REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Back to climate change...

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 2, 2011 09:36
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2936
PAGE 1 of 2

Thursday, February 17, 2011 9:51 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Caveat: Okay, so I can't resist a wedge issue. But it struck me how interesting it is that people who are happy to jump to theories about so many things are so adamant about rejecting the theory of climate change, or that it might be caused by humans. Would seem to be right up their alley, wouldn't it, since they love blaming the government for everything and anything, and it's government which isn't interested in mitigating it...
Quote:

Climate scientists have a great deal of confidence about the impacts of global warming over a long period of time, decades to centuries—higher temperatures, changes in precipitation, rising sea levels. But if you actually ask a climatologist whether an unusually strong hurricane or a crippling heat wave is actually connected to global warming, you'll always get the same answer: we can't prove it.

But that's beginning to change. In the first major paper of its kind, a new study in the February 17 Nature has found that heavy precipitation is at least partly due to the growing concentration of manmade greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. A team of scientists from Canada and Scotland used powerful computers to analyze the causes behind the rise in storms and heavy snowfall over the past half century. They found that the likelihood of extreme precipitation on any given day rose by 7% between 1951 and 1999—the years covered by the study. That's outside the bounds of normal variability, and the increase only make sense if rising greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are taken into effect. "Human influence on the climate system has the effect of intensifying precipitation extremes," said Francis Zwiers, a climate researcher at Environment Canada in Toronto and the study's lead researcher.

That conclusion shouldn't be that surprising—climatologists have predicted an uptick in extreme weather events as greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase. Since warmer air can carry more water vapor, a warmer planet should see heavier rain and other precepitation—and that's what we've begun to see with actual weather.

With help from computer time donated by the public, researchers analyzed the severe rains that flooded England and Wales in 2000, leading to some of the worst flooding in British history.

The researchers concluded that the chances of such a major flood happening at that time were roughly doubled by the rise in greenhouse gases. "Greenhouse gas emissions have affected the odds of floods in England and Wales," said physicist Pardeep Pall of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich).

Given the billions of dollars for climate adaptation at stake, it's vital for scientists to deliver more rapid and accurate analysis of extreme weather events. The study
of the 2000 floods took a decade of work and incredibly complex computer simulations.

Assigning "cause and blam" will also impact international climate negotiations. If developing countries—already on the front lines of global warming—can prove that carbon emissions from rich countries are causing what we once referred to as natural catastrophes, they may well be justified in demanding the equivalent of carbon reparations.

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/02/17/new-studies-show-that-clim
ate-change-is-the-culprit-in-extreme-rain/#ixzz1EFLy0SyH
Quote:

Devastating floods in Pakistan and Russia's heatwave match predictions of extremes caused by global warming even though it is impossible to blame mankind for single severe weather events, scientists say.

This year is on track to be the warmest since reliable temperature records began in the mid-19th century, beating 1998, mainly due to a build-up of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels, according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

"We will always have climate extremes. But it looks like climate change is exacerbating the intensity of the extremes," said Omar Baddour, chief of climate data management applications at WMO headquarters in Geneva.

Recent extremes include mudslides in China and heat records from Finland to Kuwait -- adding to evidence of a changing climate even as U.N. negotiations on a new global treaty for costly cuts in greenhouse gas emissions have stalled.

Reinsurer Munich Re said a natural catastrophe database it runs "shows that the number of extreme weather events like windstorm and floods has tripled since 1980, and the trend is expected to persist."

The worst floods in Pakistan in 80 years have killed more than 1,600 people and left 2 million homeless.

"Global warming is one reason" for the rare spate of weather extremes, said Friedrich-Wilhelm Gerstengarbe, a professor at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

DOWNPOURS

He pointed to the heatwave and related forest fires in Russia, floods in Pakistan, rains in China and downpours in countries including Germany and Poland. "We have four such extremes in the last few weeks. This is very seldom," he said.

The weather extremes, and the chance of a record-warm 2010, undercut a view of skeptics that the world is merely witnessing natural swings perhaps caused by variations in the sun's output.

Russia's worst drought in decades has led to fires that have almost doubled death rates in Moscow to around 700 per day, an official said. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced a grain export ban from August 15 to December 31.

Nearly 1,500 people have died in landslides and flooding caused by months of torrential rains across China, the Ministry of Civil Affairs said.

