Global Warming - "We are past the point of no return&q

[Karlin]

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338878.ece


The author has written a book, and it tells the truth of global warming - we had plenty of warning and did not act.

I believed in the 1970's that the emissions would be a problem, but it was denied by the right people and others didn't get concerned. Many of you believed the mass media reports casting doubt about global warming/climate change.

We are PAST THE POINT OF NO RETURN, says the author. There is no way we can avoid severe conditions on earth now, we have gone too far.The only action now is for survival, and of course drastic cuts to emissions to avoid even further damage.

GAIA is the "Mother Earth" , and it has a consciousness. We are hurting her, and she will have to protect herself....

Karlin - "I believe in Mother Earth"

 

[I think not]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

" Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."


Well then why bother doing anything if he is so convinced?

 

[Colpy]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

MICHAEL Crichton's environmental novel State Of Fear has many enjoyable moments, not least the deliciously apt fate he devises for a Martin Sheenesque Hollywood eco-poseur. But, along the way, his protagonist makes a quietly sensible point: that activist lobby groups ought to close down the office after 10 years. By that stage, regardless of the impact they've had on whatever cause they're hot for, they're chiefly invested in perpetuating their own indispensability.

That's what happened to the environmental movement. Denouncing this week's meeting of the Asia-Pacific Partnership, starting today in Sydney, the eco-tists sound more than a little squaresville: fossils running out of fuel. "Clearly, the short-term profits of the fossil fuel companies count for more in Canberra than the long-term health and welfare of ordinary Australians," says Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute, disregarding the fact that the "long-term health and welfare" that ordinary Australians enjoy is not unconnected to fossil fuels.

"Relying solely on technology to deal with greenhouse emissions is like trying to empty a puddle while the tap is still running: you simply cannot do it," says Labor's environment spokesman Anthony Albanese. So Labor's policy is to turn off the tap?

Even if it wasn't driving the global environmental "consensus" bananas, the Asia-Pacific Partnership would still be worth doing. In environmental politics, the short-term interests of the eco-establishment count for more than the long-term health and welfare of ordinary Australians, or New Zealanders, or indeed Indians and Nigerians. They count for more than the long-term reputation of scientific institutions.

Hence, the famous "hockey stick" graph purporting to show climate over the past 1000 years, as a continuous, flat, millennium-long bungalow with a skyscraper tacked on for the 20th century. This graph was almost laughably fraudulent, not least because it used a formula that would generate a hockey stick shape no matter what data you input, even completely random, trendless, arbitrary computer-generated data. Yet such is the power of the eco-lobby that this fraud became the centrepiece of UN reports on global warming. If it's happening, why is it necessary to lie about it?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17785122%5E7583,00.html

I read Crichton's book State of Fear, and it is more than a little interesting, and works hard to debunk global warming as a threat.

 

[I think not]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

I never bought that book because it is a novel, so I can't see how anyone can debunk scientific evidence based on a conspiracy theory based fiction book.

 

[Colpy]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

I never bought that book because it is a novel, so I can't see how anyone can debunk scientific evidence based on a conspiracy theory based fiction book.

Yeah, and the novel's a pulp fiction read, but you get into it.

But Crichton claims to have spent three years researching the subject, and footnotes everything, so you can look up his sources for what he claims in the book.

Odd, a novel with extensive footnoting.

 

[MMMike]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

I never bought that book because it is a novel, so I can't see how anyone can debunk scientific evidence based on a conspiracy theory based fiction book.

Yeah, and the novel's a pulp fiction read, but you get into it.

But Crichton claims to have spent three years researching the subject, and footnotes everything, so you can look up his sources for what he claims in the book.

Odd, a novel with extensive footnoting.

Oh, so he's researched it. I guess then I can believe the word of a popular author over the majority opinion of scientists, climatologist etc.... :roll:

Articles and books such as the one at the start of this thread do more to hurt the environmental movement than all the quacks who deny climate change.

I'd love to say, "let time prove me right", but the truth is it won't be us that pay the price. It'll be our kids' kids, and they will all wonder how could we let it go this far?

 

[I think not]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

I opted to read The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg, an ex-Greenpeace activist that thoroughly provides data on all aspects of the state of the world. Before anyone rushes to debunk his claims, he supports that global warming is real, although his basis is that the end of the world is coming.

Global warming isn't a left right issue, the more some people turn it into political polarizing discussion, the more scientific data will be ignored. Bias, in this book, is thrown out the window and replaced with thousands, yes thousands of endnotes that permits the reader to look up most of the data online.

It's not the end of the world, we just need to be more responsible and address the issues.

 

[Colpy]

RE: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

10 MYTH There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.
FACT There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.
Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.

http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

CNSNews.com) - A Science Magazine essay claiming there is a "scientific consensus" about human-caused "global warming" was ridiculed Monday by a British scientist, who compared such a "consensus" to the near-unanimous elections that existed in the old Soviet Union.

