|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Nov 29, 2009 14:07:07 GMT
Climate change is something on par with political ammunition. Like any sport politics is a game , win /lose , left/right , black/white. If you like meaningless victories or loses , then politics , along with football (USA) , baseball , soccer , and any other team sport might be the game for you. You'll know it's a game when you recognize that you must be forced into a particular position , one of the false paradigm "choices" , if it's all as simple right/wrong , black/white...etc , it's only a Game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alrik on Dec 5, 2009 23:24:11 GMT
Saw an article today in a major newspaper of Berlin.
In it farmer told about what they had experienced during the last years.
The summary as the headline was: "More droughts in the summer, more heavy showers in the winter".
It appears that they have already made their own experiences regarding the climate change over the recent years. It is just there, according to them.
Of course a farmer doesn't know whether it is man-made or natural, this climate change.
As a sidenote, there seems to be a correlation of sun spots and our weather ... and the number of spots is currently unusually low ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Dec 6, 2009 5:35:48 GMT
It's so hard to take you seriously, Elliot, when you always quote The Daily Mail. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 7, 2009 1:35:32 GMT
Flix...
Agendas, political and otherwise, doubtless play in. I suspect it's also the case that most people don't understand the science (I know I don't!) and have insufficient knowledge of history to make any kind of reasoned judgement - so instead they pick a side and believe.
Believers are always more fanatical than thinkers. And scientists guarding their research budgets are even more so, it would seem...
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 7, 2009 1:36:20 GMT
It's so hard to take you seriously, Elliot, when you always quote The Daily Mail. Hard to take YOU seriously if you think the only paper I ever quote is the Mail  |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Dec 7, 2009 10:36:59 GMT
The whole thing to me is a hindsight discussion and to the point of who caused what and why rather mute and irrelevant to any solution.
It reminds me of a saying we have on St. Florian (the saint for fires):
"Holy St Florian - spare our house, ignite another!"
The problem we face is that there are changes, and we will have to adapt to them.
Unfortunately the cycles of cause and effect are longer than political election cycles and in addition span generations.
What I see coming is not a programm on long term prevention (or rather a deceleration of the increase), but short term shooting from the hip, building additional (nuclear) power plants to get the energy required for additional cooling/heating and the industrial glass house production of agricultural products - genetically optimized, of course.
What I do not see coming is an understanding that the problems and the solutions of global scale are tackled by humanity as a whole - while it affects all, it will be effected individually with conflicting goals.
I don't know the exact bible quote - but "Submit Earth..." may have been the second best alternative to viewing it as a personalized Gaia, something living, with a long life cycle, but also with the understanding that it can get sick. One could almost say, Earth had been granted a soul, then.
Fact is, Earth changes continuously - we will have to (re-)learn to change with it. The preservation of any status quo living standard or life style will not have any future - static never had in a dynamic world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 7, 2009 12:20:12 GMT
Indeed, Glance.
History proves that the climate changes all the time without any input from us. In medieval times, it was possible to grow grapes in the Thames valley (A thing not possible at any time since as it is too cold), yet by Dickens' time it was possible to skate on the Thames in Winter due to the extreme cold. Couldn't do THAT today, either.
I'm all for combating pollution, as that is sensible, but as for the rest... There are far too many scientists who seem to know nothing of history for me to take their word for anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Dec 7, 2009 15:07:12 GMT
The whole thing to me is a hindsight discussion and to the point of who caused what and why rather mute and irrelevant to any solution. Well, that assumes that there is a problem that needs solving and the Earth isn't just vacillating as it always has, which is part of this 'mute' discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Dec 7, 2009 16:57:27 GMT
I personally am on the side of - While climate change may not be driven mainly by human behaviour. We are certainly affecting it in some way shape or form. And while it may not be desirable for us to go back to pre-fire levels and cycles. It is equally not desirable for us to let things run away until we know exactly what we're getting ourselves in for. And so we should in good conscience try to limit the effect we are having on the natural cycles until we understand what effect our effect is going to have on us.
|
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Dec 7, 2009 22:31:44 GMT
I personally am on the side of - While climate change may not be driven mainly by human behaviour. We are certainly affecting it in some way shape or form. And while it may not be desirable for us to go back to pre-fire levels and cycles. It is equally not desirable for us to let things run away until we know exactly what we're getting ourselves in for. And so we should in good conscience try to limit the effect we are having on the natural cycles until we understand what effect our effect is going to have on us. Second that. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Dec 8, 2009 0:10:36 GMT
I believe Climate change is realistically at the very least linked to humans in some capacity. We won't destroy industry to save the world.
But I am also in the camp that believes climate change is already starting. It is not something that will be stopped at this point by lowering pollution. Basically, I believe we're [Censored]ed.
Sure, we should limit enviromental impact, but for more reasons than just climate change. But yea, we've jump-started an earth event that was to be coming many thousand years from now. Its starting early.
Soooo... Humanity won't die out, but a lot of people may go.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sonar Chicken on Dec 12, 2009 10:42:47 GMT
Someone on a board I frequent mentioned this in retort to a sceptic who posted a big bunch of articles and urls about why global warming is fake:
"What these people are overlooking is what caused the previous warm ups in the Earth's history? Gee, could it be all the carbon dioxide spewed out by volcanoes at times in the Earth's history when it was more geologically active?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 13, 2009 21:39:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Dec 21, 2009 19:02:06 GMT
Copenhagen:
The World's single largest polluter is no longer the United States (hurrah) though this is largely due to them being overshadowed by China now, and in 10 years India. But lets get to the real issue. Copenhagen is a failure.
The summit is a total failure, and environmentalists were unrealistic for expecting anything but. People used wording to hide what they mean. China and India promised to cut their rates in half.... per capita... for future growth. Golly, thats entertaining. Firstly, things these two countries promise are unlikely in this regard to begin with, and secondly, cutting them in half but not really isn't going to help all that much.
The US and the West were wishy-washy again as well. All that was agreed was that the world should not get 2 degrees hotter.
And it will. And it'll probably go further, so who the hell cares what these monkey's in suits promise? Really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Dec 21, 2009 19:28:11 GMT
Copenhagen: The World's single largest polluter is no longer the United States (hurrah) though this is largely due to them being overshadowed by China now, and in 10 years India. Per capita? The US and the West were wishy-washy again as well. All that was agreed was that the world should not get 2 degrees hotter. And it will. And it'll probably go further, so who the hell cares what these monkey's in suits promise? Really. Gooooo politics! I agree with them though. The world really shouldn't get 2 degrees hotter. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Dec 21, 2009 19:31:12 GMT
Basically, Ube, percentage wise they will become twice as good for further pollution, further infrastructure.
And the world shouldn't get two degrees hotter. But it will.
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Dec 22, 2009 2:11:25 GMT
So......what do we do with the snowfall we just got in the east coast of the US....most snow in December in the last 100 years. Got 26-30 inches...just climate change or a fluke??..or just another winter storm.... By the way....Who is El Nino, and what does he want..?? ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Dec 22, 2009 3:06:44 GMT
And yet here in Canada on the West Coast, its literally like early spring right now ss.
Your own short-term weather issues mean very little in the long scale of things ss. Its about following trends.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 22, 2009 4:50:20 GMT
No serious data exists on anything BUT short term change yet, though, Terror.
The rest is speculation and (As recently proven) lies.
The truth appears to be that no-one really has the faintest idea of what is happening, or whether humans have any real effect on any of it. But with the amount of money tied up in the climate change industry, few if any are willing to admit it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Dec 22, 2009 8:22:39 GMT
So I'm sitting here at - 10° C, reading the news that the average temperature of the last 10 years in Germany has risen by 1.6° compared to the 90ties of the past century...
Actually that it will get wamer everywhere is a misconception - global warming will result in more extremes also. So a particularily cold or snowy winter in some areas is no contradiction.
On Kopenhagen - not that I was expecting much, especially knowing that all these figures on reduction are based on data from the last century.
Saying now that we will reduce the pollution by 20% of the 1990 rate, knowing that since then the rate has risen by 40%, is what?
The way discussions are going, wouldn't it be better to make plans what to do when the flood is rising rather than discussing as to who should build dams? Are decreasing rain forests and growing deserts not worth consideration, irrespective of pure weather problems?
Or does someone already have 'a cunning plan'? Like Maledivians will be settled in ice free Greenland when their islands are submerged (That's fair, isn't it - after all it was Danish glacier water that drowned them!^^)
And the territorial debate on Antarctica hasn't even begun yet...
What Kopenhagen certainly showed, is a sad reflection on global politics and its capability to tackle (any) international problems.
|
|
.com