One study concluded that global warming had doubled the chances of heatwaves similar to a scorching 2003 summer in Europe, in which 35,000 people died. Those temperatures could not convincingly be explained by natural variations.

"It may be possible to use climate models to determine whether human influences have changed the likelihood of certain types of extreme events," the U.N. panel of climate scientists said in its latest 2007 report.

That report said it was at least 90 percent likely that most warming in the past 50 years was caused by mankind.

Most countries agreed at a U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen last year to limit a rise in average world temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, a tough goal since temperatures already rose 0.7C in the 20th century.

The latest round of U.N. climate talks in Bonn, from August 2-6, ended with growing doubts that a global climate treaty could still be agreed as hoped by some nations in 2010 despite deep splits about sharing the burden of curbs on emissions.

U.S. Senate majority leader Harry Reid has all but abandoned climate change legislation this year. The United States, the number two greenhouse gas emitter behind China, is the only major industrialized nation with no law to cut emissions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/09/us-climate-extreme-idUSTRE67
82DU20100809?pageNumber=2



Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:23 AM

BYTEMITE


Weird temperature gradient and weird wind/ocean circulation causes weird weather. A couple of times the article almost seems to say that the greenhouse gases directly cause the weird weather, assuming there's an impact, it would really be more indirect than that.

At least the article stuck to the stuff that can actually be substantiated, like storms and storm intensity that are dependent on temperature considerations.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 17, 2011 11:05 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER


My guess is it has to be a problem first. Pollution is certainly a problem but climate change has happened many times over the earths geologic history and a few times over human history. During the medieval period is was hotter than it is now and around 1800 or 1900 I think the earth started climbing out of a 'miniature ice age.'

From the conspiracy mindset (and I'm not really of that, so correct me if I'm wrong) a more suitable theory might be

political elite +
selective science and data manipulation +
carbon scapegoating and policy change +
?????? =
Profit?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 17, 2011 11:12 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Happy, wouldn't there be more long-term profits if oil wasn't made the bad guy and we weren't convinced to move away from it?

I like your conspiracy theory, and I think it matches some of what's out there in the tin-hat crowd.

Yes, I know earth's climate has changed, and that we've only been around a teeny fraction of it's history, so we can't KNOW (at least, "yet") whether our actions are causing the changes. As I've said before, given the impacts we've had on the air, water, land, ocean, etc., I find it hard to believe we're not having an impact, but that's just my opinion.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 17, 2011 11:34 AM

BYTEMITE


http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StepThreeProfit

Ah, classic.

>_>

To be fair to the tinfoil hat crowd, which I count myself among, the oil companies and industry have as much interest in staying around indefinitely as they do in JUST oil. I've seen the reports from BP, they know things are getting dire and oil is running out.

They're pouring tiny amounts into R&D, mostly as a public lip service, but that may be because they already have a good idea of the next energy source they're going to turn to. In the meanwhile, why wouldn't they do stuff to cement themselves as irreplaceable global corporate entities? I'm pretty sure they're getting close, look at how went bent over backwards for BP and those others for the Gulf spill, and no help from the damn government, that's for sure.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:27 PM

DREAMTROVE


Hell, at least you recognize one, give yourself points for that. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 17, 2011 2:24 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Everything has cycles: the seasons, humanity, life itself and the earth too. I believe that we are in a warming period in the cycle. As Happy said it was quite warm in the middle ages, then things got colder, the Vikings abandoned Greenland because they couldn't adapt (fine with me). Later the Thames would freeze over and people in London would have their winter festival out there every year etc. Then in the second half of the 19th century things started warming up and here we are. I believe such cycling is natural. Does our impact affect it at all, I think maybe a little, but when volcanoes blow it affects it a lot and other factors affect it too. That being said though I believe that we as humans have been given this responsability to take care of the earth, that means cutting down on pollution as much as possible, learning about other energy sources, being sustainable etc. It is our job to take care of the planet, especially since Obama is dismantling NASA so we won't be able to go and terraform other worlds when ours runs out of resources. :) But seriously I care a lot about the environment and believe it is our responsability. If we take care of the earth then the earth will take care of us. We cause a lot of dammage and we need to make it right. But I believe that global cycles will happen regardless.


"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 17, 2011 2:43 PM

DREAMTROVE


I concur,

I think there is a cot of damage being done to the climate on a global scale by deforestation and desertification, but the global effect is nothing compared to the local. I've crunched the numbers in some detail here on the forum to debunk greenhouse theory, and no one seemed the least interested in debating the underlying math, so I abandoned the argument.

That said, I think locally our use of fossil fuels does a lot of damage, both at the point of extraction and at the point of use. There was a study some years back that measured the smog content of the air and estimated that living in LA was like smoking two packs a day. (the converse of that is smoking two packs a day is lie living in LA )

Last time my family came back from Beijing they said landing in LAx was like stepping out into the country by comparison. It's really sad. My first and only time to china there were no cars, only bicycles. It seemed so efficient.

I don't know why people can't make common sense choices like: you can take a half hour to get to work, or, you can do it in fifteen minutes, but life long you won't be able to breathe. If someone were to put it that way, I suspect no one would take it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 17, 2011 2:49 PM

DREAMTROVE


Oh, and climate changes all the time, and it's going to be different different places. There's a reason there there are no more Mosasaurs living in Kansas ;)

Here, this has been the coldest and snowiest winter in decades, but it still pales in comparison to the standard issue winter I grew up in. -20 and three feet of snow was a given. A bad winter would be -60 and ten feet of snow. I remember opening the front door to see a wall of snow, and then having to literally dig a tunnel out to the street. I remember walking to school on days that were so cold you could only make it from one evergreen to the next, and then you hid inside the tree until you made the next break. They make great little houses ;)

I don't expect to see those sorts of winters again. Unless I move to Canada or something.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:23 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


A DT a chara, it would be useful to know your age, at least what decade you're in, 30s or 40s etc.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 17, 2011 8:56 PM

DMAANLILEILTT


Weather changes all the time. Climate is weather over long period averaged out. So no it doesn't change "all the time".

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 18, 2011 2:41 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
Weather changes all the time. Climate is weather over long period averaged out. So no it doesn't change "all the time".

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"




No, just over long periods of time.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 18, 2011 4:21 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
A DT a chara, it would be useful to know your age, at least what decade you're in, 30s or 40s etc.



It would, wouldn't it

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 18, 2011 9:16 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER


lol, I was curious too, but didn't know the protocol for asking such things.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 18, 2011 11:22 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Anyway - I was thinking about this the other day. Much has been made of claim that - supposedly - man-made global warming isn't falsifiable.

Except it is.

The ONE absolutely foolproof way to falsify it is if everything stayed within statistical norms. If there were neither more nor less extreme events. If extreme events were neither more nor less extreme than usual. If global averages like ocean temperature stayed the same. If glaciers worldwide neither advanced nor retreated. Then people could claim there is no such thing as global warming.

Also, the Medieval Warm Period was not necessarily global or warm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 19, 2011 6:55 AM

HARDWARE


Global warming wiped out the mammoth and mastodon, and destroyed the ice caps of 30-6,000 years ago. A catastrophic environmental change. It also wiped out Homo Neanderthalis. Remember how humanity suffered through that terrible era. We should seek a return to "Normal" temperatures, lower ocean levels and bring back the Wisconsin Ice Cap.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 19, 2011 7:03 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
The ONE absolutely foolproof way to falsify it is if everything stayed within statistical norms.

How would you define statistical norms? Statistically normal for this year? The last 10 years? The last 50 years? The last 100 years? The last 1000 years? The last 10,000 years?

If you use a climatology, which one would you use? And how would you justify limiting the definition of the Earth's norms to such a small window?

How would you define statistically abnormal? How much deviation are you allowed from the climatology or whatever definition you want to use as "statistically normal"?


-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 19, 2011 7:11 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I've crunched the numbers in some detail here on the forum to debunk greenhouse theory, and no one seemed the least interested in debating the underlying math, so I abandoned the argument.

Have you tried it at scienceofdoom.org ? Where people actually know what math and science is. I love that site. I do. The guy or gal has changed my mind on quite a number of things. I love it when that happens.

People on FFF are fans of a TV show. This place is for bickering and philosophizing for entertainment purposes only. Don't get me wrong. I love RWED and I learn a lot from this place. But science and math are not one of those things. If you want to talk about REAL science or real math, you gotta go elsewhere.



-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 19, 2011 7:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What ya'll don't get is that - at 7 billion- we can't afford the kinds of climate changes that occurred in the past, much less the ones that are about to occur. With rising oceans and more extreme weather events, food production is going to get pretty spotty.

