due to rainforest deforestation...that makes 50,000 in a year.

What I am curious about, from those people who cling to the notion that somehow mankind will turn this thing around...what makes you believe that?

[squeege2]

There are no magic wands here..., because even with all the accords, laws and government interaction, it will still come down to individual action, to make the "turn around"! We can only hope for it to be the best, and to hell with scientists who declare its too late. The ones who proclaim its bad, but not too late, like Doctor David Susuki, must have one logical factor on their side. Mankinds will to survive. If any one of you does just one thing, per day, to help clean up our environment, regardless of how trivial, it will make a difference. Buy a vehicle that gets good fuel economy. Walk instead of drive.Pick up that beer bottle, hell you can cash it in ,and recycle at the same time. If you believe its to late ....then you haven't tried. I'm not saying you'll cure anything. Maybe it will only prolong the worst....I don't know that. But it sure as hell can't hurt. Besides you will feel better knowing you did somthing to help out.

[WHAT?]

By the way squeege2...
Love your Marty Av-pic!



Think he was contaminated by pollutants at birth?

[squeege2]

I'm 100% sure...ha! thanks.

[WHAT?]

Marty? Is this YOU???

[Willow of Oz]

The problem today is that the determination exhibited by California is sorely lacking throughout the world at large.

the fact of the matter is (and most people don't want to hear this) it is already too late. You can pick up all the garbage you can find and not shower for a year...makes no difference, nada...zero.

Okay, that's a little different.
I can't really see anything to support the second argument, and believe me, I was really looking.
So is it just a case of we can make a difference, but you don't think enough people will make enough of an effort?
Your posts are getting thinner on substance Acushla :cool:

[idefiXX]

Yesterday I read in my newspaper an article about Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". They said that the facts presented in this movie are well-established around here (I mean Europe). Nevertheless they say this movie was good for Americans (don't know what they think of Canadians though :rolleyes: ) because our fellows across the pond are ten years behind on this subject and just start waking up from the American dream (every gamer will recognize this, had to say it ;)), so many facts presented there are new to them.

What I say is, that the first step in America should definetly be to clarify things.
The second step - and I disagree with Acushla here because I think this would be worthwhile - would be to start changing the small things. (don't take the car for short distances etc. there is so much everybody can change)
The third step would be to vote for Al Gore, if he becomes the democratic candidate. And if Hillary does it - oh god, don't make it happen - vote for her because she's still better than "Condi" or any of those other bastards.

Mankind does many bad things on this planet, and it IS a fact that we are going to completely destroy nature, if we go on polluting it.
But it still is better to stop now instead of giving up so early.
And what other solution would you see ? At this moment we only have one planet. Mankind will survive so or so, but nature won't.

The blue text is a bit pathetic, I know...

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

You see Europe is one step ahead. Namely we have already made plans to reduce harmful gas emissions to the atmosphere amongst other projects while the US is still figuring out what should be the best course of action. Dont get me wrong, I mean California is amazing what they are trying to accomplish there. But that may also be attributed to Zwartzenegger...good man! But what Europe needs to do is to put those plans into action as an example to the rest of the world. If we dont do it, then the most polluting nations in the world, like the US and China, surely wont be bothered!

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

That blue quote of yours Idefixx I disagree with. Sure we may be screwing up nature now but only to our own harm. The Earth has been through many many changes even more drastic than we could ever cause. Nature will live on but the question is, will mankind?

[idefiXX]

That blue quote of yours Idefixx I disagree with. Sure we may be screwing up nature now but only to our own harm. The Earth has been through many many changes even more drastic than we could ever cause. Nature will live on but the question is, will mankind?
So that is the quote I disagree with...:)
Nature AND mankind will live on in some way, and it is not only to our own harm. This thinking has brought us to this situation ! But we won't be able to live a normal life anymore. As Acushla said - we destroy 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day - many thousand years of evolution.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

So that is the quote I disagree with...:)
Nature AND mankind will live on in some way, and it is not only to our own harm. This thinking has brought us to this situation ! But we won't be able to live a normal life anymore. As Acushla said - we destroy 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day - many thousand years of evolution.

Excuse me? Ever heard of mass extinctions? Hasnt evolution taught us that from a limited number of species more can arise? Unless you are deeply religious and believe that the Earth is only a couple thousand years old, you must understand that in the 3.8 Billion years of life on Earth, life has been threatened countless times before in much larger scales than now. Humans could never "destroy" a planet as you put it we merely exhaust its resources until we as a species can no longer be maintained and we will die out or adapt to ways of life that require less resources and energy.

EDIT: Life will continue to flourish. Some species have become entirely dependent on humans as it is their basic evolutionary advantage to benefit from us. Mice, seagulls, pidgeons, etc etc. That's life too and we aint exterminating them for sure!

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

As a sidenote, I am all in favour for the preservation of nature. It's just that you do need to get your facts straight. It aint much use to tell the public lies. We've seen plenty of times what happens when the common folk find out about the 'truth'. See the global warming issue, which is highly controversial to state the least.

[B.E.L.B.H.D.]

...so many facts presented there are new to them.


Actually, we just don't care at all, and we eat babies.

[acushla]

. Besides you will feel better knowing you did something to help out.You know...nobody has presented this issue like this to me...and I am being sincere when I state that you have changed my point of view.

You state it so simply and so elegantly...there is no rebuttal, because what you say is true. I will begin to think about the environment and what I can do to help.:globe:

Thank-you.:)

PS The joys of a laptop. I am in a hotel room in Ann Arbor...with a photographic job tomorrow.

Staying in touch with everybody at 'The Forum'.

Can you say C - O - L - D? Not like Buffalo though. Neo PM'd me...he has had to move out of town and stay with a friend. Flooding, trees down, no power...everything we associate with a natural disaster.

[B.E.L.B.H.D.]

Feeling good about yourself is something (maybe the only thing?), but I wonder how many individuals would have to change their habits to counter the effects of say, the smoke emitted from one steel mill in a second.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Can you say C - O - L - D? Not like Buffalo though. Neo PM'd me...he has had to move out of town and stay with a friend. Flooding, trees down, no power...everything we associate with a natural disaster.

Is that the snowstorm? 60cm? That's a bit early! Here we are still basking in the sun in western Europe with temperatures up to 19C, 4-5C too hot! :calm:

[squeege2]

You know...nobody has presented this issue like this to me...and I am being sincere when I state that you have changed my point of view.

You state it so simply and so elegantly...there is no rebuttal, because what you say is true. I will begin to think about the environment and what I can do to help.:globe:

Thank-you.:)

PS The joys of a laptop. I am in a hotel room in Ann Arbor...with a photographic job tomorrow.

Staying in touch with everybody at 'The Forum'.

Can you say C - O - L - D? Not like Buffalo though. Neo PM'd me...he has had to move out of town and stay with a friend. Flooding, trees down, no power...everything we associate with a natural disaster.

Wow. I really didn't intend to change your thinking..but it's refreshing to know that thinking can be changed. Thank you! Good luck.

[squeege2]

Buffalo is only a few hundred km south of us...the temperature dropped so fast it is amazing. I can say"brrrr" there. Time to get out the "woolies".
8°C
(46°F)
Overcast. Light rain.



WIND SW 22 km/h
GUSTS
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 42%
DEWPOINT -4°C (24°F)
VISIBILITY 14 km
CEILING 5000 ft
Easing off a bit, but the flooding is hard to deal with.Hope they can ride it out. Good luck neighbors.

[idefiXX]

Excuse me? Ever heard of mass extinctions? Hasnt evolution taught us that from a limited number of species more can arise? Unless you are deeply religious and believe that the Earth is only a couple thousand years old, you must understand that in the 3.8 Billion years of life on Earth, life has been threatened countless times before in much larger scales than now. Humans could never "destroy" a planet as you put it we merely exhaust its resources until we as a species can no longer be maintained and we will die out or adapt to ways of life that require less resources and energy.

EDIT: Life will continue to flourish. Some species have become entirely dependent on humans as it is their basic evolutionary advantage to benefit from us. Mice, seagulls, pidgeons, etc etc. That's life too and we aint exterminating them for sure!
Yes, I heard of all this stuff. My horses ran off with me (or however you say it)

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Yes, I heard of all this stuff. My horses ran off with me (or however you say it)

And you dont believe it? Or do you? You are confusing me here. :puzzled:

[idefiXX]

I believe it. (and btw - I am not religious ;))

[squeege2]

As a sidenote, I am all in favour for the preservation of nature. It's just that you do need to get your facts straight. It aint much use to tell the public lies. We've seen plenty of times what happens when the common folk find out about the 'truth'. See the global warming issue, which is highly controversial to state the least.
Its easy to be misinformed.(...especially when you aren't informed.) I remember visiting the Sudbury area , in north Ontario, as a kid. It really did look like "a moon scape", becuse the vegetation was so sparse. Probabaly the biggest reason why the Appollo astronauts did some training there. Fact was that the emmissions from the mining/refining processes had done that. The hype was that everyone seemed proud to be able to help the astronauts out. The same sort of thing can be can be found at our Government of Transportation site. They brag about having the equivalent of paved roads, equal in distance from Ontario to British Columbia and back again, in Ontario.This is major and secondary roads only. It works out, using these figures, that you could pave a square 32 miles with that. Not taking into account driveways, rooftops, parking lots, aspault shingles, or backroads that have been surfaced. Aren't we proud....Not! Its no wonder when we google an area, we can readily find a place by the roads that lead to it. Its like having a huge barbecue under us, with the amount of secondary heating this adds to our already fragile atmospere. And may I add, its everywhere we use roads to transport. How can a government be "Proud " of this, unless the the facts are to deceive or misinform that its a good thing.....mmmmmmm, does make you wonder .

[Willow of Oz]

Is that the snowstorm? 60cm? That's a bit early! Here we are still basking in the sun in western Europe with temperatures up to 19C, 4-5C too hot! :calm:

Rolls eyes. Second month of spring and we've already had one day hit over 36 in Melbourne, 39 elsewhere around the state.
http://www.geelonginfo.com.au/readarticle.asp?articleid=21099
It's going to be a hot summer - FOR THE NEXT FEW HUNDRED YEARS YOU BASTARDS!!! :rolleyes:

[squeege2]

Perfect example of red tape.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2006/10/19/2069033-cp.html

Not that anyone expected more. Shamefull, IMO.:(

[Protocol]

Rolls eyes. Second month of spring and we've already had one day hit over 36 in Melbourne, 39 elsewhere around the state.
http://www.geelonginfo.com.au/readarticle.asp?articleid=21099
It's going to be a hot summer - FOR THE NEXT FEW HUNDRED YEARS YOU BASTARDS!!! :rolleyes:
Yeah, but you guys have four seasons in one day, don't you? :paranoid:

Someone should write a song about that. :cheeky:

[WHAT?]

Would they call the song "Greenday"?
Or "The Four Seasons"?


.....Booooooo ! Lame!!!:ponder:

:laugh: :silly:

Anyway, Did you know a study just released says that 14% of us are addicted to the internet?
Now is this saving us resources by those 14% not out driving around, or wasting natural resources as we commonly do? Or is your electricity that runs these PCs, wasting resources, and polluting the air?
Huh? HUH?

OK, back to my LINE RIDER game! ...and porn surfin'
Out!

[squeege2]

Would they call the song "Greenday"?
Or "The Four Seasons"?


.....Booooooo ! Lame!!!:ponder:

:laugh: :silly:

Anyway, Did you know a study just released says that 14% of us are addicted to the internet?
Now is this saving us resources by those 14% not out driving around, or wasting natural resources as we commonly do? Or is your electricity that runs these PCs, wasting resources, and polluting the air?
Huh? HUH?

OK, back to my LINE RIDER game! ...and porn surfin'
Out!


Four Seasons...14 you say...yes....yes...OK...Porn surfin? Ha!:silly: No wonder we have blackouts. ha ha!

[idefiXX]

The missus and I watched AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH (http://www.climatecrisis.net/) the other night. It's a great documentary. Al Gore is on the money. Coincidentally, Tony Blair(numpty) has just said the same thing after reading the STERN REPORT (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096084.stm).

Here's a good article on CLIMATE CHANGE (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2004/climate_change/default.stm).
You should all obey to my signature ;)
No, seriously, as the report says the situation is getting worse. So the Kyoto protocol isn't even that helpful. It's just the beginning and some countries refuse to join this harmless treaty. :disappoin

[idefiXX]

You really have a bad PM, don't you ?
Critics slam Harper's EU summit cancellation (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061104/harper_summit_061104/20061104?hub=Canada)
No, seriously, why does he have to upset the EU so much by cancelling this meeting with a laughable excuse ?

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

In other news by 2050 there will be no more life in the Earth's oceans due to excessive fishing. :grimreape

[Willow of Oz]

Australia wants to start up some sort of new Asian Kyoto agreement.
And yes, I am aware that Kyoto is in Japan, and Japan is in Asia.

[squeege2]

You really have a bad PM, don't you ?
Critics slam Harper's EU summit cancellation (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061104/harper_summit_061104/20061104?hub=Canada)
No, seriously, why does he have to upset the EU so much by cancelling this meeting with a laughable excuse ?


Yes, I totally agree. When it comes to a world issue as big as "GLOBAL" warming. Avoiding the issue, only prolongs any efforts to work on it.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Australia, particularly the south-east, is suffering from severe droughts, the likes of which have not been seen in 'a thousand years'.

Are you guys kidding me? :confused: I wasn't expecting this! I cant even bring a water bottle with me in my hand luggage anymore due to new flight rules in the EU.

Damn enhanced global warming :skull:

[Willow of Oz]

I cant even bring a water bottle with me in my hand luggage anymore

Water bottle? Hmm, I take it you're planning on smuggling in water to sell on the black market? How the hell did you manage to get your hands on that? I mean, I remember stories my grandda used to tell me, about people back in the old days being able to buy that sort of stuff if they were wealthy, but no-one's owned that sort of stuff here for the last generation or two...:evolved:
We wash our dishes in Fosters and take baths in Vic Bitter.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Water bottle? Hmm, I take it you're planning on smuggling in water to sell on the black market? How the hell did you manage to get your hands on that? I mean, I remember stories my grandda used to tell me, about people back in the old days being able to buy that sort of stuff if they were wealthy, but no-one's owned that sort of stuff here for the last generation or two...:evolved:
We wash our dishes in Fosters and take baths in Vic Bitter.

