well now that weve established that i need to lighten up can we get back to the topic at hand?
Yes ... so, i ask again ... how many more people must die and suffer before it becomes an urgent matter? ... where we stop saying it's happened before therefore we don't need to act?
well now that weve established that i need to lighten up can we get back to the topic at hand?
Yes ... so, i ask again ... how many more people must die and suffer before it becomes an urgent matter? ... where we stop saying it's happened before therefore we don't need to act?
I don't know if people dying can be directly attributed to climate change just yet.........yes there has been an increase in the severity of disasters lately, but as to how much is the direct result of climate change, I'm guessing its hard to say. I'm curious to know if there is any evidence out there that is able to link these exact events to climate change?
Based on a lot of the replies in this thread - it seems like a lot of people are qualifying climate change based merely on the impact that humans will feel.........I have to ask why? Humans will probably be towards the end of the list to actually feel the impact.......
I don't know if people dying can be directly attributed to climate change just yet.........yes there has been an increase in the severity of disasters lately, but as to how much is the direct result of climate change, I'm guessing its hard to say. I'm curious to know if there is any evidence out there that is able to link these exact events to climate change?
Based on a lot of the replies in this thread - it seems like a lot of people are qualifying climate change based merely on the impact that humans will feel.........I have to ask why? Humans will probably be towards the end of the list to actually feel the impact.......
increased amounts of extreme weather has always been the immediate impact of climate change ... it is the part of the foundation of the science ...
and yes - people do primarily care about the human cost and even at that they don't really connect the notion of biodiversity and sustainable ecosystems ... i'm pretty sure if polar bears could talk - they would be begging for us to act more urgently now ... but as it stands ... as long as the privileged people continue to withstand the consequences - there will be no such action ...
well now that weve established that i need to lighten up can we get back to the topic at hand?
Yes ... so, i ask again ... how many more people must die and suffer before it becomes an urgent matter? ... where we stop saying it's happened before therefore we don't need to act?
does the area have a history of this kind of disaster? is the area very densely populated, cause it seems to me people get more uptight when many lives are lost(understandably so) than if the land is destroyed? nature is a powerful force. and she doesnt care who is living where.
can every disaster of magnitude be blamed on mankinds evil ways??
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
devastating meaning?? are you measuring that by peoples lives lost? people displaced? destruction/rejiggering of the natural world?
how do we know this isnt just part of the cycle. a cycle we havent been a part of long enough to recognise, let alone be so deeply affected by?
we don't and there is no way to know that.
but we do have very smart people who have dedicated their education and lives work to this very issue, and they are telling us to chill out on the emissions.
don't think its to much to ask, especially after having flown into LA, like its dirty there. the air is dirty. its that bad. think we could clean up a bit and it at the least i could take a deep breath.
devastating meaning?? are you measuring that by peoples lives lost? people displaced? destruction/rejiggering of the natural world?
how do we know this isnt just part of the cycle. a cycle we havent been a part of long enough to recognise, let alone be so deeply affected by?
we don't and there is no way to know that.
but we do have very smart people who have dedicated their education and lives work to this very issue, and they are telling us to chill out on the emissions.
don't think its to much to ask, especially after having flown into LA, like its dirty there. the air is dirty. its that bad. think we could clean up a bit and it at the least i could take a deep breath.
cities are like little hothouses... this is true. theyre dirty, smelly, a concentrated mass of people and a cancerous lung in the worlds body.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
does the area have a history of this kind of disaster? is the area very densely populated, cause it seems to me people get more uptight when many lives are lost(understandably so) than if the land is destroyed? nature is a powerful force. and she doesnt care who is living where.
can every disaster of magnitude be blamed on mankinds evil ways??
i hate to keep beating a dead horse ... but do you folks who don't believe in the science actually understand it?? ... because, you guys are missing the point entirely ... we are artificially altering the weather to increase the likelihood of extreme weather events ... look at the incidence of these events over the past several years ... it is increasing all the time ... and again - these are just the immediate consequences of climate change ... there is a whole host of consequences that are to be suffered in the medium and long term ...
I love it when people think they are making an "argument" but it is merely an illogical "assertion." When there are millions of variables to consider in the whole global warming debate, you CANNOT take one variable out of myriad of variables, especially an unimportant variable, and say that it proves the debate one way or the other. If you're going to seriously create an argument here the first thing to do would be to take a look at the billions of pages (literally) of secondary research available to you from unbiased sources. Then, if you don't think that the evidence obviously points towards man-made global warming, you can look into forming your own argument based on primary research. I don't know that this has ever happened...
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
does the area have a history of this kind of disaster? is the area very densely populated, cause it seems to me people get more uptight when many lives are lost(understandably so) than if the land is destroyed? nature is a powerful force. and she doesnt care who is living where.
can every disaster of magnitude be blamed on mankinds evil ways??
i hate to keep beating a dead horse ... but do you folks who don't believe in the science actually understand it?? ... because, you guys are missing the point entirely ... we are artificially altering the weather to increase the likelihood of extreme weather events ... look at the incidence of these events over the past several years ... it is increasing all the time ... and again - these are just the immediate consequences of climate change ... there is a whole host of consequences that are to be suffered in the medium and long term ...
Clearly Polaris has researched this just as much if not more than anyone else here. And polaris has strong opinions about it.
I don't disagree at all (not sure how you could) with the science behind greenhouse gases. I think it is a good thing to focus efforts on becoming more sustainable. I do wonder how much an effect man has had on the system. I also wonder if the sample size we have is really big enough to make any conclusions.
But the reality is if Polaris is wrong but we make all these efforts to reduce carbon emissions, etc, we still end up in a better place. If polaris is right but we don't do anything, the results could be catastrophic...and who knows when (polaris would say it has started).
So, it makes sense to do as much as we can as soon as we can. The problem is it must be done in a way that doesn't cause other issues and that is where the argument begins for me. What do we have to do and how fast?
So, it makes sense to do as much as we can as soon as we can. The problem is it must be done in a way that doesn't cause other issues and that is where the argument begins for me. What do we have to do and how fast?
this is the thing tho ... most people fall victim to some mythological notion of economic growth as the single most important variable to not hinder ... i say that it is absurd ... the most appropriate word would be sustainaility ...
if you consider the world to be a farm and house and family ... we need to operate in a way that ensures the family can live and future generations can live ... our current ways of life are unsustainable ...
So, it makes sense to do as much as we can as soon as we can. The problem is it must be done in a way that doesn't cause other issues and that is where the argument begins for me. What do we have to do and how fast?
this is the thing tho ... most people fall victim to some mythological notion of economic growth as the single most important variable to not hinder ... i say that it is absurd ... the most appropriate word would be sustainaility ...
if you consider the world to be a farm and house and family ... we need to operate in a way that ensures the family can live and future generations can live ... our current ways of life are unsustainable ...
Hey, there's a cool high mountain lake pic of my wife and I on that site somewhere. We submitted it last year for the big 350 day.
ya gotta scroll through 1,445 pages of pictures to find it ... haha ... oh ... and i did the tick tock thing at central park last year for this ... :oops:
Hey, there's a cool high mountain lake pic of my wife and I on that site somewhere. We submitted it last year for the big 350 day.
ya gotta scroll through 1,445 pages of pictures to find it ... haha ... oh ... and i did the tick tock thing at central park last year for this ... :oops:
does the area have a history of this kind of disaster? is the area very densely populated, cause it seems to me people get more uptight when many lives are lost(understandably so) than if the land is destroyed? nature is a powerful force. and she doesnt care who is living where.
can every disaster of magnitude be blamed on mankinds evil ways??
i hate to keep beating a dead horse ... but do you folks who don't believe in the science actually understand it?? ... because, you guys are missing the point entirely ... we are artificially altering the weather to increase the likelihood of extreme weather events ... look at the incidence of these events over the past several years ... it is increasing all the time ... and again - these are just the immediate consequences of climate change ... there is a whole host of consequences that are to be suffered in the medium and long term ...
weather and climate arent the same thing... you know that right??
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
weather and climate arent the same thing... you know that right??
they are not the same thing but they are related to each other ... what is your point?
again - please, just learn about the basic science of climate change ... it shouldn't take you but 20 mins or so and you will no longer be posting things that are irrelevant ...
Reading a great book right now...found this tidbit of info..
Beware the environmental movement, beware the environmental
movement
Let’s clarify a few things before anybody starts with the usual I’m for “Big Oil” or some
kind of anti-environment rich white male capitalist rant or whatever the latest catch
phrase of the (ROCKEFELLER funded) fringe eco wacko left is.
A. I am not “anti-environment”. There are legitimate environmental problems like solid
waste disposal, sewage and water treatment and local air pollution issues like LA’s
recurring smog problems. Wetlands serve important environmental functions but now,
like everything else with the eco wacko movement, it has gone too far and protecting
them has become a blank check for total control of private property. Actually, my
collegiate background is civil engineering with an environmental concentration. In fact,
the solution to all of today’s real environmental problems can be solved with things like
chemistry, microbiology, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, etc. etc. and the resultant
technologies of a free, capitalistic society. For example, we invented nuclear power in
this country. In one case in Arizona three nuclear plants for cooling water are using
purified wastewater from nearby sewage treatment plants. By the way, seven more
nuclear power plants were due to come on line there but thanks to the eco wacko kooks
and our “useless officials” in Congress, “hasta la vista baby” to quote Republican turned
green loon Governor Arnold of the loon state of California. Speaking of California,
wastewater treatment plants there now can produce potable quality water as a discharge.
Hmmm. We can go to Africa and take their CFCs but not build water treatment plants. I
can go on but you get the point. Now when one reads the books of the “New” Age
Mother Earth Gaia wackos and associated (and very religious) “New” Age loons a few
things become abundantly clear as thoroughly documented in “The THEorY of
LIVEvolution” and summarized here:
1. The eco wackos regard pesky things like chemistry, physics and other
sciences of the devout Christian Isaac Newton as “mechanistic” and
“profane”. Alchemy, the forerunner of real chemistry, is purely metaphysical
in nature and the “Sacred Science” according to these (very religious) fools.
2. In order to be valid a scientific THEORY must be verifiable and backed by
DATA. This holds for ALL branches of science. Personally, I have studied
copious models in the fields of hydrology and water pollution. These models
need to be field tested (i.e., reality verified) before being released for general
consumption by SCIENTISTS and ENGINEERS and even then they are only
as good as the operator, his or her data collection, etc, etc. Yet the “models”
predicting “Global Warming” need no such verification and in fact the
SCIENTIFIC data CONTRADICTS “Global Warming” (suddenly “Climate
Change”). The goofballs like Hollywood elites and a certain (very
financially) green private jet flying limo driving hypocrite not to mention the
(Banksta owned) mainstream snews have exempted themselves from this
INCONVENIENT TRUTH. This fiasco is thoroughly documented in “The
THEorY of LIVEvolution” that itself has somehow escaped the need to
produce even one iota of verification or DATA like say an evolutionary
transitional fossil...
3. As documented in “The THEorY of LIVEvolution” the real goal of the kook
fringe (and ROCKEFELLER funded) eco wacko movement is POPULATION
CONTROL. Is this “crazy”? There are millions of dead innocent Africans
that speak otherwise from the other side of the grave. For example, the ozone
hole “scare” scam disallowed cheap and efficient refrigeration of life saving
medicines, the Global Warming (Climate Change?) “scare” scam in addition
to wasting billions of dollars and endless scientific minds to solve a nonexistent
problem is literally starving people to death worldwide with this
ethanol hoax. The pesticide DDT was also banned by the eco wacko kooks
and now mosquitoes can live and people die of malaria. That’s okay, we all
come from the same “Earth Mother” according to these loons not mention the
THEorY of LIVEvolution fools who would claim that they probably deserved
it due to some past life bad karma…
4. Finally, more shame (if that’s possible) to the disgraceful Catholic Church and
other Social Gospel fools for joining in with this sham. Now if mankind can
destroy himself with “global warming” aren’t we really calling God, the real
One, an idiot since we are claiming one of His creations can destroy another?
Of course there’s the prospect of nuclear war but Mother Earth would recover
over time. Besides, before that God would need to intervene to save us from
ourselves unless we think the all too humanistic (ROCKEFELLER founded)
UN-dead is up to the task….
B. BEWARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT, BEWARE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT to paraphrase Anti-Commandment number 10 of the
Georgia Guidestones “…leave room for nature, leave room for nature”. According to the
UN-dead “global warming” is now a “security issue” as in martial law issue. Hmmm. In
addition to the aforementioned beyond evil conclusions, the leader of the UN-dead
associated and eco wacko laden “Green Cross” is none other than ex “Evil Empire”,
devout Communist and ex KGB leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Now when Gorby here
converses with current Russian, very proud, Communist (and ex-KGB chief) Russian
leader Vladmir Putin do you think they are remorsefully discussing the real
environmental debacle of Chernobyl or the Western economy weakening eco wacko
movement as they bide their time to bring back “Mother Russia” not to mention new
alliances with environmentally friendly Iran (we will destroy Israel), Libya, Syria and the
other lunatics from the “religion of peace”?
In a nutshell, no pun intended, we have hiding beneath the environmental
movement the makings of the One World Control System as justified by the global
warming (climate change?) “Crisis” in addition to the makings of the Battle of Gog and
Magog (who?) that some say IS the Battle of Armageddon. Both happen to show up in
the Book of Revelation and now both hide beneath the cover of the radical environmental
movement.
Finally, can I get some love for poor David Rockefeller? His Banksta forerunners
knew they were playing with fire by unloosening the likes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler and the
other champions of the Population Control/Mother Earth saving types. I know David
cares very much for our environment as documented in “The THEorY of LIVEvolution”
and his quotes about Communist China’s contributions to the Mother Earth saving
population control endeavor. But this Vladmir Putin may not roll over and play “nice”
like say Joe Stalin or Nikita Khrushchev. Now it seems Davie (and his buddies like Hank
Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Ted Turner) may have a real problem on his hands
trying to control the current crop of Mother Russia’s leaders not to mention the “religion
of peace” types we will die for Allah nut-cases…
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, silly me. How can I forget the very (financially) green Al
Gore…eco wacko tool of the Bankstas. If there’s any doubt that the Bankstas own
“both” sides of the “Presidential” selection scam look no further than this hypocrite
charlatan. The “imbecile majority” actually thought things would be different had he
won in 2000. Fine. So instead of Skull and Bones Bush nailing us with the “Federal”
“Reserve” Banksta approach this clown would have nailed us with the pro-eco wacko
Banksta approach. (Hint: Both are happening anyway). His “global warming” (climate
change?) and ozone hole scam are covered thoroughly in “The THEorY of
LIVEvolution” but one fact should be stressed here in case anyone thinks I’m the crazy
one for calling the eco wackos a bunch of Earth spirit worshipping loons. Al (I buy
carbon credits from my own carbon credits company) Gore refused to take this “Personal
Ethics Energy Pledge” in front of the United States Senate Public Works Committee on
March 21, 2007:
As a believer:
That human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical and spiritual
issue affecting our survival;
That home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;
That reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower
greenhouse gas emissions; and
That leaders on moral issues should lead by example;
I pledge to consume no more energy for my use in my residence than the
average American household by March 21, 2008
(emphasis mine)
Hmmm. Al “the debate is over” Gore probably didn’t take this pledge because he really
does believe that global warming should stand the test of scientific scrutiny with pesky
things like data confirmation of “global warming” (climate change?) theories and not be
considered some kind of “spiritual” issue like say the other Gaia earth spirit weirdoes.
On the other hand maybe he really doesn’t want to give up that private jet or house that
uses around 20 times the energy of your typical evil limited resource depleting American
household while he pays for the whole charade by buying “carbon credits” from a
company he has an ownership interest in...
Ummm….
I knew all the rules, but the rules did not know me...GUARANTEED!
ok ... the guy is a conspiracy theorist ... which doesn't necessarily mean that he is wrong ... but it's hard to address anything because he doesn't actually provide anything to rebuke ... he just keeps calling people eco-wackos ... i mean if there is anyone who shouldn't be marginalizing a group - it's someone who considers himself a conspiracy theorist ... i can equally write incoherent sentences about him as a wacko and not say anything as well ...
i wouldn't call this info as i would the ramblings of one man ... i do hope the book has more subtance ...
Right off, I will say that I am skeptical about anyone having the ability to determine man's specific impact on climate given the millions of factors at play. I also think that humanity gives itself far too much credit in terms of being both the problem and solution-- man seems to think it can successfully control systems which it really can't, from environment to economies. But--
I am all for efforts like 350.org, and completely against legislation like Cap and Trade as a means to a cleaner healthier planet. I think everyone SHOULD beware massive government actions to fix any problems dealing with global warming / climate change, as their "solutions" will inevitably give power to special interests who only pose to care about the problem while finding a way to profit at the expense of the taxpayer. If people want to use the power of their elected officials, they should push to stop subsidizing oil and corn (ethanol), and force this industry to compete on a level playing field with the less-connected green technology out there. When the cost of cleaner and greener technology is even with that of fossil fuels, the incentive to use fossil fuels will diminish greatly, and so will emissions.
Environmentalists should focus on changing minds through persuasion, not force. The same could be said for every religious group out there who cares about spreading their message.
People are still doubting man's impact. Ok, quick fact. In a 50 year span of time (a blink of time) we removed 90% of the large fish/mammals from the ocean. The heads of entire ecosystems gone just like that. 50 years! Yeah, it's tough to measure alright.
Idaho's Premier Outdoor Writer
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
Right off, I will say that I am skeptical about anyone having the ability to determine man's specific impact on climate given the millions of factors at play. I also think that humanity gives itself far too much credit in terms of being both the problem and solution-- man seems to think it can successfully control systems which it really can't, from environment to economies. But--
I am all for efforts like 350.org, and completely against legislation like Cap and Trade as a means to a cleaner healthier planet. I think everyone SHOULD beware massive government actions to fix any problems dealing with global warming / climate change, as their "solutions" will inevitably give power to special interests who only pose to care about the problem while finding a way to profit at the expense of the taxpayer. If people want to use the power of their elected officials, they should push to stop subsidizing oil and corn (ethanol), and force this industry to compete on a level playing field with the less-connected green technology out there. When the cost of cleaner and greener technology is even with that of fossil fuels, the incentive to use fossil fuels will diminish greatly, and so will emissions.
Environmentalists should focus on changing minds through persuasion, not force. The same could be said for every religious group out there who cares about spreading their message.
the majority of environmentalists are not in favour of cap and trade ... in fact, you libertarian types will probably find friendly ears more often than not ... unfortunately, many of you guys have aligned yourselves with the conspiracy theorists who think us environmentalists are some secret group really aiming to put more power into the hands of the elite which is about as far from the truth ...
your point on fossil fuel subsidies is spot on
and if you would truly like to figure out man's ability to control climate ... simply walk into a greenhouse on a sunny day in late fall ...
ok ... the guy is a conspiracy theorist ... which doesn't necessarily mean that he is wrong ... but it's hard to address anything because he doesn't actually provide anything to rebuke ... he just keeps calling people eco-wackos ... i mean if there is anyone who shouldn't be marginalizing a group - it's someone who considers himself a conspiracy theorist ... i can equally write incoherent sentences about him as a wacko and not say anything as well ...
i wouldn't call this info as i would the ramblings of one man ... i do hope the book has more subtance ...
Its actually a facinating book. Rob is a really big Italian, Tony Soprano type from Jersey who wrote the book, so that would explain some of the language and how he words things. I wanted to find a better part of the book to add as the link, but I didn't have time to find what I was looking for. But here is a link to the book. It pretty much covers the Bilderbergs, Global Warming, The AIDS virus, swine flu, WHO, The (Non) Federal Reserve and so forth..you can download for $5. Well worth the read, and he does have all sorts of references to back up his research. http://www.theoryoflivevolution.com/bookorder.html
I knew all the rules, but the rules did not know me...GUARANTEED!
People are still doubting man's impact. Ok, quick fact. In a 50 year span of time (a blink of time) we removed 90% of the large fish/mammals from the ocean. The heads of entire ecosystems gone just like that. 50 years! Yeah, it's tough to measure alright.
that would be KNOWN species right? cause you know i keep hearing we discover new species every day. so 90% of the unknown isnt too absolute if you ask me. and even if youre not asking me im saying it anyway. :P
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
weather and climate arent the same thing... you know that right??
they are not the same thing but they are related to each other ... what is your point?
again - please, just learn about the basic science of climate change ... it shouldn't take you but 20 mins or so and you will no longer be posting things that are irrelevant ...
i know what climate change is. ive never denied the earth is warming and ive stated my reasons.... perhaps you missed that... i am all for changing our behaviours as ive said before. but what i question is the impact mankind has on global warming. is it neglible? it is massive? do we know absolutely? or are we just trying to scare the people into changing their behaviours... cause you know that ever works.
dont point, for example, to the massive flooding of one of the worlds major rivers as an indicator when this is hardly the first time it has happened.
truth is we dont know how the earth works in the long run cause we havent been around long enough to note it. sure we can be conjectural using all the data we have.. but that data is incomplete cause there are so many years before. we search for patterns to make sense of things. i get that. its natural for humankind to do that.
again i am not denying global warming... im just willing to chill a bit and not get a massive blinded bug up my arse about it.
oh and my point was.. just that.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
... I also think that humanity gives itself far too much credit in terms of being both the problem and solution-- man seems to think it can successfully control systems which it really can't, from environment to economies. But--...
nature of the beast.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
Yes ... so, i ask again ... how many more people must die and suffer before it becomes an urgent matter? ... where we stop saying it's happened before therefore we don't need to act?
I don't know if people dying can be directly attributed to climate change just yet.........yes there has been an increase in the severity of disasters lately, but as to how much is the direct result of climate change, I'm guessing its hard to say. I'm curious to know if there is any evidence out there that is able to link these exact events to climate change?
