Global Warming

[JacksColon]

Are you serious. You have NO understanding of the effects of global warming. You realize the world is huge right? Droughts felt in one area can mean floods for another. Think of the word. CLIMATE CHANGE. The CLIMATE of one region CHANGES from what is NORMAL for that region. That's why the scientific community has steered away from using "global warming" because it has become so distorted..only the media and the layperson use that terminology these days. What you're suggesting is something akin to people up north in the winter saying "What the hell are these fools talking about global warming for??? It was 5 degrees in Boston today!!!" That's just plain idiotic.

You realize that climate systems, water systems, hell, most ecological systems are highly complex. Thus, nothing can be 100% caused by anything. However, there can be large contributing variables, i.e. huge amounts of carbon output and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Furthermore, due to the nature of systems being inherently complex, we have no way of determining when we reach a point of irreversable damage. In simple terms: there's a "cliff" in atmospheric and climate systems and all linked ecological systems. However, we don't know when or where that cliff is...in other words we don't know when we've done TOO much harm.

We talk about energy depletion, global climate change, overpopulation and a host of other problems, but these are only symptoms of the true problems. In focusing upon these symptoms, we do not look at the larger problem and so are in no way prepared to begin seeking a solution. What is really happening is that a complex system is approaching a systemic breakdown due to flaws in fundamental conceptions. So long as we do not change our concepts of prosperity and economic growth, and so long as we do not take into account the true costs of environmental destruction and worker exploitation, the breakdown will proceed. In the meantime, we will simply be dealing with the symptoms instead of curing the disease.

It is in the nature of complex systems to grow and burgeon until fundamental flaws bring their downfall. Complex systems are rather susceptible to sudden, large scale change. They handle slow and subtle changes smoothly, but quick, large scale change does not leave a complex system an adequate opportunity to adapt. Complex systems are like heavily loaded diesel trucks on a downhill run: they require more braking distance than smaller vehicles. Sudden change tends to stress a complex system precisely where its fundamental flaws make it the weakest. Without adequate time to adapt to the change, the result is a systemic breakdown.

Should we find and implement the perfect technofix, population would continue to grow. The adoption of conspicuous consumption (otherwise known as the American lifestyle) by more and more people will result in graver problems. And the eventual population crash will be even worse.

And for those who say that a technofix would work if we also practiced conservation, I submit that it is impossible for our current socioeconomic system to conserve. For one thing, conservation could endanger the economic growth upon which this system is so dependant. And even if we did succeed in conserving energy in some ways, Jevon’s Paradox implies that total energy consumption will still increase (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)

In order to avoid systemic breakdown, we must change our concepts of prosperity and growth. We need to stop measuring our health in terms of dollars, or we need to incorporate true social and environmental costs into those dollars. We must forge a new socioeconomic system not based on conspicuous consumption and constant economic growth. We need to begin restructuring our lifestyles, our households, our neighborhoods, and our communities. We need to adapt for self-sufficiency and sustainability. And while we are doing this, we need to evolve some new criteria for measuring prosperity, and a new respect for our environment and for each other. These are things that we can undertake at a grassroots level, and which will do the most good in the long run.

[redneck]

HAHAHAHA!!! BITCHES!!!

I was right all along... It was a scam a pretty good one too. You can put Kosher on an Italian sausage and sell it or you can put 30% less plastic on a water bottle and sell. It all about the money. Money makes the world go round. and LMAO at the Hippies who still haven't realized how long they;ve been wrong.

Wonder when this crap is gonna end up on the news? This decade or the next? When will people start realizing how retarded they have been these last few decades? this century or the next?

[dom]

Because saving my lungs and those of millions of children is not as morally just as saving polar bears?

Based on ? Who said global warming did anything to anyone?

I have never seen a recoded fatality due to Global Warming. Also I have never seen anyone sue global warming.

The pollution, the same same said to be the acceleration of climate change is the same stuff that makes breathing hard for the young, elderly, and chronically sick. A study released today has related poor air quality to heart desease; seeing that heart desease is the leading cause of death in Canada, reducing harmful emissions would better everyone, global warming or not.

