Appeasement policy towards climate change

[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?
  

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

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

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]

Originally Posted by moose1am

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)

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

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...m?press_id=853

I just flew over this:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/M...port_07mar.pdf

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

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.

But great post, Skybird 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Hitman

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.

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]

Originally Posted by fatty

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.

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]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

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/200...e%20Report.pdf