We've been balancing on a knife-edge the past few decades. There is very little to spare... like all brainless creatures we've bred right up to our carrying capacity and beyond (makes me wonder about so-called "human intelligence", but I digress...) and now we're busy chopping away at the foundation of what sustains us.

BTW- I suppose it doesn't make any difference to point out that what is happening to the Greenland ice shield... which has existed for at least 400,000- 800,000 years, LONG before homo-anything came on the scene... is far more extreme that what happened during Viking times? Using Viking-era events as some sort of excuse or rationalization to explain away the current phenomenon is a failure to properly proportion data.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 19, 2011 7:58 AM

BYTEMITE


So, assuming we can't change our consumption patterns or agriculture techniques, the end result suggested is either we drastically decrease the size of the human race, or have it done for us by global changes.

You prefer the former. What population levels do you think humans should be limited do and how to you intend to go about doing so?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 19, 2011 8:24 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"How would you define statistical norms?"

Fair question.

Measurements need to be on a scale useful to our needs. If I were to take the entire history of the earth - from anoxic ball of molten rock to oxygenated iceball earth - it's ALL within the normal range.

So maybe the scale of measurement - the weather range - we need to use is the scale of "useful to human habitation".

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 19, 2011 10:11 AM

DREAMTROVE


PN just made an interesting point about polar drift. I was gnawing it over. If the core is made of bands and storms like the surface of Jupiter, and i moves that much in a century or two, New York will change bands, and so will Tokyo.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 20, 2011 4:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

So, assuming we can't change our consumption patterns or agriculture techniques, the end result suggested is either we drastically decrease the size of the human race, or have it done for us by global changes. You prefer the former. What population levels do you think humans should be limited do and how to you intend to go about doing so?
Me personally? I can't limit human populations. All I can do is point and holler and hope that enough people wake up and smell the coffee, and quite frankly that's not about to happen. So basically, our population will be reduced for us.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 20, 2011 6:31 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
What population levels do you think humans should be limited do and how to you intend to go about doing so?



Ooh. Snap. I didn't catch this before.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 20, 2011 7:42 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Me personally? I can't limit human populations. All I can do is point and holler and hope that enough people wake up and smell the coffee, and quite frankly that's not about to happen.


That's fair.

What happens if people do wake up, organize, etc. How do they go about it?

If they don't wake up, we must assume they're sheep. If so, does that mean someone doesn't want them to wake up? Why do they not want them to wake up? Simple profits could be the motive, but even the profitmongers might be affected if lots of people start dying from conditions. Do profitmongers act in their best interests? Do they expect to be affected? If not, why not? If so, why do they want to continue through with this plan of action?

Quote:

So basically, our population will be reduced for us.


Ouch.

The question I have, who does the reducing in this case? Is it really the environment, or is it the fault of people who have been poisoning us and the planet?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 20, 2011 7:52 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"They found that the likelihood of extreme precipitation on any given day rose by 7% between 1951 and 1999—the years covered by the study. That's outside the bounds of normal variability, and the increase only make sense if rising greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are taken into effect."

Hello,

This phrase: "The increase only makes sense if..."

Is a failure phrase to me.

Better to say, "The only theory we have to explain the increase is..."

But, as always, I think the argument of climate change is an argument between two people who would like to win while everyone else loses.

Almost everything proposed to combat 'man made climate change' has merits outside the argument of climate change, and can be sold on those merits alone.

So I am suspicious of people who keep pushing the concept. They don't seem to care about climate change at all, or they would just sell the individual improvements based on universally agreeable merits. Why argue on your weakest, least embraced plank?

I fear that man-made climate change is being pushed so that various agencies can grasp dominion over a larger percentage of human behavior. Not to save the world, but to enslave it.

I'll take a hybrid or electric car, clean emissions, and renewable energy. I'll take these things because they increase my liberty and the enjoyment of that liberty.

That's what ought to be sold, because that's what I want to buy. So... if they want to save the world, why isn't that enough?

What else are they really selling?

--Anthony







Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 20, 2011 8:29 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What else are they really selling?