You're as zealous on the issue as the hippies that refuse to consume, it's blinding your judgment and comprehension.

That's the last post I will be making in this thread, and I will be watching it closely. I hope that everyone will keep this to the level of a passionate discussion, rather than a heated argument.

[PB_and_J]

Funny isn't it? Wonder how many of you guys have 'green' electricity.

That's where I disagree, as i mentioned, I am against global warming, don't believe it a bit. However, if I am able to save money by using "green electricity", such as those compact florescent light bulbs, why wouldn't I?

[Shynygamie]

Global Warming is a really big problem, I believe. With global warming, there will be lots of extreme weather. And, Global Warming changes the temperature, the temperature gets higher. It's also killing animals in Antarctica. People should use Hybrids instead.

[redneck]

Global Warming is a really big problem, I believe. With global warming, there will be lots of extreme weather. And, Global Warming changes the temperature, the temperature gets higher. It's also killing animals in Antarctica. People should use Hybrids instead.

Down the road not across the street...

[JacksColon]

We need to alter out consumer-driven ways of thinking. Think about this: people buy hybrid cars because gas is expensive and because it's more "environmentally friendly". However, what ends up happening? The people with hybrids drive even more often and actually further! We should be driving LESS. Yes, hybrids are a good start, but we can do better. No, not ethanol. Why? Many reasons. 1) using food (corn or soy-based ethanol) as a means to run an engine just bothers me. There are lots of starving people (there will be more because of climate change) 2) tearing down large swaths of tropical rainforests, such as those in Brazil in the Amazon to make way for soy plantation used to make enthanol is a REALLY bad idea. 3) the amount of engergy expended to obtain ethanol virtually makes its "green" side not so green.

Hydrogen? That's an option, right? Well, sure it burns cleaner, but where do you think that hydrogen comes from? Hmmmm, try....you guessed it, COAL! Man, gotta love strip mining and lovely "clean" coal technology that extracts the hydrogen to put into the car. please note the sarcasm in that last sentence. no such thing as clean coal...the coal industry lobby had to give it a "green" sounding name to fool everyone, just like the Clear Skies Initiative, also by the oil and coal industries...a joke.

Anyways, we need to think beyond our current driving habits. We need to think of the big picture here. We need to plan communities better so you don't have to drive all over creation just to get anywhere. I live in Orlando, FL and the joke I have is that no matter where you're going, it's at least a 30 minute drive away. We need walkable communities and ones that are also bicycle friendly as well. Less driving. We also need incorporated, quality mass transit systems. And we need to behave differently...no driving when you could walk or ride a bike.

We also need to build structures like commercial buildings and homes to be more energy efficient. The costs of these types of buildings are still pretty high, but that's because developers don't offer the options. Everything is build from a cookie-cutter these days, so it's cheaper. If developers would offer options and start making the cookie cutter be "green" then the costs for construction would come down as well as the overall price.

It's a lot to ask for lazy and complacent people to change their ways. It also poses problems for the conservative right and their "free market" mentality because this sort of action requires government regulation. Thus, after the cold war, when there was no communist threat, the attention turned to the environmental movement. Attacking this movement had been done before by the right as well as industry (See Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" as well as the early years of the Regan Administration in the 1980s). However, the conservatives realized that attacking environmentalism head on won't work. Everyone WANTS to be clean and green. Average US citizens don't WANT to pollute, so every piece of legislation that was pushed by the right was defeated.

AFter communism "fell" in the early 1990s, and culminating at the 1993 Rio Earth Summit, the conservatives saw this new "threat" to their economic visions emerge and launched a concerted counter-movement. Thus, environmental skeptism was born. The idea: attack the science behind environmental claims, such as global warming. The main target was climate science. Conservatives began selectively seeking out conservative "scientists" to poke holes in the science behind environmental problems, like climate change. Problem is, this is all traceable. Conservatives, working in "think tanks" published book after book after book criticizing environmentalism on its scientific merits. This allowed them to cloak themselves within an "academic and policy" entity (the think tank) as purveyors of truth. Funny thing though..these scientists are a complete joke. When you actually read what they write, it is completely unscientific and laughable at best. The arguement almost always inevitably falls back to, "it'll hurt the economy".