Ha ha funny. And your oceans are filled with beer right? :laugh:

[Willow of Oz]

Ha ha funny. And your oceans are filled with beer right? :laugh:

That and dead seals :depressed:globe:

[Protocol]

Australia, particularly the south-east, is suffering from severe droughts, the likes of which have not been seen in 'a thousand years'.

Are you guys kidding me? :confused: I wasn't expecting this! I cant even bring a water bottle with me in my hand luggage anymore due to new flight rules in the EU.

Damn enhanced global warming :skull:
We are getting rain in the south-east right now. See here (http://mirror.bom.gov.au/products/IDR663.shtml).

[Willow of Oz]

We are getting rain in the south-east right now. See here (http://mirror.bom.gov.au/products/IDR663.shtml).

The south east of the north east != south east.
But nice pic.
:beer:

[Protocol]

The south east of the north east != south east.
But nice pic.
:beer:
:confused:

[Todd The Kiwi]

we're getting hammered at the moment.
sweet as, i like stormy weather =)

[squeege2]

Yes What. What What was saying is probably true.(re first page) A lot of others have the same opinion, i'm sure. Check this out... http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=c051d9eb-0b0e-4b12-8e90-69324cafec83

Please remember this is at the government level too! Shitty kinda thinking and action. Realist or not , It won't be O.K. in the morning, and realistically it won't be there for future generations. Eventually it will be do or die. It can,t be fixed by realistically thinking about our pocket books,either. There is no price on life, its way to damned precious. But realistically , a Global effort is the only way. The outcome of pervention and intervention ,on what little we do have left, may just be the answer. Realistically , none of us know the outcome. Obviously, to some, it's not serious enough to take action....yet. Lets procrastinate, think it over....it'll be better tommorrow....if it comes.
Doesn't all this make you want to find the nearest bio-dome? Hey$$.

[Roj]

Doesn't all this make you want to find the nearest bio-dome? Hey$$.
No.

An Uzi.

First of all, our so-called Prime Minister is an irresponsible shill for the big companies and kissed their collective asses by pulling us out of Kyoto. The conservative economic model (ANY conservative economic model) is built on conspicuous consumption and the large companies thrive on the concept or churning out products that are cheap to produce which they can sell for a relatively high margin. One principle way of keeping costs down is to ignore the impact to the environment. This is not new - the first more large scale example of this was strip mining back in centuries past.

In the process of the aforementioned unabashed smooch-fest, Mr. Harper has helped the similarly irresponsible and myopic "leader" (I use the term extremely loosely) south of our borders to damn his and our children to a MUCH worse world than this. I'll get into "why" shortly (I have three kids - you could say I have a vested interest).

Second, according to Gaia Theory (which has proven out according to he global climatologist community after 40 years of data have been collected since its initial tabling), this ain't fixable. We're past the point of no return vis a vis Global Warming and have to ride it out to the oh-so-bitter end. The process is exponential and the more serious effects will start to manifest themselves blatantly after about fifty to seventy years but the seeds of them are being felt now, particularly in warm sea boundaried areas such as the Caribbean and South Pacific.

Here's where I get to the "why" I mentioned earlier:

What do the aforementioned worthy politicians (I assume you can taste the bitterness of the sarcasm dripping off that description) plan on doing when global water levels rise to the point that they begin to flood coastal areas (they're already rising yearly at an ever-increasing rate)? The massive influx of refugees from underdeveloped countries to developed countries in search of solace will destabilize the economies and overwhelm technological and social infrastructures of those First World countries. Civilization as we know it will devolve quite rapidly at that point because let's face it: "The Lord Of The Flies" is the basic dark foundation of human nature and not just a novel by William Golding.

I view any and all politicians who sidestep environmental issues at this point in history as criminally shortsighted and would go as far as to say that if ever there was a reason for a death penalty, this is it. Why? Because they're practicing genocide and condeming us ALL to the fruits of their own greed - they have raised the concept of befouling one's nest to an art form.

Kyoto is stiff. It isn't pleasant and would require countries and companies to stop the massive display of avaricousness that they have become accustomed to since the beginning of the Industrial Era. It would change the way we live because our economy would be impacted significantly.

However, wealth means nothing in a world ruled by the principles of "The Lord Of The Flies".

[Willow of Oz]

An interesting post Roj, thanks.

[Roj]

An interesting post Roj, thanks.Look up Gaia Theory. What you will find will likely perturb you greatly. I heard an interview with the climatologist who debuted it 40 years ago on CBC Radio here in Canada and that's what prompted this post. He's a very soft-spoken British scientist which made his observations all the more chilling.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

A good book to read on the 'threat of global warming' is State of fear by Michael Crichton. I'm really digging it. He's my favourite author too.

[Willow of Oz]

Look up Gaia Theory. What you will find will likely perturb you greatly. I heard an interview with the climatologist who debuted it 40 years ago on CBC Radio here in Canada and that's what prompted this post. He's a very soft-spoken British scientist which made his observations all the more chilling.

I've actually read about gaia theory some time ago, and reread it since after one of your previous posts. I'm not convinced about gaia theory but that didn't really affect my reading of your post. But then again, I recall there were strong and weak versions of the theory, and the weak version wasn't unreasonable (weak versions are never unreasonable!).

[Roj]

A good book to read on the 'threat of global warming' is State of fear by Michael Crichton. I'm really digging it. He's my favourite author too.He's certainly prolific enough. he hooked me in my very early teens with "The Andromeda Strain". I had to read it in school.

[Roj]

I've actually read about gaia theory some time ago, and reread it since after one of your previous posts. I'm not convinced about gaia theory but that didn't really affect my reading of your post. But then again, I recall there were strong and weak versions of the theory, and the weak version wasn't unreasonable (weak versions are never unreasonable!).I just didn't like the all-too-convinving concept of economic collapse in the Firs World caused y a massive influx of refugees from the devastated Third. As I work in the technological field, it's all too aparrent to me how we depend on it and what it would take to overload a society where it is indispensible (jobs that require knowledge of it, goods and services that are undeliverable without it). Most if not all of the refugees in question would not ahve those skills and would also lack the financial means to acquire them. We' realready witnessing the massive breakdown of social infrastructure in the United States caused by the ever-growing gulf between the haves and have-nots. This would vastly accelerate that already existing trend.

This is why Stephen Harper's bland-faced soporific of "let's just clean up the air instead" is such an insult to anyone with intelligence by someone clearly bereft of any. The environment is very tightly integrated with all other systems - and he either doesn't understand that or doesn't want to acknowledge it.

I don't know which is worse.

The same applies to george W., only more so. Thank heaven as of tis weekend he is now a lame duck and will be gone - just not soon enough. Then there is the hope that his successor will be more intelligent but that will still elave the problem of the head start that the old policies will have.

[Willow of Oz]

He's certainly prolific enough. he hooked me in my very early teens with "The Andromeda Strain". I had to read it in school.

I definitely started that one, but I can't recall if I finished it, since I can't recall the storyline. But I may have it kicking around, in which case I should (re)read it.
I semi recently read Prey (very good) and disclosure before that (also very good).
He's not a bad writer at all.

[Roj]

I definitely started that one, but I can't recall if I finished it, since I can't recall the storyline. But I may have it kicking around, in which case I should (re)read it.
I semi recently read Prey (very good) and disclosure before that (also very good).
He's not a bad writer at all.We launch a rocket to take samples of microbes and the collector returns from low earth orbit with one such beastie which is inadvertantly opened in a small town - Piedmont, Arizona. The story centers around the efforts of a secret national agency to deal with the threat. In the end the virus mutates to a fortunately benign form. Quite an engaging tale.

[Willow of Oz]

We launch a rocket to take samples of microbes and the collector returns from low earth orbit with one such beastie which is inadvertantly opened in a small town - Piedmont, Arizona. The story centers around the efforts of a secret national agency to deal with the threat. In the end the virus mutates to a fortunately benign form. Quite an engaging tale.

Yes, I recall the storyline. And even something about the last man standing hypothesis, or something which either the book brought up, or the book somehow covered, where you've got one man ... (is that vague enough for you?).

Oh, and I highly recommend Human Error by Paul Preuss. Another novel involving biotech, this time with computers and the invention of the sloppy disk, et al. Though now we're way off topic. Probably should have a biotech book thread.

[squeege2]

One movie that comes to mind here is,The Day After Tomorrow. Its based on climatic change brought on by global warming.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Here is a good definition of what global warming is:

[Enhanced] global warming is the theory that increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases [like methane] are causing an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere because of the so-called 'greenhouse effect'.

-From A state of fear

[Willow of Oz]

Nice post Rex.
Here's another definition.

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record) of the Earth's atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere) and oceans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean) in recent decades

From wikipedia.

[squeege2]

Sorry...there were severe discrepencys in this movie....poor choice on my part....but interesting, just the same.

[squeege2]

Here is some much better non fiction.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Some things to ponder upon.:ponder:

[Roj]

One movie that comes to mind here is,The Day After Tomorrow. Its based on climatic change brought on by global warming.Yeah but the speed at which things happen (and are corrected) simply isn't possible in the real world. Global climactic systems take a while to topple - after all, we've been working at it for about a hundred years. The problem is that our efficiency is increasing while the shortsightedness of certain so-called political "leaders" remains a constant...

[squeege2]

Very true Roj. The choice of movie was sad, because it truly is a poor example of timed events. Strictly science fiction. In reality, the long term of events, are uncertain. Good scientific speculations have been made, and passed onto our governments....some just don,t seem to understand the importance of acting now,as a world wide community. Hopefully ,pressure from the scientific aspects ,will bring theiir thinking around.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6204141.stm) latest BBC news article desribes Australia's period of drought that has been going this summer and for the last 5 years and may go on for a while to come.

The Australian government has absolutely jumped on greenhouse bandwagon in the last three or four months

Which is interesting because it confirms the suspicion that as soon as your country is in trouble, something needs to be done, global warming or not.

[traveller]

Hopefully ,pressure from the scientific aspects will bring their thinking around.
Unfortunately, scientists will never have much impact on politicians. Why? Scientists don't have enough voting or financial power. The only thing a politician cares about is getting re-elected. Anything unrelated to that goal is irrelevant. The only way to get political action is to get the voting public to demand change.

[Roj]

Hopefully ,pressure from the scientific aspects ,will bring theiir thinking around.
They're Conservatives. Intelligence and recognition of concepts beyond The Mighty Big Business are NOT an option.

[Willow of Oz]

Thing is, why would a politician do something that would get him voted out next election? I mean, if the people don't want it and vote in some other party, then it's not going to get done anyway and you can't continue doing good in other areas. Shrug.

[squeege2]

I couldn't help myself on this...http://english.people.com.cn/200612/29/eng20061229_336883.html
or this one too...http://www.torontodailynews.com/index.php/SciTechNews/2006122909polar-bear.

dam...how do you change a link to say,"political awarenes", or somthing?

[squeege2]

Here is another..Bush backtracks (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,1979156,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1).

Ah got it!

[traveller]

Being a Canadian and a fan of polar bears, I read those articles with considerable horror. Why is it we humans are so incredibly stupid? what other species would destroy not only its nest, but the very planet it lives on? Bill Waterson said it best in a Calvin & Hobbes strip: "Sometimes I think the surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that no one has tried to contact us."

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Maybe we can introduce artificial ice. A soapy white substance that hardens when in contact with ocean water and floats...:ponder:

[squeege2]

Maybe we can introduce artificial ice. A soapy white substance that hardens when in contact with ocean water and floats...:ponder:
Yes, one that cleans while it floats around. Har! The climate is changing, regardless of what we do, or have done. There will be less land mass, which ineveitably, will bring us all a little closer together. A scary thought.( and pun..ha). The Bio-sphere idea...not far off, maybe.To think that a space ship to seek out other planets, similar to earth, has been launched. Why, to get started on fucking that one up too! Or, the Moon..the beautiful moon..what praytell do we rapists have in store for you? We can't take care ,of what we have....:cry:

[idefiXX]

So we know now what we did to our planet, the UNO report shows that clearly. And the report says that the only opportunity to change this is a radical break with current policies.

Very radical, at least to my mind, is this (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,463367,00.html) approach by James Lovelock. What do you think of it ? Is nuclear energy really the only solution ?

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Is nuclear energy really the only solution ?

If you have a desert where you can dump your nuclear waste, then yes. But the initiative is really with the big companies like Shell. If they don't invest enough in renewable energies, then nobody will. Governments should on the other hand give bonuses to companies that develop technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, like CO2 subsurface storage or electrical/hydrogen driven cars.

[Willow of Oz]

To think that a space ship to seek out other planets, similar to earth, has been launched. Why, to get started on fucking that one up too! Or, the Moon..the beautiful moon..what praytell do we rapists have in store for you? We can't take care ,of what we have....:cry:

Bah, Ms Negativa! Look at it this way. If you are a farming community you can't just keep farming one plot of land, year in, year out. You have to cycle through plots and allow the first to recover or you will overuse and strain the land. The same principle applies to this one planet. Let us feast upon many and leave them all able to survive for some time yet.
:heart:

[Roj]

Soapbox Mode On:

Now that a damning message indicating just what our esteemed Prime Minister thinks of Kyoto hsa surfaced, the rank duplicity of the Conservative stance on the environment and blatant ass-kissing of the oil companies my same should be obvious to even the most myopic (I know - there will be rhetoric claiming the Liberals did nothing but the record clearly indicates that legislation was in the works towards the end of their tenure and that they simply ran out of time). Thus, in typical fashion, those Conservative claims hold no water, much like their environmental policy.

It's time we as Canadians ditched these bozo and get about the business of joining Kyoto and mitigating as much as is pitifully possible the dmage caused. We can't fix it but maybe we can stop it from being all it could be in terms of nastiness.

Soapbox Mode Off.

Let the typical mindless comments from the peanut gallery begin...

[squeege2]

Bah, Ms Negativa! Look at it this way. If you are a farming community you can't just keep farming one plot of land, year in, year out. You have to cycle through plots and allow the first to recover or you will overuse and strain the land. The same principle applies to this one planet. Let us feast upon many and leave them all able to survive for some time yet.
:heart:
Ya...sure. How many, and how big, farms do you need?
But....you are right Willow...this will happen.

[squeege2]

Soapbox Mode On:

Now that a damning message indicating just what our esteemed Prime Minister thinks of Kyoto hsa surfaced, the rank duplicity of the Conservative stance on the environment and blatant ass-kissing of the oil companies my same should be obvious to even the most myopic (I know - there will be rhetoric claiming the Liberals did nothing but the record clearly indicates that legislation was in the works towards the end of their tenure and that they simply ran out of time). Thus, in typical fashion, those Conservative claims hold no water, much like their environmental policy.

