Oh, OK, just wondered.
:)
Printable View
Oh, OK, just wondered.
:)
I have spottily read the thread and I must say that there is an enormous amount of speculation going on here.Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@7 December 2003 - 17:14
Why is it always the rainforests that people get so bothered about ?
I've always wondered that, it's always "What about the rainforests". Aren't they just big, wet forests ?
I am particularly addressing the links left by RF if I seem off the Kyoto Treaty a bit.
The trend I notice is that people are not aware that the Earth is an organism. They like to think of it as a static entity and do not realize that it is constantly undergoing change in both position of its land masses and in environmental temperatures.
Remember, all land masses at one point were attached, but due to movement in the tectonic plates they have separated to form todays continents. These movements continue and there will be always be remodeling of our shorelines from erosion.
An example that is easy to appreciate is a river valleyhttp://nm.water.usgs.gov/images/rivervalley.gif
At one point the river has a certain course, but over centuries it's specific course will meander back and forth within the river valley. As you can see, the river valley can be 50 miles or more across. So when Billy Bob puts his trailer next to the river and freaks out when it becomes flooded we understand that this is a natural phenomenon, not a result of global warming. So why must we consider coastal erosion to be un-natural entity, a man-made global warming side effect, rather than part of the natural cycle of the ocean.
It is probably because we look at the world from our myopic human points of view. We live in cycles of 100 years in a world that has billion year cycles.
Consider that we are all living at the time of the last Ice Age. Would we have felt that our campfires were melting the glaciars and this was going to lead to the flooding of the world. Man has this funny habit of thinking that he is so important. We all know that the development of the Ice Age and its retreat was part of the natural cycle.
Ice Ages will come and they will go. Temperatures have been higher in the past than they are today. This temperature cycle is akin to the fluatuations in the course of a river over time. There is nothing we can do about this, we just have to adapt to it.
So if you want to live on the coast, or in a flood plain, or next to a fault line, expect that nature is going to come visit you eventually and stop pointing your finger at fossil fuel emissions as if that has any significant bearing on natural inevitability.
I, of course, support being environmentally responsible, but I think that the whole global warming thing is just another of mans' megalomaniacal obssesions.
edit: quoting Jpol makes no sense in relation to the above post, I'm working on that now.
People get bothered about Rain Forests for an number of emotive reasons. It is largely unexplored and people fear that plants and animals may become extinct before they are even discovered.Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@7 December 2003 - 17:14
Why is it always the rainforests that people get so bothered about ?
I've always wondered that, it's always "What about the rainforests". Aren't they just big, wet forests ?
However, my offense goes back to my belief that we should use resources as they were intended.
One misunderstanding about rain forests is that they have lush soil. The truth is that the soil is very thin and instead of tree roots burrowing deep for stability, they grow laterally just under the surface. So when you rip a swath in the rain forest, you are setting up a domino-effect of trees toppling.
But more to the point, this thin soil needs the protection of the forest canopy. If you use this land for grazing, the constant rain erodes the exposed thin soil turning grazing land into clay and rock.
The problem is that the local people are being used to raise cheap beef for McDonald's for their a short term gain. When a field becomes unusable, they just tear more forest down.
Once the soil is gone and the cows have been moved, that lost rain forest will take several hundred years to be reclaimed.
So land must be used for what it can support, not exploited short term because it is cheaper to have poor countries raise the cattle and import the beef, than to produce it locally. There is no shortage of land here to raise the cattle to support our beef market, it is simply a matter of economics.
Eventually, these short-term gains will end as the rain forests disappear and then what do you have? Nothing but useless clay and rock.
That is why rainforest exploitation is such an issue.
That makes sense, thank you. I wasn't aware of the thin soil / shallow root combination.
I can't pretend to be that bothered about all of these undiscovered species, it really isn't that interesting to me. I've done without them this far, I can just as well carry on without them.
Thank you for your last two posts btw, I thoroughly enjoyed them for both content and style. A pleasure to read.
There is also quite a number of medical ingredients that can only be found in the rainforest, and so when the forest goes, so do various cures and vaccines.
:ninja:
I agree, but i'm gonna be gutted if the effects are a major factor in our transience :oQuote:
Originally posted by j2k4@6 December 2003 - 21:33
that the effects are as transient as our presence here.
Personally i'm a believer, after the amount of scientific debate and data gathering that has occured, I think i'm on safe ground siding with the large majority of researchers in saying that we are having an significant impact on the climate of our planet. I'll just cross my fingers that we (and by that i mean you :P ) don't leave it too late, i'm hoping a few more record breaking weather years may provide the impetus.
You'd be letting yourself in for a lot of work, but an attempt to solidly verify this supposition would prove revealing.Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@8 December 2003 - 12:25
the large majority of researchers in saying that we are having an significant impact on the climate of our planet.
If you can make any headway, I think you will find no such majority exists; they do, however, enjoy great popularity with the media, due to their sensationalistic aspect. ;)
I agree, but i'm gonna be gutted if the effects are a major factor in our transience :oQuote:
Originally posted by ilw+8 December 2003 - 15:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw @ 8 December 2003 - 15:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@6 December 2003 - 21:33
that the effects are as transient as our presence here.