I know I ramble a lot, but this issue is important to me, as this is a main area of my research and actually I'm publishing an academic article in THE premiere journal on environmental politics and policy, the journal is appropriately titled "Environmental Politics". I've co-authored it with two great Ph.Ds, Riley Dunlap (a leading environmental sociologist) and Peter Jacques (a brilliant political scientist).

So, anyways, i'm tired of typing.

[Silver0]

no matter what action we do we hurt the enviroment proven fact make electric cars you got yourself battery acid, recycle trash you get more smog from the different transports.
The only way to the save the human race is to end the human race..i said it before we cant save ourselfs from our selfs if where trying to avoid ourselves...impossible to live without the things we build we cant go back to hunting and gathering b/c birth will be cut down ,life span,and general migration an eventually kill the human racer bu so either wAY Wether we try to changer or change we would still die b/c there is no solution

[Crumpets]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/07/ ... iofuel.php

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the pollution caused by producing these "green" fuels is taken into account, two studies published Thursday have concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months as scientists have evaluated the global environmental cost of their production. The new studies, published by the journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

[JacksColon]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/07/healthscience/biofuel.php

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the pollution caused by producing these "green" fuels is taken into account, two studies published Thursday have concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months as scientists have evaluated the global environmental cost of their production. The new studies, published by the journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

I've never been a fan of bio-fuels. For one, I knew this would happen. And also, the idea of chopping down rainforests in places like brazil to grow soy on huge plantations just to be thrown into a gas seems a bit backwards. I mean, millions of people starve every day, and we're going to burn food for fuel? That's dumb. What we should focus more on is burning things that can be used as "bio fuels" that are currently filling up in our landfills and such. and other things restaurants throw away can be used more efficiently as well.

Dont be confused here though, the burning of the biofuels themselves is cleaner, but it's the cutting down of forests which releases CO2 into the atmosphere in large quantities which is the problem.

[destructionmama]

I am a University student and I am working in the lab on a project about temperature change affecting local fish species. And looking at all the temperature monitoring over the last 100 years or so, yes temperature is rising. And yes there are events like volcano eruption dust clouds that cools the earth for around 5-7 years. But now, the temperature is totally off the scale, the graph Al Gord showed in AIT is actaully true. Also from our study, we found that cold water fish are getting smaller comparing to a 1000 years fossile record, because the temperature is affecting the growth rate.

Yes Global Warming is happen, and we should do something about it, thouse of you who say "I don't care" are just being plain ignorant.Even if it doesn't happen at the end its important for us to take precaution, yes there will be economic lost if global warming doens't occur, but its better to see the world melt when we didn't do anything about it

Regarding Greenland, I don't know if my story is true, what realyl happend was an explorer discovered Iceland and Greenland one after another, he found that Iceland was full of hot springs and Greenland is full of nothing but snow and ice. He wants his family to move to Iceland and not let anybody else do so (exspecially the King), so he called iceland "Iceland" hoping he'll live an undisturbed life there and Greenland "Greenland" So people would go there and think "hey its not Green at all".

ok

DM

[JacksColon]

Regarding Greenland, I don't know if my story is true, what realyl happend was an explorer discovered Iceland and Greenland one after another, he found that Iceland was full of hot springs and Greenland is full of nothing but snow and ice. He wants his family to move to Iceland and not let anybody else do so (exspecially the King), so he called iceland "Iceland" hoping he'll live an undisturbed life there and Greenland "Greenland" So people would go there and think "hey its not Green at all".

hehe, I think it was a viking. Here, wikipedia:

The name Greenland (Grænland in Old Norse and modern Icelandic, Grønland in modern Danish and Norwegian) has its roots in this colonization and is attributed to Erik the Red (the Inuit call it Kalaallit Nunaat, meaning "Land of the Kalaallit (Greenlanders)"). There are two written sources on the origin of the name, in the The Book of Icelanders (Íslendingabók), an historical work dealing with early Icelandic history from the 12th century, and in the medieval Icelandic saga, The Saga of Erik the Red (Eiriks saga rauða), which is about the Norse settlement in Greenland and the story of Eric the Red in particular. Both sources write: "He named the land Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if it had a good name."

DM

[heroo]

It IS a mjor issue, but we humas are liks frogs.

If you put a frog in a bowl of super hot boiling water, it will jump out of the bowl immediately becuease it detects the danger (the hot water).

But if you put a frog in cold water and than begin to warm up the water gradually, the frog won't jumpt out of water no matter what happens. even if the water reaches 100+ degrees celcius and the frog would burn to dead. It can't jump out because it senses no danger.

What i'm trying to say is that we humans are exactly like a frog. We won't do anything about global warming, because the problem is getting gradually bigger and bigger and we don't sense the danger.

We need something major to happen (whole northpole gone or something) before we realize how big this problem is and that we should acutally do something about it.

Untill than, i keep my fingers crossed.

[Swindler]

[XuChu]

Wow so many people don't believe Global Warming. Really it is happening, it's not even to be a controversial subject.

Why do we even need to take the chance? Do we all need to see soldiers marching into town to know 'shit, we're being invaded.'

The majority of the scientists believe it is happen, although there are also some who argue whether it is as dramatic as they say but few say it does not exist and even fewer if not none say it's a scam.

Honestly its just plain retarded how some of you are trying to proof that its 'a scam'.
Even if global warming does not exist, does it really hurt us that much for not polluting the environment?
Even if global warming does not exist are you trying to say nothing ever will happen if we keep polluting earth and destroying nature?

[dom]

Wow so many people don't believe Global Warming. Really it is happening, it's not even to be a controversial subject.

Why do we even need to take the chance? Do we all need to see soldiers marching into town to know 'shit, we're being invaded.'

The majority of the scientists believe it is happen, although there are also some who argue whether it is as dramatic as they say but few say it does not exist and even fewer if not none say it's a scam.

Honestly its just plain retarded how some of you are trying to proof that its 'a scam'.
Even if global warming does not exist, does it really hurt us that much for not polluting the environment?
Even if global warming does not exist are you trying to say nothing ever will happen if we keep polluting earth and destroying nature?

Global Warming is a 100% proven uncontestable fact. You can tell if someone is a complete idiot and ignorant on the subject by if they claim it isn't. The whole discussion is around whether its of anthropological nature. That is why some claim that the Earth naturally warms up and cools down; they lose credibility when they say global warming is a myth but the Earth is naturally warming.

[Silver0]

nothing last forever get over it

[Jstar1]

i think biofuel and ethanol is complete shit.

nuclear ftw

[CrimsonNuker]

i think biofuel and ethanol is complete shit.

nuclear ftw

HYDROGEN CARS FTW.

yes i know it goes boom.

[dom]

i think biofuel and ethanol is complete shit.

nuclear ftw

They are bullshit and all serious environmentalist know it. The energy yield is so low that you end up with almost the same pollution by the creation process.

[Jstar1]

i think biofuel and ethanol is complete shit.

nuclear ftw

They are bullshit and all serious environmentalist know it. The energy yield is so low that you end up with almost the same pollution by the creation process.

did you know ethanol and biofuel is transported by trucks running on diesal and gasoline to the processing plants.

[Crumpets]

http://www.citizensugar.com/1093812


Long story short:

John Coleman wants to sue Al Gore for fraud. Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel in 1982, thinks taking legal action against Al Gore would be a great "vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming." Coleman rejects the notion that people must take drastic actions to reduce their energy use.

Lulz.

[Valkasdar]

The question is what are you doing to stop it ?

[Pilot]

No, until the day people are literally prosecuted for harming the environment comes, global warming/excessive energy consumption will last until Earth is transformed into a big shithole.

The actions lie with big companies, of course, like cutting emissions in factories/creating lasws limiting CO2 release etc. but we can only notice diminishing effects of global warming if individuals take action. Which we don't. Human mindset is already geared to put priority on profit over environmental concern. The amount of trees we cut down and the environmental disaster in China is just several of how much we don't care about the environment.

Something has to happen-something like the day after tomorrow shit for some of us, retarded humans to realize the sheer scope of this looming disaster. Only after suffering will we learn to fix our habits.