It's time we as Canadians ditched these bozo and get about the business of joining Kyoto and mitigating as much as is pitifully possible the dmage caused. We can't fix it but maybe we can stop it from being all it could be in terms of nastiness.

Soapbox Mode Off.

Let the typical mindless comments from the peanut gallery begin...
There I started it.;) It probably won't get any better.

[Willow of Oz]

From an actual news paper ... did anyone read about that rabid environmentalist who said it's basically all a bit late, we now should get in politicians who accept that we can't change the outcome, and that we should all go nuclear?

[Roj]

From an actual news paper ... did anyone read about that rabid environmentalist who said it's basically all a bit late, we now should get in politicians who accept that we can't change the outcome, and that we should all go nuclear?The only guy I know who said it was too late was Dr.James Lovelock who invented Gaia Theory. He's anything but rabid - a very soft-spoken gentleman.

And he makes no bones aobut it being too late and about politicians who will lie and say it can be fixed when it cannot.

[Willow of Oz]

The only guy I know who said it was too late was Dr.James Lovelock who invented Gaia Theory. He's anything but rabid - a very soft-spoken gentleman.

And he makes no bones aobut it being too late and about politicians who will lie and say it can be fixed when it cannot.

Yes yes, that's the guy.
I meant that he seems to be rather ardent.
edit: how the hell did I forget his Gaia Theory? Mat, that would have given me a name for a description.

[acushla]

Soapbox Mode On:

Now that a damning message indicating just what our esteemed Prime Minister thinks of Kyoto hsa surfaced, the rank duplicity of the Conservative stance on the environment and blatant ass-kissing of the oil companies my same should be obvious to even the most myopic (I know - there will be rhetoric claiming the Liberals did nothing but the record clearly indicates that legislation was in the works towards the end of their tenure and that they simply ran out of time). Thus, in typical fashion, those Conservative claims hold no water, much like their environmental policy.

It's time we as Canadians ditched these bozo and get about the business of joining Kyoto and mitigating as much as is pitifully possible the dmage caused. We can't fix it but maybe we can stop it from being all it could be in terms of nastiness.

Soapbox Mode Off.

Let the typical mindless comments from the peanut gallery begin...

Your ignorance and arrogance and contempt for anyone who happens to have an opinion that differs from yours is becoming tiresome, to say the least.

Narrow mindedness and rush to judgment mentality based on half truths and misconceptions is the shield of the uninformed who, through self righteousness and intimidation, want their counterparts to believe they know more than they actually do. To those of us who understand your tactics you simply reveal yourself for what you are…a know nothing bully.

[acushla]

When people stop looking to their government to do something about global warming and begin selling their houses and cars for dwellings half the size then reinvesting the profits into solar panels and cars that run on ethanol…then I will believe that people actually give a damn. Until then it is simply a media driven issue that could change at the beginning of the next ‘hot’ issue the media decides will turn them a profit.

Hell…most people aren’t even prepared to put a brick in their toilet.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

It's about time those Australian politicians realise that they too need to sacrifice some wealth for a better and cleaner future. Now that I live there, do i get the privilege to say that John Howard is an arse? :biggrin:

[acushla]

Why do the critics think Kyoto is bad for Canada?

Former energy company CEO-turned-columnist Gwyn Morgan wrote the following in The Globe and Mail on Feb. 5:

"Canada was the only net energy exporter to take on targets. Canada tried to make the point that we should get credit for emissions associated with energy exports, but to no avail. By the time Canada ratified the accord, we were already around 25 per cent over our Kyoto target, and moving up. Meanwhile, emissions from developing countries were free to grow with no restrictions."

Chretien threatened to pull out of the accord in the spring of 2002 if Canada didn't get credit for clean energy exports such as natural gas and hydro power.

"We're next to the United States and we are the only one in that position to export non-polluting energy to a non-signing country that pollutes a lot. This should be recognized," he said in a 2002 BBC News Online article. European countries would have none of it.

The Globe argued that Canada's Kyoto commitment is virtually unattainable, noting that the target is 563 million tonnes of GHGs while this country will likely produce close to 780 million tonnes this year.

"To meet those targets, Canada would almost certainly be forced to buy emissions credits from other nations. That market is tight, because the Europeans and the Japanese have also been buying credits, often from the offshore operations of corporations that pay taxes to them. That's very convenient for them. Suppose Canada bought 90 million tonnes a year over the five-year period of the treaty? At the current price of roughly $23 a tonne, that could hit $10-billion. Even then, Canada would not meet its treaty obligations.

"It gets worse. The Kyoto Protocol is essentially a trade treaty. Other nations, such as the United States and Britain, sent financially savvy negotiators. Canada sent aid and environmental experts. The terms reflect that imbalance. Energy-exporting nations such as Canada are held responsible for 60 per cent of all emissions from exported products such as natural gas.

"If Canada does not meet its commitments, if it does not buy credits from other nations after 2012, Europe and Japan can impose sanctions on Canadian exports under World Trade Organization rules. 'Essentially the treaty is operating against us as a permanent wealth transfer to other nations,' Ms. Donnelly (Aldyen, of the Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium, a not-for-profit group consisting of some of Canada's largest emitters) concludes."

What was that 'money sucking socialist comment' again?

- CTV

[Willow of Oz]

Now that I live there, do i get the privilege to say that John Howard is an arse? :biggrin:

Please, Rex! That's a right that we extend to citizens all over the world!

[idefiXX]

Please, Rex! That's a right that we extend to citizens all over the world!
John Howard is an arse.

[Roj]

Your ignorance and arrogance and contempt for anyone who happens to have an opinion that differs from yours is becoming tiresome, to say the least.

I thought that was one possible reason why you vanished - because you had finally gotten the disconcerting message that this was how many here viewed you.

Aparrently not.

Ah well, you're still breathing - there's yet time.

On the subject at hand, the life of our current government is now measured in months (and they know this, hence the quasi-ethical attack ads when no election has been called) so it also matters not what spin they (or you) try to put on things. With every passing day, the cracks in their "policies" become more aparrent, as does the average Canadian's distate for them.

When a government absolves itself from responsiblity for the people it governs, the wellbeing of the environment and the interdependency of both systems, and instead panders primarily to those who fund it (a.k.a. big business), we have the result the planet faces now. ALL pf the governments of the world are guilty of this. Some recognise this, if only out of fear - ours, in true conservative dogmatic fashion (as do other similarly poor - nay, worse - governance efforts aroudn the planet), does not. Yet. The polls will eventually cure that (likely, not so eventually).

That's the inevitability of it.

The planet is at a crossroads - likely already past it. Those ideals that attempt to alleviate the situation will garner support. Those that don't will be cast out.

[acushla]

With every passing day, the cracks in their "policies" become more aparrent, as does the average Canadian's distate for them.

When a government absolves itself from responsiblity for the people it governs, the wellbeing of the environment and the interdependency of both systems, and instead panders primarily to those who fund it (a.k.a. big business), we have the result the planet faces now.


The one value the Liberal Party has maintained in all its reshuffling and redefining itself is HYPOCRISY.

The private members bill introduced by Liberal backbencher Pablo Rodriguez now goes to the Senate for approval. Well…what a courageous stand by the Liberals. 3 cheers for the Liberals…our environmental defenders! If only the Liberals had been in government for the past 13 years, perhaps then they might have been able to do something about this ‘important’ issue.

In the Gelinas’s report the Liberals were soundly shamed when the facts of the Liberals inaction revealed in undeniable detail the Liberal’s massive failure in curbing greenhouse gases and implementing the Kyoto Accord. Why is it you refuse to acknowledge this documented fact? Oh yes...I forgot...after 13 years they 'ran out of time'. So it was the fault of 'lack of time', not that the Liberals were not serious about the enviroment. And the Conservatives who have been the Government for just over a year...why they of course just aren't moving fast enough. The Liberals are famous in Canada for coming out with all sorts of sweeping promises and proposals before an election and then doing nothing when they were returned to power. Canadians didn't buy it last time around...not likely to buy it any time soon either. Perhaps Free Trade and GST might mean something to you. Then again...probably not. Wouldn't want anything to tarnish that little gold star for the Liberals you carry in your head. Despite the Liberals firm rhetorical ‘commitment’ to Kyoto, which committed Canada to reduce emissions to 6% below 1990 levels sometime between 2008 and 2012, ‘the Gelinas’s report found that in 2004 emissions were 26.6% ABOVE 1990 levels.

The Liberals are pro-Kyoto, and demand it's enforcement! Apparently, signing a treaty and then completely ignoring its provisions mean that you are “pro” something. That’s like me signing a job contract, not doing what's in the job description because the work was too hard, and then complaining when I get fired “but I signed the contract, what more did you want???” Then, I righteously demand that someone else do what I was not willing to, because I really believe in the job. All the while having made a confession (Dion) that they themselves would not be able to meet those same commitments they are demanding the government to make.

Like I said: Liberals = Hypocrisy

I keep waiting for that little twerp Mark Holland, to rise up in the House and ask Peter Milliken 'when the Honorable PM will fix all the Liberals previous mistakes.'

An election soon? Could happen but I seriously doubt it. The Liberals would be happy just to be able to afford donuts (Rick Mercer) and the NDP have even less money. Not to mention how low in the polls they (NDP) are doing right now…they might support the Government as a way to give themselves more time to get better organized.

You’d be well advised to watch ‘Politics with Don Newman’ on the CBC. You might find it somewhat enlightening to get you information from the Politicians themselves.

– The Prairie Wrangler

[Roj]

The one value the Liberal Party

I didn't bother to read the rest for a very good reason. I got as far as the part iterated above and then thought to myself: "why bother?" After all, it's likely just more of the same long-winded but often unoriginal justification rhetoric which you've become noted for and I can't spare the time to waste. There are much better things for me to do online, such as browse and participate on digital art sites, download and listen to music, play around with skinning various applications... any of which take precedence over a pointless exchange of verbiage.

You see, it's not as if the viewpoint even matters anyway. Canadians have a long history of open-minded reasonable forward-thinking attitudes and this has been reflected in their choices in governments, by and large. An occasional aberration such s the one we are currently experiencing is to be expected - but it's never permanent. It;s kind of like the man who every so often has a Big Mac - to remind himself of just why he avoids such pollutants.

I can afford to wait.

There: short and sweet - saves everyone a lot of time better spent elsewhere, especially me.

Take a lesson.

Deviantart beckons...

[acushla]

.

Take a lesson.



You didn't read my post for one reason and one reason only. You don't like facts that interfere with your fantasy version of reality.

If I have managed to frighten you away from this part of the forum then I have done everyone a favor. (Thanks to all those who have PM’d me.) Nobody should be exposed to the drivel you offer up here. Go back to your precious little mp3 player and conclusions about which $100 headphones exhibit better detail in the midrange. Now THAT is something you do know about.

[Roj]

You didn't read my post for one reason and one reason only


Absolutely correct, it's the same reason I didn't get past the above sentence fragment in this one and the reason is this:

I don't like bullshit (or the grandstanding, the puffed-up posturing, condescension and drame-queen antics that invariably accompany it), never have and I have less than no interest in anything you have to say.

I do believe that makes my position abundantly clear.

[acushla]

I don't like bullshit, never have and I have less than no interest in anything you have to say.

I do believe that makes my position abundantly clear.
Spoken by someone who knows bullshit inside and out considering just how much of it you spew.

Good to know that you are able to judge without having to actually read what it is you are judging.

I bet you do that a lot.

Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Hear hear everybody has a right to their own opinion on Kyoto and whatnot. I thought you two were buddies? Acushla, you don't have to speak on behalf of the forum. We can judge for our selves. I'm surprised you return without mentioning even a single word of greeting and what you've been up to. Roj, please don't ever say you are not interested in hearing someone opinions. That feels pretty ignorant to me. If it leaves you cold, just leave it.

[rorythedog]

It sure is getting hotter in here. :nervous:

[Roj]

It sure is getting hotter in here. :nervous:
That's what happens when there's a sudden climatic shift and hot air blows in over town.

Must be due to Global Warming...

[acushla]

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6148/angusreidforumjt8.th.jpg (http://img20.imageshack.us/my.php?image=angusreidforumjt8.jpg)

[rorythedog]

Here's a couple of shots I took yesterday whilst walking the dog. Normally we're knee deep in snow around here but as you can see, barely any snow at all. It's been getting this way for the last few years but this is the worst yet.

http://m1.freeshare.us/128fs1887571_th.jpg (http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?128fs1887571.jpg)

http://m1.freeshare.us/128fs188745_th.jpg (http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?128fs188745.jpg)

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Scotland looks awesome! When I'm done here I'll come over :) Pity about the snow mate. You missed that blizzard over southern England.

[WHAT?]

Without stirring up the pot. I'm perplexed on the latest comment about GW-ing. Actually, it's was a few months ago. Which is... There is nothing we can do about it now. [We may not be able to reverse the effects of this human caused global warming trend. Some scientists believe the effects are not reversible]. http://pnews.org/ArT/ScI/ScI.shtml

Well, whatever then!

[rorythedog]

Scotland looks awesome! When I'm done here I'll come over :) Pity about the snow mate. You missed that blizzard over southern England.

We actually had the Scottish media reporting the English medias over-dramatization of about 4cm of snow. How we all laughed, lol.

[acushla]

from GOOGLE:

Seven years ago, a Liberal PM called an early election, striking while his neophyte Opposition rival was still trying to find his way to the parliamentary washrooms.

The old pro, Jean Chretien, handily trounced the upstart, Stockwell Day.

Many Liberals now fear Prime Minister Stephen Harper is plotting to engineer the defeat of his minority Conservatives this spring, hoping to do to Stephane Dion what Chretien did to Day.

The new Liberal leader has more experience and depth than Day, a newcomer from Alberta politics, had. But Dion has got off to a shaky start, presenting Harper with an opportunity to force a vote before Dion can find his feet.

With polls suggesting the Tories and Liberals remain in a virtual dead heat, it would be a risky gamble. But some Liberals think the opportunity to catch Dion off his game could prove irresistible.



More disturbing for some veteran Liberals is the possibility that Dion has handed Harper an excuse to pull the trigger himself.

Dion is insisting that Harper is bound to adhere to a Liberal private member's bill passed last week, calling on the government to deliver a plan within 60 days to meet the daunting Kyoto targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As some veteran Grits envisage it, Harper could pull the plug shortly after presenting the Tory's alternative climate change plan in next month's budget, declaring that he won't devastate the economy by committing the country to a kamikaze course proposed by Grits who failed to reduce emissions when they had the chance.

Gerard Kennedy, Dion's election readiness adviser, concedes the Tories might indeed be cynically plotting an early election scenario.

"The fact that any party with a new leader is going to take some time to get some of the things in place might be tempting to them," Kennedy says

[acushla]

Here's a couple of shots I took yesterday whilst walking the dog.

You are a richer man than you might ever know. Absolutely beautiful. You might consider putting together a calendar of photos of Scotland. Share with the rest of the world how beautiful your country is.

Show us more. Please.

[acushla]

Without stirring up the pot. I'm perplexed on the latest comment about GW-ing. Actually, it's was a few months ago. Which is... There is nothing we can do about it now. [We may not be able to reverse the effects of this human caused global warming trend. Some scientists believe the effects are not reversible]. http://pnews.org/ArT/ScI/ScI.shtml

Well, whatever then!

Good essay.

[rorythedog]

You are a richer man than you might ever know. Absolutely beautiful. You might consider putting together a calendar of photos of Scotland. Share with the rest of the world how beautiful your country is.

Show us more. Please.

I always wanted to have my own site for that very purpose but haven't a clue where to start. I don't think there's an easy way other than Myspce (spare the thought) and I lack the funds to get it done properly. I do have a presence on Caedes but it's not the same as being able to flick through images as you suggest. I do have a sh*tload of images though. Walking dogs is good for my portfolio you might say. I appreciate the input :grin:

[WHAT?]

I always wanted to have my own site for that very purpose but haven't a clue where to start. I don't think there's an easy way other than Myspce (spare the thought) and I lack the funds to get it done properly. I do have a presence on Caedes but it's not the same as being able to flick through images as you suggest. I do have a sh*tload of images though. Walking dogs is good for my portfolio you might say. I appreciate the input :grin:
...and what's this SHITE about the Scottish etc. in your sig?
Hopefully you are being sarcastic? Or is this a famous bit from something I should be familiar with?
Scotland is a great heritage country in my book!~

[Todd The Kiwi]

that didn't take long... :rolleyes:

[WHAT?]

Good essay.

Yes, I just mean... wtf do we need to be try'n then if it's too late?
Not a very good motto on the part of the leftists.

...sure sure I know... They mean, it can still get worse then anticipated on its present course, but the "will be" part of this sentence is irreversible.

Well I hope we all have our flood insurance up to date then.

Hey, how's those SciFi movies ever going to come true (the ones that show old NYC ruins) if it gets flooded first?
I guess WaterWorld (http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/66/1366/summary.php) would become the best scifi film of all times if that happens. :silly:
Oh that's (http://www.quinnware.com/forum/showthread.php?p=79012#post79012) another thread... nevermind.

http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/1366/posters/poster1_hi.jpg

[rorythedog]

...and what's this SHITE about the Scottish etc. in your sig?
Hopefully you are being sarcastic? Or is this a famous bit from something I should be familiar with?
Scotland is a great heritage country in my book!~

The quotation is from Trainspotting and deals with Scotland in the present, not the past. Heritage ain't worth sh*t in the here 'n' now I'm afraid.

[acushla]

Yes, I just mean... wtf do we need to be try'n then if it's too late?


Not to even mention the whole 'the sky is falling' asteroid thing.

What came first...the 'sky is falling' or 'bird flu'?

I've read that if everything in Kyoto was implemented right now...it would give us two years more than if we did nothing. Not very encouraging. I also read that if everything in Kyoto was implemented right now nothing would change for 35 years.

Sad how people often times are unable to see the truth. One thing I learnt a long time ago...'Sometimes the answers in life are not what we want them to be.'

Which is NOT to suggest that we simply give up...

[idefiXX]

What came first...the 'sky is falling' or 'bird flu'?
Read Asterix and you know it. :grin:

[WHAT?]

IDEFIXX


Do you mean your computer problems are Fixxed?:cheeky:
Was it your IDE drive?:cheeky:

[rorythedog]

that didn't take long... :rolleyes:

What didn't? :confused:

[idefiXX]

IDEFIXX


Do you mean your computer problems are Fixxed?:cheeky:
Was it your IDE drive?:cheeky:
STFU
OR
I
AM
GOING
TO
KILL
YOU.

:evil: :evil: :evil:

[idefiXX]

I don't know how old the statistics for CO2 emission used here are, but I think it's quite interesting.

http://www.birdbybird.us/Img/Photo/EmissionsofCO2.2.jpg

http://www.birdbybird.us/Img/Photo/EmissionsofCO21.jpg

Canada has the second highest rate for CO2 emission comapred to the number of it's citizens.

Note : Germany doesn't appear on this list, but we are no choirboys either.

[squeege2]

Beauti pics, rorythedog. My own ancestery is Scottish. We have a little hilly area, near us that looks similar.I love to go there to walk. I'll try to remember to get some snaps , when he weather is better.
You know, I'll still maintain , that allthough global warming is at a threshold of the scarriest of all scarries, there is little that we can do, to assure that any government will do "the right thing" of taking any action . Be it right or wrong. Despite which party, or organization is doing it. They are just to damned slow.
We'll still be knee deep in the GARBAGE.
It won't get any better folks, unless....lets say, I'm out walking my dog. I come along to a place, where someone else has just walked their dog. Although they scooped the crap into a plastic recyclable bag, alas, they left it there. Hm, what to do. If I had left it there, it definatly would show up, in the great pics, that Rory were to shoot, in an hour or so. This is just a "what if scenario" folks, but I'm sure could well happen. Probably has. But look at it from another point of veiw. People generate change, when they intrude on any environment. How they leave it , when the leave...well thats up to them. It all starts with individual thought and thoughtlessness, as to how you treat it. For each of us, as individuals, the only real way we can help, our environment, is at an individual level. Yea sure, vote the best you can, support the party you will,etc.,etc.,etc. Doesn't help shit, if YOU don't help it. So please....Blame to where blame really is. Pull your own socks up first. The little that is left, is all we have. My grand kids should have a right ,to see some of it, before ....well, at least some rolling hills and lakes. For those who beleive in "slash and rape", well thanks for keeping up your villigent efforts in "helping " the situation out. You suck.

Did I mention that the Myan calendar, ends in our year, 2012 ?

[WHAT?]

STFU
OR
I
AM
GOING
TO
KILL
YOU.

:evil: :evil:
STFU?
wtf does that mean?
stop the fooling u? no! So that's freakin useless? no! Stupid the fool... no!
hmmmm?

...and if I die tomorrow, You are all witnesses!:nervous: ;)

No but I am serious... What was the matter with it?

[WHAT?]

Did I mention that the Myan calendar, ends in our year, 2012 ?

:cheerful: Myin doesn't;)

[idefiXX]

STFU?
wtf does that mean?
stop the fooling u? no! So that's freakin useless? no! Stupid the fool... no!
hmmmm?

...and if I die tomorrow, You are all witnesses!:nervous: ;)

No but I am serious... What was the matter with it?
Just don't talk about IDE-fiXXing anymore, please ;)

[WHAT?]

STFU?
No but I am serious... What was the matter with it?
....

[idefiXX]

I am tired on explaining the same thing again and again (there is also a search function in this forum :))...

idefiXX = Idéfix (Dogmatix in the French and German Asterix editions) + wannabe coolness (the double X ;))

Let's get back on topic, I think we have seen a gigantic media-hype after the UN report, but it seems like it was just that : a media hype, a lot of talking, explaining, fearmongering and nothing is really going to happen/change.

Am I to pessimistic ?

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Something will happen when something happens. For if it didn't happen what would happen would no longer happen and in happening other happenings may happen which would definitely lead to the big happening of all time. :cool:

[acushla]

Here’s a good one: Today the Liberal government lashed out at the year end spending of the Conservatives claiming they are spending more than they indicated they would which will leave less to pay down the country’s dept. The spending in question? Are you sitting down?… $1.5 billion Eco-Trust and Clean Air Fund.

comment

Harper’s disdain for received opinion, or for the fleeting concerns of the polls, is refreshing: This is a leader who will not be stampeded by popular enthusiasms or intimidated by powerful interests, including the national media. (The notion, for example, that he is in the pocket of the oil patch has never seemed plausible. If his environmental policy is designed to interfere as little as possible with the full-tilt development of Alberta's polluting oil sands, it is not because he has been bullied by Big Oil, but because he shares the same world view.) A telling difference.

[acushla]

Something will happen when something happens. For if it didn't happen what would happen would no longer happen and in happening other happenings may happen which would definitely lead to the big happening of all time. :cool:...Or...as I like to put it...The future isn't what it used to be.

[acushla]

Note : Germany doesn't appear on this list, but we are no choirboys either.

Tonnes of Killer Weed.

[acushla]

Am I to pessimistic ?You were expecting something else? From the UN? Now I have to sit down.

No...you are not too pessimistic...just a realist.

[acushla]

On the subject at hand, the life of our current government is now measured in months (and they know this, hence the quasi-ethical attack ads when no election has been called) so it also matters not what spin they (or you) try to put on things. With every passing day, the cracks in their "policies" become more aparrent, as does the average Canadian's distaste for them.

Wrong.

As Harper’s Leadership qualities both on the domestic front as well as the International stage are becoming increasingly recognized by Canadians across this great country the more likely it is that when a election is called, the Conservatives will be returned to power in greater numbers than they currently enjoy.


When a government absolves itself from responsibility for the people it governs, the wellbeing of the environment and the interdependency of both systems, and instead panders primarily to those who fund it (a.k.a. big business), we have the result the planet faces now. ALL pf the governments of the world are guilty of this. Some recognize this, if only out of fear - ours, in true conservative dogmatic fashion (as do other similarly poor - nay, worse - governance efforts around the planet), does not. Yet. The polls will eventually cure that (likely, not so eventually).

Partly correct…but where exactly do you get this ‘government absolves itself from responsibility for the people it governs…’ Certainly you cannot be thinking of the Conservatives …given the ‘sign a piece of paper and then do nothing’ approach the Liberals adopted. The Conservatives are investing $300 million into the ecoEnergy Renewable Power Initiative, it will provide money for new projects in wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and biomass energy. That doesn’t sound like Harper absolving himself from responsibility. As a prominent member of the Bloc Quebecois was quoted as saying: ‘No one should fault the PM for changing his mind about Global warming. There are many in all the parties who have also changed their mind.

Now that a damning message indicating just what our esteemed Prime Minister thinks of Kyoto has surfaced, the rank duplicity of the Conservative stance on the environment and blatant ass-kissing of the oil companies my same should be obvious to even the most myopic (I know - there will be rhetoric claiming the Liberals did nothing but the record clearly indicates that legislation was in the works towards the end of their tenure and that they simply ran out of time).ROTFLMAO Thus, in typical fashion, those Conservative claims hold no water, much like their environmental policy.

Think again.

It's time we as Canadians ditched these bozo and get about the business of joining Kyoto and mitigating as much as is pitifully possible the damage caused. We can't fix it but maybe we can stop it from being all it could be in terms of nastiness.

Wrong. The only ‘bozo’s’ Canadians are ditching are spelt L – I – B – E – R – A – L.

While some people run around hysterically beating their chests proclaiming what they think they know, others are sitting back and listening to what is really going on. When those who beat their chests stop for a moment and use their ears…then perhaps they too will learn what is going on. One can only hope.

[acushla]

An election?

"All three opposition parties have just passed a bill demanding that the government meet the Kyoto targets, even though they know it's impossible to meet and could harm the economy," said Fife.

"All Stephen Harper has to do is present his own environmental plan that's credible, put some money into it with some targets, make it a confidence vote, and bingo -- he's trapped the opposition parties."

The best prime minister

Dion, an environmentalist who famously named his dog Kyoto, has made tackling climate change a major issue for his party.


But the poll hints that Canadians do not consider his plan much more effective than that offered by the Conservatives:

Liberals: 23 per cent
Conservatives: 20 per cent
NDP: 21 per cent
Bloc Quebecois: 6 per cent
Other/don't know/refused: 31 per cent

And on national unity, an issue which first earned Dion his political reputation, he trails Harper. Of those polled, 35 per cent felt Dion was most able to promote the cause, compared to 44 per cent for Harper.

Meanwhile, when asked which party leader had the clearest vision of where he wants to take the country, Harper showed a significant lead over his rivals (percentage-point change from a Dec. 3-4 poll in brackets):

Stephen Harper: 50 per cent (+ 18)
Stephane Dion: 22 per cent (- 16 from when Paul Martin was leader)
Jack Layton: 20 per cent (+ 1)
Gilles Duceppe: 8 per cent (- 4)


More than half of respondents also felt that Harper is the most decisive of the party leaders.

Harper: 53 per cent
Dion: 19 per cent
Layton: 20 per cent
Duceppe: 8 per cent

Dion also lost out on charisma, which he himself defended shortly after becoming leader of his party.

"I would not have been able to win this race if I had not been able to connect with Canadians ... I have a capacity to communicate with passion and with reason," he said last December.

But respondents seem to have felt otherwise in the poll. Here are the results when voters were asked who was the most charismatic (percentage-point change from a Dec. 3-4 poll in brackets):

Harper: 35 per cent (+ 18)
Dion: 20 per cent (- 9 from when Martin was leader)
Layton: 36 per cent (- 2)
Duceppe: 10 per cent (- 4)

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/9408/460poll4070219decisivefx9.th.jpg (http://img180.imageshack.us/my.php?image=460poll4070219decisivefx9.jpg)

[rorythedog]

Scotland is planning to install the largest wavepower installation in the world. About bloody time!

Sea Snakes (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1414185.ece)

[WHAT?]

I am tired on explaining the same thing again and again (there is also a search function in this forum

idefiXX = Idéfix (Dogmatix in the French and German Asterix editions) + wannabe coolness (the double X ;))

Let's get back on topic,

OK I found this post (one post)http://www.quinnware.com/forum/showpost.php?p=79016&postcount=26
and it's in the birthday thread. Hardly on subject there. So why were you so upset with me? You barely explained what was really wrong with your PC (happy belated birthday by-the-way). Now my question is... wtf?

Forgive me :nervous: for caring to ask what was wrong with your PC (twice), and that you had to explain it over and over (just once btw, in the birthday thread no-less), but never to me even upon asking.:paranoid:

Something else bother you maybehttp://www.quinnware.com/forum/images/icons/icon5.gif You can tell us!;)
EDIT: Were you thinking that I was harping on your name?
NO NO NO! I meant your PC.
It = PC.... "What was wrong with it?" is what I asked.

oops, off topic again.
My bad
Is it warming in here?

[idefiXX]

OK I found this post (one post)http://www.quinnware.com/forum/showpost.php?p=79016&postcount=26
and it's in the birthday thread. Hardly on subject there. So why were you so upset with me? You barely explained what was really wrong with your PC (happy belated birthday by-the-way). Now my question is... wtf?

Forgive me for caring to ask what was wrong with your PC (twice), and that you had to explain it over and over (just once btw, in the birthday thread no-less), but never to me even upon asking.

Something else bother you maybe You can tell us!
EDIT: Were you thinking that I was harping on your name?
NO NO NO! I meant your PC.
It = PC.... "What was wrong with it?" is what I asked.
Cool down, mate, I thought you're not that kind of guy who takes everything seriously. Sorry if there were any misunderstandings and I am really embarrassed that you made such an effort to understand what I was so furious about... :confused:

I wasn't upset about you, it had nothing to do with being off-topic (thats also one of my flaccidities/weaknesses ;)).
I use "STFU" very often, maybe too often - a lot of swearing...
It was meant as a silly joke actually, like "man, another one of those 'haha, idefiXX, what are you fixxing right now'-guys, let's make things clear in a demonstrative way, haha" (you get it ? ;))
The problem : it wasn't distinguishable if my "STFU" was aimed at your question about my computer or at the frequently confused meaning of my nickname. The latter was right.

So, nothing to be worried about, everything is fine, the sun is shining, flowers bloom,....BUT WAIT - FLOWERS BLOOM ? It's February !
That must be global warming..........:cheeky:

Oh, btw, my computer is fine again, I had to format the complete drive though.

[rorythedog]

Flaccidities?! Jeez, what do you think that means?

"'Outraged' of Tunbridge Wells".

[idefiXX]

Flaccidities?! Jeez, what do you think that means?
weaknesses.

Outraged' of Tunbridge Wells - Jeez, what do you think that means? ;)

[rorythedog]

weaknesses.

Outraged' of Tunbridge Wells - Jeez, what do you think that means? ;)

You rang? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/318036.stm)

[acushla]

Just finished reading a very interesting article (hard copy so I am unable to provide a link) that points out a number of fatal flaws contained in Al Gore’s recipe to ‘save the world’.

I will quote liberally.

– what really seems to count in the Gore landscape is the demonstration of good intent. The truth that we may have to roll up our sleeves on an issue comes across as too close for comfort.

– in the film there is but one reference to food or agriculture that makes it in the movie action list, startling since the food system is a major source of greenhouse gas. The scrolling script at the end of the movie asks people to reduce dependence on foreign oil by helping farmers produce alcohol fuels. If acted on, this would serve to undo any good that comes from following other recommendations in the movie.

Alcohol fuels are the flavor of the month for agribusiness trading companies that want to flog corn and grain sales, and for politicians who want to look like they’re doing the right thing by supporting local farmers over Arab and Venezuelan regimes.

It’s almost too corny to be believed that this fuel alcohol suggestion made it into Gore’s flick, but there it is.

The corn alcohol promotion violates two points Gore promotes: energy efficiency and ethics. Gore likes to repeatedly say that responding well to global warming is an ethical imperative, not a political divider. How much more ethically impaired can you get than using prime farmland to grow crops to feed cars, when one person in seven around the world is chronically hungry and the world population heads from 6 to 9 billion?

The grade school math proposed by ethanol promoters is that corn draws down carbon from the atmosphere into the soil while it’s growing and the amount stored in the ground pretty much equals the CO2 released into the air when the fuel is burned.

This equalization has been debunked by a wide range of experts, most notably David Pimental from Cornell University’s famous ag school who’s shown that fuel alcohol from corn is actually responsible for more fossil fuel emissions than regular gasoline from distant regimes..

– odd that corn, cornerstone of the global grain trading giants at the top of the U.S. food export industry, gets off lightly in the Gore scenario.

The action list at the website does contain one short page of suggestions about food. It urges folks to shop at local farmers markets and bravely advocates eating less meat, though its rationale is flimsy.

As with all topics covered by Gore, the food items don’t make one mention of what government and public institutions could be doing – such as buying local as an across-the-board policy, or regulating reduced and reusable packaging. It seems like we’re only supposed to engage the world as individuals, recyling our garbage or shopping for better light bulbs.

Though Gore encourages people to get active in politics, his entire to-do list leaves government regulations and interventions out of the equation, revealing the same old free market neo-liberal politics that he carried the can for when he was VP.

As VP, he was also point person for government reorganization efforts based on shallow but then popular ideas from Reinventing Democracy by David Graeber, who said government’s job was to ‘steer, not row’, a recipe for massive privatization and downloading of government responsibilities.

For the first time since the 1930’s Depression, the Clinton-Gore admin steered away from welfare entitlements, a move no neo-conservative government ever dared to do. Canadians might make note that Graeber’s book was also a fave of then Minister of Finance Paul Martin when he was in his downloading phase, from which all cities in Canada continue to suffer.

Not much in the politics of deregulated free trade to warm the heart or cool the planet.

The weight of the distinction between intent and impact reveals the shallowness of Gore’s recommendations. But, to give him his due, putting food and other practical issues on the table will be easier now that a major icon has helped clear away the oil industry’s convenient fictions.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Al Gore is still looking for manbearpig I presume. Southpark hit the nail right on the head. I have no love for Al Gore. He's turning the theory of global warming into a puppet show.

[Willow of Oz]

You've seen the movie Acushla?

[acushla]

You've seen the movie Acushla?
He made a film?

Who are you gonna believe?

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=257387017974717

[Willow of Oz]

He made a film?

Who are you gonna believe?

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=257387017974717

meh. Some page long rant. Couldn't be bothered. :cheeky:

[acushla]

meh. Some page long rant. Couldn't be bothered. :cheeky:

I doubt I am really telling you anything that you don't already understand...but 'Who are you going to believe' applies not only to those who agree that something is going on in the world but cannot agree as to exactly what it is but also to those who know we ought to be doing something about it but can't agree on what. And that's just the knowledge side of it. Knowing the answer is not the answer...and we can hardly know the answer when we don't understand what the problem is.

The main point I wanted you to see in the article was as follows:

Petr Chylek of the department of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia notes that Gore in his movie "suggests the Greenland melt area increased considerably between 1992 and 2005."

But, Chylek points out, "1992 was exceptionally cold in Greenland" and that "if Gore had chosen for comparison the year 1991, one in which the melt area was 1% higher than in 2005, he would have to conclude that the ice sheet melt area is shrinking and that perhaps a new Ice Age is just around the corner.”

Which nicely supports my point.

Global warming can be equated with Aids in as much as, left unchecked, both conditions will ultimately cause greater harm than anything else documented in human history. To ensure that we attain the best results conceivable it is important that Governments and scientists formulate a carefully drawn out comprehensive approach to these events with input gathered from experts in all related fields. Governments must not abandon a path that requires time to normalize a strategy properly in order to appease an impatient public that demands its answers now. PM Harper understood this by refusing to release funding for Aids Research until he had a clear panoramic vision of the steps required that would be in the best interests of Aids Research. A course of action which impressed Bill Gates enough that he has partnered up with Canada. I mentioned this in the Aids thread but it is worth repeating here: Many of the people who were initially outraged at Harper’s not releasing funding at the time they indicated they would are now in agreement that by not releasing the funds when there was no plan would have been counter productive. So it goes with solutions to Global Warming…with the clock ticking down we will not get more than one kick at the Gong…so we had better be certain that we are wearing the correct shoe when we do ‘kick it’.

[Willow of Oz]

I considered replying point by point. Forgive me if I don't.
edit: okay, I seem to have just written a rather lengthy response, much more than I intended (which was going to be about 1 or 2 quick sentences - but hey, I even did research for this one!).

First, I did read your article. I was merely making the point that if you dismissed one view without hearing it (seeing the film) and paid attention to another view, that's hardly a balanced hearing. Apparently I made my point poorly. I'll live :cool:

As an overview, did you notice that the article is pretty much saying that we are not experiencing global warming, and that for all we can tell we might even be heading into a global ice age? It's interesting to see that you don't seem to be heading in that direction yourself regarding what you've posted.

You make a good point of "who you going to believe". In the movie An Inconvenient Truth, Gore points out that in the popular media the consensus is split as to whether or not we are experiencing global warming. He also points out that in scientific peer reviewed journals it's 100% supporting global warming. Now let us look at your source. Investor.com. Let's see ... that would be a site that's promoting business and commerce? Nah, they'd never pretend that nothing was going on in order to accumulate more money, assets and business, surely?

The quote you chose nicely supported your point? Really? All it says to me is you can always find some data to support whatever argument you have, as long as you are willing to narrow and refine your data set. No doubt Gore chose 1992 as the demarcation to more adequately support his own points. Without actually looking at the yearly data myself I suspect that he could have chosen quite a few other ranges that would back him up to a (lesser) extent, and that there are a couple of ranges you could find which would actually refute his claims, much as Chylek has done.

So let us look at the sources for the Investor's article.
We have some Monckton fellow. Now, I've never heard of him, but given his introduction in the article I certainly was not given the impression that this is a highly respected scientist. In fact I was thinking he sounded like the sort of fellow who is given some post and makes headline grabbing statements. Because he can. But of course, I didn't know that, it was purely my first impression. So let's go and see if he has a wikipedia article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Bre nchley
Note to everyone, I created that article an hour ago and put in a swag of arguments to support all my points here. Okay, I didn't really, but I could have - that's a lesson for all you kiddies who blindly trust wikipedia - in the meantime let's assume it's accurate.
So, what does the article say about him? Hmm, got some general education, became a press officer, policy adviser to Thatcher, assistant editor, consulting editor, company directory, and a member of the Worshipful Company of Broderers (wtf!?), and an Officer of the Order of St John or something, and a Knight of Honour and Devotion of blah blah blah.
I see.
So I should be listening to this fellow why??

On to the other fellow, your man Chylek. Now this guy at least sounded like he was in the field and had some claim to be heard. He has no article on wikipedia but he does have his own webpage:
http://fizz.phys.dal.ca/people/PChylek/PChylek.html
He appears to have been published in a number of reputable journals. This page only takes us to 2002, however, so I tracked him elsewhere to LANL, which covers the present day. His CV there mentioned some of the more recent publications of his, and I managed to find an abstract for a 2004 paper of his:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/clim/2004/00000063/F0020001/05140445
In contrast to the context of his quote in the Investor, this paper says that Greenland appears to have a high variability in its climate in contrast to the global warming going on elsewhere.

In short I find that article of the Investor's to be of exceedingly poor quality and I would hope that if you have a point to make that you make it without its support.

Um, but if you're saying it's good to have a plan, then yeah, I can dig that :beer:

[acushla]

I considered replying point by point. Forgive me if I don't.


I stand before you humbled.

One of the best posts I have read and one which, I trust, has taught me something.

I am encouraged by the fact that you found some parts that had merit...which would indicate to me that there is hope yet.

Thank you for your kindness. I feel fortunate that I caught you in a 'good mood'!;) :)

Word to the wise: Better to build up than to tear down.

[Willow of Oz]

I stand before you humbled.

One of the best posts I have read and one which, I trust, has taught me something.

I am encouraged by the fact that you found some parts that had merit...which would indicate to me that there is hope yet.

Thank you for your kindness. I feel fortunate that I caught you in a 'good mood'!;) :)

Word to the wise: Better to build up than to tear down.

Why thank you Acushla.
I must say, I learnt something too, as I actually read the article with a critical eye. It's easy to half skim something and go "yeah, that's pretty much what I think", or go "gee, that sounds like a load of bollocks" when you get halfway through and not bother continuing. It's another to go, well, this doesn't quite sound right, do they have a point - if not, why not? In this case, the Monckton fellow sounded naff, but given the circumstances I couldn't just wave my hands and say "oh, I don't believe any of these fellows". I had to go off and prove at least to my own satisfaction that the claims put forth had the shadow of doubt cast on them. And it's this sort of critical analysis and thinking that I don't often do, so thank you Acushla for forcing me to pay attention to what I'm reading.
Of course, most of the time I just don't care. And I made a resolution this year to be less apathetic. Have I done anything about it? Nah, can't be stuffed.:cheeky:

[WHAT?]

fuel alcohol from corn is actually responsible for more fossil fuel emissions than regular gasoline from distant regimes..

–
Is this intended to be an oxymoron?

[acushla]

In 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but paleoclimatologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary...produced by the BBC.

Read the article (The Great Global Warming Swindle).

See the Documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831)

(Are these guys good enough for you?:cool: )

[rorythedog]

In 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but paleoclimatologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary...produced by the BBC.

Read the article (The Great Global Warming Swindle).

See the Documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831)

(Are these guys good enough for you?:cool: )

I'm sure I already mentioned that documentary here but I'll be damned if I can find the post. Anyway, there's a lot of good sense in those theories.

[idefiXX]

Okay, I watched the TV programme (this (http://www.quinnware.com/forum/showpost.php?p=80872&postcount=426) is rorys original post btw., but it didn't contain the link for the video), but I am not convinced at all.
This documentary seems to be the best what could happen to UK's industry.
If you google for the director Martin Durkin, you find out that he has been involved with the Revolutionary Communist Party. Furthermore he is known for very controversial documentaries and many scientists have complained about him modifying their arguments.

There is also an article about "The great Global Warming Swindle" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle) on/at Wikipedia.
Just to quote a passage :
On March 15, 2007, The Times reported that Durkin had seriously fallen out with a scientist who had been considering working with him. Dr Armand Leroi was concerned that Durkin had used data about a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures which had subsequently been found to be flawed. Leroi sent Durkin an email expressing concern about the programme and saying "To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were . . . wrong in several different ways." He copied the email to scientific author Simon Singh. Durkin responded to Lerio saying “You’re a big daft cock.” Singh sent an email to Durkin urging him to engage in serious debate. Durkin responded with a mail that stated: "Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing", and concluded with "Go and f*** yourself". Leroi subsequently said that he was withdrawing his co-operation with Durkin. Durkin later apologised for his language, saying that he had sent the emails when tired and had just finished making the programme, and that (despite his comments) he was "eager to have all the science properly debated with scientists qualified in the right areas". [17]

Well, this reaction reminds me of some forum members' language when they become furious ;)
No, seriously, Durkin doesn't seem to be very balanced, open-minded and ready for a serious debate.
The wikipedia article also says that Durkin used very old data for some of his graphics.