On Monday, Benny Peiser, a United Kingdom social anthropologist, called the Dec. 3 essay, "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," a "disturbing" study.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200412\NAT20041207a.html

Global Warming Fears Melting

New Studies Appearing in Respected Scientific Journals Suggest Time is Running out For the Biggest Eco-Scare of the Twentieth Century
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: May 1, 2004
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and studies appearing in two respected scientific journals raise serious questions about the science underlying alarmist predictions of global warming.

NASA: Predictions "Exaggerated"
In the March 13 Journal of Climate, Ken Minschwaner of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and Andrew Dessler of the University of Maryland reported on atmospheric research they conducted for NASA. Discussing the importance of water vapor assumptions in climate models, they noted, "In most global climate models, an initial warming caused by additional CO2 and other greenhouse gases leads to enhanced evaporation at the surface and a general moistening of the atmosphere. Since water vapor is a strong infrared absorber, the added moisture causes further warming. The amplifying effect can be quite large, increasing the global average warming by 70%-90% compared to calculations that maintain a fixed water vapor."

According to the new NASA data, water evaporation has not increased nearly as much as alarmists have predicted and have factored into their computer models.

As a result, according to the March 18 New York Times, "Dr. Minschwaner said the new research raised questions about the high end" of temperature predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which estimates the Earth's climate could warm 2.5 to 10º Fahrenheit in the next century.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14871

I don't like or trust the concept of "conventional wisdom", and I think the attitude towards global warming as FACT is dangerous and dumb.

 

[I think not]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

Global warming isn't dumb or dangerous, thinking we need to destroy our economies to reverse global warming, is. Technology will make the difference, not money transfer schemes.

Say Nyoto to Kyoto. It's bullshit, wait till the bills start trickling into the pockets of Canadians.

 

[#juan]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

But Crichton claims to have spent three years researching the subject, and footnotes everything, so you can look up his sources for what he claims in the book.

Michiel Chrichton is not a working scientist. His "research" was to sell the book. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of real scientists around the world have reached a consensus on the problem of global warming and say, collectively, that there is a problem. Chrichton is as irresponsible as any "public figure" or "movie star" who make ignorant statements about something they know nothing about.

On the other hand, I don't know that environmental scientists would agree that our global warming problem is insoluble. The consensus seems to be that there is a most definite "flywheel" effect that says global warming would continue to worsen for a while even if we stopped all emmissions today. We know how much carbon can be absorbed by the remaining rainforests, and such, and we have a good idea how much CO2 we are pouring into the atmosphere. I believe it is up to everyone in the world to see that the world is fit for our grandchildren, by reducing emmissions.

 

[Alberta'sfinest]

RE: Global Warming - "We

First off, global warming is very real, but the causes and affects aren't. Greenhouse gases will increase the amount of heat the earth will absorb and retain, and it's the same effect that glass has in a greenhouse, which explains it's name. These gases are mostly released during combustion, and don't include just fossil fuels, but also the mass amounts of methane from our own waste.

A lot of the worlds sewage is pumped straight into the rivers and oceans. That sewage collects in dead spots between ocean currents and breaks down realeasing methane gasses concentrated to a single point. When the temps are just right in the ocean, the sewage breaks down so rapidly, it creates a low pressure system. One of these dead spots in the ocean is near the equator in the atlantic ocean, coincidentally right in the vacinity of where last years hurricanes began. Then they followed the stream of sewage right back to the source and wiped it out. Our planet is full of these mechanisms of action/reaction that are there to sustain homeostasis.

I also believe the GAIA theory to be fairly on the dot, with the world being one giant balancing system, and everything belongs in some kind of subsystem. Our planet itself is also part of a subsystem of our galaxy, and the galaxy is a subsystem of the universe.

As humans, we've expanded are boarders of civilization to the point where we've unbalanced the earth with too many people. The natural systems of the earth are way out to lunch on function, and if it actually collapses, the planet will start from the beginning, and will correct the problem and restore itself back to homeostasis.

The planet will correct us with a two pronged assault on the human race. One will be nature itself inflicting casualties through storms, drought, flooding, famine, and disease. The second prong approach comes from the nature inside us to survive and thrive, and in a world of food shortages, water shortages, and constant severe weather, famine, and disease, all out war will break out for survival.

You see, governments aren't worried about global warming and aren't doing much, because they realize as I do that the problem is overpopulation, and once we reach these levels, they plan to send us off to kill eachother until the planet isn't overpopulated anymore. Class structure is very important to many people, and sending peasents to their deaths to uphold it isn't out of the question.

 

[MMMike]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

Global warming isn't dumb or dangerous, thinking we need to destroy our economies to reverse global warming, is. Technology will make the difference, not money transfer schemes.

Say Nyoto to Kyoto. It's bullshit, wait till the bills start trickling into the pockets of Canadians.

