View Full Version : Its getting colder! Alaskan Glaciers grow for first time in 250 Years!!!
SUBMAN1
10-18-08, 11:16 AM
But everyone will tell you that Al Gore said there is global warming happening, so this can't be true! :D
http://www.dailytech.com/Alaskan+Glaciers+Grow+for+First+Time+in+250+years/article13215.htm
-S
PS. Besides, we haven't had a thread like this in ages!
Frame57
10-18-08, 11:37 AM
The earth goes through natural heating and cooling periods. I learned that in the 6th grade. Having said that, I am all for people being good stewards of this planet. But Al and his cronies are hyping people up with fear tactics, which is a good motivator for them.
SUBMAN1
10-18-08, 11:40 AM
The earth goes through natural heating and cooling periods. I learned that in the 6th grade. Having said that, I am all for people being good stewards of this planet. But Al and his cronies are hyping people up with fear tactics, which is a good motivator for them.Well said man. Being a good steward and using FUD to make you buy product they have large stakes in ($1.8 Bil for Al Gore in green techs) are two very different things.
-S
That's because Palin and her hot air isn't in Alaska to melt them :lol:
(note, this note is by no means a statement on my political views, but merely an opportunity taken.)
SUBMAN1
10-18-08, 11:44 AM
That's because Palin and her hot air isn't in Alaska to melt them :lol:
(note, this note is by no means a statement on my political views, but merely an opportunity taken.)I would take this to mean you have a crush on her by calling her hot.
-S
No it's getting warmer. Oil price is dropping!
Frame57
10-18-08, 11:52 AM
That's because Palin and her hot air isn't in Alaska to melt them :lol:
(note, this note is by no means a statement on my political views, but merely an opportunity taken.)OUCH!:D
No, that just can't be.
Several people on this forum have very clearly said that we are in the midst of a severe human caused global warming epidemic and that we should give all our money to developing nations and start living in grass huts, using only non polluting body heat to stay warm.
Many of these same people have claimed that we are nearly out of oil and that the price would continue to go ever up until only the rich can afford to buy it.
Just wait, you'll see...
Tchocky
10-18-08, 01:23 PM
Holy crap it's Michael Asher.
*surprise*
No, that just can't be.
Several people on this forum have very clearly said that we are in the midst of a severe human caused global warming epidemic and that we should give all our money to developing nations and start living in grass huts, using only non polluting body heat to stay warm.
Many of these same people have claimed that we are nearly out of oil and that the price would continue to go ever up until only the rich can afford to buy it.
Just wait, you'll see...
Me probably amongst them:). Perhaps on the developing nations issue we can can share a laugh about the Sierra Club's take that as people in the 3rd world use 1/6th the energy we use, we should ban immigration to the west as it increases their carbon footprint. 'Lefties with a 'right wing' stance:D
Hanomag
10-18-08, 01:43 PM
No, that just can't be.
Several people on this forum have very clearly said that we are in the midst of a severe human caused global warming epidemic and that we should give all our money to developing nations and start living in grass huts, using only non polluting body heat to stay warm.
Many of these same people have claimed that we are nearly out of oil and that the price would continue to go ever up until only the rich can afford to buy it.
Just wait, you'll see...
LMAO :rotfl:
I thought it was 'cause I stopped driving my truck !
Hylander_1314
10-18-08, 01:49 PM
Yeah, and the Al Gore crowd will squeal that we need to drop coal dust on the glaciers if they get too big. As they will say if we don't, we'll all have to live in igloos and eat raw fish and seals, and whales.
Many of these same people have claimed that we are nearly out of oil and that the price would continue to go ever up until only the rich can afford to buy it.
Just wait, you'll see...
Yes, wait and see it rise again after this recession. :know:
Skybird
10-18-08, 05:37 PM
The usual suspects with the usual hooey, for the 1001st time. What a surprise! I must not even read it to know what it is about: hooey.
Pedersen glacier, Alaska
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/3658/370pxpedersenglacierac1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Muir glacier, Alaska
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/2497/424pxmuirglaciereo9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Northwestern glacier, Alaska
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/559/536pxnorthwesternglaciera6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Bear glacier, alaska
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/8950/679pxbearglacierpe6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
McCarty glacier, Alaska
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9637/700pxmccartyglacierta4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
From NOAA (subordinate to the US ministry of commerce):
http://www.noaa.gov/
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081016_arcticreport.html
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/index.html
Atmosphere Changes:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html
Sea Ice reduction:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html
Ocean Salinity and temperature:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ocean.html
Land Effects (Permafrost, snow, glaciers, etc)
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/land.html
changes in animal populations:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/biology.html
Greenland-specific
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland.html
Time-wise limited paradoxical effects due to climate warming have been described, forseen and explained since years. Why the ice in parts of the antarctic for some years will increase in thickness and why this is an evidence for air and sea warming up, has been explained since years. It also has been forseen. Why in some regions of the world glaciers eventually for a short while will give the impression to increase in size, has been explained since years. But feel free to ignore all that for another couple of years: that is called the right of free opionion. but having a right of free opinion does not mean that the question wether or not 2 plus 2 makes 4 is open for discussion, and is a question of opinion. You can be of the very precious and very important opinion that 2+2=4 is wrong - but who cares.
Having an opinion and having a reasonable argument - are two totally different things. Just be loud enough: and people will mistake volume for argument.
SUBMAN1
10-18-08, 06:17 PM
Skybird - Yawn!
No it hasn't been explained. The NOAA know this better than anybody - that we are still low for the average Earth temp over 3000 years.
There are rogue scientists in both the NOAA and NASA. Including that whacked carbon NASA employee that testified to get vandals off in the UK recently by making everyone think they were justified in destroying property.
Tired of this nonsense. Where is the real long term data? Let me guess, the NOAA has suppressed it! Duh! You only have 100 years there. This is simply climbing out of our last Ice Age which was at its height at about the time George Washington was taking on the British - the American Revolution!
Why is your head so buried up your you no what that you can't see this?
-S
Hylander_1314
10-18-08, 08:10 PM
Subman,
Some scientists are actually looking into volcanic activity as to why the "Little Iceage" occurred. I think it has led some to look at the volcanic erruption on the island of Tambora I think. And the possibility of desalination of the oceans disrupting the currents, which help to moderate the world temps. Coupled with the ending of the medieval warming, which started to turn cooler around 1300 A.D. So have we hit the equivalent of the warm period? Not unless you can grow wine grapes in the British midlands, and compete with the French Winemakers.
This is from the History Channel about the program they ran on it.
Scientists call it the Little Ice Age--but its impact was anything but small. From 1300 to 1850, a period of cataclysmic cold caused havoc. It froze Viking colonists in Greenland, accelerated the Black Death in Europe, decimated the Spanish Armada, and helped trigger the French Revolution. The Little Ice Age reshaped the world in ways that now seem the stuff of fantasy--New York Harbor froze and people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island, Eskimos sailed kayaks as far south as Scotland, and "the year without a summer" saw two feet of snow fell on New England one June and July.
Could another catastrophic cold snap strike in the 21st century? Leading climatologists offer the latest theories, and scholars and historians recreate the history that could be a glimpse of things to come. Face the cold, hard truth of the past--an era that may be a window to our future
It was quite good really. Some interesting ideas on what how and why. Nothing difinative though, as of course like you said, there weren't many records kept beyond the last 100 years in any form of mass volumes. Well, maybe the library of Alexandria, but that burned up long ago. But they do have some records like those of Galileo, and I think even old Thomas Jefferson too, that they reference to.
The point is that if "global warming", erm excuse me, "climate change" is indeed primarily caused by humans, and i'm not at all convinced that it is, then it is because of our numbers more than anything else. We can all trade in our air conditioners for paddle fans and keep our houses just above freezing in the winter, whatever, but it won't make a bit of difference as long as world population keeps rising.
Science is getting better at documenting changes in our environment but it can't make more than the most generalized of forecasts and even then they are wrong as often as not.
Subman,
Some scientists are actually looking into volcanic activity as to why the "Little Iceage" occurred. I think it has led some to look at the volcanic erruption on the island of Tambora I think. And the possibility of desalination of the oceans disrupting the currents, which help to moderate the world temps. Coupled with the ending of the medieval warming, which started to turn cooler around 1300 A.D. So have we hit the equivalent of the warm period? Not unless you can grow wine grapes in the British midlands, and compete with the French Winemakers.
This is from the History Channel about the program they ran on it.
Scientists call it the Little Ice Age--but its impact was anything but small. From 1300 to 1850, a period of cataclysmic cold caused havoc. It froze Viking colonists in Greenland, accelerated the Black Death in Europe, decimated the Spanish Armada, and helped trigger the French Revolution. The Little Ice Age reshaped the world in ways that now seem the stuff of fantasy--New York Harbor froze and people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island, Eskimos sailed kayaks as far south as Scotland, and "the year without a summer" saw two feet of snow fell on New England one June and July.
Could another catastrophic cold snap strike in the 21st century? Leading climatologists offer the latest theories, and scholars and historians recreate the history that could be a glimpse of things to come. Face the cold, hard truth of the past--an era that may be a window to our future
It was quite good really. Some interesting ideas on what how and why. Nothing difinative though, as of course like you said, there weren't many records kept beyond the last 100 years in any form of mass volumes. Well, maybe the library of Alexandria, but that burned up long ago. But they do have some records like those of Galileo, and I think even old Thomas Jefferson too, that they reference to.
If you think about it what we humans are doing is speeding up climate change. The temps fluctuate, I think all we are doing is changing the pace that which it happens.
You guys might find this crazy but here something to think about. I think a Ice Age is going to happen sooner rather then later. Sound crazy? Consider this, pollutants block the suns UV rays. but they also keep the warm air in. When the oceans rise from the melting ice they cool, which will lower the temps in the north and change the weather pattern as well as keep the warm tropic ocean currents to the south. It will be colder and the suns uv rays will be blocked by our pollution so in the end global warming is not my worry, there will be less UV rays hitting the earth then ever before, its the cooling I am worried about, the last ice age didn't have mans pollution to block the suns rays. If I read correctly we get 17& less sunlight hitting the earth compared to the early 50s.
And volcanos are like cars they block the suns rays. Imagine there were no cars before.
Stealth Hunter
10-19-08, 01:18 AM
Well, humans definitely do play a part in changing the climate. However, the Earth also goes through natural cycles that change it. Really, both are to blame.
Im not here to praise Cesar only to bury him......the great lakes in NA were carved out by glaciers and then filled with fresh water by........anyone, anyone, global warming. Before man ever fuc%ed up anything else. I do agree, over population will screw a lot of things up, but mother earth is large, been here a long time, and can take care of herself.
nikimcbee
10-19-08, 01:34 AM
Im not here to praise Cesar only to bury him......the great lakes in NA were carved out by glaciers and then filled with fresh water by........anyone, anyone, global warming. Before man ever fuc%ed up anything else. I do agree, over population will screw a lot of things up, but mother earth is large, been here a long time, and can take care of herself.
Roger that!:up:
Even if global warming/climate change is a fallacy, changing and diversifying your energy sources is not. The US clinging to oil, reminds me the British Empire clinging to its coal. Probably one reason for its demise. Probably one reason that the US administration avoids the issue. It goes to heart of the strategic posistion of the US, politically, economically and militarily.
BTW the insurance companies think there is an issue. Google "insurance companies climate change" and read some hits.
And finally, why do you need a 230km/h car when the speed limit is 90km/h ?:hmm:
Skybird
10-19-08, 05:09 AM
You guys might find this crazy but here something to think about. I think a Ice Age is going to happen sooner rather then later. Sound crazy? Consider this, pollutants block the suns UV rays. but they also keep the warm air in. When the oceans rise from the melting ice they cool, which will lower the temps in the north and change the weather pattern as well as keep the warm tropic ocean currents to the south. It will be colder and the suns uv rays will be blocked by our pollution so in the end global warming is not my worry, there will be less UV rays hitting the earth then ever before, its the cooling I am worried about, the last ice age didn't have mans pollution to block the suns rays. If I read correctly we get 17& less sunlight hitting the earth compared to the early 50s.
And volcanos are like cars they block the suns rays. Imagine there were no cars before.
that is not crazy at all, but the basic mechanism behind the observed thieckening of some ice areas. Air and sea becomes warmer, more koisture in the air greater temperature difference between existing ice surface and surrounding environment, more condensating moisture on the ise, thickeining of the ice. However, the point is that despite this going on, an even greater ammount of old ice disappears (that'S the keeping the sturctural integrity of huge ice fields, not the young ice which is softer and weaker), and bigger fields of sea ice disappear as well, which both are scientific facts. that means there is more open water that gets radiated by the sun, and water does not reflect sunlight as much as ice, so more sun eneergy gets into the ocean due to the shrinking ice shield, and there you go: ocean temperarure rises, even more moisture in the air, even more condensating, etc. nevertheless it is an effect by warming, and it is temporary.
But for exampe the gulf stream. It's dynamic is caused by tropical wrm waters coling down in the north, faling 3 km into the deep, which is also caused by altered salinity, and different water density. When the North becomes warmer, the difference between the Caribean warm water and the northern water is less, and thus, the dynamic becomes less as well: the gulf stream weakens in activity, which means the heating effect for europe weakens as well. Wether or not this will cause a colling in europe in theling run remaisn to be seen, but still: the sequence is caused by a warming of climate.
However, at the same time we do ourt best to plaster the atmosphere with every emission possible that relfects warmth back to eartch, even more, the warmijg has reached the areas of permafrost ground, and since years cinstantly thaws them up. In them, huge reservoirs of methane are stored, in form of hydrate. when the frozen hydrate thaws and turns into a gas again, it increases its volume by a factor of 160, so the several hundred gigatons of hydrate that are estimated to be found in permafrost areas and the ground of the deep sea, can release an enormous ammount of greenhoiuse gas that is mutlitple times as potent as CO2 is. THIS is the reason why methane is so dangerous, not just some cows in central asia or the american midwest. we have had a phase in earth'S history when pratcically all methane that today is frozen hydrate was in the atmosphere, and it turned the world ointo a baking oven, killed almost all igher life forms on earth, and let the temperature in the very deep sea which today is around 1-2°C climb to levbels arund 15-20 - in several thosuand meters depth!
So witz the thawing of the permafrost areas, and more and more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, the eventual colling effects of temporarily growing ice areas already is countered, and probably overcopensated for. We also do not know if even without this additonal factor the growing condenstating of air moisture on ice areas would be sufficient to overcome the growing wamring of the ocean that takes place due to the longer radiation of sun over a bigger area in summer, due to the since years shrinking ice coverage in summer. what we know is the trend form the past 4-10 decades. and that trend is very visible and very clear: glaciers retreating or disappearing pratcically all over the world, the altitiude at whoich snow begins in the mountain, goes up, and in tourist ressorts the coretime were winter sport conditions are guaranteed, shrinks in length, and in the Alps for exmaple since years have made villages and communities to start to develope alternative tourist attractions for the time after there will be no more snow at all. And that is projected to be the case in just 20-30 years. Many Alpine glaciers - already are almost no longer there right now.
A weather report from just one year, does not change the trends. You could as well look out of the window and by what you see you make an assumption for the weather of all the year altogether. Trying that, is simply incompetence - or bad intention.
Skybird
10-19-08, 05:12 AM
Im not here to praise Cesar only to bury him......the great lakes in NA were carved out by glaciers and then filled with fresh water by........anyone, anyone, global warming. Before man ever fuc%ed up anything else. I do agree, over population will screw a lot of things up, but mother earth is large, been here a long time, and can take care of herself.
I agree, Earth will survive mankind, this or that way. But manklind cannot survive earth. So, not nature has a problem - WE have a problem.
Hanomag
10-19-08, 09:20 AM
Wow nice pics Skybird!!
But think of all that waterfront realestate that just opened up. Shweet! :up:
Frame57
10-19-08, 11:46 AM
The point is that if "global warming", erm excuse me, "climate change" is indeed primarily caused by humans, and i'm not at all convinced that it is, then it is because of our numbers more than anything else. We can all trade in our air conditioners for paddle fans and keep our houses just above freezing in the winter, whatever, but it won't make a bit of difference as long as world population keeps rising.
Science is getting better at documenting changes in our environment but it can't make more than the most generalized of forecasts and even then they are wrong as often as not.Precisely! These are the same kind of "Scientists" who on one hand said "Margarine is better for you than butter", then realize that the reverse is true years later. Or design a drug that is supposedly good for you, then realize years later it can kill you. No, the time cycle of the earth is showing that we are headed into a cooling period.
SUBMAN1
10-19-08, 11:48 AM
The point is that if "global warming", erm excuse me, "climate change" is indeed primarily caused by humans, and i'm not at all convinced that it is, then it is because of our numbers more than anything else. We can all trade in our air conditioners for paddle fans and keep our houses just above freezing in the winter, whatever, but it won't make a bit of difference as long as world population keeps rising.
Science is getting better at documenting changes in our environment but it can't make more than the most generalized of forecasts and even then they are wrong as often as not.Precisely! These are the same kind of "Scientists" who on one hand said "Margarine is better for you than butter", then realize that the reverse is true years later. Or design a drug that is supposedly good for you, then realize years later it can kill you. No, the time cycle of the earth is showing that we are headed into a cooling period.
Perfect analogy! :up::up::up:
-S
Hylander_1314
10-20-08, 07:13 AM
Only thing is, nobody knows, is how long, or much warmer it will get before it cools again. Also what needs to be taken into account is the sun's activity. During the "Little Iceage" one of the things learned from the early records of the old telescopes, was that the sun had entered a cool period where there was less activity in the form of sunspots. More sunspots, reflects in warmer planetary temperatures. Less or fewer sunspots reflects in cooler planetary temps.
Also the earth's orbit around the sun changes from more oblong in the orbit, to times when it is more circular, so distances from the sun need to be added to the mix, aside from what just happens on the planet itself.
Man's effects on climate are miniscule. Now that the witchhunt attitudes by the ultrapro-humans are causing this crowd, and other scientists who were ridiculed for not jumping on the global warming scare bandwagon are getting their say, and many give us humans a 2% impact effect on the planet.
The thing that gets me, is the government wants to impose a "carbon" tax. The UN is real big behind this one, as the UN will reap the benefit of the tax. So the best way to get people to go along with it, is to hype them up on fear. Get the media involved, and lamb-baste anyone who disagrees.
Skybird
10-20-08, 07:39 AM
Only thing is, nobody knows, is how long, or much warmer it will get before it cools again. Also what needs to be taken into account is the sun's activity. During the "Little Iceage" one of the things learned from the early records of the old telescopes, was that the sun had entered a cool period where there was less activity in the form of sunspots. More sunspots, reflects in warmer planetary temperatures. Less or fewer sunspots reflects in cooler planetary temps.
Also the earth's orbit around the sun changes from more oblong in the orbit, to times when it is more circular, so distances from the sun need to be added to the mix, aside from what just happens on the planet itself.
Man's effects on climate are miniscule. Now that the witchhunt attitudes by the ultrapro-humans are causing this crowd, and other scientists who were ridiculed for not jumping on the global warming scare bandwagon are getting their say, and many give us humans a 2% impact effect on the planet.
That is a claim, and not more than that. Give us something better than just that. the ajority of scientists, the vast majority, argues in favour of a decisive human influence, and they have well-thougt out theories for that, hints, sometimes evidence (especially in miniature models), and plenty, PLENTY, or correlations. Compared to that, "sceptics" are strong in one thing: expressing their doujbts. But their theories are often adventurous, to put it mildly, and get payed by undisurtial circles who have a storng and defined interst to rejet human actiivty being respjnsible, and to prevent policies trying to adress the issue - sinbce thios would impact on industrial dtandards, and thzat is not wanted for prit interests. That not adressing these issues will cost the industry at least ten times as much as calculations showed, gets ignored, even more since one has established apattern since long to privatize profits, but to externlaise costs andmlosses and let the national community - the tax payer - pay for it. the behavior here is the same, in principle, as was to be seen in creating the finance crisis. Capitalism knows no conscience and no morals, and it eats it's children.
The thing that gets me, is the government wants to impose a "carbon" tax. The UN is real big behind this one, as the UN will reap the benefit of the tax. So the best way to get people to go along with it, is to hype them up on fear. Get the media involved, and lamb-baste anyone who disagrees.
What perfectly describes the attitude of so-called "climate-sceptics"
Hylander_1314
10-20-08, 12:02 PM
Either way, there isn't enough concrete evidence to prove that man and solely man is the cause for our current planetary status. It to me is just another way to grab money from people without their consent. Not just in the Americas, but the Sovereign Nations of Europe, Africa, and Asia.
I think what some ppl here fail to grasp is no, the earth won't go down, no matter what we do. And no, ppl are not evil just for polluting. Earth survived bigger catastrophes, volcanos, asteroid impacts and so on. And yes, humanity will survive as well.
It also does not really matter if its humankind alone to blame, or if natural causes have their part in this. But even if it is a natural cause, which still needs proof, then pollution still amplifies the effect.
No, the problem is, rising temperatures will cause "humane" problems, and big ones. For some countries it's a blessing, northern countries especially, but for the majority of the world population droughts, lack of water, even a slightly rising ocean level will be a life or death question. Most folks on this planet live on coasts and/or relativly dry regions. More fights for water, ressources and civil unrest will be the result in third world countries, which may very well indirectly or directly effect first world countries. The latter will have less problems coping with this, but still need to invest enourmous sums to counter the changes imposed by climate change.
This is not about "saving the environment", though that would be a nice bonus. It's about saving costs. And developing future industries and science. I mean seriously, are ppl that stupid they do not realize that climate change, for good or bad, also offers a lot of chances? Ignoring it is a road to international isolation and further scientific backdrop, especially in a country whose only top science left is weapons.
There we have the US, producer of 25 percent of the worlds air pollution, stepping in and actually stating "it's not real". How...convinient. And then you wonder why terrorism comes up in third world countries who do not have the financial basis to fight climate change and blame the west for hypocrisis? Please.
From all courses one could take, no matter the agenda, ignoring or dismissing it for short term industrial gain and "I do want to power my AC full throttle! D:!" is the most stupid move in the long run. Protection of an industry that is in dire need of modernisation won't pay off, that is a lesson most communist countries had to learn already.
Frame57
10-21-08, 10:08 AM
Beowolf, I am agreeing with you on most of your post. The fifth paragraph, however leaves me scratching my head. Are you saying that terrorism is caused because of greenhouse gases or other pollution?:hmm:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/3226747/Climate-change-is-faster-and-more-extreme-than-feared.html
'Extreme weather events' such as the hot summer of 2003, which caused an extra 35,000 deaths across southern Europe from heat stress and poor air quality, will happen more frequently.
Britain and the North Sea area will be hit more often by violent cyclones and the predicted rise in sea level will double to more than a metre, putting vast coastal areas at risk from flooding.
The bleak report from WWF - formerly the World Wildlife Fund - also predicts crops failures and the collapse of eco systems on both land and sea.
And it calls on the EU to set an example to the rest of the world by agreeing a package of challenging targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions to tackle the consequences of climate change and to keep any increase in global temperatures below 2C.
Beowolf, I am agreeing with you on most of your post. The fifth paragraph, however leaves me scratching my head. Are you saying that terrorism is caused because of greenhouse gases or other pollution?:hmm:
No, I am saying terrorism is caused for many parts by ignorance and arrogance of the west. Ppl don't just start hating for the fun of it or just because someone else is richer. And the treatment of a global problem by those nations that caused it, or may have a hand in amplifying it, is a perfect example. If I were a farmer living in the middle east, and a westerner, known for exploiting my region for ressoruces and beeing involved in political power gambles for this goal for decades, resulting in authorian regimes, revolutions, civil wars and international wars and beeing responsible for the vast majority of the worlds air pollution for centuries, came and told me "oh, yeah, we love to drive inefficent big cars, run our ACs full throttle, do not like to invest in our industry to make them more effective, and cimate change is caused by the sun, so eh, sorry, but it's not our problem if you guys starve", then I certainly would be on his throat in no time.
This may not be the direct cause for terrorism, but it certainly forms up the basis terrorists recrute their folks from. These sentiments certainly won't decrease or just evaporate over time should temperatures raise even more, causing catastrophes in such countries.
That just to elaborate on your question, not to steer the topic into another direction. But a good reason to take the whole topic "very" serious even aside the purely environmental issues. And this is the reason why the EU is taking action even without international consensus and fully aware of the short term economic problems caused by it. Just as an example, the EU is forcing car builders to lower their emissions to a degree that companies like Porsche already stated they will seize to exist (though that may be typical industrial blabla from companies fearing for their shareholder value). Nevertheless, it's one of Germany's crown jewels, even the possibility of sacrificing it should give you a hint how serious this all is taken over here.
And it calls on the EU to set an example to the rest of the world by agreeing a package of challenging targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions to tackle the consequences of climate change and to keep any increase in global temperatures below 2C.
Aside from giving you a feeling of doing something to address the issue it won't accomplish anything, let alone prevent temperature increase as long as population growth remains unchecked.
And it calls on the EU to set an example to the rest of the world by agreeing a package of challenging targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions to tackle the consequences of climate change and to keep any increase in global temperatures below 2C.
Aside from giving you a feeling of doing something to address the issue it won't accomplish anything, let alone prevent temperature increase as long as population growth remains unchecked.
Well, I suppose putting your hands in your lap and having a cig is the best course of action then, hm?
This all reminds me of a childhood saying my parents kept reminding me of whenever I argued in the lines of "hey, the others do it, so I do it, too".
It was, roughly translated "and if the others jump from the bridge, you will, too, hm?"
Frame57
10-21-08, 11:08 AM
As far as Countries like SA or Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, it looks to me like they have lived in very arid conditions for a millenia. They have oil and poppies which bring them income, but it seems that only a few have benefitted from their resources. OPEC and the Saudi royalty specifically.
The form of muslim terrorism has its roots steeped in religion. Israel being its number one target. America supports Israel, so then we become number two target.
I do not think for a moment that a coward could recruit an ignorant woman to strap a bomb on her body in the name of global warming, but I do see how a fanatical mindset invoked by religion can accomplish this. Just like how cults get their followers to commit suicide etc... It is called Jihad.
Well, I suppose putting your hands in your lap and having a cig is the best course of action then, hm?
I quit smoking over a year ago and I will never have children. I also live within walking distance of my job so my car stays in the garage all week long. Now all of those items actually address the problem of global warming far more than creating another tax.
So what have you done, hmmm?
As far as Countries like SA or Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, it looks to me like they have lived in very arid conditions for a millenia. They have oil and poppies which bring them income, but it seems that only a few have benefitted from their resources. OPEC and the Saudi royalty specifically.
The form of muslim terrorism has its roots steeped in religion. Israel being its number one target. America supports Israel, so then we become number two target.
I do not think for a moment that a coward could recruit an ignorant woman to strap a bomb on her body in the name of global warming, but I do see how a fanatical mindset invoked by religion can accomplish this. Just like how cults get their followers to commit suicide etc... It is called Jihad.
Then you should check the history of british, french and american oil companies from the the beginning of the 20th century onwards in this region. The support of the Shah and the later iranian iraqi war with it's massive american infuence. Add to that americas and europas support of Israel and you will understand these ppl quite a bit better, especially that such anti jewish tendencies only really developed "after" the foundatiion of Isreal, massivly influenced by german ideology. The OPEC is fairly young in comparison to this history.
If you want, you can trace this back even to the middle ages and their crusades, then Bush talking about a "crusade" on international TV when it came to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. It is not so much if those prejudices against the west are justifed or if everything thrown around down is based on facts. But it's all about how the common ppl "percieve" it there.
You are right, btw, the area is pretty arid, and was so for quite some time. Now imagine it becoming even more dry, reducing the few areas capable of agriculture even more. Or for that matter, all the african nations. Not to forget the vast areas of the great plains and southwestern russia who will suffer, too. Food shortages already caused massive and worldwide uproars last year.
No, based on global warming alone a palestine women won't bomb anybody. There we agree. But with the effects of global warming in mind, based on all the other expiriences these ppl made with the west, this will be an amplifier. And it does not even matter if they really put the blame on the west for that. The more extreme conditions alone will create more extremists.
But as said before, this probably works better to continue in another thread.
Well, I suppose putting your hands in your lap and having a cig is the best course of action then, hm?
I quit smoking over a year ago and I will never have children. I also live within walking distance of my job so my car stays in the garage all week long. Now all of those items actually address the problem of global warming far more than creating another tax.
So what have you done, hmmm?
This is not so much about individual behaviour, though I do ride to work on my bycyle and use the car only for long distances, just for the record. Both have the added benefit of health and costs, which actually were my prime goals in this, the environmental effect beeing a bonus. I also live in an apartment with triple layered glass windows and redone temperature isolation, both greatly reducing energy requirements and costs.
But unless it's done on a nationwide oder even international level, this won't achive a lot. Now ppl won't invest anything for purely environmental issues. For that ppl are too greedy in general, which is understandable to a degree. But folks have to realize these measures actually create new industries, thus new jobs and wealth.
This is not so much about individual behaviour, though I do ride to work on my bycyle and use the car only for long distances, just for the record. Both have the added benefit of health and costs, which actually were my prime goals in this, the environmental effect beeing a bonus. I also live in an apartment with triple layered glass windows and redone temperature isolation, both greatly reducing energy requirements and costs.
But unless it's done on a nationwide oder even international level, this won't achive a lot. Now ppl won't invest anything for purely environmental issues. For that ppl are too greedy in general, which is understandable to a degree. But folks have to realize these measures actually create new industries, thus new jobs and wealth.
No, people don't want to invest in ill thought out knee jerk reactionary measures which have no chance of accomplishing their stated objectives.
Triple layered windows and improved insulation will help drive an individuals costs down and that's a great thing, but as long as world population keeps increasing it will quickly outstrip any cost saving effort.
I don't know why you take issue with this but there you are.
This is not so much about individual behaviour, though I do ride to work on my bycyle and use the car only for long distances, just for the record. Both have the added benefit of health and costs, which actually were my prime goals in this, the environmental effect beeing a bonus. I also live in an apartment with triple layered glass windows and redone temperature isolation, both greatly reducing energy requirements and costs.
But unless it's done on a nationwide oder even international level, this won't achive a lot. Now ppl won't invest anything for purely environmental issues. For that ppl are too greedy in general, which is understandable to a degree. But folks have to realize these measures actually create new industries, thus new jobs and wealth.
No, people don't want to invest in ill thought out knee jerk reactionary measures which have no chance of accomplishing their stated objectives.
Triple layered windows and improved insulation will help drive an individuals costs down and that's a great thing, but as long as world population keeps increasing it will quickly outstrip any cost saving effort.
I don't know why you take issue with this but there you are.
Look, you have an attitude of "why should I do something, I can't change anything anyways". That is the attitude I have isues with.
If you want to look at it this way, then it's your choice, but I prefer to act and support those that act.
Besides, the west, with only a fraction of the worlds population, is reponsible for nearly half the worlds pollution, especially when it comes to carbon dioxide. That does not go together with your overpopulation theory, which is indeed a problem, but goes into a different direction.
Look, you have an attitude of "why should I do something, I can't change anything anyways". That is the attitude I have isues with.
Wrong, that's never been my position.
Besides, the west, with only a fraction of the worlds population, is reponsible for nearly half the worlds pollution, especially when it comes to carbon dioxide. That does not go together with your overpopulation theory, which is indeed a problem, but goes into a different direction.
Which even adding the rest of the world is but a small fraction of the Co2 produced naturally. If you are so concerned why are you generating unnecessary Co2 by playing computer games and posting in forums?
Look, you have an attitude of "why should I do something, I can't change anything anyways". That is the attitude I have isues with.
Wrong, that's never been my position.
In light of lacking alternatives presented by you...yes it is.
Besides, the west, with only a fraction of the worlds population, is reponsible for nearly half the worlds pollution, especially when it comes to carbon dioxide. That does not go together with your overpopulation theory, which is indeed a problem, but goes into a different direction.
Which even adding the rest of the world is but a small fraction of the Co2 produced naturally. If you are so concerned why are you generating unnecessary Co2 by playing computer games and posting in forums?
Because it belongs to my daily routine, that simple. Catch questions like these neither solve anything nor do they contribute to the discussion at all, but merely serve to undermine the discussions partners argument. If you feel the need to drop to this level, have fun discussing with yourself.
Frame57
10-22-08, 09:57 AM
As far as Countries like SA or Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, it looks to me like they have lived in very arid conditions for a millenia. They have oil and poppies which bring them income, but it seems that only a few have benefitted from their resources. OPEC and the Saudi royalty specifically.
The form of muslim terrorism has its roots steeped in religion. Israel being its number one target. America supports Israel, so then we become number two target.
I do not think for a moment that a coward could recruit an ignorant woman to strap a bomb on her body in the name of global warming, but I do see how a fanatical mindset invoked by religion can accomplish this. Just like how cults get their followers to commit suicide etc... It is called Jihad.
Then you should check the history of british, french and american oil companies from the the beginning of the 20th century onwards in this region. The support of the Shah and the later iranian iraqi war with it's massive american infuence. Add to that americas and europas support of Israel and you will understand these ppl quite a bit better, especially that such anti jewish tendencies only really developed "after" the foundatiion of Isreal, massivly influenced by german ideology. The OPEC is fairly young in comparison to this history.
If you want, you can trace this back even to the middle ages and their crusades, then Bush talking about a "crusade" on international TV when it came to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. It is not so much if those prejudices against the west are justifed or if everything thrown around down is based on facts. But it's all about how the common ppl "percieve" it there.
You are right, btw, the area is pretty arid, and was so for quite some time. Now imagine it becoming even more dry, reducing the few areas capable of agriculture even more. Or for that matter, all the african nations. Not to forget the vast areas of the great plains and southwestern russia who will suffer, too. Food shortages already caused massive and worldwide uproars last year.
No, based on global warming alone a palestine women won't bomb anybody. There we agree. But with the effects of global warming in mind, based on all the other expiriences these ppl made with the west, this will be an amplifier. And it does not even matter if they really put the blame on the west for that. The more extreme conditions alone will create more extremists.
But as said before, this probably works better to continue in another thread.Sure! The fact that other countries have oil and other countries do good business with them to have that, is just business. It is not like the country was invaded and their resources taken away from them to incite the muslim world. This also includes China and Russia. SA and the UAE do not seem to have a problem with doing business. This does not seem to me to be a genuine motivator for terrorism. Besides the terrorist do not represent their country anyway. They are extremist and need to be terminated with extreme prejudice. They give good muslims a bad name.
Look folks, it was your descison to blow up a minor point of my initial argument into a completly different direction. But ok, here we go.
1. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1019&full=1
2. There is a difference between facts and percieving. And I am not about facts here, but how the typical inhabitant down there sees the US through decades of quarrels, propaganda and american intervention. This means the folks will be set up extremly easily, no matter how harmless it appears to westerners. That is the problem with ignorant arrogance. The unwillingness to think oneself into the position of the folks down there, the unwillingness to even acknowledge that these folks may have actual reasons for their actions and feelings, for real or just imagined.
What caused terrorism much later is based on a long history and does not just come out of the blue.
Take it or leave it at that.
In light of lacking alternatives presented by you...yes it is.
But I have presented an alternative and as far as i've seen the only one that would achieve the (stated) objective: Get our population growth under control. If we could reduce world population by 1-2 billion we wouldn't have the problems we're having (assuming of course human population has the degree of effect global warming advocates claim it does).
Because it belongs to my daily routine, that simple. Catch questions like these neither solve anything nor do they contribute to the discussion at all, but merely serve to undermine the discussions partners argument. If you feel the need to drop to this level, have fun discussing with yourself.
It's not a catch question. You're talking about reducing human generated Co2 levels right? Well apologies to your daily routine but obviously unnecessary luxury items like personal computers are something we should cut first before we start messing with peoples livelihoods or mobility, imo of course.
...
It's not a catch question. You're talking about reducing human generated Co2 levels right? Well apologies to your daily routine but obviously unnecessary luxury items like personal computers are something we should cut first before we start messing with peoples livelihoods or mobility, imo of course.
Use of computers may reduce the need for physical transportation. If the environmental impact for producing/using/disposing-of the puters is lesser than the impacts of transportation or whatever activity they "substitute" then it's OK.
Use of computers may reduce the need for physical transportation. If the environmental impact for producing/using/disposing-of the puters is lesser than the impacts of transportation or whatever activity they "substitute" then it's OK.
Good point. I'd be interested in seeing an environmental impact study on that.
With all due respect, but you should ask before making presumptions. My Computer is part of what I do for work and as that essential for earning money. It's not a "luxury".
And then we come to your other point...reducing population. Now I am curious about your proposals to solve this problem.
Mass executions? Probably not what you ment. Sterilisation? A strict population control China style?
None of these are even remotely in line with human rights, are a "massive" interference with anybodies private life, yet are the only ways to actually enforce such a policy, unless you want to make it a money question, so getting children is a privilege of the rich. This is only doable in a dictatorlship like environment where ethics and morals are of second nature at best.
I hope you will understand it is hard to grasp that anybody could put that as a lighter and less instrusive method compared to cuts in livelihoods or mobility. Not having children of your own is nice and up to you, but to ask that of anybody else, especially without sacrificing anything oneself, is just whack and otherworldish, no matter how much I agree to you that overpopulation indeed is a problem, and an enormous one.
But ok, let's assume we "do" cut population by 2 billion to 4 billion ppl living on this planet. The problem is not the number as that. The problem is the number of ppl wanting to have a western style standart of living. Imagine China or India becoming as relaxed as the US when it comes to pollution, especially to pollution per capita.
Last question? what entitles you, or any other western nations inhabitant, to it's standart of living and usage and waste of all that energy? What makes you more worth then a chinese or a russian or an indian to have mobility and a good life? Because one thing is for sure..keeping this level is possible only by denying other nations the same. Only then current trends of climate change and pollution won't transform into a truly massive catastrophe in the long run. And if you try to enforce such a policy, you can be sure about world war 3, which will solve the whole matter anyways.
Well obviously Bewolf your computer isn't all about work or you wouldn't be posting on a subsim gaming forum and have that fancy SH signature, now would you? So ask yourself the same question: What entitles you to waste this energy? You're so very quick to attack my standard of living but it seems to me that you are just as "guilty" as anyone else in this regard. FWIW that's the kind of hypocrisy which makes me tend to doubt the motives of governments and organizations that push these wealth redistribution schemes.
As for population control. No, I am not in favor of mass executions or forced sterilization and I agree with you it'd be a very difficult thing to enforce, but difficulty and attractiveness is immaterial. The point remains; if we do not find a way to limit population growth somehow, then any other measure we take is doomed to failure.
What i'd really like to know is why you feel that my pointing out that a particular plan is doomed to failure justifies your accusation that all i want to do is "putting your hands in your lap and having a cig is the best course of action then, hm?"
Finally I'd like to challenge your idea that we have a lax pollution policy in the US. We have some of the most stringent environmental laws in the world. So stringent in fact that much of our manufacturing jobs have moved overseas, including to China and India, where the laws are far less restrictive. The progress we have made, especially in the past half century has been far and above the effort of any other industrialized nation. So before you consign me to a pre industrial life (where BTW i would be burning coal and wood to heat my house) perhaps you ought to consider what you are demanding.
Frame57
10-22-08, 08:14 PM
Look folks, it was your descison to blow up a minor point of my initial argument into a completly different direction. But ok, here we go.
1. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1019&full=1
2. There is a difference between facts and percieving. And I am not about facts here, but how the typical inhabitant down there sees the US through decades of quarrels, propaganda and american intervention. This means the folks will be set up extremly easily, no matter how harmless it appears to westerners. That is the problem with ignorant arrogance. The unwillingness to think oneself into the position of the folks down there, the unwillingness to even acknowledge that these folks may have actual reasons for their actions and feelings, for real or just imagined.
What caused terrorism much later is based on a long history and does not just come out of the blue.
Take it or leave it at that.They sure liked the American intervention when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in the 70's. But then they bit the hand that fed them....Dog eat dog I guess!
And it calls on the EU to set an example to the rest of the world by agreeing a package of challenging targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions to tackle the consequences of climate change and to keep any increase in global temperatures below 2C.
Aside from giving you a feeling of doing something to address the issue it won't accomplish anything, let alone prevent temperature increase as long as population growth remains unchecked.
Population growth is one of the problems.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.