Global Warming not looking good

whygohome

Earth is a living thing, it ages. We are at the end of the ice age, so the snow melting and the water levels rising is natural.

That being said, human activity does not help, especially since the Industrial Revolutions. I look at it this way:
If a man starts smoking at 20, by the time he is 40 he will have the lungs of a 50 year old. Think of that in terms of the planet and human activity.

I hope the analogy works for you.

Also, the phrase "global" warming bothers me. It makes the problem too big for people to think they can do something about it. Instead, if you care about the environment, adopt the creed "Think globally, act locally." Environmental degradation is something that needs to be investigated on a local scale.

catefrances

to deny global warming is folly. but to run around like chicken little is also folly.

the earth has been in the process of warming since the 'end of the last ice age' around 10000 years ago. back then around 1/3 of the earth was covered in ice and there was less CO2. did mankind become extinct back then? no they did not. they adapted. and have been adapting ever since.

is it getting warmer on earth? probably. id be more worried if it wasnt. sure with the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of earths natural filters mankind isnt helping sustain the planet. but were far from the end of the age of man.

does this mean we should continue to rape the earth? no.


mankind has become too reliant on fossil fuels. are we looking at alternative? yes we are. but the pull of the almighty dollar is too strong. and old habits die hard.


with all our supposed intelligence mankind seems to be lacking common sense. and imo thats way more important to survival than intelligence.

polaris_x

catefrances wrote:

to deny global warming is folly. but to run around like chicken little is also folly.

we've had almost 2,000 people die in pakistan with over a million people displaced in just ONE Flood ... this stuff is happening all over the world ... heck, could have been a tornado in NYC last nite (not confirmed) ... how many people must die and how many people must suffer before we should consider this matter urgent?

polaris_x

nice little piece on the politicizing of climate change ...

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/09 ... n=daily_nl

How Can We De-Politicize Climate Change?
by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 09.16.10
Business & Politics

Is such a thing even possible?

The existence of climate change itself has clearly become a political issue, and the trend is only looking to deepen. Look, for example, at the current crop of Senate GOP candidates: Every single one of them opposes policy to address climate change, and nearly all of them question man's role in global warming. After the midterm elections, the GOP's stance on climate change will be further removed from the science than even the Bush administration's was. Meanwhile, polls show liberals growing slightly more concerned about climate change. The question is, how do we stop this divisive descent?

Sometimes the ol' question-in-a-headline tactic is a ploy to entice the prospective reader to find the answer in the article below. But not this time. I'm posing a genuine question (perhaps against my better judgment, as the comment trolls may run with this one).

Now, I certainly don't think that every one of these candidates is stupid, or distrusting of science (though there are surly some dim bulbs running on both sides of the aisle). No, the greater problem is that it's become politically expedient to dismiss climate change.

At the moment, much of this has to do with the fact that the hard-right Tea Party -- the group that is currently galvanizing conservative voters to head to the polls -- is deeply skeptical of climate change, and is forcing conservative politics to adapt accordingly. Not all of those in this group believes climate change is a hoax (though some certainly do), but just about all agree that governmental regulation is not the answer. It was a recurring phenomenon this primary season: If a conservative hoped to appeal to the base, he or she would have to attack climate policy. But even before the Tea Party became a national political force to be reckoned with, conservatives were generally uneasy (to put it lightly) with climate change -- due largely to the solutions government was able to come up with to address it.

Hating the Solutions, Not the Science
And that, more than anything, is the root cause of the public's unease with so-called anthropogenic global warming (that, and serious funding from industry groups, who view its acceptance as a threat, to disseminate contrarian ideologies): Nobody -- not individuals, not car-owners, not fossil fuel execs, nobody -- wants to change their behavior on the recommendation of a seemingly obfuscated scientific theory. I, for one, don't. Of course, we know that the immediate individual costs of enacting, say, the climate bill passed in the House, would be minimal in reality (very slightly higher electricity bills is pretty much the extent of it). But that doesn't ease the impression that climate change stirs in many.

Yet as the science grows stronger, it gets harder to dismiss the need for solutions -- so naturally, the focus has shifted to questioning the science itself. Whereas even the Bush administration acknowledged the existence of climate change, it's in vogue now to brush it off altogether. As a result, now more than ever, those who recognize that man is contributing to climate change and those who don't are likely to fall neatly along the same lines -- liberal and conservative. Which is very unfortunate.

Understanding an accepted scientific theory should demand nothing of political values. People should be able to look at climate change, which 97% of scientists in the field confirm is real and caused by man, and have an open discussion about it.

De-politicizing Climate Change
So the question is, what can we do to move the conversation in that direction? How do we de-politicize climate change? Is it even possible?

Some argue that as the economy stabilizes, people will be more receptive to discussing unpleasant things like climate change again, and the discussion will proceed from there. Others say that a natural disaster of the sort that climate change makes more probable -- like the heatwave in Russia or the flooding in Pakistan -- may spur genuine dialogue again.

But I worry that, at least for the next couple years -- key years to act at that -- the ideology opposed to climate science will be firmly planted in Congress. Unless we find some way to steer the conversation to more productive grounds on a national level, I fear we may lose some valuable time in addressing the issue. Grassroots action and activist movements like 350.org are a potential answer -- that's how the Tea Party grabbed the spotlight, after all -- and could, if executed properly, bring climate action back into the common discourse on an even ground. It could, however, also further politicize the issue -- perceived eco-protests are pretty firmly rooted in the popular imagination as deeply liberal.

It's a worrying question indeed, but I can't help but believe there's a solution out there -- be it more public involvement from climate scientists themselves, a louder voice for clean energy business advocates, grassroots action, a scaling down of 'anti-science' name calling (which I myself am guilty of), and so on -- I'm just at a bit of a loss for what it is.

whygohome

polaris_x wrote:

nice little piece on the politicizing of climate change ...

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/09 ... n=daily_nl

How Can We De-Politicize Climate Change?
by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 09.16.10
Business & Politics

Is such a thing even possible?

The existence of climate change itself has clearly become a political issue, and the trend is only looking to deepen. Look, for example, at the current crop of Senate GOP candidates: Every single one of them opposes policy to address climate change, and nearly all of them question man's role in global warming. After the midterm elections, the GOP's stance on climate change will be further removed from the science than even the Bush administration's was. Meanwhile, polls show liberals growing slightly more concerned about climate change. The question is, how do we stop this divisive descent?

Sometimes the ol' question-in-a-headline tactic is a ploy to entice the prospective reader to find the answer in the article below. But not this time. I'm posing a genuine question (perhaps against my better judgment, as the comment trolls may run with this one).

Now, I certainly don't think that every one of these candidates is stupid, or distrusting of science (though there are surly some dim bulbs running on both sides of the aisle). No, the greater problem is that it's become politically expedient to dismiss climate change.

At the moment, much of this has to do with the fact that the hard-right Tea Party -- the group that is currently galvanizing conservative voters to head to the polls -- is deeply skeptical of climate change, and is forcing conservative politics to adapt accordingly. Not all of those in this group believes climate change is a hoax (though some certainly do), but just about all agree that governmental regulation is not the answer. It was a recurring phenomenon this primary season: If a conservative hoped to appeal to the base, he or she would have to attack climate policy. But even before the Tea Party became a national political force to be reckoned with, conservatives were generally uneasy (to put it lightly) with climate change -- due largely to the solutions government was able to come up with to address it.

Hating the Solutions, Not the Science
And that, more than anything, is the root cause of the public's unease with so-called anthropogenic global warming (that, and serious funding from industry groups, who view its acceptance as a threat, to disseminate contrarian ideologies): Nobody -- not individuals, not car-owners, not fossil fuel execs, nobody -- wants to change their behavior on the recommendation of a seemingly obfuscated scientific theory. I, for one, don't. Of course, we know that the immediate individual costs of enacting, say, the climate bill passed in the House, would be minimal in reality (very slightly higher electricity bills is pretty much the extent of it). But that doesn't ease the impression that climate change stirs in many.

Yet as the science grows stronger, it gets harder to dismiss the need for solutions -- so naturally, the focus has shifted to questioning the science itself. Whereas even the Bush administration acknowledged the existence of climate change, it's in vogue now to brush it off altogether. As a result, now more than ever, those who recognize that man is contributing to climate change and those who don't are likely to fall neatly along the same lines -- liberal and conservative. Which is very unfortunate.

Understanding an accepted scientific theory should demand nothing of political values. People should be able to look at climate change, which 97% of scientists in the field confirm is real and caused by man, and have an open discussion about it.

De-politicizing Climate Change
So the question is, what can we do to move the conversation in that direction? How do we de-politicize climate change? Is it even possible?

Some argue that as the economy stabilizes, people will be more receptive to discussing unpleasant things like climate change again, and the discussion will proceed from there. Others say that a natural disaster of the sort that climate change makes more probable -- like the heatwave in Russia or the flooding in Pakistan -- may spur genuine dialogue again.

But I worry that, at least for the next couple years -- key years to act at that -- the ideology opposed to climate science will be firmly planted in Congress. Unless we find some way to steer the conversation to more productive grounds on a national level, I fear we may lose some valuable time in addressing the issue. Grassroots action and activist movements like 350.org are a potential answer -- that's how the Tea Party grabbed the spotlight, after all -- and could, if executed properly, bring climate action back into the common discourse on an even ground. It could, however, also further politicize the issue -- perceived eco-protests are pretty firmly rooted in the popular imagination as deeply liberal.

It's a worrying question indeed, but I can't help but believe there's a solution out there -- be it more public involvement from climate scientists themselves, a louder voice for clean energy business advocates, grassroots action, a scaling down of 'anti-science' name calling (which I myself am guilty of), and so on -- I'm just at a bit of a loss for what it is.

Fantastic article. A must read for those on both ends of the debate

UpSideDown

catefrances wrote:

the earth has been in the process of warming since the 'end of the last ice age' around 10000 years ago. back then around 1/3 of the earth was covered in ice and there was less CO2. did mankind become extinct back then? no they did not. they adapted. and have been adapting ever since.

is it getting warmer on earth? probably. id be more worried if it wasnt. sure with the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of earths natural filters mankind isnt helping sustain the planet. but were far from the end of the age of man.

We may be "far" from the end of mankind, but other species/ecosystem are feeling the effects NOW.

And I'm not even sure if we are that far off........small changes in ecosystems roll downhill......

Jeanwah

catefrances wrote:

to deny global warming is folly. but to run around like chicken little is also folly.

And this kind of attitude is why so many people sit on their hands and choose to do nothing about it now, when the outcome in the end (whenever it may be) could really benefit from action taken no sooner than today.

It's like so many people who say "I don't see it happening so why should I bother?" Meanwhile, when coasts really start disappearing it'll be way too late to act.

catefrances

Jeanwah wrote:

catefrances wrote:

to deny global warming is folly. but to run around like chicken little is also folly.

And this kind of attitude is why so many people sit on their hands and choose to do nothing about it now, when the outcome in the end (whenever it may be) could really benefit from action taken no sooner than today.

It's like so many people who say "I don't see it happening so why should I bother?" Meanwhile, when coasts really start disappearing it'll be way too late to act.

who the fuck said i was sitting on my hands doing nothing??? or asking why i should even bother?? you dont know me and you certainly dont know whatit is i do. i was simply expressing a balanced opinion. not overloading to one side. right now were doing ok. that may not be the shape of things to come and mos def if we dont start overhauling our beahviours now. jesus christ pay attention and dont assume.

yours is the kind of attitude that has us running around like headless chooks. its also the kind of attitude that actually contributes to peoples blase attitude. you freak the people out too much and they will shut down and deny.
.
oh and coasts have been reshaping and disappearing since the beginning of time. were only concerned about it cause we have been stupid enough to settle permanently so close to the edges.

catefrances

UpSideDown wrote:

catefrances wrote:

the earth has been in the process of warming since the 'end of the last ice age' around 10000 years ago. back then around 1/3 of the earth was covered in ice and there was less CO2. did mankind become extinct back then? no they did not. they adapted. and have been adapting ever since.

is it getting warmer on earth? probably. id be more worried if it wasnt. sure with the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of earths natural filters mankind isnt helping sustain the planet. but were far from the end of the age of man.

We may be "far" from the end of mankind, but other species/ecosystem are feeling the effects NOW.

And I'm not even sure if we are that far off........small changes in ecosystems roll downhill......

yeah i know we lose species but we also discover new ones every day. and i find that very interesting.

gabers

So one of the biggest culprits of man-made (or induced) greenhouse gases is cattle. Cattle burp a lot of methane from the microbes in their stomach that help them digest cellulose. Well, scientists have found a simple solution to help reduce the amount of methane cows produce - oregano. Here's the article.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/cows ... 00908.html

This is the kind of stuff that gives me hope for the future. Little innovations that can help change the world.

LikeAnOcean

polaris_x wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

You really can't point at specific weather incidents and pin it to global warming. There's always been extreme and unusual weather that found ways to kill us even before our numbers reached the billions. Maybe it happens more frequently now, but we are also more frequently populating the earth. Climate change is something that happens over decades, and honestly, I don't think more carbon dioxide in the air is the problem. There was once much more in the air... but I won't argue that we aren't causing it. Like I mentioned earlier, I think the problem has more to do with our extreme population numbers.

You can't argue 7 billion people can avoid altering a planet that evolved to support our numbers naturally in the hundreds of thousands, I don't care how green we get.

uhhh ... again - i respectfully ask you to educate yourself on the science because what you are saying is arguing the world is flat ...

Wait, what???

How did I argue against what is happening?

I thought I made a point that we are excelerating global warming, if not causing it?, No? My point was, you can't single out specific events, but it's a bigger picture..

Place 7 billion people on this planet 100 million years ago and guarantee
you we'd all be fucked. Shit is happening, probably excelarated by us, but it's still pretty fairly stable now.. Don't worry, we'll kill ourselves off and the world will live on.. at least for a bit, before the sun supernova's and destroys the planet.


Please educate yourself and reread what I wrote.. Thanks. :P

Just think, my original point, the planet evolved to support us in small numbers.. and then we invent agriculture, controlling the planet, and our numbers go crazy.. the earth is still trying to figure out what the fuck just happened.

haffajappa

catefrances wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

catefrances wrote:

to deny global warming is folly. but to run around like chicken little is also folly.

And this kind of attitude is why so many people sit on their hands and choose to do nothing about it now, when the outcome in the end (whenever it may be) could really benefit from action taken no sooner than today.

It's like so many people who say "I don't see it happening so why should I bother?" Meanwhile, when coasts really start disappearing it'll be way too late to act.

who the fuck said i was sitting on my hands doing nothing??? or asking why i should even bother?? you dont know me and you certainly dont know whatit is i do. i was simply expressing a balanced opinion. not overloading to one side. right now were doing ok. that may not be the shape of things to come and mos def if we dont start overhauling our beahviours now. jesus christ pay attention and dont assume.

yours is the kind of attitude that has us running around like headless chooks. its also the kind of attitude that actually contributes to peoples blase attitude. you freak the people out too much and they will shut down and deny.
.
oh and coasts have been reshaping and disappearing since the beginning of time. were only concerned about it cause we have been stupid enough to settle permanently so close to the edges.

Why are you always so angry? :? No offense or anything...
I don't think she was pointing the blame at you specifically, but she has points... A lot of people do think that way.

catefrances

haffajappa wrote:

Why are you always so angry? :? No offense or anything...
I don't think she was pointing the blame at you specifically, but she has points... A lot of people do think that way.

yeah no offense or anything. :roll:

what are you... jeanwahs lawyer???? im sure shell come back and point out she attacking what i said, not me. unfortunately when you attack my point of view, i do see it as attacking me. imagine that.

and im not always angry. but every now and again i get royally pissed off.

what i did in my original post was present a balanced approach cause had i said after jeanwahs reply was if you freak the people out they will shut down. you cant scare people into changing their behaviour. the destruction of the earth at our hands or not is a huge melon for people to get their head around. and if you point the finger at them,, when they cant even see how theyre contributing, is just ludicrous.

it irks me no end that with all the little man/woman does we still have governments not prepared to lead by example and companies who are allowed to continue to destroy the planet for their own bottom line. its like pushing shit up hill.

lets be honest we all know the earth is warming. and its warming because were still coming out of the last ice age. the release of carbon into the atmosphere and the destruction of the environment isnt helping, in fact i do believe its contributing. but how much imo, is whats debatable.

Jeanwah

catefrances wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

catefrances wrote:

to deny global warming is folly. but to run around like chicken little is also folly.

And this kind of attitude is why so many people sit on their hands and choose to do nothing about it now, when the outcome in the end (whenever it may be) could really benefit from action taken no sooner than today.

It's like so many people who say "I don't see it happening so why should I bother?" Meanwhile, when coasts really start disappearing it'll be way too late to act.

who the fuck said i was sitting on my hands doing nothing??? or asking why i should even bother?? you dont know me and you certainly dont know whatit is i do. i was simply expressing a balanced opinion. not overloading to one side. right now were doing ok. that may not be the shape of things to come and mos def if we dont start overhauling our beahviours now. jesus christ pay attention and dont assume.

yours is the kind of attitude that has us running around like headless chooks. its also the kind of attitude that actually contributes to peoples blase attitude. you freak the people out too much and they will shut down and deny.
.
oh and coasts have been reshaping and disappearing since the beginning of time. were only concerned about it cause we have been stupid enough to settle permanently so close to the edges.

I didn't say "YOU" were sitting on your hands... I said that type of attitude PROMOTES sitting on one's hands...
Lighten up, my post was not intended to personally point fingers at you.

Jeanwah

catefrances wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

Why are you always so angry? :? No offense or anything...
I don't think she was pointing the blame at you specifically, but she has points... A lot of people do think that way.

yeah no offense or anything. :roll:

what are you... jeanwahs lawyer???? im sure shell come back and point out she attacking what i said, not me. unfortunately when you attack my point of view, i do see it as attacking me. imagine that.

and im not always angry. but every now and again i get royally pissed off.

what i did in my original post was present a balanced approach cause had i said after jeanwahs reply was if you freak the people out they will shut down. you cant scare people into changing their behaviour. the destruction of the earth at our hands or not is a huge melon for people to get their head around. and if you point the finger at them,, when they cant even see how theyre contributing, is just ludicrous.

Jesus Christ... :roll:
Try not to get angry when someone challenges your point of view. Because that's the point of a debate board.

haffajappa

I really didn't mean any offense by it. :oops:
I was just curious, i've just noticed it a lot in other threads...

catefrances

Jeanwah wrote:

catefrances wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

Why are you always so angry? :? No offense or anything...
I don't think she was pointing the blame at you specifically, but she has points... A lot of people do think that way.

yeah no offense or anything. :roll:

what are you... jeanwahs lawyer???? im sure shell come back and point out she attacking what i said, not me. unfortunately when you attack my point of view, i do see it as attacking me. imagine that.

and im not always angry. but every now and again i get royally pissed off.

what i did in my original post was present a balanced approach cause had i said after jeanwahs reply was if you freak the people out they will shut down. you cant scare people into changing their behaviour. the destruction of the earth at our hands or not is a huge melon for people to get their head around. and if you point the finger at them,, when they cant even see how theyre contributing, is just ludicrous.

Jesus Christ... :roll:
Try not to get angry when someone challenges your point of view. Because that's the point of a debate board.

yeah ill remember that next time... in the meantime share with me your thoughts on why an attitude like mine is detrimental. explain to me why i need to have some bug up my arse about the destruction of the earth to be productive. and perhaps next time a questioning of my pov not an attack might be more conducive to discussion.

Jeanwah

catefrances wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Jesus Christ... :roll:
Try not to get angry when someone challenges your point of view. Because that's the point of a debate board.

yeah ill remember that next time... in the meantime share with me your thoughts on why an attitude like mine is detrimental. explain to me why i need to have some bug up my arse about the destruction of the earth to be productive. and perhaps next time a questioning of my pov not an attack might be more conducive to discussion.

I'm sorry you took it as a personal attack, but it certainly wasn't. Lighten up (Cate) Francis!

catefrances

Jeanwah wrote:

catefrances wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Jesus Christ... :roll:
Try not to get angry when someone challenges your point of view. Because that's the point of a debate board.

yeah ill remember that next time... in the meantime share with me your thoughts on why an attitude like mine is detrimental. explain to me why i need to have some bug up my arse about the destruction of the earth to be productive. and perhaps next time a questioning of my pov not an attack might be more conducive to discussion.

I'm sorry you took it as a personal attack, but it certainly wasn't. Lighten up (Cate) Francis!

well now that weve established that i need to lighten up can we get back to the topic at hand?

polaris_x

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Climate change is something that happens over decades, and honestly, I don't think more carbon dioxide in the air is the problem.

This is what indicates you don't know what you are talking about. Again - I am trying to say it in the most diplomatic way possible but if you understood the science, then you wouldn't be writing these things.