| Author |
Message |
    
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3569
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 6:52 pm: | 
|
OK, tell me, neo-cons, now that the National Academy of Sciences says it, do you refute it?
Also, if you study this research, you will find that there's nothing we can do about it. It's gonna get hotter everywhere (it's gotten 1 degree F. hotter in the past few years) it's going to get dryer out west, and there's going to be flooding in coastal areas.
Straw?...SLK? FVF?
}
Updated: 04:31 PM EDT
Earth's Temperature Is Highest in Centuries
Scientists Blame 'Human Activities' for Warming Trend
By JOHN HEILPRIN, AP
WASHINGTON (June 22) -- The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, probably even longer. The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.
This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other evidence found in nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University who chaired the academy's panel.
The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.
Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.
Boehlert said Thursday the report shows the value of having scientists advise Congress.
"There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change," he said.
Other new research Thursday showed that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the Commerce Department's National Center for Atmospheric Research. Their study is being published by the American Geophysical Union.
The Bush administration has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs.
Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.
The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.
The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed the Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.
For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.
Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the academy said.
Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.
The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.
Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.
06/22/06 12:40 EDT
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1548
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 9:28 pm: |
|
If your planning on being Raptured, why would you care one hoot about some glacier getting smaller. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 751
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 9:43 pm: |
|
I am a "neo-con"? 
No offense, but I think you have been sniffing something other than Tulips. |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1768
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 9:52 pm: |
|
tulip-
One more time, I am not denying GW, but I remain skeptical that humans are ENTIRELY the cause of it.
But since we can't do anything about it, I guess we are doomed then, huh?
What is pathetic about your thread is that it is not jus "bad news for neo-cons" but for everyone. What is this about, addressing a global issue or you being right?
What is bizarre is you come off like you are exempt from blame in this whole thing. What, do you think just because you acknowledge and agree that GW is caused by us pesky humans that you are cleansed from sin?
So I assume you are going to start walking to catch theatre in NYC?
-SLK |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1554
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 10:39 pm: |
|
Actually we could do quite a lot.......... before the end of the decade.
What am I saying? I am a dufus, Democrats did something about it back in 1977. But then in 1981 something happened to all that work................. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15190
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 10:56 pm: |
|
It's all the fault of the Neo-cons?
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3571
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 11:03 pm: |
|
SLK. So humans aren't to blame? (Yeah, including me, fellah, with my giant smokestacks and my gas guzzling jetta.) Well, it doesn't much matter that you don't think humans are to blame, 'cause it's too BLOODLY late to do anything about it.
You and "fact and fiction" seem to like blame the messenger. Just telling you what the scientists are really saying. Call yourselves what you will. (Maybe you'd prefer.. "Bushie"?)
sbenois: Did I say it was the "fault" of the neo-cons? I am asking those who have said numerous times they think there either is no global warming, or it's not the fault of human activity, what they think of this recent report. Bush has often said he doesn't think it's the result of human activity. His White House doesn't think the fossil fuels are involved. It would "cost too many jobs" if we faced the fact that human activity is causing global warming.
I am asking those who support this position, and I count a number of individuals on this message board who, by their own admission, in some way, do support this position, what they think of this report?
What do you think Sbenois?
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15191
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 11:15 pm: |
|
I think I have better things to do than read it. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3572
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 11:20 pm: |
|
What, like dodge hailstones, proving there is no such thing as global warming?
By the way, neo-cons are only to blame if they profit from industries that pollute, or allow the pollution to take place. That's an easy one.
Fact is, there's nothing to argue about any more, because the damage is done. Now it's just a matter of figuring out where everyone who has built a condo by the coast is going to move to, and where people who live along the Gulf Coast, and in the path of those giant tornadoes you love so much are going to move.
Those are killers, by the way, sbenois, not museum pieces.
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15192
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 11:34 pm: |
|
Ok. Thanks for the lecture.
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3574
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 11:37 pm: |
|
Any time. Good luck. My older son's out there dodging tornadoes. While you are out there, stop in at Madison, Wisconsin. You'll find it a really lovely town. |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1770
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 8:00 am: |
|
tulip-
That is the best response you have?
Pathetic...
-SLK |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1555
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 12:20 pm: |
|
World energy consumption could be cut by half if clean technology applied
PARIS (AFP) - Oil and electricity consumption across the world could easily be cut by half, with major benefits for the environment, if clean energy technologies that are currently available were applied, an international watchdog said.
"A sustainable energy future is possible, but only if we act urgently and decisively to promote, develop and deploy a full mix of energy technologies... We have the means, now we need the will," said Claude Mandil, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA).
He was presenting an IEA report written in response to a call last year from G8 leaders who asked the agency to develop and advise on alternative scenarios and strategies for a clean, clever and competitive energy future.
The IEA report was published ahead of next month's Saint Petersburg summit of the G8 group of the world's leading industrial nations, which is expected to focus largely on energy questions.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/ieag8energytechnology
|
Cougar86
Citizen
Username: Cougar86
Post Number: 12
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 1:59 pm: |
|
I'm confused who or what was causing it 400years ago? Because its only as hot as it was then now so what back then was causing the warming? |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 825
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 2:18 pm: |
|
I thought we already decided that this was more Mass Hysteria exploited by Special Interest groups positioning themselves for international Money Payments?
Why are we recycling stories and statements that don't hold up? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3489
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Cougar, there are natural cycles that also cause temperatures to rise and fall. The point is that this current temperature spike has been determined to be anthropogenic and more sudden/severe than any other known. All other factors were carefully considered in making this determination. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1558
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 3:32 pm: |
|
 |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 261
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 7:57 pm: |
|
 |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3576
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 8:11 pm: |
|
Cougar:
I'm sure you get this, but just in case...things in nature such as volcanoes, sun and planetary activity, fires, other elemental warming events can warm the earth, but not to the extent that it has warmed during humanity's inhabitation.
|
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 612
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 10:41 pm: |
|
Let's get rid of whatever inhabits humanity.
jd |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1775
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 6:50 am: |
|
I agree with joel...
What dou think tulip? Lets wipe out 2/3 of the world's population...do you think that would help?
4,000,000,000
- 400,000
399,960,000,000 (years of unmeasure climate)
/sarcasm off |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3578
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 7:16 am: |
|
Of course not, but you might want to move them inland, and to higher ground!! |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 262
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 7:28 am: |
|
SLK,
You can go further than that. There is an organization called the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. They take deep ecology to another level. Their motto is: May we live long and die out.
http://www.vhemt.org/
Cheers |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1176
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 10:41 am: |
|
tulip,
Thank you for making a point I have stated many times. Why are all the libs so afraid of moving more than 30 miles from the coast. There is plenty of land available in the Dakota's. Why don't you guys load up and head out. Of course you will miss the nice scene when Irvington is beach front property, but you can always visit. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1563
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Greenland's Ice Sheet Is Slip, Sliding Away
The massive glaciers are deteriorating twice as fast as they were five years ago. If the ice thaws entirely, sea level would rise 21 feet.
By Robert Lee Hotz, Times Staff Writer
June 25, 2006
(AP)
....The Greenland ice sheet two miles thick and broad enough to blanket an area the size of Mexico shapes the world's weather, matched in influence by only Antarctica in the Southern Hemisphere....
***
In its heartland, snow that fell a quarter of a million years ago is still preserved. Temperatures dip as low as 86 degrees below zero. Ground winds can top 200 mph. Along the ice edge, meltwater rivers thread into fraying brown ropes of glacial outwash, where migrating herds of caribou and musk ox graze....
***
Should all of the ice sheet ever thaw, the meltwater could raise sea level 21 feet and swamp the world's coastal cities, home to a billion people. It would cause higher tides, generate more powerful storm surges and, by altering ocean currents, drastically disrupt the global climate.
Climate experts have started to worry that the ice cap is disappearing in ways that computer models had not predicted.
By all accounts, the glaciers of Greenland are melting twice as fast as they were five years ago, even as the ice sheets of Antarctica the world's largest reservoir of fresh water also are shrinking, researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of Kansas reported in February....
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland25jun25,0,1900887,full.story ?coll=la-home-headlines |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1779
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 4:52 pm: |
|
FOJ-
So what is your point? Are humans to blame for this and if so can you provide proof?
-SLK |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1569
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Sure, you want proof, every scientific group - organization or whatever, says its us.
There is no scientific group - organization, whatever... that says it aint so.
Remember the ozone hole over the south pole? The whole world, including President Reagan believed the scientific community....WE banned flourocarbons, right? Well now the hole is getting smaller, and is predicted to close by 2050.
Why the sudden disregard of the scientific community, just on this issue? What changed?
And all we need to do is to seriously consider 3 things..
1)Solar cells
2)increase transport MPG
3)increase efficiency of appliances, etc. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 615
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 6:30 pm: |
|
I like it warmer.
jd |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 616
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Some like it hot.
jd |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3580
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 6:34 pm: |
|
Southerner: I don't know about Irvington, but my info. is if you live at twenty feet above sea level or less, you may want to rethink things.
(Not to scare everyone, and it may not happen tomorrow, but the water breaking off in chunks from the glaciers has to go somewhere.) Sea levels have been rising in a noteworthy way on islands in the Pacific, and in Venice, and in the Arctic. Polar bears cannot hunt their usual cold-weather prey and are beginning to hunt each other. You may think this sounds silly, but you have to look at how the events from around the world are stacking up. You have to be analytical, and you have to be realistic. I don't say you have to pick up and move out of NYC or Maplewood immediately. Just think twice before paying major bucks for a house on the beach, that's all.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 767
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 11:09 pm: |
|
Weren't cow farts also supposed to be part of the problem? Has Al Gore come up with a reasoned proposal to end bovine gas discharge? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5160
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 11:25 pm: |
|
Well there are a lot of people who say we eat too much beef for our own good anyway. But how much of the methane emitted by your average head of cattle is counterbalanced by the CO2 that was absorbed from the atmosphere by the grass and corn they ate? |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1578
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 12:07 am: |
|
Flatulence, eh? |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15201
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Arent't there parts of the world that would significantly benefit if areas that were previously under ice or too cold were suddenly able to sustain crop growth? Or if previously too cold regions were now warmer thus reducing their energy needs? How much less oil needs to be consumed in the Northeast if winter temperatures are higher?
Just wondering. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4437
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 7:54 pm: |
|
Possibly, Sbenois, probably. Do you also shoot craps? |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15202
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 7:57 pm: |
|
Is it any more of crap shoot than any of the other doom and gloom scenarios?
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4438
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 7:59 pm: |
|
Well, it differs in that I think we will be finding out the answer to your first question due to human inertia. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1184
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 8:40 pm: |
|
seb,
I hear you. Good points. I'm already looking for property in the Greenland area for my summer home. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3497
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Do you folks imagine that the impacts of losing all of our beaches and having more Katrina-level disasters would be somehow acceptable if we were able to use less heating oil in the winter? 
The "well, we might as well make the best of it" argument is really the very last leg the deniers have to stand on, and it reeks of irresponsibility. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5172
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 1:48 pm: |
|
How about the midwest turning into desert? How about Mexico becoming virtually uninhabitable, so they all flood up here.
How about mass-migration for a tremendous number of people worldwide.
How about we have to use more air-conditioning, more than offsetting the savings in heat.
Is it all worth it, disrupting the way of life for everyone in the world, as long as a few Exxon executives can take home more millions? |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1812
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 3:18 pm: |
|
so notehead-
what do you expect to do about it if it is too late?
-SLK |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3502
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 3:47 pm: |
|
I'm going to round up every person who drives a large SUV and put them in a camp in the desert. Every day I will fly over them in a helicopter screaming "I told you so" from a bullhorn. Eventually, they will have to eat each other.
Seriously, too late for what? Anthropogenic global warming has been happening for years already, and causing serious problems for populations in some places right now. It probably IS too late to avert a lot of additional things that were predicted more than a decade ago. I've made choices to keep my energy consumption pretty low all along (relative to most suburban folks) and I'll stay with that. We are meeting our architect this week to work on plans for our house which include rebuilding the second floor to support a big photovoltaic array. I'm sure as hell not buying any beachfront property, I'll tell you that. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 266
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Is there a reason for the 1990 threshold date in the Kyoto Protocol? Is there something unique about that year? The treaty was written in 1997. Why didn't they choose 1995, or 1985, or 2000, etc? I did a cursory online check with negative results. I would really like to know without having to actually read the treaty.
Cheers |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3505
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 11:41 pm: |
|
I think the architects of the agreement just figured that emissions from that year were a challenging, but achievable, target. I haven't heard of any other reason for that date as the threshold. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 267
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 8:08 am: |
|
The reason I heard was that 1990 was the year of German reunification and that when West Germany absorbed the antiquated East German economy they had plans to upgrade things, so 1990 would be a good threshold year for Germany, since greenhouse gases would be going into decline from that point. I don't know how influential they were in drafting the Kyoto Protocol, so I can't say how plausible this is. I'm still thinking it over.