Watch the documentary, read some articles about it and make your own decision whether to believe to Martin Durkin or to the majority of scientists on this planet.

[Protocol]

:shocked: This is a very disturbing report.


A new global warming report issued Friday by the United Nations paints a near-apocalyptic vision of Earth's future: hundreds of millions of people short of water, extreme food shortages in Africa, a landscape ravaged by floods and millions of species sentenced to extinction.
Despite its harsh vision, the report was quickly criticized by some scientists who said its findings were watered down at the last minute by governments seeking to deflect calls for action.


Read on (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-warming7apr07,0,6386044,full.story).

[acushla]

I know that what I'm about to say is going to result in people thinking 'Poor ignorant, stupid bastard'...so be it.

Everything I have read and learnt about Global Warming has me absolutely convinced beyond even a shadow of a doubt that there is nothing at all that we as a people are going to do that will have any meaningful effect on the situation at all. None. Correct it a mm here and it will grow a mile there.

As a result I refuse to read any more, watch anymore and certainly not fall into the mind set of worrying about something I have no control over at all.

Better to worry about all the fish that are going to be gone because of over fishing, or super bugs that will wipe us all out, or Iran getting a bomb, or the possibility of my being hit by a car while I cross the street.

I do not understand why people delude themselves about this subject. I say delude because that is the only explanation that one can apply to anybody who has really done their homework and taken a long hard look at the facts.

[Protocol]

I know that what I'm about to say is going to result in people thinking 'Poor ignorant, stupid bastard'...so be it.

Everything I have read and learnt about Global Warming has me absolutely convinced beyond even a shadow of a doubt that there is nothing at all that we as a people are going to do that will have any meaningful effect on the situation at all. None. Correct it a mm here and it will grow a mile there.
Well, you continue emitting record levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, while the rest of us go to work saving the planet. :rolleyes:

By the way. Here (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21532519-2,00.html) is what they are saying about how it will affect Oz.

[Protocol]

As a result I refuse to read any more, watch anymore and certainly not fall into the mind set of worrying about something I have no control over at all.
So I guess it is pointless me even trying to reply to your post then. :paranoid:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

I wonder what role Australia will play in the future as Howard didn't feel like Australia should join the Kyoto protocol...

While Australia is only a relatively small greenhouse gas emitter comprising around 1.4 per cent of total world emissions, it registers as a relatively high emitter based on a per capita basis. International Energy Agency data at the end of 1999 indicated energy related emissions in the United States and the Europe (the world's two largest emitters) amounted to 5 585 million tonnes (Mt) and 3 534Mt compared to Australia at 322Mt. However, on a per capita basis, Australia emits 16.95 tonnes, 3rd highest behind the United States at 20.46 tonnes and Luxembourg at 17.19 tonnes.

Replacing all standard light bulbs with "energy efficient" ones sounds like a daft idea to me imo. Note the quotation marks. These bulbs overheat and die like a chicken on the barbie.

[Protocol]

Replacing all standard light bulbs with "energy efficient" ones sounds like a daft idea to me imo. Note the quotation marks. These bulbs overheat and die like a chicken on the barbie.
My experience with energy efficient compact fluoros is that they don't have anywhere near the life that they claim.
And they are a lot more expensive.

[Todd The Kiwi]

yeah 2000 hours is about standard
if you shop around you can get the cheapies for $2 each :bulb:
waste of time in a normal household though.

what is this thread about again...

[Protocol]

yeah 2000 hours is about standard
if you shop around you can get the cheapies for $2 each :bulb:
waste of time in a normal household though.

what is this thread about again...
Here (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/gwci/lights.html) are some of the Oz Governments claims on compact fluoros.

They make claims that they last as long as 6 or more incandescent globes. But I haven't had one that lasts anywhere near that time. I have even seen claims of 8 times longer than incandescent globes.

I must be buying the wrong brands. :ermm:

[acushla]

So I guess it is pointless me even trying to reply to your post then. :paranoid:

Look, don't misunderstand me...I do not present my observation as a 'good' thing...only as reality.

A lot of Governments cannot even agree as to if there is a real problem let alone what to do about it.

I believe this is one of those areas that our individual efforts do go for naught...other than perhaps giving us some false sense of 'contributing to the saving of the planet'. Every time we take a spoonful of pollution out of the Global Warming glass, Industry pours a million spoonfuls in.:dead:

Politically correct light bulbs...which most people won't use anyway...aren't going to make any difference in the turning back of greenhouse gases. It is simply a media con to take our minds off the real horror of what's to come.

Like religion...people prefer hope to facts.

[acushla]

...while the rest of us go to work saving the planet. :rolleyes:

Yeah...right. Good luck with that.

Proves my point. Not a lot you're going to accomplish when others do nothing.

Canada's policy will be to look after it's own backyard within realistic guidelines which will not prove to economically taxing for Industry or its citizens.

My prediction is that PM Harper, who is soaring in the polls and well within reach of a majority government, will not accept the newly revised 'Clean Air Act' drafted by the opposition and will go to the Governer General and say he cannot govern...and a election will be called.

The Conservatives will then be returned to power with a majority and they will be able to forge ahead and govern as they see fit.

The NDP Party, who are a very distant 3rd in number of votes they receive are constantly in debates where they use the phrase 'We stand up for what Canadians tell them.' ROTFLMAO! What Canadians would that be... the 3 who voted for them?:silly:

[Willow of Oz]

My experience with energy efficient compact fluoros is that they don't have anywhere near the life that they claim.
And they are a lot more expensive.

they also use less power, which translates to $.
Or do you want to argue that point too?

[Willow of Oz]

A lot of Governments cannot even agree as to if there is a real problem let alone what to do about it.



You don't ask governments for the latest in scientific thought.
If I wanted to know the effects of evolution on mammals over the past 65 million years I certainly wouldn't say, "oh governor of Massachusetts, enlighten me on -"
"I'm sorry sir, but the earth is only 6000 years old. Eat lead commie bastard!!"

[acushla]

You don't ask governments for the latest in scientific thought.
If I wanted to know the effects of evolution on mammals over the past 65 million years I certainly wouldn't say, "oh governor of Massachusetts, enlighten me on -"
"I'm sorry sir, but the earth is only 6000 years old. Eat lead commie bastard!!"

I think I understand what you're saying, which doesn't mean I DO understand.

All I was attempting to convey was the concept that it is difficult to find a solution to a problem if you can't agree on what the problem is.

As to the light bulbs...I just read an article that would lead you to believe that it might be far more meaningful to find a way to have people dispose of their dead batteries in a eco-friendly way than to dick around with changing light bulbs. Which raises the question...priorities. I mean...maybe rather than disposing of batteries we shouldn't use batteries at all. Ah...but now I hear the hue and cries of an inconvenienced public outraged that they need to give up all their battery powered gadgets...and THAT illustrates the point exactly...we're all for saving the environment until we actually have to do something about it.

It will NEVER happen...besides, IRAN having a bomb is far more worrisome than any abstract idea of a world in total decay a century or two from now.:bulb: :calm:

Trust me...the truth really does set you free.

[rorythedog]

Only because you brought it up - Iran do not have a nuclear bomb. There is no explicit evidence Iran is trying to build a bomb. Irqan are not scary (relatively speaking). At least, not to me.

[acushla]

Only because you brought it up - Iran do not have a nuclear bomb. There is no explicit evidence Iran is trying to build a bomb. Irqan are not scary (relatively speaking). At least, not to me.
I did not mean to imply that Iran have a bomb...and I can see how one might have deduced that from my post. What I meant was Iran having a bomb...which, if they have it their way, will be sooner or later, does pose a problem to those who live in Israel.

I'm not sure if I posted this earlier, but Iran have openly stated that a bomb dropped on Israel wipes Israel out...while a bomb dropped on Iran only takes out a part of the country. Apparently this is acceptable.

It is difficult for me not to be concerned when you hear such statements being freely offered. Say what you might...I do not recollect the US openly musing about who they might bomb or what the effects might be.

I also learned that both Pakistan and India have now officially decided that the NATO forces have lost in Iraq and as a result they are renewing tighter relations with Al-Qaeda in order to gain favor. If Pakistan was destabilized and the government collapse the likelihood of their arsenal falling into 'wrong' hands is a forgone conclusion.

[Willow of Oz]

I'm not sure if I posted this earlier, but Iran have openly stated that a bomb dropped on Israel wipes Israel out...while a bomb dropped on Iran only takes out a part of the country. Apparently this is acceptable.

Interesting. I mean, why then wouldn't someone drop multiple bombs then? Israel has an estimate in the hundreds if I recall. Other nations have more. Israel is hardly going to play tit for tat if push comes to shove after all.
There's a term for this. It's called Massive Retaliation, and has been employed by military strategists for at least the last half century or so due to the cold war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_retaliation


It is difficult for me not to be concerned when you hear such statements being freely offered. Say what you might...I do not recollect the US openly musing about who they might bomb or what the effects might be.

They did, and frequently. This was the USSR during the cold war. It was on the agenda for decades and popularised in many movies and books. Wargames is the obvious example. Failsafe was a moving example. I've only seen the live 2000 version with Clooney but I can highly recommend it.

[Willow of Oz]

Closer to the topic at hand, even if we say that nukes being spammed across the globe renders climate change a moot point, it's worth noting that nukes may not get spammed.
In which case, it's worth getting a better understanding of the problem.
It may be that there's nothing we can do.
Maybe it's something that can be slowed.
Maybe there's something that we can do.
If we can't fundamentally mess with climate on a global scale and / or reshape the world, one way or another, in the next 50 to 100 years, I'd be rather surprised.
The Spike by some dude who's name I've forgotten but which may contain a B or an M, and pretty much anything by Ray Kurzweil (though I've only read the Age of Spiritual Machines), will provide interesting reading as to our current rates of technological progress.

[acushla]

They did, and frequently.

I meant 'last week'.:rolleyes: :)

[WHAT?]

I meant 'last week'.:rolleyes: :)

Is this the thread that we talk climate? Then Man; I'll also use it as the bitching thread. This Spring has been nothing but cold, and snowy/rainy. What's up? Alan you know what I mean. You get this same weather too, and worse sometimes as far as the temp.
Sorry to interrupt. Continue...

[Protocol]

Everything I have read and learnt about Global Warming has me absolutely convinced beyond even a shadow of a doubt that there is nothing at all that we as a people are going to do that will have any meaningful effect on the situation at all. None.
In line with your thinking, here (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21542564-2,00.html) is a news article quoting Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide. He says that Solar activity is a greater driver of climate change than man-made carbon dioxide.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Is this the thread that we talk climate? Then Man; I'll also use it as the bitching thread. This Spring has been nothing but cold, and snowy/rainy. What's up? Alan you know what I mean. You get this same weather too, and worse sometimes as far as the temp.
Sorry to interrupt. Continue...

If somewhere on Earth it is abnormally cold, then elsewhere it is abnormally warm. It doesn't help to look on a regional scale within a time scale of a few months.

[rorythedog]

In line with your thinking, here (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21542564-2,00.html) is a news article quoting Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide. He says that Solar activity is a greater driver of climate change than man-made carbon dioxide.

I said exactly this aeons ago in this thread :hurt:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Maybe we should pray to the Sun God again for forgiveness. It doesnt explain the rapid ice ages we've had in the recent geological past though...more is at work than an upset sun. Trust me. Greenhouse gasses are the most important source for our pathetic short lives anyway...

EDIT: I reckon the position of the tectonic plates determines the weather on Earth a lot. Ocean currents are much affected. Right now since the isolation of Antarctica, that continent is locked in a permanent winter.

[acushla]

In line with your thinking, here (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21542564-2,00.html) is a news article quoting Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide. He says that Solar activity is a greater driver of climate change than man-made carbon dioxide.
I told you so.:ponder:

[acushla]

EDIT: I reckon the position of the tectonic plates determines the weather on Earth a lot. Ocean currents are much affected. Right now since the isolation of Antarctica, that continent is locked in a permanent winter.

“You'd be very hard pushed to find a geologist that would differ from my view,” he said.

Are you a geologist?:cool: :)

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

“You'd be very hard pushed to find a geologist that would differ from my view,” he said.

Are you a geologist?:cool: :)

I'm not saying he's wrong but in case you haven't noticed, he hasn't specified the time-scale we are concerned with. I.e. millions of years versus hundreds of years.

I totally agree with him on the longer time scales but in the short run, I do believe man-kind is well able to affect global climate. :bulb:

[idefiXX]

Canada's famous conservative government (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070429/na-gen-canada-gore-environment)...
Well, actually Europe (under the leadership of Mme Merkel :confused:) does the same - they want to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% and to me it seems like a lot of blablabla...

[acushla]

Canada's famous conservative government (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070429/na-gen-canada-gore-environment)...
Well, actually Europe (under the leadership of Mme Merkel :confused:) does the same - they want to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% and to me it seems like a lot of blablabla...
Well, after 'Fraud Gore' (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3413carbon_swindle.html)., as I like to call him, made his pronouncement concerning Canada's new plan to reduce Greenhouse Emissions (a plan which it turns out he hadn't even read...wow...all that and psychic too. The man is a marvel!) as a fraud...our Conservative Government held an emergency closed door conference today to find out how best to address the climate issue that will satisfy the Kyoto Cult.

This has not been confirmed but rumour has it that Canada is about to ban the use of ALL gasoline run vehicles (planes included) as well as a total shutdown of any industry that emits any wastes that are defined as 'Greenhouse Emissions.' Since time is of the essense in saving the planet these new measures will go into effect tonight at midnight...thus giving the government 6 hours to mobilize the army (with a shoot to kill command) in order to put down any protest that Canadians may mount.

Actually it is believed that it will only be a small handful of illiterates and 'mentally challenged' who will consider protest as the great majority (99.22256%) of Canadians will welcome this action by the Government of making the saving of the planet a top priority...regardless of what the immediate cost to its citizens might be. 'We will be a leader to the world...number one in having accomplished overnight what other Governments have only talked about for decades. 'If we are lucky' said PM Harper, 'other nations like the US and China and India will follow Canada's lead. If that was to happen...then our decision today will actually mean something.'

To read how I really feel...Say hello to reality (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/editorial/story/3954261p-4566205c.html)

[squeege2]

There is NO profit (monetary), to be made by cleaning up ones "mess". Perhaps if the government had to supply , each and everyone of us, with an air purifying unit, at a marginal cost, of course, they would see $$ sign, and full production would commence, immediately.:bulb:

[Willow of Oz]

Well, after 'Fraud Gore' (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3413carbon_swindle.html)., as I like to call him, made his pronouncement concerning Canada's new plan to reduce Greenhouse Emissions (a plan which it turns out he hadn't even read...wow...all that and psychic too. The man is a marvel!) as a fraud...

Acushla, Acushla, Acushla: I don't know how you do it, I don't know where you find them.
But Carbon Trade Swindle Behind Gore Hoax is to journalism what Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter is to fine art cinema. It's good for a laugh at just how bad it is: just as long as you don't take it too seriously.

I did read about three quarters of it. Update: covered most of the rest now.
I must have missed the part where Gore didn't read The Plan.

This page was interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_Movement
Summary: The La Rouche movement exists to promote La Rouche and his ideas, including conspiracy theories. La Rouche has run for US president 8 times. The La Rouche movement own the Executive Intelligence Review (see Acushla's link for the 'article').
Oh, and I really love this quote: "Becoming a faithful follower of LaRouche is like entering the Bizarro World of the Superman comic books,"

And if you're wondering who the great La Rouche actually is, look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche#Criminal_conviction_and_imprisonme nt_.281988.E2.80.931994.29

[Willow of Oz]

Update Update!
You guys should go visit that link on Lyndon La Rouche if only for the picture on the front cover of his pamphlet "Children of Satan III - The Sexual Congress for Cultural Fascism" !!
Who dreams up these titles?

[idefiXX]

looooooool

Acushla just got owned ^^

[acushla]

Acushla, Acushla, Acushla: I don't know how you do it, I don't know where you find them.
But Carbon Trade Swindle Behind Gore Hoax is to journalism what Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter is to fine art cinema. It's good for a laugh at just how bad it is: just as long as you don't take it too seriously.


what are you saying? You didn't like 'Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter'?

That Gore article read pretty well...I read the entire thing and genuinely felt I was understanding the complexity of the issue. Are you suggesting they just made the whole thing up?

As for LaRouche...in fairness...I asked if anybody knew what that was all about. I certainly wasn't endorsing it...I actually thought it was some neo-nazi group operating in the US. Sounds like I may not have been too far off.

[Willow of Oz]

what are you saying? You didn't like 'Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter'?

I'm saying it had its moments when it made me smile and made me laugh. Overall it was probably short on material, but not bad for a first effort. Plot and coherency was not one of its strong points. Very C-grade and the middle made me doze off, but plus points for the wackiness and creativity in combining disparate elements.
Wait, am I still talking about the movie??


That Gore article read pretty well...I read the entire thing and genuinely felt I was understanding the complexity of the issue. Are you suggesting they just made the whole thing up?

As for LaRouche...in fairness...I asked if anybody knew what that was all about. I certainly wasn't endorsing it...I actually thought it was some neo-nazi group operating in the US. Sounds like I may not have been too far off.

Sigh, you don't have to 'make stuff up' in order for something to be lacking in journalistic integrity.
If you start throwing in phrases like "fraud gore" without any sort of backup, then whilst it might be a bit much to say you've "made stuff up" you've certainly not presented any sort of logical, coherent argument.
Similarly, phrases such as "rip-offs" without substantial proof as to why people are "rip-offs" does little to bolster the article.
Other phrases aren't even bad, they just use them in some sort of "nod to the converted" manner, with implications of badness.

The idea is that if governments cap CO2 emissions, then the "market" will take off for the buying and selling of emissions "allowances." This is the whole point of the "cap-and-trade" plan for CO2. If it sounds crazy, it is.

That's not an argument, that's a few sentences presented as "trust me it's true" with some "quotes" for various "things" that they don't want to "elaborate on", so you'll pick up that their innuendo is implying that such things have some other snide meaning which they don't feel is necessary to elaborate on (because they can't).

Gore again plugged green markets trading in April 2006, at Oxford University, at the annual Skoll World Forum for Social Entrepreneurship. This was held at the Skoll Centre, set up by Jeff Skoll, the E-bay billionaire, whose Participant Productions funded Gore's propaganda movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

"Oh no!" cries the inattentive reader. "What deception and double dealing is this? The guy who funds Gore's propaganda movie is the same guy who set up the forum where Gore 'plugged' green markets!"
Sigh. Nice use of language there. Because he's 'plugging' his movie, he's in the same category as shonky advertisers now. Because the same guy who did one thing for him is now doing something else for him, there's some sort of backroom palm gracing going on, and we're all having the wool pulled over our eyes. No, that's not the case. Why wouldn't the guy who funds his movie, provide forums for Gore to elaborate on the same themes that are present in his movie?
"Hey Al, you want backing to make your movie about the environment? Sure, I'll finance that."
"Oh, and you now want to discuss those themes outside of the cinema? Bugger off, mate".
Mmmm. Propaganda Movie. I like the way they justify that claim. If they referred to Schindler's List as a propaganda film, with just passing remarks that Spielberg is a jew ....

Finally, I didn't see you mention La Rouche anywhere, or ask what that was all about.
And I still didn't see where it was stated that Gore commented on the Canadian plan without even reading it.

[acushla]

If you start throwing in phrases like "fraud gore" without any sort of backup, then whilst it might be a bit much to say you've "made stuff up" you've certainly not presented any sort of logical, coherent argument.


OK...here's another one for you...but it might be a bit longer: Al Gore is a big fat hypocrite (http://y2kyoto.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&updated-max=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=7)

I have to tell you...I learn more from your replies than I do from the articles.

I'm seriously beginning to think you are a genius!:)

[Seal]

I'm not about to read through 9 pages of threads, so I'll just leave my thoughts here.

Global warming is real. Pollution is bad. These are two undisputable facts. The question that climatologists have is to what extent anthropogenic CO2 is affecting the climate system.

I don't believe there is enough conclusive work on this. However, the global warming movement has triggered some really valuable policies on limiting our pollution, and general footprint on this planet. I'm worried that when the popular support for this movement fizzes out, and it will, our green policies will suffer.

I'm a Physical Geographer (Geologist meets Climatologist/Hydrology/Permafrost/etc.) I cringed when I saw Gore's documentary, because there was facts there that I knew not to be attributed to climate change (Lake Chad, for instance, drained because of human mismanagement - not an increase in temperatures.) There's also evidence that CO2 follows climate change, and not the other way around.

However, that's not to say that I don't support reduction of anthropogenic gases. I believe that we should be far more careful in how we pollute the air and environment, but like I said - I fear that that's a cause that will suffer when the media starts changing their tune.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

I'm a Physical Geographer (Geologist meets Climatologist/Hydrology/Permafrost/etc.)

Cool! Another Earth scientist. Welcome to the club :) I believe that while CO2 is a serious greenhouse gas that in great enough quantities can contribute to the enhanced global warming, I fear most of all Methane in permafrost and gas hydrates on continental slopes. Methane is 30x times potent than CO2 in trapping infrared radiation from the Earth. Once the permafrost melts and sealevels rise causing slope instabilities on the continental slope, the positive feedback loop of released methane can theoretically be overwhelming. Nitrous oxide from car exhausts is also a seriously powerful greenhouse gas of about 300x more than a molecule of CO2 over long time periods.

Residence times of the major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over their global warming potential:

* CO2 has a variable atmospheric lifetime (approximately 200-450 years for small perturbations). Recent work indicates that recovery from a large input of atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels will result in an effective lifetime of tens of thousands of years.[17][18] Carbon dioxide is defined to have a GWP of 1 over all time periods.

* Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 ± 3 years and a GWP of 62 over 20 years, 23 over 100 years and 7 over 500 years. The decrease in GWP associated with longer times is associated with the fact that the methane is degraded to water and CO2 by chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

* Nitrous oxide has an atmospheric lifetime of 120 years and a GWP of 296 over 100 years.

* CFC-12 has an atmospheric lifetime of 100 years and a GWP(100) of 10600.
* HCFC-22 has an atmospheric lifetime of 12.1 years and a GWP(100) of 1700.

* Tetrafluoromethane has an atmospheric lifetime of 50,000 years and a GWP(100) of 5700.

* Sulfur hexafluoride has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years and a GWP(100) of 22000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

[acushla]

I'm not about to read through 9 pages of threads, so I'll just leave my thoughts here...

...how about 9 pages in one thread?:nervous: (OK...3 or 5. Seems you can't post 300 million words in one post.)

Calling Willow of Oz (and Rex)...this should keep you busy/interested. If not...don't accuse me of not trying.:cool:

"Aliens Cause Global Warming"

A lecture by Michael Crichton
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA
January 17, 2003

My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.

Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.

I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack.

It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be a very good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world.

But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.

But let's look at how it came to pass.

Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.

This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentially reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.

One way to chart the cooling of enthusiasm is to review popular works on the subject. In 1964, at the height of SETI enthusiasm, Walter Sullivan of the NY Times wrote an exciting book about life in the universe entitled WE ARE NOT ALONE. By 1995, when Paul Davis wrote a book on the same subject, he titled it ARE WE ALONE? ( Since 1981, there have in fact been four books titled ARE WE ALONE.) More recently we have seen the rise of the so-called "Rare Earth" theory which suggests that we may, in fact, be all alone. Again, there is no evidence either way.

Back in the sixties, SETI had its critics, although not among astrophysicists and astronomers. The biologists and paleontologists were harshest. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard sneered that SETI was a "study without a subject," and it remains so to the present day.

But scientists in general have been indulgent toward SETI, viewing it either with bemused tolerance, or with indifference. After all, what's the big deal? It's kind of fun. If people want to look, let them. Only a curmudgeon would speak harshly of SETI. It wasn't worth the bother.

And of course it is true that untestable theories may have heuristic value. Of course extraterrestrials are a good way to teach science to kids. But that does not relieve us of the obligation to see the Drake equation clearly for what it is-pure speculation in quasi-scientific trappings.

The fact that the Drake equation was not greeted with screams of outrage-similar to the screams of outrage that greet each Creationist new claim, for example-meant that now there was a crack in the door, a loosening of the definition of what constituted legitimate scientific procedure. And soon enough, pernicious garbage began to squeeze through the cracks.

Now let's jump ahead a decade to the 1970s, and Nuclear Winter.

In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences reported on "Long-Term Worldwide Effects of Multiple Nuclear Weapons Detonations" but the report estimated the effect of dust from nuclear blasts to be relatively minor. In 1979, the Office of Technology Assessment issued a report on "The Effects of Nuclear War" and stated that nuclear war could perhaps produce irreversible adverse consequences on the environment. However, because the scientific processes involved were poorly understood, the report stated it was not possible to estimate the probable magnitude of such damage.

Three years later, in 1982, the Swedish Academy of Sciences commissioned a report entitled "The Atmosphere after a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon," which attempted to quantify the effect of smoke from burning forests and cities. The authors speculated that there would be so much smoke that a large cloud over the northern hemisphere would reduce incoming sunlight below the level required for photosynthesis, and that this would last for weeks or even longer.

The following year, five scientists including Richard Turco and Carl Sagan published a paper in Science called "Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions." This was the so-called TTAPS report, which attempted to quantify more rigorously the atmospheric effects, with the added credibility to be gained from an actual computer model of climate.

At the heart of the TTAPS undertaking was another equation, never specifically expressed, but one that could be paraphrased as follows:

Ds = Wn Ws Wh Tf Tb Pt Pr Pe… etc

(The amount of tropospheric dust=# warheads x size warheads x warhead detonation height x flammability of targets x Target burn duration x Particles entering the Troposphere x Particle reflectivity x Particle endurance…and so on.)

The similarity to the Drake equation is striking. As with the Drake equation, none of the variables can be determined. None at all. The TTAPS study addressed this problem in part by mapping out different wartime scenarios and assigning numbers to some of the variables, but even so, the remaining variables were-and are-simply unknowable. Nobody knows how much smoke will be generated when cities burn, creating particles of what kind, and for how long. No one knows the effect of local weather conditions on the amount of particles that will be injected into the troposphere. No one knows how long the particles will remain in the troposphere. And so on.

[acushla]

And remember, this is only four years after the OTA study concluded that the underlying scientific processes were so poorly known that no estimates could be reliably made. Nevertheless, the TTAPS study not only made those estimates, but concluded they were catastrophic.

According to Sagan and his co-workers, even a limited 5,000 megaton nuclear exchange would cause a global temperature drop of more than 35 degrees Centigrade, and this change would last for three months. The greatest volcanic eruptions that we know of changed world temperatures somewhere between .5 and 2 degrees Centigrade. Ice ages changed global temperatures by 10 degrees. Here we have an estimated change three times greater than any ice age. One might expect it to be the subject of some dispute.

But Sagan and his co-workers were prepared, for nuclear winter was from the outset the subject of a well-orchestrated media campaign. The first announcement of nuclear winter appeared in an article by Sagan in the Sunday supplement, Parade. The very next day, a highly-publicized, high-profile conference on the long-term consequences of nuclear war was held in Washington, chaired by Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich, the most famous and media-savvy scientists of their generation. Sagan appeared on the Johnny Carson show 40 times. Ehrlich was on 25 times. Following the conference, there were press conferences, meetings with congressmen, and so on. The formal papers in Science came months later.

This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold.

The real nature of the conference is indicated by these artists' renderings of the effect of nuclear winter.

I cannot help but quote the caption for figure 5: "Shown here is a tranquil scene in the north woods. A beaver has just completed its dam, two black bears forage for food, a swallow-tailed butterfly flutters in the foreground, a loon swims quietly by, and a kingfisher searches for a tasty fish." Hard science if ever there was.

At the conference in Washington, during the question period, Ehrlich was reminded that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scientists were quoted as saying nothing would grow there for 75 years, but in fact melons were growing the next year. So, he was asked, how accurate were these findings now?

Ehrlich answered by saying "I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists…"

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

[acushla]

But back to our main subject.

What I have been suggesting to you is that nuclear winter was a meaningless formula, tricked out with bad science, for policy ends. It was political from the beginning, promoted in a well-orchestrated media campaign that had to be planned weeks or months in advance.

Further evidence of the political nature of the whole project can be found in the response to criticism. Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about," other prominent scientists were noticeably reticent. Freeman Dyson was quoted as saying "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science but…who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?" And Victor Weisskopf said, "The science is terrible but---perhaps the psychology is good." The nuclear winter team followed up the publication of such comments with letters to the editors denying that these statements were ever made, though the scientists since then have subsequently confirmed their views.

At the time, there was a concerted desire on the part of lots of people to avoid nuclear war. If nuclear winter looked awful, why investigate too closely? Who wanted to disagree? Only people like Edward Teller, the "father of the H bomb."

Teller said, "While it is generally recognized that details are still uncertain and deserve much more study, Dr. Sagan nevertheless has taken the position that the whole scenario is so robust that there can be little doubt about its main conclusions." Yet for most people, the fact that nuclear winter was a scenario riddled with uncertainties did not seem to be relevant.

I say it is hugely relevant. Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you subvert science to political ends.

That is why it is so important for the future of science that the line between what science can say with certainty, and what it cannot, be drawn clearly-and defended.

What happened to Nuclear Winter? As the media glare faded, its robust scenario appeared less persuasive; John Maddox, editor of Nature, repeatedly criticized its claims; within a year, Stephen Schneider, one of the leading figures in the climate model, began to speak of "nuclear autumn." It just didn't have the same ring.

A final media embarrassment came in 1991, when Carl Sagan predicted on Nightline that Kuwaiti oil fires would produce a nuclear winter effect, causing a "year without a summer," and endangering crops around the world. Sagan stressed this outcome was so likely that "it should affect the war plans." None of it happened.

What, then, can we say were the lessons of Nuclear Winter? I believe the lesson was that with a catchy name, a strong policy position and an aggressive media campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak thesis will be established as fact. After that, any criticism becomes beside the point. The war is already over without a shot being fired. That was the lesson, and we had a textbook application soon afterward, with second hand smoke.

In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.

This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.

In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science….there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.

Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.

As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed.

As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact. The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?

And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics" in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done.

When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?

To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.

This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.

Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.

Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?

[acushla]

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.

I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new technology. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn't ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure.

But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilities could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."

What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.

The answer to all these questions is no. We don't.

In trying to think about how these questions can be resolved, it occurs to me that in the progression from SETI to nuclear winter to second hand smoke to global warming, we have one clear message, and that is that we can expect more and more problems of public policy dealing with technical issues in the future-problems of ever greater seriousness, where people care passionately on all sides.

And at the moment we have no mechanism to get good answers. So I will propose one.

Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepreneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research - or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.

Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this.

I believe that as we come to the end of this litany, some of you may be saying, well what is the big deal, really. So we made a few mistakes. So a few scientists have overstated their cases and have egg on their faces. So what.

Well, I'll tell you.

In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.

Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science.

Thank you very much.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Michael Crichton is my hero. I've read all his novels. But while he makes a lot of good points, he doesn't have the scholarly background an Earth Scientist has. For example in his novel A state of fear he goes on about an ecoterrorist group trying to influence the weather to cause catastrophes that could then be ascribed to the fact that enhanced global warming from anthropogenic sources is real. However, the last event had to do with artificially triggering an Earthquake to cause a Tsunami. While very catastrophic, an earthquake has nothing to do with greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which are responsible for the global temperature rise. Apparently he must have missed that.

Even if you don't believe CO2 is a significant contributing factor to enhanced global warming, you would still care about a cleaner environment and let your children enjoy the animal species that may be extinct tomorrow, right? So in that essence I think it's alright if aliens cause global warming.

[Protocol]

And now questions are being raised (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=aa7796aa-e4a5-4c06-be84-b62dee548fda) as to whether compact fluorescent light bulbs are more environmentally damaging than incandescent bulbs. :rolleyes:

[Seal]

Cool! Another Earth scientist. Welcome to the club :) I believe that while CO2 is a serious greenhouse gas that in great enough quantities can contribute to the enhanced global warming, I fear most of all Methane in permafrost and gas hydrates on continental slopes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Permafrost isn't going to disappear instantly.

In zones of continuous permafrost, you already have an active layer - a zone which thaws and freezes each year. Beneath it, you have the iced up material that makes up the permafrost. This can be hundreds of meters in thickness. So you have a situation whereby you have a bit of insulating Earth, perhaps a bit of insulating soil mat, and a massive fridge underneath. This moderates any effect of climate change upon the soil thermal regime.

We can expect discontinuous permafrost to migrate northwards, and isolated permafrost patches to likewise dissapear (and reform up north.) Isolated patches are small cases of permafrost in environments that do not sustain that kind of cryogenic material to begin with. It's there because of the altitude, orientation on slope, presence of bog, or other exceptional local regime. In any case the permafrost there is very shallow, and there's not much of anything in there to influence climactic processes. With discontinuous, you're going to get a melting of permafrost - but like the zones of continuous permafrost - it's highly moderated by its very presence.

Likewise, fears of the water level getting too high are overrated. Let's think about the great sources of water in the world: the polar caps, and Greenland. Well, the water at the north pole is formed from the sea water, and is pretty much at sea level. If it melts, water levels won't change. Likewise for parts of the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Now Greenland, and the Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet (which, should it melt, would rise water levels by 60m), are formed on land. They are their own refrigerator. It's a moderating effect which means that it will take hundreds (if not thousands) of years to melt them off. Because they are on land, there's no (warmer) ocean water to influence them. It's explicitly only the air temperatures.

So no, I'm not too concerned.

And thanks for the welcome :) I'm actually planning on getting a bonafide geology degree within 2 years. I pretty much have all the courses required as it stands, with the exception of a few 4th years :D

[rorythedog]

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.

I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new technology. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn't ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure.

But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilities could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."

What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.

The answer to all these questions is no. We don't.

In trying to think about how these questions can be resolved, it occurs to me that in the progression from SETI to nuclear winter to second hand smoke to global warming, we have one clear message, and that is that we can expect more and more problems of public policy dealing with technical issues in the future-problems of ever greater seriousness, where people care passionately on all sides.

And at the moment we have no mechanism to get good answers. So I will propose one.

Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepreneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research - or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.

Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this.

I believe that as we come to the end of this litany, some of you may be saying, well what is the big deal, really. So we made a few mistakes. So a few scientists have overstated their cases and have egg on their faces. So what.

Well, I'll tell you.

In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.

Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science.

Thank you very much.

I might get around to reading all that, someday. But from the title? I believe it!

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Permafrost isn't going to disappear instantly.



Models suggest that by 2050 all the artic sea ice will be gone in the summers. That shockingly quick. So on timescales within human existance, permaforst imo can disappear very soon. No sea ice around Greenland will surely have a great impact on the continental ice. Even as we speak Greenlands large glaciers are retreating, not advancing. Much of west Antarctica and the alpine glaciers are equally melting at faster rates. East Anterctica is a bit of an exception due to a stable microclimate there. Still we can be pretty certain that regional weather patterns are changing and that it's part of a dynamic global weather system. Whether it is the human contribution to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or deforestation, land management, or mining, no one can deny that we change the Earth faster than any natural process ever could, excluding the possibility of a meteorite impact or extensive volcanism. In a dynamic system, this cannot go unchecked.

[Seal]

Models suggest that by 2050 all the artic sea ice will be gone in the summers. That shockingly quick. So on timescales within human existance, permaforst imo can disappear very soon. No sea ice around Greenland will surely have a great impact on the continental ice. Even as we speak Greenlands large glaciers are retreating, not advancing. Much of west Antarctica and the alpine glaciers are equally melting at faster rates. East Anterctica is a bit of an exception due to a stable microclimate there. Still we can be pretty certain that regional weather patterns are changing and that it's part of a dynamic global weather system. Whether it is the human contribution to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or deforestation, land management, or mining, no one can deny that we change the Earth faster than any natural process ever could, excluding the possibility of a meteorite impact or extensive volcanism. In a dynamic system, this cannot go unchecked.

A good chunk of arctic sea ice melts every summer, and refreezes every winter. There's a huge capacity there for degradation each year. Furthermore, it's quite shallow, and directly overlaying (warm) oceans. What's happening to it is not comparable to Permafrost. Large chunks of permafrost do not thaw away every summer (the active layer does, but not the underlying ice.) So yes, while changes there, and to the seasonal ice around Antarctica, can happen frighteningly quick - they are no measure of the speed of other processes that occur in differing environments.

I will not deny of our capabilities to alter the Earth and its processes. We've pretty much eliminated 90% of trees in the USA in the last two centuries, Europe has pretty much the same figures as well but over a period of a thousand years (more prolifically colonized earlier.) That has a huge impact which extends far beyond just the climate.

I'm not saying we should ignore anthropogenic influences. They are there. What I do question is pinning it all on CO2. The media are brandishing it as if cutting emissions of it will single-handedly prevent global warming. It is to that which I principally object to.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

What I do question is pinning it all on CO2. The media are brandishing it as if cutting emissions of it will single-handedly prevent global warming. It is to that which I principally object to.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that which is why I have been labelling it as a contributing factor and not the cause of enhanced global warming. Besides were are looking at a theory, not the truth.

[acushla]

Don't forget...you did, didn't you?

Tonight, CNN...Gleen Beck...The Other Side of the Climate Debate...‘Climate of Fear’ (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/1/120012.shtml)

It just might make you think. (Don't worry...it only hurts a lot.):silly:

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Near Sevilla in Southern Spain, Europe's first solar farm has gone into production of about 11 MW of energy enough to power 8000 homes. This is done by constructing large mirrors that reflect the sunlight to one single point on a tower which uses this heat to boil water and the stream drives the turbines. So as long as they have water, they have 'free' renewable energy. The photos are amazing! There are plans to add an even larger field of mirrors! Read the article :)


BBC news link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6616651.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42877000/jpg/_42877005_mirrors_bbc_203.jpg

[badbite26]

Cool! Another Earth scientist. Welcome to the club :) ]

Okay, you and Seal are both scientists. I have read differing accounts from scientist on the subject of global warming. Is it possible that the differences could stem from which political party, or religious beliefs the scientist supports. Or is it just a difference in the reading and understanding of the data presented to them?

[acushla]

Near Sevilla in Southern Spain, Europe's first solar farm has gone into production of about 11 MW of energy enough to power 8000 homes.Truly awesome. When do we get ours?:)

I only ask this out of pure curiousity...not as a judgement...how much did it cost?

[acushla]

Okay, you and Seal are both scientists. I have read differing accounts from scientist on the subject of global warming. Is it possible that the differences could stem from which political party, or religious beliefs the scientist supports. Or is it just a difference in the reading and understanding of the data presented to them?I am not a scientist...but I believe I would be correct in stating that pure science is not influenced by political parties, religious beliefs or anything else that is not directly related to the study of the science of the facts.

Sort of like CSI...the evidence tells the story.

[Willow of Oz]

I am not a scientist...but I believe I would be correct in stating that pure science is not influenced by political parties, religious beliefs or anything else that is not directly related to the study of the science of the facts.

Sort of like CSI...the evidence tells the story.

Pure science is not. But that's kinda like saying communism sounds good and fair and equal ... in theory.
Well, okay, it's not quite that bad. But scientists are still human, and there is always going to be latent hubris, and some tendency to see what you want to see, or look for facts that support what you believe to be true.

But also, there is the fact that you are drawing up theories based on the data available. The data supports your theory, to some degree ... it may also support other theories.
As more data is collected, your theory is either still valid, or it is ruled out.
Data itself is interpreted.
You can say the average temperature in florida last year was 20 degrees ... and there are measurements available that fairly conclusively prove that. And people can check that. But ... so what? How does that data tie together with other bits of data? What does it all mean?

When someone comes up with a theory, it should be able to make predictions, particularly predictions that cannot be made with current theories.
Ie, if my theory is correct that some giant asteroid hit the earth 10 million years ago and caused mass extinctions from throwing up lots dust for many decades then we should be able to see in stable antarctic ice a layer of dust about 50 metres down, or in some particular layer that can be dated. And then people can go and have a look. And if it's there then hey presto, your theory is making predictions that are getting verified: if not, your theory appears to be wrong, or at least not wholly correct.
If your theory cannot predict anything, your theory has little to offer.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Every scientist interprets his data differently by using different models that describe the same phenomenon. But when a theory is so complicated and general, like global warming, it is no surprise scientist arrive at different conclusions. Usually a broad and complex system is broken down into simplified relationships between one, two or three variables at most. This is done under controlled conditions in the laboratory. The results can then later be integrated into a unified model.

Politics or religion has nothing to do with the scientific method.

[badbite26]

Politics or religion has nothing to do with the scientific method.

So, a scientist who is deeply religious will not interpret the exact same data differently than a non religious scientist? It could be interpreted differently based more on personality, than core beliefs?

Or, just like everyone else, on various subjects they just see it differently, even though the data is exactly the same?

[Willow of Oz]

So, a scientist who is deeply religious will not interpret the exact same data differently than a non religious scientist? It could be interpreted differently based more on personality, than core beliefs?

Or, just like everyone else, on various subjects they just see it differently, even though the data is exactly the same?

Goddamn it, I went to quote and offer a rejoinder only to find out that there's another paragraph there! It wasn't there when I looked the first time, and it wasn't there when I looked afterward. Hmm, the spooky paragraph.

Anyway, I was going to say something like your second paragraph.
There's always a danger that you end up looking for a theory and some data to support what you know is true. Which isn't true science, but again it's the real world and all: this will always happen to some extent.
There are noted, published scientists who believe the earth is only about 6000 years old or so after all.

[acushla]

There are noted, published scientists who believe the earth is only about 6000 years old or so after all.Do they mention what colour the sky is in their 6000 year old world?

[WHAT?]

Near Sevilla in Southern Spain, Europe's first solar farm has gone into production of about 11 MW of energy enough to power 8000 homes. This is done by constructing large mirrors that reflect the sunlight to one single point on a tower which uses this heat to boil water and the stream drives the turbines. So as long as they have water, they have 'free' renewable energy. The photos are amazing! There are plans to add an even larger field of mirrors! Read the article


BBC news link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6616651.stm)


Yeah, I saw that.
Isn't there one being constructed in Arizona, or Nevada too? Kinda neat.
In ancient times Archimedes of Syracuse was said to have his people (under his direction), reflect 70 or so, shiny mirror-like shields concentrated towards an attacking Roman armada fleet (sorry for the redundancy there). By this theory, and then in practice, set them ablaze, in a successful defense of his island homeland.

What you didn't hear, but is widely speculated that he summoned his boys Guido, and Vinnie, to pull off the sabotage by snorkeling out to the ships undetected! Once there they upset a few alcohol vats, and lit it up like a roman candle!

He'd do anything to defend his drug empire and territory from the law ;)


O that Archimedes! He was a Wild and Crazy guy!:confused: :cheeky:

Meet the boys!
http://www.ganglandnews.com/curra.jpg http://www.ganglandnews.com/vallario.jpg