Personally i'm a believer, after the amount of scientific debate and data gathering that has occured, I think i'm on safe ground siding with the large majority of researchers in saying that we are having an significant impact on the climate of our planet. I'll just cross my fingers that we (and by that i mean you :P ) don't leave it too late, i'm hoping a few more record breaking weather years may provide the impetus. [/b][/quote]
An Asteroid is going to make a bigger "significant impact" than humans ever will, so don't worry about it.
...and don't think it won't happen, it will, it is as inevitable as night following day...
<_<
Fair point I can't prove it, but the UN backs me up:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)
World Meteorological Organisation (WMO)
Their expert panels all agree (but they're all run by the UN so...)
I'm gonna see if i can find any other worldwide organisations to back up my claim, but i gotta go home now so i'll leave it till tomorrow.
I haven't checked them out but if www.worldwatch.org and the wwf agree then I think thats all the big worldwide organisations.
Quote:
Causes of Global Warming
The causes of global warming are generally not in dispute. What is in dispute is the question of what the major causes of global warming are. The following things have an effect on the earth's temperature:
The trapping of heat by greenhouse gases (greenhouse effect)
Variation in the output of the sun (solar variation)
Reflectivity of the earth's surface (see deforestation)
...
Some of these causes are human in origin, such as deforestation. Others are natural, such as solar variation. The greenhouse effect includes both human causes, such as the burning of fossil fuel, and natural causes, such as volcanic emissions.
The greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is the trapping of some solar radiation by a planet's atmosphere, specifically by greenhouse gases, increasing the temperature on and near the surface. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be about 14-36K cooler.
The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased in recent years, and many scientists believe that the greenhouse effect is the major cause of recent global warming.
The solar variation theory
In 1991, Knud Lassen of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen and his colleague Eigil Friis-Christensen found a strong correlation between the length of the solar cycle and temperature changes throughout the northern hemisphere. Initially, they used sunspot and temperature measurements from 1861 to 1989, but later found that climate records dating back four centuries supported their findings. This relationship appeared to account for nearly 80 per cent of the measured temperature changes over this period (see graph). Sallie Baliunas, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has been among the supporters of the theory that changes in the sun "can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming." [http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...ningSuni.html] On May 6, 2000, however, New Scientist magazine reported that Lassen and astrophysicist Peter Thejll had updated Lassen's 1991 research and found that while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 °C since 1980. "The curves diverge after 1980," Thejll said, "and it's a startlingly large deviation. Something else is acting on the climate. ... It has the fingerprints of the greenhouse effect."[http://archive.newscientist.com/secu...g16622370.800] Later that same year, Peter Stott and other researchers at the Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom published a paper in which they reported on the most comprehensive model simulations to date of the climate of the 20th century. Their study looked at both natural forcing agents (solar variations and volcanic emissions) as well as anthropogenic forcing (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols). Like Lassen and Thejll, they found that the natural factors accounted for gradual warming to about 1960 followed by a return to late 19th-century temperatures, consistent with the gradual change in solar forcing throughout the 20th century and volcanic activity during the past few decades. These factors alone, however, could not account for the warming in recent decades. Similarly, anthropogenic forcing alone was insufficient to explain the 1910-1945 warming, but was necessary to simulate the warming since 1976. Stott's team found that combining all of these factors enabled them to closely simulate global temperature changes throughout the 20th century. They predicted that continued greenhouse gas emissions would cause additional future temperature increases "at a rate similar to that observed in recent decades."A [ of the relationship between natural and anthropogenic factors contributing to climate change appears in "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis," a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm>http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig12-7.htm graphical representation of the relationship between natural and anthropogenic factors contributing to climate change appears in "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis," a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm]
Consequences of Global Warming
Many researchers predict disastrous consequences for a warming of 1.5 to 7 degrees celsius.
If warming continues at the present rate, it may result in changes in ocean circulation, catastrophic global climate change, loss of biodiversity and irreversible damage to agriculture in those ecoregions most affected. In some regions, e.g. Western Europe, Bangladesh, damage is projected to be extreme, due to loss of Gulf Stream warming and global sea level rise respectively. More frequent bouts of destructive weather are also anticipated, and risk experts in the insurance industry have expressed very strong concerns, advocating a proactive approach based on the precautionary principle. Estimates accepted by the IPCC and by some insurance industry bodies estimate up to 3.5 billion people could be affected by rising disease, loss of fresh water supply, and other impacts.
Many public policy organizations and government officials are concerned that the current warming has the potential for harm to the environment and agriculture.
This is a matter of considerable controversy, with environmentalist groups typically emphasizing the possible dangers and groups close to industry questioning the climate models and consequences of global warming - and funding scientists to do so.
Due to potential effects on human health and economy due to the impact on the environment, global warming is the cause of great concern. Some important environmental changes have been observed and linked to global warming.
The examples of secondary evidence cited above (lessened snow cover, rising sea levels, weather changes) are examples of consequences of global warming that may influence not only human activities but also the ecosystems. Increasing global temperature means that ecosystems may change; some species may be forced out of their habitats (possibly to extinction) because of changing conditions, while others may spread. Few of the terrestrial ecoregions on Earth could expect to be unaffected.
Another cause of great concern is sea level rise.
Sea levels are rising 1 to 2 centimetres (around half an inch) per decade, and some small countries in the Pacific Ocean are expressing concerns that if this rise in sea level continues, they soon will be entirely under water.
Global warming causes the sea level to rise mainly because sea water expands as it warms, but some scientists are concerned that in the future, the polar ice caps and glaciers may melt.
As a consequence, the sea level could rise several metres.
At the moment, scientists are not expecting any major ice melting in the next 100 years.
(Sources: IPCC for the data and the mass media for the general perception that climate change is important.) Some researchers have found a negative correlation between sea level rise and average global temperature; water evaporates more quickly than it expands.
(Source: Science and Environmental Policy Project) As the climate gets hotter, evaporation will increase.
This will cause heavier rainfall and more erosion.
Many people think that it could result in more extreme weather as global warming progresses.
Global warming can also have other, less obvious effects.
The North Atlantic drift, for instance, is driven by temperature changes.
It seems as though it is diminishing as the climate grows warmer, and this means that areas like Scandinavia and Britain that are warmed by the drift might face a colder climate in spite of the general global warming. It is now feared that Global Warming may be able to trigger the type of abrupt massive temperature shifts which bracketed the Younger Dryas period.
However, global warming can also have positive effects, since higher temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations improve the ecosystems' productivity.
Satellite data shows that the productivity of the Northern Hemisphere has increased since 1982.
On the other hand, an increase in the total amount of biomass produced is not necessarily all good, since biodiversity can still decrease even though a small number of species are flourishing.
Similarly, from the human economic viewpoint, an increase in total biomass but a decrease in crop harvests would be a net disadvantage. In addition, IPCC models predict that higher CO2 concentrations would only spur growth of flora up to a point; after that, though greenhouse effects and warming would continue there would be no compensatory increase in growth.
Other researchers (a small minority), feel that up to 1.5 degrees Centrigade of warming would increase crop yields and stabilize weather; many of these doubt a larger warming is likely. In response, some advocates of strong early measures (well beyond Kyoto) note that the belief in beneficial effects and the doubt that a large warming is possible should be independent if these conclusions were in fact neutrally derived from scientific research, rather than being optimistically driven by ideology or oil money.
Others go somewhat further and indicate that anyone who believes that to "wait and see," potentially disadvantaging 3.5 billion people to seek narrow advantage in a few growing regions in developed nations, or wait for "technological fixes," amounts to a declaration of war on the entire planet's population. They argue that long before any northern nation, e.g. Russia, Canada, would enjoy greater crop yields, the developed nations would be exterminated by biological warfare or other weapons of mass destruction launched by groups easily recruited from the most drastically affected world populations. This is of course a political not a scientific argument for action.
Actions in response to Global Warming
In opposition to action stand the fossil fuel industry and skeptics, who oppose immediate action to mitigate Global Warming. They argue that crippling industry and infrastructure to prevent an unconfirmed ecological catastrophe does not make economic sense and that healthy economies are required to fund technologically innovative solutions, as required by the UNFCCC. President G. W. Bush, made this argument in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. Bush did not reject the science outright, and argued that the greenhouse gas control was a matter of voluntary restraint by industry. Many U.S. states have nonetheless put strong controls on greenhouse gases.
The Kyoto Protocol
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) establishes a process for developing an international response to the perceived global warming problem. 181 countries have ratified the UNFCCC, including all industrial nations.
The UNFCCC, however, does not provide any binding emission targets.
The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC proposes binding greenhouse gas limits for developed countries. It has been ratified by 104 countries, representing 43.9% of emissions. Developed countries are required to limit their emissions to, on average, 5.2% below 1990 levels: 29% below pre-Kyoto estimates for 2010. The precise amounts vary from an 8% reduction for the European Union to a permitted increase of 10% for Iceland. Controversially, developing countries, including India and China, are exempted from reductions until they become sufficiently industrialised.
Because global warming is a "tragedy of the commons" problem, the Kyoto Protocol will not take effect until 90 days after countries responsible for over 55% of emissions ratify it. This will occur when Russia ratifies it. The United States, responsible for one-third of emissions of greenhouse, has signed the Kyoto Protocol, but does not intend to ratify it.
See also: Global warming potential, Carbon sequestration, Impact of global climate changes on agriculture
External Links & References
Every source has a point of view or a sponsor which might be a source of bias.
If you discover evidence for bias or a major source of its funding, please include it in the site's description.
Scientific websites:
NASA's Global Hydrology and Climate Center
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA, US Department of Commerce
United Nations websites:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by WMO and UNEP (below) in 1988
http://www.wmo.ch -- the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
http://www.unep.org/ -- the United Nations Environment Programme
http://unfccc.int/ -- the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC)
IPCC report: summary for policy makers, (2001) (pdf file)
IPCC report: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis -- Technical Summaries (pdf file)
Environmentalist websites:
http://www.greenpeace.org/ -- Greenpeace
http://www.panda.org/climate/ -- the Worldwide Wildlife Fund (WWF)
http://www.worldwatch.org/about -- Worldwatch Institute
Industry-sponsored (even in part):
http://www.cei.org -- the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Access to Energy
CO2 science magazine
http://www.junkscience.com -- PR Watch says, "Steven Milloy's website is actually a good example of junk science itself, heaping adolescent insults on any and all scientists (ranging from Samuel Epstein to the New England Journal of Medicine) who fail to defend the corporate, anti-environmentalist worldview." (Source: [http://www.prwatch.org/links/science.html>http://www.ipcc.ch -- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by WMO and UNEP (below) in 1988
http://www.wmo.ch -- the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
http://www.unep.org/ -- the United Nations Environment Programme
http://unfccc.int/ -- the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC)
IPCC report: summary for policy makers, (2001) (pdf file)
IPCC report: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis -- Technical Summaries (pdf file)
Environmentalist websites:
http://www.greenpeace.org/ -- Greenpeace
http://www.panda.org/climate/ -- the Worldwide Wildlife Fund (WWF)
http://www.worldwatch.org/about -- Worldwatch Institute
Industry-sponsored (even in part):
http://www.cei.org -- the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Access to Energy
CO2 science magazine
http://www.junkscience.com -- PR Watch says, "Steven Milloy's website is actually a good example of junk science itself, heaping adolescent insults on any and all scientists (ranging from Samuel Epstein to the New England Journal of Medicine) who fail to defend the corporate, anti-environmentalist worldview." (Source: [http://www.prwatch.org/links/science.html])
Independent (or receives too little support to constitute "sponsorship"):
Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical environmentalist, (2001) ISBN 0521010683. After investigating his book and his other work, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, a panel of eminent scientists, found him guilty of "scientific dishonesty.">[, analysis of industry efforts to discredit global warming science, by Bob Burton and Sheldon Rampton, published in the Earth Island Journal.
Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001 -- Lindzen is a professor at MIT
http://www.sepp.org/ -- the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
BBC News summary of climate change
Other websites (viewpoint or sponsorship unknown):
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org
http://www.globalwarming.org
http://www.theclimate.info
Source
Same source...Quote:
Public controversy continues to surround the hypothesis that human activities are contributing to significant global warming. A small number of scientists with backgrounds in climate research -- notably S. Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso and Richard S. Lindzen -- dispute the theory (see global warming skepticism). Also, a number of industry-backed organizations (including the Global Climate Coalition, the Greening Earth Society and Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project have claimed that the theory is fraudulent or unproven.
Same source....Quote:
The proportion of scientists who support or oppose any of the various global warming theories is a matter of controversy in its own right. Environmentalists and their allies claim virtually unanimous support for the global warming theory from the scientific community. Opponents maintain that it is the other way around, claiming that the overwhelming majority of scientists either dismiss global warming altogether or merely consider it "unproven" (see global warming skepticism).
Considering something unproven does not mean you dismiss something... in my opinion the environmentalists win that arguement. :P
This about sums it up.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@8 December 2003 - 13:36
in my opinion...
My opinion is different.
Rat-
Your post was very long, and to my way of thinking, probably comprehensive and exhaustively thorough and persuasive to someone who heretofore had no opinion.
I scanned it pretty closely, but found no organizations that were not either part of the U.N. or of a suspect agenda, in my opinion.
Any organization can purport to be fair-minded and then proceed to solicit opinions which support an agenda they say they do not have.
Greenpeace is an example; I don't think anyone could, in conscience, say they don't have an agenda.
Again-my opinion only; I refuse to jump off the cliff of "opinion" cloaked as having been sanctioned by a non-existent majority or morality.
Believe it or not, scientific "opinion" is bought, sold and negotiated just as every other commodity, and you should beware of buying into these ideologies merely because some supposedly altruistic organization says "it is so, we have scientists who have proven it!"
If you extend the skepticism with which you view the U.S. into other areas, you'd be better off.
j2k4...
Would you think anyone that doesnt vote automatically agree's with a certain party? and that vote should be awarded to that party?
I said in my opinion that considering something as unproven does not make it something to dismiss....if you do not agree with this then you must be a "Bleeding Heart Liberal", afterall the same argument is used to keep people in custody prior to a trial... Its not proven, but we cant dismiss it...
In this case the charge has been read, we're waiting for the trial...
The source i posted from was not a UN organisation, and included evidence of the US government and the view of the organisations against the evidence, it was trying very hard not to be biased...if you look at the source near the bottom it rewrites again and again to try and eliminate bias prior to including it.