I'd pay you a million dollars for the answer. If I had a million dollars. And you had the answer. :)


-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 20, 2011 8:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes, BYTE, most people are sheep. Not to sound like PN, but there are a very few who control what happens... in the US, it's about 400 people, in the rest of the world about 1000. They are sociopaths, and the rest of everyone else is just trying to survive in the system that the sociopaths have set up. Sociopaths... well, in most of history they've never been very far-sighted. Take income redistribution, for example. What TPTB don't seem to recognize is that income redistribution is required for capitalism to survive. But that's in the long run, and long-run thinking just doesn't seem to be in their blood.

ETA
And I guess, if I blame anything, it's "human nature". Not that "we" are rapacious, but that we are mostly geared towards seeing things in the short term and in our immediate surroundings, and that we (most of us) just want to get along. If we had a sociopath in our midst... say, in our tribe... he or she would be dealt with in short order. If a hole we dug suddenly started spewing gas and noxious shit form the ground, we'd plug it up right away! But in a very complex society, where you don't SEE the millions of people that you interact with economically and the environmental problems happen little by little and often far away, it is very easy for the sociopath to hide its actions. It's like society's immune system doesn't get alerted to the cancer in its body. And the rest of the cells... well, they just keep doing what they're doing, accommodating the larger and larger drain until the host is killed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 20, 2011 8:58 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, BYTE, most people are sheep. Not to sound like PN, but there are a very few who control what happens... in the US, it's about 400 people, in the rest of the world about 1000. They are sociopaths, and the rest of everyone else is just trying to survive in the system that the sociopaths have set up. Sociopaths... well, in most of history they've never been very far-sighted. Take income redistribution, for example. What TPTB don't seem to recognize is that income redistribution is required for capitalism to survive. But that's in the long run, and long-run thinking just doesn't seem to be in their blood.



Wow. I agree with everything in that post.

ETA: Uh oh, there's an edit.
Quote:

ETA
And I guess, if I blame anything, it's "human nature". Not that "we" are rapacious, but that we are mostly geared towards seeing things in the short term and in our immediate surroundings, and that we (most of us) just want to get along. If we had a sociopath in our midst... say, in our tribe... he or she would be dealt with in short order. But in a very complex society, where you don't SEE the millions of people that you interact with economically, it is very easy for the sociopath to hide its actions. It's like society's immune system doesn't get alerted to the cancer in its body. And the rest of the cells... well, they just keep doing what they're doing, accommodating the larger and larger drain until the host is killed.


But I basically agree with the edit. I was worried for a sec there when I saw the first line, but after that, yeah, agreed. I don't think it's our natural short term view, but it is that we don't see them. If Bill Kristol showed up in my town and started his smarmy talk and then took off some kids to be blown up by arabs, there would be a little fuss. It's that he can do it without people seeing that he's doing it, either seeing what's really being done, or that he and his friends are the ones doing it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 20, 2011 9:41 AM

DREAMTROVE


CTS, Anthony

the common conspiracy theory is a global taxation scheme, which they want to build out of a global panic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 20, 2011 10:37 AM

BYTEMITE


Neat. I think I see where you're going with that now.

You want to stop them, and you want us to join you, that's cool.

Seems to me that there's a lot of directions of attack TPTB are coming from, and it's good to have someone trying to stop the attack on one front. It's good to have people fighting them on all the fronts, really.

I think you're an ally, and I'd like to think if I try to attack a different part of the machine, we'll still be allies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 21, 2011 7:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BYTE, I wouldn't know what to do if ANYONE joined me! All I want is for you to understand... I am absolutely and fervently committed to bringing down TPTB, which I see as mainly economic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 21, 2011 4:42 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


What is TPTB?

On population control: I'm opposed to imposed population control like China, forced sterilization, etc. People have a right to reproduce, I'm a fan of educating and letting people know risks associated with genetics etc. but its up to them to make the decision for themselves. So in keeping with the subject I guess the type of "population control" I'll have to side with here is the kind where nature takes care of it, so your second option, like super plagues, storms etc. Sounds unfeeling but I think human imposed population control is more unfeeling/rude.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 21, 2011 5:53 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I am absolutely and fervently committed to bringing down TPTB, which I see as mainly economic.

I think many of us here would agree with you on this goal, to bring down the TPTB, economic and otherwise. The arguments are not about that.

The arguments are about what to erect when TPTB are gone.

Rion: TPTB = The Powers That Be


-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 21, 2011 6:32 PM

KANEMAN


Crazy sig..."Yes, BYTE, most people are sheep. Not to sound like PN, but there are a very few who control what happens... in the US, it's about 400 people, in the rest of the world about 1000."


Hilarious!!! really? What toilet did you pull those numbers out of? And I'm not to be taken serious....hilarious....WOW.

I love blather....well, it's true....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 21, 2011 6:38 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Hi Signe M, I hope you saw my message to you on that old ODD thread of Byte's, you never wrote back so I just wanted to make sure you got my note near the end there.

Thanks for the acronym explanation, I'm not so good at figuring those out.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 27, 2011 7:37 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"I fear that man-made climate change is being pushed so that various agencies can grasp dominion over a larger percentage of human behavior. Not to save the world, but to enslave it."

AND IF YOU ARE WRONG AND THE PROBLEM IS REAL? WHAT THEN?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 28, 2011 9:44 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
AND IF YOU ARE WRONG AND THE PROBLEM IS REAL? WHAT THEN?

As Anthony keeps saying, we can address the man-made issues with plenty of other non-controversial rationales, like pollution and conservation. We solve the problems with energy efficiency, cleaner emissions, alternative technology--just leave CO2 out of the talking points.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 28, 2011 9:46 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


And if CO2 *** IS *** the problem?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 28, 2011 9:53 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Seems to me if CO2 somehow WAS the problem (which I find unlikely, and certainly not on it's own), stopping deforestation, promoting cleaner emissions and high energy efficiency would still help solve that problem, without forcing people to swallow what is often appears to be politically motivated pseudo-science.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 28, 2011 9:58 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I agree with Happy that stopping deforestation, limiting pollution, making our energy use more officient, taking care of the earth and being responsible are things that most people agree are good, so if we practice these things then things will improve and it doesn't have to be a political issue.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 28, 2011 10:31 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

There are many different kinds of radiated energy, among them light (visible radiated energy) and heat (thermal radiated energy, infrared).

(BTW, they differ in how they fundamentally interact with matter. Light causes outer electrons to jump into a higher energy orbit, and when they fall back, light of a particular wavelength is re-emitted. Heat, which is infrared radiation, causes the entire molecule to wiggle and stretch back and forth like a gummy worm.)

Any gas is a greenhouse gas if it meets this definition: visible radiation (light) passes through it but it absorbs felt radiation (heat). Light from the sun passes through the atmosphere where it strikes the earth and may be absorbed by matter. The warmed earth then re-radiates the light as heat.

The more of any greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, the less heat will be re-radiated into space from the earth. Or in other words, the more heat will be trapped in the atmosphere. This is the fundamental nature of greenhouse gases which, in our current universe, is not about to change. (No matter how often you plug your ears and say - I can't HEAR you!)

There are many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, principally water. BECAUSE water absorbs so strongly over so many wavelengths, it only leaves a few 'windows' open for heat to re-radiate back into space. And that is the problem with CO2 - it absorbs in the open 'windows' and is closing them.

Note that CO2 absorbs in areas where water does not.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 28, 2011 12:39 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I also wholeheartedly
Quote:

agree with Happy that stopping deforestation, limiting pollution, making our energy use more officient, taking care of the earth and being responsible are things that most people agree are good, so if we practice these things then things will improve and it doesn't have to be a political issue.
But my question is: how do you get enough people to do these things to affect sufficient change? Because people are mostly concerned with their own lives, so if having things double-bagged in plastic instead of remembering to bring your own bag, then tossing the plastic rather than bothering to recycle, is easiest, how do you get enough of them to change? How do you change companies from making big, gas-guzzling cars if that's what people want? How do you limit pollution by big companies like PG&E (remember Erin Brokovich? They're still doing it in other places, you know), unless the government makes it expensive enough/difficult enough. It's nice to think each of us can make enough difference, but I don't believe there are "enough" of us willing to do so to make enough change. I sure ain't seen "enough" yet...or expect to.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 28, 2011 1:51 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
And if CO2 *** IS *** the problem?

As Happy and Rion pointed out (not to mention every post Anthony makes on the topic), these problems greatly overlap. Taking care of the other problems will also take care of an overwhelming majority of the CO2 problem.

Solving problems is about finding common ground. CO2 is divisive and discourages collective problem solving.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 28, 2011 1:55 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
But my question is: how do you get enough people to do these things to affect sufficient change?

How do you get enough people to do anything? Raising awareness. Collective problem solving. Making things fun. These are just logistics. You streamline past the everyday obstacles.

Once you make a commitment to solve problems without divisiveness, without holding guns to people's heads, you find ways.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 28, 2011 2:11 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Well, ordinary people on their own don't make much of an impact. It's a noble goal, and worth pursuing but it's got nothin' on the real damage done by careless industries. Ya certainly don't wanna try and force it on them (the people), or they may do otherwise out of spite. I despise fear mongering, and though we associate that more with one side of the political spectrum, the other side ain't exactly innocent either. I think people will generally do the right thing, if it's easy/available enough for them. The best thing we can do is make the right choices more available.

I think you're right about big business though, and that's were our efforts should be focused. That's where the deforestation is coming from, not Bubba's 4X4.

I don't think anyone wants to burn and buy a lot of gas, but they might want (or even need) something with enough ground clearance to handle a poorly maintained road, 'specially if they live out in the country. Of course, there are those who don't need these, but see it as I status symbol I guess. Not unlike how it was attractive in medieval times to be fat, because it showed you could afford to eat in excess. I despise SUV's but I have to remind myself that not every SUV driver is a woman on a cell phone who doesn't check their mirrors before changing lanes... (bracing for sexist accusations... now!)

Where I grew up, we had to trade the minivan for a friends truck (needed the 4 wheel drive) for a few months out of the year or we wouldn't be able to make it through the dirt road (which at these times was more of a shallow river) to get the school or the grocery store, or anywhere else. As much as I hate big vehicles with terrible drivers that you can't see around in your crappy volkswagen that gets great mileage (when it works)... I'm hesitant to stigmatize them on account of some folks need them for legitimate reasons.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 28, 2011 2:54 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I agree that a majority of the pollution and deforestation without proper replanting comes from corporations mostly. I think there do need to be laws and rules in place that limit pollution, make people replant a variety of trees, etc. In my mind taking care of the earth so it will take care of us is a good enough reason to do these things, but I know that a lot of big corporations, and some people, don't feel the way I do. But if we don't take care of our planet we can't go colonize others thanks to NASA being done away with, so we have to make what we have work. :) I know I probably shouldn't have included that but I couldn't resist, since Firefly is all about colonizing other planets after earth runs out.

But seriously, this is the only planet we have and if we don't take care of it we are the ones who suffer.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 11:51 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I agree with Rion and Happy...even if you COULD get enough people to choose to act more environmentally responsible, we truly aren't the important thing. And I maintain that corporations and industries won't change their ways unless someone makes them--I'm guessing anything they could do to mitigate their impact would cut into profits, so there's no way they'd do it willingly.

Yes, demand sets manufacturing, but there will always be people who want big, gas-guzzling cars, always companies who want the cheapest way to manufacture their products even if they pollute the environment, etc., etc. I don't buy that capitalism would change the situation...certainly not fast enough to make a difference. Especially with so many countries developing; it's even harder to get people to change who haven't yet ruinec their OWN environment. Just how I see it.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 12:13 PM

DREAMTROVE


Replanting is not enough. You don't farm by going out and stealing crops, and then planting something there. You plant, wait, harvest. No reason any form of agriculture should be any different, whether fish or forest.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 12:20 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I don't buy that capitalism would change the situation...

I don't believe anyone is advancing capitalism as a solution.

I am talking about non-violent, non-forceful solutions. Education, conservation, even entertainment.

The alternative is to threaten people with prison and/or death if they don't cut down their CO2 production. Threats of violence for producing a gas that we exhale in every breath is not something I can support.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, April 28, 2024 16:06 - 6316 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, April 28, 2024 15:47 - 3576 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, April 28, 2024 15:39 - 2314 posts
Scientific American Claims It Is "Misinformation" That There Are Just Two Sexes
Sun, April 28, 2024 12:35 - 23 posts
Dangerous Rhetoric coming from our so-called President
Sun, April 28, 2024 07:30 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Sun, April 28, 2024 02:03 - 1016 posts
The Thread of Court Cases Trump Is Winning
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:37 - 20 posts
Case against Sidney Powell, 2020 case lawyer, is dismissed
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:29 - 13 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:28 - 745 posts
Slate: I Changed My Mind About Kids and Phones. I Hope Everyone Else Does, Too.
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:19 - 3 posts
14 Tips To Reduce Tears and Remove Smells When Cutting Onions
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:08 - 9 posts
Russian War Crimes In Ukraine
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:27 - 15 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL