Global Warming

More like: there are some changes in effect now; we can expect continuing minor changes and affects in our lifetime; the major changes - when they come - will be uncomfortably 'swift' in some cases; and the overall import of the changes is that they will cause dire amounts of death, destruction and instability.

The way the likes of Blair and Gore have summarised the seriousness of these changes is totally in line with the scientific estimates.

The very valid reason for emphasising the seriousness of the situation is that we only have roughly 10-20 years to majorly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions before the affect we have had becomes irreversible. This estimate has been brought down several times in recent years, thanks to worrying new discoveries.

It's a serious issue, worth hyping - not the relatively benign issue that you present.

Rather than repeating yourself endlessly, why not provide some evidence of this.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Heheh. My fault . I've been in a bit of a mood thanks to some recent reading i've been doing, on...

• The way energy efficiency alone doesn't lead to less energy usage - as it's a natural tendency to 'spend' the extra that we've 'saved'.
• The new discovery that plantlife produces methane, so forests are next-to-useless as carbon sinks.

Godyam, i say, godyam. (coz i worship yams, you see ).

Seeing as a bright side would be nice tho, i thought maybe i'd start a 'sister' thread to this one... Easy ways to tackle Global Warming

^^^ nice

__________________
"An Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
-Ben Kingsley, GHANDI

"Snozberries taste like snozberries"

I would asy something her but the Djanggy ruined it.sry

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Whose the "djanggy"?

The short answer is: Django, now barely-tolerated as darkhorse.

The long answer is: here and here

According to this website, the effects of global warming may be summarized as follows:
Furthermore, this is speculation and extrapolation, hardly scientific fact. Based on this information, you decide whether this issue warrants the sort of panic-inducing media and political attention it has been receiving. My opinion: it is a serious issue, but hardly what it has been hyped up to be.

Here is a loaded statement, if there ever was one!

1. First of all, what we have here is an admission of hyping up the facts--from your own mouth! You admit, in no uncertain terms, that you are, in fact, hyping up the facts, and that you endorse such hype from politicians and the media.
   
2. Secondly, what you seem to be suggesting is that the ends justify the means--that hyping it up is justified because the cause is so just and the enemy is so terrible. What's interesting is that Bush would make exactly the same argument about hyping up the war on terror and distorting the evidence to lead the US into war in Iraq--the ends justify the means--that because the enemy is so dangerous, we can, essentially, do anything we like, like wiretap the phones of US citizens and residents, torture innocent people in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, lie and distort factual evidence as a justification for war, terrorize the people we claim to be the terrorists, and so on, and so forth. Are we going to go the Israeli way and begin a state-sponsored program of political assassination as well? Who knows?
   
3. Finally, back to Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear--a prophetic title if there ever was one. What's the central message of this book? Is it about global warming? I think that there is a deeper subtext running through the narrative. It's really about the ends justifying (or, rather, not justifying) the means. Environmental protection is a noble cause. I am all for it. I believe in it wholeheartedly. Yet, there are some people who go to absurd lengths to serve their cause. Like demented dogs, they engage in acts of terrorism in a desperate attempt to further their environmentalist agenda. Michael Crichton's book is a fictional account, yet the phenomenon of environmental terrorism is real. Similarly, there are militant republicans who bomb abortion clinics because they believe so strongly in their "right to life" political agenda--how ironic and absurd is that? To murder people in the name of saving lives? And, of course, the ultimate irony is the war on terror itself--terrorizing the world in the name of fighting terrorism! Murdering Muslims in the name of Christianity, the religion that preaches loving one's enemy! Talk about irony! Or, should I say, hypocrisy?

I have provided the evidence. You are the one repeating yourself endlessly.

Some interesting catch phrases come to mind (from our discussion in this thread):

Irony

Misinformation

Hysteria

Exaggeration

Hyperbole

Distortion

Lies

etc., etc. Need I carry on?

It looks like you are back to your old game--if you disagree with someone, you start a personal attack on them--you begin to slander them and attack their character and reputation. It's a shame that you don't have the skill or intellect to match up to me in a fair debate. As a result, you have to drag up the muck from a sordid period in this forum's unfortunate history, dating back to a time when this country and, in fact, much of the world was consumed by xenophobia and the shadow of terrorism and a war in Iraq.

It's a pity that you lack the integrity to engage in honest debate, Golgot, because until now, I still had some respect for you and the causes you championed. However, now, I have lost all respect for you. So I won't waste any more of my time continuing with the pointless charade of debating you on the issues. It's pretty obvious that, like most of the others in this forum, when you disagree with someone on the issues, you feel compelled to resort to cheap, underhanded tactics. All you have done is cheapen yourself and the issues you support.

And you think this backs up your portrayal of climate change as a "limited" and "long term" threat? Let's revisit my reasons for insisting it's more than a distant irritation (I've provided a swift little example for each one)...

• There are some changes in effect now:
  Here's a benign one: 'Antarctic ice slipping faster into the sea'. Relatively benign that is...
  
  
• We can expect continuing minor changes and effects in our lifetime:
  'Cities may be abandoned as salt water invades' within the next few decades. (If some of the young'uns live til the end of the century, they may see other fun changes come to pass, like 'a doubling of extremes of both rain and drought across the US by the end of this century')
  
  
• The major changes - when they come - will be uncomfortably 'swift' in some cases:
  The Gulf Stream, which has shown partial signs of faltering recently, would cause a 5-10 degree drop in temperature in western Europe were it to 'collapse' completely (and it warms sections of the US significantly too ). Not pleasant.
  
  
• The changes will cause dire amounts of death, destruction and instability:
  We may be able to adapt and avoid some problems - but there are others that you just can't stop. A killer worth noting is... heat. Which, as you've noted, looks set to continue rising .
  
  
• We only have roughly 10-20 years to majorly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions before the affect we have had becomes irreversible:
  And i'm being generous. Why not listen to the US administration's top climate modeller NASA's Dr James Hansen, when he says that we have have 10 years at most to avoid hugely-significant temperature rises within the next 40 years?

You should like the focus of that last article too. It looks at how people tend to enter denial when faced with unpleasant facts


That is the nature of climate science, and any other science based on complex systems.

It's worth noting that nigh on every improvement in measurement technology and every new climate-process discovered in recent years has either strengthened current predictive-models or caused them to make even more damning predictions. You can take this as a giant-exceptionally-well-organised conspiracy... or as a touch worrying.

Not in the terms you're imagining. I said: "It's a serious issue, worth hyping", yes.

By that i meant that it is worth going to great lengths to bring it public attention - by making big statements etc (in line with the science), NOT "lets induce mass hysteria and facilitate unconnected political agendas" (the themes which you repeat yet again, unwarrentedly, in your rabid 2nd and 3rd points).

If this were genuinely a discussion, and not the 1000th example of you grandstanding pointlessly to the detriment of factual-exchange, then we could actually have a civilised discussion about the dangers inherent in using (valid) fear to get attention.

But considering you've already shifted into the mode where your posts will get longer, and your points fewer and further between, i don't see the point.

Yes, those guys that slash the tyres on 4x4s are mugs. I don't agree with their actions, or their particular use of fear/intimidation. But then again, nor do i agree with the way you compared them to abortion-clinic-bombers. You're talking nonsense. Again.

Yeah, coz you see me doing that to everyone don't you

One day, you'll acknowledge the truth of the matter (the truth that surely you must already know inside) - the one that explains why you receive the treatment you eventually do (which has always been preceeded, i might add, by almost inhuman amounts of patience and understanding).

Somehow, I feel as if all the points I have made so far about fear-mongering and exaggerating the facts have fallen on deaf ears. I have nothing more to say here.

Let's say if this sounds familiar: "scare tactics is a marketing strategy".


Pseudo-science, you mean.

I clearly said that I do not take this as a conspiracy. I think you are not paying attention to what I have been saying. I think that you are exaggerating the facts. I think that the media and politicians are hyping the facts as part of a marketing strategy.

If there is anyone here being rabid, it's you! I'm trying to be reasonable and bring attention to political hype and media distortions.

You are the one who is grandstanding here--I am merely attempting to get some valid points across.

Why are you endlessly attributing your own actions to me? Look at the posts above and let's take another look at who's being long-winded, who's being the blowhard, who's being the pompous, grandstanding idiot! Look again--it's you, not me!

I think that they are pretty much the same. I honestly see no difference between them. Both are fringe groups of lunatics who go to absurd lengths to support their esoteric causes. I doubt that the mainstream of the population really cares one way or another about their personal, private political agendas, which is why these whackos go to such absurd lengths to bring publicity to their causes. Let's face it--the average man on the street really doesn't care one way or the other about abortion or environmental issues. So why not bomb an abortion clinic or commit some act of environmental terrorism to bring attention to your insane fringe cause? I personally think that both groups of people should be put in straitjackets and confined to the lunatic asylum!

I think that you, like most people on this forum, are completely out of touch with reality! I find it hard to take anything you say seriously any more!

Somehow, i get the feeling you're not going to accept anything scientific that disagrees with your views.

Somehow, i feel i've been here before. In fact i know i have. And we both know how it ends. I keep laying on more and more facts to justify my case - you ignore each increasing batch of justification and repeat your claims again with more words but no added content - the 'discussion' gets as far as it could possibly be from being in a fit state to tackle nuances and complexities, because you stick to your pre-formed stance no-matter what the evidence, and i get forced into an increasingly hardline stance to try and get you to acknowledge any sort of flaw in your reasoning.

Which is exceptionally annoying and negative. Because the reason i like to debate is to give my beliefs and sources a 'reality check'. With you, this proves almost entirely impossible.

So let me 'repeat' a point at you. Which scenario do you think is more likely? (a) That you're always right and everyone else is wrong? (b) the reverse? (c) something inbetween?

And for you to subscribe to (c), you'll have to remind me of a few situations where you've changed your mind about something on these forums in the face of convincing evidence. Because do you know what... i can't think of a single occasion where you've made a meaningful alteration to your initial stance. (On the rare occasions where you have altered a particularly unsustainable position, it's been after you've been hit over the head with several 'pages' worth of evidence by multiple posters, and even then, you've normally had an amnesia attack a few pages later and started restating the position as 'evidence').

For about the fifth time of asking...

WHAT are they MARKETING? HOW are the politicians benefitting from this? Tell me, because i would dearly love to know. (There are some minor examples, but you haven't even managed to present them yet).

You...really...don't...see...a...difference? Between slashing car tyres and killing innocents in an unannounced bombing attack?

Do you see now how far you will twist and turn to try and never, ever, alter one jot of your assertions? Nah, i doubt it. It's probably me twisting your words isn't it

Well be a good chap and **** off then.

Hey?


Who wants to touch that?

__________________

This may have already been asked/said, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway: is there any compelling evidence, not that the climate is changing, but that it's changing because of us? I've done a little reading on the subject, and some have proposed that climate change is en inevitable, cyclical process, and that at worst we slight exacerbate a change that probably can't be stopped anyway.

My apologies if this issue has already been raised. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on it, though, if it hasn't.

Also, a while back Django said something about people exaggerating the severity of their claims. I believe Gol responded with something akin to "why would they do that?" Again, it's possible this has already been addressed, but if not, I'd like to point out that it's always in someone's interest to exaggerate a threat; especially politicians. The more threats there are, the more we need them to deal with them. Politicians hype problems for the same reason civil rights "leaders" hype racial tension; without it, they have less reason for existing.

Whether or not this actually happens aside, it's not unreasonable or unfathomable that this is the case, especially in an area where, as Gol concedes, we have no choice but to extrapolate and make assumptions, given the inherent complexity of the situation.

On this there's as little doubt as you can get. The geological record shows a variety of cycles that have been completed a few times over, i believe. (The question is not whether we can stop them, more whether we have affected-and-'accelerated' some of these cycles to the extent that they will reach key 'tipping' points sooner than normal, and so 'flip' relatively rapidly into new states sooner than normal).

On this, there's no short answer. The current opinion of the IPCC, is yes. I believe their assertions mainly center around correlations between: growth of population-agriculture-and-industry; 'geological' records of greenhouse-gas increases and temperature changes; and more 'contemporary' scientific measurements of the same.

This position is shored up by the failure of several counter-theories, such as those which failed to find stronger correlations between the temperature record and the likes of sun-cycles, volcanic activity, and heat from populations centres alone (all of which are incorporated into the 'IPCC' models anyway).

Unfortunately we haven't been able to get near the details, although i'd love to too .

It hasn't been addressed exactly in those terms. That may be my fault. Initially Djang made comparisons between the political use of 'Terror' to help justify the Iraq invasion and political 'use' of GW 'terror'. I deemed that unjustified (IE because he was implying that the Iraq-invasion-via-terror-justifications was a case of public manipulation, and was therefore implying that GW had been used to promote some large, unrelated agenda as well. I wanted to know what that was).

Because i read it like that, i didn't concede the 'scaring for scarings' sake angle, which o'course, is a political fave, i agree.

(Apologies Djangles - i shoulda made clear why i was asking what the ulterior objective was)

Sure.

What i've been striving to do is defend the climate science from the accusation of unnecessary scaremongering (which Django also accused it off, in that he thinks that it's more benign than the general scientific consensus - and that it's politicians who have made it sound scarier - to heighten the 'scare' factor).

To prove that issue either way we'd need to go for the centre of the controversy - the Global Warming science.

I'm totally up for doing that

Hasen't bush already said global warming doesn't exist? hardly scare mongering.
Even if we are or not causing global warming the pollution were doing to the earth can't be doing it any good.
With the receding of the ice caps and rasing sea levels something is up.
We need technology that doesn't pollute the earth, and find ways to replace our decreasing resources.
Unfortunatly that will require huge change which noone is willing to do as money rules the world.
I think it was steven hawking who said that for humanity to survive we need to colonize other planets.

You know, if I was at a party and someone said that to me, I'd be offended.

However, this is the internet, after all, right? I mean, whose to say that there aren't cultist cannibals or sexual deviants or vampire impersonators or crazy people who own hostels where they torture people for fun in here? This is the internet and there could be any sort of peoplehere. So, as a result, I don't take things personally when I'm in here.

That said, I apologize for having offended you if I said something inappropriate in the heat of the moment! Take it easy!

You mean, you have made me the focus of this thread. All I'm trying to do here is raise an issue related to global warming that I find interesting.

Nobody is saying that climate changes aren't going to happen whether or not we take better care of the Earth. However, I think that there is no question about the fact that we speed up the changes doing what we're doing today.

Air pollutions prevent heat from rising from the ground while at the same time the use of various gases and other substances damage the ozone layer, allowing more sunshine to shine in which increases the temperature further. As I said in my initial post here, 2005 was the warmest year in many places over the world since they started the measuring of temperature - the ten highest measurments are from the 1990s or the 2000s. And even though I'm a firm believer in the power of evolution, there is no way all the different spieces of animals and plants can adapt this fast to the climate changes. I don't know for sure, but I bet climate researchers can see changes coming gradually and long before they actually occur. The Earth follows patterns and cycles just like all other organisms, I'm sure, but when the changes from decade to decade and sometimes even from year to year are so prominent, and when we at the same time know for a fact what effects certain substances have on nature in general, it isn't that hard to conclude what the effects are in a macro perspective. Then add the effects that pollutions have on the oceans, causing plants to grow faster and using up so much oxygen that the fish suffocate. I do believe this also causes the temperature to rise in the water, speeding up the green house effect even more. As we all know, cities by the sea are always warmer than cities inwards country because the sea helps to heat up the land.

Hype? You mean as in hyping the threat of WMD:s?

If there is something that upsets you, that you think is unfair or wrong, you might want to do something to change that fact - so you start working politically to change that. How is that "hype"? I actually think that is a very lame argument for why environmentalists would be just that: environmentalists or "greens". It's like saying that Conservatives like low taxes, not because they think it's good for the economy or for the individual, but because they would not exist without people being afraid of high taxes. A circular reasoning that really leads nowhere.

The difference between those who advocate tougher methods against air and water polluters and those who say that "it's not that bad - in fact, it's not bad at all" is that the greens do it for ideological reasons while the Oil Industry et al are doing what they're doing because of one thing only: money. The greens are allready underdogs: they haven't got the majority vote behind them, many consider them to be uncomfortable hippies, they don't have any particular political power and they certainly don't have any financial power. And they get very little coverage in media, despite what some are claiming here. It's not like they have anything to win by making all these things up. The green parties all over the world are built up by people who have a greater knowledge than the average man about at least one thing - the nature. You don't join a green party if you want to make a political career - then you join one of the major political parties.

At the same time, the Oil Industry, and the corporate world in general, attracts people who want to earn a buck and gladly more than one. If you, as an oil company executive are faced with two options: make the greens happy and lose some of the shareholders' money OR keep doing what you're doing and make the money grow. What do you do? You're obligated to think about your company and its shareholders first and the environment second - it's as simple as that. But you can't look as the bad guy in the eyes of the public, so you find methods to make the decay of the nature as a myth and to remind people how devastating these "green changes" would be to their daily comfort.

My point is, those who try to tone down the "man-made threats" against the environment have billions of reasons for doing so while the defenders of the environment have no other hidden reasons than saving the environment for doing what they are doing. The methods the environmentalists are sometimes using or the fact that they tend to forget other issues than the environment is another discussion. But their intentions are not only good but right.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.