Cheers |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3433
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 9:46 pm: |
|
How to save the world
Bolton v Gore
Jun 22nd 2006 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
A question of priorities: hunger and disease or climate change?
TWO years ago, a Danish environmentalist called Bjorn Lomborg had an idea. We all want to make the world a better place but, given finite resources, we should look for the most cost-effective ways of doing so. He persuaded a bunch of economists, including three Nobel laureates, to draw up a list of priorities. They found that efforts to fight malnutrition and disease would save many lives at modest expense, whereas fighting global warming would cost a colossal amount and yield distant and uncertain rewards.
That conclusion upset a lot of environmentalists. This week, another man who upsets a lot of people embraced it. John Bolton, America's ambassador to the United Nations, said that Mr Lomborg's “Copenhagen Consensus” (see articles) provided a useful way for the world body to get its priorities straight. Too often at the UN, said Mr Bolton, “everything is a priority”. The secretary-general is charged with carrying out 9,000 mandates, he said, and when you have 9,000 priorities you have none.
So, over the weekend, Mr Bolton sat down with UN diplomats from seven other countries, including China and India but no Europeans, to rank 40 ways of tackling ten global crises. The problems addressed were climate change, communicable diseases, war, education, financial instability, governance, malnutrition, migration, clean water and trade barriers.
Given a notional $50 billion, how would the ambassadors spend it to make the world a better place? Their conclusions were strikingly similar to the Copenhagen Consensus. After hearing presentations from experts on each problem, they drew up a list of priorities. The top four were basic health care, better water and sanitation, more schools and better nutrition for children. Averting climate change came last.
The ambassadors thought it wiser to spend money on things they knew would work. Promoting breast-feeding, for example, costs very little and is proven to save lives. It also helps infants grow up stronger and more intelligent, which means they will earn more as adults. Vitamin A supplements cost as little as $1, save lives and stop people from going blind. And so on.
For climate change, the trouble is that though few dispute that it is occurring, no one knows how severe it will be or what damage it will cause. And the proposed solutions are staggeringly expensive. Mr Lomborg reckons that the benefits of implementing the Kyoto protocol would probably outweigh the costs, but not until 2100. This calculation will not please Al Gore. Nipped at the post by George Bush in 2000, Mr Gore calls global warming an “onrushing catastrophe” and argues vigorously that curbing it is the most urgent moral challenge facing mankind.
Mr Lomborg demurs. “We need to realise that there are many inconvenient truths,” he says. But whether he and Mr Bolton can persuade the UN of this remains to be seen. Mark Malloch Brown, the UN's deputy secretary-general, said on June 6th that: “there is currently a perception among many otherwise quite moderate countries that anything the US supports must have a secret agenda...and therefore, put crudely, should be opposed without any real discussion of whether [it makes] sense or not.” |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3589
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:11 am: |
|
Rastro:
I hope someone at that conference mentioned that global warming creates world hunger, because the loss of farmland from these climate catastrophes, the loss of grazing lands for cattle, goats, and other herded species in Africa, create starvation for many people. Deal with climate collapse and you will start to deal with some of the starvation. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3435
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 8:20 am: |
|
Tulip, in terms of timing, changing climates will take longer than most of the people affected by starvation have. Also, global warming is not the main cause of much of the starvation around the world. Poor living conditions, horrific governments, and global indifference is much more of a factor in starvation in the third world than GW. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3592
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:05 am: |
|
Rastro: Those are all factors, but global warming causes problems such as drought and higher temperatures. This is not good for crops, animals and other sources of livelihood. Do you deny that? Horrific governments have been around for as long as governments have been around, but they might appear to be better if they could respond more effectively to catastrophes related to the environment. Indifference sometimes emanates from the inability,either perceived or real, of governments to find effective means to protect their citizens.
In any case, isn't it ironic that the United States Supreme Court is going to debate the role of the EPA, as the Rockville MD dam threatens to break, flooding regions around DC? Can the court actually decide that the EPA has no significant role, as the East Coast drowns and the midwest and west burn?
It will be interesting to see their ruling!!
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3520
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 11:28 am: |
|
Quite a lot of Lomborg's "Skeptical Environmentalist" ideas have been shredded by the scientific community. And I don't mean that they called him names and said rude things about him, they found that his work was replete with inappropriate assumptions and mathematical flaws. This information is easily found online.
Here's one website which is all about the flaws in Lomborg's work:
check it out |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page