Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[Prospero]

Every time Russtafa posts my point about no reason to debate with such fools is proven.I think I will block his truly primitive abuse from now on.

[russtafa]

Every time Russtafa posts my point about no reason to debate with such fools is proven.I think I will block his truly primitive abuse from now on.yeah yah pomie bastard like i think a lot of you

[Ben]

If there is a worldwide conspiracy wouldn't the likes of Michele Bachmann and John McCain be in agreement? They're both politicians, in the same Party and represent the same interests.

Michele Bachmann doesn't believe in global warming - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wX1UnAtynU)

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

[Faldur]

Please .. do it for the bears .. they're running out of Coke ..

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/polar-bear-bbq.jpg

[Ben]

David Suzuki. Not talking about climate change perse. But conservation and our lack of respect for nature. And, too, our selfishness as a species. I mean, we're, as David Suzuki points out, only 1 of 30 million species on the planet.

Dr. David Suzuki on meaning in the land - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hmIKg4vhhA)

And author and radio host: Thom Hartmann:

Should climate deniers be treated like war criminals? w/ James Hoggan - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcAePLs3O2c)

[Prospero]

Right wing US think tank and its big funders fuelling opposition to climate change science.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/heartland-institute-fraud-leak-climate

[russtafa]

fuck climate change ,it rained yesterday and they said it wouldn't

[russtafa]

the climate has not warmed in fifteen years so guess these scientist are full of shit

[trish]

russtafa, you're confusing meteorology with climatology. Here's an analogy: You can't predict a day in advance when each ocean wave will crash and wash up to shore, but you can predict there will be waves and were the activity will be highest. You can't predict when a given air molecule in your room will strike the wall, but you can quantitatively predict within tolerable bounds the air pressure on that wall. Short term vs long. Micro vs macro. It's all scale.

You have a very unusual meteorologist if he or she simply says, “It’s going to rain tomorrow.” Most weather-persons will provide a number between 0 and 100 called the chance of precipitation. In addition they will indicate the type of precipitation expected (e.g. showers, flurries, rains, etc.) If you’re watching on TV or checking out the weather on the internet the prognostication will also be accompanied by an icon (e.g. a smiling sun, a sun with a cloud, streaks of rain, falling snowflakes etc.). Most people don’t process the chance of precipitation and simply take the icon as the prediction. If you interpret the report in that way, expect it to be wrong fairly often. If you keep track of the reported chance of precipitation and keep track of the weather throughout the year, you might find your local meteorologist is pretty accurate; e.g. You may find that 40% (+/- a few percent) of the time she said there was a 40% chance of rain, it rained.

[trish]

russtafa, I already debunked your claim that warming has stopped. It is not a sufficient rebuttal to simply state your claim over again. The following chart shows the temperature anomaly up to 2005. Notice all the "outliers" (unexpectedly tall and unexpectedly short vertical bars). The data is stochastic. The black curve is a mathematical averaging called a smoothing of the data. It shows the clear trend of warming that has been occurring since the industrial age. The clowns who made the announcement that warming has stopped looked at the data from 1998 on and drew a curve down from the that tall red "outlier" down to the 2005 measurement and cried, “Viola, the planet is cooling!” That’s called cherry picking.

Once again, scale is important. Computer simulations of global warming all included variations on the decade scale. That's because northern and southern climate oscillations have combined effects on climate on that time scale and those effects are superposed upon the steady anthropogenic increases.

[trish]

You, russtafa, admit that seven billion industrious people living on the same planet is likely to strain the life support system. But somehow, it’s unthinkable that it will strain the climate system which is an integral part of that life support.

One day you guys (russtafa, Faldur and others not in the HA community) are claiming global warming doesn’t exist. The next you’re saying it stopped. Then you start it up again so you can blame it on sun spots. After that you tell us the Earth is actually cooling and the next ice age is immanent. Then you claim global warming is caused by volcanos. Soon after that you claim global warming is a liberal hoax. The one I love is, “It’s El Nino!” You clowns have clearly made up your mind and are clamoring for reasons to cling to your denial.

The one constant we hear in all your argumentation is, “I don’t want regulations or taxes.” That’s not an argument for or against the theory of anthropogenic climate change. It’s merely an expression of the desire not to have to do anything about it. The fact that you’re so adamant to find reasons to deny the science indicates that you really do feel that we should do something about it were it happening. But just put that issue aside. Your assessment of the science shouldn’t be tainted by what you’re morally bound to do if the science is correct. Your assessment of the science should be based solely on the science. Then you can worry about the corrective measures to be taken.


Anthropogenic climate change exists. The Earth’s climate system is accumulating heat energy. The warmer atmosphere will hold more water. Because it takes longer to reach saturation, in some regions there will be longer time periods between rains. Because the saturation level is higher, in some regions, rains will become more torrential. Because there is more heat energy in the system, storms will become more violent, glaciers and ice shelves will melt and ocean levels will rise. Because the system is complex with ocean and air currents, mountain ranges and annual variations in luminoius flux depending on location, the effects will be regional rather than uniform. Should we try to do anything about it? Science is mute on that question. It’s up to us to decide.

[Faldur]

One day you guys (russtafa, Faldur and others not in the HA community) are claiming global warming doesn’t exist. The next you’re saying it stopped. Then you start it up again so you can blame it on sun spots.

The planet has cooled and heated throughout history. It was ongoing long before fossil fuels were invented.

Sorry you have been so duped to believe that man is responsible for keeping the thermostat set to a certain level. Good luck with that.

[trish]

The planet has cooled and heated throughout history. It was ongoing long before fossil fuels were invented. Yes. Agreed. Of course it has. Where has it been claimed otherwise? More to the point, how is that history relevant to the current warming?

So today you agree the Earth is warming. But according to you, the reason it's warming is: it just does that. The temperature goes up, the temperature goes down. That's just the history of the thing. Doesn't that strike you as a rather ridiculous hypothesis? The Earth is warming, because that just happens to be what it's doing now!?


The Earth doesn't warm and cool willy-nilly outside the realm of cause and effect. It was hot just after it's formation. Geothermal energy kept it pretty warm for a long while even as it radiated heat into space. The Earth's wobble subjects the climate to warming and cooling intervals occurring with a period of about 20000 years. When Krakatoa blew its top and ejected particulates high into the atmosphere increasing the Earth's effective albedo North America suffered "a year with no summer" and a short string of somewhat cooler years. At one time the atmosphere had so little oxygen it wouldn't have supported human life. It was warmer having a higher percentage of greenhouse gasses. Photosynthesizing plants added the oxygen that we breathe today. They also decreased the percentage of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Everything that happens has an effect. When seven billion industrious people are ejecting 30 billion tons of fossil carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, it will have an effect. It is having an effect.

Yes, the Earth warmed and cooled throughout history. Now it's warming, and the cause is anthropogenic.

It's clear, Faldur, that you have fairly little interest in science. You rarely participate in other discussions involving science. It's odd that you would have a position on this issue, and one that you're so adamant to defend. Are you sure your reasons aren't less than scientific and rather more ideological?


Sorry you have been so duped to believe that man is responsible for keeping the thermostat set to a certain level. Good luck with that.Now I do defy you to link to the post where I claim man is responsible for keeping the thermostat set at a certain level. In post after post, I take particular care to emphasize that is not my position. Science cannot tell us what we should do. It can at times tell us what is happening. Indeed that last couple of lines of your short post belie your true position. It's not the science that interests you. You just don't want to be told you have to conserve, or pay extra taxes, or somehow make an extra effort to keep the thermostat fixed where it is. I can sympathize with that. I'm not interested in telling you what you should do. I'm just telling it like it is.

[Prospero]

:iagree::iagree:Trish wrote: "It's clear, Faldur, that you have fairly little interest in science. You rarely participate in other discussions involving science. It's odd that you would have a position on this issue, and one that you're so adamant to defend. Are you sure your reasons aren't less than scientific and rather more ideological?"

[traLika]

I'm amazed at how many people can't seem to get their heads around the fact that we have a finite amount of air surrounding our little planet and if we tip the delicate balance of gasses within it beyond a certain point the results can easily be catastrophic (to us and many other species) in a way that a much worshipped, booming-voiced guy in the sky can't fix. Ho hum… :shrug

[Faldur]

Are you sure your reasons aren't less than scientific and rather more ideological?

I'd ask you the same question hun, but I already know the answer.

[trish]

Are my reasons ideological? No. I supplied you with lots of arguments in the last 52 pages. Can you find one that is ideological? Perhaps it was the argument from basic principles that explains how an infrared opaque sky traps more energy than can escape. Nah, that's not ideological.

But you didn't answer the question. Why not? Are your arguments ideological? How about the one that goes: the Earth is always warming and cooling, it just is...it's historical. Okay, that isn't an ideological statement. But it's not any sort of reason either, so one has to wonder.

So with a straight face answer the question. Don't post your answer. Just look in the mirror and answer it honestly.

[russtafa]

Trish believes in this shit and will always believe that crap until old age .but we know better because it's a left wing scam to rip off the people

[trish]

And than you russtafa for chiming in with a paradigmatic example of ideologically driven science denial.

[russtafa]

And than you russtafa for chiming in with a paradigmatic example of ideologically driven science denial.most people couldn't give a shit about the scam but in Australia we don't want to pay for it or loose our jobs over it

[Prospero]

It is interesting how those who chime in from one side of this argument ignore the science and just either hurl insults - or claim its all a conspiracy by the left, scientists and whoever else they believe can be yoked into their conspiracy theory that this is a plot to destroy American freedom and global industry and a step on the path of the creation a socialist state. I see no flow of posts by these people offering scientific refutations or evidence to challenge Trish's consistantly well informed posts. It honestly should not be a right v left issue. It should be something everyone takes seriously.

I honestly want a world in a few generations time so that Faldur and Russtafa's grand children can argue with the likes of Trish or Ben or Hippiefried me about politics, science, religion or whatever. That's what this is about.

[Stavros]

I agree with everything you say Prospero.

I think this thread has been taken as far as it can go, because people are arguing from a point of view, not about it, so there is no advance in our understanding of the science, or even the politics; the positions have been staked out, and nothing it seems will change them.

We have been in this situation before where the science of nuclear energy conflicts with the politics and the commerce, so that there is still no consensus on the use of nuclear energy as one of the alternatives to fossil fuels. More serious, as I think I might also have said before, is the casual way in which science itself is seen as merely a political tool with no inherent value, it becomes part of the science-vs-religion dispute in which the negation of scientific fact is seen as medieval and superstitious in parts of the Islamic world; and parts of the USA where anything and everything that happens is the expression of God's Will.

But I don't expect a serious debate about any of these issues in this thread, which should probably be left to rot on the highway. This is a roadkill even vultures can't digest.

[Prospero]

Well put Stavros. interesting you raise the conflict between science and religion. it is something that ainstream Christianity - even Roman Catholicism - has not had a real problem with now for a long time. Pope John Paul the II said in 1993 that really science and belief were two separate things - and should not conflict. The scientists who work for the vatican Observatory accept the big bang theory - and utilise the anthropic principle to accommodate go and modern astrophysics. The possibility of a peaceful co-existence of modern science and faith was underlined by the evolutionary scientist Stephen Jay Gould (a far brader minded fellow that our own Richard Dawkins) who described them two non-overlapping magisteria. Islam on the other hand does have serious issues with much of science because of the notion of free will and the born-again movement does seek to turn the clock back to the pre-Galileo era of belief - rejecting any science that is not supported by a very literalist interpretation of the Bible. Hence the new age creationists who still cleave to the idea that the earth was made in the time of Genesis and that the fossil record is really either a fake or put there by God to confuse us all or that dinosaurs did walk the earth at the same time as man. There is even a museum in Oklahoma - which presents this as fact. The Bible thus trumping centuries of scientific enquiry.

http://www.travelok.com/listings/view.profile/id.5235

[russtafa]

i wish you blokes could pay our tax and leave every one else out of it because i fucking don't want to pay it!i am more than happy if you greenie wankers pay the fucking thing

[Faldur]

i wish you blokes could pay our tax and leave every one else out of it because i fucking don't want to pay it!i am more than happy if you greenie wankers pay the fucking thing

Well Russtafa at least every working person in your country pays taxes, (all but those that earn less than $6k a year). How would you like to live here where 50% of the working people don't pay anything. And on top of it, those 50% spend most of their time bitching and moaning that the rest of us are not paying enough. They call it "shared responsibility", since when does shared mean "I pay nothing", and "you pay more"?

[russtafa]

Well Russtafa at least every working person in your country pays taxes, (all but those that earn less than $6k a year). How would you like to live here where 50% of the working people don't pay anything. And on top of it, those 50% spend most of their time bitching and moaning that the rest of us are not paying enough. They call it "shared responsibility", since when does shared mean "I pay nothing", and "you pay more"?

sounds rank .our rich pay phenomenal amounts of tax but our public housing live all their lives in the state housing system and pay very low rents and hardly any tax.our green supporters are middle class and want the working class to suffer because of their beliefs in a green environment.this means no cutting down of trees =bush fires and loss of life,no new dams =drought.and a fucking carbon tax =loss of jobs and economic stress on working families and that's why i hate the pricks as do most Australians

[trish]

Thanks for the well considered post, Stavros. There is one point you make I’d like to address.


We have been in this situation before where the science of nuclear energy conflicts with the politics and the commerce, so that there is still no consensus on the use of nuclear energy as one of the alternatives to fossil fuels.There is a significant difference between the debate on nuclear energy and the climate debate.

The opponents of nuclear energy do believe in the science. They grant that one can extract energy from the atom and use it to power cities. There the debate is about whether it should be done; and there are disagreements concerning the more complex issue of benefits vs costs vs potential hazards. (My opinion on nuclear energy is that soon we won’t be able to avoid it’s use, and the sooner we get practical minds working on the nuclear waste disposal problem, the better).

The opponents of various climate initiatives deny the science. This to me is unbelievable. The mechanisms are simple, easy to understand. At this late date the evidence is voluminous and there is now a scientific consensus which didn’t exist a thirty years ago. The jury is in. Yet we still have people who deny the science. Surely it would be more rational and eminently more practical to start with the science and focus debate on what, if anything, can and should be done about global heat imbalance. (Personally, yes you guessed it, I subscribe to the well accepted view of my scientific colleagues that anthropogenic global warming is happening and has been since the mid to late nineteenth century. However, I am not a liberal on the issue of what to do about it, if anything. I’m not conservative either. I’m open to suggestions).

[trish]

On the subject of religion:
The parallel between climate science and biological evolution is somewhat tighter. The consensus in biology is much older and the principles of selection and evolution are not only explanatory of anatomic and genetic comparisons between species but also organize and illuminate the whole of natural history. Evolution is therefore fundamentally integrated into our modern biological understanding. The theory of evolution is as epistemologically well established as any biological theory can be. Yet American “religious sensibilities” are so threatened by this one hundred and fifty year old discovery that the science again has to be denied. One might understand this vehement rejection of the truth on the part of fundamental religionists were the theory pointing ahead to some potential hazard or disaster that would require big tax payer dollars to avoid. But this is not the case. As threats to governmental budgets go, evolution is a piker. The only issue relevant to public policy is that high school biologists simply want to teach biology and not a ancient controversy that died in the 1890’s.

To save their children from “heresy” we find fundamentalists employing all the same strategies climate deniers employ; e.g. cardboard institutes, shady journals, cherry picking the data, ad hoc refusal to accept carbon dating etc. Some believe there was no evolution, some believe there’s evidence of the sky-god’s intervention in a process that's something like evolution. The ordinary fundamentalist in the street doesn’t really care which version of anti-evolution is right, as long as the Christian god is in there somewhere. There is no real interest among the fundamentalists in biology nor in natural history (it's just God's garden...what more do you need to know?); their only interest is in passing on a bogus religious ideology through the generations.

[Stavros]

Some pertinent posts to respond to:

1) Prospero -it will sound patronising of me, but I believe your evidence suggests there are people who find more comfort in 'God's Plan' as they understand it than in science, and don't really have an intellectual response to any issue; we just have to accept that their positions will not change and just hope policy contiunes to be made on the basis of science, but the policies have to be effective to be worth supporting.

2) Faldur and Russtafa -as usual, it is taxes that are the issue for you, not the science, which makes it pointless to claim the science is wrong when you advance not a shred of evidence that has been tested or examined through established scientific methods to prove your point.

Yes, discuss the tax regimes we all have, how people at the bottom get tax relief, how people at the top employ accountants and lawyers to successfully avoid paying taxes leaving the rest of society in the middle to carry the main burden -but that is not part of the debate on climate change as a scientific fact. It has already been proven that reducing carbon emissions can be achieved though technological change -to motor vehicles, to industrial plant, and many industries have done it without central or local government raising taxes. Tackling the industry that is denuding the world of forests and all the plant life in it -the most precious rain forest we have on earth- is a political-economic, not a tax issue. Changing the way we use the land to grow crops and at the same time avoid soil erosion and the waste of water, again, political and economic not a tax issue, and they all feed into the natural processes of earth's biology that keep the planet going. I think these are more practicable issue we can deal with that don't have a tax profile, rather than carbon trading and taxes. Its a question of priorities. That is where the tax debate should be.

3) Trish, on the nuclear issue I agree with your point of view. THe nuclear option is part of the debate on the changing fuel mix of the future as part of the wider debate about what that alternative to fossil fuel the mix should be, so I see it as a response to the long-term anxiety about the impact of climate change, and although I understand your generally positive view of it, Germany has moved against the nuclear alternative, and the continuing problems of Fukushima continue to make this a problematic issue. But I agree that the science in the nuclear option is not the issue. It is about costs, and safety.

On religion, all I can say is that as Prospero also pointed out, there is no necessary cleavage between science and religion, and there are a lot of Christians outside the USA as well as inside it, who don't recognise the strident opposition of the fundamentalists you refer to as being part of their own discourse. As I said at the beginning, I don't know if there is anything that can be done to change minds which, intellectually, are not really working at that level. I might be wrong, but it seems to be that religion is more central to the political debate in the USA than it is in other liberal democracies, and it does seem to have had some impact on policies, such as abortion, but I don't know how much more it actually informs policy making. Americans, it seems, need to hear their politicians, as it says in the song, Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition.

[Ben]

It is interesting how those who chime in from one side of this argument ignore the science and just either hurl insults - or claim its all a conspiracy by the left, scientists and whoever else they believe can be yoked into their conspiracy theory that this is a plot to destroy American freedom and global industry and a step on the path of the creation a socialist state. I see no flow of posts by these people offering scientific refutations or evidence to challenge Trish's consistantly well informed posts. It honestly should not be a right v left issue. It should be something everyone takes seriously.

I honestly want a world in a few generations time so that Faldur and Russtafa's grand children can argue with the likes of Trish or Ben or Hippiefried me about politics, science, religion or whatever. That's what this is about.

And, too, well, we can engage in a so-called debate about a so-called climate change hoax or whatever.
But the fact is there is no debate about climate change. It ended awhile ago. Climate change is real and it poses serious challenges and threats.
You've 98 percent of climate SCIENTISTS agreeing that global warming is real and dangerous and we need to do something about it.
And the other 2 percent or so are not scientists. They simply serve the powerful oil sector. Which is understandable.
Because the oil industry have a lot on the line. Like trillions of dollars in future profits. They will not go down without a massive fight. They have a lot at stake in the oil game....
Cigarette companies did the same in the 1960s. A massive propaganda campaign to deny ANY LINK between cigarette smoking and cancer. Why? Well, money, big money.
The oil sector is doing the same today. Again, it's understandable when all you're concerned about is maximizing profit. Ya know, nothing else matters. Future generations aren't considered. And they can't be.
Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon, wouldn't be doing his job if he was concerned about climate change.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/31/exxon-mobil-profits-and-output-rise

Naomi Klein Implicates Corporate Climate Lobbyists at COP15 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO9G1r2aBEo)

[hippifried]

On the subject of religion:



Trish,
You're going to hell. I talked to Dad & called you a special case, but He was unmoved. He says He just can't deal with your blasphemy anymore. I even tried to get the bird to intervene, & offered to go through another crucifixion, or something comparable in these modern times. He said once is enough. He wouldn't even let you work it off in Pergatory. No probation. No parole. You're doomed to hellfire through eternity. I'll come visit, butt while you're here, you might as well get totally depraved since there's no way out of your fate anyway. We should do a meat & greet. :twisted:

[trish]

I'll just think of it as God's molten rock garden. Hope He doesn't mind if I test it for unstable isotopes of potassium and their decay residues. I'd like to get measurement of the age of those rocks. Maybe put a date on creation. I'm wondering if there are any interesting rock formations in Hell, or if everything is all just melted into a flat dull bubbling lake. Hmmm I wonder what the viscosity of liquid hellfire is? Could sulfur metabolizing organisms have evolved there? If the measurements show Hell is older than 13 billion years, will I get sent to another Hell?

[Prospero]

Ben - you are right there should be no such debate. But the fact remans that there are, as this strand so lucidly shows, those who continue to argue that black is white - thus this "debate" (to dignify it )does exist. But as Stavros observed it is also a pointless one here. For reasons either of the simplicity of faith in this context or for rather more cynical ideological purposes there is no intelligent debate going on here - simply the restatement of a certain position against the overwhelming body of evidence and a simple minded bloody mindedness and abusive response from another quarter - informed only by a gut reaction to local economic and social conditions. Roadkill is a good word. Trish and you have both offerered a well established and intelligent flow of well supported argument here. Others offer abuse, the re-iteration of bad science and repetitive rhetoric.

And yes Stavros, of course there are people who have no intellectual response to issues. The "truth" has been revealed to them and cannot be questioned. In the case of islam such questioning can bring the most brutal of responses. Mainstream Christianity has at least left that behind following the reformation. For American fundamentalists, brutality with regard to abortion seems resurgent and scarey. But then all our most ludicrous religious people fled to the America's centuries ago.

[hippifried]

Could sulfur metabolizing organisms have evolved there?

I would imagine you can evolve whatever metabolized orgasms you like. You'll have nothing but time. I didn't pay attention in God school. I was preoccupied with what I was about to go through. Precognition can be a drag sometimes.

As for the technical stuff:
I'm a redeemer, not a creator. You'd have to ask Dad, but He'll know that your prayers are disingenuous. He can be vengeful, & He's already pissed, So you might not want to antagonize him. Lighning bolts ya know...

[martin48]

Thanks for the well considered post, Stavros. There is one point you make I’d like to address.

There is a significant difference between the debate on nuclear energy and the climate debate.

The opponents of nuclear energy do believe in the science. They grant that one can extract energy from the atom and use it to power cities. There the debate is about whether it should be done; and there are disagreements concerning the more complex issue of benefits vs costs vs potential hazards. (My opinion on nuclear energy is that soon we won’t be able to avoid it’s use, and the sooner we get practical minds working on the nuclear waste disposal problem, the better).

The opponents of various climate initiatives deny the science. This to me is unbelievable. The mechanisms are simple, easy to understand. At this late date the evidence is voluminous and there is now a scientific consensus which didn’t exist a thirty years ago. The jury is in. Yet we still have people who deny the science. Surely it would be more rational and eminently more practical to start with the science and focus debate on what, if anything, can and should be done about global heat imbalance. (Personally, yes you guessed it, I subscribe to the well accepted view of my scientific colleagues that anthropogenic global warming is happening and has been since the mid to late nineteenth century. However, I am not a liberal on the issue of what to do about it, if anything. I’m not conservative either. I’m open to suggestions).

As you and others say, it's probably not worth debating with those with deliveried truths. Biological evolution is as solid as any part of biology - there is scientific debate but that is how it should be. As scientists, we assume the minimum (Ockham's razor), we observe the natural world, determine the nature of a phenomenon, i.e. ask a question or identify a problem. Develop one or more hypotheses. The hypotheses should be predictive - given a set of circumstances, the hypothesis should predict an outcome (you can't point only backwards in time and say "God did that." You must say if x occurs then y will happen). Devise experiments to test the hypotheses. All scientific hypotheses must be capable of being disproved (Karl Popper - empirical falsification). Check how results fit the hypotheses - accept, refine or reject.

Easy really! Evolutionary theory has all these elements - there is little to question unless you totally reject the scientific method and maintain an irrational belief in fables. It's up to you. End of lecture!!!

[Prospero]

Thanks martin. It does seem many people prefer fables and to reside with the comfort zone of the fairytale or the fable. And others like conspiracy theories. Sometimes the two seem to overlap.

[russtafa]

fuck you lot and your bullshit

[hippifried]

fuck you lot and your bullshit
Well, we were all waiting for a well thought out & coherent argument against the climate change theories...

[Ben]

Facing the Sixth Extinction - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY-ltUIsnrQ)

The Evolution of Culture - Paul Ehrlich - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2vglzn6uBI)

An Interview with Dominant Animal author Paul Ehrlich - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbGZl9fW7D8)

[Ben]

Nature Deficit Disorder - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e6_cY3-J3o)

[russtafa]

there is no global warming just cooling yah dicks

[martin48]

fuck you lot and your bullshit

Perhaps, extinction of the species would have some advantages. Gives evolution a chance to start again.

[russtafa]

well you wouldn't survive

[Ben]

Perhaps, extinction of the species would have some advantages. Gives evolution a chance to start again.

There are 200 species going extinct every single day. And we are but 1 of 30 million species.
We cannot continue to despoil the planet and live on it. Albeit we can make believe that we can destroy the planet and live on it as well.
Plus 90 percent of the big fish in the ocean are gone.
1,000 Americans die every single day from cancer.
I mean, it is kinda bleak, as it were.
But we can change.

Naomi Klein: 'If You Take Climate Change Seriously, You Have to Throw Out the Free-Market Playbook':

http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/1053

Big-Fish Stocks Fall 90 Percent Since 1950, Study Says:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html

[Gouki]

man made global warming is a farse designed to extract carbon taxes out of the general population despite what Al Gore preaches, if you wanna worry about the environment, then lets worry about nuclear power, GMOs, water pollution and gene splicing among other more serious threats

[russtafa]

:Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowd own::Bowdown::Bowdown:
man made global warming is a farse designed to extract carbon taxes out of the general population despite what Al Gore preaches, if you wanna worry about the environment, then lets worry about nuclear power, GMOs, water pollution and gene splicing among other more serious threatsyou got that right

[trish]

Even though it's evident to every serious climatologist in the world that anthropogenic climate warming is a fact, you are correct that it's not as urgent a problem as water pollution. As far as GMOs, gene splicing and nuclear power are concerned, all three are practicable with the appropriate regulation and enforcement (or were you proposing to ban them altogether; i.e. extreme regulation)?

[russtafa]

Even though it's evident to every serious climatologist in the world that anthropogenic climate warming is a fact, you are correct that it's not as urgent a problem as water pollution. As far as GMOs, gene splicing and nuclear power are concerned, all three are practicable with the appropriate regulation and enforcement (or were you proposing to ban them altogether; i.e. extreme regulation)?and a great idea for taxing the sweat off the taxpayer ,a money maker fer sure

[russtafa]

that's the objective of this carbon tax to tax the fuck out of everyone.nothing like taxing thin air lol

[russtafa]

the Australian government is now considering silencing any debate about the carbon tax by passing a law forbidding any critism of it on newspapers ,radio, blogs or twitter

[martin48]

the Australian government is now considering silencing any debate about the carbon tax by passing a law forbidding any critism of it on newspapers ,radio, blogs or twitter

Well, that's the problem solved then!

[russtafa]

Well, that's the problem solved then!
hey you could be part of the thought police yah good little commo:censor

[russtafa]

i knew you lot were all communists and this proves it

[trish]

Well, that's the problem solved then!
And here I was thinking they're all racists and yahoos down there. I guess it demonstrates one can't generalize from too small a sample size.

[russtafa]

:fuckin::fuckin::fuckin:you would love it come knocking on my door yah little commie and i will give yah a treat

[russtafa]

:fuckin::fuckin::fuckin:you would love it come knocking on my door yah little commie and i will give yah a treat

we can fuck and hit the piss and then you can arrest me and take me away to your commie camp yah sexy wench:kiss::kiss::kiss::kiss::kiss::kiss::kiss::ki ss:

[trish]

How juvenile! You truly are a stupid loser. I bested you so badly in argument, this tiny ploy is the best you can come with! The mods really should put you out of your misery.

[russtafa]

How juvenile! You truly are a stupid loser. I bested you so badly in argument, this tiny ploy is the best you can come with! The mods really should put you out of your misery.lets have a root baby :smileysex: and you best me at nothing yah sexy wench .lets sink some piss and then yah can tell me i am a really very,very bad man aye

[trish]

I killed you in argument and you know it. That why you've reverted to the comebacks of a twelve year old with tiny bald genitals. It's all you got left. You're sooo fucking pathetic. I bet all the girls laugh at you right in your face.

[russtafa]

oh baby i have big one and yah want to see it and that's understandable and if you are a bad girl i will put you over my knee and give you a spanking and then a good root and we can fuck and argue all the time

[trish]

Bullshit. Russtafa has a little baldy and he can't get it up. And now everybody knows it.

[russtafa]

aww baby i know you could make me get it up yah sexy wench.you want your bum paddled hard and then a good root

[muh_muh]

Bullshit. Russtafa has a little baldy and he can't get it up. And now everybody knows it.

for the love of bob just smile nod walk away and let the village idiot soak in his misery

[trish]

for the love of bob just smile nod walk away and let the village idiot soak in his miseryThanks. Apparently I needed that.

[Stavros]

No further comment:

Death threats, intimidation and abuse: climate change scientist Michael E. Mann counts the cost of honesty

Research by Michael E. Mann confirmed the reality of global warming. Little did he know that it would also expose him to a vicious hate campaign



http://1.2.3.11/bmi/static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Columnist/Columnists/2012/3/2/1330729664541/US-physicist-and-climatol-007.jpg Research by US physicist and climatologist Michael E. Mann demonstrating an increase in global temperatures infuriated climate change deniers. Photograph: Greg Rico

The scientist who has borne the full brunt of attacks by climate change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange) deniers, including death threats and accusations of misappropriating funds, is set to hit back.
Michael E. Mann, creator of the "hockey stick" graph that illustrates recent rapid rises in global temperatures, is to publish a book next month detailing the "disingenuous and cynical" methods used by those who have tried to disprove his findings. The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars is a startling depiction of a scientist persecuted for trying to tell the truth.
Among the tactics used against Mann were the theft and publication, in 2009, of emails he had exchanged with climate scientist Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia University. Selected, distorted versions of these emails were then published on the internet in order to undermine UN climate talks due to begin in Copenhagen a few weeks later. These negotiations ended in failure. The use of those emails to kill off the climate talks was "a crime against humanity, a crime against the planet," says Mann, a scientist at Penn State University.
In his book, Mann warns that "public discourse has been polluted now for decades by corporate-funded disinformation – not just with climate change but with a host of health, environmental and societal threats." The implications for the planet are grim, he adds.
Mann became a target of climate deniers' hate because his research revealed there has been a recent increase of almost 1°C across the globe, a rise that was unprecedented "during at least the last 1,000 years" and which has been linked to rising emissions of carbon dioxide from cars, factories and power plants. Many other studies have since supported this finding although climate change deniers still reject his conclusions.
Mann's research particularly infuriated deniers after it was used prominently by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ipcc) in one of its assessment reports, making him a target of right-wing denial campaigners. But as the 46-year-old scientist told the Observer, he only entered this research field by accident. "I was interested in variations in temperatures of the oceans over the past millennium. But there are no records of these changes so I had to find proxy measures: coral growth, ice cores and tree rings."
By studying these he could trace temperature fluctuations over the past 1,000 years, he realised. The result was a graph that showed small oscillations in temperature over that period until, about 150 years ago, there was a sudden jump, a clear indication that human activities were likely to be involved. A colleague suggested the graph looked like a hockey stick and the name stuck. The results of the study were published in Nature in 1998. Mann's life changed for ever.
"The trouble is that the hockey stick graph become an icon and deniers reckoned if they could smash the icon, the whole concept of global warming would be destroyed with it. Bring down Mike Mann and we can bring down the IPCC, they reckoned. It is a classic technique for the deniers' movement, I have discovered, and I don't mean only those who reject the idea of global warming but those who insist that smoking doesn't cause cancer or that industrial pollution isn't linked to acid rain."
A barrage of intimidation was generated by "a Potemkin village" of policy foundations, as Mann puts it. These groups were set up by privately-funded groups that included Koch Industries and Scaife Foundations and bore names such as the Cato Institute, Americans for Prosperity and the Heartland Institute. These groups bombarded Mann with freedom of information requests while the scientist was served with a subpoena by Republican congressman Joe Barton to provide access to his correspondence. The purported aim was to clarify issues. The real aim was to intimidate Mann.
In addition, Mann has been attacked by Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican attorney general of Virginia who has campaigned to have the scientist stripped of academic credentials. Several committees of inquiry have investigated Mann's work. All have exonerated him.
Thousands of emails have been sent to Mann, many deeply unpleasant. "You and your colleagues… ought to be shot, quartered and fed to the pigs along with your whole damn families," said one. "I was hopin [sic] I would see the news and you commited [sic] suicide," ran another.
Yet all that Mann had done was publish to a study suggesting, in cautious terms, that Earth had started to heat up unexpectedly in the past few decades.
"On one occasion, I had to call the FBI after I was sent an envelope with a powder in it," Mann adds. "It turned out to be cornmeal but again the aim was intimidation. I ended up with police security tape all over my office doors and windows. That is the life of a climate scientist today in the US."
Mann insists he will not give up. "I have a six-year-old daughter and she reminds me what we are fighting for." Indeed, Mann is generally optimistic that climate change deniers and their oil and coal industry backers have overstepped the mark and goaded scientists to take action. He points to a recent letter, signed by 250 members of the US National Academy of Science, including 11 Nobel laureates, and published in Science. The letter warns about the dangers of the current attacks on climate scientists and calls "for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them."
"Words like those give me hope," says Mann.
The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars will be published by Columbia University Press in April



http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers?INTCMP=SRCH

[russtafa]

more manufactured lies

[Silcc69]

more manufactured lies

Excellent rebuke.

[hippifried]

Excellent rebuke.
Well... As good as you'll get from that source of wit anyway.

[russtafa]

Well... As good as you'll get from that source of wit anyway.i don't think i will comment until our election and we destroy the bastards for or at least 50 years over this fucking carbon tax .after that i don't think any other countries governments:pumped: will be game to mention global warming

[muh_muh]

i don't think i will comment until our election and we destroy the bastards for or at least 50 years over this fucking carbon tax .after that i don't think any other countries governments:pumped: will be game to mention global warming

because obviously the entire world looks to australia for political guidance?

[russtafa]

test tube old bean

[Cuchulain]

Earth 2100 - saw this in the History channel the other day. Here it is on YouTube
ABC .. Special .. EARTH 2100 .. 1/9 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI31a2L1Olw)

Thought provoking...for anyone who actually thinks, that is.

[Ben]

Earth 2100 - saw this in the History channel the other day. Here it is on YouTube
ABC .. Special .. EARTH 2100 .. 1/9 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI31a2L1Olw)

Thought provoking...for anyone who actually thinks, that is.

I mean, even if you ignore the science of climate change, well, we face a lot of challenges from: loss of biodiversity, to topsoil erosion/loss to, well, just name it -- :)
And, too, a very conservative notion would be to re-localize our economies. Which would be great on a whole slew of levels.
And, too, rising gas prices. What happens when it hits $200 a barrel?
The point being is: we cannot sustain this level of consumption, despoliation, industrialization.... We can't have infinite growth on a finite planet. But our entire economy hinges on the idea of endless growth. Politicians demand it. The corporate structure demands it. Well, by law corporations have to keep expanding and growing.... Which puts tremendous pressure on our life support systems.
Again, this is ignoring the idea of climate change.
George Carlin had an interesting take on the planet, well, decaying. He pointed out over 20 years ago that 25 species a day are being wiped out. Today that number is up to 200.... I'd argue with Carlin. I think industrial civilization has a great deal to do with it.

(1992) - George Carlin - Save the planet Viet sub - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YlNCBliw20)

[Ben]

Death threats, intimidation and abuse: climate change scientist Michael E. Mann counts the cost of honesty

Research by Michael E. Mann confirmed the reality of global warming. Little did he know that it would also expose him to a vicious hate campaign:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers?CMP=twt_gu

[Stavros]

Ben I posted this article a few days ago, but I guess you don't bother to update yourself on this or any other thread. Needless to say, Musstafa/Russtafa has dismissed it already.

[thx1138]

The 1 percenters will move to higher ground. The rest of will have to evolve into Kevin Costner (Waterworld).

[Ben]

The 1 percenters will move to higher ground. The rest of will have to evolve into Kevin Costner (Waterworld).

Waterworld is no exaggeration. This'll happen -- ha ha ha!
I kinda liked it when I saw it....
It's the Road Warrior on water -- :)

Waterworld Theatrical Trailer - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7LAN_FB1Nc)

The Road Warrior (1981) - Movie Trailer - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdv5EtZQ6jg)

So, therein lies the future: either we're inundated with water or we run outta gas.... Which do you prefer -- ha ha! :)

[martin48]

hey you could be part of the thought police yah good little commo:censor


I can't follow the argument but then I clearly do not possess Russtafa's intellectual prowess. Sarcasm is not one of your well developed traints, so suggest you purchase the attached book and get your carer to read it to you.

[Cuchulain]

'The worldwide insurance industry is huge (http://insurance.lbl.gov/qa.html), three-times bigger than the oil industry. And right now these companies are running scared. Some are threatening to cancel coverage (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2007/may/17/top-insurers-threaten-coverage-cancellation-to/) for homeowners within 200 miles of the coast, where destructive hurricanes are on the increase, and in drying areas of the West, where wildfires have wreaked havoc in recent years.
Marsh & McLennan (MMC), one of the world’s largest insurance brokers, called climate change (http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/22/news/economy/pluggedin_gunther.fortune/index.htm) “one of the most significant emerging risks facing the world today,” while the insurance giant AIG has established an Office of Environment and Climate Change (http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/76/76115/aig_climate_change_updated.pdf) to review and assess the risks to insurers in the years ahead.
2011 was a bad year for insurance companies (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/business/irene-damage-may-hit-7-billion-adding-to-insurer-woes.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1330700470-RAMBIpbuZ4i0FV5lNyglaw)due to the steep rise in catastrophe-related losses. And the industry’s own scientists are predicting that things could get a lot worse in the years ahead.'
http://www.care2.com/causes/what-insurance-companies-already-know-about-climate-change.html

[Faldur]

And the polar bears are going extinct... please send more coco-cola

[Stavros]

I think you are being unfair, Faldur, Cuchulain has made an interesting point. I was once told that a major reason why Lee Raymond, when he was CEO of Exxon, rejected climate change, was that he was afraid that the company would be taken to court by an environmental group on the grounds that if the oil companies conceded that they had contributed to climate change, they should be liable for penalties. How it could ever stand up in court I don't know, and although BP, Shell, Arco as it was, and other imdependent oil companies have acknowledged the human element in climate change, they haven't been sued. But if someone tried it, it would be a costly waste of time for all but the lawyers. Of course, if you believe in climate change, we are all to blame -but that is why the remedy is in a universal change of behaviour, from treating the environment as if it didn't matter, to cherishing it as if it were our children. I don't think the consumption of coco-cola, or even coca-cola, or Pepsi would help....though the world could very well end in a fizzzz....

[russtafa]

please ,please save the polar bears

[Ben]

Bill Maher Guest: 'Climate Change A Crock Of Shit' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNINYPrRcDc&feature=g-all-u&context=G2fe517aFAAAAAAAAAAA)

[Ben]

Global Warming is FAKE (Neil Degrasse Tyson vs Bob Lutz) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kijVlez5R9w)

[Ben]

Global Warming is FAKE (Neil Degrasse Tyson vs Bob Lutz) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kijVlez5R9w)

Who's Bob Lutz?
"Robert Anthony "Bob" Lutz is a former Vice Chairman at General Motors and upper level manager at several car companies."

So, he has a stake in so-called "denying" global warming. I mean, saying global warming is real, is happening presents a threat to the entire automobile industry. So, I certainly understand where he's coming from.

Bob Lutz (businessman) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lutz_%28businessman%29)

[Ben]

Climate Change Forces Pacific Nation To Move - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohRx5i0dGOQ)

[Ben]

Again, I understand why the right want to deny global warming. And it is the right. Isn't it? :)
Ya know, it's a left wing conspiracy. These people that push global warming are merely watermelons. Green on the outside. But RED on the inside. They're socialists. Who want to destroy the free market -- and ultimately freedom. No wonder the right are terrified.
The idea of a socialist plot to destroy capitalism (of course we don't have a pure capitalist system... but that's beside the point) should worry anyone that values their so-called freedom -- :)
Again, to acknowledge that global warming is real and is happening is a sharp attack on Milton Friedman -- and his economic theories, his beliefs. Because we'd have to regulate the hell outta corporations. And that's a big no no to the ol' Friedman model -- :)

Milton Friedman on the Basis of the Free Market - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLAS1SUo1tI)

Milton Friedman on the Importance of Teaching Free Markets - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io_1D3JSz2M)

[Cuchulain]

LOL.

Sen. Inhofe: The Bible Proves Global Warming Is A “Hoax”

"Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
http://www.care2.com/causes/sen-inhofe-the-bible-proves-global-warming-is-a-hoax.html

[Gouki]

here come the carbon taxes SMH

[russtafa]

Australia is paying 23 dollars per ton and climbing

[martin48]

LOL.

Sen. Inhofe: The Bible Proves Global Warming Is A “Hoax”

"Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
http://www.care2.com/causes/sen-inhofe-the-bible-proves-global-warming-is-a-hoax.html

According to Chronicles 4:2 “Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.” This "states" that pi = 3! Not possible so perhaps not everything in the Bible is true. Just a thought!!

[Stavros]

Think Positive People!!

Sahara Forest Project that breathes life into deserts claims Climate Week 2012 award

http://1.2.3.13/bmi/l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/sbXacb.v80UeazXbcJ1Vzg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9Zml0O2g9NTA-/http:/media.zenfs.com/251/2011/04/27/yahoo-news-logo_161520.gif (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/newsroom.news.yahoo.com.uk--all-sections/archive/1.html)By Gaby Leslie | Yahoo! News – 1 hour 13 minutes ag



It may be hard to imagine an arid desert in full bloom, but one UK firm has dreamed up a way of turning the driest places on Earth into fertile land.

The ‘Sahara Forest Project’ uses specially-built greenhouses that turn salt water into fresh water using solar power, enabling crops to be grown in deserts.




http://1.2.3.11/bmi/l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/JSboH_517a6tWCw5I0cqYg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http:/l.yimg.com/os/251/2012/03/13/greenhouse-jpg_142212.jpgGreenhouses turn salt water into fresh water using solar power so crops can be grown. Photo: Climate Week



Seawater Greenhouse, the firm behind the project, claims it offers the answers to three of the biggest challenges the world faces from damaging climate change – the need for clean energy, clean water and sustainable food production.

It could mean crops growing in the Sahara Desert, which was once believed to be a lush forest environment with flowing lakes and abundant flora and fauna.

Now the firm is about launch its Sahara Forest Pilot Project on a one-hectare site just outside Doha, Qatar, after landing £3.3m in funding.

The British company was recognised today at the Climate Week Awards as it scooped the Best Product title.

Other Climate Change Award winners from 13 other categories included Too Good to Waste doggy boxes for diners to take their restaurant leftovers home and the team behind the Close The Door, which works towards improving the energy efficiency of shops by keeping high street doors closed.

Climate Week, which runs from the 12 -18 March, is the country’s biggest climate change campaign, backed by Prime Minister David Cameron and the likes of Sir Paul McCartney and actress Sienna Miller.

Mr Cameron said: “I am extremely pleased to support Britain’s second Climate Week. Climate Week in 2011 was Britain’s biggest ever environmental occasion and Climate Week 2012 is expected to have even more impact.”

Kevin Steele, Climate Week’s founder said: “The Climate Week Awards offer a vision of what a low-carbon society could look like, and that vision is being acted on by the hundreds of thousands of people taking part in Climate Week across Britain.”

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/sahara-forest-project-that-breathes-life-into-deserts-claims-climate-week-2012-award.html

[Ben]

Emissions set to surge 50 pct by 2050: OECD...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/15/us-oecd-environment-idUSBRE82E0FF20120315

[russtafa]

Think Positive People!!

Sahara Forest Project that breathes life into deserts claims Climate Week 2012 award

http://1.2.3.13/bmi/l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/sbXacb.v80UeazXbcJ1Vzg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9Zml0O2g9NTA-/http:/media.zenfs.com/251/2011/04/27/yahoo-news-logo_161520.gif (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/newsroom.news.yahoo.com.uk--all-sections/archive/1.html)By Gaby Leslie | Yahoo! News – 1 hour 13 minutes ag



It may be hard to imagine an arid desert in full bloom, but one UK firm has dreamed up a way of turning the driest places on Earth into fertile land.

The ‘Sahara Forest Project’ uses specially-built greenhouses that turn salt water into fresh water using solar power, enabling crops to be grown in deserts.




http://1.2.3.11/bmi/l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/JSboH_517a6tWCw5I0cqYg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http:/l.yimg.com/os/251/2012/03/13/greenhouse-jpg_142212.jpgGreenhouses turn salt water into fresh water using solar power so crops can be grown. Photo: Climate Week



Seawater Greenhouse, the firm behind the project, claims it offers the answers to three of the biggest challenges the world faces from damaging climate change – the need for clean energy, clean water and sustainable food production.

It could mean crops growing in the Sahara Desert, which was once believed to be a lush forest environment with flowing lakes and abundant flora and fauna.

Now the firm is about launch its Sahara Forest Pilot Project on a one-hectare site just outside Doha, Qatar, after landing £3.3m in funding.

The British company was recognised today at the Climate Week Awards as it scooped the Best Product title.

Other Climate Change Award winners from 13 other categories included Too Good to Waste doggy boxes for diners to take their restaurant leftovers home and the team behind the Close The Door, which works towards improving the energy efficiency of shops by keeping high street doors closed.

Climate Week, which runs from the 12 -18 March, is the country’s biggest climate change campaign, backed by Prime Minister David Cameron and the likes of Sir Paul McCartney and actress Sienna Miller.

Mr Cameron said: “I am extremely pleased to support Britain’s second Climate Week. Climate Week in 2011 was Britain’s biggest ever environmental occasion and Climate Week 2012 is expected to have even more impact.”

Kevin Steele, Climate Week’s founder said: “The Climate Week Awards offer a vision of what a low-carbon society could look like, and that vision is being acted on by the hundreds of thousands of people taking part in Climate Week across Britain.”

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/sahara-forest-project-that-breathes-life-into-deserts-claims-climate-week-2012-award.html
So the pomes roll out the trendy lefty celebs 2.our government does it 2 and every ones laughs

[Ben]

Can We All Just Get Along? For The Kids & Old People? RODNEY KING SPEAKS! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0)

[russtafa]

professor Tim Flannery asked not to make any further climate predictions because he is bringing climatologist's into disrepute

[buttslinger]

Why can't Russtafa be more like that nice Simon Baker?

[russtafa]

Simon baker is a whimp =not a true Aussie

[russtafa]

Michael Chiklis from THE SHIELD is a top bloke and a great American if he is like his character

[buttslinger]

Well what about Mel Gibson?

[russtafa]

fuck Mel Gibson.Russ le Rock=he owns the rabbitohs rugby league=go the gladiator

[buttslinger]

I'm afraid to ask any more questions

[russtafa]

I'm afraid to ask any more questions
that man is a is a true blue rock n roller.and he is a good bluer

[buttslinger]

bryan brown and rachel ward-rachels warms my world.

[russtafa]

nice people

[russtafa]

JAKE THE MUSS is a cool guy

[Ben]

Germany to Make History With Alternative Energy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE3LojVWkrQ)

[Ben]

And President Carter didn't talk about climate change back then. But certainly understood the growing energy crisis:

President Jimmy Carter - Address to the Nation on Energy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA)

[russtafa]

Australian Labor has lost it's last state in a landslide now we only have to get rid of those wankers in the capital and that put's the carbon tax in the bin

[Ben]

Even if one steadfastly believes that climate change/chaos is a liberal/political hoax, well, what's the big deal with switching to alternative sources of energy? And, too, where's the "carbon" tax in that equation???

Solar Energy - David Suzuki at Renewable Energy of Plum Hollow - Kingston ON - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4VbWoEpNX8)

Or, and I'm quite serious about this, we could -- and we could if we wanted to -- live like the Amish and live a sustainable lifestyle and thus ensuring that future generations have a fairly decent planet:

Explaining the Amish Way of Life - VOA Story - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAgSCTdnrhk)

[russtafa]

Even if one steadfastly believes that climate change/chaos is a liberal/political hoax, well, what's the big deal with switching to alternative sources of energy? And, too, where's the "carbon" tax in that equation???

Solar Energy - David Suzuki at Renewable Energy of Plum Hollow - Kingston ON - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4VbWoEpNX8)

Or, and I'm quite serious about this, we could -- and we could if we wanted to -- live like the Amish and live a sustainable lifestyle and thus ensuring that future generations have a fairly decent planet:

Explaining the Amish Way of Life - VOA Story - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAgSCTdnrhk)how naive you think most people want to go back to the 17th century:dead::dead::dead::dead::dead:

[GrimFusion]

Or, and I'm quite serious about this, we could -- and we could if we wanted to -- live like the Amish and live a sustainable lifestyle and thus ensuring that future generations have a fairly decent planet:


Didn't the hippies try something like this and completely fail? Besides, I'm not giving up smoking pot so I can spend all day raising barns.

[Ben]

Chellis Glendinning on Global Sustainability - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpP8Ts20wIM)

[russtafa]

Ben what you want is a very hard physical life and i don't think you would like it,also it would also bring about a very conservative and harsh outlook on life by most people under taking that lifestyle =17th century mindset.People like me used to a hard labour ,but you or others like you?

[Ben]

Extreme Weather & Climate Change - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpxxPJv6vQs&feature=plcp&context=C436bb3eVDvjVQa1PpcFPa90Qx73V4N4DArE3lGA0h WKeL0N5Vorg=)

[Ben]

Didn't the hippies try something like this and completely fail? Besides, I'm not giving up smoking pot so I can spend all day raising barns.

The 60s and 70s civilized the culture.
But there was a conservative backlash in the 80s because the elites, as it were, felt there was too much democracy in the 60s and 70s. With, of course, the women's movement and the environmental movement.
So, conservatives in the 80s [and today, of course] attempted to beat back gains made by women in the 60s and 70s.
Ya know, ultra rich, Christian, straight, white and privileged men want to rule without the interference of, well, everyone else -- ha ha!

Interview with Gloria Steinem - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbN5tyZ5IvE)

President Richard Nixon on the Environment in 1970 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82Fl4vhbUys)

[russtafa]

Ben i have lived and worked in areas that are dominated by physical labour and the attitudes towards you or friends are not positive and you want more of that?

[trish]

I grew up in a blue collar family, and their attitudes toward conservation and recent advances in climatology are healthy and enlightened; i.e. the opposite of russstafa's.

[russtafa]

not where i have worked in the outback they would use you for football practice

[trish]

Of course they used you for football practice (which I take to be a polite euphenism) and we're all sorry for you I'm sure. But you can't take your own sorry experience as predictive for others.

[russtafa]

when are yah coming over for a good pounding girl yah know you want that hole pounded yah wench

[Prospero]

An Oxford philosopher's take on the threat of manmade extinction.



http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/were-underestimating-the-risk-of-human-extinction/253821/

[russtafa]

An Oxford philosopher's take on the threat of manmade extinction.



http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/were-underestimating-the-risk-of-human-extinction/253821/

bullshit ,bullshit

[Prospero]

From the philosophy department of the university of wagga wagga

[Stavros]

Thanks for the link, Prospero, but I was not impressed with Bostrom's arguments. Even with AI and robots, surely humans can programme systems not to morph into the avenging HAL's of the future. I would expect robots to be replacements for astronauts so that 'manned' missions to Mars and other planets can take place.

The most interesting talk on the future I have seen is in the link below where Sarah Harper discussed emerging trends in demography, and the curious way in which evolution seems to have decided that there are enough humans -ultimate forecasts of the world's population are being revised downwards, largely due to decreasing fertility among men -is this nature's way of restoring the balance between humans and nature? Although that does leave plenty of time for humans to transform great swathes of our beautiful planet into concrete and barbed wire....a 20 minute video but worth every second.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/mar/20/last-century-of-youth-sarah-harper-video?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3486

[Prospero]

Thanks Stavros. Will watch asap

[trish]

There’s a conundrum popular among scifi buffs known as Fermi’s Paradox. The paradox makes note of multitude of galaxies, stars and planets; references the Drake equation for computing the expected density of alien civilizations and then asks, “If alien civilizations are so plentiful, why haven’t we’ve seen any evidence of them?”

Among the many possible resolutions, an obvious conjecture is that almost all civilizations are extremely short lived because they tend to exponentially exhaust their resources and collapse. That’s pretty much what happened on Easter Island and it seems to be what’s happening right now on “Island Earth.”

We’ve used up half our the planet’s oil reserves. The U.S. has used up over half of it’s oil reserves. We used to burn natural gas just to get rid of it! Now we’re poisoning our fresh water supplies to “frack up” the last bit of natural gas we can find.

To support our populations we have to blanket our exhausted fields with expensive insecticides and chemical fertilizers. We grow our meat (hogs and chickens) in rank factories whose runoff also threatens our freshwater and depreciates property values for tens of miles around the foul smelling sites.

Our use of fossil fuels injects 30 billions tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually (at least ten times the rate of volcanic carbon dioxide production). Forty percent of the Arctic ice has melted leaving behind a low albedo surface that increases the rate of Arctic warming. The Arctic warming effects atmospheric currents (like the jet stream) in ways that have yet to be understood. One possibility is that the meanders and kinks that naturally form and propagate through the jet stream will have decreased group velocity; i.e. weather patterns that moved through North America and Europe rather quickly (a few hours to a day) will linger for several days and create feedbacks that result in more extreme weather. It’s possible we are already experiencing the consequences of this atmospheric pollution.

Our population is almost at seven billion persons. We don’t want to reach carrying capacity. Believe me, life at carrying capacity is hard, cruel and violent. Carrying capacity is where the forces of natural selection shape our future evolution for us. If that future is not extinction, it is certainly the extinction of our civilization.

The good news is that when effective birth control is made available, most women the over opt to use it. The Island of Tikopia held their population in check well below carrying capacity for 3000 years using coitus interruptus, abortion and infanticide. Of course they had a moral structure that was commensurate with their particular ecological situation. Modern religious morality still allows us abstinence and the rhythm method.

[Stavros]

The conjecture that other forms of life on other planets has been and gone is indeed an intriguing idea, and may even be close to explaining the early history of humans and why there does not appear to have been a uniform growth of human communities across Earth at the same time and same rate. But I think you risk being a determinist if you paint such a gloomy picture of humans destroying the basis of what it is that sustains us; the RapaNui were decimated by the slave trade and the diseases that infected the remaining communities on Easter Island when the slaves with the diseases were repatriated; they may have been impoverished by the erosion of natural resources on the Island from earlier generations, but it isn't clear if this was solely due to human agency or a combination of humans +disease + rats -even climate change.

The first nations of America would be in a similar position -did they hunt the buffalo to extinction? You know how decimated they were by smallpox; I don't know about de-forestation, but human agency I agree cannot be ruled out of the equation.

And yet, the fact that we have survived so long is also intriguing -the USA is now less dependent on petroleum imports than it has been for 20 years; oil and gas are finite resources so this would be an optimum moment to invest in alternative energy to make the transition away from hydrocarbons easier to handle and not least because wind, wave, solar and biofuels have all presented problems of finance, technology and efficiency in the early stages of their careers. If it is true that the Arctic is warming, and if this does mean the evaporation of sea ice, the whole region will be easier to mine for hydrocarbons, although I don't think it will be a new Middle East as far as volume goes. The same goes for the new plays in East Africa, the Eastern mediterranean, the eastern Gulf of Mexico around Cuba, the bitterly contested Falkland Islands/Malvinas Basin, and the intensely contested seas straddling the Philippines (north of Palawan) Japan, Malaysia and N/S Korea. Basically, from here on, even with new fields in the Middle East, its a mopping up of increasingly smaller reservoirs, on and offshore.

As for us, the link to Sarah Chapman's video in my earlier post, may offer you some thought on my recent theme: increasing infertility among men is slowing down the rate of population growth, which will peak around 2050 and then decline -earth will sustain 10 billion or so, but from them on the rate of growth slows; yet life actually gets longer, because chemicals, in the form of medicine can prolong life; I think human societies will eat less and less meat as the decades go on through a combination of a decline in battery farming (which is already happening in Europe) and a change in eating habits; although on that simple basis I won't be around to see it, unless I also live to be 100 or 120!!

Its not as gloomy as it can often sound, Trish -humans can be destructive, yes; but haven't we also shown that over time we can innovate our way out of a crisis? I would have expected you to be erring on the side of the positives in science...

[russtafa]

From the philosophy department of the university of wagga waggamakes just as much sense as your quacks

[yosi]

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/environment/global-warming-environment/global-warming-101/


http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/environment/global-warming-environment/way-forward-climate/


http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/national-geographic-channel/all-videos/av-3041-5041/ngc-degree-five/


http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/national-geographic-channel/all-videos/av-3041-5041/ngc-degree-six/

[Ben]

One shouldn't pay attention to me or anyone else on this board -- :)
But one should heed the words of America's greatest living actor Steven Seagal:

Steven Seagal's Ending Speech from "On Deadly Ground" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yr-F8z74KM)

[Ben]

Payola for the Most Profitable Corporations in History
And Why Taxpayers Shouldn’t Stand for It Any More:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175525/tomgram%3A_bill_mckibben%2C_how_you_subsidize_the_ energy_giants_to_wreck_the_planet/

[beandip]

Everyone dies. Get over it.

[Dino Velvet]

One shouldn't pay attention to me or anyone else on this board -- :)
But one should heed the words of America's greatest living actor Steven Seagal:

Steven Seagal's Ending Speech from "On Deadly Ground" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yr-F8z74KM)

Seagal is the only guy Alex Jones doesn't ever accuse of being CIA.

[trish]

Everyone dies. Get over it.That's a good argument for abortion too. Thanks.

[Kunzy]

Climate change my ass. :lol:

Typical liberal propaganda.

[trish]

Your ass doesn't do it for me. Can you offer a better anti-science argument?

[hippifried]

Butt this place is all about ass.

So, how much greenhouse gas do ya figure is in one of Kunzy's farts? I'm sure there's a formula that goes up exponentially every time somebody says "my ass".

[Ben]

Everyone dies. Get over it.

That's called: nihilism.... That the whirling world is meaningless. The universe has no sense or reason.
Or absurdism. Well, Albert Camus might've been right -- :)

Woody Allen's view of life - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjnuDAWo19A)

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

[Ben]

Seagal is the only guy Alex Jones doesn't ever accuse of being CIA.

Economic Hit Men: Paid Professionals who Cheat Countries Out of Trillions - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm2qEjny2aM&feature=plcp&context=C451b63cVDvjVQa1PpcFOVvqnVN23oiTFch8onmjYO EGnFgziTK_w=)

[dana295]

i love the doomsday stuff about the weather changing. the human civilization has grow up in an interglacial period. thats the time between ice ages where things get hotter and hotter til the atlantic convaor breaks down from fleash water melt on the poles and retriggers an ice event. this is normally done via volcanism. what we expell through industery and the use of combustion enigines is actually negligible compared to volcanism
any scienist that knows anything about geology and archyology knows this crap about the weather is just that

[Ben]

"Things Happen" - Connect the Dots on 5/5/12 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMNMvaBC4_U)

[Ben]

From Rural Pennsylvania to South America, a Global Alliance is Promoting the Idea that Ecosystems Have Intrinsic Rights:

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/natural_law/

[Ben]

Climate Change Predictions Made 30 Years Ago Prove Accurate - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LAkqGf6THQ)

[Ben]

Combat climate change denial -- :)

[Ben]

A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11118.html

[hippifried]

Well... Looks like we're all going to die.

[Prospero]

Giant drinks company funded anti climate change advertising. What a surprise.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/06/diageo-end-funding-heartland-institute?newsfeed=true

[trish]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/new-studies-of-permian-extinction-shed-light-on-the-great-dying.html?smid=pl-share

[Ben]

Influence of Oil Giant Exxon Mobil:

Private Empire: Author Steve Coll on State-Like Powers, Influence of Oil Giant Exxon Mobil - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IPsjCgHMV8)

[Yvonne183]

So, did you lot save the world from destruction yet? Did you throw your cars away? Stop buying clothes made from a polluting factory? Stop heating your home?

Anyways, I heard that it was dinosaur farts that caused global warming.

So I guess today it must the cows,, yea, everytime a cow farts another polar bear crashes through the ice and drowns.

[trish]

So was there an argument in there or just a lot of willful ignorance? Every time a anti-science nitwit posts against climate change another rare hardwood falls in the Amazon and an oil CEO somewhere acquires another stock option.

[Yvonne183]

So was there an argument in there or just a lot of willful ignorance? Every time a anti-science nitwit posts against climate change another rare hardwood falls in the Amazon and an oil CEO somewhere acquires another stock option.

My response was a perfectly correct response. With this thread going through many pages what exactly have the posters to this thread done to save the earth?

I still see cars jamming the streets of NYC, they all can't be right wing anti science wackos. I am taking a good guess that most are liberal environmental Obama supporters. If these wacko nut jobs care so much about the earth then why don't they stop driving their cars? And another thing, there would be no problems with oil companies if no one bought their product.

There are many many rich liberals either in Hollywood, politics, business. Why don't these wackos get together and pool their money into an earth friendly product? Why wait for the Gov't to do something when the liberals have the means to do something for themselves.

I am not debating the science of global warming on whether it is real or not, what I am saying is why don't the liberal enviors get off their asses and do something constructive. I can't believe that all those cars in Manhattan belong to right wing nut jobs.

[Stavros]

My response was a perfectly correct response. With this thread going through many pages what exactly have the posters to this thread done to save the earth?

I still see cars jamming the streets of NYC, they all can't be right wing anti science wackos. I am taking a good guess that most are liberal environmental Obama supporters. If these wacko nut jobs care so much about the earth then why don't they stop driving their cars? And another thing, there would be no problems with oil companies if no one bought their product.

There are many many rich liberals either in Hollywood, politics, business. Why don't these wackos get together and pool their money into an earth friendly product? Why wait for the Gov't to do something when the liberals have the means to do something for themselves.

I am not debating the science of global warming on whether it is real or not, what I am saying is why don't the liberal enviors get off their asses and do something constructive. I can't believe that all those cars in Manhattan belong to right wing nut jobs.

In one respect your reaction goes to one of the core issues in environmental politics: we are all in this together, but getting everyone to do the same thing is impossible. It is not just about liberals driving to work instead of walking or taking the bus, it is about a belief that the secret weapon to dealing with carbons emissions and the threats we are told we face are often right here, with us and how we act as individuals to reduce our own waste, manage our immediate environmental in a better way, and I think a lot of people have in fact changed the way they do things.

The problem is that global processes cannot be influenced by one political faction alone, the USA could ban 'blood diamonds' from badly run mines in the Congo, it could ban the import of timber from the forests of Indonesia and Brazil where loggers with no rules are tearing at the lungs of the earth without mercy: now Brazil plans 200 dams on the Amazon -if there is no rain forest of any magnitude in 50 years time, there will at least be forests of concete buildings.

How does any 'liberal' in New York affect the policies of capitalist firms for whom the market is all that matters? And by the time that anything is done, it is too late, as James Lovelock is arguing -yes, Gaia will react and the earth will re-cycle itself, but probably a million years from now.

But your frustration and critical remarks are pointed: at the very least we should as individuals change the way we live, if that is part of the solution.

[trish]

I usually prefer to stay out of arguments concerned with what should be done about climate change. My posts have been devoted to the explaining the atmospheric mechanisms responsible for climate change, the evidence and debunking the arguments of naysayers.

But I shall make a brake from my usual modus operandi. IMO we face a classic tragedy of the commons scenario. Suppose for a brief moment that you thought climate change was an important issue that required your personal involvement. Suppose you feel that to conserve gasoline and to minimize car emissions every should limit their highways speeds to 55 mph. Can you safely impose that limit on yourself when everyone around you is traveling 80 mph? Instead of having any significant effect on the output of carbon emissions you have simply become a hazard! In Europe it may be feasible to give up driving altogether and use public transportation, but in the U.S. public transportation is woefully inadequate to most people’s needs. This sort of conundrum occurs over and over again. One person winterizing their home, using efficient lightbulbs, walking to work, driving a fuel efficient vehicle doesn’t make much of a dent in anthropogenic climate change. Can we expect everyone the first world and the developing world of their own conscious volition to adopt behaviors that will reverse the direction our annual planetary energy imbalance? Unless some wonderful, cheap, new and irresistible technology comes to our rescue I don’t see much hope for a bottom up solution, do you?

IMO a top down approach is required; e.g. enforceable treaties, laws and regulations governing energy and emissions. I make no specific suggestions here.

So what about those Hollywood types? They are just like any other fiscally successful human being: they live in comfort. I don’t expect the wealthy to live in hovels or have a smaller footprint than a homeless man on a city street. Do you? People will generally have footprints in proportion to their worth. So what is an environmentally concerned wealthy person to do short of giving up all their wealth and take to the street. They can do what every other environmentally concerned person does: take public transportation when possible, drive fuel efficient vehicles, walk, buy wisely, “winterize” and “summerize” their homes appropriately, perhaps supplement their energy intake with solar cells etc. Al Gore bought a old home...a big one to be sure...and made it 11% more energy efficient. That may be better than building a new home with a smaller footprint which would’ve left the old inefficient home in someone else’s hands still eating up energy at the older inefficient rate. There is one more thing an environmentally concerned wealthy person can do, even if they do have a bigger footprint than most of us: they can afford to give more money to environmental organizations, lend their voices to the environmental cause and take the heat (of which there is plenty). There's an implied argument that goes something like this. Liberal wackos are hypocrites, especially the wealthier ones. Hence they can't really believe in climate change. Hence it's just a ploy to implement socialist regulations against the energy industries. Pay attention to politics and never mind the science. Do I really need to point out the flaw in this argument?

I’m not wealthy and I don’t consider myself an environmentalist. I don’t push people to conserve nor do I insist they cut their greenhouse emission rate. I am a scientist, and I can tell you that due to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere more energy slips through our atmosphere in the day than slips out at night creating a heat imbalance, our climate is shifting poleward (you can see the ecological systems moving with it), glaciers are melting contributing to a runaway effect, and the extra energy in the climate system is creating more violent weather events.

I personally ride a bicycle to work, I walk downtown, I drive a Prius, I’ve tried to properly “winterize” and “summerize” my home. I do it because that’s just me; I don’t do it because I think it’ll will stop climate change.

What do you do?

[hippifried]

I drive a Prius,
What? Too cheap for a Tesla?

[InHouston]

Climate change is bullshit. It's just another ploy by the politicians to tax you again. There was a time when the North Pole was covered with palm trees. Man had nothing to do with that. Now it's frozen over and covered with ice.

[Ben]

Climate change is bullshit. It's just another ploy by the politicians to tax you again. There was a time when the North Pole was covered with palm trees. Man had nothing to do with that. Now it's frozen over and covered with ice.



But it's the politicians who are denying global warming.


Three Quarters of Senate Republicans Don't Believe in Climate Change:

Three Quarters of Senate Republicans Don't Believe in Climate Change - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNcvrW-_2to)
US Senator Says Global Warming a Political Hoax:

US Senator Says Global Warming a Political Hoax - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMMPL6eU6ec)
Perry suggests global warming is a hoax:

Perry suggests global warming is a hoax - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2OHAuvoUkQ)

Santorum At CPAC: 'Facade Of Manmade Global Warming':

Santorum At CPAC: 'Facade Of Manmade Global Warming' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr14jb-jds4)

[Ben]

And Senator Jim Inhofe is very qualified to talk about the science of global warming. As he has a background in real estate and insurance.

Question 2 - Global Warming a Hoax? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzXm8XI0kZg)

Unlike, say, David Suzuki:

David-Suzuki-speaks-about-climate-change-the-reasons-&-effects - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6uucVKfJ6E)

[trish]

There was a time when the North Pole was covered with palm trees. Man had nothing to do with that. Now it's frozen over and covered with ice. So what? There were forest fires seventy million ago too that men had nothing to do with. Are we to conclude that men can’t start forest fires?

Yes the climates Earth have undergone changes and fluctuation since Earth had climate. So what? The stock market fluctuates too. But if you lost money in one a particular bad run of the market you want to know the specific reasons behind that particular fluctuation. Before plants evolved photosynthesis there was very little oxygen in the atmosphere. Humans would not have been able to breath. Through photosynthesis plants entirely changed the chemistry of the atmosphere, nearly asphyxiating themselves. When Krakatoa erupted the Northern hemisphere experienced winter in July. Since the industrial revolution the output of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere has created a sustained accumulating heat imbalance giving us summers in February. The point is each specific event has a specific set of causes and “it just always does that” is not an explanation.


Climate change is bullshit. It's just another ploy by the politicians to tax you again. Yes and Texas experienced a drought because the Rick Perry didn’t pray hard enough. Your post goes no further than opinion. I was hoping for just a little substance. But citing the motivations of politicians goes no way toward establishing or disputing a point in physics, atmospherics, chemistry or climate science. Anyway, thanks for your opinion. It always amazes me that someone would go to the trouble of posting such an unoriginal opinion when it is so obviously flawed and foolish. It’s not like we’re voting here. We’re having a discussion.

[Ben]

HIgh School Student Suing Over Global Warming - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S9nfi_dZLI&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

It isn't just global warming. We're witnessing an ecological collapse on a grand scale:

N.Y. Times: Dead Dolphins and Birds Are Causing Alarm in Peru:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/world/americas/peru-has-no-answers-on-dead-dolphins-and-seabirds.html?_r=1

And, too, globalization is killing whales on a wide scale. So, localizing the economy (and localizing one's economy is a very conservative principle) would have far reaching benefits:

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/05/11/to-avoid-more-whale-deaths-ships-must-slow-down/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/blue-whale-killed-by-ship-incredibly-828597

[Ben]

900 dolphins, 5,000 birds Dead In Peru 2012 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP4GsRKugHI)

MASS BIRD DIE-OFF: 7300 Birds Found Mysteriously Dead in Chile and Peru?! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgH0qD3Adng)

[Ben]

Catastrophy for Dolphins in Peru - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ZkiBfkzgQ&feature=related)

[Ben]

I used to think the right were crazy. Now I'm starting to believe the left are equally crazy:

U.S. Military Fighting Climate Change? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq-GxI61GRI&feature=context-chv)

[Ben]

Derrick Jensen - Endgame - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9os1GFuWJ0)

[Prospero]

God bless the extreme right. They never can stoop too low. I missed this until now (thanks to a friend in Chicago).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ2tM9Hfe0w&feature=player_embedded#!

[Ben]

God bless the extreme right. They never can stoop too low. I missed this until now (thanks to a friend in Chicago).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ2tM9Hfe0w&feature=player_embedded#!

Put simply: there's too much money at stake....

MSNBC - Rachel Maddow - Exxon profit; $5 million per hour, 24-7 4-28-2011 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCuXELBh9Ho)

[Ben]

The headline says it all: Big Oil More Powerful Than Government....
And their core interest is not long-term decent survival for the species or other species or the planet.
Their goal, of course, is to make as much money as they can and as fast as they can.
What happens in 100 years doesn't concern them. Nor should it. It's a corporation. An institution designed for one function: maximize money.
But there's nothing in economic or business principle that says a corporation has to serve its shareholders. As opposed to its stakeholders. Meaning: communities.
The whole idea of maximizing shareholder return is strictly a judicial decision. And not a parliamentary (or congressional) decision.
So, it means: your kids and grandkids don't matter. Nothing matters. But maximizing wealth. And it's rational. That's why it's frightening.
Hence big oil, in its own interest, will fight the science of climate change.

Big Oil More Powerful Than Government - Rachel Maddow - Air Date- 5-2-12 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjvXIxxwKY0)

[Ben]

The Acid Sea

The carbon dioxide we pump into the air is seeping into the oceans and slowly acidifying them. One hundred years from now, will oysters, mussels, and coral reefs survive?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/04/ocean-acidification/kolbert-text

[Ben]

The very powerful Koch brothers...

Koch Brothers' Activism Protects Their 50-Year Stake in Canadian Heavy Oils

Long involvement in Canada's tar sands has been central to Koch Industries' evolution and positions the billionaire brothers for a new oil boom.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120510/koch-industries-brothers-tar-sands-bitumen-heavy-oil-flint-pipelines-refinery-alberta-canada

Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Secret Iran Sales:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html

Opening paragraph from the first article:

"Over the last decade, Charles and David Koch have emerged into public view as billionaire philanthropists pushing a libertarian brand of political activism that presses a large footprint on energy and climate issues. They have created and supported non-profit organizations, think tanks and political groups that work to undermine climate science, environmental regulation and clean energy. They are also top donors to politicians, most of them Republicans, who support the oil industry and deny any human role in global warming."

[Prospero]

Thanks Ben. We do need constant reminders of the heinous influence of these people.

[Ben]

Thanks Ben. We do need constant reminders of the heinous influence of these people.

They do wield enormous influence.
Which should frighten people if we're supposedly living in a democracy. (We certainly have elections. But do we have meaningful democracy? No, of course not.) We don't even have a free market. Let alone a democracy....

How the Koch's make millions if Republicans crash the Gov? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpDpkZkQCi0&feature=plcp)

Life Inc. Dispatch 06: Why Corporations Hate the Free Market - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv3sJD384Yk)

[Ben]

A photo that's going viral of Appalachian women shaving their heads, in solidarity with their mountains (which are being stripped and blown up for coal).

[Ben]

ConocoPhillips on Climate Change:

http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/susdev/policies/climate_change_position/Pages/index.aspx

[Ben]

GE Ecomagination VP Mark Vachon on Climate Change and Energy Solutions - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaCB2uik3JI)

[Cuchulain]

'Arctic CO2 levels have hit a milestone. Reaching concentrations not seen in the last 800,000 years, 400 ppm (parts per million) is now being measured (http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0531/Climate-change-Arctic-passes-400-parts-per-million-milestone) all across the Arctic.'

'While it's currently only the Arctic that has reached the 400 level, the global CO2 level is expected to follow suit. According to NOAA, the global average, which currently is at 395, is expected to reach 400 ppm in about four years time. To put this into context, before the Industrial Age in the 1860s, levels were around 275 ppm.'

'In 2008, when the CO2 level was at 385 ppm, a group of scientists from NASA, Columbia University, Yale University and others published a paper on what the global target for atmospheric CO2 should be. They concluded that (http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126) "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced to at most 350 ppm" and noted that "if the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects." - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-bjerregaard/the-arctic-passes-climate_b_1567109.html?ref=green

[Gouki]

according to Al "man bear pig" Gore, the west and east coasts should have been drowned out by massive flooding due to sea levels rising when in fact the opposite has happened, but then again he knows that because he owns a few mansions on the coast lines, man made global warming is a hoax to levy more global carbon taxes on the general population

[Gouki]

mind you Mr Inconvenient Truth himself owns oil companies that are constantly polluting the ocean waters on a daily basis, the Sun is the primary heater of the planets which are all going through a current cycle, I'm more concerned with water pollution, GMOs, genetic splicing, the honey bee die offs, nuclear disasters due to energy and experiments and bioweapon development, once you start splicing and connecting different DNA this can give rise to a true global pandemic

[trish]

Read the whole thread. The Sun cycle hypothesis has been debunked about eight times already.

Where the current energy imbalance due to an increase in solar constant, then

1) The mesosphere would be heating up. It's not. Instead the carbon dioxide below the mesosphere is holds the heat radiating from the Earth's surface in. Light passes through, heats the surface and lower atmosphere and is prevented from radiating back out by anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

2) The satellites that have been monitoring the Sun for the past fifteen years would have measured a significant increase in the solar constant (see SOHO satellite observatory). They haven't. In fact no examination of the measurements of the solar constant which have been made over several centuries show a significant increase in solar radiation which would account for the increase in average surface temperature rise since the industrial revolution.

3. The current observations confirm the current model of global energy imbalance.


I'm more concerned with water pollution...Me too. And I'm concerned with the move toward the privatization of aquifers and lakes.


GMOs, genetic splicing, Not so much. The patent law on these things needs to be changed so Big Ag isn't able to exploit these methods to the detriment of third world farmers. E.g. The creation of infertile grains means that farmers have to buy seed grain every year because the seeds that grow from the grains they plant are infertile. This is just a fucking racket.


the honey bee die offsThis is a big agricultural problem because of course bees are primary pollinators, and they work for free. Apparently honey bees are suffering from a viral disease which is carried by a mite.


nuclear disasters due to energy..This will continue to be a problem unless we can implement other sources of energy. As oil and natural gas become more scare and more expensive, nuclear will begin to look better and better. As we've seen, accidents are a problem, but IMO the major problem with nuclear is waste disposal.


experiments and bioweapon development, once you start splicing and connecting different DNA this can give rise to a true global pandemic Indeed, especially if the sole purpose of the research is to weaponize a virulent contagion. It is, however, difficult to assess how much of a threat we're under since bioweapons research (if it's being done at all) is done in secret.

Let me add, poorly regulated mining and lumbering practices are a major threat to the health of the planet. Poor practices in these areas have been responsible for the fall of civilizations for eons.

[Gouki]

GMOs apparently have a negative effect on the bees, and once man starts genetically engineering the planet many imbalances are created as a result which throws the entire biosphere out of wack and there are many forms of alternative energy that have been surprised by GE and the mega oil corporations for years because of profit and there are underground bio weapon research facilities located throughout the world and yes Trish I agree many mineral mining and lumber practices are poorly regulated

[trish]

GMOs apparently have a negative effect on the bees...Not apparent at all (given the hive collapse is caused by a virus with a mite acting as vector). But I take your larger point...the same point as the movie Jurassic Park by the way...nothing alive can be contained.


once man starts genetically engineering...Careful here. The domestication of grains, tubers, cattle, pigs etc. are all examples of humans genetically engineering the flora and fauna around them. These days the experiment progress more quickly because we can directly manipulate the genes rather than using the old indirect methods. Ordinary human interaction with monkeys, pigs and chickens has created some monstrous flu viruses. The practice of dosing farm animals with antibiotics (common on factory farms) is creating resistant hybrids of all sorts of virulent "bugs." I worry more about the profit motive than urge to learn.

[Gouki]

yes Trish, the lengths the foundations and corporations will go to for the sake of year after year profit increases is scary

[Stavros]

Read the whole thread. The Sun cycle hypothesis has been debunked about eight times already.

Where the current energy imbalance due to an increase in solar constant, then

1) The mesosphere would be heating up. It's not. Instead the carbon dioxide below the mesosphere is holds the heat radiating from the Earth's surface in. Light passes through, heats the surface and lower atmosphere and is prevented from radiating back out by anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

2) The satellites that have been monitoring the Sun for the past fifteen years would have measured a significant increase in the solar constant (see SOHO satellite observatory). They haven't. In fact no examination of the measurements of the solar constant which have been made over several centuries show a significant increase in solar radiation which would account for the increase in average surface temperature rise since the industrial revolution.

3. The current observations confirm the current model of global energy imbalance.

Me too. And I'm concerned with the move toward the privatization of aquifers and lakes.

Not so much. The patent law on these things needs to be changed so Big Ag isn't able to exploit these methods to the detriment of third world farmers. E.g. The creation of infertile grains means that farmers have to buy seed grain every year because the seeds that grow from the grains they plant are infertile. This is just a fucking racket.

This is a big agricultural problem because of course bees are primary pollinators, and they work for free. Apparently honey bees are suffering from a viral disease which is carried by a mite.

This will continue to be a problem unless we can implement other sources of energy. As oil and natural gas become more scare and more expensive, nuclear will begin to look better and better. As we've seen, accidents are a problem, but IMO the major problem with nuclear is waste disposal.

Indeed, especially if the sole purpose of the research is to weaponize a virulent contagion. It is, however, difficult to assess how much of a threat we're under since bioweapons research (if it's being done at all) is done in secret.

Let me add, poorly regulated mining and lumbering practices are a major threat to the health of the planet. Poor practices in these areas have been responsible for the fall of civilizations for eons.

I am more concerned with mining and lumbering than with bees; the UK over the last century has lost a variety of insects like bees, and birds because the hedges that used to border fields have gone. Gm crops have been used to make new breeds of tobacco but I don't suppose this will stop people smoking. Incidentally, there was an item on the radio about 'City honey' made from bees who hive on rooftops in London. The argument is that the bees don't have access to countryside or gardens, but do have access to London's parks and that this gives their honey a more robust flavour than the more floral honey one associates with rural bees...

[martin48]

I am more concerned with mining and lumbering than with bees; the UK over the last century has lost a variety of insects like bees, and birds because the hedges that used to border fields have gone. Gm crops have been used to make new breeds of tobacco but I don't suppose this will stop people smoking. Incidentally, there was an item on the radio about 'City honey' made from bees who hive on rooftops in London. The argument is that the bees don't have access to countryside or gardens, but do have access to London's parks and that this gives their honey a more robust flavour than the more floral honey one associates with rural bees...

Bee colony collapse seems most likely due to a virus where the vector is the varroa mite. The role of some pesticides has also been suggested - ironically GM crops mean less pesticides. It is not a lost of habitat to blame.

Decline in bird populations are probably due to a variety of reasons - including habitat loss, climate changes, monocultures, etc. Since World War II, hedgerows have been removed at a much faster rate than they have been planted. In some parts of the UK 50% of hedgerows have gone, while others are so badly managed that their value to wildlife is much reduced. This process essentially ceased in the mid-90s. The most likely cause for some species, especially those that migrate, is climate change. If you as a bird fly from Africa to Northern Europe to breed in the Summer, you now fly a few 100 miles more to find the right climate. As with all breeding, if the timing is wrong and you are knackered, yo don't breed too well.

[Ben]

Bee colony collapse seems most likely due to a virus where the vector is the varroa mite. The role of some pesticides has also been suggested - ironically GM crops mean less pesticides. It is not a lost of habitat to blame.

Decline in bird populations are probably due to a variety of reasons - including habitat loss, climate changes, monocultures, etc. Since World War II, hedgerows have been removed at a much faster rate than they have been planted. In some parts of the UK 50% of hedgerows have gone, while others are so badly managed that their value to wildlife is much reduced. This process essentially ceased in the mid-90s. The most likely cause for some species, especially those that migrate, is climate change. If you as a bird fly from Africa to Northern Europe to breed in the Summer, you now fly a few 100 miles more to find the right climate. As with all breeding, if the timing is wrong and you are knackered, yo don't breed too well.

Albert Einstein on Bees: "If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live. No more bees, no more pollination … no more men!"
And, too, Bats pollinate plants. Hopefully they don't go extinct. (But 99.9999 percent of all life that has ever existed is extinct. The dinosaurs had a good run. Sharks, too. They've been around for oh... roughly 400 million years. We've been around for 2 million in one stage or another. Or 6,000 years depending on how irrational one is -- :))
Loss of biodiversity is very worrying, too.
As Stavros pointed out: deforestation and mining should worry us.
The acidification of the oceans should worry us.
Mass consumerism should worry us. Mass production, too.
Noam Chomsky was asked: Will we be around in 500 years? He laughed.
This is our culture.... Well, not really. It's difficult to talk to Americans about culture. Because culture isn't Wal-Mart, it isn't McDonald's. It isn't Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie. It's a set of values. We have no values. (Take, say, indigenous people. They're closely connected with and to nature. We aren't. It explicates a lot. Not valuing nature means we're in a whole heap of trouble.)

Virginia Republicans War on the Words "Sea Level Rise" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7Hn6gF8fhk&feature=plcp)

[Stavros]

Bee colony collapse seems most likely due to a virus where the vector is the varroa mite. The role of some pesticides has also been suggested - ironically GM crops mean less pesticides. It is not a lost of habitat to blame.

Decline in bird populations are probably due to a variety of reasons - including habitat loss, climate changes, monocultures, etc. Since World War II, hedgerows have been removed at a much faster rate than they have been planted. In some parts of the UK 50% of hedgerows have gone, while others are so badly managed that their value to wildlife is much reduced. This process essentially ceased in the mid-90s. The most likely cause for some species, especially those that migrate, is climate change. If you as a bird fly from Africa to Northern Europe to breed in the Summer, you now fly a few 100 miles more to find the right climate. As with all breeding, if the timing is wrong and you are knackered, yo don't breed too well.

I agree with most of this, mostly with regard to birds -but in the case of bees, where does a virus come from? Could it be that some pesticide somewhere or something chemical being used in gardens infects bees? When different species of bee were cross-bred and the result was the 'African Killer Bee' did this also create a virus that most bees are not immune to? I don't know, but this would not be climate change as the factor, but science and nature.

[trish]

The current hypothesis is that bee colony collapse is due to a viral infection carried by mites...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/07/honey-bees-virus-varrora-destructor-mites

Crossbreeding bees doesn't create viruses. One has to be careful though that the bees you bring in to crossbreed with your home variety aren't already infected. I suppose it's possible that the hybrid bee that you create might be more susceptible to the deliterious effects of infection. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, since all honey bees are at risk, not just certain crossbreeds.

Also chemical pollutants are not likely to produce new viruses though they through selection change the distribution of genes in the gene pool of a particular virus; i.e. they make create an environment where the more virulent strains have a greater reproductive advantage than they previously had. Certain pollutants may also simply render honey bees more susceptible to a virus that's been around for decades. Or chemical pollutants might make colony collapse a more likely response to infection by a virus that's been around awhile. Nothing I've read indicates which if any of these scenarios applies to the current problem. Viruses evolve to exploit natural shifts as well as artificial shifts in their environment.

Pollination is big business in the U.S. and bees are transported over long distances to pollinate fields and orchards. The stress of transportation and the higher chance of being exposed to viruses increases the chance of spreading diseases among honey bees.

[hippifried]

Doesn'[t seem to be affecting the Africanized bees.

[Ben]

Could California see the next nuclear disaster? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZKjNg0IO18&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Article by Paul Craig Roberts. Who was the: Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/06/19/silent-spring-for-us/

[Ben]

Rex Tillerson, Chairperson and CEO of ExxonMobil, admits global warming is real. A big step for the giant energy company. But he says we can adapt. But say we can't. What then??? :(
Plus how do we sustain perpetual growth -- endless production and consumption -- on a finite planet? How can we keep growing, as it were, into the future. I mean, can we sustain this level of production and consumption 100 years from now? What about 1,000 years? What about 5,000 years? Or do we simply say future generations have no value.
As Noam Chomsky has stated: corporations, by their very design, have an INSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVE to destroy the planet.
And this goes back to perpetual growth. Which is built into the corporate structure. Corporations have to keep growing. I mean, GM has to keep producing more and more cars. It has to.
There are 800 million cars in the world. What happens when China decides they want, say, a billion cars. What then?
You simply cannot sustain, again, a system based on infinite growth, infinite consumption and production. It's physically impossible.
But Tillerson is only concerned about the next quarter, the next 3 months. And has to be. That's his institutional role. Therefore his kids and grandkids have no value. But he isn't a bad person. It has nothing to do with the people. It's the institution.
Same thing applies to, say, government.... It's not the people. It's the structure.

Exxon Mobil CEO: Climate Change is No Big Deal, We'll Just Adapt! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3Pw1_6We14&feature=plcp)

[Stavros]

Rex Tillerson, Chairperson and CEO of ExxonMobil, admits global warming is real. A big step for the giant energy company. But he says we can adapt. But say we can't. What then??? :(
Plus how do we sustain perpetual growth -- endless production and consumption -- on a finite planet? How can we keep growing, as it were, into the future. I mean, can we sustain this level of production and consumption 100 years from now? What about 1,000 years? What about 5,000 years? Or do we simply say future generations have no value.
As Noam Chomsky has stated: corporations, by their very design, have an INSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVE to destroy the planet.
And this goes back to perpetual growth. Which is built into the corporate structure. Corporations have to keep growing. I mean, GM has to keep producing more and more cars. It has to.
There are 800 million cars in the world. What happens when China decides they want, say, a billion cars. What then?
You simply cannot sustain, again, a system based on infinite growth, infinite consumption and production. It's physically impossible.
But Tillerson is only concerned about the next quarter, the next 3 months. And has to be. That's his institutional role. Therefore his kids and grandkids have no value. But he isn't a bad person. It has nothing to do with the people. It's the institution.
Same thing applies to, say, government.... It's not the people. It's the structure.


1) BP acknowledged the human element in climate change in 1997, followed soon after by Shell and some other independent oil companies; Tillerson's predecessor, Lee Raymond probably didn't believe in it but was advised at the time that admitting a role in climate change would make Exxon liable to prosecution in the US by environmentla groups. That Exxon has followed the other independent oil companies isn't news; you keep banging on about it and getting it wrong every time.
The real issue is not climate change per se, but the policies being introduced to regulate/reduce carbon emissions. BP was instrumental in developing the concept of carbon trading in the European Union, but additional taxes are what corporations want to avoid.

2) When you say:
Plus how do we sustain perpetual growth -- endless production and consumption -- on a finite planet? How can we keep growing, as it were, into the future. I mean, can we sustain this level of production and consumption 100 years from now?
-You don't seem to be aware that production and consumption are in decline and that this is one reason so many people are unemployed. It happened before when there was a dramatic fall in demand for industrial goods in the late 1970s and 1980s, so there is no perpetual growth but cycles of growth, stagnation, decline and growth again, one hopes. You also take no account of how innovations in modern industry make production more efficient.

3) Finally when you say this:
As Noam Chomsky has stated: corporations, by their very design, have an INSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVE to destroy the planet.
What planet are you living on? Can you not think through this to realise how plain stupid Chomsky can be? Just because he says something doesn't make it so, corporations need customers in markets, committing corporate suicide isn't usually a priority over that.

[Ben]

Published on Saturday, July 7, 2012 by Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org) 'Staggering': 4,500 Heat Records and Counting


As globe warms, the rate records are being broken can't be explained away by coincidence

- Common Dreams staff

A heatwave that began weeks ago in the western Rockies before spreading to the midwest with sweltering temperatures and monstrous thunderstorms, has continued eastward leaving records highs, loss of life, and intense weather events all along the way. Heat records have been smashed in over 4,500 locations (http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/record-heat-triple-digits), and with Saturday temperatures showing no relief, that number is expected to grow.
https://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imagecache/headline_image/article_images/hi6_440x297_0.jpg Looking at midwestern temperatures across the region, the Weather Underground blog cites (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=2147) records set in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. "On Friday," writes Jeff Masters, "three cities in Michigan [hit] their hottest temperatures ever recorded. Lansing (http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=zmw:48901.1.99999) hit 103°, the hottest day in Michigan's capital city since record keeping began in 1863."
The National Weather Service said (http://www.weather.gov/) the temperature also hit 103° at O'Hare International Airport on Friday, breaking the record of 99 degrees set in 1988, and making it the third-straight day with a triple-digit reading in Chicago.
Lack of electricity also is compounding the misery for many following storms that knocked out power in Michigan, West Virginia, Maryland, and elsewhere (http://www.leaderpost.com/Stifling+heat+wave+burns/6897983/story.html).
Jane Lubchenco, head of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), on Friday said that the experience of recent extreme weather (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-climate-official-says-more-extreme-events-convincing-many-americans-climate-change-is-real/2012/07/06/gJQAHNZ5QW_story.html) has convinced many Americans previously unconvinced or unconcerned with the impacts of man-made climate change.
“Many people around the world are beginning to appreciate that climate change is under way, that it’s having consequences that are playing out in real time and, in the United States at least, we are seeing more and more examples of extreme weather and extreme climate-related events,” Lubchenco told a university forum in the Australian capital of Canberra.
“People’s perceptions in the United States at least are in many cases beginning to change as they experience something first-hand that they at least think is directly attributable to climate change,” she said.
"It's OK to talk about events when you discuss them in a proper scientific context," says Michael Mann, director of the Earth Science Center at Penn State. "The climate models have predicted what we've now seen, which is a doubling in the rate at which we break all-time warmth records in the U.S. We're breaking those records, over the past decade, at a rate of almost twice what we would expect from chance alone."
In fact, more than 2,000 U.S. heat records were broken just in the past week. Climatologists argue that while there's certainly nothing unexpected in periodic record-breaking temperatures, the rate at which these records are being broken year after year can't be explained away by coincidence.
"There's a randomness to weather, but what we're seeing is loading of the weather dice to the point where sixes are coming up 10 times more often," says Mann. "If you were gambling and you saw sixes coming up 10 times more often you'd start to notice. We are seeing climate change now in the statistical loading of these dice."

[Ben]

Climate Change or Just Hot Weather? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawUoBj0jwE&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

More good news on the Climate Change front -- ha ha ha! The concern now should be so-called runaway climate change.
Some fairly twisted scientists have suggested we "move" the Earth. Oooookay. That'll be fun -- ha ha! Actually, I'm looking forward to that. The simple solution: stop burning fossil fuels never crosses their minds because the energy industry is just too darn powerful.
And, too, their institutional interests are short-term. And have to be. I mean, Rex Tillerson, CEO and chairperson, of Exxon is only thinking about himself, his sizable wallet, his net worth. It's called: being rational. He is a very rational actor.
But what happens in 50 years, 60, 70 or 80 years, well, who cares. I got mine jack.
It's difficult to criticize how rational this is. Because it is rational. And that's why it frightens me.
I think it was George Carlin who wished future generations: good luck. 'Cause they're gonna need it.

Green Report - Frightening News - Greenland's Ice Sheet - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YM9_sfy97o&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Are climate sceptics more likely to be conspiracy theorists?

New research finds that sceptics also tend to support conspiracy theories such as the moon landing being faked:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jul/27/climate-sceptics-conspiracy-theorists?intcmp=122

[trish]

Climate skeptic changes mind ->
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?smid=pl-share

Berkeley Earth Temperature Project->
http://berkeleyearth.org/

[Ben]

Climate skeptic changes mind ->
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?smid=pl-share

Berkeley Earth Temperature Project->
http://berkeleyearth.org/

And, again, even the likes of Rex Tillerson, CEO and Chairperson of Exxon-Mobil, came out, as it were, and said global warming is real. But said we could adapt.
I'm guessing that's their new line of defense. Whereby Oil, Coal and other Energy giants will simply say: Yes!, global warming is real but we can adapt. We've the ingenuity and technology to adapt to what nature throws our way. Well, we better start right now.
Bill McKibben (it's with an e) talks about the power of the oil industry...

Bill McKibbon - Koch-funded study..."Global Warming Real!" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLPKXyVivF8&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Stop this culture of paying politicians for denying climate change

Protecting the environment requires a sweeping reform of political funding, only then corporations will stop throwing big money at senators:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/aug/02/climate-change-political-funding-us

[Ben]

Interesting...

[Ben]

A Summer of Extremes
Signifies the New Normal

This summer has seen record heat waves and wildfires in the U.S, the worst flooding in Beijing’s modern history, and droughts that devastated the U.S. corn crop and led India to set up “refugee camps” for livestock. These extreme events were not freak occurrences — this is how the earth works now.

by Bill McKibben

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/mckibben_summer_of_weather_extremes_signifies_new_ climate_normal/2568/

[Ben]

Why we need a law on ecocide

Until we have a law to prosecute those who destroy the planet, corporations will never be called to account for their crimes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2011/jan/05/ecocide-law-ratcliffe

[Ben]

The interesting Septuagenarian: Russell Means. Who is an author, activist and actor. He was in: The Last of the Mohicans. And Natural Born Killers.

Matriarchy - Part 2 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIPh597XMjI&feature=relmfu)

[Prospero]

I applaud Ben for keeping this important thread alive. It is indeed the single biggest issue we face today.

For this reason - and myriad others - I'd urge my Americans friends (and enemies) here to choose the candidate whose election in November will do less to harm the environment. That is clearly the present incumbent. Far from perfect - as Ben and others whose concern is truth, not propaganda, remind us. But in the real world he is the only viable choice.

[Ben]

I applaud Ben for keeping this important thread alive. It is indeed the single biggest issue we face today.

For this reason - and myriad others - I'd urge my Americans friends (and enemies) here to choose the candidate whose election in November will do less to harm the environment. That is clearly the present incumbent. Far from perfect - as Ben and others whose concern is truth, not propaganda, remind us. But in the real world he is the only viable choice.

A slight shift from global warming. Joe Rogan rants on consciousness, the cosmos and, well, everything....

Joe Rogan - What Is Reality - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2xzIgdD_XA)

[Dino Velvet]

A slight shift from global warming. Joe Rogan rants on consciousness, the cosmos and, well, everything....

Joe Rogan - What Is Reality - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2xzIgdD_XA)

He went to town on Carlos Mencia too. Someone had to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gVYfDCgYxk

[Ben]

I think we'll all become vegetarians in a few decades. For a few reasons. Moral, healthful and environmental.
I mean, even the term meat is a euphemism. We do murder -- and yes murder is a fairly strong word -- these animals.
Pigs, chickens, cows and sheep do value their lives. Much like we do.
Anyway, we'll see, I think, a social and spiritual transformation in a few decades. As animals and the natural world gain more and more rights.
I mean, do animals deserve rights? What about the natural world? Should ants have rights? What about trees? Should a mountain have rights?
I mean, all of this is worth discussing.
At present pigs and cows have no value. The only value they have is on our plates. Sadly.

Scientists Say the World Must Become Vegetarian - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E8Ej_DzMuk&feature=related)

[Lovecox]

I can't wait for our species to go extinct!

[trish]

I see your point...all but one of us will be dead before the last human dies, therefore only one of us can wait for the species to go extinct.

[martin48]

I see your point...all but one of us will be dead before the last human dies, therefore only one of us can wait for the species to go extinct.


But they will never know that they are the 'one'.

[Ben]

I think we'll all become vegetarians in a few decades. For a few reasons. Moral, healthful and environmental.
I mean, even the term meat is a euphemism. We do murder -- and yes murder is a fairly strong word -- these animals.
Pigs, chickens, cows and sheep do value their lives. Much like we do.
Anyway, we'll see, I think, a social and spiritual transformation in a few decades. As animals and the natural world gain more and more rights.
I mean, do animals deserve rights? What about the natural world? Should ants have rights? What about trees? Should a mountain have rights?
I mean, all of this is worth discussing.
At present pigs and cows have no value. The only value they have is on our plates. Sadly.

And addendum to my earlier post:

Walmart Facing Campaign To Break With Abusive Pork Supplier (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/20/551661/walmart-campaign-pork/)

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/20/551661/walmart-campaign-pork/


Republican Congressman Gloats About Bill To Enable Animal Torture (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/18/540441/republican-bill-animal-torture/)

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/18/540441/republican-bill-animal-torture/

[Ben]

From 4 years ago...

Ecuador’s Constitution Gives Rights to Nature:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/09/ecuadors-constitution-gives-rights-to-nature/

A very good step forward.

[Ben]

If Star Wars was made by environmentalists...

If Star Wars was made by environmentalists.. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eknuqWQ4-Mw)

[martin48]

I think we'll all become vegetarians in a few decades. For a few reasons. Moral, healthful and environmental.
I mean, even the term meat is a euphemism. We do murder -- and yes murder is a fairly strong word -- these animals.
Pigs, chickens, cows and sheep do value their lives. Much like we do.
Anyway, we'll see, I think, a social and spiritual transformation in a few decades. As animals and the natural world gain more and more rights.
I mean, do animals deserve rights? What about the natural world? Should ants have rights? What about trees? Should a mountain have rights?
I mean, all of this is worth discussing.
At present pigs and cows have no value. The only value they have is on our plates. Sadly.


I won't be holding out for a "social and spiritual transformation". A powerful case can be made on environmental grounds for the consumption of less meat - certainly red meat. But, of course, we would have to prevent individuals owning meat-eating pets - no dogs, no cats. There is less of a case for vegetarianism on health grounds - and as for moral, that is debatable. It is argued then animals are different to humans, it that we alone have duties and hence rights - and we can enter freely into a social contract. This does not mean that we should cause unnecessary harm to animals, nor that we should aim to protect species and their environment.

We have a bigger duty (that is 'cos we are the only species that can assume duties in a legal sense) to protect this planet and all its species

M

[trish]

We need to start putting lions, tigers and bears on death row... right now! Murder cannot be condoned for any reason. In the interest of minimizing waste humans will be expected to consume the flesh of executed murdering carnivores. Just the other day I executed and ate my offending neighbor's cat, Fluffy. (Burp) There were still feathers in her belly.

[fred41]

Observe the majestic beauty of the wild cow in it's natural habitat! Cow mane flowing freely in the wind...moooooooooooooooooo!

[fred41]

This looks like a job for.....

[martin48]

Another pussy gone. Shame!



We need to start putting lions, tigers and bears on death row... right now! Murder cannot be condoned for any reason. In the interest of minimizing waste humans will be expected to consume the flesh of executed murdering carnivores. Just the other day I executed and ate my offending neighbor's cat, Fluffy. (Burp) There were still feathers in her belly.

[Ben]

We need to start putting lions, tigers and bears on death row... right now! Murder cannot be condoned for any reason. In the interest of minimizing waste humans will be expected to consume the flesh of executed murdering carnivores. Just the other day I executed and ate my offending neighbor's cat, Fluffy. (Burp) There were still feathers in her belly.

Oookaaay -- ha ha! :)

[Ben]

CEO and Chairman of ExxonMobil Rex Tillerson saying of global warming: "... clearly there is going to be an impact."
And Tillerson explicates: "... increasing CO2 emissions [in] the atmosphere is gonna have an impact, a warming impact."
Now, why would one of the most powerful men in the world admit to the science of climate change....
Mystery to me -- :)

Rex Tillerson: AGW is Real. Get Used to it. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IotGLnXvaEk)

[Ben]

Global warming ‘manageable’, says Exxon chief

By Ed Crooks in New York
FINANCIAL TIMES

Global warming is a “manageable” problem, but will require policy changes to adapt to its effects, the chief executive of ExxonMobil (http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=us:XOM), the largest US oil and gas producer, has said.
Rex Tillerson said at a meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York that climate change (http://www.ft.com/cop17-insight)was a “great challenge”, but it could be solved by adapting to risks such as higher sea levels and changing conditions for agriculture.
“As a species that’s why we’re all still here: we have spent our entire existence adapting. So we will adapt to this,” he said. “It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions.”
Exxon, the world’s largest oil company by market capitalisation, has long been attacked by environmental campaigners for its stance on climate change (http://www.ft.com/reports/climate-change-2011).
Lee Raymond, Mr Tillerson’s predecessor as chief executive, questioned whether the earth was really warming, and said the attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions “defies common sense”.
Mr Tillerson, who took over at the start of 2006, has modified that position, but continued to be sceptical about the benefits of plans to cut emissions.
Speaking on Wednesday, Mr Tillerson said: “Clearly there’s going to be an impact. I’m not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere ... will have a warming impact.”
However, he added: “How large it is what is very hard for anyone to predict. And to tell you how large it is then projects how dire the consequences are.”
He said Exxon had for many years been involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN-backed scientific body that reviews and assesses information about the climate, and funding research, but said climate modelling still contained large uncertainties.
“The competences of the models are not particularly good,” he said. “Our ability to predict with any accuracy what the future’s going to be is really pretty limited.”
He added: “In the IPCC reports ... when you predict things like sea-level rise, you get numbers all over the map. If you take what I would call a reasonable scientific approach to that, we believe those consequences are manageable. They do require us to begin to spend more policy effort on adaptation.”
He said there were other issues that were “much more pressing priorities”, including poverty, which could be relieved by access to electricity and fossil fuels for cooking, to replace traditional sources such as animal dung.
“There are more people being dramatically affected because they don’t have access to fossil fuels to burn. They’d love to burn fossil fuels, because their quality of life would rise immeasurably,” he said.
Under Mr Raymond, Exxon provided grants to several think-tanks and other groups that challenged the need to curb greenhouse gas emissions to avert the threat of global warming.
While Mr Tillerson has been CEO, most of that funding has been cut.
One remaining grant was the $50,000 that Exxon gave last year to the Heritage Foundation, which promotes a range of conservative and free-market policies, including the argument that “the costs of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon dioxide, far outweigh any benefits for individuals”.

[Ben]

“There’s No Economy on a Dead Planet”: Reflections on a Missing Election Issue:

http://www.zcommunications.org/there-s-no-economy-on-a-dead-planet-reflections-on-a-missing-election-issue-by-paul-street

[Ben]

Candidates Flee East Coast as Frankenstorm Takes Revenge for their Ignoring Climate Change

by Juan Cole (http://www.commondreams.org/juan-cole)

Mitt Romney and Joe Biden have canceled campaign events planned for this weekend at Virginia Beach as a massive storm bears down on the east coast of the US. The candidates are fleeing from the East Coast, even though they won’t talk about the key environmental issue of our time.

http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/554840-hurricane-sandy-satellite-image.jpg

The candidates in this year’s presidential election completely ignored climate change in their debates and their campaigning, even thought it is the most deadly issue facing this country and all humankind. Human beings are dumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning coal, natural gas and petroleum at feverish rates. They have already increased temperatures significantly since 1750, and are on track to put up the average surface temperature of the earth by 5 degrees C. or 9 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century, enough to turn everyplace on earth over time into a sweating tropics, melt all surface ice, and, over the long term, submerge a third of the current land mass. A global state of emergency would be necessary to keep the temperature increase to 2 degrees C. or less, but the window is rapidly closing for this curbing of disaster.
Big oil is pouring money into the Romney campaign or superpacs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/26/chevron-donates-2-5-million-to-gop-super-pac/) supporting him, so as to make sure they keep their tax breaks but those for wind power are abolished. The power of big Carbon money is preventing climate change from being discussed in the campaign, even though it affects every American voter. Romney’s energy policies will cause global disaster, but even Obama doesn’t seem to realize the severity and urgency of the problem (or else he does and feels his hands are tied).
A new study appearing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/10/10/1209542109)that uses accurate tide measurements since 1923 removes any doubt that hurricanes are more frequent and stronger in warm years (http://www.examiner.com/article/climate-change-does-increase-atlantic-hurricane-numbers) (the number of warm years has steadily increased over the past century and especially in the past decade).
[pdf] For every increase of 1 degree Fahrenheit, (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2012/20120105_PerceptionsAndDice.pdf) US hurricanes will likely get 2% stronger (i.e. they are already 5% stronger than 2 centuries ago). In hurricanes, a 5% increase in ferocity matters quite a lot.
One mechanism for the increased severity is that higher temperatures produce more high-altitude clouds (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2008-242), called “deep convective clouds,” associated increased rainfall.
One recent study [pdf] found that torrential downpours in the United States (http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/When%20It%20Rains%2C%20It%20Pours%20vUS.pdf) are occurring a third more often than in 1948. New England has been the worst hit, with torrential downpours 85% more common now than in 1948. Note that these findings are based on actual historical records, and are not a matter of projection.
Across the board, storms are 10% more intense now than when Truman was president.
Hurricanes are a more contentious issue than storms but models show that the speed of hurricane winds could increase by as much as 13 percent over the next century as a result of our production of carbon dioxide, and rainfall rates will increase 10-31 percent in hurricanes. Because of the rising level of the seas, hurricanes will cause larger storm surges.
A Tel Aviv researcher has shown that every one degree increase Celsius produces a 10% increase in lightning (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120710133009.htm), with the attendant dangers of increased forest and other fires.
Those who talk about solar energy being “more expensive” than coal or natural gas are not figuring in the expensiveness of climate change. In many markets, wind and solar are already competitive, and if the damage hydrocarbons are doing to our economy were taken into account, they’d be the only game in town.
One of the many indexes of the failure of American democracy is that our candidates can’t even publicly say the name of our worst nemesis.

© 2012 Juan Cole
https://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imagecache/author_photo/juan_cole.jpg (http://www.commondreams.org/juan-cole)
Juan Cole teaches Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan

[danthepoetman]

Let’s not try too hard to find solutions for our survival, here; we could kill all hope for the rest of our planet’s species…
Who knows if a blue whale or one of the few thousands living chimpanzees are not reading these posts at this very moment.

[Prospero]

Let’s not try too hard to find solutions for our survival, here; we could kill all hope for the rest of our planet’s species…
Who knows if a blue whale or one of the few thousands living chimpanzees are not reading these posts at this very moment.

Reading "at this moment"... on their chimp pads?
or do you mean at some future point when we are extinct and a new civlisation has recovered the digital archive?
or was it just a tad too much of that good whisky?

[Stavros]

According to Stephen Hawking, humans have about 1,000 years left before 'they' trash the planet, thereby creating a need for the revival of Mars or some other habitable spot in space, though what humans do for water I will leave to the Lucasian Prof. Leaving aside his lack of judgement, making his predictions as comical as Malthus, I live in a country sleepwalking into an energy deficit which means domestic power will be in crisis in the next 25 years, which may not be a safe prediction, but I am assuming 25 years is easier to handle than a thousand. Well, unless you have a coalition government that cant make up its mind.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7935505/Stephen-Hawking-mankind-must-move-to-outer-space-within-a-century.html

[trish]

It's not the planet that calls out for salvation but the human soul. Solution: Tell the least corrupted man to build an ark, make it 300 cubits, by 50 cubits by 30 cubits. Then get him to go and and gather etc. etc.

[Stavros]

On a more serious note, I am surprised that someone like Hawking does not acknolwedge how ingenious humans have been in finding solutions for what at various times seem like critical issues that are about to spell the end of society as we know it. There are some real issues in energy, in this country for example because of complacency that has been built on what was once an abundance of North Sea oil and gas, the current row over wind farms does not address the longer term issue of where mass energy sources are going to come from, or become dependent on gas from Russia. I am not so worried about population growth because the informed opinion is that it will peak around 2050 and then decline so that forecasts of the world's population in 2100 are now much smaller than once they were. The regional/local issues will be more critical than the global -drought in the prairies of North America and across the fringes of the Sahel in Africa; floods in the foothills of the Himalayas and so on.

As for boats, I am already too corrupt to be given the task, and as I am no good with my hands I will not be in a boat -not with a pride of lions either. I mean, what are they going to eat?

[trish]

I am surprised that someone like Hawking does not acknolwedge how ingenious humans have been in finding solutions for what at various times seem like critical issues that are about to spell the end of society as we know it.What exactly are the examples? When has science ever saved a civilization from collapse or extinction? Science is the study of nature, not the problems of civilization. It can only unveil the workings of nature one curtain at a time. The problems that are ripe for the picking are ones that we pluck. True, the discoveries that science makes, (because they are working models of the world rather than mere fictions and fantasies) are often quickly put to use (not always good use) by governments and entrepreneurs. The idea that human ingenuity, science and technology will find a way out of our predicaments all to often is used as an excuse to prolong the very practices that undermine our continued security. I think it just as likely (perhaps more likely) that human ingenuity will fail to rise to the occasion.

Energy and climate change go hand in hand. Through our accelerated consumption of fossil fuels we are thickening the blanket of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. We are simply burning up a resource for fuel (that has many other valuable uses) and cooking ourselves with it at the same time. Can we stop? China is opening up fifty new coal plants every month. That’s because at the current rate of consumption China has enough coal to last ten centuries. It’s not enough for technology to make it possible to substitute solar and wind or some other source for fossil fuel, it has to make it cheaper too.

There are nearly seven billion persons on the planet. We would like each one to have a quality standard of living. Does that mean consuming the energy of an average European? That would be a lot of energy. Unless the situation becomes so dire that we start cooperating, or the world is conquered by an empire that forces it to cooperate, I don’t see us significantly curbing our appetite for fossil fuels. Nor if by some miracle seven billion people suddenly switch to solar am I convinced that we won’t quickly discover a downside. We cover the planet. Whatever we do on mass we do on a planetary scale and our on mass actions will have planetary consequences.

We may find, as in the Life of Pi, that the lone survivor in a boat is one who has eaten every other survivor.

[martin48]

It is always a dangerous argument that as we got this far, so we will be OK in the end. Science tells - no doubts - what will happen to the planet (bit of doubt as to exactly when) but it doesn't tell us how to stop the process or find a magic cure. The "stopping" must come from our leaders and ourselves recognising that we can't go on like we are. "Magic cure" - that's the job of us engineers. We gave you Deepwater Horizon and Three Mile Island. We're good!!!

[Prospero]

Yeah - bet the Dinosaurs had the same thought (if they were in any way capable of abstract thought) . We're the biggest, we're the meanest and we've been around forever. Nothing can go wrong no.....

Same with the Neanderthals.

Maybe another species will one day say... foolish Homo Sapiens.

And Chernobyl Martin - don't forget that one.

[Prospero]

Darn it Trish - I've not read The life of Pi and now you've gone and given the end away!

[trish]

Darn it Trish - I've not read The life of Pi and now you've gone and given the end away!
Shit. I'm sorry. I should've given a spoiler alert. If it helps, the book (imo) wasn't really "all that," and given your intellect you probably would have guessed the ending half-way through. But I do apologize.

[martin48]

Pi's irrational anyway

[Prospero]

I was joking.

But the people in the following video aren't. You see lefty scientific intellectuals types like you - bleating about climate change etc - have got it all so very wrong.

Hurricane Sandy was a warning from God to demonstrate what is in store for us all if we don't repent our evil ways. (Other fundamentalist pastors have said it was because of the sinfulness of those in NYC - all the fags and whores etc etc. I got told off in another thread for mentioning it.)

So here is a nice religiousdifferent take on what is happening.

Beisner: Hurricane Sandy Was Sent By God As "A Matter Of Grace" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nl91bjAg8Y&feature=player_embedded)

[trish]

When God wants to talk to us, I think He needs to find a better, less rude, way of getting our attention. How about just a big voice coming out of the clouds saying, "Why haven't you people been persecuting the gays lately?" Still not exactly polite, but it's certainly more efficient in getting the message across.

[Prospero]

sure... but he "moves in mysterious ways."

[trish]

sure... but he "moves in mysterious ways."
The movement you need is on your shoulder___Lennon & McCartney

[Stavros]

What exactly are the examples? When has science ever saved a civilization from collapse or extinction? Science is the study of nature, not the problems of civilization. It can only unveil the workings of nature one curtain at a time. The problems that are ripe for the picking are ones that we pluck. True, the discoveries that science makes, (because they are working models of the world rather than mere fictions and fantasies) are often quickly put to use (not always good use) by governments and entrepreneurs. The idea that human ingenuity, science and technology will find a way out of our predicaments all to often is used as an excuse to prolong the very practices that undermine our continued security. I think it just as likely (perhaps more likely) that human ingenuity will fail to rise to the occasion.


On the one hand many great empires have been and gone; yet on the other hand, much also has survived, and thus in the modern world I offer:

1. The Zuider Zee Project: It was declared by the American Society of Civil Engineers to be one of the Seven Wonders of the Modern World -you might not be impressed by this feat of scientific engineering, the Dutch would say otherwise.
Zuiderzee Works - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuiderzee_Works)

2. The eradication of Smallpox in the 20th century -how many lives saved? They cannot be counted.

3. The creation of Qanats in various regions of the Middle East was a scientific solution to the distribution of water which kept many societies going that would otherwise have upped tent or shack and moved elsewhere.

Three cases where human ingenuity transformed an environment to make it habitable in a way that had been hazardous before, saved lives, and supplied water without which we cannot survive for very long. Your statement Science is the study of nature, not the problems of civilization, is worthless rubbish.

[trish]

Haven't heard of Qanats before. Thanks for example. The Qanats and the Zuider Zee are indeed excellent examples of technological solutions to difficult problems that utilized reasonably well understood principles or the existing science of the time.

The smallpox vaccination is indeed closer to being an example where science itself had to be advanced to solve a serious problem. Human societies were afflicted by smallpox for at least ten millennia before it's eradication. Before coming up with preventive vaccination science had to await the development of the germ theory of disease. The actual eradication of smallpox (impossible without the vaccination and the science that led to it) was a large cooperative project of world governments, charities and medical organizations more akin to an enormous engineering project than science.

But your examples do show that at some crucial times in the past human ingenuity, commitment and cooperation have solved huge problems that threatened, the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of individuals. In all these examples it took more than science. It took more than engineering. It also took commitment to the project and cooperation in carrying it out. Two things that are missing in the current energy/climate equation.

[Ben]

Maybe Limbaugh is right. And all the climate scientists are wrong. So, maybe we should base and decide public policy on what Limbaugh believes. It's a very rational and democratic way to go about things -- ;) :)

Rush Limbaugh Laughs in the Face of Climate Change, Hurricane Sandy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTTp7ZFqDtM&feature=plcp)

[JamesHunt]

Vote for Obama, fight climate change: N.Y. Mayor Bloomberg



A vote for Barack Obama is a vote to combat climate change, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in an endorsement of the Democratic president published Thursday, as his city struggled to recover from superstorm Sandy.


http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2012/11/01/vote-for-obama-fight-climate-change-n-y-mayor-bloomberg/

[Stavros]

Haven't heard of Qanats before. Thanks for example. The Qanats and the Zuider Zee are indeed excellent examples of technological solutions to difficult problems that utilized reasonably well understood principles or the existing science of the time.

The smallpox vaccination is indeed closer to being an example where science itself had to be advanced to solve a serious problem. Human societies were afflicted by smallpox for at least ten millennia before it's eradication. Before coming up with preventive vaccination science had to await the development of the germ theory of disease. The actual eradication of smallpox (impossible without the vaccination and the science that led to it) was a large cooperative project of world governments, charities and medical organizations more akin to an enormous engineering project than science.

But your examples do show that at some crucial times in the past human ingenuity, commitment and cooperation have solved huge problems that threatened, the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of individuals. In all these examples it took more than science. It took more than engineering. It also took commitment to the project and cooperation in carrying it out. Two things that are missing in the current energy/climate equation.

I just don't think you can separate science from civilisation; the precise relationship can often be hostile -consider Galileo and the Catholic Church as one example-and, for all its thousands of years of duration, the civilisation of China produced in Mao Zedong a man with no real knowledge of science, and the mad ideas that sprang up -for example during the Great Leap Forward which led to the deaths of maybe 30 million- were a depature from 'normal science' (in fact you can't develop a steel industry in someone's back yard) and when real scientists were too afraid to speak -and yet the same relationship produced the Pyramids in Egypt and Central America, and there are all the latter achievements of other civilisations and empires, European or not in architecture, engineering, medicine and so forth. I have an idea that when Empires have declined, collapsed, or withered away, science was not a leading factor, but politics. Military science made the First World War longer and more destructive than its Generals had believed would be the case, but it was the politics that started (and ended) the war. It is, nevertheless, an important and fascinating problem that Niall Ferguson, in his irritating way addressed in his book/tv series Civilisation -flawed in my view.

I don't think the long term future of the species if at risk, as long as one doesn't call long term a billion years or however long the sun survives; ultimately, humanity is doomed unless it can find another planet to live on; but I do think that the energy transition away from fossil fuels will be as important a challenge as the provision of water for humans. Other issues, like halting forest clearances, can be dealt with now -but again that's politics, not science. Even if the Arctic is opened up and free from sea ice, the total volume of oil and gas is on unreliable estimates less than the total reserves of the Middle East discovered since 1908. If fossil fuels decline by 2100 to be what they were in say 1900, I assume the green fanatics will be vindicated and with a declining world population, planet earth in 2150 may actually be a cool place to hang out in. Minus Polar Bears, whales, tigers and other wild animals...

[danthepoetman]

Forget it, people: we’re doomed, and it’s ok too. We’ll leave what remaining species we spared a good breather.

[trish]

I didn’t intend to say science was separate from civilization, rather that at any given moment science is only equipped to solve that problems that are amenable to the current knowledge of science. That was what I was attempting to say when I pointed out that smallpox had been around for ten thousand years before medical science discovered the germ theory of disease and acquired a vague idea of how immunity against disease works. Only then did the notion of inoculation occur to Dr. Jenner. The eradication of smallpox could not have been accomplished without Dr. Jenner, but Dr. Jenner alone was powerless to eradicate smallpox. The eradication took an effort as huge as a wordwide military campaign. That’s what it’s going to take to solve the energy/climate problem.

Science has informed us of climate change due to greenhouse gas emission. It’s fairly well understood science...not really Nobel Laureate sort of stuff. What is new is the scale of human interaction with the planet due to industrialization, the worldwide adoption of modern technology, modern lifestyles and of course the logistically increasing population which is still in exponential phase. The scale of human intervention is now planetary. Humans have inadvertantly begun terraforming the planet (just the way photosynthesizing plants accidently terraformed the Earth hundreds of millions of years ago adding oxygen to an atmosphere that virtually had none). Only a planetary scale intervention can restore and stabilize the climate.

We now know of a number of sources of energy: solar, gravitational (e.g. hydroelectric), wind, nuclear and fossil fuels. Some of them are ancient and some of them relatively modern. Neanderthals knew they could warm themselves in the Sun and Victorians brewed solar tea, but modern technology has given us the solar cell. Will science find a brand new source? What if there isn’t any? Will engineers invent a new technology to develop an old but unexpected source (perhaps we can sap energy from the Earth’s rotation and at the same time length the workday)? Or will engineers develop a new super-efficient, super cheap solar cell? It’s possible, but it’s no sure thing either. Scientists will continue to do science, and engineers will continue to work on energy solutions. But we need to be prepared for the most likely scenario: that no such miracle will be immediately forthcoming. The world needs to cooperate and commit itself to energy conservation, the discontinuation of greenhouse gas emissions, the continued development of solar, wind, hydro and nuclear sources of energy.

The average U.S. citizen consumes energy at an annual rate of about 340 million BTU. That’s about 11 kilowatts of power. Presumably we want every person on the planet (there are 7 billion of us) to enjoy a quality of life equal to our own. If that means every one on the planet should be able to draw power at the same rate an American does, then we need to produce 2.4 quintillion BTUs of energy annually (410 trillion barrels of oil, which is about 20 times the estimated amount of oil on the planet).

What this says to me is that we have already acclimated ourselves to a world with severe economic inequities. Developing countries with huge fossil fuel deposits will continue to extract those reserves for their own economic development or to fill the pockets of their dictators. The western world will continue to consume. As fossil fuels become rare they will become more valuable and the rate of their extraction will increase. At some point fossil fuels will become too expensive for industry to rely upon. At that point gas, oil and coal companies will have already diversified into more profitable pursuits. The switch to other fuels will already be in progress but the overall production will already have been on the decline. The coasts will have already moved further inland, the world population will be in the tens of billions and the quality of life for the 99% will be miserable. It won’t be the end of the world. We won’t be in danger of extinction. It won’t be the wonderful wild west anarchism that survivalists who stockpile food and guns fantasize about. We’ll simply go on living normal lives, consuming less, having less, knowing less while putting up with more and more stress and strife.

[Stavros]

I agree with most of what you say, Trish, except that the world's population is not expected to grow beyond 10 billion max, and then is projected to decline (see this link).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/mar/20/last-century-of-youth-sarah-harper-video?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3486

I also don't think the major independent oil companies can be relied on to diversify because they tried it in the 1970s and then sold off their non-core businesses in the 1980s and 1990s because they were not profitable. I also think a positive spin on solar energy will happen when the problems of technology, storage, mass production are solved, and I think they will be, but not soon, and not soon enough. In practical terms, policies that can be adopted now, are the end of deforestation in South America, Indonesia and parts of Russia which has to stop or those places will end up looking like Mars. Fundamentally, the politics is still weak, denial is strong. But the issues won't go away.

[trish]

In population studies fertility stands for relative birth rate. First world economies tend to have lower fertility than third world economies. If quality of life improves around the world we can expect fertility to decline and yes perhaps the world population will stabilize at ten billion. But if we don’t resolve our energy/climate issues, then can we count a worldwide improvement in the quality of life?


In practical terms, policies that can be adopted now, are the end of deforestation in South America, Indonesia and parts of Russia which has to stop or those places will end up looking like Mars. Fundamentally, the politics is still weak, denial is strong. But the issues won't go away. Agreed.

[Stavros]

In population studies fertility stands for relative birth rate. First world economies tend to have lower fertility than third world economies. If quality of life improves around the world we can expect fertility to decline and yes perhaps the world population will stabilize at ten billion. But if we don’t resolve our energy/climate issues, then can we count a worldwide improvement in the quality of life?

Agreed.

If you watched Sarah Harper's talk in the link she does point out that infertility is a growing issue and a key indicator of the general slowing of population growth over the long term; and that Vietnam has a declining fertility/increasing infertility rate -is Vietnam a 'third world economy'? I thought that third world was now a distant memory.

[trish]

Demongraphers agree that fertility is in decline in many regions of the world. Some nations are even alarmed by their falling fertility rates and attempting to put in place incentives to halt the drop (e.g. Putin). There is less agreement on the cause of fertility decline. Most likely fertility rate is a complex response to economic and political conditions. Perhaps it is no longer true that poorer populations see larger families as insurance against destitution in old age. In some regions the drop in fertility may be a response to perceived overpopulation.

Modern technology also has a role to play. As you mentioned, Vietnam has declining fertility. This seems to be due to parents being able to prenatally select sons over daughters. The deliberate “masculinization” of the population has the effect of lowering the overall population’s fertility. Interestingly, even though Vietnam has declining fertility, it’s population is expected to grow through the decade. This is because their “baby boomers” are in their child bearing years.

http://vietnam.unfpa.org/public/pid/5880

If the future sees a substantial decrease in the world’s supply of affordable energy, and if this is concomitant with the frequency and magnitude of climatic disasters what will be the effect on fertility? Will large families once again become valuable insurance against hard times? Or will large families be too expensive to maintain? Will plagues devastate our populations or will populations rebound exponentially. The current demographics (imo) can only tell us the trend all things being equal. My point is that diminishing energy supplies and climate change do not meet the “all things being equal” criterion.