Based on a lot of the replies in this thread - it seems like a lot of people are qualifying climate change based merely on the impact that humans will feel.........I have to ask why? Humans will probably be towards the end of the list to actually feel the impact.......
increased amounts of extreme weather has always been the immediate impact of climate change ... it is the part of the foundation of the science ...
and yes - people do primarily care about the human cost and even at that they don't really connect the notion of biodiversity and sustainable ecosystems ... i'm pretty sure if polar bears could talk - they would be begging for us to act more urgently now ... but as it stands ... as long as the privileged people continue to withstand the consequences - there will be no such action ...
does the area have a history of this kind of disaster? is the area very densely populated, cause it seems to me people get more uptight when many lives are lost(understandably so) than if the land is destroyed? nature is a powerful force. and she doesnt care who is living where.
can every disaster of magnitude be blamed on mankinds evil ways??
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
are you speaking of overall world wide or when they happen more frequently in a specific area?? and by past what time frame are we speaking of??
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
seems the overall trend worldwide has been more disasters, more devastating.
devastating meaning?? are you measuring that by peoples lives lost? people displaced? destruction/rejiggering of the natural world?
how do we know this isnt just part of the cycle. a cycle we havent been a part of long enough to recognise, let alone be so deeply affected by?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
we don't and there is no way to know that.
but we do have very smart people who have dedicated their education and lives work to this very issue, and they are telling us to chill out on the emissions.
don't think its to much to ask, especially after having flown into LA, like its dirty there. the air is dirty. its that bad. think we could clean up a bit and it at the least i could take a deep breath.
cities are like little hothouses... this is true. theyre dirty, smelly, a concentrated mass of people and a cancerous lung in the worlds body.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i hate to keep beating a dead horse ... but do you folks who don't believe in the science actually understand it?? ... because, you guys are missing the point entirely ... we are artificially altering the weather to increase the likelihood of extreme weather events ... look at the incidence of these events over the past several years ... it is increasing all the time ... and again - these are just the immediate consequences of climate change ... there is a whole host of consequences that are to be suffered in the medium and long term ...
Clearly Polaris has researched this just as much if not more than anyone else here. And polaris has strong opinions about it.
I don't disagree at all (not sure how you could) with the science behind greenhouse gases. I think it is a good thing to focus efforts on becoming more sustainable. I do wonder how much an effect man has had on the system. I also wonder if the sample size we have is really big enough to make any conclusions.
But the reality is if Polaris is wrong but we make all these efforts to reduce carbon emissions, etc, we still end up in a better place. If polaris is right but we don't do anything, the results could be catastrophic...and who knows when (polaris would say it has started).
So, it makes sense to do as much as we can as soon as we can. The problem is it must be done in a way that doesn't cause other issues and that is where the argument begins for me. What do we have to do and how fast?
this is the thing tho ... most people fall victim to some mythological notion of economic growth as the single most important variable to not hinder ... i say that it is absurd ... the most appropriate word would be sustainaility ...
if you consider the world to be a farm and house and family ... we need to operate in a way that ensures the family can live and future generations can live ... our current ways of life are unsustainable ...
as far as what needs to happen ... check out http://www.350.org
Hey, there's a cool high mountain lake pic of my wife and I on that site somewhere. We submitted it last year for the big 350 day.
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
https://www.createspace.com/3437020
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696
http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
ya gotta scroll through 1,445 pages of pictures to find it ... haha ... oh ... and i did the tick tock thing at central park last year for this ... :oops:
How did you get to central park?
really!?? ... this stuff again? ... this is sooo the old board ...
hahaha..just messing with ya.
weather and climate arent the same thing... you know that right??
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
they are not the same thing but they are related to each other ... what is your point?
again - please, just learn about the basic science of climate change ... it shouldn't take you but 20 mins or so and you will no longer be posting things that are irrelevant ...
http://www.theoryoflivevolution.com/lists.html
Reading a great book right now...found this tidbit of info..
Beware the environmental movement, beware the environmental
movement
Let’s clarify a few things before anybody starts with the usual I’m for “Big Oil” or some
kind of anti-environment rich white male capitalist rant or whatever the latest catch
phrase of the (ROCKEFELLER funded) fringe eco wacko left is.
A. I am not “anti-environment”. There are legitimate environmental problems like solid
waste disposal, sewage and water treatment and local air pollution issues like LA’s
recurring smog problems. Wetlands serve important environmental functions but now,
like everything else with the eco wacko movement, it has gone too far and protecting
them has become a blank check for total control of private property. Actually, my
collegiate background is civil engineering with an environmental concentration. In fact,
the solution to all of today’s real environmental problems can be solved with things like
chemistry, microbiology, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, etc. etc. and the resultant
technologies of a free, capitalistic society. For example, we invented nuclear power in
this country. In one case in Arizona three nuclear plants for cooling water are using
purified wastewater from nearby sewage treatment plants. By the way, seven more
nuclear power plants were due to come on line there but thanks to the eco wacko kooks
and our “useless officials” in Congress, “hasta la vista baby” to quote Republican turned
green loon Governor Arnold of the loon state of California. Speaking of California,
wastewater treatment plants there now can produce potable quality water as a discharge.
Hmmm. We can go to Africa and take their CFCs but not build water treatment plants. I
can go on but you get the point. Now when one reads the books of the “New” Age
Mother Earth Gaia wackos and associated (and very religious) “New” Age loons a few
things become abundantly clear as thoroughly documented in “The THEorY of
LIVEvolution” and summarized here:
1. The eco wackos regard pesky things like chemistry, physics and other
sciences of the devout Christian Isaac Newton as “mechanistic” and
“profane”. Alchemy, the forerunner of real chemistry, is purely metaphysical
in nature and the “Sacred Science” according to these (very religious) fools.
2. In order to be valid a scientific THEORY must be verifiable and backed by
DATA. This holds for ALL branches of science. Personally, I have studied
copious models in the fields of hydrology and water pollution. These models
need to be field tested (i.e., reality verified) before being released for general
consumption by SCIENTISTS and ENGINEERS and even then they are only
as good as the operator, his or her data collection, etc, etc. Yet the “models”
predicting “Global Warming” need no such verification and in fact the
SCIENTIFIC data CONTRADICTS “Global Warming” (suddenly “Climate
Change”). The goofballs like Hollywood elites and a certain (very
financially) green private jet flying limo driving hypocrite not to mention the
(Banksta owned) mainstream snews have exempted themselves from this
INCONVENIENT TRUTH. This fiasco is thoroughly documented in “The
THEorY of LIVEvolution” that itself has somehow escaped the need to
produce even one iota of verification or DATA like say an evolutionary
transitional fossil...
3. As documented in “The THEorY of LIVEvolution” the real goal of the kook
fringe (and ROCKEFELLER funded) eco wacko movement is POPULATION
CONTROL. Is this “crazy”? There are millions of dead innocent Africans
that speak otherwise from the other side of the grave. For example, the ozone
hole “scare” scam disallowed cheap and efficient refrigeration of life saving
medicines, the Global Warming (Climate Change?) “scare” scam in addition
to wasting billions of dollars and endless scientific minds to solve a nonexistent
problem is literally starving people to death worldwide with this
ethanol hoax. The pesticide DDT was also banned by the eco wacko kooks
and now mosquitoes can live and people die of malaria. That’s okay, we all
come from the same “Earth Mother” according to these loons not mention the
THEorY of LIVEvolution fools who would claim that they probably deserved
it due to some past life bad karma…
4. Finally, more shame (if that’s possible) to the disgraceful Catholic Church and
other Social Gospel fools for joining in with this sham. Now if mankind can
destroy himself with “global warming” aren’t we really calling God, the real
One, an idiot since we are claiming one of His creations can destroy another?
Of course there’s the prospect of nuclear war but Mother Earth would recover
over time. Besides, before that God would need to intervene to save us from
ourselves unless we think the all too humanistic (ROCKEFELLER founded)
UN-dead is up to the task….
B. BEWARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT, BEWARE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT to paraphrase Anti-Commandment number 10 of the
Georgia Guidestones “…leave room for nature, leave room for nature”. According to the
UN-dead “global warming” is now a “security issue” as in martial law issue. Hmmm. In
addition to the aforementioned beyond evil conclusions, the leader of the UN-dead
associated and eco wacko laden “Green Cross” is none other than ex “Evil Empire”,
devout Communist and ex KGB leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Now when Gorby here
converses with current Russian, very proud, Communist (and ex-KGB chief) Russian
leader Vladmir Putin do you think they are remorsefully discussing the real
environmental debacle of Chernobyl or the Western economy weakening eco wacko
movement as they bide their time to bring back “Mother Russia” not to mention new
alliances with environmentally friendly Iran (we will destroy Israel), Libya, Syria and the
other lunatics from the “religion of peace”?
In a nutshell, no pun intended, we have hiding beneath the environmental
movement the makings of the One World Control System as justified by the global
warming (climate change?) “Crisis” in addition to the makings of the Battle of Gog and
Magog (who?) that some say IS the Battle of Armageddon. Both happen to show up in
the Book of Revelation and now both hide beneath the cover of the radical environmental
movement.
Finally, can I get some love for poor David Rockefeller? His Banksta forerunners
knew they were playing with fire by unloosening the likes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler and the
other champions of the Population Control/Mother Earth saving types. I know David
cares very much for our environment as documented in “The THEorY of LIVEvolution”
and his quotes about Communist China’s contributions to the Mother Earth saving
population control endeavor. But this Vladmir Putin may not roll over and play “nice”
like say Joe Stalin or Nikita Khrushchev. Now it seems Davie (and his buddies like Hank
Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Ted Turner) may have a real problem on his hands
trying to control the current crop of Mother Russia’s leaders not to mention the “religion
of peace” types we will die for Allah nut-cases…
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, silly me. How can I forget the very (financially) green Al
Gore…eco wacko tool of the Bankstas. If there’s any doubt that the Bankstas own
“both” sides of the “Presidential” selection scam look no further than this hypocrite
charlatan. The “imbecile majority” actually thought things would be different had he
won in 2000. Fine. So instead of Skull and Bones Bush nailing us with the “Federal”
“Reserve” Banksta approach this clown would have nailed us with the pro-eco wacko
Banksta approach. (Hint: Both are happening anyway). His “global warming” (climate
change?) and ozone hole scam are covered thoroughly in “The THEorY of
LIVEvolution” but one fact should be stressed here in case anyone thinks I’m the crazy
one for calling the eco wackos a bunch of Earth spirit worshipping loons. Al (I buy
carbon credits from my own carbon credits company) Gore refused to take this “Personal
Ethics Energy Pledge” in front of the United States Senate Public Works Committee on
March 21, 2007:
As a believer:
That human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical and spiritual
issue affecting our survival;
That home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;
That reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower
greenhouse gas emissions; and
That leaders on moral issues should lead by example;
I pledge to consume no more energy for my use in my residence than the
average American household by March 21, 2008
(emphasis mine)
Hmmm. Al “the debate is over” Gore probably didn’t take this pledge because he really
does believe that global warming should stand the test of scientific scrutiny with pesky
things like data confirmation of “global warming” (climate change?) theories and not be
considered some kind of “spiritual” issue like say the other Gaia earth spirit weirdoes.
On the other hand maybe he really doesn’t want to give up that private jet or house that
uses around 20 times the energy of your typical evil limited resource depleting American
household while he pays for the whole charade by buying “carbon credits” from a
company he has an ownership interest in...
Ummm….
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
i wouldn't call this info as i would the ramblings of one man ... i do hope the book has more subtance ...
I am all for efforts like 350.org, and completely against legislation like Cap and Trade as a means to a cleaner healthier planet. I think everyone SHOULD beware massive government actions to fix any problems dealing with global warming / climate change, as their "solutions" will inevitably give power to special interests who only pose to care about the problem while finding a way to profit at the expense of the taxpayer. If people want to use the power of their elected officials, they should push to stop subsidizing oil and corn (ethanol), and force this industry to compete on a level playing field with the less-connected green technology out there. When the cost of cleaner and greener technology is even with that of fossil fuels, the incentive to use fossil fuels will diminish greatly, and so will emissions.
Environmentalists should focus on changing minds through persuasion, not force. The same could be said for every religious group out there who cares about spreading their message.
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
https://www.createspace.com/3437020
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696
http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
the majority of environmentalists are not in favour of cap and trade ... in fact, you libertarian types will probably find friendly ears more often than not ... unfortunately, many of you guys have aligned yourselves with the conspiracy theorists who think us environmentalists are some secret group really aiming to put more power into the hands of the elite which is about as far from the truth ...
your point on fossil fuel subsidies is spot on
and if you would truly like to figure out man's ability to control climate ... simply walk into a greenhouse on a sunny day in late fall ...
http://www.theoryoflivevolution.com/bookorder.html
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
that would be KNOWN species right? cause you know i keep hearing we discover new species every day. so 90% of the unknown isnt too absolute if you ask me. and even if youre not asking me im saying it anyway. :P
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i know what climate change is. ive never denied the earth is warming and ive stated my reasons.... perhaps you missed that... i am all for changing our behaviours as ive said before. but what i question is the impact mankind has on global warming. is it neglible? it is massive? do we know absolutely? or are we just trying to scare the people into changing their behaviours... cause you know that ever works.
dont point, for example, to the massive flooding of one of the worlds major rivers as an indicator when this is hardly the first time it has happened.
truth is we dont know how the earth works in the long run cause we havent been around long enough to note it. sure we can be conjectural using all the data we have.. but that data is incomplete cause there are so many years before. we search for patterns to make sense of things. i get that. its natural for humankind to do that.
again i am not denying global warming... im just willing to chill a bit and not get a massive blinded bug up my arse about it.
oh and my point was.. just that.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
nature of the beast.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say