|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Dec 9, 2009 15:06:06 GMT -8
Bregt, of course the article has an agenda - I never claimed it didn't. He's writing from his point of view and it's certainly not a 'news' article (if those even exist anymore). But you still need to address the facts he presents: The IPCC's Climate Change report (the one that presents the "consensus" people have been touting) has a specific section dealing with Climate Change and its relation to human causes - it's called Working Group I. Only 1/4th of the scientists who's work went into the IPCC report as a whole worked on Working Group I. Of that 1/4th, only 60 scientists actually worked on and reviewed the section discussing "Attributing Climate Change" which is the section most cherry-picked as evidence of human-caused Cliamte Change. A majority of those 60 had conflicts of interest (i.e. monetary gain to be had in reporting human-caused climate change) leaving just a handful of actual objective reviewers. Yet the media would have us all believe 1,000's of scientists are signing off on the deal... This is all online for anyone to review at the IPCC report's page. www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htmIt's fine if you want to dismiss the conclusions the FreeCanada author makes, but what of his evidence? -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Dec 10, 2009 19:52:38 GMT -8
Well, I believe we can all agree on the following observations; 1. Unprecedented glacial retreat and loss world wide. 2. Unprecedented ice shelf lost in Greenland and Antarctica. 3. The fact that the Aortic Ocean will be ice free in the summer within 5 -10 years 4. The loss of tropical mountain snow packs 5. Malaria penetrating to higher altitude cities like Nairobi. 6. Ocean CO2 ppm recorded at saturation levels 7. Atmosphere CO2 ppm recorded at unprecedented levels and rising exponentially annually 8. Accelerating desertification 9. Accelerating deforestation 10. Accelerating loss of portable fresh water 11. 90 million tons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere daily - more cars, more factories, more coal burning etc.
Irregardless of cause, I do not believe any of my conservative friends would deny any of these observations nor argue that they are good, healthy or sustainable.
So conservatives believe as I heard on Bill Bennett's Morning In America that Climate Change is a "great liberal-socialist conspiracy to grow government and to take control of the lives of common men." Liberals believe that just as rampant, unregulated capitalism destroyed our financial system and brought our country to ruin, it is also destroying our planet. Each side either credits or discredits scientific consensus Theory. Where does this leave us? I surmise there is not much common ground here, or is there?
I say, regardless of whether you believe or do not believe in climate change we can all do things to be good stewards of this planet. We have choices; weatherize your homes, change light bulbs, buy energy efficient appliances, by smaller and fuel efficient cars, recycle, plant trees, support the development of green industry; solar, wind, a smart electrical grid etc.
I have said my peace.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 11, 2009 7:47:49 GMT -8
I think everyone can get behind renewable energy. I'm not sure how much good will come from trying to cut carbon emissions until we stop using gas powered cars and coal power plants. Initial costs for more renewable sources of energy will be very higher, but it should be cheaper than what we're doing in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Dec 11, 2009 8:26:01 GMT -8
I say, regardless of whether you believe or do not believe in climate change we can all do things to be good stewards of this planet. We have choices; weatherize your homes, change light bulbs, buy energy efficient appliances, by smaller and fuel efficient cars, recycle, plant trees, support the development of green industry; solar, wind, a smart electrical grid etc. I don't think any reasonable person is doubting investing into alternative energy sources, which will give us choice, and a better environment for us to breathe and live in. Nor are reasonable and intelligent people denying the existence of climate change. They are debating the affect humans can actually have on climate change. There is no point in spending billions in sweeping regulations and restricting laws, especially during a recession, unless you are absolutely sure it is going to dramatically affect CO2 emissions to the point of changing the course of climate change. Right now, it's looking less and less likely that we can, despite the millions in advertising and political campaigners (always a trustworthy bunch), backing it. What we can do is further explore alternative energy sources, as many of us have mentioned, and look for ways to better adapt to the changes that will be happening over the next few centuries.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Dec 11, 2009 15:49:33 GMT -8
Ha! I love that. I remember quoting it on a term paper for one of those silly liberal arts courses you have to take in college. My teacher wanted everyone in our class to blame Dubya for hurricane Katrina (not the government's slow response to the emergency, but the actual tropical depression) and the rest of America for killing this notion of Earth as Gaia (whatever the hell that means) so obviously the paper was framed in the form of "How will man made global warming kill us all and who's to blame?". Did my research, objected to the findings of this "consensus", used your data as part of the argument, and aced it. I know she didn't like my idea that at the moment there was no accurate way to model what was happening on Earth, least of all scale it over the years, but damn if I can't use the internets. ;D Some time later I found more information describing how the IPCC report was, while correct in its own terms, insufficient to explain the range and extent, as well as the meaning of research done by other scientific organizations. Unfortunately, I forgot what that was.