"destroy our economies"???? Says who, large corporations that benefit from the status quo? Investments in energy efficiency are just that, investments. They will payback, very quickly if the cost of energy accurately reflected the environmental damage and health impacts on the population. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit - we could cut energy use of buildings in half for almost zero extra construction cost for example.

With respect to 'money-transfer' schemes, I assume you are talking about buying emission credits from other countries. While this might not help in the short term, imho this is of the strengths of Kyoto. Buy putting a monetary value on emissions, we set up the business case for reductions.

 

[I think not]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

"destroy our economies"???? Says who, large corporations that benefit from the status quo? Investments in energy efficiency are just that, investments. They will payback, very quickly if the cost of energy accurately reflected the environmental damage and health impacts on the population. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit - we could cut energy use of buildings in half for almost zero extra construction cost for example.

Isn't that what I just said? Technology will make the difference, not cutting productivity.

With respect to 'money-transfer' schemes, I assume you are talking about buying emission credits from other countries. While this might not help in the short term, imho this is of the strengths of Kyoto. Buy putting a monetary value on emissions, we set up the business case for reductions.

The money transfer scheme allows climate polluters to purchase rights to keep on polluting. I thought the point was reduction and not who is doing the polluting?

 

[MMMike]

RE: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

But right now there is no cost to pollution at all. So there is no incentive to reduce emissions or other forms of pollution. Emissions credits put a cost to it, creating incentives for reductions. The credits must be declining in value, resulting in long-term reductions. Nobody said Kyoto 1.0 would solve all our problems. Its just a start.

 

[I think not]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

I have to disagree with you, the US never signed Kyoto and yet has a better record of reducing greenhouse gas emissions than Canada and other nations that signed it. Instead of transfering money they spend it on new technologies, so I can't see Kyoto anything other than fanfare and giving money away to pollute more.

 

[MMMike]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

I have to disagree with you, the US never signed Kyoto and yet has a better record of reducing greenhouse gas emissions than Canada and other nations that signed it. Instead of transfering money they spend it on new technologies, so I can't see Kyoto anything other than fanfare and giving money away to pollute more.

I agree that signing a piece of paper and actually making improvements are entirely different and not necessarily related (a point totally lost on Paul Martin). But keep in mind this is a global problem and needs a global solution. These emissions credits are retired with time, reducing the overall amount of pollution. The only reason there will be 'excess' credits out there now is the baseline that was used in allocating credits (e.g. Russia's economy and ghg emissions tanked after the baseline date). Once that slack is absorbed by the market the real improvements will be evident. Companies or governments in Canada may make investments to lower their ghg in their own operations, or if it is cheaper they can invest in ghg emissions in other parts of the world. What does it matter - the overall emissions of ghg will head lower? Like I said, it's a global problem and must be addressed as such.

 

[I think not]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

MMMike

I agree that the environment needs to be addressed on a global scale that requires participation by all countries. However, aside from the money transfer scheme as I refer to it, the Kyoto Protocal has other problems which makes me believe it's all about money.

For example, too much emphasis is placed on carbon dioxide and not enough on other greenhouse gases and heat-trapping substances. The Protocol excludes developing countries from binding emissions reductions, China, Russia, India, and Brazil. And possibly my biggest issue is that it fails to distinguish between non-human and human-caused factors, in my view, intentionally.

The environment is an issue, there is no question, but we have to look at it by introducing a variety of new technologies, nuclear energy, wind, solar we will not achieve anything by reducing productivity.

EDIT: To add chart

Have a quick look at this chart, I think it speaks volumes.

 

[MMMike]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

Of course Kyoto has problems. No one said it was perfect. And who the hell are we to talk about the developping world's pollution when we emit an order of magnitude more pollution than they do (on a per capita basis).

 

[BorealRock]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

Of course Kyoto has problems. No one said it was perfect. And who the hell are we to talk about the developping world's pollution when we emit an order of magnitude more pollution than they do (on a per capita basis).

Two things.

1) It's -30C outside this morning so I have to burn a bit more fuel to stay warm even if the house is modern with good insulation and windows etc. That should be considered for folks living in cold climates.

2)Up until about 5-10k years ago there was a mile thick pile of ice over most of Canada. It's just about finished melting. You have to fly over the treeline to relize that it is a colonization of spruce (boreal forest) moving northwards. Most Canadians have no clue of this. You have to know this if you want to talk about global warming otherwise your ignorant. Realy we are between ice ages. That does not mean we are not screwing things up with crazy use of oil-gas-coal but we have to know our planet. Geology should be a mandatory course starting in grade 1. Well educated (and not just with degree) people deal with problems way better.

 

[I think not]

Re: Global Warming - "We are past the point of no retu

Does anyone know of any website that tracks a country's performance on the Kyoto Protocol? It would be interesting to see it in action.