DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on February 01, 2007, 11:54:38 PM
-
http://www.yahoo.com/s/135781/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change
"...using their strongest language yet on the issue — said now that world has begun to warm, hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution. The report also....[/quote
-
The planet is warming up, probably at least in part because of something humans have done.
The ratwing keeps insisting that because MAYBE this is a natural phenomena, therefore there is nothing humans can do to slow down or even off or reduce it.
That is what I would call a bogus assumption. If less CO2 will slow global warming, then this is what should be done.
-
The planet is warming up, probably at least in part because of something humans have done.
The ratwing keeps insisting that because MAYBE this is a natural phenomena, therefore there is nothing humans can do to slow down or even off or reduce it.
That is what I would call a bogus assumption. If less CO2 will slow global warming, then this is what should be done.
Why?
What could be done that would be effective?
Shut down all of Chinas coal mines and all of Europes oil supplys and you still have a warming trend.
Perhaps we should consider becomeing proactive , one of my favoriate ideas is to plant a lot of trees where it is possible , preserve standing trees where that is possible and fertilise the open ocean ocean in the central pacific to encourage photo plancton.
If the rate of CO2 use by plants wre increased the problem would be reduced by just that much and the same effort would produce fruit ,lumber and fish that could employ and feed people.
-
The problem with the whole global warming thing is the way it has been marketed. Nothing like dismissive us vs them tactics to rally the troops to your side. I know , lets alienate all the SUV and truck drivers and then expect them to feel shamed into joining your team.
Best way to get Joe six pack on your side is let him think that his factory will have to shut down in order to meet emission standards and then tell him by the way the guys who will get your job live in China or India and they are exempt from those same emission standards.
Why not tap into rural Americas love of the land by convincing them the way to slow global warming is by conserving energy and going back to living off the land and that includes things like solar and wind power.
Tap into their natural anti establishment mentality by urging them to get off the grid.
But no, these idiots wrap their rhetoric in soybean and tofu and expect everyone to jump, because they are better than us and certainly know better.
-
How about Soil bank and reforestation measures?
Not just for us , but for places that are dieing for lak of tree like Hati?
-
How about Soil bank and reforestation measures?
Not just for us , but for places that are dieing for lak of tree like Hati?
Fine by me.
-
I listened to Daryl Hannah (sp) talk about living 'off the grid' on a late night show. I had never heard that phrase. It was cool, she was asked about it and she answered. Didn't preach. But it sounded like you had to have a bunch of money to do it.
-
There is a guy in Vermont who has been weaning himself and his family of the grid.Comes up with some very creative solutions, most of his investment pays for itself in 3 years and he is 95% off the grid. He writes a blog for Popular Mechanics and chronicles it there. Where there is a will there is a way.
-
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/energy_family_news/
-
I listened to Daryl Hannah (sp) talk about living 'off the grid' on a late night show. I had never heard that phrase. It was cool, she was asked about it and she answered. Didn't preach. But it sounded like you had to have a bunch of money to do it.
Yes you have. I've used that phrase a bunch of times.
Get "Mother Earth News" - there are articles about people getting off the grid in every issue. I remember one article from 3 or 4 years ago, written by an older lady. She went through a divorce, and used her settlement from that (like $10,000) to buy a piece of property and build a house that was off the grid. She ended up with a mortgage-free house & property after spending only about $4,500. It did require a lot of sacrifices and hard work on her part.
There are stories like these in every issue. This month has a couple in Ontario who built their own home, 2,500 square foot, for $87,500. The story is about how they paid for it all while they were building, so that it was free of a mortgage when they moved in.
-
The report actually says warming of the climate is unequivocal, not just very likely. It is the human activities effect that is very likely, or as the report says "leading to very high confidence....." Very high confidence is then defined as a 9 out of 10 chance of beng correct. The report in full: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Re Off the Grid: A good read is 'Better Off' by Eric Brende. As the dust jacket blurb says: "....steering clear of dogma, never sounding like a sanctimonious scold...." for those of us who like these things unsullied by agendas. http://www.off-grid.net/index.php?p=376/
-
The problem with the whole global warming thing is the way it has been marketed. Nothing like dismissive us vs them tactics to rally the troops to your side. I know , lets alienate all the SUV and truck drivers and then expect them to feel shamed into joining your team.
Best way to get Joe six pack on your side is let him think that his factory will have to shut down in order to meet emission standards and then tell him by the way the guys who will get your job live in China or India and they are exempt from those same emission standards.
Why not tap into rural Americas love of the land by convincing them the way to slow global warming is by conserving energy and going back to living off the land and that includes things like solar and wind power.
Tap into their natural anti establishment mentality by urging them to get off the grid.
But no, these idiots wrap their rhetoric in soybean and tofu and expect everyone to jump, because they are better than us and certainly know better.
Yeah, life and death situations really just need good marketing. Look how well the Bush "administration" has done with the "terrorists want to kill you" campaign. It's simple and it strikes fear when played over and over again. What they've done so much better than these fucking dirty hippies is Bush and the gang immediately go out and squash anyone who comes out with any other information to the contrary of their marketing strategy.
Why don't these loser "global warmers" learn?
End of snark.
What you are failing to recognize, BT, is that these are scientists and when they see facts and they have OTHER scientists look at their facts to make sure that what they're seeing is, in fact, what they're seeing, they don't immediately think, "OK, now how are we going to get the public on board for this?" To them, it's evidence that demands change and is not subject to the whims of a childish mindset amongst those who don't study the subject every day.
That's how science works. It's not an arbitrary supposition or personal belief that they must convince everyone else is the correct opinion. It's fact. The sky is blue. The sun is so and so many millions of miles away. That's the difference between scientists and the Bush "administration" who has ulterior motives that must be protected when at odds with science. I'm really surprised that you don't see it this way.
-
The scientific community is split with some saying global warming is cyclical and that the average mans contribution to it is negligible.
You want someone to lose weight yopu don't deride them, you show how a healthy diet is better for them all the way around.
I suspect global warming is more a power issue than some end of the earth crisis. I also believe that mandatory compliance is the surest way to resistance vs the more effective method of gentle persuasion.
Besides why should China and India be exempt for Kyoto anyway?
-
The scientific community is split with some saying global warming is cyclical and that the average mans contribution to it is negligible.
You want someone to lose weight yopu don't deride them, you show how a healthy diet is better for them all the way around.
I suspect global warming is more a power issue than some end of the earth crisis. I also believe that mandatory compliance is the surest way to resistance vs the more effective method of gentle persuasion.
Besides why should China and India be exempt for Kyoto anyway?
The scientific community is perhaps split along the lines of who has gotten a check from Exxon/Mobil and who hasn't but that is where the "split" ends (Oh, that's awesome).
BTW, there were tornadoes in Florida today. They didn't stray into your state, did they? Everything ok? What's with tornadoes in freaking February???
-
They didn't stray into your state, did they?
No we are getting over an icestorm.
What's with icestorms in February?
-
BTW, there were tornadoes in Florida today.
I was making my deliveries to Deland about the time they started coming through. I got National Weather Service warnings about tornado activity in Korona and Favoretta while I was passing through Favoretta on the way to Deland. I hit a calm spot in Deland - those were the only stops where the damned rain quit long enough for me to make my deliveries. On the way back, the radio was blaring warnings about every five minutes. I got a warning about one headed for Bunnell that would have gotten there about the same time I did, so I pulled over at a truck stop and got some coffee, wasted some time to give it time to pass. There was a big wreck on I-4 between Deland and I-95 that shut down about 12 miles of interstate, but that happened after I got through there.
I heard there was quite a bit of damage in Deland, but most of it was further west.
It's Florida.
-
The scientific community is split with some saying global warming is cyclical and that the average mans contribution to it is negligible.
You want someone to lose weight you don't deride them, you show how a healthy diet is better for them all the way around.
I suspect global warming is more a power issue than some end of the earth crisis. I also believe that mandatory compliance is the surest way to resistance vs the more effective method of gentle persuasion.
Besides why should China and India be exempt for Kyoto anyway?
Is the scientific community really that split on this issue? The IPCC report seems to reflect mainstream scientific opinion. The main argument seems to revolve round humans contribution and this report has strong views on this. Sure, some scientists will dissent. The main question is: what is in our long term interests? Is it better to err on the side of caution, accept that inaction MAY result in greater economic, social and political costs down the line, and take firm action now? Or is it better to carry on as we are, act in our short term economic interests and take no action and hope our scientific knowledge increases exponentially to one day know with 100% certainty whether or not human activity is tipping global warming (as opposed to our 90% certainty today) and to trust that the same exponentially increased knowledge will allow us to halt or reverse the damage inflicted if our assumptions prove wrong? With that 10% differential I am inclined to go with the former option. I do not see it as a power issue. How does that benefit anybody except for those holding the balance of power right now?
Ultimately India and China should not be exempt from Kyoto or it's successor treaty. Fact is and I will not bother rehashing the figures, but you know what I am saying, USA is in a unique position today energy consumption wise and from an economic standpoint. To use an expression 'You have yours'. Now 'they want theirs'. Fair enough. Let us, by that I mean not just the USA but Europe, Australasia etc. seek to gently persuade these developing countries. Gentle persuasion is always a good starting point in any argument as you pointed out. What is the best way to do that? By example. Some are calling the IPCC report a tipping point, the alarm bell for the world. Who knows? What we do know is there is a problem of some sort. Do we act on it, do we deny it, do we accept it but argue that if not every nation will act then we will do nothing either, or do we do something pragmatic?
-
Right on, Lyndon.
-
Ultimately India and China should not be exempt from Kyoto
Talk to me when they are no longer exempt.
meantime why wait for government to tell you what to so. Start saving the earth today, yourself. One grenhouse emiision at a a time.
-
Ultimately India and China should not be exempt from Kyoto
Talk to me when they are no longer exempt.
Ditto
-
Ultimately India and China should not be exempt from Kyoto
Talk to me when they are no longer exempt.
meantime why wait for government to tell you what to so. Start saving the earth today, yourself. One grenhouse emiision at a a time.
What steps should the primary emission emitters be taking to bring India and China on board? Seems to me talks are stalled on that point. In the meantime it seems some people are certainly doing what they can in their own way, as are individual states, provinces, regional and state national governments. More power to them. I hope we do not lose sight of the fact that without global governmental cooperation individual efforts, while good and well meaning, are sabotaged if the global will does not exist to act in harmony to combat what is a global problem.
-
Looks like you think the solution is a top down one. Seems to me all long lasting sea changes in attitudes come from the bottom up.
You want to change the world. Do it in chunks you can digest.
-
It isn't government policy that determines how much an American burns fossil fuel , even in China this is more a matter of individual striveing than government policy.
If there were a better choice for heating ones home that didn't burn fossil fuel there would be no need for governments to start fighting their populations to restrict their use of energy.
Solar cells are constantly getting cheaper , as oil grows gradually more expensive , how much gap is left in between the cheapness of oil and coal and the expense of installing silicon shingles that can harvest sunlight?
I hope to build a new house in a few years , I am looking for the best stuff to install.
Lots of insulation , a trombe wall , tankless water heater, solar heat collector etc.
Whatever I find practical I will install whatever is not practical will not become practical by government fiat.
-
<<Looks like you think the solution is a top down one. Seems to me all long lasting sea changes in attitudes come from the bottom up.
<<You want to change the world. Do it in chunks you can digest. >>
That's nuts. AND totally irresponsible. By the time common sense percolates up from the bottom in sufficient numbers to make a difference, the earth will be FUBAR. We need legislation and we need it now.
-
Then pass your stupid legislation. Make meaningless treaties were they trade carbon credits like food stamps. Who are you kidding?
You make my point about how you elites know best.
-
Looks like you think the solution is a top down one. Seems to me all long lasting sea changes in attitudes come from the bottom up.
You want to change the world. Do it in chunks you can digest.
The point is this is a global issue. The IPCC report recognises this. Many individuals, regional, state and national governments and some international bodies recognise this. Those same individuals, regional, state and national governments are doing their little chunks in a digestible manner. Much of that is coming from the bottom up. But, at what point do we recognise that if our individual, local efforts are not supported on a global, intergovernmental level, then our efforts will be subsumed and overwhelmed by global inertia? Why not combine the bottom up approach with a top down approach? Does it have to be one or the other? Bottom up alone is not going to cut it, laudable and necessary as it is without a recognition of the problem from the top down.
-
(http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070201/lester.jpg)
(http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070201/kelley.gif)
-
The US already pollutes less and its increase in greenhoe gasses is decelerateing.
The first world is no longer the worst part of the problem.
The latecomers to the industrial revolution are the growing part of the problem .
Can we bring their standard of liveing up to first word norms( or near enough )through our efforts and theirs without causeing as much percapata pollution as we did ?
If we can't can we reimpose communism on them so that their standard of liveing won't matter?
-
http://extras.sltrib.com/bagley/
-
Lyndon says:The point is this is a global issue.
Then why on earth would you exempt close to 1/3 of the earths population from Kyoto?
Doesn't make sense.
-
Lyndon says:The point is this is a global issue.
Then why on earth would you exempt close to 1/3 of the earths population from Kyoto?
Doesn't make sense.
Hmmmmmm, I have to say you have a slight advantage over me here. It is close to my bedtime, I have just returned from dinner and a couple of drinks, and I am unable to recollect where I did imply that. But let me see if I can give this a go and I hope you will be generous enough to give me a second go round tomorrow if I am completely wrong.
I seem to have said this: "Ultimately India and China should not be exempt from Kyoto or it's successor treaty."
You replied: "Talk to me when they are no longer exempt. "
I replied "What steps should the primary emission emitters be taking to bring India and China on board? Seems to me talks are stalled on that point. In the meantime it seems some people are certainly doing what they can in their own way, as are individual states, provinces, regional and state national governments. More power to them. I hope we do not lose sight of the fact that without global governmental cooperation individual efforts, while good and well meaning, are sabotaged if the global will does not exist to act in harmony to combat what is a global problem."
You replied:" Looks like you think the solution is a top down one. Seems to me all long lasting sea changes in attitudes come from the bottom up.
You want to change the world. Do it in chunks you can digest."
I replied: "The point is this is a global issue. The IPCC report recognises this. Many individuals, regional, state and national governments and some international bodies recognise this. Those same individuals, regional, state and national governments are doing their little chunks in a digestible manner. Much of that is coming from the bottom up. But, at what point do we recognise that if our individual, local efforts are not supported on a global, intergovernmental level, then our efforts will be subsumed and overwhelmed by global inertia? Why not combine the bottom up approach with a top down approach? Does it have to be one or the other? Bottom up alone is not going to cut it, laudable and necessary as it is without a recognition of the problem from the top down."
Conclusion
So, what I said and what I believe are that India and China should be part of either the Kyoto Treaty or whatever its logical successor is (Kyoto may not be the end all and probably will not be). Where did I not say that was the case? Do you agree? I do and I think we should all persuade our rising Giants and potential superpowers to partake in our global debate. I firmly add we cannot expect their cooperation if we, those who have it already, (not singling out US, as I already made clear), do not lead by example. The thrust of your argument seems to be 'If they do not do it why should we?"; The thrust of my argument is " We recognize there is a problem. What should we do to help lead all players on board? That is where our focus should be.
Cheers.
-
If the problem is global the solution should be global. And if a governing body does come up with a palatable plan to halt emissions and reverse trends then all countries should be impacted. Anything else is a deal breaker.
In the meantime there is nothing stopping member nations from setting target thresholds and facillitating retooling to achieve those goals.
And there is nothing stopping Lyndon in the UK or BT in the US from adopting energy conscious technology to lessen their own contribution to the problems.
-
For what it is worth:
The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon
National Post
Friday, February 02, 2007
CREDIT: AFP Getty
ice
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.
Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.
Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.
Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.
The series
Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."
Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."
The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.
In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.
"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
-
If the problem is global the solution should be global. And if a governing body does come up with a palatable plan to halt emissions and reverse trends then all countries should be impacted. Anything else is a deal breaker.
In the meantime there is nothing stopping member nations from setting target thresholds and facillitating retooling to achieve those goals.
And there is nothing stopping Lyndon in the UK or BT in the US from adopting energy conscious technology to lessen their own contribution to the problems.
"If the problem is global the solution should be global."
Agreed in principle. Your main beef seems to be that India and China should not be exempt. In fact India did sign and ratify Kyoto in 2002, though it is exempted from the mainframework of he Treaty. India seeks to rely on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, ie, the major responsibility rests with those who have accumulated emmissions over a long period. China could rely on the same principle but I do not know whether it seeks to. Does USA accept and give credence to that argument?
"In the meantime there is nothing stopping member nations from setting target thresholds and facillitating retooling to achieve those goals."
If I am not mistaken some 100 plus countries are doing this.
"And there is nothing stopping Lyndon in the UK or BT in the US from adopting energy conscious technology to lessen their own contribution to the problems."
I am slightly further East but you are close. Yes, did we not already agree on that point? Without looking back I am not sure, but I thought we already discussed personal responsibility and agreed.
-
Does USA accept and give credence to that argument?
I do not speak for the US, if i did, i would not accept it.
-
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if that turned out to be the case.
Supporting that view, comparable global warming has been observed on other planets in the solar system. If you're looking for a common denominator, solar activity is an obvious suspect.
-
For what it is worth:
The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon
National Post
Friday, February 02, 2007
CREDIT: AFP Getty Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else
I was pretty much tempted to stop reading this article after I read this in the very first sentence:
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else
-
Did you read the article anyway?
-
I understand that most of the signaory countrys are haveing a lot of troubble meeting goals.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12294
I don't know that governmental action is the right place to start , it was never governmental action that made us burn so much coal or gas .
I would expect the government role tob peripheral .
-
I was pretty much tempted to stop reading this article after I read this in the very first sentence:
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else
Here's the rest of the quote:
the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.
So, do you deny that humans have an effect on global warming?
-
Did you read the article anyway?
As you took the trouble to post the article in a thread in which I was participating I would have considered it discourteous of myself not to have taken the time to read it. More than that, I read it a second time as my comprehension of the article on first reading clearly left something to be desired as Amianthus has demonstrated.
Amianthus: Appreciate the catch. Future late night / early morning postings will be considered only under strict medical supervision.