mustang_sallad Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Hey, I just read something that I found interesting and thought would be good to add to this thread. The Stern Review (wikipedia) was released last October in response to a report made by Nigel Lawson who was complaining about the Kyoto Protocol, saying there were "substantial scientific uncertainties surrounding climate change." So this Stern Review by the British government found that the potential costs of climate change far exceed the costs of a program to stabilize the climate. Regardless of all the previous debate in this thread, this brings up a good point. Even if there's a chance that things are gonna be alright, and we shouldn't be worried about climate change, it makes a lot of sense to put in the relatively small amount of time and effort now compared to what we'd have to deal with in the case that things are headed the way a lot of us think they are. Its kinda like the design process with a new car. You think there might be problems early on in the design process, you gotta take care of them early on. If you wait till you've already got an early prototype on the road to be sure you've got a problem to fix, its gonna cost a hell of a lot to fix the problem at that point. If you foresaw the problem earlier on in the design process, you coulda saved a lot of wasted time and money. Its like, there's a chance that if we don't do anything now, this could come around to bite us in the ass, so lets invest some time and effort now to make sure we're doing what we can to insure a good future for our kids. Not too far off from a lot of the reasoning behind sending our troops to far away places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 I agree Mustang, most ppl. have fire insurance yet there is less than a 1% chance of a home fire. as for the debate over mad having an effect on global climate change well, I am done with that one. The IPPC report came out friday, for me it's not IF, it's what do we do about it? As a species, our ability to create technology is exceded only by our inability to use it responsibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Selby Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Just wondering. Thousands of years ago who was to blame for the melting of the glaciers now known as the Great Lakes? Global Warming or what ever they want to call it seems like nature just doing it's thing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang_sallad Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Just wondering. Thousands of years ago who was to blame for the melting of the glaciers now known as the Great Lakes? Global Warming or what ever they want to call it seems like nature just doing it's thing to me. You're right that the earth's climate has always been changing, its just that it's changing faster than it ever has before right now, and that makes it hard for both people and the rest of nature to adapt to these changes quickly enough. Just think of quickly rising sea levels and what that implies for low lying regions like in florida and louisiana, not to mention huge populations in the rest of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 From yesterday's Economist, an excellent summary of the recent UN report on climate change. Here are the numbers, what do we do about them? GLOBAL WARMING Feb 2nd 2007 A gloomy UN-backed report is published. THE fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in Paris on Friday February 2nd, is important, unsurprising and will probably be uncontroversial. It is important because the IPCC is the body set up under the auspices of the United Nations so that governments should have an agreed view of the science on which to base policy. It is unsurprising because, while some of the figures differ from those in the third assessment report published in 2001, the changes are minimal and its broad conclusion, that something serious is happening and man is in part responsible, remains the same (though the authors now say that man is "very likely" responsible, rather than just "likely"). It will probably be uncontroversial because the few remaining climate-change sceptics prepared to speak out against the consensus argue not so much about the climate science as about its consequences. Those arguments will take place mostly around the IPCC's two follow-up reports, to be published later this year, on the impact of climate change and on what to do about it. Part of the report's job is to consider studies of the speed of change so far. Warming seems to be accelerating somewhat. Eleven out of the dozen years from 1995-2006 were among the 12 hottest years since 1850, when temperatures were first widely recorded. So the estimate for the average increase in global temperature for the past century, which the third assessment report put at 0.6C, has now risen to 0.74C. The sea level, which rose on average by 1.8mm a year in 1961-2003, went up by an average of 3.1mm a year between 1993-2003. The numbers are still small, but the shape of the curve is worrying. And because the deadline for scientific papers to be included in the IPCC's report was some time ago, its deliberations have excluded some alarming recent studies on the acceleration of glacier melt in Greenland. Some trends now seem clear. North and South America and northern Europe are getting wetter; the Mediterranean and southern Africa drier. Westerly winds have strengthened since the 1960s. Droughts have got more intense and longer since the 1970s. Heavy rainfall, and thus flooding, has increased. Arctic summertime sea ice is decreasing by just over 7% a decade. In some areas where change might be expected, however, nothing much seems to be happening. Antarctic sea ice, for instance, does not seem to be shrinking, probably because increased melting is balanced by more snow. The other part of the report's job is to make predictions about what will happen to the climate. In this, it illustrates a curious aspect of the science of climate change. Studying the climate reveals new, little-understood, mechanisms: as temperatures warm, they set off feedback effects that may increase, or decrease, warming. So predictions may become less, rather than more, certain. Thus the IPCC's range of predictions of the rise in the temperature by 2100 has increased from 1.4-5.8C in the 2001 report to 1.1-6.4C in this report. That the IPCC should end up with a range that vast is not surprising given the climate's complexity. But it leaves plenty of scope for argument about whether it's worth trying to do anything about climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Waves freeze as they hit the beach in Newfoundland. Because it's so warm outside right? lol Additionaly Anchorage is buried under more than 74 inches of winter snow, a new record for them. http://www.break.com/index/newfoundland_frozen_waves.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang_sallad Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Waves freeze as they hit the beach in Newfoundland. Because it's so warm outside right? lol Additionaly Anchorage is buried under more than 74 inches of winter snow, a new record for them. http://www.break.com/index/newfoundland_frozen_waves.html While Global Warming will see an increase in average global temperatures over the next century, that doesn't mean every part of the planet will get warmer. The most famous of these examples is the deep freezing Europe may undergo. As the Arctic ice melts, this fresh water will float on top of salt water, and this could in turn submerge the warm Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is the reason Europe is so warm despite being so far north, so without it, the UK might become as cold as say Northern Quebec. In general, Climate Change entails a lot of fucked up shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets. No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong? Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976." http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets. No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong? Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976." http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm I saw that article yesterday too. Good read. Wish he had gone into a little more detail though. I think it's safe to say that scientists don't really know what the heck is going on with our climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Here is a lot more detail. The 'Deniers of global Warming'. The mainstream press finally is showing a little balance. Very interesting is the "Will the Sun Cool Us" part VII. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...0bed2f6&k=0 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 An article from 30 years ago?? hahahahahaha!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 An article from 30 years ago?? hahahahahaha!! That's kind of the point. 30 years ago, the doom and gloom "scientists" were warning about global cooling. Now the same doom and gloom "scientists" are talking about warming. Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth.... It's amazing anyone takes these people seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 (edited) The Global Warming deniers are the flat Earthers of the 21st century. These hicks think they know more than scientists around the world, and they get their information from oil industry shills. They are people who refuse to take any responsibility for their actions, they are nothing but leech's on society.. http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi/20070206-085914-8422r.htm Exxon tied to payoff to rap global warming A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil offered $10,000 to U.S. scientists if they would criticize a major global-warming study's findings, a report says. The U.N. study, released Friday, said for the first time global warming was "unequivocal" and likely caused by burning fossil fuels. The American Enterprise Institute sent letters offering scientists $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change study, CNN reports. The memo asked scientists to "highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change," CNN said. The intent of the letter seemed to be to criticize the United Nations report in the eyes of the public, outside the normal review process for scientific work, the Bulldog Reporter public-relations newsletter said Tuesday. Yet the useful idiots here will keep on pushing their shit onto us here.. Edited February 7, 2007 by Blueblood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo2079 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 If global warming is such a threat, why has school been cancelled in my area for the past two days due to deadly below zero wind-chills? Stupid time machine..... I wish they hadn't used the term "Global Warming". People seizing on that term can always bring up a day, week, month or whatever when a specific location will have cold weather. I think a more accurate term would be "Accelerated Climate Change". Average global temperatures have been increasing yearly, there is more CO2 in the atomosphere than at any time in the last 650k years. Glaciers are shrinking at accelerated rates across much of the Earth. I could go on.... Even if we tried to do something about it, we'd probably not succeed. Among other things, China is building a coal fired powerplant every week for the forseeable future. We're screwed.... next Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 If global warming is such a threat, why has school been cancelled in my area for the past two days due to deadly below zero wind-chills? Stupid time machine..... With global warming the temperature rise is very small to us, it's not however to places like the arctic where permefrost is melting ariound the world, or where Greenland is melting, or the glaciers around the world. It doesn't take much to make those places start to melt. It also doesn't mean that we won't see anymore cold weather, or snow, in fact, it makes local weather more extreme. So where in some places they might see a brutal cold snap, the average temp of the Earth is still rising. Remember how hot last summer was? Summers like that will become more common, and tey will become even warmer. On top of that, the cold snap the northern states are in right now is nothing, I know people have short memories, but cold like that used to be a normal thing up there in the winter, in fact, it used to get much colder. The only reason it stands out is because