Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[Stavros]

Acquiring inordinate riches is very rational. It's rational self interest. I mean, why should I care if the old woman down the street doesn't have enough to eat. Ain't my problem. Or the old guy down the street doesn't have health care.

Whether you agree with the point or not, Ben, you are drawing attention to the extreme form of individualism that one associated with Ayn Rand. The argument is an old one, and has been part of the libertarian/anarchist concept of the state as explained by the late Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia. But there is a problem with the theory because the individual who is only looking after No 1 has not in most cases built the house in which they live; has not built the roads on which they drive, or the car they are using. Most do not grow all the food they eat or make the clothes that they wear, and when they need health care, they need a trained professional. In other words, they are not individuals in a vacuum, they are individuals in a society, and owe much of what enables them to live, to other people -just as other people may be dependent on them for a job if they are, say owners of a business.

So it is not about individuals living in isolation from each other, it is about what Rawls called Justice as Fairness, it is about a moral choice about distribution, and whether or not you want to live in a society where people are paid a fair wage for a day's work, and whether they can afford basic necessities. We all live in societies, even if we do not participate in social activities, we all benefit from what others do just as sometimes we have to pay the cost. The aggregate cost of national health care in the UK for each individual is small, the reward is beyond calculation because it is security of mind for the times when something goes wrong, it is knowing that a service is there free at the time of use whenever you need it, and because it is valued by society as a whole, with the exception of a few idiots in the Conservative Party.

The key argument about climate change is that we can all make a difference as individuals, by modifying the way we live without drastically changing its details; it is a moral choice that should benefit generations to come; people are free to make the choice or disagree with the science, but will still live with the consequences.

Selfish and greedy individuals are a minority, let them stay that way.

[russtafa]

i don't think so

[Prospero]

Acquiring inordinate riches is very rational. It's rational self interest. I mean, why should I care if the old woman down the street doesn't have enough to eat. Ain't my problem. Or the old guy down the street doesn't have health care.

Whether you agree with the point or not, Ben, you are drawing attention to the extreme form of individualism that one associated with Ayn Rand. The argument is an old one, and has been part of the libertarian/anarchist concept of the state as explained by the late Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia. But there is a problem with the theory because the individual who is only looking after No 1 has not in most cases built the house in which they live; has not built the roads on which they drive, or the car they are using. Most do not grow all the food they eat or make the clothes that they wear, and when they need health care, they need a trained professional. In other words, they are not individuals in a vacuum, they are individuals in a society, and owe much of what enables them to live, to other people -just as other people may be dependent on them for a job if they are, say owners of a business.

So it is not about individuals living in isolation from each other, it is about what Rawls called Justice as Fairness, it is about a moral choice about distribution, and whether or not you want to live in a society where people are paid a fair wage for a day's work, and whether they can afford basic necessities. We all live in societies, even if we do not participate in social activities, we all benefit from what others do just as sometimes we have to pay the cost. The aggregate cost of national health care in the UK for each individual is small, the reward is beyond calculation because it is security of mind for the times when something goes wrong, it is knowing that a service is there free at the time of use whenever you need it, and because it is valued by society as a whole, with the exception of a few idiots in the Conservative Party.

The key argument about climate change is that we can all make a difference as individuals, by modifying the way we live without drastically changing its details; it is a moral choice that should benefit generations to come; people are free to make the choice or disagree with the science, but will still live with the consequences.

Selfish and greedy individuals are a minority, let them stay that way.


Very well argued Stavros.

Meanwhile Russtafa responded "I don't think so." Actually his post would have been more honest if he had simply omitted the "so".

[Ben]

Acquiring inordinate riches is very rational. It's rational self interest. I mean, why should I care if the old woman down the street doesn't have enough to eat. Ain't my problem. Or the old guy down the street doesn't have health care.

Whether you agree with the point or not, Ben, you are drawing attention to the extreme form of individualism that one associated with Ayn Rand. The argument is an old one, and has been part of the libertarian/anarchist concept of the state as explained by the late Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia. But there is a problem with the theory because the individual who is only looking after No 1 has not in most cases built the house in which they live; has not built the roads on which they drive, or the car they are using. Most do not grow all the food they eat or make the clothes that they wear, and when they need health care, they need a trained professional. In other words, they are not individuals in a vacuum, they are individuals in a society, and owe much of what enables them to live, to other people -just as other people may be dependent on them for a job if they are, say owners of a business.

So it is not about individuals living in isolation from each other, it is about what Rawls called Justice as Fairness, it is about a moral choice about distribution, and whether or not you want to live in a society where people are paid a fair wage for a day's work, and whether they can afford basic necessities. We all live in societies, even if we do not participate in social activities, we all benefit from what others do just as sometimes we have to pay the cost. The aggregate cost of national health care in the UK for each individual is small, the reward is beyond calculation because it is security of mind for the times when something goes wrong, it is knowing that a service is there free at the time of use whenever you need it, and because it is valued by society as a whole, with the exception of a few idiots in the Conservative Party.

The key argument about climate change is that we can all make a difference as individuals, by modifying the way we live without drastically changing its details; it is a moral choice that should benefit generations to come; people are free to make the choice or disagree with the science, but will still live with the consequences.

Selfish and greedy individuals are a minority, let them stay that way.

The author and journalist Naomi Klein went to the Wall Street protest/occupation because, in part, she saw a sign that read: "I care about you."
I mean, that's what's scary about hyper individualism. That we're taught not to care about other people. Ya know, I've got to maximize my own wealth. And one's kids and grandkids don't matter.... And the entire ecosystem doesn't matter. Ya know, we can trash the place -- despoil the air, the water, the soil -- and this is seemingly rational. That's why it's scary.
So, it's short-term personal gain. Nobody else matters. Your kids and grandkids, again, don't matter. (The American author Thom Hartmann described Ayn Rand as being a psychopath. Was her philosophy based on psychopathy? Well, in part, it was indeed based on simply not caring about other people. I don't know what Rand thought about future generations. Ya know, whether or not we should care about future generations. Did she????)
And our culture is built on this selfish notion. It's drilled into our heads. From infancy, through TV, and school.
And it's built into the institutions. That's the way the corporate structure works. (And, of course, corporations are the dominant institutions in our society. So, our society will indeed reflect those very narrow values.)
But, again, corporations have to serve selfish and short-term interests. That's why they're exceedingly frightening.

[russtafa]

guys i don't really like to sound this paranoid but i think most governments have the tiger by the tail with these corporations and the tiger is far to strong for them and is quite capable of turning around and ripping them to pieces

[Stavros]

So, Russtafa, too big to fail means nothing? Corporations are one part of the capitalist landscape, of late 19th century origin. On the one hand they becone indispensable when they are producing and marketing strategic products, on the other hand they are given power by a decision of government to allow free enterprise, and they do pay taxes, even if it can be calculated they are but a small % of their overall profits; and if the business of government is business, why shouldn't corporations have wealth and power? We don't live in communist societies, and I don't see many people slating Steve Jobs as a capitalist -which he was- and corporate magaphone -which he was. So, suddenly, we have the acceptable face of capitalism because we all have iPods, but the unacceptable face of capitalism in Rex Tillerson because Exxon puts the gas in your car??

[russtafa]

So, Russtafa, too big to fail means nothing? Corporations are one part of the capitalist landscape, of late 19th century origin. On the one hand they becone indispensable when they are producing and marketing strategic products, on the other hand they are given power by a decision of government to allow free enterprise, and they do pay taxes, even if it can be calculated they are but a small % of their overall profits; and if the business of government is business, why shouldn't corporations have wealth and power? We don't live in communist societies, and I don't see many people slating Steve Jobs as a capitalist -which he was- and corporate magaphone -which he was. So, suddenly, we have the acceptable face of capitalism because we all have , but the unacceptable face of capitalism in Rex Tillerson because Exxon puts the gas in your car??
not when they start to dictate how they want a government to behave

[trish]

How would a CEO ever get his thoughts to paper if he didn't dictate???

[Stavros]

not when they start to dictate how they want a government to behave

Any practical examples you can give, Russtafa?

[russtafa]

not when they start to dictate how they want a government to behave

Any practical examples you can give, Russtafa?yeah cheap labour being brought from overseas for the mining companies by our great government when we have unemployed here.if something don't stink over that one

[Ben]

Hartmann: Climate Change...what's next? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8D5qruHobU)

[Ben]

Marching Off the Cliff

By Noam Chomsky (http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky)

Source: New York Times Syndicate
Thursday, December 08, 2011

Join ZSpace (http://www.zcommunications.org/sign_up)

A task of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, now under way in Durban, South Africa, is to extend earlier policy decisions that were limited in scope and only partially implemented.
These decisions trace back to the U.N. Convention of 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which the U.S. refused to join. The Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period ends in 2012. A fairly general pre-conference mood was captured by a New York Times headline: “Urgent Issues but Low Expectations.”
As the delegates meet in Durban, a report on newly updated digests of polls by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Program on International Policy Attitudes reveals that “publics around the world and in the United States say their government should give global warming a higher priority and strongly support multilateral action to address it.”
Most U.S. citizens agree, though PIPA clarifies that the percentage “has been declining over the last few years, so that American concern is significantly lower than the global average–70 percent as compared to 84 percent.”
“Americans do not perceive that there is a scientific consensus on the need for urgent action on climate change–a large majority think that they will be personally affected by climate change eventually, but only a minority thinks that they are being affected now, contrary to views in most other countries. Americans tend to underestimate the level of concern among other Americans.”
These attitudes aren’t accidental. In 2009 the energy industries, backed by business lobbies, launched major campaigns that cast doubt on the near-unanimous consensus of scientists on the severity of the threat of human-induced global warming.
The consensus is only “near-unanimous” because it doesn’t include the many experts who feel that climate-change warnings don’t go far enough, and the marginal group that deny the threat’s validity altogether.
The standard “he says/she says” coverage of the issue keeps to what is called “balance”: the overwhelming majority of scientists on one side, the denialists on the other. The scientists who issue the more dire warnings are largely ignored.
One effect is that scarcely one-third of the U.S. population believes that there is a scientific consensus on the threat of global warming –far less than the global average, and radically inconsistent with the facts.
It’s no secret that the U.S. government is lagging on climate issues. “Publics around the world in recent years have largely disapproved of how the United States is handling the problem of climate change,” according to PIPA. “In general, the United States has been most widely seen as the country having the most negative effect on the world’s environment, followed by China. Germany has received the best ratings.”
To gain perspective on what’s happening in the world, it’s sometimes useful to adopt the stance of intelligent extraterrestrial observers viewing the strange doings on Earth. They would be watching in wonder as the richest and most powerful country in world history now leads the lemmings cheerfully off the cliff.
Last month, the International Energy Agency, which was formed on the initiative of U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1974, issued its latest report on rapidly increasing carbon emissions from fossil fuel use.
The IEA estimated that if the world continues on its present course, the “carbon budget” will be exhausted by 2017. The budget is the quantity of emissions that can keep global warming at the 2 degrees Celsius level considered the limit of safety.
IEA chief economist Fatih Birol said, “The door is closing–if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum (for safety). The door will be closed forever.”
Also last month, the U.S. Department of Energy reported the emissions figures for 2010. Emissions “jumped by the biggest amount on record,” The Associated Press reported, meaning that “levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst-case scenario” anticipated by the International Panel on Climate Change in 2007.
John Reilly, co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s program on climate change, told the AP that scientists have generally found the IPCC predictions to be too conservative–unlike the fringe of denialists who gain public attention. Reilly reported that the IPCC’s worst-case scenario was about in the middle of the MIT scientists’ estimates of likely outcomes.
As these ominous reports were released, the Financial Times devoted a full page to the optimistic expectations that the United States might become energy-independent for a century with new technology for extracting North American fossil fuels.
Though projections are uncertain, the Financial Times reports, the U.S. might “leapfrog Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world’s largest producer of liquid hydrocarbons, counting both crude oil and lighter natural gas liquids.”
In this happy event, the United States could expect to retain its global hegemony. Beyond some remarks about local ecological impact, the Financial Times said nothing about what kind of a world would emerge from these exciting prospects. Energy is to burn; the global environment be damned.
Just about every government is taking at least halting steps to do something about the likely impending catastrophe. The United States is leading the way–backward. The Republican-dominated U.S. House of Representatives is now dismantling environmental measures introduced by Richard Nixon, in many respects the last liberal president.
This reactionary behavior is one of many indications of the crisis of U.S. democracy in the past generation. The gap between public opinion and public policy has grown to a chasm on central issues of current policy debate such as the deficit and jobs. However, thanks to the propaganda offensive, the gap is less than what it should be on the most serious issue on the international agenda today–arguably in history.
The hypothetical extraterrestrial observers can be pardoned if they conclude that we seem to be infected by some kind of lethal insanity.

© The New York TimesSyndicate

[trish]

A recent paper in Nature/Geoscience uses new technique to tease apart the natural and human cause of global climate change. The new work indicates that at least 74% of the warming since 1950 is caused unwittingly by human practices.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html#/

and

http://www.nature.com/news/three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538

[russtafa]

a recent paper in nature/geoscience uses new technique to tease apart the natural and human cause of global climate change. The new work indicates that at least 74% of the warming since 1950 is caused unwittingly by human practices.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html#/

and

http://www.nature.com/news/three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538
what a lot of tosh

[trish]

Oh, you read the two articles in Nature already (one of the world's most premier science journals) [], in what 17 minutes time. Re[-]ran the calculations, evaluated the runs and came up with that wonderfully scientific assessment. Why am I not impressed?


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/ (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html#/)

http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538 (http://www.nature.com/news/three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538)

[russtafa]

All rigged by these paid liars .science can be bought

[Stavros]

The problem we have at the moment is that there is no genuine debate about climate change or advanced global warming [AGW] -for a debate to take place different sides of the argument should be weighing up the evidence, such as that presented in these two articles.

The deniers have decided the argument is closed -climate change and AGW is rubbish, and that's all there is to say.

As I have indicated before, a lot of the argument is actually concerned with carbon taxes and the policy measures that have been proposed to deal with the impact of climate change, and to counter the tax regime, denial is the neatest option, because it cuts off debate at the start -as in, what's to debate?

The mixture of impotent rage and cynicism that has undermined a responsible and accountable financial system now seeps into envronmental issues, the result is a growing division between those who care and those who do not. The recent BBC tv series Frozen Planet ended with an episode in which David Attenborough allegedly -and controversially- looked at the North and South Poles in the context of climate change (apparently Attenborough was not biased one way or the other) but the BBC has offered the series to foreign tv stations minus this episode, in case they don't buy it at all!

We seem to moving into a new age of ignorance, I have rarely encounterd such hostility to open debate, it started with Reagan and Thatcher, and deepened with Bush and Blair. I enjoy debate, I do change my mind, even at this stage of my life, but how does one debate with someone convinced the earth is flat and that the UK will be living under Shari'a law in 10 years time? But I guess I'll go on.

[russtafa]

climate change is a scam for taxes by the fucking government and is very unpopular here and will bring down the government without doubt

[trish]

All rigged by these paid liars .science can be bought
The key word is CAN. You CAN lie. Should I take everything disagreeable that you say to be a lie without scrutiny and without evidence? I’d guess that in your lifetime you lied far far more times than Nature has published a fraudulent article. The odds are against you. Assuredly there have been frauds perpetrated on well respected science journals. But they are rare, they are quickly exposed and the careers of the perpetrators are damaged beyond repair. Assuredly Nature publishes articles that turn out to be false. It happens all the time that a team of researchers will publish results that contain a miscalculation, a systematic error or an experimental measurement that can’t be reproduced. The latter may be the case with the Huber-Knutti study. But if you want to accuse Huber and Knutti of perpetuating a fraud for money please be prepared to give your evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof...you have nothing.


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/ (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html#/)

and

http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538 (http://www.nature.com/news/three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538)



Who can better afford to pay for fraudulent studies? Who stands to gain the most from fraudulent studies? Who has a record of paying for fraudulent studies? Not the government. Think instead, pharmaceuticals and oil.

[Faldur]

Tell me another story Mommy!!! Does Manbearpig kiss the princess??

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/24/article-1230635-07591B59000005DC-467_468x246_popup.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RYc1B3Gq3JQ/TcBc3bd42qI/AAAAAAAABCQ/qDC5DxQPhVY/s1600/woman_reading_story_to_her_children_paa524000043.j pg

http://www.mofizixgr4fix.com/images/climateg8.jpg

http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com/shared/faqs/2010/nov/11_12_10_Manbearpig.jpg

Morning Trish.. :)

[trish]

Obviously you haven't kept up Faldur. Independent investigators looked at those emails nearly two years ago and found nothing damning about them...except for the fact that they were pillaged by anti-science interests paying for a non-existent scandal. (Note too the difference between an email and a paper published in Nature). Shame on you still pushing that shit. But in your world I suppose cartoons pass for science and Jesus time-travels to make appearances in the Old Testament before he was born. And you call yourself a "sceptic."

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/ (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html#/)

and

http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538 (http://www.nature.com/news/three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538)

[Faldur]

And you call yourself a "sceptic."

Not a term I've ever used to describe myself. A "sceptic" as defined would not believe in a creator.

I'm a moderately intelligent individual who has looked at the issue and come to the determination that I'm being sold a bunch of hooey. I lived through the "coming ice age" scare of the 70's. And learned first hand how people attempt to manipulate science for political/monetary gain. As a great man once said.. "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/images/George%20W%20Bush.jpg

[trish]

I lived through the "coming ice age" scare of the 70's.Nonsense again. A couple of articles in popular magazines do not science make. The majority of climate scientists in the 70's were already weighing the evidence in favor of warming. You suffer from a selective memory, because you in fact haven't examined the evidence and come to an objective determination. Your conclusion was determined by your ideology, namely "I don't want to pay taxes." I'm not asking you to pay taxes. Acknowledging that facts and doing something about them are two different things. You won't do either. (And yes, you have called yourself a climate "skeptic," and it still makes me laugh).


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/ (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html#/)

and

http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538 (http://www.nature.com/news/three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538) __________________

[Ben]

All rigged by these paid liars .science can be bought

So, we shouldn't trust anyone? We shouldn't trust businesspeople? Or politicians? What about astrophysicists? I mean, was there a big bang that happened 13 billion years ago? What about evolution?
So, 98 percent of climate scientists are involved in some sort of conspiracy. Why? What's their incentive or motivation. I mean, oil companies have a much BIGGER incentive and motivation to DENY that it's happening. They've got, literally, trillions of dollars on the line. So, it's in their interest to really DENY the science of climate change.
And, too, what if the climate scientists are correct? Then what? I mean, science isn't speculation. But the general public, who aren't climate scientists, are speculating, are making guesses.
There are powerful interests that are threatened by climate science. Namely big oil. And, too, so-called free-marketeers. Because if the science is correct, well, they'll have to be a dramatic shift away from corporate state-capitalism. So, these right-wing free-marketeers are being incredibly rational. They're defending their own narrow interests. It's rational. They'll do whatever it takes to defend their economic model. Again, it's rational on their part.
Anyway, there are pluses and benefits to reducing pollution. And plus maybe we should conserve oil for future generations.
And, too, why are people hostile to conservation??????? I don't get it. What's wrong with reducing consumption?

[Stavros]

Ben, in 1997 the chief executive of BP at that time, John Browne (these days Lord Browne of Madingley) delivered a speech at Stanford in which he acknowledged the human role in climate change. He was pilloried by many at the time, yet Shell and the LA based firm Atlantic Richfield (which BP took over a few years later) followed BP's example. Exxon was the main antagonist, esp when Lee Raymond was CEO -BUT, I was once told that Exxon took an uncompromosing stance because if the human element in environmental change was accepted by Exxon as a fact, it would leave the company open to decades of litigation in the US by individuals and groups claiming that Exxon had 'admiited' ruining the environment =admitted liability. However hard to prove, its the kind of issue lawyers can spin for years and earn ridiculous amounts of $$$.

My hunch is that if you polled most of the employees of oil companies, most believe that climate change is generating global warming. In fact, the oil companies have done much more to reduce carbon emissions than other industries -because they can afford to. It is the power industry, and the staggering growth in carbon-spitting cars and poorly regulated industrial plants in China and India that are becoming more responsible for carbon emissions beyond our control.

Because this is a planetary issue, everyone has to be involved -people who deny climate change to me have a flat earth mentality: they have decided its rubbish so anything that advances the argument is, by definition, rubbish, or hooey as they used to say in the USA. No explanation for the glaciers in Switzerland that have melted, no attempt to think through the consequences of deforestation in the Amazon basin or Indonesia, no real explanation for the gradual disappearance of the Dead Sea; just a simple belief that God is in his heaven, and all is right with the world,and if only those New Age fundamentalists would go away we could live in peace, eat our grits in the mornin', go huntin' and fishin' in the afternoon, an watch movies at night. And, as you say, curbing emissions makes for a cleaner environment, nobody demands pollution as a right.

[fred41]

Because this is a planetary issue, everyone has to be involved -people who deny climate change to me have a flat earth mentality: they have decided its rubbish so anything that advances the argument is, by definition, rubbish, or hooey as they used to say in the USA. No explanation for the glaciers in Switzerland that have melted, no attempt to think through the consequences of deforestation in the Amazon basin or Indonesia, no real explanation for the gradual disappearance of the Dead Sea; just a simple belief that God is in his heaven, and all is right with the world,and if only those New Age fundamentalists would go away we could live in peace, eat our grits in the mornin', go huntin' and fishin' in the afternoon, an watch movies at night. And, as you say, curbing emissions makes for a cleaner environment, nobody demands pollution as a right.

I believe it may have more to do with the fact that some economies around the world, at present , barely seem to be hanging on by a thread...so people would be afraid to do anything that would (..maybe could) strangle it further. There is also the recognition that China, both an emerging economic giant and one of the worst polluters on the planet, will probably just laugh off any attempts to ever get it to comply . The question most likely to be asked then, would be:Why hamstring ones own economy, if everyone else isn't going to play by the same rules? (Other than some possibly disingenuous lip service).

[russtafa]

Nonsense again. A couple of articles in popular magazines do not science make. The majority of climate scientists in the 70's were already weighing the evidence in favor of warming. You suffer from a selective memory, because you in fact haven't examined the evidence and come to an objective determination. Your conclusion was determined by your ideology, namely "I don't want to pay taxes." I'm not asking you to pay taxes. Acknowledging that facts and doing something about them are two different things. You won't do either. (And yes, you have called yourself a climate "skeptic," and it still makes me laugh).


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/ (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html#/)

and

http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538 (http://www.nature.com/news/three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538) __________________Don't believe it.The global warming is the ruse to get people to pay more taxes,like Australia and New Zealand.

[Ben]

Anjali Appadurai Mic-Check @ UN Summit: "GET IT DONE" [DemocracyNow!] - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wrHNtSJeTg)

[Ben]

Don't believe it.The global warming is the ruse to get people to pay more taxes,like Australia and New Zealand.

When climate change accelerates taxes will skyrocket because, well, we'll have to clean up the disasters, as it were.
A stark [sort of] solution would be to increase taxes on corporations and the rich. And reduce taxes on middle and lower income earners. That's a simple policy shift/decision. (Look at Canada. Up there in Canada they've the G.S.T. Or the Goods and Services Tax. Instituted in 1991. It replaced the Manufactured Sales Tax. Or a Corporate Tax.
93 percent of Canadians were OPPOSED to it. Didn't matter. Popular opinion in a so-called democracy is totally irrelevant.
These tax policy shifts have been going on for over 30 years. It's quite simple. Shift taxes from the super-rich and rich and the corporate sector to the general population.
Again, this has been going on for 30 years. I mean, this is way before climate change became a big issue.
It is simply a Friedman/Hayek economic model that massively shifts wealth upwards. And, again, it has been going on for 30 years. And it'll continue to happen. Where the real gains are being made by 0.01 percent of the population... and a large segment of the population gets screwed.
Again, the whole notion of climate change as a plot to increase taxes on the general population doesn't really, I think, have any traction -- :)
Again, because it has been going on for 30 years. I mean, take, say, public transit. When people PAY to use public transit, well, that's a tax. People get screwed. And they've always been screwed -- ha ha! :)

[fred41]

With all due respect to Ms. Appadurai...I believe the silent majority of the earth is busy scratching out a meager existence on this planet for themselves and their family...and trying not to die an early death from disease and strife before they even think about climate control. Nice speech though.

[onmyknees]

I'm inclined to think this is all one big plate of steaming bullshit. While I like to think of myself, and most folks I know as conversationalists, that's not to be confused with a climate alarmist. First we get hit with the right hand....convince everyone that polar bears are aimlessly swimming around the Arctic Ocean looking for small blocks of ice to crawl up on. Then comes the left hook.....Green Energy, and all the bullshit that comes with that. GM receiving billions for electric car development ( did you hear the one about GM recalling all it's electric cars?) , then comes all the Solyndra's and the rest of the solar panel hoax, and billions more poured down the a green rat hole. Then the hideous windmills that littler the landscape from Pennsylvania to South Dakota that can barley produce enough energy to keep the ice cream frozen. Yet we have more clean natural gas than any country on earth, but try to get a pipeline built so we can convert the coal plants....And folks like Trish wonder why we're skeptics? BTW...what ever happen to Al Gore???????

[trish]

I'm inclined to think...We know what you're ideology INCLINES you toward, but it's not thinking.

...windmills that littler the landscape ... that can barley produce enough energy to keep the ice cream frozen.Did you know, my illiterate friend, that last spring wind provided 40% of Spain's power. I should think that would keep the GOP's tea sufficiently iced; were we capable of repeating Spain's success.

The key words in your post are INCLINED and SKEPTIC. They are both chosen to deceive the reader into believing you put more thought into the issue than you have. INCLINED makes us think that you carefully weighed the evidence on both sides of the issue__ perhaps putting all the evidence for on one side of the see-saw and all the evidence against on the other side and then because the balance was so delicate, placing a marble on the incline to see which way it would roll. What belies the word usage is the conclusion: climate science is a steaming plate of shit. Well gee, if it’s one steaming plate of shit why be skeptical? Skeptical connotes a measure of restraint__a withholding of judgement. It admits the possibility that the truth may lie in either direction. To claim in the same post that climate science is “one big plate of steaming bullshit” and then claim you’re a climate science “skeptic” is a ludicrous abuse of language. It’s like saying, “I thought about eating that big steaming pile of shit but in the end I was inclined not to.” Really?? We’re suppose to believe such a judgment involved a moment of “thought.” Obviously your mind was made up from the start, influenced as it is by right wing swill. You were never a climate science skeptic and your inclinations are determined by the gradients of political punditry.

Then asking what happen to Ah Gore. Sheeesh! Whatever happened to Smokey the Bear? They’re both mere spokesmen. Gore isn’t a scientist and Smokey isn’t forest ranger. Why such attention to surface details??


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/ (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html#/)

and

http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538 (http://www.nature.com/news/three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538)

[russtafa]

these politicians are just after our money and this is one of their thieving schemes along with their paid scientists to grab our money

[trish]

Guess who else is just after your money? (Hint: You are a consumer. Who do who pay for the goods and services you receive?) Would you characterize the money making schemes of a corporation as "thieving" just because their bottom line is profit?

Did you know that grants do not increase a researcher's paycheck one iota? The grant money goes to the university. The researcher draws his usual salary from the university. The university uses the grant money to also pays for the graduate students, lab technicians, machinists, electricians and other experts etc. that the experiment requires; i.e. the researcher is a "job-creator.". The bottom line for a researcher is never monetary profit, the bottom line is to secure more accurate knowledge.



http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/ (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html#/)

and

http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538 (http://www.nature.com/news/three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538)

[Stavros]

It is true to say that if climate change and global warming are issues for everyone then everyone has to pull together, and if China and India go their own ways it won't work -that is obvious, but at least by making the issue important it doesn't just throw it all away, and the Chinese people are also increasingly aware that the costs of industrialisation and urbanisation are traffic gridlock and skies with strange colours and air that just aint right -at some point it could be the people there who force the government to act, but that I admit is a tough call.

We are feeling our way through to alternative and mixed-energy solutions to the decline of oil; solar energy works at the local level for housing and small villages in poor countries: it can't power a town or a city, but it does work -President Carter demonstrated that it worked when the White House ran on the solar panels he installed to show that there are alternatives to 'America's addiction to oil' which at least two other Presidents after him railed against (both were called Bush). Solar is one option, it might not be cheap to install, and the anti-planet Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition here has withdrawn subsidies home owners could claim to convert to renewable energy, but it does work and in the long term is practicable and cheap. There is nothing wrong with mixed energy solutions, they use them in Brazil and Germany, but as I said before, the argument about carbon taxes is diverting attention away from the global condition and narrowing it to a domestic issue of taxes -none of which invalidates the science.

[russtafa]

in Australia this carbon tax will bring down the labor government in which our PM said here will be no carbon tax under the government i lead

[Ben]

these politicians are just after our money and this is one of their thieving schemes along with their paid scientists to grab our money

And we should remember that corporations are private governments. So, in that sense CEOs and other senior executives are politicians. Albeit private.
When gas prices go up is that a conspiracy??? Speculation drives up the price of gas. Again, is that a conspiracy?
It should be noted that corporations are serving their own interests. By design they're out to serve their own narrow interests. Whereas (public, as it were) politicians have to serve what's called: dual constituents. Politicians, as it were, have to respond to the public. But they also serve and have to serve the dominant institutional structure in our society: corporations. (Corporations write the legislation that is passed by Congress.
When we talk about government conspiring to "grab" money from us, well, we have to realize who overwhelmingly controls our government. I mean, look at what Bush/Cheney set out to do: privatize government. Obama has continued along that same path. And this has been going on, again, for close to 30 years.
Mussolini coined the term Fascism. Which is a merger of State power with corporate power. It's happened.)
Just curious: was the Apollo program a scheme to "grab" money from the American taxpayer? What about the Cold War? Or the supposed war on terror? Where the combined military budget -- when you factor in Homeland Security and the Department of Energy -- is upwards of $1 trillion. Is that a conspiracy? And should we just do away with taxes???
And we should also understand that when you go to the store and buy something, well, that's a tax.... What?!?!? you're thinking -- :) But it's a charge by a corporation. So they can raise revenue, as it were. It's a tax. But we don't think of it as such. But it is.

[Ben]

I'm inclined to think this is all one big plate of steaming bullshit. While I like to think of myself, and most folks I know as conversationalists, that's not to be confused with a climate alarmist. First we get hit with the right hand....convince everyone that polar bears are aimlessly swimming around the Arctic Ocean looking for small blocks of ice to crawl up on. Then comes the left hook.....Green Energy, and all the bullshit that comes with that. GM receiving billions for electric car development ( did you hear the one about GM recalling all it's electric cars?) , then comes all the Solyndra's and the rest of the solar panel hoax, and billions more poured down the a green rat hole. Then the hideous windmills that littler the landscape from Pennsylvania to South Dakota that can barley produce enough energy to keep the ice cream frozen. Yet we have more clean natural gas than any country on earth, but try to get a pipeline built so we can convert the coal plants....And folks like Trish wonder why we're skeptics? BTW...what ever happen to Al Gore???????

Cigarette companies in the 60s knew full well (as they commissioned their own studies) that cigarettes were harmful. But they hid it for decades. They lied to the public.
In the 90s oil companies commissioned their own studies and concluded that global warming is serious and poses a serious threat. But they understood that they're going to have to carry out a campaign of disinformation to, well, serve their own narrow interests.
Plus right-wingers are being rational in denying global warming. I mean, they've an economic model that would be hurt, as it were, if they acknowledged that global warming is real and serious.
Because the absolute free movement of capital would have to stop. U.S. corporations couldn't engage in the utter free movement of capital. Ya know, setting up factories in China to employ cheap Chinese workers and then putting all that stuff on massive ships that pollute a helluva lot and add to global warming.
And, too, right wing economics approaches the so-called "science" of economics as a hard science. Like physics. (In reality economics is a soft science.) So, they've spent decades devising their economic model. And perfecting it. And, again, thinking this is a hard science like physics.
So, they believe their model can and should work. And nothing should impinge on it, as it were. And then comes along the science of global warming. And this poses a profound THREAT to their economic model. And hence, well, they'll resist it. And condemn it. Because it goes against their rational model. Something they've perfected for a long time. I mean, that bastard John Maynard Keynes stood in the way of Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and Gary Becker.
So, global warming does pose a serious threat to this rational economic model devised by the likes of Hayek, Friedman etc. etc.
It's rational to defend your science, your economic model, your religion -- :)

[Stavros]

In the 90s oil companies commissioned their own studies and concluded that global warming is serious and poses a serious threat. But they understood that they're going to have to carry out a campaign of disinformation to, well, serve their own narrow interests.
Plus right-wingers are being rational in denying global warming. I mean, they've an economic model that would be hurt, as it were, if they acknowledged that global warming is real and serious.
Because the absolute free movement of capital would have to stop. U.S. corporations couldn't engage in the utter free movement of capital. Ya know, setting up factories in China to employ cheap Chinese workers and then putting all that stuff on massive ships that pollute a helluva lot and add to global warming.


I can't agree with this Ben. One of the consequences of oil companies acknowledging the human role in global warming, has been the development of renewable energy businesses, even though there is no reason why petroleum companies should do this -and its not like the level of investment in it bares comparison with the development of an offshore oil field.

So what disinformation are you talking about? I don't get that.

As energy companies their interests are only narrow in the sense that they must discover more oil and gas each year than they produce (the resources to reserves ratio), to meet market demand. Oil prices are not controlled by the independent companies like Exxon Shell Total and BP, and government taxes particularly in the UK make up most of the price of gasoline for motorists. As I suggested in an earlier post, oil companies have been able to reduce emissions and be 'green' because they could afford all the modifications to refneries and oil rigs that are required; chemicals firms, power plants contribute more greenhouse gases than the oil companies. None of the existing companies is hurt, as it were, if they acknowledged that global warming is real and serious, because there can be non overnight change to the way we use energy; there is already a transition taking place, uneven and disjointed, but over the next 50-75 years it will transform the energy profile of society, and it is all part of the challenge of managing the decline of petroleum, climate change, population growth, the depletion of water resources, and so on.

I am not suggesting you lay off the oil companies, but they are the easy target (as are banks and bankers), and in this case the arrows are falling wide of the target.

[trish]

The release of fossil carbon dioxide is the largest contributor to global anthpogenic heat imbalance. This fact points the finger at our use of coal, oil and natural gas as energy sources. Currently the bulk of our energy comes from coal. China is bringing online scores of new coal plants on a monthly basis. But oil is not innocent and American’s still burn a lot of it to run their factories, heat their homes and fuel their cars. Oil provides more than 40% of the world’s energy. It’s no longer a secret that oil corporations have funded anti-global warming cranks. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/30/us-oil-donated-millions-climate-sceptics Though coal and China might be the bullseye, oil corporations are not wide of the target.

[LibertyHarkness]

good for the planet to purge itself of our wretched species ... personally i think humans will extinct themselves within 200years anyway

[russtafa]

good for the planet to purge itself of our wretched species ... personally i think humans will extinct themselves within 200years anyway
that's good because we will all be dust by that time so who cares

[LibertyHarkness]

death is a path we all will take :) why fear it ... when your dead your dead so it wont matter lol :)

just enjoy the shit in the middle :)

[Faldur]

death is a path we all will take :) why fear it ... when your dead your dead so it wont matter lol :)

Ahh.. but thats where you are mistaken.. :)

[LibertyHarkness]

have you been dead yet ? :)

[Stavros]

The release of fossil carbon dioxide is the largest contributor to global anthpogenic heat imbalance. This fact points the finger at our use of coal, oil and natural gas as energy sources. Currently the bulk of our energy comes from coal. China is bringing online scores of new coal plants on a monthly basis. But oil is not innocent and American’s still burn a lot of it to run their factories, heat their homes and fuel their cars. Oil provides more than 40% of the world’s energy. It’s no longer a secret that oil corporations have funded anti-global warming cranks. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/30/us-oil-donated-millions-climate-sceptics Though coal and China might be the bullseye, oil corporations are not wide of the target.


If we agree that the issues involved in climate change and global warming have been deepened and accelerated by human activity, then coal, oil and gas, historically are only a part of the cause; deforestation is another cause.

Among contemporary actors, the major independent oil companies -I don't consider Koch Industries in your link to be one of them- have reduced emissions with greater success than other industries; power companies are not doing so well, by comparison.

I would rather move this whole debate from an arid cycle of exchanges that lead nowhere to find out how people see their future, whether it is the pessimistic 200 years to go of Ms Harkness; or Faldur's What's the problem, dude?

I think as a general rule, all of us want to live in a clean and safe environment -which means, for example, that we don't want to live in the vicinity of a chemicals plant that spews strange-smelling clouds over the garden and pollutes the river running through town. Environmental legislation exists for a purpose, but one of the reasons why, in the USA, the EPA was set up in 1970 was to meet the public's anxiety at the impact that modern industry was having on the quality of life in cities towns and villages.

Many countries have followed the USA by creating responsible legislation and monitoring agencies, and in general terms the environment we live in in the western world is cleaner today than it was when I was born. The descent of smog in those days often meant that we left school early in groups of six with a teacher leading us home through streets where visibility was barely 12 inches. The coal we used for domestic heating, and industrial pollutants belching from chimney stacks were a primary cause -the Clean Air Act, smokeless fuels, and changes to industrial production mean smog is a phenomenon of the past. Motor vehicles contain virtually no lead now whereas it was common until the 1970s when the campaigns to remove lead from petrol succeeded in spite of the oil companies saying it would be financially destructive (it wasn't of course).

My point is that we have the technological means to live in a cleaner world, a safer world, and a world in which we enjoy the benefits of a fuel-mix that includes conventional oil and gas, as well as solar, wind and wave power, and biofuels; and that as prosperity rises in poorer countries, people will no longer have to build wood fires to cook and keep warm, or tear down precious forests.

The long term future of hydrocarbons is doomed, because it is a finite source of energy -hydraulic fracturing has only become viable because the price of oil is unlikely to dip below $50 a barrel in the future; but while there are billions of barrels of unconventional oil and gas on the planet, it doesn't mean that existing technology and capital can unlock them: we are still unsure of the environmental consequendes of 'fracking' and if society decides it is too much to risk, it will not go ahead. I don't see this as a problem, as long as the conventional sources of oil are maintained, peak oil -globally- is not due for another 50 years; but that gives society time to develop the alternatives.

With one exception, the solutions to the impact of climate change and global warming are here, be they political, technological, or financial: they work, and in the long term they are cost-effective -even if you don't believe in climate change or global warming, it makes sense to diversify the sources of energy; it makes sense to halt deforestation; it makes sense to regulate indsutrial production and protect local and national environments; it is a win-win situation to diversify energy sources, but it does require the kind of international co-operation that has made disease control since the 19th centuty one of history's great success stories.

If there is one exception that gives me the greatest anxiety, it is the threat to water supplies. Two third of the planet is covered in water, but only 1% is good enough for humans to drink; Lima, in Peru is facing a future without water in the next 10 years if emergency measures are not taken. The Inca never settled there because there was no water, the Conquistadores did so because the Inca were not there. Bad move. The Yemen -the most densely populated state on the Arabian Peninsula- will run out of water in the next 10-20 years -it was a combination of drought and famine that drove the inhabitants of Arabia Felix north several thousand years ago; the prospects for social chaos consquence upon water shortages in some parts of the world are real.

These issues are bigger than taxes on carbon, bigger than childish debates about selective emails that prove a, b and c as you wish to prove it -but all of these problems can be solved, we have the money, we have the technology; all that is lacking is the political will.

[trish]

Indeed, deforestation is a serious contributor to global warming. My post focused on the release of long sequestered (on the order of geological time) carbon dioxide. But living forests play a key role in annual carbon cycle by “scrubbing” carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and releasing oxygen. Even without the addition of fossil carbon dioxide, our climate would be responding to the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to deforestation.

Stavros seems to be pointing to two, not unrelated problems. One is the problem of finding a future source of energy that won’t destabilize the climatic energy balance or push us towards an equilibrium that proves disastrous to civilized life. The other problem is how to adopt industrial and economic practices that are not harmful to the quality of human life. The toxins produced by fracking, the rancid atmospheric pollutants output by factory farms that drive their neighbors indoors and renders their homes unsellable, the giant oil spills that ruin hundreds of miles of pristine beaches may or may have measurable effect on climate, but they do sadly diminish the quality of life.

The climate is the commons. Underground water aquifers are the commons. (Because of the extended drought, Texas is now metering private wells that draw water from large underground aquifers). We have a collective interest in the health of the oceans, the bayou, the beaches etc. We have an interest in protecting the commons from private exploitation through enforced regulation.

I agree with Liberty Harkness, that “when you’re dead, you’re dead.” Only a few talented bubbleheads can disagree with a tautology. But it doesn’t follow that when you’re dead quality of life will no longer be of any concern to the humans who survive you. We've been here for around 400, 000 years. It doesn’t seem to me that extinction is only 200 years away. But given the rate of cultural change we’ve witnessed over the last 4000 years it is very likely that human culture 200 years from now may look radically different from how it appears today. Though I won’t be around to see it, I sincerely hope our knowledge survives and expands, that we do not revert to the barbarities of the past and it remains possible for an average family to thrive and be happy. I don’t think this is an impossible wish. But, as always, the future will depend upon the contingencies of today.

[russtafa]

Indeed, deforestation is a serious contributor to global warming. My post focused on the release of long sequestered (on the order of geological time) carbon dioxide. But living forests play a key role in annual carbon cycle by “scrubbing” carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and releasing oxygen. Even without the addition of fossil carbon dioxide, our climate would be responding to the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to deforestation.

Stavros seems to be pointing to two, not unrelated problems. One is the problem of finding a future source of energy that won’t destabilize the climatic energy balance or push us towards an equilibrium that proves disastrous to civilized life. The other problem is how to adopt industrial and economic practices that are not harmful to the quality of human life. The toxins produced by fracking, the rancid atmospheric pollutants output by factory farms that drive their neighbors indoors and renders their homes unsellable, the giant oil spills that ruin hundreds of miles of pristine beaches may or may have measurable effect on climate, but they do sadly diminish the quality of life.

The climate is the commons. Underground water aquifers are the commons. (Because of the extended drought, Texas is now metering private wells that draw water from large underground aquifers). We have a collective interest in the health of the oceans, the bayou, the beaches etc. We have an interest in protecting the commons from private exploitation through enforced regulation.

I agree with Liberty Harkness, that “when you’re dead, you’re dead.” Only a few talented bubbleheads can disagree with a tautology. But it doesn’t follow that when you’re dead quality of life will no longer be of any concern to the humans who survive you. We've been here for around 400, 000 years. It doesn’t seem to me that extinction is only 200 years away. But given the rate of cultural change we’ve witnessed over the last 4000 years it is very likely that human culture 200 years from now may look radically different from how it appears today. Though I won’t be around to see it, I sincerely hope our knowledge survives and expands, that we do not revert to the barbarities of the past and it remains possible for an average family to thrive and be happy. I don’t think this is an impossible wish. But, as always, the future will depend upon the contingencies of today.you people with this carbon

[russtafa]

The problem is there is to many people per square mile on parts of this planet which is causing a strain on its resources .Carbon is one is one of the results of this as well as other forms of pollution, but its not going to wipe out life on this planet.The problem of clean drinking water is a far worse problem

[trish]

you people with this carbon LOL:smh
but its not going to wipe out life on this planet.We may just all have to live in a venusian desert. Then water will be even a greater problem.

[onmyknees]

We know what you're ideology INCLINES you toward, but it's not thinking.
Did you know, my illiterate friend, that last spring wind provided 40% of Spain's power. I should think that would keep the GOP's tea sufficiently iced; were we capable of repeating Spain's success.

The key words in your post are INCLINED and SKEPTIC. They are both chosen to deceive the reader into believing you put more thought into the issue than you have. INCLINED makes us think that you carefully weighed the evidence on both sides of the issue__ perhaps putting all the evidence for on one side of the see-saw and all the evidence against on the other side and then because the balance was so delicate, placing a marble on the incline to see which way it would roll. What belies the word usage is the conclusion: climate science is a steaming plate of shit. Well gee, if it’s one steaming plate of shit why be skeptical? Skeptical connotes a measure of restraint__a withholding of judgement. It admits the possibility that the truth may lie in either direction. To claim in the same post that climate science is “one big plate of steaming bullshit” and then claim you’re a climate science “skeptic” is a ludicrous abuse of language. It’s like saying, “I thought about eating that big steaming pile of shit but in the end I was inclined not to.” Really?? We’re suppose to believe such a judgment involved a moment of “thought.” Obviously your mind was made up from the start, influenced as it is by right wing swill. You were never a climate science skeptic and your inclinations are determined by the gradients of political punditry.

Then asking what happen to Ah Gore. Sheeesh! Whatever happened to Smokey the Bear? They’re both mere spokesmen. Gore isn’t a scientist and Smokey isn’t forest ranger. Why such attention to surface details??


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/ (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html#/)

and

http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538


Well Trish...you can continue your one woman show with all your charts, graphs, scare tactics, and doom and gloom, but as usual, you're on the wrong side of the issue...BECAUSE NOBODY GIVES A FUCK. !! You're like the one remaining protestor down at OWS who's still beatin' the druum as the cops haul him away. The gig is up, you had a good run, a few guys made lots of money, the polar bears are having a good time again, and you may even get a show on Current out of all your hysteria, and maybe a couple hundred folks will turn in to be bored to tears, and .........maybe someday when we're not 15 trillion in debt, unemployment is a manageable 4%, we're drilling for oil in the Gulf, and building pipelines for natural gas, maybe we'll take another look and tune you in again ....just for a few laughs to hear you still lecturing is on cap and trade...(snore)
So long climate change...we hardly knew ya.

[trish]

just for a few laughs to hear you still lecturing is on cap and tradeFind any post...ANY POST...where I said one thing or another about cap and trade. I dare you. You can't. You're a loser, you just make things up. You throw whatever shit that comes to your tiny brain whether it applies or not. You're all over the fucking map and saying nothing. Why don't you try to make a point, loser?

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/ (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html#/)

and

http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538

[hippifried]

have you been dead yet ? :)
Well, not personally. How 'bout you, Morticia? I am running a tad late for Halloween though.:hide-1:

[Stavros]

So long climate change...we hardly knew ya.

If you deny that science has proven that human activity is changing the climate and generating advanced global warming, is there anything about the other half of the thread, such as the 'extinction of our species' that you are concerned about?

For example, are you indifferent to deforestation in the Amazon basin -if it means obliterating the habitat of the first nations who live there - is that just the way the cookie crumbles? Does the modernisation of Africa and as a consequence the extinction of thousands of species of birds and insects, and also Gorillas bother you at all, is this just the impact of market forces?

I am not suggesting you should lie awake at night frightened that the world will end up looking like a giant shopping mall, but there are so many beautiful things to see, and places to go which make life on earth a pleasurable experience, isn't there an argument for us setting limits on where industry can go to preserve the best of what we have?

[russtafa]

LOL:smhWe may just all have to live in a venusian desert. Then water will be even a greater problem.what a load of bull
"venusian desert":dead:

[trish]

what a load of bull
"venusian desert"Tell that to Texas, currently undergoing a drought like they've never seen before. That conservative State of the rugged individualism has taken to metering private wells that draw water from the common aquifer.

[fred41]

....., that last spring wind provided 40% of Spain's power.

I don't think it did, not on avg. anyway (to be fair to you though...you didn't really say that) ...I thought that figure was a bit high so I looked it up. It seems during some particularly strong gales in 2009 , wind power provided 40% of Spain's energy for a couple of hours. It did even better this year at 59 % (a new record) Nov.6 for almost a day. On average though, Spain now derives about 16% of it's energy from windmills...which is still pretty impressive. While looking this up I ran across another interesting stat : the U.S. is the second largest user of windmills (China is #1...Spain is #4)...


Trish, if you had to recommend one nature magazine over all others (in terms of stories/science/photo's)...which would it be? Thank You.

[russtafa]

Tell that to Texas, currently undergoing a drought like they've never seen before. That conservative State of the rugged individualism has taken to metering private wells that draw water from the common aquifer.
big deal the world is always going though droughts and floods that has nothing to do with carbon

[Stavros]

big deal the world is always going though droughts and floods that has nothing to do with carbon

russtafa why are you so cynical? Even if you don't think carbon emissions over nearly 200 years, climate change, global warming or the wrath of God are to blame, you know yourself that livelihoods have been lost in northern Queensland over more than 200 years because of periodic droughts -do you think those farmers and herders just shrugged their shoulders and said, lets move south, I can drive a taxi? The issue is resource management, whatever the cause of local/global climate patterns: how we maintain the land so that it doesn't dry out and die out; how we protect precious water resources, and how we have alternatives for ventures that don't fail. Over the next 5 years on current rates of production, food prices are set to rise dramatically -China now needs so much Pork, for example, it is importing it from the UK, which means the dear old Pork Pie makers in Meltron Mowbray are competing for the raw product, and finding the cost in the last year has gone up by nearly 30% -sugar, wheat are following this trend. Its a devilish mixture of market forces and nature. And whether you care or not, at some point in the future, you will pay.

[trish]

I don't think it did, not on avg. anyway (to be fair to you though...you didn't really say that) ...I thought that figure was a bit high so I looked it up. It seems during some particularly strong gales in 2009 , wind power provided 40% of Spain's energy for a couple of hours. It did even better this year at 59 % (a new record) Nov.6 for almost a day. On average though, Spain now derives about 16% of it's energy from windmills...which is still pretty impressive. While looking this up I ran across another interesting stat : the U.S. is the second largest user of windmills (China is #1...Spain is #4)...


Trish, if you had to recommend one nature magazine over all others (in terms of stories/science/photo's)...which would it be? Thank You.

No, not an average: I cited a recent and notable to peak to counter an empty hyperbole.

http://www.gizmag.com/wind-power-spain/11215/

But as you say the average 16% is nothing to sneeze at. When it comes to specifics I’m not big on telling people what to do or how to meet civilization’s energy needs. I have no opinion on cap and trade (which started in the U.S. as a GOP proposal and now seems to be favored by DEMS and is pooh-poohed by the GOP...go figure). Hazards accompany any and all methods of producing power on the gigawatt scale. Climate change is the hazard of using coal and oil (and yes Russtafa, it’s happening. Whereas no single event can be said to be caused by greenhouse forced climatic heat imbalance the increased frequency of such events is evidence for it). The hazards of natural gas include explod[]ing neighborhoods and ground water polution via fracking. The hazards of nuclear are increase cancer deaths within plumes of periodically released gasses, not to mention the big unsolved problem of how to dispose of nuclear waste. The troubles of hydroelectric include the dangers dam[] failure, flooding and the diversion of water supplies. Wind power is a hazard to migrating bird populations (which are already declining precipitiously). Many complain of the noise and the view. The production of semi-conductors used in Solar panels uses toxic chemicals. Battery disposal is a huge problem.

When [living] plants switch[ed] to solar power eons ago they nearly forced themselves out of existence by filling the atmosphere with gas that’s noxious to photosynthesizing plants, namely oxygen. (Today it’s human civilization that covers the face of the planet and we’re filling the atmosphere carbon dioxide and chopping down giant swaths of forests that would sequester it for us for free. ) The moral is (and russtafa should agree with this) the scale of energy production required to sustain a worldwide civilization of nearly seven billion people will inevi[t]ably change the ecology of the planet. We need to proceed with caution if we do not want to effect our quality of life adversely.

Now to the question “if you had to recommend one nature magazine over all others (in terms of stories/science/photo's)...which would it be? Thank You.”

I’m too swamped to read nature magazines anymore for their stories and photos though I do still have a few that get delivered to my mailbox.

Until Stephen Jay Gould died I subscribed to Natural History and read his column with pleasure. The magazine does still have great pictures, stories and explains a lot of science. I think I would recommend this one first even though it’s been awhile since I’ve perused an issue.

I currently get Scientific American, Physics Today, Nature and Notices of the American Mathematical Society delivered to my mailbox. Of these I can only recommend Scientific American for the laymen.

I also regularly visit

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/

[BTW Fred, I don't mean to aim this whole diatribe at you, but rather took your post as a springboard to address some of the ideas posted by others as well.]

[russtafa]

russtafa why are you so cynical? Even if you don't think carbon emissions over nearly 200 years, climate change, global warming or the wrath of God are to blame, you know yourself that livelihoods have been lost in northern Queensland over more than 200 years because of periodic droughts -do you think those farmers and herders just shrugged their shoulders and said, lets move south, I can drive a taxi? The issue is resource management, whatever the cause of local/global climate patterns: how we maintain the land so that it doesn't dry out and die out; how we protect precious water resources, and how we have alternatives for ventures that don't fail. Over the next 5 years on current rates of production, food prices are set to rise dramatically -China now needs so much Pork, for example, it is importing it from the UK, which means the dear old Pork Pie makers in Meltron Mowbray are competing for the raw product, and finding the cost in the last year has gone up by nearly 30% -sugar, wheat are following this trend. Its a devilish mixture of market forces and nature. And whether you care or not, at some point in the future, you will pay.Australia has had climate change for thousands of years .Australia has always had extremes of climate well before European settlement

[trish]

Australia is a continent with a deserts, coasts, mountains and forests. It has regions that exemplify all diverse extremes of climate. Moreover Australia has had it appropriate share of one-hundred year droughts, rains and floods. That is not climate change; though I don't doubt, if you say so, that Australia has seen climate change over the last century and an increased frequency of one-hundred year weather events.

Warmer air holds more water vapor. So it takes longer to reach saturation (i.e. the time between rains tends to increase, creating more droughts). When the warmer air reaches saturation, there's a greater a volume of precipitation (i.e. heavier rains and heavier snows).

[russtafa]

:shrugProfessor Tim Flannery the government spokesman for climate change told Australians that if they had houses on the coast that they could loose their homes to the seas rising and he then turned around and brought a house on the coast,go figure

[russtafa]

Australian company has invented a process to convert waste into jet fuel.I have just read this in the Daily Telegraph today

[trish]

What elevation is the house?

[russtafa]

What elevation is the house?
i dont know or care the man brought a home on the shore

[russtafa]

What elevation is the house?
i dont know or care the man brought a home on the shore and scamed Australia with his mad predictions that have been so far off that they are are insane

[trish]

If you don't know the elevation you don't know he bought a home on the shore. What time scale did he give for these predictions?

http://flood.firetree.net/

[russtafa]

If you don't know the elevation you don't know he bought a home on the shore. What time scale did he give for these predictions?

http://flood.firetree.net/2100 is when he predicted it could rise by 14 feet.what a dickhead

[trish]

Got a link to that prediction? Most estimates(IPCC's for example) are much more conservative (from 0.5 ft to 2 feet by the century's end). You probably know Tim Flannery is a biologist and a climate activist, but not a climatologist. In any case he's got 89 years to enjoy his home. Think he'll live that long? BTW did you take a look at that interactive map. Pretty cool eh? If you're going to make a very long term investment (centuries long) on coastal properties, I recommend consulting the map.


http://flood.firetree.net/

[fred41]

Thank you Trish, I appreciate you taking the time to write such a thorough answer. My ex-wife used to subscribe to National History (...and Audubon, along with several others). I may have to subscribe again (though I wish Kindle offered it, in which case I'd simply switch to the "fire").

...and don't worry about the "diatribe'. You break it up well and keep it entertaining.

[muh_muh]

the tragedy there is that no matter how much the sea rises (within reason of course bar something as ridiculous and impossible as noah flood or several million years of continental drift) the alps bewteen me and the mediterranean are far too tall for this to ever become a shoreline

[trish]

Hi fred, you're welcome. I feel for you muh_muh. I'm guessing you won't be planting coconut trees in your backyard then. :)

[russtafa]

Are global warmists insane =very probably.This century's Ludites

[trish]

Thanks for not answering my questions and avoiding my remarks.

[Faldur]

the tragedy there is that no matter how much the sea rises (within reason of course bar something as ridiculous and impossible as noah flood or several million years of continental drift) the alps bewteen me and the mediterranean are far too tall for this to ever become a shoreline

El Nino, and El Nina have more to do with the sea elevations than global warming. Unless your saying man made climate change created the two.

[Stavros]

I think that if there is a simple answer to the original purpose of this thread, it is that we don't really know. Science tells us that planet Earth is dependent on the Sun and the fate of the Sun is doomed, even if this event is several billion years ahead of us, apparently even in the cosmos, nothing last forever. In the interim, a meteor, asteroid or some other object, if large and heavy enough, could in theory whack the earth, change our orbit, and wipe out the human species, much as it is now claimed that meteorite in Mexico 65 million years ago was a cause of the demise of the dinosaur.

I don't see any purpose in thinking in terms of billions of years, other than as part of our understanding of history and the sciences, but what climate change does, is to open a debate about the way we live and the impact that human society has upon the earth on which we depend for food, water and shelter. Although I am disappointed in the quality of the debate opposed to the science of climate changed and advanced global warming -mainly because it is not scientific but a mix of politics and personal prejudice- I find that the larger cause for concern is an apparent indifference to the impact we have on our environment, not so much glaciers in Switzerland or the Himalayas but the places where we live.

Call it Green Politics, Environmental Activism, and so on -these are not new issues. There was a Chinese scholar in I think the 10th or the 11th century who complained that the demand for paper was reducing the forests, and that this could not be good for China. Some of the most powerful environmental groups in the USA, the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society were formed in the 19th century. It may be that the end of the Cold War has removed one set of antagonisms, and that Green Politics, Multiculturalism and Immigration have become the issues guarnteed to stir a frenzy of vitriolic debate. But none of this is new, but it is as it always has been, important. Because this is where we live.

If we do value our locality, be it a city, town or village, conservation is a given. If conservation if a given, a value, something that both empowers individuals, while imposing obligations on them, standards of behaviour, it also requires monitoring. We are not free to steal from others, we should not be free to pollute. How that regime of law and responsibility operates must be part of what we would call good governance. I can understand the hostility to taxation, not in principle because the principle of paying the state to do something for the benefit of society as a whole is not a problem for me; but I agree, the uses to which taxes are put, and the agencies involved might require better management; but the principle is sound. But as I said before, whatever happens, we will pay for it.

But looking back over the exhanges in this thread, it might be more honest for some people on this board to say, quite simply, as far the environment is concerned, I don't care. Then we can close this discussion and move on.

[russtafa]

I think that if there is a simple answer to the original purpose of this thread, it is that we don't really know. Science tells us that planet Earth is dependent on the Sun and the fate of the Sun is doomed, even if this event is several billion years ahead of us, apparently even in the cosmos, nothing last forever. In the interim, a meteor, asteroid or some other object, if large and heavy enough, could in theory whack the earth, change our orbit, and wipe out the human species, much as it is now claimed that meteorite in Mexico 65 million years ago was a cause of the demise of the dinosaur.

I don't see any purpose in thinking in terms of billions of years, other than as part of our understanding of history and the sciences, but what climate change does, is to open a debate about the way we live and the impact that human society has upon the earth on which we depend for food, water and shelter. Although I am disappointed in the quality of the debate opposed to the science of climate changed and advanced global warming -mainly because it is not scientific but a mix of politics and personal prejudice- I find that the larger cause for concern is an apparent indifference to the impact we have on our environment, not so much glaciers in Switzerland or the Himalayas but the places where we live.

Call it Green Politics, Environmental Activism, and so on -these are not new issues. There was a Chinese scholar in I think the 10th or the 11th century who complained that the demand for paper was reducing the forests, and that this could not be good for China. Some of the most powerful environmental groups in the USA, the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society were formed in the 19th century. It may be that the end of the Cold War has removed one set of antagonisms, and that Green Politics, Multiculturalism and Immigration have become the issues guarnteed to stir a frenzy of vitriolic debate. But none of this is new, but it is as it always has been, important. Because this is where we live.

If we do value our locality, be it a city, town or village, conservation is a given. If conservation if a given, a value, something that both empowers individuals, while imposing obligations on them, standards of behaviour, it also requires monitoring. We are not free to steal from others, we should not be free to pollute. How that regime of law and responsibility operates must be part of what we would call good governance. I can understand the hostility to taxation, not in principle because the principle of paying the state to do something for the benefit of society as a whole is not a problem for me; but I agree, the uses to which taxes are put, and the agencies involved might require better management; but the principle is sound. But as I said before, whatever happens, we will pay for it.

But looking back over the exhanges in this thread, it might be more honest for some people on this board to say, quite simply, as far the environment is concerned, I don't care. Then we can close this discussion and move on.
i care ,you can't get more caring than garbage truck recycler .But to use the environment to exploit and lie to the citizens of your country for financial or political points seems so wrong and to teach children deliberate lies in school

[Yvonne183]

I don't care about high tides, I live in the mountains.

[trish]

El Nino, and El Nina have more to do with the sea elevations than global warming. Unless your saying man made climate change created the two.
Really?! You're going to explain a steady global rise in ocean levels over the last century or more by pointing to two relatively local cyclic phenomena with periods of about five years!! The only thing El Nino and El Nina might explain is a superposition of a small amplitude sine wave on top of the steady global increase making an step-like or oscillatory climb with the period of each step being roughly five years. Sorry but El Nino and El Nina are not the cause of the observed steady increase of sea level since 1880 and not the key element in the climate models that predict the increase will extend into the future if we do nothing to forestall the dumping of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere.

http://flood.firetree.net/


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/ (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html#/)

and

http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538 (http://www.nature.com/news/three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538)

[trish]

But to use the environment to exploit and lie to the citizens of your country for financial or political points... You made these accusations just a page or two back but when questioned you were unable to substantiate them. Perhaps you should think about what it means to
live with honour

[Ben]

Are global warmists insane =very probably.This century's Ludites

The likes of Jim Inhofe serve the fossil fuel industry. So, it's understandable why he's a climate change denier. Completely understandable.
He's denying it to serve corporate profits.
But to say the science is mixed is a flat out lie.
Now, one can believe anything one wants to. I mean, people believe in [a] God. I think it's completely irrational. But a large section of the world's populace believe in God. That's fine. Your choice.
Um, ya know, one can believe that the moon is made of cheese. I mean, you can believe that. You'd be wrong but, again, one can wholeheartedly believe it. (You often hear people talking about the big bang theory. Ya know, it's just a theory. No! Theory, in science, means fact.)
Anyway, there is a corporate/media campaign to create confusion, to create doubt. Which is understandable if you're runnin' an oil company, a for-profit corporate institution. The science of climate change threatens those very narrow interests -- :)
I think it's wrong to suggest that it's a way for governments to get money from us. If that were the case then Obama would simply come out and say, "Global warming is a serious threat to humanity and we need a carbon tax." Then: voila. He's got his carbon tax. His money, as it were.
But he, like the fossil fuel industry, is fighting the science. Which is understandable. As we know about the close relationship between government and big business. I mean, it's a campaign to protect, defend and serve corporate profits. (It's not about protecting people, saving jobs, serving the interests of working people, middle class people or even to protect, say, the other 30 million species that inhabit the planet with us.
I mean, denying the science doesn't have to do with looking out for the interests of people. Why would it be? Do you really think the Koch brothers -- who have a combined net worth of $50 billion -- really care about you and I? Or are they concerned about oil profits and padding their net worth? Take a wild guess....)
Plus we know oil is a finite resource. So, what's going to happen to future generations when it runs out? Should we care? I mean, maybe human civilization has reached the point where we simply don't care about future generations. That's a pretty sad value statement.

Inhofe: The Science of Global Warming Is Just "Not There" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rA1bzv0gPE)

[Faldur]

Really?! You're going to explain a steady global rise in ocean levels over the last century or more by pointing to two relatively local cyclic phenomena with periods of about five years!! The only thing El Nino and El Nina might explain is a superposition of a small amplitude sine wave on top of the steady global increase making an step-like or oscillatory climb with the period of each step being roughly five years. Sorry but El Nino and El Nina are not the cause of the observed steady increase of sea level since 1880 and not the key element in the climate models that predict the increase will extend into the future if we do nothing to forestall the dumping of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere.

How about we use a current graph, and yes El Nina is the correct conclusion. Your "science" is inconsistent, riddled with falsehoods, and blind to any opposing opinions. You can bark up this tree all you want, your not going to sell it.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/earth/grace/earth20110823-640.jpg

Science Daly Article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110715135330.htm)

ENSO Technical Discussion (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/enso-tech.php)

[trish]

Obviously you haven't understood my post and you don't understand your own graph. The graph doesn't show that El Nino and El Nina are the causes of sea level rise or that their effects are worse than the rise caused by global warming. The graph merely shows how their effects can be seen superimposed upon sea level rise. The graph beautifully illustrates exactly what I described! Sheeesh! Notice how each little five year oscillation is dwarfed by the overall rise over the century of global warming. (In your graph annual fluctuations can be seen superposed upon each of those oscillations. It would be nice to see a Fourier brake down of these harmonics.) They're both excellent graphs for illustrating my point.

Nice articles too.
Science Daly Article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110715135330.htm)

ENSO Technical Discussion (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/enso-tech.php)

Nice to have one's hypothesis confirmed by NOAA :)

These are good articles too

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/ (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html#/)

and

http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538 (http://www.nature.com/news/three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538)

and here's a really cool interactive map.
http://flood.firetree.net/

[Yvonne183]

The sea levels are rising cause the Dutch keep making more land space by pushing the water away from Holland, the water got to go somewhere.

[trish]

The Dutch - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ882QYzr-M)

[onmyknees]

The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling..............where will Santa live when the Polar Ice Melts?????

[trish]

I know it looks like the sky is falling, but it's the oceans rising. :)

[russtafa]

help me ,help,gurgle,gurgle

[trish]

Now you want our help?! :)

[muh_muh]

It would be nice to see a Fourier brake down of these harmonics.

cause a spectrum is going to help show people who dont understand basic graph reading and most probably dont have the faintest concept of what the frequency domain is see how stupid they are?

[onmyknees]

cause a spectrum is going to help show people who dont understand basic graph reading and most probably dont have the faintest concept of what the frequency domain is see how stupid they are?


I know it looks like the sky is falling, but it's the oceans rising. :)


touche

[russtafa]

Now you want our help?! :)yeah when the sky falls lol

[Ben]

How 2011 Became a 'Mind-Boggling' Year of Extreme Weather - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ-OhzFblI4)

[trish]

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1062473&postcount=312

[russtafa]

:dead:YOU GREENIES STILL ON ABOUT THIS SCAM !just give up no ones buying it

[Ben]

Who do politicians work for? Well, it's obvious.
Check out John Boner -- I mean, Boehner... :)

Dirty Energy Money Campaign:

http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?searchvalue=BOEHNER&search=1&type=search

[Ben]

What about Mitch McConnell:
http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=search&can=N00003389

And an excerpt from an essay written by the American author and environmentalist Bill McKibben: "... in any other walk of life we wouldn’t think twice before concluding that paying off the referees is wrong. If the Patriots make the Super Bowl, everyone in America would be outraged to see owner Robert Kraft trot out to midfield before the game and hand a $1,000 bill to each of the linesmen and field judges."

[russtafa]

In Australia this climate change carbon tax will put the government out of office without doubt

[russtafa]

my god hippies unite and love the world lol

[Prospero]

Do you have kids Russtfa - cos they and your grand children are gonna cuss you and many of your generation out for your wilful stupidity in the face of overwhelming evidence?

But then whole generations went to their graves believing the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. Stupid Columbus, Galileo and Copernicus. We all know that the earth is balanced on the back of an elephant balanced on a tortiose. ignore the voices telling you otherwise.

Oh and the moon is made of cheese.

[russtafa]

:dead::dead:Yeah ,yeah ,that's what the hippie con artist's say and i am not voting for a bunch of scam artist's and neither are the rest of Australia's voters ,just look at the polls .Hey want to bet with me on the results of the next election i'm sure you will win because people believe in a green solution

[Prospero]

It is not to do with belief Russtafa, but evidence and scientific probability. Ultimately there is never going to be 100 per cent rock solid proof until it is too late. But the scientific evidence for man made climate change is now immense and agreed by scientists across the world - from nations run by Governments of all political complexions.

[russtafa]

It is not to do with belief Russtafa, but evidence and scientific probability. Ultimately there is never going to be 100 per cent rock solid proof until it is too late. But the scientific evidence for man made climate change is now immense and agreed by scientists across the world - from nations run by Governments of all political complexions.
yeah you want to bet on the election because the left is about to get skinned alive come 2013

[trish]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/science/earth/warming-arctic-permafrost-fuels-climate-change-worries.html

http://www.nature.com/news/thawing-permafrost-reduces-river-runoff-1.9749

Thawing permafrost decreases the Earth's albedo. Consequently the Earth absorbs more energy which thaws more of the permafrost. It's a positive feedback loop with negative consequences. The heated atmosphere holds more water vapor making periods between precipitation longer and actual precipitation more voluminous; i.e. more droughts, more violent rains and heavier snows. Since ice is nearly ten times more voluminous then its melt, the thawed permafrost is effectively times time more porous. This means less runoff reaches the rivers. Ironically, as Ocean levels rise, some rivers fed by tundra tributaries (such as the Yangtze) will suffer decreased flow. Not good news for populations downstream that depend on that fresh water.

I wouldn't presume to advocate any particular course of action. 'just presenting the science.

[Stavros]

Trish, how do you see the history of science in the last, say, 100 years?

When it comes to Russtafa you are wasting your time, he doesn't understand the science of climate change, and doesn't care what the science says; his only concern is with extra taxes.

What should excite concern is the more general dismissal of science among mostly Republican candidates in the USA for whom the Old Testament is the fons et origo of knowledge. It is as if, since Reagan, there has been a march against Science with a capital S, videlicet:

1) an hostility to Climate Change Science and Advanced Global Warming that rejects it as science, but without any real, thorough critique of the science;

2) opposition to stem-cell research that denies to Science what can only be part of God's Will;

3) the attempt to replace the teaching of history and science in schools on the basis of reason and documented evidence, with the narrative provided by the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The USA now has a corps of politicians whose views on reason and science are no different from the Mullahs of Iran and Saudi Arabia who believe that everything you need to know about the world you live in today is contained in the Qu'ran, and that nothing else matters; that is consonant with those Hindu who believe that everything you do today is part of the Karma that has shaped your destiny from one life to the next and that you are powerless to affect your own destiny in this life, only in the next (= you better start living a pure life now or live through another lifetime of misery).

Yes, they want the gadgets and trinkets produced by science, and they want the revenues that are derived from the science that has transformed industry, that can take base metals and crude oil out of the ground and turn them into gold.

But the mantra today seems to be: Science is Bullshit. The truth is God's Will.

[russtafa]

Trish, how do you see the history of science in the last, say, 100 years?

When it comes to Russtafa you are wasting your time, he doesn't understand the science of climate change, and doesn't care what the science says; his only concern is with extra taxes.

What should excite concern is the more general dismissal of science among mostly Republican candidates in the USA for whom the Old Testament is the fons et origo of knowledge. It is as if, since Reagan, there has been a march against Science with a capital S, videlicet:

1) an hostility to Climate Change Science and Advanced Global Warming that rejects it as science, but without any real, thorough critique of the science;

2) opposition to stem-cell research that denies to Science what can only be part of God's Will;

3) the attempt to replace the teaching of history and science in schools on the basis of reason and documented evidence, with the narrative provided by the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The USA now has a corps of politicians whose views on reason and science are no different from the Mullahs of Iran and Saudi Arabia who believe that everything you need to know about the world you live in today is contained in the Qu'ran, and that nothing else matters; that is consonant with those Hindu who believe that everything you do today is part of the Karma that has shaped your destiny from one life to the next and that you are powerless to affect your own destiny in this life, only in the next (= you better start living a pure life now or live through another lifetime of misery).

Yes, they want the gadgets and trinkets produced by science, and they want the revenues that are derived from the science that has transformed industry, that can take base metals and crude oil out of the ground and turn them into gold.

But the mantra today seems to be: Science is Bullshit. The truth is God's Will.exactly mate i don't believe ,don't care,don't want to pay more taxes .Australia has the highest number of taxes in the world and the vast majority of people don't want to pay another tax that will damage Australia for nil benefit or effect on the climate .taxing us is just stupid when Australia emits less than 1% of the worlds emissions ,it's so our PM can big note herself on the world stage.this is not impressing most Australians and will wipe the Labor party off the map

[trish]

Trish, how do you see the history of science in the last, say, 100 years?

When it comes to Russtafa you are wasting your time, he doesn't understand the science of climate change, and doesn't care what the science says; his only concern is with extra taxes.

What should excite concern is the more general dismissal of science among mostly Republican candidates in the USA for whom the Old Testament is the fons et origo of knowledge. It is as if, since Reagan, there has been a march against Science with a capital S, videlicet:

1) an hostility to Climate Change Science and Advanced Global Warming that rejects it as science, but without any real, thorough critique of the science;

2) opposition to stem-cell research that denies to Science what can only be part of God's Will;

3) the attempt to replace the teaching of history and science in schools on the basis of reason and documented evidence, with the narrative provided by the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The USA now has a corps of politicians whose views on reason and science are no different from the Mullahs of Iran and Saudi Arabia who believe that everything you need to know about the world you live in today is contained in the Qu'ran, and that nothing else matters; that is consonant with those Hindu who believe that everything you do today is part of the Karma that has shaped your destiny from one life to the next and that you are powerless to affect your own destiny in this life, only in the next (= you better start living a pure life now or live through another lifetime of misery).

Yes, they want the gadgets and trinkets produced by science, and they want the revenues that are derived from the science that has transformed industry, that can take base metals and crude oil out of the ground and turn them into gold.

But the mantra today seems to be: Science is Bullshit. The truth is God's Will.Darwinian evolution faced opposition from day one. The debates between Huxley and Wilberforce follow right on the tail of publication of Origin of the Species as well as the criticisms of Richard Owen and others. However, with rapid advances in comparative anatomy, taxonomy, paleontology, geology and the budding science of genetics biologists reached a consensus well before the turn of the century. Darwin was by and large correct, though there were many details to be sorted through. By the twentieth century, evolutionary biology was seen as the conceptual foundation of all the rest of biology. This makes evolutionary biology rather difficult to ignore. If biology is to be in the high school cirriculum, then biology teacher will have to expose their students to evolutionary biology.

Whereas populist opposition to evolutionary biology was all but dead in Britain and on the Continent, this was not the case in the U.S. The U.S.has always been fertile ground for religious experimentation. (I recommend reading Krakauer’s Under the Banner of God). Amish, Menonites, Anabaptists, Mormons, Branch Davidians, Scientology, etc. have either flourished or originated in American soil. New religions grow best when the followers are given some to fear and oppose. It’s not surprising that religious fundamentalists promoted the laws banning the teaching of evoutionary biology in public schools. The Scopes trial occurred in 1925. The film based on the play “Inherent the Wind” was partially responsible for my childhood interest in science. The latest “monkey trial” took place in Dover in 2008.

The U.S. has a complicated affaire with science. The inventions of the fission and fusion bombs demonstrated the incredible power of abstract mathemical thought when directed by careful attention to experimental studies. The detailed theory behind these devasting devices was so beyond the comprehension of non-experts that nuclear scientists were thought of as super geniuses. They were repeatedly featured in science fiction B-movies as heros with all purpose encyclopedic knowledge and as evil geniuses on the verge of maddness and bent on world domination.

The U.S. saw the success of the Russian satellite program in the early fifties as an existential threat. If atomic theory allowed one to build a fusion bomb, what will space science allow? Again, scientists were placed on a pedestal.

What finally came of those satellites, more than half a century later, was a network of cameras, thermometer, barometers and other meterological guages in the sky. Not only is it a tremendous spy network, it is tremendous laboratory for the collection of climate data to be used to test all manner of atmospheric and climate hypothesis. We know know, that since the industrial age the Earth’s climate has been moving away from equilibrium due to a heat imbalance caused by an increase of gasses in the atmosphere that are transluscent to opague in the infrared bands. The increases are largely anthropic in origin.

Over those same fifty years, the population of Earth went from 4 to nearly 7 billion. The fishing industry is finding out that the oceans are being depleted of fish and crustacians. Hunters and other outdoor enthusiaists are finding that species once plentiful are now rare or extinct. U.S. reserves of petroleum have possibly peaked back in the 80’s. The psychology of denial is fostered by exploitive industries anxious to eek out the last dollar from the commons before the resources are gone. Over the last fifty years, scientists have been the bearers of bad news. So people are inclined (imo) to be deny the validy of the relevant science.

There are a lot of russtafa’s out there; i.e. willfully ignorant deniers unable to separate knowledge from action. They say they don’t care. But I think they do. I think that’s precisely why they deny the science. Someone who really didn’t care, would admit the science was correct but just refuse to do anything about the ensuing problems.

[russtafa]

Darwinian evolution faced opposition from day one. The debates between Huxley and Wilberforce follow right on the tail of publication of Origin of the Species as well as the criticisms of Richard Owen and others. However, with rapid advances in comparative anatomy, taxonomy, paleontology, geology and the budding science of genetics biologists reached a consensus well before the turn of the century. Darwin was by and large correct, though there were many details to be sorted through. By the twentieth century, evolutionary biology was seen as the conceptual foundation of all the rest of biology. This makes evolutionary biology rather difficult to ignore. If biology is to be in the high school cirriculum, then biology teacher will have to expose their students to evolutionary biology.

Whereas populist opposition to evolutionary biology was all but dead in Britain and on the Continent, this was not the case in the U.S. The U.S.has always been fertile ground for religious experimentation. (I recommend reading Krakauer’s Under the Banner of God). Amish, Menonites, Anabaptists, Mormons, Branch Davidians, Scientology, etc. have either flourished or originated in American soil. New religions grow best when the followers are given some to fear and oppose. It’s not surprising that religious fundamentalists promoted the laws banning the teaching of evoutionary biology in public schools. The Scopes trial occurred in 1925. The film based on the play “Inherent the Wind” was partially responsible for my childhood interest in science. The latest “monkey trial” took place in Dover in 2008.

The U.S. has a complicated affaire with science. The inventions of the fission and fusion bombs demonstrated the incredible power of abstract mathemical thought when directed by careful attention to experimental studies. The detailed theory behind these devasting devices was so beyond the comprehension of non-experts that nuclear scientists were thought of as super geniuses. They were repeatedly featured in science fiction B-movies as heros with all purpose encyclopedic knowledge and as evil geniuses on the verge of maddness and bent on world domination.

The U.S. saw the success of the Russian satellite program in the early fifties as an existential threat. If atomic theory allowed one to build a fusion bomb, what will space science allow? Again, scientists were placed on a pedestal.

What finally came of those satellites, more than half a century later, was a network of , thermometer, barometers and other meterological guages in the sky. Not only is it a tremendous spy network, it is tremendous laboratory for the collection of climate data to be used to test all manner of atmospheric and climate hypothesis. We know know, that since the industrial age the Earth’s climate has been moving away from equilibrium due to a heat imbalance caused by an increase of gasses in the atmosphere that are transluscent to opague in the infrared bands. The increases are largely anthropic in origin.

Over those same fifty years, the population of Earth went from 4 to nearly 7 billion. The fishing industry is finding out that the oceans are being depleted of fish and crustacians. Hunters and other outdoor enthusiaists are finding that species once plentiful are now rare or extinct. U.S. reserves of petroleum have possibly peaked back in the 80’s. The psychology of denial is fostered by exploitive industries anxious to eek out the last dollar from the commons before the resources are gone. Over the last fifty years, scientists have been the bearers of bad news. So people are inclined (imo) to be deny the validy of the relevant science.

There are a lot of russtafa’s out there; i.e. willfully ignorant deniers unable to separate knowledge from action. They say they don’t care. But I think they do. I think that’s precisely why they deny the science. Someone who really didn’t care, would admit the science was correct but just refuse to do anything about the ensuing problems.no Trish i don't give a flying fuck .and the real reason the world is in such a mess is because there are far to many people on this world to support it

[Faldur]

Some of us look at both sides of the argument and come up with a different opinion than yours. Why is that so hard to understand. I don't expect you to come to the same decisions as I do, thats kind of what makes the world such an amazing independent place.

Your intolerant to anyone who chooses to believe science that is different than yours. I kind of feel sorry for you. You have come to a belief based on the facts you have studied and I applaud you. Its bitching too that you have such a passion for your belief and wish to convert others. (Ya I said bitching, ok I'm old) But when you find someone like yourself that has formulated an opinion different than yours, maybe try a little more tactful approach.

Someone told me last week bridges were falling down all over the US because of "lack of maintenance". I chose not to believe that, but I respect the persons view and understood why they held it.

[trish]

Some of us look at both sides of the argument and come up with a different opinion than yours.I've seen just a few pages back how you look at an issue. You decide ahead of time that the rise of ocean levels is due to anything but global heat imbalance. You do a quick internet search and find an article you have absolutely no understanding of, but you think it says ocean level rise is due to El Nino. You link the article. Turns out the article says you can see the oscillatory effects of El Nino and its cousin superposed on top of the otherwise steady rise of the oceans caused by global climate change. We can see how you reason. We understand it. Frankly, you have a lot of balls to even show up again in this thread.

When we examine the mathematics of falling bodies in light of Newton's Principia and the actual behavior of falling bodies, I expect we should come to the same conclusions. When we examine the mathematics and chemistry of planetary atmospheres in light of Newtonian principles and the actual behavior of our atmosphere, I expect us to come to the same conclusion. Most people who have taken the time to understand the physics and chemistry do. We may come to different decisions concerning what to do about those conclusions. The former is science. That latter is politics. You are letting your politics color your assessment of scientific facts.

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1063022&postcount=333

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1063079&postcount=334



Someone told me last week bridges were falling down all over the US because of "lack of maintenance". I chose not to believe that, but I respect the persons view and understood why they held it. Did you check the link in the reply post that gave more than one example of bridge collapse in the U.S. within the last decade? You didn't believe there was one, not one bridge collapse in the last decade. When I met your challenge, you didn't say, "Oops! my bad." You chose to bury your head in the sand.

[russtafa]

climate scam is the best thing they could come up with?

[Faldur]

Did you check the link in the reply post that gave more than one example of bridge collapse in the U.S. within the last decade? You didn't believe there was one, not one bridge collapse in the last decade. When I met your challenge, you didn't say, "Oops! my bad." You chose to bury your head in the sand.

Sorry Trish I had not noticed you edited it, I will look at it now.

Well I looked at it and Trish your smarter than this. Your statement was "Bridges are falling down all over the country because we aren't paying to maintain them." And my challenge to you was "Can you name ONE bridge that has fallen down due to lack of maintenance in the last 10 years? The last 30 years? How about the last 100 years? It has never happened.."

Clearly I asked you for an example of a bridge that has fallen from lack of maintenance. The I-35 bridge collapse was investigated, the NTSB determined there was a design flaw in the engineering of the bridge.

Bridges fall down all the time, your talking to someone who lives 35 miles from "Galloping Girdy". But they fall for other reasons than lack of government spending! And you wonder why we don't hang on your every word about global warming. It gets pretty deep in here, its up to the individual to come to a "personal" educated opinion. Sorry if you don't like mine.

[trish]

no Trish i don't give a flying fuck .and the real reason the world is in such a mess is because there are far to many people on this world to support it How is that different from what I've been saying? The stress of seven billion industrious people will create anthropic collapse of all sorts of global life support systems, including the climate.

[Faldur]

How is that different from what I've been saying? The stress of seven billion industrious people will create anthropic collapse of all sorts of global life support systems, including the climate.

Along with all the collapsing bridges, oh what ever will we do.. :wiggle:

[russtafa]

How is that different from what I've been saying? The stress of seven billion industrious people will create anthropic collapse of all sorts of global life support systems, including the climate.
i know what Australia needs and thats not a carbon tax or 2 or 3 million more people

[trish]

How many times do I have to say I am not arguing for a tax, a cap or anything political? We agree: the planet's life support systems are feeling the stress of seven billion industrious people.

[Ben]

OK, suppose climate change doesn't exist. It's a conspiracy conjured up by left wing radicals or people in the Obama administration....
What about the profound problem of infinite growth on a finite planet? What about population growth. We've got 7 billion and it'll hit 9 billion by 2050. Is that sustainable? What happens when it hits: 10, 11, 12?
http://www.economist.com/node/18200618
What about the profound problem of 200 species going extinct every single day... driven extinct, in part, by industrial civilization.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/un-environment-programme-_n_684562.html
What about 90 percent of the big fish in the oceans are now gone.
[/URL][url]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline_2.html)
What about water shortage? The pollution of our lakes, rivers, oceans, soil, air... have I missed anything -- :)
I mean, we've a lot of problems, serious problems. And, again, this is presupposing that global climate change is a hoax, is a myth.
People, um, we've got some real challenges ahead of us.

[trish]

Along with all the collapsing bridges, oh what ever will we do.. :wiggle:http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0803/p01s05-usgn.html

[Silcc69]

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.aspx?doc=/content/12333.htm&pc=001/002/046/002/002&mnu=42570&mfp=001&st=&cy

Hmmmmmmmmm

[Faldur]

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.aspx?doc=/content/12333.htm&pc=001/002/046/002/002&mnu=42570&mfp=001&st=&cy

Hmmmmmmmmm

Kind of nice how they tax everyone.. the US could learn from that

[russtafa]

How many times do I have to say I am not arguing for a tax, a cap or anything political? We agree: the planet's life support systems are feeling the stress of seven billion industrious people.
ok i agree but politicians of the left and the right will use the climate to tax it's citizens

[muh_muh]

Kind of nice how they tax everyone.. the US could learn from that

would be kinda nice if you had learned to read at some point in your life

Taxable income Tax on this income
0 - $6,000 Nil

[Stavros]

Trish, many thanks for an eloquent summary of the history; I think that as has now been said too many times, the science itself has been overtaken by the politics, on which everyone has an opinion. The decline of popularity in the teaching of hard sciences, maths and engineering in the UK has also created a generation of people for whom even simple science is complex, tv programmes that explain complex phenomena in simple language and using cgi and other techniques are therefore quite popular, but are a substitute for real learning; even in the case of computing most of the teachers in our schools can use a computer but have no idea how it works. One of the reasons why India and China could dominate the world economy over the next 50 years is due to the graduation of enthusiastic scientists and engineers with business ideas, and yet in terms of resources, US universities are still in the top quartile in the world; the irony may be that the US will end up training scientists who go elsewhere to do business; leaving the US with an antiquated infrastructre and Professors in their 90s. I know that I was exagerrating the point, but the GOP contenders are chilling in their indifference to the things that will make the future work, and rely on a stupefying belief in markets and God, who might be omnipoent, but is unlikely to intervene in the US economy, presumably for political reasons...

[Ben]

Where is Obama's Climate Change Agenda? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFJe0py8c7g)

[Ben]

Sen. John McCain refutes a global warming denier - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es)

[Ben]

Paul Kingsnorth, English writer and journalist, is quite critical of the environmental movement. Not for reasons you may think of:

UNCIVILISATION, The Dark Mountain Festival 2010: Paul Kingsnorth, "Time to stop pretending" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gboAHIXqe6Q)

And an interview w/ Paul Kingsnorth:

http://www.theecologist.org/Interviews/378231/paul_kingsnorth_environmentalists_have_lost_their_ way.html

[russtafa]

The carbon Tax is 23 dollars per ton the highest in the world and now our skanky PM can get a job with the UN when she retires.We have already had one factory close down and move overseas and more are said to follow

[Ben]

The carbon Tax is 23 dollars per ton the highest in the world and now our skanky PM can get a job with the UN when she retires.We have already had one factory close down and move overseas and more are said to follow

A tax is considered a burden.... High prices are also considered a burden. Oil is a finite resource. And will get more expensive. Plus India and China are going to have greater energy needs -- and this'll boost the price. To put it mildly, well, we're in a pickle.
The reason for a so-called carbon tax is to raise prices on bad things. Like pollution. I mean, you get in your car it creates congestion, air pollution and higher prices at the pump. Not taking into account the long term consequences. It's called an externality. It's a market transaction whereby a third party doesn't consent. You know, I get in my car. Start it. Drive it. What I don't take into account is the air pollution that I'm responsible for. That places a health burden on other people.
So, again, taxes are considered a burden. We could, well, drastically reduce income taxes. Considered a good thing. (That's Ron Paul's proposal. Ya know, it's your income, you worked for it. It's yours. Hence a 0 percent income tax. Is that a good idea? Well, how do we pay for roads, bridges, highways, schools, a police force etc., etc., etc. Do people really want a private police force?
I mean, you can and maybe should address all these issues through popular will or democracy. Ya know, do Australians want a carbon tax. Vote on it. Let the people decide. I'm not entirely sure if I trust people -- ha ha! But, well, that should be the basis for a policy decision like a carbon tax. Let the people vote, let the people decide.)

[trish]

Each time you breath you increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 0.00000000002 tons. If all 7 billion of us exhaled at once that would put 0.15 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In one minute we all put about 3 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In a day that's 3400 tons. Of course not of that was released from fossil sources; i.e. it's all part of the natural cycle. Were the carbon cycle in balance, all 3400 tons would be taken up by the world's plant kingdom and a comparable amount of oxygen would be released. Any additional tons of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by releasing long sequestered sources (e.g. by burning fossil fuels) tilts the carbon balance, "thickens" the atmospheric "insulation" tilting the thermal balance and stressing the climate. Human industry dumps 30 billion tons of long sequestered carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually. That's 24000 times as much as the 1.24 million (3400x365) tons of recycled carbon dioxide we breath into the atmosphere annually. Science can't tell us whether industry should be taxed for dumping that those 30 billion tons yearly. Perhaps we shouldn't. Science can only tell us the consequences continued dumping.

[russtafa]

A tax is considered a burden.... High prices are also considered a burden. Oil is a finite resource. And will get more expensive. Plus India and China are going to have greater energy needs -- and this'll boost the price. To put it mildly, well, we're in a pickle.
The reason for a so-called carbon tax is to raise prices on bad things. Like pollution. I mean, you get in your car it creates congestion, air pollution and higher prices at the pump. Not taking into account the long term consequences. It's called an externality. It's a market transaction whereby a third party doesn't consent. You know, I get in my car. Start it. Drive it. What I don't take into account is the air pollution that I'm responsible for. That places a health burden on other people.
So, again, taxes are considered a burden. We could, well, drastically reduce income taxes. Considered a good thing. (That's Ron Paul's proposal. Ya know, it's your income, you worked for it. It's yours. Hence a 0 percent income tax. Is that a good idea? Well, how do we pay for roads, bridges, highways, schools, a police force etc., etc., etc. Do people really want a private police force?
I mean, you can and maybe should address all these issues through popular will or democracy. Ya know, do Australians want a carbon tax. Vote on it. Let the people decide. I'm not entirely sure if I trust people -- ha ha! But, well, that should be the basis for a policy decision like a carbon tax. Let the people vote, let the people decide.)well Ben it will bring down the government and other governments around the world will be watching this and taking note

[hippifried]

well Ben it will bring down the government and other governments around the world will be watching this and taking note
We instituted a carbon tax in the early '70s. All the doomsayers came crawling out of the woodwork then too. What actually happened was that we got scrubbers in nearly every coal fired power plant & other high stack industries, & stopped most of the acid rain that was killing the forests in Canada. But of course if you think it's going to bring down civilization as we know it, I guess we should all just stop everything we're doing & listen to you.

[russtafa]

We instituted a carbon tax in the early '70s. All the doomsayers came crawling out of the woodwork then too. What actually happened was that we got scrubbers in nearly every coal fired power plant & other high stack industries, & stopped most of the acid rain that was killing the forests in Canada. But of course if you think it's going to bring down civilization as we know it, I guess we should all just stop everything we're doing & listen to you.exactly hippie always listen to a bloke with short hair .Hey didn't the previous Canadian govt fall over a carbon tax issue?

[hippifried]

Hey didn't the previous Canadian govt fall over a carbon tax issue?
Couldn't tell ya. I'm not Canadian. I don't even know who their PM is & don't care. I'm pretty sure Trudeau was running the show back then.

[russtafa]

good on you hippie don't even know what happens across your borders .i am sure most Americans are more aware than you.is it just a hippie thing?

[hippifried]

good on you hippie don't even know what happens across your borders .i am sure most Americans are more aware than you.is it just a hippie thing?
I doubt it. Maybe if they look it up, but I don't care enough. Canadian politics are pretty much inconsequential to me or most Americans. I guess that's why it gets no media coverage at all down here. Same goes for the upside downers. That's you, right? I don't know or care who your PM is either. It has no effect on me whatsoever. I only know who Brown & Sarkozy are becase they get covered. Other than that, the only honchos we hear about are the ones we're demonizing this week. The rest are just there in case we need somebody to turn our attention to. Y'all don't count for anything.

[russtafa]

I doubt it. Maybe if they look it up, but I don't care enough. Canadian politics are pretty much inconsequential to me or most Americans. I guess that's why it gets no media coverage at all down here. Same goes for the upside downers. That's you, right? I don't know or care who your PM is either. It has no effect on me whatsoever. I only know who Brown & Sarkozy are becase they get covered. Other than that, the only honchos we hear about are the ones we're demonizing this week. The rest are just there in case we need somebody to turn our attention to. Y'all don't count for anything.
i suppose that's why you are a hippie because you know sweet fuck all and you count sweet fuck all.Hippies don't count in Australia because they are like abo's and just pick their nose or pick their arse and that's it

[hippifried]

i suppose that's why you are a hippie because you know sweet fuck all and you count sweet fuck all.Hippies don't count in Australia because they are like abo's and just pick their nose or pick their arse and that's it
Doesn't matter, because you don't know me. You don't know my country. You certainly don't know what hippies are, ever were, or what the movement was about. We changed the mindset of the world in 5 short years. What have you ever done? What? You think I must be stupid because I don't give a shit about the local politics in insignificant places? I don't know or care who the mayor of Podunk Iowa is either. Do you? Why not? They have more world significance than Australia. They produce food for the world, & they're part of America. You don't count. All y'all have is beaches, & you wouldn't even know how to surf if it wasn't for us.

[Yvonne183]

Doesn't matter, because you don't know me. You don't know my country. You certainly don't know what hippies are, ever were, or what the movement was about. We changed the mindset of the world in 5 short years. What have you ever done? What? You think I must be stupid because I don't give a shit about the local politics in insignificant places? I don't know or care who the mayor of Podunk Iowa is either. Do you? Why not? They have more world significance than Australia. They produce food for the world, & they're part of America. You don't count. All y'all have is beaches, & you wouldn't even know how to surf if it wasn't for us.

Some of those hippies like Jerry Rubin made it big on Wall Street. Ha ha. Hippies are the same as everyone else, they only look out for their own self interests of greed and money.

[Stavros]

Small point Yvonne -he may have looked like a Hippy and smoked a lot of dope and lived in a communal-type pad with the Dead in the background, but Rubin was actually -indeed, literally- a Yippie -founder member of the Youth International Party, and for that reason more politically focused than those hippies who were too stoned most of the time to know what day it was. Although he was part of the Chicago protest in 1968 for which he was arrested, you could argue that by entering the system even as part of its political fringe, he was already in the penumbra of capitalism, and was an early enthusiast for Apple and so on. Pure hippies, have been at the forefront of a counter-cultural movement which included politics but so much else, from environmental activism to the occasionally profit-inducing restoration of otherwise lost crafts in textiles, pottery, jewellery and so on. Contrary to what Russtafa might think, they weren't all layabouts and dope-heads, or devotees of Charles Manson. But as for the nut cutlets, flapjacks and sandals, well I guess its not to everyone's taste, but variety is the spice of life, and the world in the 1960s was also a lot of fun, and not just about protests and riots.

[trish]

... as everyone else, they only look out for their own self interests of greed and money. Seems to me you overstate your case. Sure everybody looks after their own interests sometimes, but often taking care not to tread on another person's interests doesn't require an extraordinary diversion from your own. People are very often happy to be accommodating (unless their philosophy and political ideology predisposes them against it). Indeed, I find people generally can be very self-sacrificing when the call arises.

[Faldur]

Copenhagen's Climate Summit recorded 140 private planes, and 1,200 limousines, (42 had to be driven in from 150 miles away). How many hybrid or electric vehicles? 5, yup just 5.

Looks like some serious self-sacrificing going on. Do as I say, not as I do.

[trish]

As any Faldur can see, Yvonne's remarks weren't specific to hippies or attendees of the Copenhagen Climate Summit. So why would you assume mine were?

So you think you're going to have a major world wide conference and people are going to swim, walk or bicycle to it from all corners of the world? Suppose you had attended and managed to get a motel reservation 15 miles from the conference center, would you be walking in the Copenhagen weather (it wasn't pleasant that week) to the talks or would you being taking the motel "limo" (as they are often called)?

But that's an aside. My point remains, namely

Sure everybody looks after their own interests sometimes, but often taking care not to tread on another person's interests doesn't require an extraordinary diversion from your own. People are very often happy to be accommodating (unless their philosophy and political ideology predisposes them against it). Indeed, I find people generally can be very self-sacrificing when the call arises.

[Stavros]

I have to sympathise with your point Faldur, and that was a major summit, the costs involved in the Conference of the Parties (aka COPS), the second-level meetings which are charged by the Summits with 'hammering out the details of policy' must also be hiugely wasteful of precious resources.

One of the by-products of international policy making is an addiction to conferences and Summits; it may even be called bread and circuses for all I know. Climate Change since Rio has taken the place that HIV/AIDS used to take, even though real decision-making is not done at Summits but in the less publicised talks that take place elsewhere. It starts with an issue with a major impact on policy which means a policy involving a LOT of money- HIV/AIDs; Climate Change to take the two obvious recent examples; then you have the academic journals which are promoted from within a university (to boost its academic ratings), you have the seminars and and the colloquia, but its when the politicians get involved that big bucks kick in because none of these people stay in 4-star hotels, and business class is for the secretaries. Usually, govt and corporations have a rule -if you have to spend more than 4 hours in the air, you go business class (and BA, Virgin, et al will give you a 50% discount if you block book or book say 100 seats a month).

Thus
A) it makes me laugh when I see advertisements for policy analysts where it says -'May involve foreign travel' -as if this were some kind of punishment;
B) I almost got my leg over at two conferences in the 1990s, sex is part of the unwritten deal (as is the all-expenses-paid 'meal' -ie order the Burgundy), the only reason it never got to the bedroom in my case was that on both occasions they turned out to be flirts who were married (and had been to conferences before and saw me coming a mile away. 'Excuse me' she purred, 'I have to call my husband, he broke his leg last week...'...ouch!).
C) Think of it as a form of international economic Keynesiaism, generating profits and business for lots of people, while giving policy wonks the opportunity to see foreign places and maybe get their legs over and who knows, returning to DC and London and Paris with an exotic bride -?

NONE of which detracts from the gravity of the issue.

Its a case of it being a racket, but watch the ball -and yet, for some reason, video conferencing just doesn't have the same appeal. I wonder why.

[trish]

I gotta say, conferences for the American Physical Society (even when they're held jointly overseas) never include sex or all-expenses-paid meals. Of course we're only interested in science...not policy. What kind of people do you hang with? :)

[Stavros]

And that's the American Physical Society??? Well of course its not on the agenda, and after all in my case there never was a George Clooney moment, but I tend to think of conferences as being similar to weddings where a lot of the people aren't really that interested in the bride and groom, if you take my meaning. Probably time for you to stop gazing at the heavens and make the cross-over to the social sciences, you have the brains for it and I daresay you would be most welcome in that neck of the woods...

[trish]

Yeah, we actually exist in the physical world, and I am a material girl :) It's been the American Physical Society since 1899. There has been some recent talk of switching to a more grammatical name but I don't believe any name change has yet been made official.
In the sciences people do pay a lot of attention to the talks, but more importantly conferences provide the opportunity to meet colleagues in small group settings (between talks or in the evening) to discuss developing techniques and approaches to problems. A lot of collaborative efforts get their start at conferences and are continued on Skype. Alas most mathematicians and physicists never really take the time to see the city they're visiting :( , unless they take an extended stay on their own money.

Speaking of money, most of the expense comes out of the attendee's pocket anyway. If you keep all your receipts, the University or the Grant organization may kick in a hundred dollars or so (or provide a small per diem) provided you delivered a paper at the conference. It's advisable not to submit receipts for prostitutes or expensive bottles of wine.


Probably time for you to stop gazing at the heavens and make the cross-over to the social sciences, you have the brains for it and I daresay you would be most welcome in that neck of the woods... Gazing at the heavens with a geometer's eye is in my blood. Don't see myself stopping anytime soon. But I appreciate the invitation to stray into dark and dangerous woods. My, what shiny white teeth you have!

[Faldur]

So you think you're going to have a major world wide conference and people are going to swim, walk or bicycle to it from all corners of the world? Suppose you had attended and managed to get a motel reservation 15 miles from the conference center, would you be walking in the Copenhagen weather (it wasn't pleasant that week) to the talks or would you being taking the motel "limo" (as they are often called)?

I don't expect them to swim but I do expect them to live as if they honestly believe what they are trying to sell the rest of the world. Fly domestic, show you care about the environment. For Gods sake its a climate conference, make a asserted effort to ensure that all green transportation avenues are utilized. Bring in hybrid or electrics to replace the 60' stretch limo's.

The leadership of this movement displays a "elitism" like no other. They want the world to take them seriously but they live like drunken rock stars. So to a simple Faldur they obviously don't believe in climate change.

I do a lot of work with Google. We have built many of there local buildings. They have a green building policy that is strict. Common sense approach to actually making a difference in products and technics used in there projects. They pay the additional costs to know the building meets the standards of there beliefs. These are people to look up to. Do as I do, not as I say.

[trish]

Your assumption is that the attendees are there to sell the world what they believe. That they should be the people to look up to. Most the attendees at a Summit are policy makers from government and industry. Many of those attendees are there to drag their feet, and educating the world on climate science or setting good examples is the furthest thing from their minds. For people to look up to try the actual climatologists.

[Stavros]

Speaking of money, most of the expense comes out of the attendee's pocket anyway. If you keep all your receipts, the University or the Grant organization may kick in a hundred dollars or so (or provide a small per diem) provided you delivered a paper at the conference. It's advisable not to submit receipts for prostitutes or expensive bottles of wine.


On a more serious note I think its the political arena which is problematic, where expenses are routinely paid for by taxpayers and which revolves around the major summits but where there are also the less publicised, annual, sometimes bi-annual meetings of the various Conferences of the Parties, on Climate Change, Biological Diversity and so on. These involve government officials, UN officials, corporate representatives, and lobbyists and are never held in the same place but moved around the world, at what expense? I guess the difficult of linking government officials from around the world at the same time through video-conferencing is impractical because of time-zones and so on, but the cost must be astronomical.

[russtafa]

Doesn't matter, because you don't know me. You don't know my country. You certainly don't know what hippies are, ever were, or what the movement was about. We changed the mindset of the world in 5 short years. What have you ever done? What? You think I must be stupid because I don't give a shit about the local politics in insignificant places? I don't know or care who the mayor of Podunk Iowa is either. Do you? Why not? They have more world significance than Australia. They produce food for the world, & they're part of America. You don't count. All y'all have is beaches, & you wouldn't even know how to surf if it wasn't for us.i don't know you sorry hippie but you do seem like an ignorant son of a bitch.i at least try and know what's going on out side of Australia's borders.As for hippies i have kicked enough of the dirty things when i was younger lol.Its usually the smaller western economies that they try these carbon taxes and other lefty scams to see how the public will react to them .NZ or Aussie are used as a test tubes for these political scam merchants and the reward for these scams, for the countries politicians is a job working for the UN i.e Helen Clarke ex PM of New Zealand =one dirty thieving dyke

[trish]

On a more serious note I think its the political arena which is problematic, where expenses are routinely paid for by taxpayers and which revolves around the major summits but where there are also the less publicised, annual, sometimes bi-annual meetings of the various Conferences of the Parties, on Climate Change, Biological Diversity and so on. These involve government officials, UN officials, corporate representatives, and lobbyists and are never held in the same place but moved around the world, at what expense? I guess the difficult of linking government officials from around the world at the same time through video-conferencing is impractical because of time-zones and so on, but the cost must be astronomical.

Exactly.The attendees of the major summits are Government officials, UN officials, corporate representatives and lobbyists. Even [if] the conference concerns Biological Diversity or Arctic Oil Reserves, the attendees represent a wide range of opposing interests. They are there to negotiate in behave of their interests. I never been to one, but I imagine that besides being expensive, it’s gotta be a zoo. Partly why my interest in climate issues stops where the politics begins.

Having been a party in some small scale video conferencing (5 to 10 people) I can testify it’s not easy, reading peoples faces, gauging their reactions to what others are saying, dealing with the one second time delay etc. and then actually coming to a common understanding and negotiating a solution a workable agreement. I think it would be impossible with 50 or 150 officials, ceo’s and lobbyists. Of course it might be a way to keep the ceo’s and lobbyists out.

[hippifried]

The whine about the extravagance of these conferences is just a diversion that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of climate change. Meaningless drivel.

[hippifried]

So Russ... Still don't have anything to say, huh?

[Stavros]

The whine about the extravagance of these conferences is just a diversion that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of climate change. Meaningless drivel.

A bit harsh, Hippifried, after all its in these COPS that the detailed policy recommendations are drawn up which do or don't make it into the major policy statements that the Summits try to reach -and which forms the political consequence of the science. Always assuming that this is the best way to tackle the hard science.

As I have suggested before, it seems to me that the pure science is now taking a back seat to the politics of carbon offsets and taxes, and that is a pity, but someone somewhere is making a handsome profit out of the process, and our taxes are helping to pay for it. Maybe if there was some sense of unified purpose on an issue that affects us all it would not matter so much, but this conference process has been going on since the 1990s and there isn't much to show for it, indivthe idual initiatives that industry has made to reduce carbon emissions appear to have been more successful.

[muh_muh]

i don't know you sorry hippie but you do seem like an ignorant son of a bitch.

thats rich comming from someone whos posts contain nothing but prejudice 99% of the time


Meaningless drivel.

like all of faldurs posts
theres a pattern here

[russtafa]

thats rich comming from someone whos posts contain nothing but prejudice 99% of the time



like all of faldurs posts
theres a pattern here

cool ain't it :dancing:

[trish]

cool ain't it ...Naw, just bigoted.

[hippifried]

So... Some delegates use their expense accounts to get laid or to glutton out. The hotels make a profit. The restaurants & bars make a profit. The folks selling tee shirts, souvenirs, trinkets, snacks, & other junk from the kiosks that pop up everywhere make a profit. The carpenters, electricians, communications techs, plummers, etc.., all picked up a few weeks of all the premium paid overtime they could handle getting ready for the event. Hundreds if not thousands of temporary staff are hired. Somebody's making a profit from all those uniforms, along with the ID cards, badges, & nametags for both staff & delegates. The local retailers are open late. The transportation providers, from limos to rickshaws, are non-stop busy. The prostitutes & other service providers are non-stop busy & being picky about their clients. Most prices are up, & there are no discounts to be seen. Etc...

This is pretty much the nature of all summits, conve3ntions, & other large gatherings by whatever name. Even the protesters spend money. Cities clamor, even bid to host these events. They spend mega-bucks building convention centers as bait. The topic of discussion that generated the desire to hold a meeting in the first place, is irrelevant to any of this. Why woud anybody be surprized that the meet & greets over climate change issues are not abnormal? That's a rhetorical question. This isn't any surprize to anybody, or even a big deal outside of the local host economy. The whining is just a bunch of meaningless drivel from the sniveling pecks who try to politicize everything that goes on so they don't have to let on that they can't argue the issue.

Drink up, Shriners!

[Stavros]

In which case, I think I need a double. Try to imagine the Olympics in London...well, no, don't, I don't live there but already I can smell it, and its not carbon.

[russtafa]

naw, just bigoted.thats great it it get's right up your nose

[Prospero]

Russtafa. A sort of Aussie Nero - fighting and fucking around while Rome burns. hey ho.

[russtafa]

i would say it was the other way around lol

[Ben]

We don't have to worry about global warming. As Woody Allen makes an interesting point about our pointlessness... ha ha!
He offers up the dank and somewhat dark realism about the inanity -- or silliness -- of human life, the planet, the sun and the solar system -- and, yep, even adoring and worshiping T-Girls is pretty pointless... ha ha ha! :) :) :)
And as the British cosmologist Martin Rees has pointed out: the ultimate fate of the universe is pretty bleak -- ha ha!

Woody Allen about meaning and truth of life on Earth - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MsuqvLIttk)

[Ben]

Spencer Wells - The Unforeseen Cost of Human Civilisation - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZe4B3nfPJM)

[Ben]

Sir Martin Rees: Earth in its final century? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qF26MbYgOA)

[trish]

We don't have to worry about global warming. As Woody Allen makes an interesting point about our pointlessness... ha ha!
He offers up the dank and somewhat dark realism about the inanity -- or silliness -- of human life, the planet, the sun and the solar system -- and, yep, even adoring and worshiping T-Girls is pretty pointless... ha ha ha! :) :) :)
And as the British cosmologist Martin Rees has pointed out: the ultimate fate of the universe is pretty bleak -- ha ha!

Woody Allen about meaning and truth of life on Earth - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MsuqvLIttk)
Woody paints a bleak five billion year forecast but refrains from saying life isn't worth living. Ever the artist, he sees his goal as finding ways of persuading us (and perhaps himself) that it is indeed all worthwhile. He wants to do this without resorting to cheats (like: it's gonna be okay 'cause there's a heavenly afterlife where we're all meet and maybe drink coffee, converse and smoke cigarettes).

Is it a challenge, like Woody says? I don't think so. But then I'm young. Nevertheless, I'm not religious, not a believer in gods or an afterlife, I'm quite familiar with the life of stars, planetary systems and the cosmos. Yet I'm thoroughly enjoying myself, my friends, the books they recommend, the movies, the discussions, the times we live in, ripples and waves across the pond behind my house, the juncos and chickadees in the trees...everything. Is life worth it? That's a no-brainer.

Should we stop polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses. I'm staying out of that one. I'll just say that if we don't, the thermal energy of the oceans and atmosphere will continue to build and the climate will continue to respond.

[russtafa]

more worried about global cooling than global warming scientists predict that the earth is approaching another ice age

[trish]

more worried about global cooling than global warming scientists predict that the earth is approaching another ice age
Check you time scales. There are two orders of magnitude difference.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=next-ice-age-not-likely-before

[russtafa]

well that's great lets just keep the planet warm,though i think man has a lot of arrogance or stupidity if he thinks he can have such a great infulence this planet

[trish]

You demonstrate a lot of stupidity to think that 7 billion people can't and aren't changing the face of the planet right now. The entire history of life on this planet demonstrates the capacity of a single genus to spread and change the entire ecosystem. Before the occurrence of photosynthesizing plants there wasn't enough oxygen in the atmosphere to keep you alive.

[Ben]

Check you time scales. There are two orders of magnitude difference.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=next-ice-age-not-likely-before

Climate change is the most daunting issue facing humanity...
I mean, there are tremendous (health) benefits in reducing greenhouse gases.
I mean, don't people, say, welcome cleaner air, clean water? Or have we reached the point where we just don't care? I mean, industrial civilization is not sustainable. Ya really think we can carry on like this for another 50 years, 100 years, 200 years, 300 years? Do people care about future generations?
I don't see how we can continue to despoil the planet and not face any repercussions in the future.
I guess people just don't live in the real world anymore. People are too fixated on the cyber world -- ha ha! :)

Bill McKibben - Public Consciousness and Climate Change - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly5-EoN41QU)

Answering Climate Change Skeptics, Naomi Oreskes - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0)

[Ben]

You demonstrate a lot of stupidity to think that 7 billion people can't and aren't changing the face of the planet right now. The entire history of life on this planet demonstrates the capacity of a single genus to spread and change the entire ecosystem. Before the occurrence of photosynthesizing plants there wasn't enough oxygen in the atmosphere to keep you alive.

Trish is absolutely correct.

[russtafa]

wow it's like been told by god lol

[trish]

You already told yourself. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1076069&postcount=372

[russtafa]

i don't think so Trish those graphs are bull shit

[russtafa]

i think global warming is far better than an ice age.i think an ice age would root Europe and north America i think Australia would be ok but you people would be rooted

[trish]

i don't think so Trish those graphs are bull shit

Without reason to substantiate your 'thought' who gives a fuck what you 'think'?

[russtafa]

Without reason to substantiate your 'thought' who gives a fuck what you 'think'?i do and i don't give a fuck about your silly greenie graphs

[trish]

i do ...
No you don't. You don't give a single fuck for your own thoughts either. You blurt them out and leave them stranded. You honor them not with reason nor with evidence.

Week after week, month after month we see you blurting out your prejudices and hatreds. They lie there on the page unnourished and dying like panicked sperm drying on the pages of pulp pornography.

I can't imagine why one would feel compelled to communicate and at the same time regard one's own contributions as unworthy of reasoned support. You have my sympathy.

[russtafa]

:screwytalk shit Trish you don't think an ice age would be more harmful to to north America ? i know you are loopy and same go's for greenie pals but ,an ice age is better than global warming?

[Ben]

Even Margaret Thatcher -- Margaret Thatcher!!!!!!!!!! -- believes in the science of global warming. I mean, she's the Queen of Neoliberalism. But believes in global warming. Yes! Thatcher!!!!

Thatcher GlobalWarming - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSrBO4_qPzo)

And remember ol' Maggie loathes so-called socialism:

Margaret Thatcher on Socialist Federal Europe - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOnGRYzYzW0)

[Ben]

Part of the global warming denial movement has to do with defending free markets and free market capitalism and a so-called: free society.
The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist, anti-Soviet ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation. So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom -- :)

Margaret Thatcher: Free Society Speech (1975) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK3eP9rh4So)

[russtafa]

i don't give a fuck what that crazy old bat believes in.i think that an ice age would be far more damaging than global warming.if global warming fends of an ice age i say that's great

[Ben]

Climate Change Denial made by Frank Luntz - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZK7zmDm_00)

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Ben;1089569]Part of the global warming denial movement has to do with defending free markets and free market capitalism and a so-called: free society.
The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist, anti-Soviet ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation. So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom -- :)

Ben, you are wrong.

If you look at the environmental movement historically, you could never argue that it is or has ever been associated with communism in the way you suggest -and not just because, to take one example, the USSR's record on environmental management was so poor.

Just in your own country the most powerful environmental groups for the last century have been the Sierra Club (1892) the National Audobon Society (1905) and the Wilderness Society (1935) all of whom would be startled, and probably offended to be called Communists.

Ralph Nader may have started as a 'consumer rights' advocate, but his early campaigns had environmental issues such as clean air at their core, and he has always been one of those 'radicals' who wanted the existing system to perform better and get people to make it work better, rather than trying to overthrow it.

Some environmental activists are portrayed as being left-wing, anarchists, and so on- but if you look more closely at the profiles of the people who take direct action against oil rigs, Japanese whalers, and have attempted to 'seize' power stations, their antipathy to 'the state' is not so far removed from the alleged phobia of 'big government' possessed by Tea Party and other supposedly 'right-wing' ideologues and activists. Some people after all have criticised activists for being 'Environmental fascists' because of their single-minded focus and indifference to debate, and if anything the holier-than-thou attititude some activists in Greenpeace and fringe groups have has alienated more people than it has converted to the cause.

The 'neo-liberals' you refer to are mostly concerned about taxation, not the science, which, like Russtafa, they do not understand, and do not intend to understand.

The real issue here is resource management, and it always has been: how we, as human societies manage the natural resources on which we depend to live: earth, water, air and fire -and the things we have created through industry, for example, man-made carbons, industrial chemicals, and nuclear waste. Of all these issues, water is so fundamental I find it hard to believe that this thread has lasted as long as it has when the extinction of life on an earth without water would seem to be inevitable -yet water is not the central topic of the day, although I suppose it could be in 10 years time if the populations of Lima in Peru, and most of the Yemen have to re-locate because there is no water left.

Maybe we could organise an airlift and the boats, and re-locate them in Australia.

Ps, describing Margaret Thatcher as 'the Queen if Neo-Liberalism' is one of the daftest things you have said, and that's saying something. Maybe you should look at her record before making such inflated claims.

[russtafa]

[QUOTE=Ben;1089569]Part of the global warming denial movement has to do with defending free markets and free market capitalism and a so-called: free society.
The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist, anti-Soviet ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation. So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom -- :)

Ben, you are wrong.

If you look at the environmental movement historically, you could never argue that it is or has ever been associated with communism in the way you suggest -and not just because, to take one example, the USSR's record on environmental management was so poor.

Just in your own country the most powerful environmental groups for the last century have been the Sierra Club (1892) the National Audobon Society (1905) and the Wilderness Society (1935) all of whom would be startled, and probably offended to be called Communists.

Ralph Nader may have started as a 'consumer rights' advocate, but his early campaigns had environmental issues such as clean air at their core, and he has always been one of those 'radicals' who wanted the existing system to perform better and get people to make it work better, rather than trying to overthrow it.

Some environmental activists are portrayed as being left-wing, anarchists, and so on- but if you look more closely at the profiles of the people who take direct action against oil rigs, Japanese whalers, and have attempted to 'seize' power stations, their antipathy to 'the state' is not so far removed from the alleged phobia of 'big government' possessed by Tea Party and other supposedly 'right-wing' ideologues and activists. Some people after all have criticised activists for being 'Environmental fascists' because of their single-minded focus and indifference to debate, and if anything the holier-than-thou attititude some activists in Greenpeace and fringe groups have has alienated more people than it has converted to the cause.

The 'neo-liberals' you refer to are mostly concerned about taxation, not the science, which, like Russtafa, they do not understand, and do not intend to understand.

The real issue here is resource management, and it always has been: how we, as human societies manage the natural resources on which we depend to live: earth, water, air and fire -and the things we have created through industry, for example, man-made carbons, industrial chemicals, and nuclear waste. Of all these issues, water is so fundamental I find it hard to believe that this thread has lasted as long as it has when the extinction of life on an earth without water would seem to be inevitable -yet water is not the central topic of the day, although I suppose it could be in 10 years time if the populations of Lima in Peru, and most of the Yemen have to re-locate because there is no water left.

Maybe we could organise an airlift and the boats, and re-locate them in Australia.

Ps, describing Margaret Thatcher as 'the Queen if Neo-Liberalism' is one of the daftest things you have said, and that's saying something. Maybe you should look at her record before making such inflated claims.no they are not commies they are greenies or today's answer to the LUDITES

[trish]

:screwytalk shit Trish you don't think an ice age would be more harmful to to north America ? i know you are loopy and same go's for greenie pals but ,an ice age is better than global warming?
So where did you get the idea it's a choice? Once more, look at your time scales.

Anthropocentric climate warming is occurring now with significant measurable increases spanning just decades. Within a few hundred years or less the consequences will be drought, more violent weather events, disappearance of glaciers and sea ice, the rise of sea levels, shift and disappearance of arable lands, and major extinctions. We are already experiencing the effects of greenhouse induced energy imbalance. I'm not saying we should do anything about it, which is the greenie position. I'm not a greenie. I'm simply presenting the science.

Ice age cycles span a period of 20,000 years. At the very earliest the next ice age 1500 years away. We'll have roasted to death by then if we do nothing about greenhouse gasses. If we don't solve the problem of climate warming, we won't be around to even face the next ice age.

On an obstacle course you sometimes have to craw under [a] barbed wire fence with bullets whizzing over you head and then you have to jump a hurdle. Jumping at the wrong time can be fatal. Not that I'm giving you any advice here. Just saying what'll happen if you jump at an inopportune time.

[Ben]

[QUOTE=Ben;1089569]Part of the global warming denial movement has to do with defending free markets and free market capitalism and a so-called: free society.
The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist, anti-Soviet ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation. So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom -- :)

Ben, you are wrong.

If you look at the environmental movement historically, you could never argue that it is or has ever been associated with communism in the way you suggest -and not just because, to take one example, the USSR's record on environmental management was so poor.

Just in your own country the most powerful environmental groups for the last century have been the Sierra Club (1892) the National Audobon Society (1905) and the Wilderness Society (1935) all of whom would be startled, and probably offended to be called Communists.

Ralph Nader may have started as a 'consumer rights' advocate, but his early campaigns had environmental issues such as clean air at their core, and he has always been one of those 'radicals' who wanted the existing system to perform better and get people to make it work better, rather than trying to overthrow it.

Some environmental activists are portrayed as being left-wing, anarchists, and so on- but if you look more closely at the profiles of the people who take direct action against oil rigs, Japanese whalers, and have attempted to 'seize' power stations, their antipathy to 'the state' is not so far removed from the alleged phobia of 'big government' possessed by Tea Party and other supposedly 'right-wing' ideologues and activists. Some people after all have criticised activists for being 'Environmental fascists' because of their single-minded focus and indifference to debate, and if anything the holier-than-thou attititude some activists in Greenpeace and fringe groups have has alienated more people than it has converted to the cause.

The 'neo-liberals' you refer to are mostly concerned about taxation, not the science, which, like Russtafa, they do not understand, and do not intend to understand.

The real issue here is resource management, and it always has been: how we, as human societies manage the natural resources on which we depend to live: earth, water, air and fire -and the things we have created through industry, for example, man-made carbons, industrial chemicals, and nuclear waste. Of all these issues, water is so fundamental I find it hard to believe that this thread has lasted as long as it has when the extinction of life on an earth without water would seem to be inevitable -yet water is not the central topic of the day, although I suppose it could be in 10 years time if the populations of Lima in Peru, and most of the Yemen have to re-locate because there is no water left.

Maybe we could organise an airlift and the boats, and re-locate them in Australia.

Ps, describing Margaret Thatcher as 'the Queen if Neo-Liberalism' is one of the daftest things you have said, and that's saying something. Maybe you should look at her record before making such inflated claims.

A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey 1/5 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkWWMOzNNrQ)

A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey 2/5 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwboT2DhJC8)

A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey 3/5 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZg4esZFhOU)

A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey 4/5 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhzkBRyhjlc&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLFED4296360DFA73C)

A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey 5/5 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN3Iz7XzUWM&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL98E8D2EEC861AACB)

[Ben]

[QUOTE=Ben;1089569]Part of the global warming denial movement has to do with defending free markets and free market capitalism and a so-called: free society.
The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist, anti-Soviet ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation. So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom -- :)

Ben, you are wrong.

If you look at the environmental movement historically, you could never argue that it is or has ever been associated with communism in the way you suggest -and not just because, to take one example, the USSR's record on environmental management was so poor.

Just in your own country the most powerful environmental groups for the last century have been the Sierra Club (1892) the National Audobon Society (1905) and the Wilderness Society (1935) all of whom would be startled, and probably offended to be called Communists.

Ralph Nader may have started as a 'consumer rights' advocate, but his early campaigns had environmental issues such as clean air at their core, and he has always been one of those 'radicals' who wanted the existing system to perform better and get people to make it work better, rather than trying to overthrow it.

Some environmental activists are portrayed as being left-wing, anarchists, and so on- but if you look more closely at the profiles of the people who take direct action against oil rigs, Japanese whalers, and have attempted to 'seize' power stations, their antipathy to 'the state' is not so far removed from the alleged phobia of 'big government' possessed by Tea Party and other supposedly 'right-wing' ideologues and activists. Some people after all have criticised activists for being 'Environmental fascists' because of their single-minded focus and indifference to debate, and if anything the holier-than-thou attititude some activists in Greenpeace and fringe groups have has alienated more people than it has converted to the cause.

The 'neo-liberals' you refer to are mostly concerned about taxation, not the science, which, like Russtafa, they do not understand, and do not intend to understand.

The real issue here is resource management, and it always has been: how we, as human societies manage the natural resources on which we depend to live: earth, water, air and fire -and the things we have created through industry, for example, man-made carbons, industrial chemicals, and nuclear waste. Of all these issues, water is so fundamental I find it hard to believe that this thread has lasted as long as it has when the extinction of life on an earth without water would seem to be inevitable -yet water is not the central topic of the day, although I suppose it could be in 10 years time if the populations of Lima in Peru, and most of the Yemen have to re-locate because there is no water left.

Maybe we could organise an airlift and the boats, and re-locate them in Australia.

Ps, describing Margaret Thatcher as 'the Queen if Neo-Liberalism' is one of the daftest things you have said, and that's saying something. Maybe you should look at her record before making such inflated claims.

Naomi Klein - The Paradox of Crisis - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHs64Hz3ZJY)

[Faldur]

Might want to read up on it...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hUqhilguoPs/TRunydGXRrI/AAAAAAAAGNU/d9d6BJX6RA8/s1600/time1.bmp

Hmm.. sounds all too familiar.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist, (Oooh it must be true if one of these said so), George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

[Ben]

Stavros, read: Merchants of Doubt.
I repeat: The denial movement was lead by a group of physicists. Who were cold warriors. And had a firm anti-communist ideology.
And in the early 90s, when the Cold War came to an end, well, they needed a new enemy. And some came to believe that environmentalists were communists. (Again, they wanted to defend so-called capitalism and freedom.)
A paranoia emerged that environmentalists were, again, communists. And what do environmentalists want? Well, regulation.
So, they viewed it as a kind of creeping communism, a threat to their freedom.
So, the science of global warming THREATENS their free market ideology.
So, in their minds they're defending freedom. And I genuinely think they believe that. So, well, you'll do everything you can to deny global warming to defend that freedom.
Here ol' Chomsky explains neoliberalism.
Encirclement - Neo-Liberalism Ensnares Democracy (5/5) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulgtQpPK-js)
And, well, if Maggie wasn't a neoliberal, well, what was she? She certainly believed in privatization, the free movement of capital or so-called free markets. She firmly believed in property rights. I mean, she had a heavy faith in the market.
And now a little economics lesson -- :)
And, too, in order for markets to function, well, three things have to happen. (Markets are horrid in that they need to keep growing and growing. Ya know, more stuff. That's the reason we're in this ecological crisis.)
One: the sellers must bear the full cost of what they produce. Of course, car companies always bear the full cost of what they produce. As do oil companies... ha ha ha!
Pollution is a market inefficiency.
Two: investment income needs to stay in the country of origin. How often does this happen?
Three: Savings must be spent on real wealth and not phantom wealth.
And companies, again, work to undermine markets. As in order for markets to work, well, you need PERFECT information. For starters.
You also need informed consumers making rational choices.
Does this happen? I mean, corporations want UNINFORMED consumers making completely irrational choices.
So, therefore markets are inefficient.
But, again, the endless growth of markets are going to finish off the species.

[Stavros]

BEN
It doesn't matter how many links to David Harvey's interesting book you provide, it doesn't obscure the fact that he admits in Chapter 3 (The Neoliberal State) that the actual practice of both the Reagan and Thatcher governments does not 'fit' exactly with his -or anyone else's- definition of Neoliberalism, so there were times when their policy decisions were anything but Neoliberal, but apparently this doesn't matter! Facts like this which suggest the theory is wrong are of little or no importance to Harvey who, against his own evidence, soldiers on with his distorted interpetation of history, errors of fact (p60-no, David half of Liverpool City Concil -45 out of 90- were not gaoled, ut some of them were surcharged), in order to prove that we are living through a new phase of capitalism that began in the 1970s. In spite of his alleged fidelity to Marx, Harvey has never been able to produce an analysis of the means of production or the social relations of production that is remotely as pungent as anything Uncle Charlie managed.

But what is Neoliberalism? It is Liberalism, defined intellectually in the European sense in which it is a philosophy of Free Enterprise contasted with Conservatism and Socialism. I once had to explain to a foreign student I was helping on a course in the theory of international relations, that Neoliberalism was a bogus concept dreamed up by some academics to merit the publication of a book here, a lot of articles there. It suited many people in the 1980s to latch on to it as if they needed a revived concept of an old doctrine to explain something as simple as Thatcherism -look closely and you can't see the difference. As if that wasn't bad enough, someone decided to re-package realism as, wait for it, Neo-Realism. Is it any wonder that so many students find political theory an arid field in which to plough?

Thatcher was indeed a Liberal on many issues, but she was also a Conservative, and she cannot be fit neatly into a pigeon-hole with the word 'Neo-Liberal' attached, the same is even true of Ronald Reagan -in fact, the need for all elected politicians to make pragmatic decisions when they get into office, regardless of what their 'ideology' says they should do, is what makes politics interesting and challenging.

So, sorry Ben, your need to fold people up and place them neatly into pigeon-holes is a waste of time and has nothing to do with the history of politics or the current situation in which we are in.

[Stavros]

Just to reiterate as your other posts intervened: Margaret Thatcher was first and foremost a Conservative politician; that some of her policies were liberal was part of the trend in politics that moved away from the Keynesian consensus that had developed after 1945; but a lot of her policies and practices were not so you cannot blanket her entire political record with a slogan.

Just because some people think environmental activists are left-wing, communists or whatever, doesn't mean that they are. My point -which I don't seem to have made very well- was that if you engage with them, you find a wide range of political affiliations among people concerned about the environment, although I think the most militant direct action activists are difficult to deal with and intolerant of debate.

I notice, again, that like a lot of people, the concept of resource management doesn't excite you. And yet it is at the crux of the argument about the environment.

[trish]

Let's see Faldur what do we have today that we didn't have in the 70's? How about a capacity for high speed computation making detailed computational modeling and simulation of complex systems possible for the first time ever in the history of science. What else? Automatic remote measuring and data collection devices, many of them on board satellites that monitor the Earth's surface, oceans and atmosphere. Many more ice cores have been collected, studied and understood. Many more layers of Earth strata have been examined in fuller detail and understood. (The iridium layer that made Alvarez famous was unnoticed in 1970). We have a greater understanding of the chemistry of the atmosphere as well as the physical mechanisms responsible for the transfer of energy through it. Anything else? Oh yes, a scientific consensus. In 1970 the jury on climate change was still out with different researchers exploring different possibilities.

You mention the late Dr. George Kukla, a climatologist. Here some of his later work
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/174/

As you can see he had a lifelong interest in the glacial cycles of our planet. He studied, researched, designed models, tested hypothesis and refined our understanding of the phenomenon. Anyone with an interest in the science behind the ice ages owes him a debt of gratitude. Thank you Dr. George Kukla.

Here is a lay report on some of his later work.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us/evidence-is-found-of-warming-trend.html

Oh my gosh! Faldur and Kukla have emotional stakes in this issue. Both would benefit from any legitimate argument that would allow them to deny global warming. Unlike Faldur, Dr. Kukla knows that no such argument has been presented. Instead of relying solely on the state of knowledge as it was in the early 70's and on the inclinations he had as a young researcher with a deep interest in the ice ages, Dr. Kukla through time, with thought and consideration, uninfluenced by politics and ideologies, revised his scientific assessment.

Dr. George Kukla gives the deniers no solace. His own work, by his own interpretation, supports the consensus position that the climate is warming and it is in part anthropocentric in origin.

Faldur, you should be ashamed to use Kukla's name as you did. It's as lame as baptizing the dead.

[Faldur]

Faldur, you should be ashamed to use Kukla's name as you did. It's as lame as baptizing the dead.

Sorry, unashamed been riding this marble to long to live with that. And hun, you can only baptize the dead. The living are already saved... :)

[trish]

I see you chose to respond to nothing in my post but the closing simile.


...you can only baptize the dead. The living are already saved... :)

Interesting. Life begins at baptism, rather than conception. That should make for an equally interesting stance on abortion. You can't kill a baby that hasn't been baptized, it's already dead.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8U_JveHS8E&feature=youtu.be (http://youtu.be/f8U_JveHS8E)

[Ben]

Warren Buffett Exposed: The Oracle of Omaha and the Tar Sands: (http://www.desmogblog.com/warren-buffett-exposed-oracle-omaha-and-tar-sands)

http://www.desmogblog.com/warren-buffett-exposed-oracle-omaha-and-tar-sands

[trish]

Without a doubt the tar sands will be sucked of their crude and transported one way or the other. If the route isn't all downhill, all modes of transportation will consume energy and most likely put more hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. What strikes me as particularly pernicious about the XL pipeline is the endangerment of the Ogallala aquifer. Most people (at least those that don't live on the desert) don't think much about water, but it is our very most valuable resource. Fracking is already contaminating scores of local underground freshwater sources. The Ogallala aquifer is a giant underground reservoir that serves millions of people. IMO it's best to take another route or another mode of transport entirely.

I know there's a movement among the Greens to abandon the sands entirely. It's not going to happen. The sands are just too alluring. The oil corporations are too greedy and their lobby too powerful. The carbon in those sands is coming out. One way or another that crude will find its way to the gulf, it'll be refined and sold on the global market.

I also know the administration is being accused of standing in the way of the jobs the XL would create. But those jobs are not in the immediate future. Whatever the procedure we finally agree upon to mine, move and refine that crude, there will be jobs.

[russtafa]

Might want to read up on it...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hUqhilguoPs/TRunydGXRrI/AAAAAAAAGNU/d9d6BJX6RA8/s1600/time1.bmp

Hmm.. sounds all too familiar.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist, (Oooh it must be true if one of these said so), George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
these people are ice age deniers lol.besides they think a little bit of ice wont hurt, any way it's more ice to drop into their cocktails :party:

[Ben]

Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan on the Greenhouse Effect - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1PicT0TMU)

[Ben]

Frank Luntz in the Denial Machine (CBC - Fifth Estate) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WiTVL9iT1w)

[trish]

these people are ice age deniers lol.besides they think a little bit of ice wont hurt, any way it's more ice to drop into their cocktails :party:Apparently you're blind (see the refutation above) as well as stupid (time scales russtafa...think of the time sca.... oh that's right, you're an idiot). Anyway here it is again, just erase Faldur and substitute your own name, russtafa. ->

Let's see Faldur what do we have today that we didn't have in the 70's? How about a capacity for high speed computation making detailed computational modeling and simulation of complex systems possible for the first time ever in the history of science. What else? Automatic remote measuring and data collection devices, many of them on board satellites that monitor the Earth's surface, oceans and atmosphere. Many more ice cores have been collected, studied and understood. Many more layers of Earth strata have been examined in fuller detail and understood. (The iridium layer that made Alvarez famous was unnoticed in 1970). We have a greater understanding of the chemistry of the atmosphere as well as the physical mechanisms responsible for the transfer of energy through it. Anything else? Oh yes, a scientific consensus. In 1970 the jury on climate change was still out with different researchers exploring different possibilities.

You mention the late Dr. George Kukla, a climatologist. Here some of his later work
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/174/

As you can see he had a lifelong interest in the glacial cycles of our planet. He studied, researched, designed models, tested hypothesis and refined our understanding of the phenomenon. Anyone with an interest in the science behind the ice ages owes him a debt of gratitude. Thank you Dr. George Kukla.

Here is a lay report on some of his later work.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us...ing-trend.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us/evidence-is-found-of-warming-trend.html)

Oh my gosh! Faldur and Kukla have emotional stakes in this issue. Both would benefit from any legitimate argument that would allow them to deny global warming. Unlike Faldur, Dr. Kukla knows that no such argument has been presented. Instead of relying solely on the state of knowledge as it was in the early 70's and on the inclinations he had as a young researcher with a deep interest in the ice ages, Dr. Kukla through time, with thought and consideration, uninfluenced by politics and ideologies, revised his scientific assessment.

Dr. George Kukla gives the deniers no solace. His own work, by his own interpretation, supports the consensus position that the climate is warming and it is in part anthropocentric in origin.

Faldur, you should be ashamed to use Kukla's name as you did. It's as lame as baptizing the dead.

[russtafa]

Apparently you're blind (see the refutation above) as well as stupid (time scales russtafa...think of the time sca.... oh that's right, you're an idiot). Anyway here it is again, just erase Faldur and substitute your own name, russtafa. ->

Let's see Faldur what do we have today that we didn't have in the 70's? How about a capacity for high speed computation making detailed computational modeling and simulation of complex systems possible for the first time ever in the history of science. What else? Automatic remote measuring and data collection devices, many of them on board satellites that monitor the Earth's surface, oceans and atmosphere. Many more ice cores have been collected, studied and understood. Many more layers of Earth strata have been examined in fuller detail and understood. (The iridium layer that made Alvarez famous was unnoticed in 1970). We have a greater understanding of the chemistry of the atmosphere as well as the physical mechanisms responsible for the transfer of energy through it. Anything else? Oh yes, a scientific consensus. In 1970 the jury on climate change was still out with different researchers exploring different possibilities.

You mention the late Dr. George Kukla, a climatologist. Here some of his later work
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/174/

As you can see he had a lifelong interest in the glacial cycles of our planet. He studied, researched, designed models, tested hypothesis and refined our understanding of the phenomenon. Anyone with an interest in the science behind the ice ages owes him a debt of gratitude. Thank you Dr. George Kukla.

Here is a lay report on some of his later work.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us...ing-trend.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us/evidence-is-found-of-warming-trend.html)

Oh my gosh! Faldur and Kukla have emotional stakes in this issue. Both would benefit from any legitimate argument that would allow them to deny global warming. Unlike Faldur, Dr. Kukla knows that no such argument has been presented. Instead of relying solely on the state of knowledge as it was in the early 70's and on the inclinations he had as a young researcher with a deep interest in the ice ages, Dr. Kukla through time, with thought and consideration, uninfluenced by politics and ideologies, revised his scientific assessment.

Dr. George Kukla gives the deniers no solace. His own work, by his own interpretation, supports the consensus position that the climate is warming and it is in part anthropocentric in origin.

Faldur, you should be ashamed to use Kukla's name as you did. It's as lame as baptizing the dead.you believe in this b.s Trish good for and i suppose you believed in fairy stories when you were a kid but one day you will wake up to the scam of this global warming crap

[Ben]

Might want to read up on it...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hUqhilguoPs/TRunydGXRrI/AAAAAAAAGNU/d9d6BJX6RA8/s1600/time1.bmp

Hmm.. sounds all too familiar.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist, (Oooh it must be true if one of these said so), George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.


Tit for tat -- :)

[Ben]

you believe in this b.s Trish good for and i suppose you believed in fairy stories when you were a kid but one day you will wake up to the scam of this global warming crap

russtafa, what if you're wrong? Anyway, truth is: we can't have infinite growth on a finite planet. That's a fact.
But the endless debate/discussion (on this site) about anthropogenic global warming will persist. I just think there are benefits to reducing pollution. Air. Water. And soil. There are benefits without even acknowledging global warming.
I don't think you should worry about a so-called carbon tax. Governments will tax you to death anyway -- :)
With respect to taxation, well, people have no power.
But, again, on the slim chance you're wrong?
OK, say it's 50 50. You know, there's a 50 percent chance it's a complete and utter hoax? Do we really want to take that risk?
I don't see the harm in switching to alternative energy? I don't think it's the solution. But what's wrong with having a bunch of wind farms? Or solar panels? Or electric cars?
Anyway, the so-called green movement or environmentalists are seen as the new communists. Ya know, a threat to freedom and so-called free market capitalism. So, it's understandable why people rail against the science of global warming.

First Environmentalism – Then Socialism!:

http://www.care2.com/causes/first-environmentalism-then-socialism.html

[Ben]

John McCain on Global Warming - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auWSFOQXnDA)

Mitt Romney Believes Global Warming Is Man-Made - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DRBuQmEE0E)

[Prospero]

I am curious why this thread keeps on running. Those who obdurately insist the world is flat will never be convinced otherwise. There is a handful of these holocaust deniers here so why are those who understand science continuing to argue with them. Their politics or their limited intelligence make them incapable of taking account of the huge weight of essentially irrefutable evidence that most scientists around the world now accept as fact. Will we let them on the last helicopter out of Saigon when the time comes?

[russtafa]

I am curious why this thread keeps on running. Those who obdurately insist the world is flat will never be convinced otherwise. There is a handful of these holocaust deniers here so why are those who understand science continuing to argue with them. Their politics or their limited intelligence make them incapable of taking account of the huge weight of essentially irrefutable evidence that most scientists around the world now accept as fact. Will we let them on the last helicopter out of Saigon when the time comes?go and buy some magic beans mate but i aint buying it.but
the problem is you want to force your beliefs on the rest of us, and these fucking politicians then get on to it and we end up paying for it losing jobs and higher taxes, so fuck the global warming scam and their suckers

[Prospero]

Thanks for that Russtafa. Yes indeed. I would very much like the world that denies the very great threat we have created to take account of this and to stop being short term about things and look at the bigger picture. Our generation will be fine and probably that of our children. But beyond that, if we don't really address these issues, the world won't have a future.
Hence my remark about people like you fiddling while the world burns. And the pointlessness of engaging with you when you just see conspiracies.

[Faldur]

Thanks for that Russtafa. Yes indeed. I would very much like the world that denies the very great threat we have created to take account of this and to stop being short term about things and look at the bigger picture. Our generation will be fine and probably that of our children. But beyond that, if we don't really address these issues, the world won't have a future.
Hence my remark about people like you fiddling while the world burns. And the pointlessness of engaging with you when you just see conspiracies.

The fact of the matter Prospero is there is no "overwhelming evidence" to back up your theories. There is science on both sides of the equation to support both opinions. What is alarming is the demonization of anyone that doesn't believe in what you do. World is flat? Give me a break. I don't try and ram my religion down your throat, please don't force feed me yours.

If science ever reaches a collective agreement I am sure you will see the world come together to seek a solution. But to tell the opposing side "your scientists are all idiots and ours are all geniuses" isn't doing anything to further your point. You continually try and convince us the "world is flat", and we just don't see that your point is valid.

Now please excuse me, my fiddle is calling me...

[russtafa]

same you see truth where i see scam but you people are dangerous with your screaming at these gutless politicians who will fold to any bull shit

[Silcc69]

The fact of the matter Prospero is there is no "overwhelming evidence" to back up your theories. There is science on both sides of the equation to support both opinions. What is alarming is the demonization of anyone that doesn't believe in what you do. World is flat? Give me a break. I don't try and ram my religion down your throat, please don't force feed me yours.

If science ever reaches a collective agreement I am sure you will see the world come together to seek a solution. But to tell the opposing side "your scientists are all idiots and ours are all geniuses" isn't doing anything to further your point. You continually try and convince us the "world is flat", and we just don't see that your point is valid.

Now please excuse me, my fiddle is calling me...

No chance in hell.

[russtafa]

i don't see China shutting down coal generators in fact they are building more

[Prospero]

Faldur - there is also a tiny body of scientists who also deny that HIV causes AIDS. They and the climate change deniers are recognised as, at best naive, but more probably craven idiots by the vast majority of serious scientists. You know perfectly well that the bulk of science now supports the idea of climate change - but for I assume are politically generated reasons deny this.

[russtafa]

:bangheadbut the greens want our government to tax our industries and close them down

[russtafa]

watermelon green on the outside red on the inside=greens

[trish]

If science ever reaches a collective agreement I am sure you will see the world come together to seek a solution.It has (peruse any reputable refereed journal on climatology) and you won't (witness the current state of denial). Why isn't the world coming together? Two factors.

1) Denial. Look at the position to which russtafa persistently returns:
the greens want our government to tax our industries and close them down He, like many others, fears that solutions will stress the world economy in ways that will negatively impact his life and the welfare of his countrymen. When you don't understand science and you have to take your "truth" on the word of authority, that economic burden weighs heavily against accepting the authority of climate science. That's psychologically understandable, but it's also poor epistemology.

Once swayed by ignorance and the threat of economic burden, or by ignorance and ideology (or all three) a different psychology sets in: the need to defend one's position at all cost; even if that cost is your own intellectual integrity. Look for example at Faldur's claim above that there is no consensus among climate scientists. Even if you're ignorant of science, you shouldn't be ignorant of the easily checked fact that consensus exists. Faldur even knows, on a certain level, that is does when he sarcastically attacks climatologists generally in post #441. Why attack all climatologists when you claim (albeit falsely) that 50% of them support you? Or look at Faldur's post #333 where grasping for any straw to stay afloat he links to an article which he thinks attributes general long term ocean rise to the effects of El Nino and El Nina whereas the article makes no such claim, but even shows the El Nino and El Nina oscillations superposed upon the general rise due to global warming (see my post #334). These sorts of attempts to misrepresent and distort (whether they be due to inexcusable ignorance or deliberate) are examples of what the denier is led to in order to remain a denier. They are also examples of denier propaganda.

2. There is no obvious solution. It is unfeasible to simply stop burning fossil fuels. China is building coal burning plants hand over fist. Its the cheapest way for them to produce energy. It is estimated that there are enough coal deposits left on Earth to last a millennium (perhaps we should conserve them for the next ice age...but we won't). I don't see any way short of a miracle that we won't burn through them. For one thing, our first world lifestyles are at stake. Anyone here want to give up their computer, connectivity, winter heat, summer air-conditioning, car etc. etc. to save our great grandchildren that grief? For another thing, there's too much money to be made providing that energy. The coal is just laying there. All you gotta do is dig it up, sell it and ship it. One might try to slow down consumption by various sorts of regulations or incentives. Originally Democrats pushed for regulations. Republicans insisted on cap and trade. Now Democrats are pushing cap and trade, and Republicans say the free market will handle it. But to be effective, any regulation or incentive has to be international, and I'm pessimistic that we'll ever have effective national or international control of our energy consumption. The deniers (who, generally, deep down know they're wrong) are all waiting on the next scientific miracle that will produce safe energy for free while at the same time they want to reduce the funding of scientific institutions and take anti-science potshots at biologists, paleontologists, geologists and climatologists.

Disclaimer: Nowhere in this post (or prior posts in this thread) do I support any political position. I merely present the hard science and speculate on what might be going on in the heads of deniers.

[hippifried]

Trish,

FYI - It's El Nino & La Nina. The male & female child (nino & nina) use the corresponding male or female article. (el & la both = the)

As for the rest: It reminds me of a farside cartoon that I can't seem to find. It shows a bunch of dogs in a lifeboat & they all have one front paw raised. One dog is saying: "All in favor of eating ALL the food right now, raise your paw.". The caption says: "why dogs rarely survive shipwrecks".

[muh_muh]

niño and niña
if youre gonna correct somebody at least type the words correctly

[hippifried]

I didn't feel like digging through the character map for the enye. This is America, & it ain't on the keyboard.

[trish]

Thank you hippiefried and muh_muh. ;)

[Odelay]

It has (peruse any reputable refereed journal on climatology) and you won't (witness the current state of denial). Why isn't the world coming together? Two factors.

1) Denial. Look at the position to which russtafa persistently returns: He, like many others, fears that solutions will stress the world economy in ways that will negatively impact his life and the welfare of his countrymen. When you don't understand science and you have to take your "truth" on the word of authority, that economic burden weighs heavily against accepting the authority of climate science. That's psychologically understandable, but it's also poor epistemology.

Once swayed by ignorance and the threat of economic burden, or by ignorance and ideology (or all three) a different psychology sets in: the need to defend one's position at all cost; even if that cost is your own intellectual integrity. Look for example at Faldur's claim above that there is no consensus among climate scientists. Even if you're ignorant of science, you shouldn't be ignorant of the easily checked fact that consensus exists. Faldur even knows, on a certain level, that is does when he sarcastically attacks climatologists generally in post #441. Why attack all climatologists when you claim (albeit falsely) that 50% of them support you? Or look at Faldur's post #333 where grasping for any straw to stay afloat he links to an article which he thinks attributes general long term ocean rise to the effects of El Nino and El Nina whereas the article makes no such claim, but even shows the El Nino and El Nina oscillations superposed upon the general rise due to global warming (see my post #334). These sorts of attempts to misrepresent and distort (whether they be due to inexcusable ignorance or deliberate) are examples of what the denier is led to in order to remain a denier. They are also examples of denier propaganda.

2. There is no obvious solution. It is unfeasible to simply stop burning fossil fuels. China is building coal burning plants hand over fist. Its the cheapest way for them to produce energy. It is estimated that there are enough coal deposits left on Earth to last a millennium (perhaps we should conserve them for the next ice age...but we won't). I don't see any way short of a miracle that we won't burn through them. For one thing, our first world lifestyles are at stake. Anyone here want to give up their computer, connectivity, winter heat, summer air-conditioning, car etc. etc. to save our great grandchildren that grief? For another thing, there's too much money to be made providing that energy. The coal is just laying there. All you gotta do is dig it up, sell it and ship it. One might try to slow down consumption by various sorts of regulations or incentives. Originally Democrats pushed for regulations. Republicans insisted on cap and trade. Now Democrats are pushing cap and trade, and Republicans say the free market will handle it. But to be effective, any regulation or incentive has to be international, and I'm pessimistic that we'll ever have effective national or international control of our energy consumption. The deniers (who, generally, deep down know they're wrong) are all waiting on the next scientific miracle that will produce safe energy for free while at the same time they want to reduce the funding of scientific institutions and take anti-science potshots at biologists, paleontologists, geologists and climatologists.

Disclaimer: Nowhere in this post (or prior posts in this thread) do I support any political position. I merely present the hard science and speculate on what might be going on in the heads of deniers.
Nice post, Trish. I enjoy your writing, and the thought you put into it. Wish my reading list was as substantive as yours.

EDIT: Oh hell, I might as well address the topic with my own opinion. Mine is not all that different from Trish's above. When global warming science first started getting a widespread airing, I was very alarmed. I changed some things up at the time, including the way I live my life and my laid back ways with others. I was pretty laissez faire, but global warming sort of kicked me in the butt and pushed me to become a whole lot more politically active. Since then, I've gradually mellowed out. I think it was at the time of the busted Kyoto conference/talks that it dawned on me that significant preventative action was not going to happen. It was right about the same time, and thoroughly related, that I saw the US political system as irreversibly broken. Warming will continue and we will see incredible effects even over the next 50 years - and I won't live much beyond that. The irony is that science and engineering will likely save the world. Praying to Jesus, definitely won't. Once disastrous effects are happening everywhere, science will take a prescriptive approach to solving the problems. And 150 years from now people will wonder why a far less costly preventative approach couldn't have been developed and executed in the late 20th century.

[Ben]

Nice post, Trish. I enjoy your writing, and the thought you put into it. Wish my reading list was as substantive as yours.

EDIT: Oh hell, I might as well address the topic with my own opinion. Mine is not all that different from Trish's above. When global warming science first started getting a widespread airing, I was very alarmed. I changed some things up at the time, including the way I live my life and my laid back ways with others. I was pretty laissez faire, but global warming sort of kicked me in the butt and pushed me to become a whole lot more politically active. Since then, I've gradually mellowed out. I think it was at the time of the busted Kyoto conference/talks that it dawned on me that significant preventative action was not going to happen. It was right about the same time, and thoroughly related, that I saw the US political system as irreversibly broken. Warming will continue and we will see incredible effects even over the next 50 years - and I won't live much beyond that. The irony is that science and engineering will likely save the world. Praying to Jesus, definitely won't. Once disastrous effects are happening everywhere, science will take a prescriptive approach to solving the problems. And 150 years from now people will wonder why a far less costly preventative approach couldn't have been developed and executed in the late 20th century.

Derrick Jensen: Civilization and Enlightenment - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkEmLRCP078)

Derrick Jensen on Our Cultural Death Wish - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCZA6AtqxGY)

[trish]

Thank you Odelay. We find ourselves pretty much aligned.

Hi Ben.
Derrick Jensen defines a city as a population large enough to require the importation of resources. That’s fine, but it does leave out a number populations that are regarded as cities. A typical farmer in ancient Athens actually lived in the polis of Athens itself. Athens, and most other Greek poleis of the time, was surrounded by lands that the citizens of Athens farmed or used to graze sheep and cattle. The farmers typically retired to their homes within the polis at day’s end. Was Athens self-sustaining? Probably so. Why the qualifier ‘probably?’ Well, Athens was outward oriented. It chose to open itself to the world, through trade and the exchange of ideas. There were considerably many imported goods and considerably many exported goods. All that trade makes it difficult to say whether Athen’s survival required the goods it imported. But that complex flux of trade also demonstrates the irrelevance of the question. The real question is: Was the entire trade network (to which Athens was only one member) self-sustaining? Athens can be called a civilization, but it was not Civilization. The Civilization to which the Greek world belonged was the network of cities and farms to which it was connected. Did the cities of the ancient world sustain each other? Did that network survive into modern times and evolve into a modern network built upon the old? Or did the old network collapse and die?

There is a parallel with modern cities. Is Chicago, for example, self-sustaining? Well Chicago imports and exports all sorts of goods. Does the survival of Chicago depend on the imports? Probably so, if you consider milk brought to the city from fify miles downstate an import. If you don’t, then just making sense of the question is problematic. But the survival or collapse of Chicago is not the rise and fall of Civilization. The real question is: Is the network to which Chicago is connected self-sustaining? These days, that network is pretty much the world. Are we in the world succeeding at the task of sustaining each other and if so will we continue to succeed or will the whole thing soon collapse?

It is clear that in a finite world, growth cannot be the single strategy for solving economic problems. But it is also clear that growth often works when the population hasn’t yet come near carrying capacity. Perhaps the biggest difference between Greens and non-Greens is how the two groups esitimate our proximity to that capacity. The other difference might be measured by how optimistic one is about the possibility of political solutions to problems of sustainability. By that measure I am not a Green.

[hippifried]

I'm not buying those definitions at all. Derrick Jensen's full of shit, just like so many others who need to revise the language to make their earlier ideas seem not so totally lame. Civilization is when you become unsustainable? C'mon... What're we supposed to do? Kill ourselves off by the billions so we can revert back to our glory days as savages? Then what? Who does this clown think started building cities?

I haven't read his books, & now I won't. I regret wasting the time to listen to the posted videos.

[Odelay]

Don't have quite the visceral reaction of hippi, but I don't really buy his definitions either. I understand the need to make certain definitions or assumptions when writing material like this, but great care needs to be taken that exceptions aren't screaming out as soon as you lay a stake in the ground. It can also be argued that life in the country isn't sustainable either. Without the wealth that cities create to pay for armies, police, justice systems, etc., farms would be and are overrun. Wealthy farmers only exist where chaos is held at bay. There's a symbiotic nature between a farming region and cities, that combine to make civilization.

[Ben]

Thank you Odelay. We find ourselves pretty much aligned.

Hi Ben.
Derrick Jensen defines a city as a population large enough to require the importation of resources. That’s fine, but it does leave out a number populations that are regarded as cities. A typical farmer in ancient Athens actually lived in the polis of Athens itself. Athens, and most other Greek poleis of the time, was surrounded by lands that the citizens of Athens farmed or used to graze sheep and cattle. The farmers typically retired to their homes within the polis at day’s end. Was Athens self-sustaining? Probably so. Why the qualifier ‘probably?’ Well, Athens was outward oriented. It chose to open itself to the world, through trade and the exchange of ideas. There were considerably many imported goods and considerably many exported goods. All that trade makes it difficult to say whether Athen’s survival required the goods it imported. But that complex flux of trade also demonstrates the irrelevance of the question. The real question is: Was the entire trade network (to which Athens was only one member) self-sustaining? Athens can be called a civilization, but it was not Civilization. The Civilization to which the Greek world belonged was the network of cities and farms to which it was connected. Did the cities of the ancient world sustain each other? Did that network survive into modern times and evolve into a modern network built upon the old? Or did the old network collapse and die?

There is a parallel with modern cities. Is Chicago, for example, self-sustaining? Well Chicago imports and exports all sorts of goods. Does the survival of Chicago depend on the imports? Probably so, if you consider milk brought to the city from fify miles downstate an import. If you don’t, then just making sense of the question is problematic. But the survival or collapse of Chicago is not the rise and fall of Civilization. The real question is: Is the network to which Chicago is connected self-sustaining? These days, that network is pretty much the world. Are we in the world succeeding at the task of sustaining each other and if so will we continue to succeed or will the whole thing soon collapse?

It is clear that in a finite world, growth cannot be the single strategy for solving economic problems. But it is also clear that growth often works when the population hasn’t yet come near carrying capacity. Perhaps the biggest difference between Greens and non-Greens is how the two groups esitimate our proximity to that capacity. The other difference might be measured by how optimistic one is about the possibility of political solutions to problems of sustainability. By that measure I am not a Green.

Hey Trish,
The likes of Derrick Jensen say we're killing the planet. 200 species a day are being wiped out. I mean, what happens, according to Jensen, if we keep going as is? What will the planet look like in 100 years or 200 years or 500?
But he thinks we have to end industrial civilization. (First off, most people, would and do strongly disagree.) He believes electricity isn't sustainable. (Derrick Jensen is of the left left left -- ha ha! I mean, there's left-liberal and left. But Derrick Jensen is left left left.) He also believes we can't and shouldn't have bicycles. What?!?!?!?!?!
But he does make a point that we managed fine without electricity prior to circa 1880. Of course, well, it'd be a radical step for humanity. And most people wouldn't go along with it. Well, I wouldn't.
But he makes some interesting points. Well, we know that cancer is a byproduct or consequence of civilization.
Ya know, if we go back, say, 15,000 years ago cancer didn't exist. It's a consequence of civilization.
And, say, 20,000 years ago human beings were taller, their bones were denser and we lived longer.
Why do we assume agriculture, technology and all this stuff is a sign of progress? Close to 8 million people die every year from cancer. Again, a consequence of our despoliation of the planet.
I might add: what's the endgame of industrial civilization?
I don't agree with Derrick Jensen. But he does raise some serious questions about industrial civilization.
Spencer Wells, too, talks about the destructiveness of civilization in his book: Pandora's Seed.

[trish]

I'm not buying that cancer is a byproduct of civilization. You really think Cro-Magnon didn't get melanomas? Certain gene combinations are known to predispose women to breast cancers which may develop spontaneously or develop with exposure to carcinogens (which can be found in nature as well as in the products of the industrial world). Do we have any reason to think those genetic combinations are the result of civilization and weren't in the population say 30,000 years ago? Without the benefit of the scientific method, Cro-Magnon never knew about vitamins. He died of rickets and scurvy. Nor did they have knowledge of pathogens and contagion. Consequently their children died of childhood diseases and whole tribes were wiped out by plagues. I don't believe the average life expectancy 20 000 years ago was longer than it is today. Childhood mortality is enough to skew it our favor. Modern geriatrics skews it even more in our favor.

It's true that Homo sapiens have lived on the planet for a couple hundred thousand years. Were our ancestors self-sustaining, or were they living subsistence life-styles?

Here's an interesting multiple choice question.

When was the imminent extinction of Homo sapiens more probable?
a) 125 000 years ago.
b) Right now.

I'm going with answer (a).

For my money Jared Diamond has a more reasoned and sane handle on the factors that allow civilizations to survive, flourish or collapse (Guns, Germs and Steel and also Collapse are two of his books on the subject).

[muh_muh]

But he makes some interesting points. Well, we know that cancer is a byproduct or consequence of civilization.
Ya know, if we go back, say, 15,000 years ago cancer didn't exist. It's a consequence of civilization.

that is such an unbelieveable bunch of bullshit
first of all animals get cancer too secondly how the hell do you know cancer didnt exist back then?
lastly in the majority of the cases cancer is a condition that appears late in life which obviously means that 15k years ago where the life expectancy was several decades shorter than today cancer would naturally have been a lot less prevalent

[fred41]

Well, we know that cancer is a byproduct or consequence of civilization.


Really??!! When did we all reach that conclusion?

[hippifried]

But he does make a point that we managed fine without electricity prior to circa 1880.
Oh yeah. We just stumbled around in the dark or individually burned piles of wood, coal, peat moss, parafin, or anything else we could ignite. Of course the oil lamp was a lot more efficient. We just had to devoid the seas of whales for the oil.

Ah yes, bogus nostalgia. Back to the bad old days so we can all drop dead earlier. Hey Ben, do you know why the President of the United States has to be 35 years old? It's not just an arbitrary number that the delegates pulled out of their collective asses. At the end of the 18th century, 35 was the average lifespan of an American man. If you managed to live past that, you were considered an elder. Go back to then? I don't think so. Especially at my age. Give up electricity? I don't think so. In a few more years (later rather than sooner I hope), I may need to plug in periodically to recharge the battery in my pacemaker.

Left, left, left? I don't think so. Derrick Jensen's just another fanatic one trick pony.

[Stavros]

Ever since I can recall there have been people predicting the decline of civilisation, society, food production, fresh air and democracy, to name but a few enduring phenonema; there was even a tv series on the BBC in the 1970s called Doomwatch in which science played the role of sphinx, being at times a benefit to human society, at other times a curse, but never being either fully or even partially understood. I think it came out of that fear of annihilation that began with Hiroshima and was briefly jazzed up during the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 1960s, tv being about 10 years behind the times, as it usually was then.

Species come and species go, scientists are still discovering new ones in obscure volcanoes in Indonesia, at depths of the ocean previously inaccessible to human eyes -we still probably know more about the surface of the moon than the sea floors of the Pacific or the Caribbean. While people condemn the human race for its allegedly relentless sacking of planetary resources, nature itself hasn't exactly packed up - people still die of Malaria today, as they did in Ancient Egypt; a few years ago a friend of mine was attacked by an Owl in the early evening in the woods because he probably got too close to a nest he couldn't even see; and yes, the primnates of Indonesia and Africa may die out as human settlement trashes their home. But I doubt Bears, particularly those who seem to get their meals from settlements creeping into their territory, will ever become household pets, even in Canada.

Civilisation in Ancient Greece may have become part of 'our' tradition, but that tradition only began with the Renaissance, having been kept alive during our so called dark ages by Muslim scholars and libraries. At the time farmers were peasants, and like artisans, women, slaves and Barbarians were not part of civilisation because the Athenian elite did not consider them to BE civilised and therefore capable of discoursing on contemporary events or taking responsibility for public affairs. The idea that every one over the age of 18 should be part of the political system would strike the average Athenian as preposterous, and a recipe for chaos.

When the 'Great Powers' were carving up the world after 1918 and creating The League of Nations, the colonies of the defeated Empires were doled out to the Empires that remained on the basis that none of them could be allowed their independence (what Woodrow Wilson had called National Self Determination), because they could not, as it was stated at the time, Stand alone under the strenuous conditions of the modern world -this applied to the A class Mandates of the Ottoman Empire, the B class Mandates of Africa, and the C class Mandates in the Pacific -Jan Smuts, the South African who played a larger role in the Peace Processes than he deserved, remarked of the C class mandates that they could not possibly become independent because they were populated by savages and barbarians.

Climate change is real, deforestation is real, soil erosion is real, water shortages are real. All can be dealt with through the combination of modern science and political will. The future for space exploration lies with robots who can man missions to Jupiter, Saturn and the Infinite, so it could be worthwhile looking at these issues as contemporary ones that all have practicable solutions, not least because most of the people who contribute to this board and this thread are the ones who will be living through the changes of the next 50 years, long after I have vacated the departure lounge.

[russtafa]

Ever since I can recall there have been people predicting the decline of civilisation, society, food production, fresh air and democracy, to name but a few enduring phenonema; there was even a tv series on the BBC in the 1970s called Doomwatch in which science played the role of sphinx, being at times a benefit to human society, at other times a curse, but never being either fully or even partially understood. I think it came out of that fear of annihilation that began with Hiroshima and was briefly jazzed up during the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 1960s, tv being about 10 years behind the times, as it usually was then.

Species come and species go, scientists are still discovering new ones in obscure volcanoes in Indonesia, at depths of the ocean previously inaccessible to human eyes -we still probably know more about the surface of the moon than the sea floors of the Pacific or the Caribbean. While people condemn the human race for its allegedly relentless sacking of planetary resources, nature itself hasn't exactly packed up - people still die of Malaria today, as they did in Ancient Egypt; a few years ago a friend of mine was attacked by an Owl in the early evening in the woods because he probably got too close to a nest he couldn't even see; and yes, the primnates of Indonesia and Africa may die out as human settlement trashes their home. But I doubt Bears, particularly those who seem to get their meals from settlements creeping into their territory, will ever become household pets, even in Canada.

Civilisation in Ancient Greece may have become part of 'our' tradition, but that tradition only began with the Renaissance, having been kept alive during our so called dark ages by Muslim scholars and libraries. At the time farmers were peasants, and like artisans, women, slaves and Barbarians were not part of civilisation because the Athenian elite did not consider them to BE civilised and therefore capable of discoursing on contemporary events or taking responsibility for public affairs. The idea that every one over the age of 18 should be part of the political system would strike the average Athenian as preposterous, and a recipe for chaos.

When the 'Great Powers' were carving up the world after 1918 and creating The League of Nations, the colonies of the defeated Empires were doled out to the Empires that remained on the basis that none of them could be allowed their independence (what Woodrow Wilson had called National Self Determination), because they could not, as it was stated at the time, Stand alone under the strenuous conditions of the modern world -this applied to the A class Mandates of the Ottoman Empire, the B class Mandates of Africa, and the C class Mandates in the Pacific -Jan Smuts, the South African who played a larger role in the Peace Processes than he deserved, remarked of the C class mandates that they could not possibly become independent because they were populated by savages and barbarians.

Climate change is real, deforestation is real, soil erosion is real, water shortages are real. All can be dealt with through the combination of modern science and political will. The future for space exploration lies with robots who can man missions to Jupiter, Saturn and the Infinite, so it could be worthwhile looking at these issues as contemporary ones that all have practicable solutions, not least because most of the people who contribute to this board and this thread are the ones who will be living through the changes of the next 50 years, long after I have vacated the departure lounge.yeah ,yeah ,yeah ,so much bullshit

[russtafa]

it's official global warming is over says prof.Curry

[martin48]

The world's oldest documented case of cancer is from ancient Egypt, in 1500 BC. Details were recorded on a papyrus, documenting cases of tumours occurring on the breast. It was treated by cauterization, using a method to destroy tissue with a hot instrument called "the fire drill." It was also recorded that there was no treatment for the disease, only palliative treatment.

Some cancers are caused more by the environment (or lifestyle) than due to genetics. Some are much more common now as we live longer - we only have to go back to 1900 to see that commonest causes of death were influenza/pneumonia and tuberculosis. Before that, death was due to water-bourn diseases. Some cancers are entirely due to genes - most early life cancers - brain tumours, leukemia, etc. The majority are a mixture of nuture and nature. Why do some guys smoke 100 cigs a day but still live to a 100?The best advice for a long life is still to choose your parents carefully.

[martin48]

it's official global warming is over says prof.Curry

End of problem - we can continue to fuck up the Earth.

[trish]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

[russtafa]

oh no ,please,please not another graph

[trish]

I know, it hurts your poor poor head to see evidence that overturns the preconceptions to which you are emotionally, politically and ideologically committed. But science is only about evidence, the best ways to present it, organize it, interpret it and understand it. Often that means you may have to comprehend a chart or two. Oops, sorry I just accidentally used some big words; they hurt your head too...don't they? :( You didn't mention the link. I assume you didn't bother to click on it, let alone read it. So much for good faith effort.

[russtafa]

I know, it hurts your poor poor head to see evidence that overturns the preconceptions to which you are emotionally, politically and ideologically committed. But science is only about evidence, the best ways to present it, organize it, interpret it and understand it. Often that means you may have to comprehend a chart or two. Oops, sorry I just accidentally used some big words; they hurt your head too...don't they? :( You didn't mention the link. I assume you didn't bother to click on it, let alone read it. So much for good faith effort.just your b/s,it hurts to see some one actually believes this scam. Go and buy some magic beans Trish

[martin48]

just your b/s,it hurts to see some one actually believes this scam. Go and buy some magic beans Trish

There is no scam - just one hell of a lot of prejudice and bias that refuses to see the evidence. These are the concluding remarks from the 2010 Royal Society Report - very balanced and fair. But please don't read it 'cos it may change your views - and we wont want that, would we?

There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.
It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made. Scientists continue to work to narrow these areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected.
Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate change have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge. Even if the remaining uncertainties were substantially resolved, the wide variety of interests, cultures and beliefs in society would make consensus about such choices difficult to achieve. However, the potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made.
Climate science – including the substantial body of knowledge that is already well established, and the results of future research – is the essential basis for future climate projections and planning, and must be a vital component of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area.

[russtafa]

More believers in this scam .The Australian government advisor Prof Tim Flannery for climate change with his mad claims is now held in mockery in Australia after some of his crazy claims

[trish]

Tim Flannery held in mockery?! The guy you named Australian of the Year as recently as 2007? You mean this guy ->

Tim Flannery
Scientist, explorer, author

http://www.theweathermakers.org/about/


Tim Flannery is one of Australia’s leading thinkers and writers. An internationally acclaimed scientist, explorer and conservationist, Tim’s books include the definitive ecological histories of Australia (The Future Eaters (http://www.publish.csiro.au/naturalselection/nid/18/pid/5057.htm)) and North America (The Eternal Frontier (http://www.textpublishing.com.au/win-item.asp?id=201)). He has published more than 100 peer-reviewed papers.
As a field zoologist he has discovered and named more than thirty new species of mammals (including two tree-kangaroos (http://www.pbs.org/odyssey/odyssey/20010706_log_transcript.html)) and at 34 he was awarded the Edgeworth David Medal (http://nsw.royalsoc.org.au/awards/edgeworth.html) for Outstanding Research. His pioneering work in New Guinea prompted Sir David Attenborough to put him in the league (http://www.futureleaders.com.au/index.php?page=/discuss2003.htm) of the world’s great explorers and the writer Redmond O’Hanlon to remark, “He’s discovered more new species than Charles Darwin.”
He is a regular contributor to The New York Review of books (http://www.nybooks.com/authors/115) and The Times Literary Supplement (http://www.the-tls.co.uk/this_week/story.aspx?story_id=2109104) and has edited and introduced many historical works, including The Birth of Sydney (http://www.textpublishing.com.au/win-item.asp?id=115), The Diaries of William Buckley and The Explorers (http://www.textpublishing.com.au/win-item.asp?id=10). He received a Centenary of Federation Medal for his service to science and in 2002 he became the first environmentalist to deliver the Australia Day address (http://www.adc.nsw.gov.au/tim_welcome.html) to the nation.
Tim Flannery spent a year as professor of Australian studies at Harvard (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/10.22/RoosPythonsandT.html), where he taught in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology. In Australia he is a leading member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:_RMlNTo8vfMJ:www.thinkers.sa.gov.au/images/Cullen_World_Water_Day.pdf+Wentworth+Group+of+Conc erned+Scientist&hl=en), which reports independently to government on sustainability issues.
A familiar voice on ABC Radio, NPR and the BBC for more than a decade, he is also known to viewers of the Documentary Channel as writer-presenter on the series The Future Eaters (http://www.abc.net.au/science/future/) (1998), Wild Australasia (2003), Islands in the Sky (1992) and Bushfire (1997). He was a principal consultant on the SBS series The Colony (2004) and is currently Australian consultant-presenter for the international series ATLAS.
Formerly director of the South Australian Museum (http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/), Tim is chairman of the South Australian Premier’s Science Council and Sustainability Roundtable (http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/sustainability/roundtable_members.html); a director of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy (http://www.australianwildlife.org/boardofdirectors.asp); and the National Geographic Society’s representative in Australasia. In April 2005 he was honoured as Australian Humanist of the Year (http://home.vicnet.net.au/%7Ehumanist/resources/AH79/GenerosityOfSpirit.html). He will take up a position at Sydney's Macquarie University mid 2007.
Tim Flannery was named Australian of the Year (http://www.australianoftheyear.gov.au/pages/page308.asp) the day before Australia Day on 25th January 2007.

[Ben]

[[QUOTE]] I am curious why this thread keeps on running. Those who obdurately insist the world is flat will never be convinced otherwise. There is a handful of these holocaust deniers here so why are those who understand science continuing to argue with them. Their politics or their limited intelligence make them incapable of taking account of the huge weight of essentially irrefutable evidence that most scientists around the world now accept as fact. Will we let them on the last helicopter out of Saigon when the time comes? [[QUOTE]]

It is seemingly pointless. It's like beating a dead horse. It's like the endless debate over God. Well, that you can't really prove. But this climate change denial is striking to me. But there's been a massive propaganda campaign by the energy industry (and they even admit to it) to confuse the public about global warming.
Plus people don't trust politicians or corporations. So why should they trust scientists?
I mean, one can firmly believe there's no such thing as global warming. You can firmly believe anything. You can believe the moon is made of cheese.
It'd be like me saying on this thread: Come on, the moon is made of cheese.
And people can provide me with all this scientific evidence. And I'd say, I'm not buying it. I don't believe the scientists. I think it's a conspiracy. It's all a hoax. The moon is made of cheese and there's nothing anyone can say to dissuade me from my absolute belief.
Plus a lot of people on this site are here merely to pick fights, as it were. Or e-fights -- ha ha ha! Nothing more; nothing less.
It becomes a bit petty.
And it increasingly devolves into outright idiocy.

[Stavros]

1) Tim Flannery's The Eternal Frontier is scholarship of the highest order, and a book that proves that the natural history of the American continent is as rich as the social history of Europe -next time you meet an American in Rome or Venice or Paris who says 'we don't have this history', refer them to Flannery.

2) Ben: why do you always latch on to the energy companies and the denial of global warming when it isn't true? In 1997 BP's CEO John Browne went to Stanford where he was the first oil boss to acknowledge the human role in climate change, and argue that companies should take 'precautionary measures' and although he was initially ridiculed, he was followed soon after by Shell and other oil independents, ok not by Exxon but that was Lee Raymond and the justifiable fear of litigation in the US. Real reductions of carbon emissions have taken place in refineries and on oil rigs (including Exxon's), which further undermines your feeble argument. At some point the politics kicks in which is more concerned with tax and regulatory regimes than it is about the science, its not the fact of climate change and advanced global warming that is at issue -the issue is settled- its how we deal with it, politically and socially.

[russtafa]

:screwyyou fuck heads,because Tim Flannery has the word Prof in front of his name we low peasants are supposed to bow down to the fool.Prof Tim Flannery's predictions=2005 Flannery predicted Sydney's dams would be dry in as little as 2years=dam levels now over 73 percent full.2007 Flannery predicted Adelaide would run out of water by 2009= fuck did he get that wrong.2007 Tim Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam -filling rains ,no not dam filling rains= floods!The man is the fucking village idiot and you dribbling fools think he is a great man.He is lucky he is not tarred and feathered here in Australia

[Stavros]

Maybe you got this from the Sydney Morning Herald article
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys-predictions-about-climate-change-says-andrew-bolt/story-e6frfhqf-1226004644818

Which doesn't say Flannery said the dams would run dry, but that it was a possibility; and the records do show that the dams haven't been full since 1998, but the paper doesn't mention that or why the dams have been unable to reach maximum in the years since then so it is disingenuous of the paper to take today's figures without putting them in a broader historical context. The article also begins with the telling giveaway for its narrow-minded bluster:
This Alarmist of the Year is worth every bit of the $180,000 salary he'll get as part-time chairman of the Government's new Climate Commission.
His job is simple: to advise us that we really, truly have to accept, say, the new tax on carbon dioxide emissions that this Government threatens to impose.

Taxes, not science. As usual. Flannery is not famous for his predictions, and science is not exact in the way people want it to be. No doubt if someone wants to comb through the works of Einstein or Freeman Dyson or even Germaine Greer, they will find predictions that have been proven wrong over time.

You could always get a headache looking at the detailed graphs on the dams which are here, and where it says:

Sydney's overall dam level has gradually dropped since it was last full in 1998. This figure shows the data since November 2001 for overall dam levels.
You can see this in more detail in the year-by-year figure below. This figure shows the overall dam levels for the last few years. Each line represents how full the dams are for that year. From this figure we can see that the large drops in dam levels (since November 2001) came in the second half of 2002 and first half or 2004. The rest of the time the levels appear fairly steady. As no two lines meet each other (other than a brief period in early 2006), we can say that in every 365 day period since 2001, the dam levels have gone down.
http://www.iliveinsydney.com/water/damstats.php

[russtafa]

what a load of shit Australia's dams are over flowing and Flannery is a wanker .Australian dams are having to open the dams or have major problems

[russtafa]

:bangheadStavros you foreigners haven't a fucking clue ,the clown also predicted that a lot of houses on the coast of Sydney and the inner west would be lost due to a rise in water levels particularly along the Parramatta river and where does the cunt live?In a mansion on the coast ,go fucking figure aye lol