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Dec 11, 2009 18:46:48 GMT -8
Chris, what's the worst case scenario if we spend the money and it turns out there's no human impact on climate change? We're more financially screwed than we are now. What the worst case if we have a severe impact on climate change and do nothing?
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Dec 11, 2009 18:52:19 GMT -8
I don't see things doing well, though. Not to depress you guys, but here's a bit of reality you don't need words or expert analysis to understand and verify (and those words don't even have to be properly translated): (potentially NSFW, but it won't crash your stomach and leave you sleepless for weeks, trust me) www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/As we all know, "communist" China is extending its economic empire over the world, at whatever the cost. As a result, it's buying off certain markets to obtain either political capital (it gave us a soccer stadium and other gift money because we broke off relations with Taiwan, we have a vote in the U.N., and we're part of a niche market they want to exploit), they need territorial control or ease of use for the flow of commerce and trade (saw those headlines titled "Will China save Afghanistan?", did you now?), and rape the crap out of their resources, because they need the raw materials (see: Africa). Now, aside from the human rights abuse and all the stuff we could say about greed and morality, just look at those pictures. They're defecating on the air and oceans; think about how changing the chemical make-up of the sea will affect species: mutations, decreased density of populations, massive migration, higher risk in extinction rates -- translation: less food available unless you want to intoxicate yourself, damage to both big and local industries, ++ on the unemployment rate, tourism goes down, water use must be worked around, and if we add the real effect of greenhouse gases on sea temperature alone, that's storms, shipping rerouting, and flooding for ya. If China keeps this up (and there's also the lesser known danger of India), take into effect how this will change markets over the world. Look at your economy, China has it by its balls. To compete with its dominance, people will either do 1) innovate and laugh at them or 2) what they always do: outrape them on the environment, threaten other countries (aka markets) with economic sanctions, get the CIA to put a head of state that plays nice or, shit, go to war. Whatever Obama says about climate change is moot if he doesn't have solutions for overpopulation, lack of resources required for current technologies used to sustain our way of life, and the rapidly growing Chinese empire. But he won't, because people still choose to debate science they don't know a thing about, China already owns you and your government keeps taking out fake money from the Fed and giving it to the people who ran the scheme that drove you down so they can stimulate (I believe this "stimulus" is comparable to that crystal meth produces, you won't look very good in the end), and most of the world still thinks the problems we'll face in the next 100 years are due to cows taking a dump (fact: yes, they produce a lot of methane, fact: they're there because we need them for food, fact: we cut down tons of forests so we could have tons of food so stop blaming it on the cows).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Dec 12, 2009 13:14:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Dec 22, 2009 17:00:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Dec 22, 2009 18:10:37 GMT -8
Alanso - Be quick to pollute your resume with reasons not to be drafted for the upcoming war with China. War? I do not believe either plausible or probable. Unlike the US which feels it must constantly impose its will and interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, China continues its historic predisposition and cultural psychology of wariness of international alliances, entanglements and interference. War is messy and bad for business which clearly demonstrates Chinese foreign policy of late. They understand that any conflict with the US would devastate their economy and foment domestic upheaval which the leadership fears more than us. So I would argue that using the Reagan doctrine of constructive engagement is the course we should pursue. Embracing us over time will indeed be the kiss of death for Chinese totalitarianism. Openness, free markets, greater social freedom will undue their grip on power over time. In is in our best interests to practice the historical Chinese virtue of patience. My deceased partner Su-Chaw was Chinese. I learned much about his culture and homeland in our 8 year partnership. I also read and studied much to gain a better understanding of Chinese culture, history and traditions. I have blended this knowledge with my well known liberal perspective. I appreciate the discourse.
|
|