it hasn't been that cold in awhile. The entire earth isn't just going to catch on fire over 24 hours, climate change happens over decades, and it is happening, in 50 years Miami might be underwater. You might not give a shit now, but the people living in coastal areas WILL, your children and grandchildren WILL. We will also see tropical diseases migrate further north into the United States (real fun) and we could have devastating crop loss. But people just don't care, they don't want to do anything, and they suck up the pr coming out of big oil who has their profits in mind when they buy off scientists and issue confusing press releases. I just don't get why so many people allow themselves to be duped, big oil doesn't give a damn about you or any other person spreading their Gospel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Right, Greenland, which is close to Iceland, where the pack ice this year is thicker than it's been in 40 years. Or Anchorage, which is near the artic cricle as well, where all this global warming is taking place. Except that Anchorage is experiencing record deep snow fall this year. Glaciers melt in one area, but in other areas the ice is getting thicker. Global warming is unproven science. For my money, it's just a scheme to get you sheep to cough up more of your freedoms and tax money to fix a phantom problem that never really existed to begin with and even if it does it can't really be attributed to human beings. Let me ask you, at the end of the last ice age when the glaciers retreated, wasn't that also global warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted February 7, 2007 Author Share Posted February 7, 2007 The whole problem with Global warming is that there is no hard way to prove it unless you return the current world to 1600's time frame before the industrial revolution... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo2079 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Right, Greenland, which is close to Iceland, where the pack ice this year is thicker than it's been in 40 years. Or Anchorage, which is near the artic cricle as well, where all this global warming is taking place. Except that Anchorage is experiencing record deep snow fall this year. Glaciers melt in one area, but in other areas the ice is getting thicker. Global warming is unproven science. For my money, it's just a scheme to get you sheep to cough up more of your freedoms and tax money to fix a phantom problem that never really existed to begin with and even if it does it can't really be attributed to human beings. Let me ask you, at the end of the last ice age when the glaciers retreated, wasn't that also global warming? Exactly my point.... you're taking snapshots in specific locations. Pretty much comparing a weather forecast to an entire climate model. Look at the GLOBAL average temperature..... Salmon are spawning in the McKenzie River in the Northwest Territories and the local Inuits have no name for Salmon (they previously didn't spawn there). The arctic ice cap is over a METER thinner than 3 decades ago. That equals a drop in Arctic ice volume of about 40%. Over the last 100 years, the global sea level has risen 10 to 25 cm. But you're right.... we won't all be able to agree that it's happening and what is to blame. There are a lot of factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 (edited) Most home owners have fire insurance, yet the chance of a home fire is less than 1% Why is it the the only to disciplines of science in question for right wing leaning ppl. are evolution and climate change? Do you also not believe in medicine,computers, physicians, physicists, etc.? Edited February 7, 2007 by Savetheplanet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Look, i'm not gonna pretend to know absolutely everything there is to know about the history of global climate. Then shut the hell up!! :kissass: :slap: :bowdown: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Remember how hot last summer was? Summers like that will become more common, and tey will become even warmer.Actually summer was very nice this year, never broke 100 degrees. First time for that in 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 The Global Warming deniers are the flat Earthers of the 21st century. These hicks think they know more than scientists around the world, and they get their information from oil industry shills. They are people who refuse to take any responsibility for their actions, they are nothing but leech's on society.. http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi/20070206-085914-8422r.htm Yet the useful idiots here will keep on pushing their shit onto us here.. blah blah blah blah blah...........whatever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 (edited) blah blah blah blah blah...........whatever! I'll trust the top scientists from around the world over some keyboard kommandos on the internet who have what credentials exactly to blow off these scientists? Let's see you build a craft that that fly to the moon and back, I mean, you know more than scientists and all. Edited February 7, 2007 by Blueblood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 I'll trust the top scientists from around the world over some keyboard kommandoes on the internet who have what credentials exactly to blow off these scientists? Let's see you build a craft that that fly to the moon and back, I mean, you know more than scientists and all. I would say there are plenty of equally accredited scientists who are a bit skeptical about the causes of global warming. Yes, the planet is warmer, but nobody can decisively prove why. I'm the boat that thinks what the scientists think is completely irrelevant. We should be trying to reduce emissions and decrease dependency on non-renewable resources regardless of what is happening to the climate. Even if it's not causing global warming (who really knows for sure?), all of our manmade pollution certainly has other well-documented ill-effects on the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 This is just to let all of you know that there have been complaints about this topic. If contributors cannot refrain from insulting each other, the thread will be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts