Durban Climate Change Conference 2011
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
How is he cherry picking.
Look my friend... the planet is in an emergency so you say. Sacrifices need to be made, ways of life need to be changed. Going Green doesn't mean everything stays the same as it was.
Case in point. I helped design condos that were going to be all Green. It was heralded and everyone was excited. When the occupants moved in they complained of the water pressure being too low. No matter how high they turned the handle the water came out at a slow, steady pace.
Well... it wasn't too low. It was the new way... going green. No more water blasting out of the faucet quickly... no more water blasting out of the shower fast. Slow, steady...enviromentally sound.
This where the rubber actually misses the road. You want change but are unwilling to change yourself. You want government to solve a problem and force people to do things.
On the other hand you have no intention of changing your lifestyle because it is inconvenient and costly.
Welcome to the winning team Floss!
I do my part where I can.
But mitigation and personal investment is limited to macroscopic factors. These policy conditions take priority over individual contributions.
I'd say that you 'do your part' where you feel like it won't be too much of an imposition.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have any commute to work.
The greater onus of responsibility must be matched to the damage created.
Collectively, all of us driving to work causes significant damage and pollution, but individually it is not nearly as significant. In order to get a significant change there has to be a driving force from either the market leaders or from government.
Okay, so we don't really need to bother doing anything, because it's inconvenient.
It's far easier to preach for others to do something.
What do I mean?
I mean that it's easier to talk than to actually do anything, and it's better to ask others to do something than it is to do anything.
It's better to demand carbon reduction targets, but still travel by plane to South Africa to ask for someone to do something.
It's better to drive to work every day, but still demand someone to do something to bring in carbon reduction targets.
The important thing is to talk a good game, but not to do anything that actually takes any effort.
See, it's easier to ask others to do stuff, as long as one doesn't have to change their own lifestyle. Me, I think someone somewhere should do something about that, but only as long as I don't have to be disturbed or make any effort.
I mean that it's easier to talk than to actually do anything, and it's better to ask others to do something than it is to do anything.
It's better to demand carbon reduction targets, but still travel by plane to South Africa to ask for someone to do something.
It's better to drive to work every day, but still demand someone to do something to bring in carbon reduction targets.
The important thing is to talk a good game, but not to do anything that actually takes any effort.
See, it's easier to ask others to do stuff, as long as one doesn't have to change their own lifestyle. Me, I think someone somewhere should do something about that, but only as long as I don't have to be disturbed or make any effort.
I'm no greenie that keeps bumping thread after thread on global warming like a horse with blinders to keep him in straight line....and I've had solar panels on my trailers since '95. The generator I bring with me for emergencies (like a week without sunshine) Used up 1/2 tank of gas in all of three months of camping last summer, and that was to help out another camper who'se batteries had run down.
YOU are the oil companies. Canadian and Provincal Govts are heavily invested.
Sled dogs get great mileage on polar bear meat.
Do you know what a block heater is? If the company you work for doesn't have a block heater plug for you parking spot, quit and find a better company.
A refillable coffee cup is a must have.
I think an orbit adjustment tax would be an effective alternative to the debunked CO2 theory.
You can actually see large orbit adjustment explosions, CO2 adjustments, you can't see nothing. Why did the twits pick an invisable gas?
You can actually see large orbit adjustment explosions, CO2 adjustments, you can't see nothing. Why did the twits pick an invisable gas?
Orbital changes cause the familiar temperature rise leading the carbon dioxide rise, which is not at all what is happening now.
What's available is the researchers name, the school, and the journal the article appeared in. I got this quote from this article appearing in that google search MF linked to:
The study appears in the Journal of Arid Environments. Climate change scientist Patrick Gonzalez led the research on six countries. At the time of the study, Gonzalez was a visiting scholar at the Center for Forestry at the University of California at Berkeley.
That ought to be enough for anyone interested in actually looking to find the research article to do so.And here's the abstract:
Increased aridity and human population have reduced tree cover in parts of the African Sahel and degraded resources for local people. Yet, tree cover trends and the relative importance of climate and population remain unresolved. From field measurements, aerial photos, and Ikonos satellite images, we detected significant 1954–2002 tree density declines in the western Sahel of 18 ± 14% (P = 0.014, n = 204) and 17 ± 13% (P = 0.0009, n = 187). From field observations, we detected a significant 1960–2000 species richness decline of 21 ± 11% (P = 0.0028, n = 14) across the Sahel and a southward shift of the Sahel, Sudan, and Guinea zones. Multivariate analyses of climate, soil, and population showed that temperature most significantly (P < 0.001) explained tree cover changes. Multivariate and bivariate tests and field observations indicated the dominance of temperature and precipitation, supporting attribution of tree cover changes to climate variability. Climate change forcing of Sahel climate variability, particularly the significant (P < 0.05) 1901–2002 temperature increases and precipitation decreases in the research areas, connects Sahel tree cover changes to global climate change. This suggests roles for global action and local adaptation to address ecological change in the Sahel.
But you were content to dismiss the findings without even looking. Apparently the school was enough to be suspect in your eyes, despite UC Berkeley's high rankings, both globally and in the US.
The temperature rise is not leading the carbon dioxide rise as has been the case for the orbital driven Milankovitch changes. It's the converse that is happening right now.
Hey Tonnington. What have you personally done to earn your self some carbon credits? Is your carbon footprint paying you?
Yes... but I guess I'd have to buy into this as well as be interested.
Yes, the climate does change, and droughts do happen in the Sub-Saharas. I'm just missing the "man made" part of what you quoted.
Moving on shall we?
Stone Age graveyard shows Sahara was once green | Reuters
Now what were Iron Age humans doing to the climate to turn the once green Sahara into the world's largest desert over 10,000 years ago?
Can't prove the science is wrong.
Can't prove there's a conspiracy.
Can't prove it will cause an economic meltdown.
Can't prove there aren't any other options other than oil.
Must be Tonnington's fault.