I have yet to see any evidence posted by yourself or any other that dismiss Global warming, except "Your Opinion".....at least we're trying to find evidence.
Possibly this is because all your websites belong to organisations funded by Industry?
PS.
NASA is a UN organisation? with an Agenda :blink:
as an exapmle :P
Not everyone that disagrees with your views has an "Agenda"
Rat-Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@8 December 2003 - 14:25
I have yet to see any evidence posted by yourself or any other that dismiss Global warming, except "Your Opinion".....at least we're trying to find evidence.
Possibly this is because all your websites belong to organisations funded by Industry?
PS.
NASA is a UN organisation? with an Agenda :blink:
as an exapmle :P
Not everyone that disagrees with your views has an "Agenda"
I have not got, nor do I refer to, any websites.
You would have me offer up something (a website) in which I place no credibility, to refute another website I regard as suspect.
I guess my point is that I don't regard "websites" as repositories of truth, no matter who sponsors them, and I regard the offering of them and/or their content as a vain and futile exercise-that is to say that I don't think the fact of your or my or anybody else's having googled, read or digested them to lend them any credibility whatsoever.
In any case, NASA's presence in your post was, to say the least, overwhelmed by the other organizations mentioned.
Out of curiousity j2, if your opinions are not based on information gathered on the web, and you dismiss out of hand those sources that support an opposing viewpoint...then where is your information coming from?
I read, as everyone else does, then apply what I already know, try to imagine what I might not know, use such common-sense as I can muster, smear a little logic on it, look at it through the lenses of several pairs of jaundice- and rose-colored glasses I keep on hand for just this purpose, and come to a conclusion.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@8 December 2003 - 15:12
Out of curiousity j2, if your opinions are not based on information gathered on the web, and you dismiss out of hand those sources that support an opposing viewpoint...then where is your information coming from?
I generally conclude it is either all bull/horse shit or a close derivative. ;)
Oh....your looking at it politically, my mistake.
I'll try and reduce the number of Science posts, and start on the economic :P
Someone once said - common sense is the sum of the prejudices we gather during our life. It may have been me, I'm not sure.
It is interesting how this discussion is so polarised. Either mankind is destroying the planet in an ever increasing orgy of greenhouse gasses, tree murders and so forth. Or we are so insignificant that whatever we do will effect the environment not one jot.
I as ever take the middle of the road position and say. Billy Dean is probably right. Why not clean up our mess anyway. Worst case scenario we have a cleaner, more efficient world. If we have to sacrifice some wealth, resulting in major job losses and poverty, then it is a price we have to pay.
It honestly isn't that easy to change the infra-structure of major industries and economies without serious ramifications. These may result in the industries failing, or having to restructure, or cut costs elsewhere, which normally means people.
I am serious when I say Billy is probably right and we should clean our act up, it can't be a bad thing. However there are two sides to the discussion. There are consequences, am I the only person willing to see both sides ?
Reasonable of Glasgow.
I agree with Billy as well. Unfortunately our politicians live in the moment. None are willing to be hated in their time and appreciated long after their deaths.Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@8 December 2003 - 21:10
Someone once said - common sense is the sum of the prejudices we gather during our life. It may have been me, I'm not sure.
It is interesting how this discussion is so polarised. Either mankind is destroying the planet in an ever increasing orgy of greenhouse gasses, tree murders and so forth. Or we are so insignificant that whatever we do will effect the environment not one jot.
I as ever take the middle of the road position and say. Billy Dean is probably right. Why not clean up our mess anyway. Worst case scenario we have a cleaner, more efficient world. If we have to sacrifice some wealth, resulting in major job losses and poverty, then it is a price we have to pay.
It honestly isn't that easy to change the infra-structure of major industries and economies without serious ramifications. These may result in the industries failing, or having to restructure, or cut costs elsewhere, which normally means people.
I am serious when I say Billy is probably right and we should clean our act up, it can't be a bad thing. However there are two sides to the discussion. There are consequences, am I the only person willing to see both sides ?
Reasonable of Glasgow.
This is one of the inherent problems in a 4 year term versus King for life. I have been calling for a "benevolant King" for quite some time, now.
They certainly aren't likely to be popular with the large industries, supporting small business, employees and communities which their changing policies may effect.
These things can have a ripple effect way beyond the big business which people see as the enemy. As you know they do not stand (or fall) alone.
If the butterfly in the rain-forest can cause the hurricane, the hurricane can certainly effect any butterflies it meets.
Like J'Pol I take a more middling view.
As I am unfortunately old enough to remember the 60s and 70s (well parts of them at least) :rolleyes: I consider the world to be somewhat cleaner now than it was then. I appreciate that this is not the case everywhere and that there is some way to go on certain pollutants. However, if I had a choice of falling in the Clyde now or back in the 60s I would without hestitation choose now (although not in December as hypothermia has no respect for clean water).
A lot of the work is self financing though...although there is an initial cost, the savings pay for themselves in the medium term; such as heat recovery systems. These reduce the amount of power that is needed, as the heat generated by process's is used as a power source in its own right.
Then there Carbon Dumps.........who the hell objects to planting forests on land that is being subsidiced to remain un-cropped?
I could understand the arguments if the technology to meet the targets wasnt already available, and in the medium to long term actually beneficial to industry at large.
Not all instances of course, as was hilighted earlier....if Industry implements changes just to have the goalposts moved, they will fight and i wouldnt blame them.
Its the "Heads up their Arse" attitude i dont understand.
Rat Face
I think they are simply comfortable in that position :blink:
The big difficulty is as ever short-termism. The long term financial benefits may be ok but this year's financial report and price earnings ratios may look depressed.
Coupled in with this is the fear that the competitors will take short cuts. However, quite how they can look over their shoulders with their heads firmly implanted is beyond me.
Does that mean you're putting the United Nations in the same category as tree hugging hippies? Yes, hard as it may seem, I too hate extreamist environmentalists (but greatly admire their commitment).Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@8 December 2003 - 18:07
I scanned it pretty closely, but found no organizations that were not either part of the U.N. or of a suspect agenda, in my opinion.
And, am I correct in the understanding that you believe we (humans) are going to have AN effect on the planet Earth, so global warming may as well be it? I've noticed this idea mooted in the thread.
Let's see if I can get this across:
I am for preserving our environment, including the rain forest.
I am for cleaning up the messes we have made, and that we can clean up.
I am in favor of requiring businesses to have realistic, effective, redundant pollution controls.
I am in favor of punishing those industries, businesses and individuals who transgress against the environment.
However:
I am not in favor of restricting business or industry merely on the "chance" it may harm the environment, or the idea some agenda-driven group "thinks" it might.
Unless it can be proven conclusively to be the case, then these organizations ought to stand down.
I am in favor of a "world public" developing an aversion to inflammatory and subversive environmentalist rhetoric.
I think "environmental terrorists" should be treated the same way as Al Qaeda, not honored for their "commitment".
Hope that clears a few things up.
As an aside: the Mississippi River delta, and it's inherent natural structuring (upon which the city of New Orleans is built) is, as a matter of natural course, changing in ways that put the survival of New Orleans at risk.
Would taking steps to save the city be wrong?
Would taking steps to preserve the delta be wrong?
While I'm at it:
Should Venice, Italy be preserved or not?
Opinions?
Quote:
US President George W Bush has been told by leading scientists that climate change is real and getting worse.
Their White House-commissioned report is now being reviewed by the president as he prepares to face European leaders angered by his attack on the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
A panel from the National Academy of Sciences said a leading cause is emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Correspondents say this could put pressure on the administration to shift its position on global warming.
"Temperatures are, in fact, rising," the panel warned. "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the report said.
It warned that "national policy decisions made now and in the longer-term future will influence the extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and ecosystems later in this century".
Info on the NAS, their 'agenda' seems (imho) to be to look at the scientific evidence:
Quote:
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is the president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer. The Academy membership is comprised of approximately 2,000 members and 300 foreign associates, of whom more than 180 have won Nobel Prizes.
from BBC news website but they don''t back it up.Quote:
Most mainstream scientists believe that human activity - notably emissions of greenhouse gases - has contributed to a significant increase in the average surface temperature of the planet.
Clearly i still can't show that a large majority are of the opinion that we're affecting the environment, because I can't find any surveys. However, i haven't seen any scientific bodies that have published reports that go against it and i'd be willing to put money on it being at least a majority of researchers who believe.
Yes we should try and preserve them.
Same we should want to preserve the Low Countries and Oceanic Island Nations.
Is this wrong?
I love the way that some dont want to do anything until there is conclusive proof, by which time its way too late.
However, saving New Orleans from the Mississippi, and having it drownd in the Mexican Gulf appears to be indicative...
By the way, what proportion of USA's major cities are on the coast, and/or under sea level? When are you going to think about saving them? What will the Sea Defences Cost?
In Europe for the last 10 years, there is unprecedented flooding...why not ask the Insurance/Governmental Agencies how much this is costing? Just for starters....
Okay, try this:
From the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change-
Great Lakes Ice Cover
Volume 6, Number 16: 16 April 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few days ago, we came across a news report from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune entitled "Greenhouse effect may make Minnesota into Kansas." As the former of these states had been home to several generations of our ancestors, we were naturally curious to learn about its impending transformation, so we read on.
All sorts of bad things were prophesied. Hence, we were not surprised to learn that the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) had organized the study on which the story was based and had also raised the money for it. Nevertheless, we went to their web site to learn more.
At the UCS website we were greeted by a press release stating "Global Warming Will Alter Character of Great Lakes Region." One of the predicted changes that caught our collective eye was the claim there would be less winter ice cover of the lakes within the region as the area warmed. Turning to the actual report upon which the press release was based (Kling et al., 2003), we found this was indeed what was predicted, although with respect to recorded reality, the authors stated that "in the Great Lakes themselves, the extent of ice cover has been highly variable from 1963 to the present with no long-term trend [our italics]." Nevertheless, they promoted the notion of declining winter ice cover by stating immediately thereafter that "in recent years the Great Lakes have had little ice cover."
Determined to dig a bit deeper into this latter claim, we turned to the study of Assel et al. (2003) -- which was not referenced by Kling et al. -- to see if there was any evidence for this assertion. For Lakes Michigan, Huron and Ontario, there was none; winter ice cover at the end of the measurement period was essentially the same as it was at the beginning. Lakes Superior and Erie, on the other hand, did show a bit of a decline in winter ice cover. However, in the following and most recent winter (2002) -- data for which were not available when the paper of Assel et al. was written but were subsequently reported on the Internet by the Canadian Ice Service -- Lakes Superior and Erie, as well as Lake Huron, experienced 100% ice cover, as noted by Reuters and CBC News on 11 March 2003 and by CNN and the London Free Press News on 12 March 2003.
So how unusual is it for Lakes Superior, Huron and Erie to freeze over completely? And in the same year?
In carefully inspecting the data presentations of Assel et al., it appears that in addition to 2002, prior complete freeze-overs of Lake Erie occurred in 1998, 1997, 1979, 1978 and 1977. Lake Superior, on the other hand, froze over completely only twice before, in 1996 and 1979; while Lake Huron never completely froze over during the prior period of time stretching all the way back to 1963. In addition, the data reveal that only once before have two of these three Great Lakes ever experienced 100% ice cover in the same year (1979); and never before, in the period from 1963 to the present, have all three of them completely frozen over in the same year.
Of course, one incredibly anomalous year does not define a trend. But it can sure raise havoc with the status quo or any prior weak trend. Hence, much more data will clearly be required before we can say with any confidence what the long-term future will hold for the climate of the Great Lakes region, although that fact appears to be no impediment to those intent on scaring the people of the world into believing they must act now, and in heroic fashion, to prevent catastrophic consequences.
The senior author of the Union of Concerned Scientists study, for example, is quoted in that organization's press release of 8 April 2003 as saying that the people of the Great Lakes region need to "reduce the amount of fossil fuels [they] burn to produce electricity and drive [their] cars," while another of the authors (a staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists) says that "waiting 10 or more years to reduce emissions will increase the eventual severity, expense, and likelihood of irreversible losses," which, she adds, would be "a terrible legacy to leave our children and grandchildren."
It is amazing that such great ills can be so emotionally projected on the basis of so little firm data.
Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
References
Assel, R., Cronk, K. and Norton, D. 2003. Recent trends in Laurentian Great Lakes ice cover. Climatic Change 57: 185-204.
Kling, G.W., Hayhoe, K., Johnson, L.B., Magnuson, J.J., Polasky, S., Robinson, S.K., Shuter, B.J., Wander, M.M., Wuebbles, D.J., Zak, D.R., Lindroth, R.L., Moser, S.C. and Wilson, M.L. 2003. Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region: Impacts on our Communities and Ecosystems. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA, and Ecological Society of America, Washington, DC.
I've watched and experienced this phenomenon.
I have personal anecdotal evidence which I deem sufficient to counter any claims of global warming; Lake Superior is about 150 feet from me as I type this.
I should accede the possibility that this fearsome "Global" concern may somehow be skipping over me, but, hey, if the PC assholes have, in their quest to turn language on it's head, deemed that the term "global" has acquired a "spottiness" it didn't possess previously, I must have missed that, too.
Rat-
If we act to save New Orleans and/or Venice or any other coastal cities, we would be interfering with the "natural" course of events, not to mention risking massive violations of "Wetlands" legislation.
How do you propose we work around these difficulties?
Firstly, what on earth is a "world public"?!Quote:
I am in favor of a "world public" developing an aversion to inflammatory and subversive environmentalist rhetoric.
I think "environmental terrorists" should be treated the same way as Al Qaeda, not honored for their "commitment".
And I can't believe that what you call "environmental terrorists" should be treated the same way as Al Qaeda!!
Have you ever seen an environmentalist killing people?!!
Ask a logger about the joys of discovering a spiked tree....Quote:
Originally posted by Sparkle1984@9 December 2003 - 08:58
Have you ever seen an environmentalist killing people?!!
Sparkle-Quote:
Originally posted by Sparkle1984@9 December 2003 - 11:58
Firstly, what on earth is a "world public"?!Quote:
I am in favor of a "world public" developing an aversion to inflammatory and subversive environmentalist rhetoric.
I think "environmental terrorists" should be treated the same way as Al Qaeda, not honored for their "commitment".
And I can't believe that what you call "environmental terrorists" should be treated the same way as Al Qaeda!!
Have you ever seen an environmentalist killing people?!!
Absent a long track record of popular usage, what would you imagine my newly coined term World Public to mean?
Are you without mental capacity or imagination or something?
Hey-if the PC people can do it, so can I.
Welcome to MY New World Order.
Re: your statement about equating enviro-terrorists with Al Qaeda:
Yes, you heard me right-OFF WITH THEIR FUCKIN'HEADS!
A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.
Its interesting that the lake froze over implying that the water temp must have been low despite what that says. Global warming doesn't always mean warmer temperatures and drier weather, it means changes in weather patterns and an on average increase.Quote:
Global warming has had a surprising impact on the Great Lakes region of the U.S. – more snow. A comparative study of snowfall records in and outside of the Great Lakes region indicated a significant increase in snowfall in the Great Lakes region since the 1930s but no such increase in non-Great Lakes areas.
...
Syracuse, NY, one of the snowiest cities in the U.S., experienced four of its largest snowfalls on record in the 1990s – the warmest decade in the 20th century, ...
“Recent increases in the water temperature of the Great Lakes are consistent with global warming,” said Burnett. “Such increases widen the gap between water temperature and air temperature – the ideal condition for snowfall.”
The research team compared snowfall records from fifteen weather stations within the Great Lakes region with ten stations at sites outside of the region. Records dating back to 1931 were available for eight of the lake-effect and six of the non-lake-effect areas. Records for the rest of the sample date back to 1950.
“We found a statistically significant increase in snowfall in the lake-effect region since 1931, but no such increase in the non-lake-effect area during the same period,” said Burnett. “This leads us to believe that recent increases in lake-effect snowfall are not the result of changes in regional weather disturbances.”
On the subject of ice
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/182500...283_ice150.jpg
Quote:
Originally posted by various
The sea level along the coast of Maine has risen 30-50 cm since 1750 A.D. and along the coast of Nova Scotia as much as 60 cm.
"In some glaciers, like the South Cascade Glacier in Washington ... the present rate of melting is greater than it ever has been for the last 5,000 years."
* Arctic temperatures during the late 20th century appear to have been the warmest in 400 years.
* Satellite data suggest that the extent of snow cover has declined by 10 percent since the late 1960s.
* Since the 1950s, the extent of northern hemisphere spring and summer sea-ice decreased by about 10 to 15 percent, and researchers have measured a decline of roughly 40 percent in the thickness of Arctic sea-ice during late summer and early autumn during the past several decades.
* Since the 1950s, Alaska has warmed by an average of 4 degrees Fahrenheit.
* Pine Island Glacier, part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, thinned by up to 1.6 meters (5.2 feet) per year between 1992 and 1999.
It is also noteworthy that Mother Nature doesn't read these studies or consult these scientists before she has her way.Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@9 December 2003 - 12:22
Its interesting that the lake froze over implying that the water temp must have been low despite what that says. Global warming doesn't always mean warmer temperatures and drier weather, it means changes in weather patterns. Note also that what they're arguing against is a speculative newspaper article and a hypothesis for a paper.
ilw and all the rest of you:
We could bang on about this until the impending Ice Age.
I move that we agree to disagree.
I don't mind that you disagree, but "however-many" against "one" is tiring, and I would like to do other things with the little time we have left than debate this any further.
I'll settle for the draw.
fine with me, I'll just keep my fingers crossed for some sort of sanctions / a change of government (opinion) across the pond.
Sorry, I'm a reasonable man, but you cannot have that.Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@9 December 2003 - 17:22
Global warming doesn't always mean warmer temperatures and drier weather, it means changes in weather patterns and an on average increase.
I will allow you to twist logic, but that is just preposterous and quite frankly beyond the pale.
Now do the decent thing and apologise to everyone who read the above sentence and recoiled in horror.
Quote:
If we act to save New Orleans and/or Venice or any other coastal cities, we would be interfering with the "natural" course of events, not to mention risking massive violations of "Wetlands" legislation.
How do you propose we work around these difficulties?
Oh, you think im an environmentalist...
Sorry to disappoint, but New Orleans etc comes way above "Wetlands" in my priorities.
I just dont want to wade to work every morning, and am willing to come out of my comfort zone to some extent so i dont have to do this in my old age ;)
Would flooding in New Orleans reach as far as Newcastle. :blink:
That puts a whole new perspective on it. Everyone switch of your computers, televisions, fridges, freezers and all electrical apparatus. We must conserve energy or the world is doo............
:P
Rat-Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@9 December 2003 - 15:29
Quote:
If we act to save New Orleans and/or Venice or any other coastal cities, we would be interfering with the "natural" course of events, not to mention risking massive violations of "Wetlands" legislation.
How do you propose we work around these difficulties?
Oh, you think im an environmentalist...
Sorry to disappoint, but New Orleans etc comes way above "Wetlands" in my priorities.
I just dont want to wade to work every morning, and am willing to come out of my comfort zone to some extent so i dont have to do this in my old age ;)
How could you think that of me?
To call you or anyone an environmentalist would be beyond me.
I think you are just as crass as I am, and I mean that sincerely. :)
Then again, there are some cities on the planet that probably should be submerged.
:ninja:
Very true.Quote:
Originally posted by MagicNakor@11 December 2003 - 03:25
Then again, there are some cities on the planet that probably should be submerged.
:ninja:
A poll, perhaps? :huh: