Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

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

"Things Happen" - Connect the Dots on 5/5/12 - YouTube

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

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/i...e/natural_law/

Climate Change Predictions Made 30 Years Ago Prove Accurate - YouTube

Combat climate change denial -- :)

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

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11118.html

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

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...?newsfeed=true

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/sc...?smid=pl-share

Influence of Oil Giant Exxon Mobil:

Private Empire: Author Steve Coll on State-Like Powers, Influence of Oil Giant Exxon Mobil - YouTube

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yvonne183

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I drive a Prius,

---

What? Too cheap for a Tesla?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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
US Senator Says Global Warming a Political Hoax:

US Senator Says Global Warming a Political Hoax - YouTube
Perry suggests global warming is a hoax:

Perry suggests global warming is a hoax - YouTube

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

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

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

Unlike, say, David Suzuki:

David-Suzuki-speaks-about-climate-change-the-reasons-&-effects - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InHouston

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InHouston

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.

HIgh School Student Suing Over Global Warming - YouTube

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/wo...irds.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/...ust-slow-down/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...redibly-828597

900 dolphins, 5,000 birds Dead In Peru 2012 - YouTube

MASS BIRD DIE-OFF: 7300 Birds Found Mysteriously Dead in Chile and Peru?! - YouTube

Catastrophy for Dolphins in Peru - YouTube

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

Derrick Jensen - Endgame - YouTube

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=eQ2tM...ayer_embedded#!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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=eQ2tM...ayer_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

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

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/20...n/kolbert-text

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/20...alberta-canada

Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Secret Iran Sales:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...ran-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."

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

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

Life Inc. Dispatch 06: Why Corporations Hate the Free Market - YouTube

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).

ConocoPhillips on Climate Change:

http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/sus...ges/index.aspx

GE Ecomagination VP Mark Vachon on Climate Change and Energy Solutions - YouTube

'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 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 "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-...html?ref=green

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

I'm more concerned with water pollution...

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

the honey bee die offs

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.