Appeasement policy towards climate change

[Skybird]

The release of the second of four IPCC reports is imminent.

However, one is wondering about this detail in proceeding:
while the reports have been written by scientists and experts in their field, now a conference of political representatives is already cutting, editing and censoring it and tries to soften up the summary for policymakers. the cuts are severe, for example the report's conclusion that a raise in in temperature by merely 1.5-2.5 degree will lead to the extinction of 25-30% of the globe's botanical and zoological species is about to be not mentioned in the "corrected" version. Also, calculations about the financial and economical costs/damages, according to political delegates, should not be mentioned in the final version that is to be released to the public.

One is wondering why politicians can consider themselves to be more expert in scientific fields than scientists themselves who took together the data.

The delegate from Belgium compared the conference now to the conference of Munich in 1938. He said like in 1938 now is the time to decide wether one want to act, or not. His reminder of the appeasement policy wins in relevance when considering this political censoring of a scientific report taking place even before it got released.

http://www.welt.de/politik/article797233/Konferenz_schwaecht_entscheidende_Passagen_ab.html


It also is not surprising who are the loudest voices to prevent the grim parts of the report being published: it is the US, Saudi Arabia, India, and China. All of them have high interests in preventing anything that could hinder their selling of oil, buying of oil, consuming of oil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6532323.stm

All in all the report concludes that the poor of the world will be hit the worst by climate change. It is also pointed out that this report is not depending on assumptions on the future on the basis of models anymore, but on observed empirical data.

[Letum]

Climate change might turn out to be mankind's greatest ever tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons).

The IPCC reports will be no surprise. It will naturally reflect only the lowest common denominator of climate change views

[Skybird]

This is not so much an issue of lowest common denominator of "views" (which implies that all "views" at least have a comparable level of expertise, which in this example clearly is not the case). This is an issue of inudstrial interests suppressing scientific data, lobby demands censoring experts knoweldge.

[Bertgang]

I'm not surprised.

Environmental care requires a long run wiew.
Most of politicians haven't this perspective; they need votes, and saying stop with a businnes or an employment isn't the best way to be voted.

[Letum]

This is not so much an issue of lowest common denominator of "views" (which implies that all "views" at least have a comparable level of expertise, which in this example clearly is not the case). This is an issue of inudstrial interests suppressing scientific data, lobby demands censoring experts knoweldge.

Well, that is what I meant by the "lowest common denominator". Its the most basic thing that everyone will agree on; the only view left after all the censorship.

[Hitman]

This is an issue of inudstrial interests suppressing scientific data, lobby demands censoring experts knoweldge.

In the short term and *may be* also in the medium term it might be of their interest doing so. Though in the long term, absolutely NOT. Those f**ng ba***ds are preparing their own grave, and also ours. :nope: Climate change and Peak Oil will mean a tsunamical change to the lives of most people in earth, and wil bring down many of the companies who are now interested in hidding them.

Sad world:down:

[STEED]

Another gravy train people, are to be a scientist. :roll:

[waste gate]

Evolution.

[tycho102]

As long as it gets us off oil and onto nuclear (with core reprocessing), I'm all for it. Regardless of whatever kind of left-wing granola nutjob fantasy it may be, I totally support global warming. The Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations, Kofi the Korrupt. All of it.

I want us off oil.

It should have been the last damn generation that got us off oil in 1974. They didn't. The issue went to Jimbo Baby Mcgibbits (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jimmy+carter+decent+nuclear+engineer+poor+presid ent&btnG=Search), and he went right along with Ford in banning reactors to "stop" proliferation. Never mind Pakistan, China, and AQ Khan -- by God, America has done it's part to stop the spread of nuclear weapon design and fission material.



So, here we are today. If it costs $15 trillion to move to nuclear energy and hydrogen in 2010, it will cost $50 trillion in 2025. That's the amount of money I estimate.

[toby66]

Two planets are chatting together in a bar:

Planet A: What's wrong with you? You don't look good.
Planet B: I'm sick and I've got a temperature. It feels so hot.
Planet A: Have you seen the doctor? What is it?
Planet B: Mankind.
Planet A: Oh, don't worry, that will go away.

:-? ;) :-?

[ASWnut101]

What, was that out of a child's book?

[TteFAboB]

The UN is a political organization, centered at and surrounded by politics. Political interference is not an exception, it's its nature.

It's interesting how the perspective we get from the future can help us understand the decisions of the past.

The report claims that Malaria will get out of control and cause millions of deaths. That's why DDT was banned back in the day. The choice was: insects or humans? They chose insects. Eliminating Malaria meant eliminating a potential source of human mass-killing. When choosing between people and anything else, you should choose anything else and preserve your life-threatening cards. For the same reason governments keep those highly mortal and epidemic diseases alive inside their labs. Then when you're faced with a contradiction in the future (why haven't you eliminated Malaria before it was too late then, as you propose we do with other things now? Do as I say and not as I do?) you can simply explain that it was no contradiction at all. It was an apparent contradiction, not a real one. It was a small price to pay to be able to have another card in your hand today, when all strength is required to be combined in order to save the planet and save mankind.

As with PETA and the dogs, as with the German activists and Knut, in order to save mankind, we must kill mankind.

[waste gate]

Despite all the handwringing and increasingly desperate hysteria, where global warming is concerned there has been a failure to force this paranoid religion onto the world. Since the Rio Conference in 1992, the greens have tried using the threat of global warming to induce Protestant guilt in us all, to cap growth, to change lifestyles, to attack the auto industry, and the Great Satan of America. They have lost. Only schoolchildren remain rich fodder willing to believe it is up to them now to Save The World, which hasn’t needed saving one iota during the last 4,000,000,000 years or it wouldn’t still be here. Now it is surely time to face the facts: there isn’t a snowflake-in-hell’s chance of global warming altering real life. But the failure of the greens is not just with the public. While playing the climate-change card at the G8 Summit, the final Gleneagles’ declaration shows that the leaders of the developed world have no intention of sacrificing growth and economic success for an ascetic global warming religion.

[Rykaird]

So I am no scientist. But I have seen a lot of data that says the world is getting warmer - the shrinking polar cap for example is striking.

The great bait and switch in this global power play, however, is causality. We know that Ice Ages are cyclical - they come and go, and then repeat. It only makes sense then that you are either heading for, or receding from, an Ice Age. If you are heading towards an Ice Age you would expect global cooling. If you are receding from an Ice Age, you would expect global warming. So this whole thing may be nothing more than a regular, sinewave like temperature trend.

You'll notice during global warming discussions, the science demonstrating causality doesn't get a lot of play. Endless proof that the world is getting warmer, but no proof that it is due to man made influences. That is just glossed over as a "given."

Here's the admittedly cynical view. First, remember that scientists live on grant money and federal programs, so if this thing takes hold, they do quite well. Remember, they are people too, not some impartial, wise, unselfish beings looking out for us. They need to advance their agenda as well.

Secondly, the EU in particular is looking for a lever to try to control the US. That's why they want to push the UN so hard as a world body. Global warming works perfectly as that lever.

So, I'm very cautious when it comes to global warming, because the folks pushing that agenda also seem to be unusually interested in the reduction of sovereignty of nations and the establishment of worldwide organizations to dictate new rules on a global basis.

[toby66]

What, was that out of a child's book?
It's funny how strong your desire is to take everything to a personnel level. Cool down, mate. It's just a forum where everyone is allowed to have his own opinion and "genre d'humour".

Well, it's true, global warming and cooling happened before. But fact is, that the natural changes happened over a much longer period than a few decades. So it's a least proven that we are fastening the process. In addition to that it's interesting to see that the warming started with the industrialisation. I don't think that this is a coincidence.

[P_Funk]

So, I'm very cautious when it comes to global warming, because the folks pushing that agenda also seem to be unusually interested in the reduction of sovereignty of nations and the establishment of worldwide organizations to dictate new rules on a global basis. I think that its very partisan to think in terms of parties pushing an agenda. I mean if someone said your house is burning down you wouldn't ask him who he voted for to validate his statement. You'd look at your bloody house and see if you needed to get the hose.

I also don't just buy the "coincidence" statement. I mean sure the world is gonna keep changing. But we are a tiny little event in the history of the world. I find it a bit too obvious that within 2 centuries of the industrial revolution the world is suddenly getting warmer fast. If the world is changing naturally then we're expediting the process in an unmanaged way. Life adapts slowly to change. The change we're bringing would see the world get 20 to 50 degrees hotter in 100 years.

The sad reality is that with global warming animal species will die, ecosystems will be changed drastically and if the polar ice caps melt then the shores of out biggest cities will be flooded. Nobody can say that "real life" isn't going to change. Thats just a naiive contrarian point of view. You also can't say that its a normal change in the earth and then say that its not a change at all. Its one or the other, but when a planet's complexion is changing its definitely gonna change things.

Lastly I reject the idea that change to the earth is natural and that we have no business fooling with it because the earth "doesn't need to be saved". I agree that the earth will go on. But what we ought to be saving is ourselves. We could destroy the balanced ecosystems of the world, starve to death, and in a million years life will still exist. But you can't ignore a change that we are expediting rapidly simply because the planet won't be as easily annihilated as the human race.

[fatty]

As long as it gets us off oil and onto nuclear (with core reprocessing), I'm all for it. Regardless of whatever kind of left-wing granola nutjob fantasy it may be, I totally support global warming. The Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations, Kofi the Korrupt. All of it.

I want us off oil.

It should have been the last damn generation that got us off oil in 1974. They didn't. The issue went to Jimbo Baby Mcgibbits (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jimmy+carter+decent+nuclear+engineer+poor+presid ent&btnG=Search), and he went right along with Ford in banning reactors to "stop" proliferation. Never mind Pakistan, China, and AQ Khan -- by God, America has done it's part to stop the spread of nuclear weapon design and fission material.



So, here we are today. If it costs $15 trillion to move to nuclear energy and hydrogen in 2010, it will cost $50 trillion in 2025. That's the amount of money I estimate.

Great points, imho. My view is that whether global climate is rising or not isn't really relevant; smog, respiratory health warnings, depleting oil reserves, and oil politics are. Even if the climate is not changing these are all very compelling reasons to cut back on fossil fuel combustion.

[Enigma]

I agree. the whole "Leave it alone, its been fine for a billion years" argument is just, I dont know, not very thoughtful. It amazes me that there is even a debate about if we are or are not damaging the planet and its respective eco-systems. Absurd. :-?

[Skybird]

Rejecting or accepting man's responsibility is not the issue. How to prevent global warning is not the question. Even how to limit it is not the question anymore.

How to survive it - that is the only question here.

It has become a simple question of life and death for me.

The world is changing. We only haggle, confused.

Have we lost all our reason? Have we ever had that? It's no meteor impact that brought us to this situation. It was ourselves - and nobody forced us.

[heartc]

It has become a simple question of life and death for me.
Get that chill pill, quick.

Have we lost all our reason? Have we ever had that? It's no meteor impact that brought us to this situation. It was ourselves - and nobody forced us.
Correct. No one forced us to stop peeing in the streets, riding horses, eating from trees and dieing from hunger or the plague. Us nasty folks. But I think the guy who first got that whole fire thing figured out in his cave is really to blame for all this.

Seriously,...nah. Would just get nasty again. Enjoy your life...

[Skybird]

Simplifications are not constructive. They prevent exactly that. And often intentionally.

[Hitman]

Even if the humans did not cause the global warming, we are contributing to accelerating it. As Skybird said, it's knocking at our door right now and it can kill us. No time for whining and pointing at the guilty ones, but instead to see what we can do to mitigate it. Time to discuss is over. Now is time to fight, no matter who started it.:yep:

[ASWnut101]

Jesus, talk about Al Gore's dream come true...:o


You people are talking like it's the end of the world. I know the planet is heating up. I can't see how we are responsible. What I can see is that if we sign the Kyoto Protocol, you can kiss western economy and possibly civilization goodbye. I belive "Scare Tactics" are the words for this.

[Skybird]

What I can see is that if we sign the Kyoto Protocol, you can kiss western economy and possibly civilization goodbye. I belive "Scare Tactics" are the words for this.

Environmental caretaking leads to kissing civilization goodbye, hear hear! :huh: I believe "Scare Tactics" are the words for this.

"Wer nicht hören will muss fühlen."

Anyhow, the American and Chinese attempts to soften up the summary conclusions obviously have been stopped the last minute, so that these information finally passed the resistance raised by these and some other nations. German environment minister Gabriel attacked the US sharply today, labelling their behavior as "scientific vandalism".

At the same time, German governemnt is betraying it's own statements - CO2 should be reduced, but instead of going for oil, solar, wind, nuclear, gas powerplants - 40 new coal powerplants are planned to be build in Germany, saying they are emitting less CO2 than older facilities (but still more than other energy forms).

If that is the standard of future dealing with climate change, we can give up right now.

[ASWnut101]

Environmental caretaking leads to kissing civilization goodbye, hear hear! :huh: I believe "Scare Tactics" are the words for this.

Think for a second: The US signs the Kyoto Protocol. This limits the amount of CO2 that factories and buisnesses can produce. The buisnesses see the fact that there is now a limit on production, and hence, wealth. They see China (whom will not give a damn about pollution, treaty signed or not) or Austrailia (they have not signed it yet) as a source of more income than the US. The buisnesses pack up and move out. Now the US is left with a weak economy because no postive-minded buisness man will see any profit from the country due to the strict limits on productivity. Our country now has to buy from these sole places, who could (and probably will) get greedy, and jack up the prices for imported goods. Now, who in the US has the money to pay for all of that? There are no truly profitable buisnesses in the country, and no real income. Don't you see it?

"Wer nicht hören will muss fühlen."

I don't speak german...

Anyhow, the American and Chinese attempts to soften up the summary conclusions obviously have been stopped the last minute, so that these information finally passed the resistance raised by these and some other nations. German environment minister Gabriel attacked the US sharply today, labelling their behavior as "scientific vandalism".

They can throw names and whine all they want. We are probably some of the only people who can see through the lies.

At the same time, German governemnt is betraying it's own statements - CO2 should be reduced, but instead of going for oil, solar, wind, nuclear, gas powerplants - 40 new coal powerplants are planned to be build in Germany, saying they are emitting less CO2 than older facilities (but still more than other energy forms).

Hipocracy from the German government? Maby they see it too, or they are like China (They don't give a darn).

If that is the standard of future dealing with climate change, we can give up right now.

Let's hope it happens, for the sake of our children.

[Skybird]

Environmental caretaking leads to kissing civilization goodbye, hear hear! :huh: I believe "Scare Tactics" are the words for this.

Think for a second: The US signs the Kyoto Protocol. This limits the amount of CO2 that factories and buisnesses can produce. The buisnesses see the fact that there is now a limit on production, and hence, wealth. They see China (whom will not give a damn about pollution, treaty signed or not) or Austrailia (they have not signed it yet) as a source of more income than the US. The buisnesses pack up and move out. Now the US is left with a weak economy because no postive-minded buisness man will see any profit from the country due to the strict limits on productivity. Our country now has to buy from these sole places, who could (and probably will) get greedy, and jack up the prices for imported goods. Now, who in the US has the money to pay for all of that? There are no truly profitable buisnesses in the country, and no real income. Don't you see it?

I see that perfectly. However, your attitude is no answer. You think, if the others don't play ball, then we don't do it, too. result: NOTHING will ever be done. If some nations step forward and try to do something, it may work as an example for others to follow (which at the latest necessarily will happen when the costs of ignorring the needs of changing ourselves outweight the profits gained by staying like we are, and start to severly paralyse the freedom of acting of the state). By that, guarantees are not given, but our chances are better that some thing will be done. No other nation (including china) emits so much CO2 like the US. That brings the US into a special responsebility of setting examples.

Maybe you forgot, but you can't breath neither money, nor CO2. And when you see your kids suffering from environment-related diseases and allergies, you maybe will rethink your priorities.

"Wer nicht hören will muss fühlen."

I don't speak german...
A saying. It means something like "who does not want to listen, must learn by suffering the pain."

They can throw names and whine all they want. We are probably some of the only people who can see through the lies.

Exactly the opposite, you produce them by metric tons per day. The amount of distorting scientifc data and ignoring unwelcomed news is breathtaking and absolutely unique in the world. It it enrages more and more antions as well as private people worldwide. But you are feeling safe behind two oceans, so don't mind.

At the same time, German governemnt is betraying it's own statements - CO2 should be reduced, but instead of going for oil, solar, wind, nuclear, gas powerplants - 40 new coal powerplants are planned to be build in Germany, saying they are emitting less CO2 than older facilities (but still more than other energy forms).

Hipocracy from the German government? Maby they see it too, or they are like China (They don't give a darn).

Even China showed more flexibility in the end, during the final conference yesterday, than America.


If that is the standard of future dealing with climate change, we can give up right now.

Let's hope it happens, for the sake of our children.

You contradict your former statements here. You do your best to guarantee ongoing damage - but then hope for the best...???

[fatty]

Think for a second: The US signs the Kyoto Protocol. This limits the amount of CO2 that factories and buisnesses can produce. The buisnesses see the fact that there is now a limit on production, and hence, wealth. They see China (whom will not give a damn about pollution, treaty signed or not) or Austrailia (they have not signed it yet) as a source of more income than the US. The buisnesses pack up and move out. Now the US is left with a weak economy because no postive-minded buisness man will see any profit from the country due to the strict limits on productivity. Our country now has to buy from these sole places, who could (and probably will) get greedy, and jack up the prices for imported goods. Now, who in the US has the money to pay for all of that? There are no truly profitable buisnesses in the country, and no real income. Don't you see it?


You are only thinking short-term. Consider this hypothetical situation: US gets weened off of combusting so much fossil fuel to meet Kyoto, China's combustion skyrockets with the influx of migrating American industries, fuel resources run dry in X years... China is left hanging with no alternative while the US has been running on nuclear/hydrogen/whatever for years and years. Your hegemony is safe for another little while and we as old men can sleep soundly at night :D

Oh, and of course, China is much easier to conquer if all of its soldiers have severe asthma from the perpetual black toxic haze that will result from this supposed industry boom!

[ASWnut101]

I see that perfectly. However, your attitude is no answer. You think, if the others don't play ball, then we don't do it, too. result: NOTHING will ever be done. If some nations step forward and try to do something, it may work as an example for others to follow (which at the latest necessarily will happen when the costs of ignorring the needs of changing ourselves outweight the profits gained by staying like we are, and start to severly paralyse the freedom of acting of the state). By that, guarantees are not given, but our chances are better that some thing will be done. No other nation (including china) emits so much CO2 like the US. That brings the US into a special responsebility of setting examples.

But what can be done? You claim that by human intervention you can try to stop this "Global Warming" theory, yet supposedly this was all started by human intervention. Or can we just go on and adapt, like humans have for the past thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years. Besides, I see no creditable proof of CO2 emissions directly affecting global temprature rise. Even the National Science Foundation (or something like that) came in on Al Gores parade during his little speech in `D.C. saying there was no research that directly linked CO2 and temperature gain.

Maybe you forgot, but you can't breath neither money, nor CO2. And when you see your kids suffering from environment-related diseases and allergies, you maybe will rethink your priorities.

Or I can see that "in the end," this was all for nothing and just a big scare because of some falsified data.


A saying. It means something like "who does not want to listen, must learn by suffering the pain."

Thanks, I guess...

Exactly the opposite, you produce them by metric tons per day. The amount of distorting scientifc data and ignoring unwelcomed news is breathtaking and absolutely unique in the world. It it enrages more and more antions as well as private people worldwide. But you are feeling safe behind two oceans, so don't mind.

Who decides what the lies are? Who decides which data is correct? You? Germany? The USA? Me? Who?

You contradict your former statements here. You do your best to guarantee ongoing damage - but then hope for the best...???

No, I meant "Let's hope it happens, for the sake of our children." for giving up. I don't want to see my future kids enslaved behind laws that limit their freedom for a (still) unproven fact. I don't want to see my kids grow up in fear that if they fart one too many times, that if they get in a car that runs on an internal-cumbustion-engine they will end all life on the planet, because of a stupid law invented by people who would rather cower behind one man's words than try to see the reality of the situation. We are harming ourselves with these imposed laws, protocols, and treaties.

[ASWnut101]

You are only thinking short-term. Consider this hypothetical situation: US gets weened off of combusting so much fossil fuel to meet Kyoto, China's combustion skyrockets with the influx of migrating American industries, fuel resources run dry in X years... China is left hanging with no alternative while the US has been running on nuclear/hydrogen/whatever for years and years. Your hegemony is safe for another little while and we as old men can sleep soundly at night :D

So then the world is left in ruin, one country that killed itself and the rest of the world in self-induced poverty. Besides, old men die quicker...;) :p

Oh, and of course, China is much easier to conquer if all of its soldiers have severe asthma from the perpetual black toxic haze that will result from this supposed industry boom!

Conquer with what? A "Green" army? Hah!:lol:

[waste gate]

I guess the US could sign onto the Kyoto Protical, which was rejected not only by the Senate, but with the recommendation of the Clinton administration, and then just ignore the protical like every other nation has done.

It'll give the leftist, what about the children, who we favor aborting, folks a win on paper.

[moose1am]

Fact: Earth is warming up.
Fact: Polar Ice is thinning
Fact: Glaciers are melting and receding
Fact: The Earth's magnetic field has changed directions many times over the past 200 million years.
Fact:The earth has warmed and cooled many times over the past few millions of years long before mankind was around
Fact: Some human activity is speeding up the heating and the production of CO2 gas
Fact: Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere are directly correlated with the increases in the earth global average temperatures.

All the rest is subjection and theory. Scare tactics are being used on each side of this argument. One side declares that the sky is falling and the other side declares destruction of the West's economy.

It's amazing what a few deg difference in the Earth's Average Global yearly temperatures can make in our lives.

If the people of the earth are going to do anything it must be done by everyone not just the USA. This is where the Kyoto Treaty is flawed .

But there is no denying that the Earth is getting warmer and the ice is melting faster than predicted.

The problem is what should we do about it?







Jesus, talk about Al Gore's dream come true...:o

You people are talking like it's the end of the world. I know the planet is heating up. I can't see how we are responsible. What I can see is that if we sign the Kyoto Protocol, you can kiss western economy and possibly civilization goodbye. I believe "Scare Tactics" are the words for this.

[ASWnut101]

Fact: Earth is warming up.

Yep


Fact: Polar Ice is thinning

As they should during a warm-up period


Fact: Glaciers are melting and receding

As above
Fact: The Earth's magnetic field has changed directions many times over the past 200 million years.

Yep, and possibly even longer than that
Fact:The earth has warmed and cooled many times over the past few millions of years long before mankind was around

Yes.

Fact: Some human activity is speeding up the heating and the production of CO2 gas

Maby it is, maby it isn't. Notice from the site you copied from is says "SOME"


Fact: Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere are directly correlated with the increases in the earth global average temperatures.

Proof? I have yet to see any from a knowledgeable, actual scientist.

All the rest is subjection and theory. Scare tactics are being used on each side of this argument. One side declares that the sky is falling and the other side declares destruction of the West's economy.

Haha! But it's true, I guess.

It's amazing what a few deg difference in the Earth's Average Global yearly temperatures can make in our lives.

If the people of the earth are going to do anything it must be done by everyone not just the USA. This is where the Kyoto Treaty is flawed .

The Kyoto Protocol was flawed from the start.

But there is no denying that the Earth is getting warmer and the ice is melting faster than predicted.

The problem is what should we do about it?

Faster than predicted. One thing we must realize, is that these are PREDICTIONS. Predictions are nothing more than guesses at what someone thinks should be happening. It's like the weather (Hell, it IS the weather:lol:)

[waste gate]

ASW has made a very good point. Since when can scientists predict the weather?

KUSA – A spring storm will cause occasional light snow around the metro area through Saturday evening. Cold air associated with the storm will also keep temperatures at least 20 degrees below average.

[moose1am]

Since we got those super computers that can perform millions of calculations per min.

The problem is not predicting the weather. It's the actual weather that's already melting the ice caps rapidly. And the rate of melting is accelerating.

We know what the problem is. Getting the People in control to do the right thing is the hard part.



ASW has made a very good point. Since when can scientists predict the weather?

KUSA – A spring storm will cause occasional light snow around the metro area through Saturday evening. Cold air associated with the storm will also keep temperatures at least 20 degrees below average.

[Skybird]

But what can be done? You claim that by human intervention you can try to stop this "Global Warming" theory,
No. I never said such nonsens. The situation already is far too bad as if you could prevent. It is about adopting to the consequences that are shaping up in more and more grim clearness, and it is about stopping to speed up the process. Even if we would have a full stop of environment-hurting behavior and emissions - the agentsa we already have emitted will continue to do their work at the current pace for another 30-60 years.

Some weeks ago I linked to calculations saying that the economical costs of trying to adopt as best as we can would cost around 1% of global GNP, but repairing the damages being done by climate change that hits us without us trying to adopt will cost around 20-30 % (which again is the IPCC calculation the US and others tried so hard to prevent from being published). What investment is the more reasonable?


yet supposedly this was all started by human intervention. Or can we just go on and adapt, like humans have for the past thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years.

You ignore that this change now will affect billions of people and will kill hundreds of millions. As the current IPCC report have made clear AGAIN. But the calculation is not new. First time I was confronted with such statements was during late school. That is over 25 years ago.

It is also about the immense level of extinction of species. You may not realise it, but we depend on these, and on an intact natural environment. as long as we do not want to live in something like moonbase alpha 1 at last (and that would be a highly vulnerable place of living, btw.).

Environment-related desease have dramatically increased over the last 40 years, btw, in all Wetsern world. Starts with skin and lunge disease, leads over cancer, and ends with things like allergies and general immune system defects.


Besides, I see no creditable proof of CO2 emissions directly affecting global temprature rise. Even the National Science Foundation (or something like that) came in on Al Gores parade during his little speech in `D.C. saying there was no research that directly linked CO2 and temperature gain.

No? That is mysterious, since I stumbled over so many over the years.

when you stand a hundred times at a traffic light and see that when there is yellow, but no yellow-red, and the next colour nthen is always red, than you still do not have any evidence that the next colour you see will be red again (instead of green), nevertheless it is a conclusion that is boosted by massive empirical evidence.

BTW, the NSF is a governmental institution, and thus is run by clearly defined political agendas. I am not surprised that they went for Gore. I would have been surprised if they wouldn't have. It has been complained repeatedly that they change their standards and course of orientation depending on what kind of government is currently ruling in Washington.

I don't go into a debate on wether CO2 helps global warming or not - not AGAIN. we just had that. there are other factors, too, methane, but I can't take it serious that CO2 is not extremely harmful. It is one factor amongst others, nevertheless a very dangerous one. Others like methane maybe are even more importanrt, but that does not make CO2 harmless. WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING PPOSSIBLE TO ADOPT AND TO STOP SPEEING UP THE CLIMATIC PROCESSES THAT ALREADY AFFECT US AND ANIMALS AND PLANTS AROUND THE GLOBE. Please do not come with that CO2 petition thing AL already tried - I ripped that one in pieces, as I remember quite clearly. You may wait another lifetime for any proof that may satisfy your high standards. Until then - the worstening developement will continue, and finally you will find yourself with just another couple of decades being wasted. Decades that then will have prooven eto be xtremely costly both to your people and your economy. Let's see what this year's hurricane season will bring. Probably no argument you would accept...

Who decides what the lies are? Who decides which data is correct? You? Germany? The USA? Me? Who?
Again, I do not go into a discussion that we alraedy had repeatedly. Fact is you will always try your best to put all data from sources that are not serving the interests of your industry and government at discredit, and call that reasonable doubt. Well, the majority of global scientists strongly disagrees, and since a majority does not replace quality, some very competent adresses amongst scientif institutions also disagree. I referred to the Potsdam Institute for climatic change some weeks ago, as an example. It's president called it a crime what immense sums are invested by interested lobbies just to put scientific data that is unwelcome news at doubt, and distort existing data.

WE DONT NEED MORE DATA; WE ALREADY HAVE ALL DATA WE NEED SINCE ALMOST 15-20 YEARS. It is unimportant if you rethorically try to distract by asking fundamental questions of who is deciding this or that. You are distracting.

One must not distort empirical obervations and data in order to come to the conclusion that man-made industrialization and mass-agriculture is linked with global warming. One must use distortion of data in order to deny that link.

No, I meant "Let's hope it happens, for the sake of our children." for giving up. I don't want to see my future kids enslaved behind laws that limit their freedom for a (still) unproven fact. I don't want to see my kids grow up in fear that if they fart one too many times, that if they get in a car that runs on an internal-cumbustion-engine they will end all life on the planet, because of a stupid law invented by people who would rather cower behind one man's words than try to see the reality of the situation. We are harming ourselves with these imposed laws, protocols, and treaties.
Future generations will have no compliments for you. They will ask instead why we did not act, but always delayed, and why them need to pay the price for our selfishness. We have wasted decades alreaedy. According to you, we will waste some more: because trying to adopt and trying to save what is left to be saved would damage our industries and finance systems.

What a strange list of priorities.

[Skybird]

Ah, and this:

http://www.whistleblower.org/content/press_detail.cfm?press_id=853

I just flew over this:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/oversight/28mar/gap_redacting_climate_sci_report_07mar.pdf

[ASWnut101]

No. I never said such nonsens.

There is an "e" at the end of that.

The situation already is far too bad as if you could prevent. It is about adopting to the consequences that are shaping up in more and more grim clearness, and it is about stopping to speed up the process. Even if we would have a full stop of environment-hurting behavior and emissions - the agentsa we already have emitted will continue to do their work at the current pace for another 30-60 years.

I'm getting tired of this discussion, but here goes: Says who? Scientists? Of course they have to be correct. They always were, like when they said the world was flat, and when they said spontaneous generation is where all life evolved from dust. Someone presents a doomsday senario and why does everyone goes nuts. You refuse to belive anything else. Why don't you open up to other possibilities other than were all going to die in 100 years?

Some weeks ago I linked to calculations saying that the economical costs of trying to adopt as best as we can would cost around 1% of global GNP, but repairing the damages being done by climate change that hits us without us trying to adopt will cost around 20-30 % (which again is the IPCC calculation the US and others tried so hard to prevent from being published). What investment is the more reasonable?

(Seriously) can you show me? I'd like to see it too.


You ignore that this change now will affect billions of people and will kill hundreds of millions. As the current IPCC report have made clear AGAIN. But the calculation is not new. First time I was confronted with such statements was during late school. That is over 25 years ago.

I missed the report. I there some kind of link to it or something?

It is also about the immense level of extinction of species. You may not realise it, but we depend on these, and on an intact natural environment. as long as we do not want to live in something like moonbase alpha 1 at last (and that would be a highly vulnerable place of living, btw.).

Were not going to live on "moonbase alpha" as long as that foolish treaty of "No nukes in space" is still alive, but that's another story. Also, I hardly belive that a increase in temperature of only a few degrees will kill of so much life. So far, I've only heard stories about how the Atlantic is warming up. Did you know the Pacific isn't? How convienient. Of course, I'm not sure if you all are familiar with the TAO.

Environment-related desease have dramatically increased over the last 40 years, btw, in all Wetsern world. Starts with skin and lunge disease, leads over cancer, and ends with things like allergies and general immune system defects.

Or is it because with our new technology we can finally see that it's there, instead of guessing about that African epdemic fourty years ago. Most of these diseases were there all along, it's just with the invention of the electron microscope and such that we are able to know that they even exist.

No? That is mysterious, since I stumbled over so many over the years.

Can you show any?

when you stand a hundred times at a traffic light and see that when there is yellow, but no yellow-red, and the next colour nthen is always red, than you still do not have any evidence that the next colour you see will be red again (instead of green), nevertheless it is a conclusion that is boosted by massive empirical evidence.

So you are basically saying that this is still a theory, not a proven fact.

BTW, the NSF is a governmental institution, and thus is run by clearly defined political agendas. I am not surprised that they went for Gore. I would have been surprised if they wouldn't have. It has been complained repeatedly that they change their standards and course of orientation depending on what kind of government is currently ruling in Washington.

Can you explain to me then why another non-government funded research program fired many-a-scientist for claiming that Global Warming was not true? And besides, you think the IPCC isn't? It's in there name! INTERGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.

I don't go into a debate on wether CO2 helps global warming or not - not AGAIN. we just had that. there are other factors, too, methane, but I can't take it serious that CO2 is not extremely harmful. It is one factor amongst others, nevertheless a very dangerous one. Others like methane maybe are even more importanrt, but that does not make CO2 harmless. WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING PPOSSIBLE TO ADOPT AND TO STOP SPEEING UP THE CLIMATIC PROCESSES THAT ALREADY AFFECT US AND ANIMALS AND PLANTS AROUND THE GLOBE. Please do not come with that CO2 petition thing AL already tried - I ripped that one in pieces, as I remember quite clearly. You may wait another lifetime for any proof that may satisfy your high standards. Until then - the worstening developement will continue, and finally you will find yourself with just another couple of decades being wasted. Decades that then will have prooven eto be xtremely costly both to your people and your economy. Let's see what this year's hurricane season will bring. Probably no argument you would accept...

Um, ok. Did you know that not one hurricane last year hit us (Florida, Georgia, ect.), despite all the predictions that last year would be worse then the rest?

WE DONT NEED MORE DATA; WE ALREADY HAVE ALL DATA WE NEED SINCE ALMOST 15-20 YEARS. It is unimportant if you rethorically try to distract by asking fundamental questions of who is deciding this or that. You are distracting.

Or you just don't want to listen, perhaps?

One must not distort empirical obervations and data in order to come to the conclusion that man-made industrialization and mass-agriculture is linked with global warming. One must use distortion of data in order to deny that link.

So scientists simply cannot be wrong, no matter what? I'll be dead before I belive that.

What a strange list of priorities.

As such I can say the same for yours.




I grow weary of this...

[fatty]

No. I never said such nonsens.

There is an "e" at the end of that.


It's not really polite to criticize the spelling of (if you'll forgive me Skybird) a non-native English speaker, especially since you don't seem to know how to spell "maybe," among other words. :down:

But great post, Skybird :rock: The jury is still out for me regarding climate change, but I am totally supportive of weaning off fossil fuels ASAP even for the sole reason of cleaner air.

[Hitman]

The jury is still out for me regarding climate change, but I am totally supportive of weaning off fossil fuels ASAP even for the sole reason of cleaner air.

It's not just a matter of fossil fuels, climate change and such. The big problem we have is that the society all around the world is currently structured based on a God called "growth". Everything must grow, economics, productivity, people, resources consumption...to keep this all running. And there is no teorical end to growth, it just should go on and on ad infinitum. Only that it can't. We live in a finite world, with finite resources (Don't start the crap about malthusians and neo-malthusians, just use your brain) and even if they were infinite, the space we humans occupy isn't. I remember well an image from Star Wars that did really catch my eye: Do you remember the capital city of the Empire? It was a WHOLE planet. A whole planet that has been completely used to the latest inch for buildings. Even if we could manage technically to do that and find resources to keep that running, when the whole planet is used then it's done.

Only there are many people out there who refuse to understand it and prefer to let their grandsons deal with that. No longer, sadly. This S**T is going to explode in OUR faces, not the ones of our grandsons.:damn:

[TteFAboB]

The final IPPC report is much better than the previous unfinished version.

Untill now Global Warming would affect all of us more or less homogeneously. We were entirely threatened as a species. This was too apolitical. So now the poor will be affected worst. The Rich countries may even enjoy agricultural benefits. Africa, however, is doomed. Global Warming is borrowing some characteristics of class struggle. Perhaps that will help with mobilization.

Is there another debate where Good and Evil are so clearly opposed? You are either saving the planet or preventing it from being saved.

The worst, or the best, is that so far the solutions haven't been presented to us. It's useless to ask for them. The best you can get is a Kitsch place-holder. As with any eschatology, you must first be convinced of the end of times. Untill you are seriously convinced of this, no solution will be presented to you. As you sit and wait you have a good opportunity to look around your sides for who's to blame.

And the story ends here for today. What will happen next? Tune in tomorrow at this same bat channel, same bat-time.

Will anything good come out of Global Warming (the mobilization, not the one degree increase in temperature)? Like getting us to drop Oil, use hydrogen power, boost fusion research, etc.? Possibly. We've reached the 6 billion mark by resolving the problems we proposed to ourselves. The potential is there.

[fatty]

The jury is still out for me regarding climate change, but I am totally supportive of weaning off fossil fuels ASAP even for the sole reason of cleaner air.

It's not just a matter of fossil fuels, climate change and such. The big problem we have is that the society all around the world is currently structured based on a God called "growth". Everything must grow, economics, productivity, people, resources consumption...to keep this all running. And there is no teorical end to growth, it just should go on and on ad infinitum. Only that it can't. We live in a finite world, with finite resources (Don't start the crap about malthusians and neo-malthusians, just use your brain) and even if they were infinite, the space we humans occupy isn't. I remember well an image from Star Wars that did really catch my eye: Do you remember the capital city of the Empire? It was a WHOLE planet. A whole planet that has been completely used to the latest inch for buildings. Even if we could manage technically to do that and find resources to keep that running, when the whole planet is used then it's done.

Only there are many people out there who refuse to understand it and prefer to let their grandsons deal with that. No longer, sadly. This S**T is going to explode in OUR faces, not the ones of our grandsons.:damn:

Another good post! Climate systems themselves are complex enough; I don't even pretend to understand how human activites factor in. That, of course, would be why the jury is still out :)

[ASWnut101]

No. I never said such nonsens.

There is an "e" at the end of that.


It's not really polite to criticize the spelling of (if you'll forgive me Skybird) a non-native English speaker, especially since you don't seem to know how to spell "maybe," among other words. :down:


Oops, my mistake. I was just pointing out that he missed the letter, I wasn't trying to critisize him. Apologies. (I'm not an avid speller too, Fatty)

[Skybird]

The situation already is far too bad as if you could prevent. It is about adopting to the consequences that are shaping up in more and more grim clearness, and it is about stopping to speed up the process. Even if we would have a full stop of environment-hurting behavior and emissions - the agentsa we already have emitted will continue to do their work at the current pace for another 30-60 years.
I'm getting tired of this discussion, but here goes: Says who? Scientists? Of course they have to be correct.
Just a hint: do you know what the half-life of elements means? From these, scientists (crucify them when not agreeing with you) extrapolate how long a given element that for example splits ozone will remain active, and at what activity levels over time.
They always were, like when they said the world was flat, and when they said spontaneous generation is where all life evolved from dust. Someone presents a doomsday senario and why does everyone goes nuts. You refuse to belive anything else. Why don't you open up to other possibilities other than were all going to die in 100 years?
Standard strategy displayed again: exaggerate unwelcomed argument, partially distort unwelcome argument and by that make it sound ridiculous - and accuse the messanger of being oh so narrow-minded, while oneself is unforgivingly determined to never, under no circumstances, accept anything that would imply that we need to change and cannot simply move on as in the past.
The problem with you is you split sentences into words and demand the words to be prooven, and when somebody does that, you are not satisfied. You split the word into letters and demand every letter to be prooven. And when somebody does that, you go down to molecules. Atoms. Particles. If you think that is clever, okay. But you simply miss the sense and meaning of the original sentence that way.
Are you familiar with what statistics call the reliability-validity-dilemma (translating from German?) It describes the dilemma that every scientist should know. The more precision you put into the measuring of a variable, the more you focus on it, and by that the more narrow your perspective necessarily becomes. You have precise data, but: the more precise it becomes, the lesser linkage to the surrounding context it has. It looses in meaning. High reliability, low validity. In the extreme, you have total precision - that means nothing anymore. Or you widen the perspective of yours, so that what you see can be put into context of the surrounding environment your monitored variable is embeeded in. you give up reliability, and win validity. YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH, thats why it is called a dilemma, you need to find a balance that on the basis of your past experiences makes sense and give you enough of both qualities. You can compare it to Heisenberg's uncertainity principle.
(Seriously) can you show me? I'd like to see it too.
Two of 4 IPCC reports are now released, and you still need to counter their information. Especially the second is not about estimates on the basis of projections and models, but simply describes observed empiral data that even you cannot reject to be a reality.
I also meant the acculumlated input I had over the last let's say 25 years. Books. TV programs. School. Mags. Since that answer will not be good enough for you, I also point at "Global 2000. The report to the president", released in the early years of Reagan. He did not like the yelling warnings in it, so he buried it and did nothing.
Obviously, nothing has changed concerning that behavior.
I missed the report. I there some kind of link to it or something?
See above what I mean. Global 2000 was not the only source of data, btw. Don'T expect me to contact every TV station, every newspaper and every book company that I eventually may have red, listend to or watched over the last 25 years.
Were not going to live on "moonbase alpha" as long as that foolish treaty of "No nukes in space" is still alive,
What is foolish in that? Not foolish, but arrogant to the max was the attempt of a re-formulation of the new Pentagon policy on the militarization of space, as was being done two or three years ago, and in which the US reserved the right to claim all military usage of space exclusively for itself, and reserving the right to prevent the military usage of space to others, friends and potential enemies alike, even by the use of force. I know that importance of ruling the higher ground, but this does not make space the 51st federal state of America.
but that's another story. Also, I hardly belive that a increase in temperature of only a few degrees will kill of so much life.
Your private beliefs are not interesting anybody. You may feel offended, but I put more trust on experts in their professional fields who knows a bit more on the matter.[/quote]
So far, I've only heard stories about how the Atlantic is warming up. Did you know the Pacific isn't? How convienient. Of course, I'm not sure if you all are familiar with the TAO.
Strange, because I also heared exactly the opposite. Maybe we can agree that there is uncertainty about to what degree the gulf stream has cooled down in recent years. Some say less than 5%. Others say up to 25%. we can also talk about the changes in travelling patterns of fish swarms or great fishes, the changes in spreading patterns of species, the changes in the saturation with krill, plankton and algas in certain regions of the oceans, the dying of coral reefs (which are extremely sensible to temperature changes)even in areas that are not too affected by contamination, and the brake-down of local ecologic systems and dissapearing of species following in their death's wake.
Or is it because with our new technology we can finally see that it's there, instead of guessing about that African epdemic fourty years ago. Most of these diseases were there all along, it's just with the invention of the electron microscope and such that we are able to know that they even exist.
I know what you mean, but in this context it is an invalid argument. You do not need technology to examine and notice a disease like neurodermitis or asthma or brakedown or weakening of the immune system. Nice attempt.
Can you show any?
Again, see explanations earlier.
So you are basically saying that this is still a theory, not a proven fact.
I say that it is foolish and dangerous to ignore experiences if they are based on such strong and obvious empirical data. When you brake at a traffic-light that jumps from green to yellow, you brake and stopp. You have no proof that red lights will be next, so why don'T you just press the pedal and slam into the crossroad?
Let's face it - all your life, every day you make decisions and choices that are not basing of 100% evidence, but empirical data you collected. You call that experience.
Should I give again (I think for the fourth of fifth time) that allegory by Buddha, about that man who got shot by a poisend arrow and refused to pull it out as long as he is not beeing told who was the archer, from where he shot, and why, what kind of poison it was, and what kind of bow - and who died while listing his demands for being informed oh so thoroughly - instead of pulling the aroow out of the wound? Ooops, there already did it again...
Bah, why do I even take the time, I spare me the rest.


Again recommending to spend a little time with this:
http://www.whistleblower.org/doc/2007/Final%203.28%20Redacting%20Climate%20Science%20Rep ort.pdf