It is a concern, and the Bush Administration still wont budge. The thing he mentioned about climate change and the need for alternative sources...he's been saying that for years. Where has it taken us? These American companies that are doing so poorly really need to work on making some more alternative fuel powered vehicles and hybrids..that may save them in the future. Toyota and Honda have surpassed them in making quality..reliable and fairly affordable hybrids. The Bush Administation also refused to allow caps on carbon dioxide emissions...which they claim will hurt our economy. Uh if we get to developing more alternative energy sources maybe our economy will actually get better..it will force them to work harder at it.

Here's the bottom line:

Are we having an effect on the environment?
-Yes

Are all of the "climate changes" we are experiencing solely the fault of us humans?
-There is absolutely no way to be 100% certain.

Should we continue our current environmental policies since there is no definitive way to show we are causing climate change?
-Hell no, change now.

Should we change our environmental policies to be political and economic death sentences?
-Hell no.


In the end it's called "compromise" mother f*ckers.

We're never going to agree if there is a change in the Earths average temperatures caused by the actions of men. We can however, say we are going through a time of climate change that may have been impacted by the activities of humans.

We're also not going to be able to cut every freaking hazardous chemical, and we can't continue to spew the shit we do out of our factories. However, we can compromise and find a middle road.


I just hear so much talk about people being for or against global warming, as far as being the fault of man. Why can't we just say we're people that are witnessing a climate change, that may be in part to human activity, that needs to be taken care of through moderation, not elimination.

--Sorry, I'm a bit "goofy" right now, if some of this makes sense, I've done better than I thought I would.

I know humans are causing severe damage to the biosystem of Earth. I dont like how instead of focusing on the damage done by us on forests, water, ecosystems, release of pollution, chemicals, overpopulation - media instead focuses on fossil fuel emissions which are the least of the problems according to the historic weather records. Its much more important for us to immediately halt destruction of forests, halt pollution of environment, abuse of resources, stop release of chemicals and pathogens, etc. etc. etc.

CO2 and other gases makes up less than 1% of our atmosphere today (atmosphere is mostly nitrogen/oxygen). As far as 1 million years ago the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was significantly higher. In dinosaur era, it was as high as 1/3 of atmospheric content.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium These graphs are more accurate than your media's whining. They'ew historical weather records, 99% accurate (just like tree's rings can tell a lot about what kind of weather happened durind its lifetime). Especially this one: These are based on ice core samples taken from around the world, particularly in Greenland and Antarctica. All have shown similarities and have perfectly matched the previous natural disasters like massive volcanic eruptions - the dust travelled all around the world and settled even in those glaciers, and then part of historical record. These graphs clearly show that we should be experiencing warming trends followed by an ice age, but not anytime soon, perhaps several thousands years away.

I still call bullshit. My TI-81 can draw better graphs than that. What the hell precession and eccentricity? I have a pretty eccentric neighbor--she spraypaints her cats pink.

Actually, what conclusion am I to draw from your claims? That natural evolutionary climate change is the reason we have a warming climate? Or that mankind is causing it? You can't have it both ways. If both phenomena were occurring at the same time, I'd expect all of those sine and cosine waves to greater in amplitude or frequency or something.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I still call bullshit. My TI-81 can draw better graphs than that. What the hell precession and eccentricity? I have a pretty eccentric neighbor--she spraypaints her cats pink. Actually, what conclusion am I to draw from your claims? That natural evolutionary climate change is the reason we have a warming climate? Or that mankind is causing it? You can't have it both ways. If both phenomena were occurring at the same time, I'd expect all of those sine and cosine waves to greater in amplitude or frequency or something.

Sigh ... I already stated that I am sure humans are having a horrible effect on this planet, and we're screwing up the planet. At the same time the evidence of climate change happening right now according to Earth cycles is undeniable. Its a natural cycle - climate change, that is. This is not the same as damage done by humans to Earth and its effects. I thought you were the kind of guy who believes in hard evidence and is not a conspiracy theorist

Here's the beef - I support that humans are having a terrible effect on Earth, causing a lot of destruction, damage, pollution etc., but at the same time climate change has a pattern of its own recorded by deep-core ice glaciers around the world. So suit yourself when you talk about global warming ;-)

Here, read some more Wikipedia info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum

From above link:

quote:

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3-9°C and summer of 2-6°C in northern central Siberia)[1]. Northwestern Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south.[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C. In terms of the global average, the typical shift was probably between 0.5 and 2 °C warmer than the mid-20th century (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). At 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6°±0.8°C higher than present. Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide ice sheet still chilled the continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later.[3] West African sediments additionally record the "African Humid Period", an interval between 16,000 and 6,000 years ago when Africa was much wetter due to a strengthening of the African monsoon by changes in summer radiation resulting from long-term variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun. During this period, the Saharan desert was dotted with numerous lakes containing typical African lake crocodile and hippopotamus fauna. A curious discovery from the marine sediments is that the transitions into and out of this wet period occurred within decades, not millennia as previously thought.[

^^^ It was warmer 5000 years ago than now ;-)

quote:

Many estimates of past temperatures have been made over Earth's history. The field of paleoclimatology includes ancient temperature records. As the present article is oriented toward recent temperatures, there is a focus here on events since the retreat of the Pleistocene glaciers. The 10,000 years of the Holocene epoch covers most of this period, since the end of the Northern Hemisphere's Younger Dryas millennium-long cooling. The Holocene Climatic Optimum was generally warmer than the 20th century, but numerous regional variations have been noted since the start of the Younger Dryas.

^^^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

This is from 2005 and still people still debate the fact humans are indeed changing the climate.


http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html#aaas
New evidence extends greenhouse gas record from ice cores by 50 percent, adding 210,000 years
American Association for the Advancement of Science release
24-Nov-2005

Today's atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are highest in 650,000 years, Science studies say

With the first in-depth analysis of the air bubbles trapped in the “EPICA Dome C” ice core from East Antarctica, European researchers have extended the greenhouse gas record back to 650,000 years before the present.

This 210,000-year extension of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane records -- encompassing two full glacial cycles -- should help scientists better understand climate change and the nature of the current warm period on Earth. The record may also aid researchers in reducing uncertainty in predictions of future climate change and help to clarify when humans began significantly changing the balance of greenhouse gasses in Earth’s atmosphere.

quote:

PARIS, Feb. 2 — In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is “unequivocal” and that human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950. They said the world was in for centuries of climbing temperatures, rising seas and shifting weather patterns — unavoidable results of the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. But their report, released here on Friday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said warming and its harmful consequences could be substantially blunted by prompt action.

Unequivocal. That's a pretty strong term to use for something that's supposedly not entirely certain, don't cha think?

One might believe that with such language, our world's leading scientists are, oh, kinda certain that the result is man-made.

How certain?:

quote:

The report is the panel’s fourth assessment since 1990 on the causes and consequences of climate change, but it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming in the past half century. In its last report, in 2001, the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, said the confidence level for its projections was “likely,” or 66 to 90 percent. That level has now been raised to “very likely,” better than 90 percent. Both reports are online at www.ipcc.ch. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/s...4QTYU/PW/U4bPjA

Sorry, but when the world's leading scientists jump from a 2/3 certainty to a 90% certainty, that's more than a bit telling. That's downright fucking alarming, and we should be paying more attention.

Unequivocal.

This coincides with what nearly every climatologist has been saying over the years, including papers such as this:

quote:

In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)]. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...l/306/5702/1686

To which they certainly are not alone:

quote:

In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

Also include the National Research Council:

quote:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html

The American Geophysical Union's statement:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/c...e_position.html

And the Joint statement on the Science of Climate Change, issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK):

quote:

In May 2000, at the InterAcademy Panel (IAP) meeting in Tokyo, 63 academies of science from all parts of the world issued a statement on sustainability in which they noted that “global trends in climate change … are growing concerns” and pledged themselves to work for sustainability – meeting current human needs while preserving the environment and natural resources needed by future generations2. It is now evident that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change. Business as usual is no longer a viable option. http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619

The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London.

quote:

Global climate change is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development – and even survival - of humanity. Here, we give the context obtained from earth history, as the pattern of global environmental change in the past provides an indispensable context to establishing likely trajectories of future climate change. We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling. http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template....l_Warming_Essay

The Geological Society of America:

quote:

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm

Just to name a few more.

But let's not allow that to deter those "dissenters". Take a look at the so-called skeptics. Lee Raymoond, former CEO of ExxonMobile who received hundreds of millions for his retirement who's funded a great many folks to speak disagreements with the majority scientific consensus, who sits on the board of the American Enterprise Institute (everyone's favorite ultra Right-wing conservative thinktank) and who chairs Bush's appointed committee of America's Alternative Energy Future. This is what those wonderful Bush backing oily friends have to say:

quote:

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today. Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered. The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment. The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees. http://environment.guardian.co.uk/c...2004397,00.html

You can examine the bribe letter

here.

Whom to believe? Decisions, decisions.........

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

This is stupid. The whole global warming crap is dumb. Why? I strongly believe its a well-oiled campaign to shift attention away from REAL destruction and damage to Earth through deforestation, pollution, overpopulation, ecological and environmental genocide and just blame it on fossil fuel emissions. Enough with that crap. Global warming is not a threat, we are a threat.

Global warming is just someone's way to take the spotlight off human destruction of the planet's ecosystems and blame fossil fuel emissions for it. Not smart.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

If global warming/cooling/climate change/deforestation/pollution/environmental suicide/etc is man made who here will volunteer to see to it that there is a balance in nature? Who will sacrifice their life so that a tree grows in Brooklyn? That a flower blossoms in the plains of the midwest? Any takers?

Because whenever someone comes up with the tree hugging nonsense they never seek to look for the solution. The solution would be for genocide. After all the Georgia Guidestones call for a "balance" of 500,000,000 people on the planet. Who out of the 5.5bn difference will be the first to go?

It's bad enough people die from disease, famine, war and government (democide), now people want you to die for earth.

What's even worse is that people who claim their Christian or Jewish or that the earth was created by God; don't see that they are silently claiming that Gods' creation of earth is flawed, or that God would break the Noachic covenant.

I've lived near bodies of water all my life. There is no rising of any water levels near I live for as long as I can remember or anyone has ever told me.

Man people are so easy. No wonder they're slaves when they think they're free.

Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Taken from the film Blade Runner.

___________________

Last edited by ogvh5150 on Feb-04-2007 at 20:13

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 If global warming/cooling/climate change/deforestation/pollution/environmental suicide/etc is man made who here will volunteer to see to it that there is a balance in nature? Who will sacrifice their life so that a tree grows in Brooklyn? That a flower blossoms in the plains of the midwest? Any takers? Because whenever someone comes up with the tree hugging nonsense they never seek to look for the solution. The solution would be for genocide. After all the Georgia Guidestones call for a "balance" of 500,000,000 people on the planet. Who out of the 5.5bn difference will be the first to go? It's bad enough people die from disease, famine, war and government (democide), now people want you to die for earth. What's even worse is that people who claim their Christian or Jewish or that the earth was created by God; don't see that they are silently claiming that Gods' creation of earth is flawed, or that God would break the Noachic covenant. I've lived near bodies of water all my life. There is no rising of any water levels near I live for as long as I can remember or anyone has ever told me. Man people are so easy. No wonder they're slaves when they think they're free. Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave. Taken from the film Blade Runner.

Population of the world is rising dramatically. World weather patterns have become extreme because of ice caps melting. Sooner or later (this has been seen already) this will result in food production disruptions and many more people will have to die anyway, often through war, disease, violence, social degredation. It is destined to happen one way or another. Population control failed in China with their doomed one-child policy. Its over ;-) many millions of people will die this century one way or another. Earth is getting very exhausted, and the Little Ice Age that happened in 1500s-1800s showed what can happen. French Revolution, for example, happened after failed crops and people taking up arms overthrowing the government.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium This is stupid. The whole global warming crap is dumb. Why? I strongly believe its a well-oiled campaign to shift attention away from REAL destruction and damage to Earth through deforestation, pollution, overpopulation, ecological and environmental genocide and just blame it on fossil fuel emissions. Enough with that crap. Global warming is not a threat, we are a threat. Global warming is just someone's way to take the spotlight off human destruction of the planet's ecosystems and blame fossil fuel emissions for it. Not smart.

I disagree. All those problems you mentioned are very threatening, to be certain, and must also be addressed accordingly. But I would contend that the consequences of global warming are just as, if not more equally dire and threatening to our existence. I understand fully the consequences of ecological destruction via pollution, deforestation, population depletion, and so forth (undergrad. degree in Biology with a minor in Ecology), and perhaps you have a point that such areas are underemphasized. I think it's pretty difficult to sell to the population the consequences of depleting something like coral reefs and how that effects the entire ocean and even land ecosystem as a whole. Hell it's hard enough to sell to the public the effects of even one level of ecological devastation, let alone the domino effect on every other one.

But with all that said, I don't think we should be dismissive of the real tragedy brewing with global warming effects either.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Population of the world is rising dramatically. World weather patterns have become extreme because of ice caps melting. Sooner or later (this has been seen already) this will result in food production disruptions and many more people will have to die anyway, often through war, disease, violence, social degredation. It is destined to happen one way or another. Population control failed in China with their doomed one-child policy. Its over ;-) many millions of people will die this century one way or another. Earth is getting very exhausted, and the Little Ice Age that happened in 1500s-1800s showed what can happen. French Revolution, for example, happened after failed crops and people taking up arms overthrowing the government.

I've agreed with you on other threads, but not this one.

But you're not answering the question:

If the earth would be better off with less people would you take a bullet for it? You were talking about destiny. You are going to die one day. How about taking one for the team now?

There are homeless and hungry people in this world should you try to feed them or kill them?
Or is it more important for a tree to grow than a baby?

If you had a can of dog food as your only source of nutrition between you and your dog, would you chose your dogs' life over your own?

Everyone is fine with the death penalty until it is them one day at the gallows wondering just what were they thinking.

___________________