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.
sorry ... again - i respectfully am telling you that you don't understand the science behind climate change ... please read up on it ... you can't possibly understand it if you are questioning the things you are ...
and please - i beg of you to stop using the world/earth is so old reasoning ... it's flawed beyond belief and been addressed by the experts ...
if anything should tell you that climate change is real - all you need to do is see that the world (UN) meet like twice a year to try and come to a conclusion and that there is no dissent in the need for action but simply what that action should be ...
also - i resent the notion that this is some scare tactic ... what are we trying to manipulate people into doing? ... being more sustainable? ... i didn't know that was so evil? ... it's not like we are trying to make people go to war or buy drugs they don't need ... and the FACT is - we aren't doing anything ...
and lastly - the proof of climate change is already evident ... even if you don't want to believe the disasters are related to it ... sea ice is disappearing faster than ever .. which has huge implications for northern people and wildlife ... i mean, i could list a thousand things but if you're simply going to say that the world is old ... then why bother i suppose ...
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.
sorry ... again - i respectfully am telling you that you don't understand the science behind climate change ... please read up on it ... you can't possibly understand it if you are questioning the things you are ...
and please - i beg of you to stop using the world/earth is so old reasoning ... it's flawed beyond belief and been addressed by the experts ...
if anything should tell you that climate change is real - all you need to do is see that the world (UN) meet like twice a year to try and come to a conclusion and that there is no dissent in the need for action but simply what that action should be ...
also - i resent the notion that this is some scare tactic ... what are we trying to manipulate people into doing? ... being more sustainable? ... i didn't know that was so evil? ... it's not like we are trying to make people go to war or buy drugs they don't need ... and the FACT is - we aren't doing anything ...
and lastly - the proof of climate change is already evident ... even if you don't want to believe the disasters are related to it ... sea ice is disappearing faster than ever .. which has huge implications for northern people and wildlife ... i mean, i could list a thousand things but if you're simply going to say that the world is old ... then why bother i suppose ...
i really dont care what you resent polaris. if the thought that the freakout around climate change is not a scare tactic to you then theres nothing i can say. nd ive never said it was. what i said was if you scare the people they will shut down.
i tend to take all on board and then half it. i stop and look and see that mankind will not kill the earth but will, worse case scenario, kill its habitability for mankind. but then i see the last major climate change.. the ice age.. and see that mankind managed to adapt. sure mankind didnt have the capabilities back then as they do now for destruction.. and absoutely ive no idea how mankind will cope with what is coming.. even though ive no idea what that exactly is coming. but i also have no idea by how much the temperature of the earth will rise. but then again temperature isnt a blanket thing is it?? even within the same country different climates sit side by side. the tropical rainforest of far north queensland is vastly different from the dry desert interior of northern south australia.
all you need to do is see that the world (UN) meet like twice a year to try and come to a conclusion and that there is no dissent in the need for action but simply what that action should be ...
are you kidding me with this??? the UN tends to justify their own existence by any means necessary. and never have i said we shouldnt change our behaviour. but wont i wont do is become an environmental fundamentalist. its just not who i am.. but that doesnt mean im ignorant of what were doing and what needs to done. im just of the opinion that its bigger than mankind.`and i agree polaris.. were not doing anything to combat what were doing to the planet. were talking talking talking seemingly hoping itl resolve itself. its kinds like the whole peace thing. we crap on about it but we still go to war for hatever reasons and we justify our actions as being good for.. whatever ... when in fact what we do isnt good for anyone... least of all the people.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i really dont care what you resent polaris. if the thought that the freakout around climate change is not a scare tactic to you then theres nothing i can say. nd ive never said it was. what i said was if you scare the people they will shut down.
i tend to take all on board and then half it. i stop and look and see that mankind will not kill the earth but will, worse case scenario, kill its habitability for mankind. but then i see the last major climate change.. the ice age.. and see that mankind managed to adapt. sure mankind didnt have the capabilities back then as they do now for destruction.. and absoutely ive no idea how mankind will cope with what is coming.. even though ive no idea what that exactly is coming. but i also have no idea by how much the temperature of the earth will rise. but then again temperature isnt a blanket thing is it?? even within the same country different climates sit side by side. the tropical rainforest of far north queensland is vastly different from the dry desert interior of northern south australia.
all you need to do is see that the world (UN) meet like twice a year to try and come to a conclusion and that there is no dissent in the need for action but simply what that action should be ...
are you kidding me with this??? the UN tends to justify their own existence by any means necessary. and never have i said we shouldnt change our behaviour. but wont i wont do is become an environmental fundamentalist. its just not who i am.. but that doesnt mean im ignorant of what were doing and what needs to done. im just of the opinion that its bigger than mankind.`and i agree polaris.. were not doing anything to combat what were doing to the planet. were talking talking talking seemingly hoping itl resolve itself. its kinds like the whole peace thing. we crap on about it but we still go to war for hatever reasons and we justify our actions as being good for.. whatever ... when in fact what we do isnt good for anyone... least of all the people.
the last ice age happened over 10,000 years ago ... what kind of adaptaption are you referring to? ... how many people were around before and after that ice age?
as for the UN - i suppose i should ignore all their reports on human rights abuses in Israel then ... cuz, they are just justifying their own existence ...
fair enough on not changing because of who you are ... you should have simply said that instead of trying to say things that have been addressed by the scientific community ...
you are right on one point ... it is bigger than mankind - in so much as we are destroying species and our biodiversity daily ... i'm sorry to say - the situation is dire ... people are dying and suffering because of the consequences of climate change - unfortunately, for those of us in western nations ... most of those people are in poorer developed countries and our concern for them pales ...
Stepping away from the natural vs. anthropomorphic argument for a second, and back to the simplistic judgements that cold weather gives the lie to global warming. This is from today's Irish Times:
Chill wind: winters to get colder Low solar activity is expected to cause the winter jet stream to bring bitterly cold Arctic air, writes DICK AHLSTROM
GLOBAL CLIMATE is warming, with 2010 expected to go down as yet another record year. You can count on our winters being colder than usual,however, at least for the next few years.
“There is a difference between global climate and regional climate, and there is a very peculiar thing we are finding about the European climate,” says Prof Mike Lockwood of the University of Southampton and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. Colder winters are expected because at the moment solar activity is very low.
Solar activity, in this case, does not mean direct heat or light from the sun but the energy emitted from the solar surface by sunspots. “What we are finding is that Europe and western Asia are particularly prone to solar influences, especially in winter,” Lockwood says. “What we are seeing is much cooler winters if solar activity is low.”
Last winter was particularly cold here and on the Continent, and low-temperature records were set.
Lockwood, who is Southampton’s professor of space and climate physics in the school of mathematical and physical sciences, believes we will see more of the same this winter.Climate change naysayers argue that temperature changes come down to a weakening or strengthening sun, but in fact Eurasia’s colder winters will be triggered by the jet stream, Lockwood explains. It is a phenomenon known as “set stream blocking”.
Sometimes the normal winter flow of the high-altitude jet stream “gets kinked into a reverse S-shape”, says Lockwood. “What happens in a blocking event is the normal flow changes, the warm westerlies get disrupted and we get cold Arctic air from the north and east.”
This in turn changes the weather we see on the ground. “Although the jet stream is very high up it is known to direct weather patterns further down.”
The thing that gets the jet stream into a winter twist is none other than the sun, but only when it is not very active.
“There is no doubt that the frequency of those blocking events in winter is higher when solar activity is low,” says Lockwood. “What was a slight surprise is that the sun was changing the jet stream, but only when the jet stream has travelled across the Atlantic and begins hitting land over Europe.”
Lockwood believes that the phenomenon may have been responsible for the “Little Ice Age” in Europe, a time between about 1650 and 1700 when people skated on the frozen Thames. During that time astronomers noted that there were no sunspots for 50 years, and Europe became extra cold.
Scientists have directly monitored solar activity continuously throughout the space age, giving us more than 40 years of data and a chance to assess the links between activity and temperatures, says Lockwood. Activity can also be inferred by other methods, and when examined over time it shows that recent years have seen very high activity.
“We find the sun typically goes through 400-year to 500-year solar minimums and maximums. This was one of the 24 grand maximums in the past 9,000 years,” he says, putting the recent solar levels in the top 15 per cent.
All of this is expected to change. Activity has rolled back and is expected to decline still further. “We have returned to the lowest solar-activity conditions since the 1920s,” Lockwood says. “I would anticipate more cold winters in Europe. This is despite and on top of a gradually warming world.”
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
sorry ... again - i respectfully am telling you that you don't understand the science behind climate change ... please read up on it ... you can't possibly understand it if you are questioning the things you are ...
and please - i beg of you to stop using the world/earth is so old reasoning ... it's flawed beyond belief and been addressed by the experts ...
if anything should tell you that climate change is real - all you need to do is see that the world (UN) meet like twice a year to try and come to a conclusion and that there is no dissent in the need for action but simply what that action should be ...
also - i resent the notion that this is some scare tactic ... what are we trying to manipulate people into doing? ... being more sustainable? ... i didn't know that was so evil? ... it's not like we are trying to make people go to war or buy drugs they don't need ... and the FACT is - we aren't doing anything ...
and lastly - the proof of climate change is already evident ... even if you don't want to believe the disasters are related to it ... sea ice is disappearing faster than ever .. which has huge implications for northern people and wildlife ... i mean, i could list a thousand things but if you're simply going to say that the world is old ... then why bother i suppose ...
Hey polaris...what happened to your ability to talk about this subject? I'd say an attitude like that is likely to turn more people away then open their minds.
And scare tactics can be used for anything...in order to get people to do what you want, live how you want them to live...so I wouldn't dismiss it outright just because you not taking people to war. It's what the religious right uses to keep others from getting equal rights after all, and that's not a war nor does it really benefit them in any tangible way.
i really dont care what you resent polaris. if the thought that the freakout around climate change is not a scare tactic to you then theres nothing i can say. nd ive never said it was. what i said was if you scare the people they will shut down.
i tend to take all on board and then half it. i stop and look and see that mankind will not kill the earth but will, worse case scenario, kill its habitability for mankind. but then i see the last major climate change.. the ice age.. and see that mankind managed to adapt. sure mankind didnt have the capabilities back then as they do now for destruction.. and absoutely ive no idea how mankind will cope with what is coming.. even though ive no idea what that exactly is coming. but i also have no idea by how much the temperature of the earth will rise. but then again temperature isnt a blanket thing is it?? even within the same country different climates sit side by side. the tropical rainforest of far north queensland is vastly different from the dry desert interior of northern south australia.
all you need to do is see that the world (UN) meet like twice a year to try and come to a conclusion and that there is no dissent in the need for action but simply what that action should be ...
are you kidding me with this??? the UN tends to justify their own existence by any means necessary. and never have i said we shouldnt change our behaviour. but wont i wont do is become an environmental fundamentalist. its just not who i am.. but that doesnt mean im ignorant of what were doing and what needs to done. im just of the opinion that its bigger than mankind.`and i agree polaris.. were not doing anything to combat what were doing to the planet. were talking talking talking seemingly hoping itl resolve itself. its kinds like the whole peace thing. we crap on about it but we still go to war for hatever reasons and we justify our actions as being good for.. whatever ... when in fact what we do isnt good for anyone... least of all the people.
the last ice age happened over 10,000 years ago ... what kind of adaptaption are you referring to? ... how many people were around before and after that ice age?
as for the UN - i suppose i should ignore all their reports on human rights abuses in Israel then ... cuz, they are just justifying their own existence ...
fair enough on not changing because of who you are ... you should have simply said that instead of trying to say things that have been addressed by the scientific community ...
you are right on one point ... it is bigger than mankind - in so much as we are destroying species and our biodiversity daily ... i'm sorry to say - the situation is dire ... people are dying and suffering because of the consequences of climate change - unfortunately, for those of us in western nations ... most of those people are in poorer developed countries and our concern for them pales ...
i didnt say i wouldnt change because of who i am.. what i said was i wasnt going to become an environmental fundamentalist.
as to how many people were around before and during the last ice age(which youll rmember were still coming out of) i have no idea but what i do know is mankind as a species didnt disappear.. so they clearly adapted. and what adaptation am i talking about??? the ability to survive in a changing climate.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i didnt say i wouldnt change because of who i am.. what i said was i wasnt going to become an environmental fundamentalist.
as to how many people were around before and during the last ice age(which youll rmember were still coming out of) i have no idea but what i do know is mankind as a species didnt disappear.. so they clearly adapted. and what adaptation am i talking about??? the ability to survive in a changing climate.
but how many people died in the ice age? ... is humanity's (at least some portion of it) survival the only thing that matters at this point ... i mean - yeah ... mankind will survive a lot of shit ... heck ... we had some people survive being nuked ... but the reality is that because of climate change - many will die and suffer ...
and would you like to clarify your position on the UN?
Hey polaris...what happened to your ability to talk about this subject? I'd say an attitude like that is likely to turn more people away then open their minds.
And scare tactics can be used for anything...in order to get people to do what you want, live how you want them to live...so I wouldn't dismiss it outright just because you not taking people to war. It's what the religious right uses to keep others from getting equal rights after all, and that's not a war nor does it really benefit them in any tangible way.
And I wouldn't be using the UN to prove anything.
it's quite possible ... but this is me staying on point ... it's been my assertation throughout this thread that if people read up on what the basic principles of climate change are - we wouldn't be having this discussion ... if one is going to continually reiterate a point that has been addressed by numerous experts - my focus is then to continue to hammer that point ...
scare tactics are only of concern if the consequence being discussed is false ... such as iraq threat to the world ... gay people are sinners ... etc.. what part about the consequences of climate change are false?
and lastly - please provide me any publication by the UN that is false ... it may be dysfunctional but i don't know of any report it publishes as being full of lies or manipulation ... also - my point there was also to indicate that if every single country agrees that climate change is a problem and that they feel compelled to meet about it ... wouldn't it validate it? ... i mean what benefit is there for these countries to meet on a subject that has no foundation?
i didnt say i wouldnt change because of who i am.. what i said was i wasnt going to become an environmental fundamentalist.
as to how many people were around before and during the last ice age(which youll rmember were still coming out of) i have no idea but what i do know is mankind as a species didnt disappear.. so they clearly adapted. and what adaptation am i talking about??? the ability to survive in a changing climate.
but how many people died in the ice age? ... is humanity's (at least some portion of it) survival the only thing that matters at this point ... i mean - yeah ... mankind will survive a lot of shit ... heck ... we had some people survive being nuked ... but the reality is that because of climate change - many will die and suffer ...
and would you like to clarify your position on the UN?
absolutely many will die.. as they always have. i doubt anything we do as a species will stop or even curb that. my contention re: population and sustainability is that its always been a management problem.
as for the UN... i think they are mainly ineffectual. they are ignored on many things and have no real power that i can see. if handful of countries can, and do play the veto card, whats the point of them? so we can pretend to be one big happy human rights abiding democratic family? if you think all nations are in practice equal, then you are sourly mistaken.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
absolutely many will die.. as they always have. i doubt anything we do as a species will stop or even curb that. my contention re: population and sustainability is that its always been a management problem.
as for the UN... i think they are mainly ineffectual. they are ignored on many things and have no real power that i can see. if handful of countries can, and do play the veto card, whats the point of them? so we can pretend to be one big happy human rights abiding democratic family?
well ... what i am contending is that if we address climate change - we can curb some of that suffering ..
largely ineffectual does not have bearing on the information coming from them ... are we to then say their report that the israel's floatilla raid was NOT a violation of international law because they are dysfunctional group?
absolutely many will die.. as they always have. i doubt anything we do as a species will stop or even curb that. my contention re: population and sustainability is that its always been a management problem.
as for the UN... i think they are mainly ineffectual. they are ignored on many things and have no real power that i can see. if handful of countries can, and do play the veto card, whats the point of them? so we can pretend to be one big happy human rights abiding democratic family?
well ... what i am contending is that if we address climate change - we can curb some of that suffering ..
largely ineffectual does not have bearing on the information coming from them ... are we to then say their report that the israel's floatilla raid was NOT a violation of international law because they are dysfunctional group?
i didnt need the UN to tell me israels raid on the gaza flotilla was a breach of international law. what i need to see and what the palestinians desperately need is for those members of the UN who are more than capable, to act upon such a violation.
and yes i agree agree polaris.. we need to address our actions in relation to what we are doing to this planet. i have never had an opinion to the contrary. but what i wont do is freak out and run around saying the sky is falling.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i didnt need the UN to tell me israels raid on the gaza flotilla was a breach of international law. what i need to see and what the palestinians desperately need is for those members of the UN who are more than capable, to act upon such a violation.
and yes i agree agree polaris.. we need to address our actions in relation to what we are doing to this planet. i have never had an opinion to the contrary. but what i wont do is freak out and run around saying the sky is falling.
again ... i don't disagree that they are ineffectual ... my question is - should we ignore their findings when they publish reports such as the one on the floatilla simply because they can't make significant changes?
fair enough - it appears then that we only disagree on the severity of the issue ...
i didnt need the UN to tell me israels raid on the gaza flotilla was a breach of international law. what i need to see and what the palestinians desperately need is for those members of the UN who are more than capable, to act upon such a violation.
and yes i agree agree polaris.. we need to address our actions in relation to what we are doing to this planet. i have never had an opinion to the contrary. but what i wont do is freak out and run around saying the sky is falling.
again ... i don't disagree that they are ineffectual ... my question is - should we ignore their findings when they publish reports such as the one on the floatilla simply because they can't make significant changes?
fair enough - it appears then that we only disagree on the severity of the issue ...
no we shouldnt ignore it, but like everything, we should question it nondismissively.
i knew all along thats all we disagreed on... i was just waiting for you to catch on.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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.
I know the science behind it. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere trap in solar heat energy. It allows the light through, but restricts the heat from radiating into outer space.. We are releasing large amount of carbon dioxide through automobiles, industry, agriculture, so on..
You're not reading me right, maybe I'm using bad explanations of what I'm trying to get across. Obviously carbon dioxide is the straight forward problem, but 7 billion of us are the cause! Maybe some more than others, but still.. If there were 7 million people instead of 7 billion, we wouldn't have a global warming problem.. That is my point. This planet isn't designed to support 7 billion of us, whether the carbon dioxide is coming from automobiles or it is restricted to coming out of our asses. Get rid of gasoline and there's still a million ways we sucking more than our share of resources from the planet
Do you get what I'm trying to say? We can put effort into slowing global warming down, but it's still going to happen. Maybe we should consider why there are 7 billion of us demanding more than our own share of energy on a planet that isn't designed to support 7 billion of us.
Read Ishmael and you'll understand the point I'm trying to make.
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.
I know the science behind it. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere trap in solar heat energy. It allows the light through, but restricts the heat from radiating into outer space.. We are releasing large amount of carbon dioxide through automobiles, industry, agriculture, so on..
Sorry if I have to be so obvious to get my point across for you. Obviously carbon dioxide is the straight forward problem, but 7 billion of us are the cause! Maybe some more than others, but still.. If there were 7 million people instead of 7 billion, we wouldn't have a global warming problem.. That is my point. This planet isn't designed to support 7 billion of us, wether the carbon dioxide is coming from automobiles or it is restricted to coming out of our asses. Get rid of gasoline and there's still a million ways we are fucking the planet up and releasing excess carbon dioxide.
Do you get what I'm trying to say? We can put effort into slowing global warming down, but it's still going to happen. Maybe we should consider why there are 7 billion of us demanding more than our own share of energy on a planet that isn't designed to support 7 billion of us.
im fairly certain ive asked you this question before, if not you then someone else... i could go back and check but i dont want to.
how do you know how many people the earth was 'designed' to support?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
im fairly certain ive asked you this question before..
how do you know how many people the earth was 'designed' to support?
Because when we relied on nature, nature restricted us to numbers in the hundreds of thousands. When we started controlling nature and the planet through agriculture, our numbers boomed.. in the grand scheme of things, we are sucking more resources from the planet than it evolved us to have. Remember, Ishmael?
This is all theory, but it makes sense to me. We'll find out in a few years if it all catches up to us I guess.
im fairly certain ive asked you this question before..
how do you know how many people the earth was 'designed' to support?
Because when we relied on nature, nature restricted us to numbers in the hundreds of thousands. When we started controlling nature and the planet through agriculture, our numbers boomed.. in the grand scheme of things, we are sucking more resources from the planet than it evolved us to have. Remember, Ishmael?
This is all theory, but it makes sense to me. We'll find out in a few years if it all catches up to us I guess.
yes i remember a gorilla telling me the state of things.
and i understand all that. and i dont condone the raping of the earths resources but think about it this way...
weve evolved to a point where we are capable of doing just that. this is Nature. and it is our nature. were intelligent enough to invent this technology but were not intelligent to live sustainably. progress??? not in my eyes.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
im fairly certain ive asked you this question before..
how do you know how many people the earth was 'designed' to support?
Because when we relied on nature, nature restricted us to numbers in the hundreds of thousands. When we started controlling nature and the planet through agriculture, our numbers boomed.. in the grand scheme of things, we are sucking more resources from the planet than it evolved us to have. Remember, Ishmael?
This is all theory, but it makes sense to me. We'll find out in a few years if it all catches up to us I guess.
yes i remember a gorilla telling me the state of things.
and i understand all that. and i dont condone the raping of the earths resources but think about it this way...
weve evolved to a point where we are capable of doing just that. this is Nature. and it is our nature. were intelligent enough to invent this technology but were not intelligent to live sustainably. progress??? not in my eyes.
Nature isn't against killing off species. I agree we are part of nature, but that doesn't mean what we are doing is going to benefit our species in the end. It evolved us to this point and maybe it will evolve us of the planet through our own doings.
I guess there's just many ways to look at the same thing. I think a lot of us are debating from different angles of the problem.. like arguing if the glass if half empty or if its half full.
yes i remember a gorilla telling me the state of things.
and i understand all that. and i dont condone the raping of the earths resources but think about it this way...
weve evolved to a point where we are capable of doing just that. this is Nature. and it is our nature. were intelligent enough to invent this technology but were not intelligent to live sustainably. progress??? not in my eyes.
Nature isn't against killing off species. I agree we are part of nature, but that doesn't mean what we are doing is going to benefit our species in the end. It evolved us to this point and maybe it will evolve us of the planet through our own doings.
I guess there's just many ways to look at the same thing. I think a lot of us are debating from different angles of the problem.. like arguing if the glass if half empty or if its half full.
what you just said is what isaid just in different words.
i think humans are the most paradoxical species on earth.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I know the science behind it. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere trap in solar heat energy. It allows the light through, but restricts the heat from radiating into outer space.. We are releasing large amount of carbon dioxide through automobiles, industry, agriculture, so on..
You're not reading me right, maybe I'm using bad explanations of what I'm trying to get across. Obviously carbon dioxide is the straight forward problem, but 7 billion of us are the cause! Maybe some more than others, but still.. If there were 7 million people instead of 7 billion, we wouldn't have a global warming problem.. That is my point. This planet isn't designed to support 7 billion of us, whether the carbon dioxide is coming from automobiles or it is restricted to coming out of our asses. Get rid of gasoline and there's still a million ways we sucking more than our share of resources from the planet
Do you get what I'm trying to say? We can put effort into slowing global warming down, but it's still going to happen. Maybe we should consider why there are 7 billion of us demanding more than our own share of energy on a planet that isn't designed to support 7 billion of us.
Read Ishmael and you'll understand the point I'm trying to make.
population definitely plays a significant role in all environmental issues however, as it relates to climate change - it is only significant in so much as yes - 7 billion people living the way we do obviously will contribute much more than 7 million ... having said that tho - we can easily manage our emissions to address climate change but the problem primarily is economic greed and ignorance ... americans produce on average 20 tonnes of emissions a year which is almost double that of japan and germany ... standard of living in these countries are relatively the same ... it's a matter of priorities ...
i've read ishmael
edit: canadians are just as bad as americans in terms of our emissions and our use of being a northern country is ridiculous as we are almost double that of norway ...
why is that every several months, there are one of these posts ... i mean - can people say more ignorant things?
forgive the candor but you skeptics are talking our of your ass ... how many have died in pakistan this year? ... mudslides and floods are ravaging china ... every day you can pretty much read up on an extreme weather event somewhere in the world ...
the science is very clear on this subject ... do yourself a favour and read up on it instead of reading from people who have agendas or have not educated themselves on the subject ...
although global warming does confuse people ... it only confuses people who won't bother to educate themselves ... the world IS WARMING ... look at the records of the last 20 years ... all the warmest years on record are in the past 2 decades ... just because one experiences a cold spell - doesn't mean the world isn't warming ... Climate Change is the immediate consequence of Global Warming ...
:shock:
Natural disasters happen every year. I’m pretty sure you can look throughout history and every year there were mudslides and severe flooding in different parts of the world every year. Now, these things are terrible but has anyone ever taken this into account that maybe we are a "News Overload" society. I mean earthquakes happen every day in bowels of the earth right? 15 years ago this was not news worthy story but now....it's on Yahoo's home page story #3. Earthquake detected miles below the earths crust. This has been going on for millions of years but no one has ever said anything. There have been mudslides for generations it's just was not as news assessable as it is now.
But will one of the Pro Climate Change believers comment on the fact that these Vikings were in an area that was not snow covered then it became snow covered and now it's not snow covered anymore. I sense a trend.
why is that every several months, there are one of these posts ... i mean - can people say more ignorant things?
forgive the candor but you skeptics are talking our of your ass ... how many have died in pakistan this year? ... mudslides and floods are ravaging china ... every day you can pretty much read up on an extreme weather event somewhere in the world ...
the science is very clear on this subject ... do yourself a favour and read up on it instead of reading from people who have agendas or have not educated themselves on the subject ...
although global warming does confuse people ... it only confuses people who won't bother to educate themselves ... the world IS WARMING ... look at the records of the last 20 years ... all the warmest years on record are in the past 2 decades ... just because one experiences a cold spell - doesn't mean the world isn't warming ... Climate Change is the immediate consequence of Global Warming ...
:shock:
Natural disasters happen every year. I’m pretty sure you can look throughout history and every year there were mudslides and severe flooding in different parts of the world every year. Now, these things are terrible but has anyone ever taken this into account that maybe we are a "News Overload" society. I mean earthquakes happen every day in bowels of the earth right? 15 years ago this was not news worthy story but now....it's on Yahoo's home page story #3. Earthquake detected miles below the earths crust. This has been going on for millions of years but no one has ever said anything. There have been mudslides for generations it's just was not as news assessable as it is now.
But will one of the Pro Climate Change believers comment on the fact that these Vikings were in an area that was not snow covered then it became snow covered and now it's not snow covered anymore. I sense a trend.
Natural disasters happen every year. I’m pretty sure you can look throughout history and every year there were mudslides and severe flooding in different parts of the world every year. Now, these things are terrible but has anyone ever taken this into account that maybe we are a "News Overload" society. I mean earthquakes happen every day in bowels of the earth right? 15 years ago this was not news worthy story but now....it's on Yahoo's home page story #3. Earthquake detected miles below the earths crust. This has been going on for millions of years but no one has ever said anything. There have been mudslides for generations it's just was not as news assessable as it is now.
But will one of the Pro Climate Change believers comment on the fact that these Vikings were in an area that was not snow covered then it became snow covered and now it's not snow covered anymore. I sense a trend.
sooo ... the fact that there was a natural disaster in 1864 means that humans can't have an influence in creating additional ones in the future!??
seriously ... read up on the science of global warming ...
we've had more deaths this weekend in mexico ... and even more displacement of people ... it's only the beginning ...
Natural disasters happen every year. I’m pretty sure you can look throughout history and every year there were mudslides and severe flooding in different parts of the world every year. Now, these things are terrible but has anyone ever taken this into account that maybe we are a "News Overload" society. I mean earthquakes happen every day in bowels of the earth right? 15 years ago this was not news worthy story but now....it's on Yahoo's home page story #3. Earthquake detected miles below the earths crust. This has been going on for millions of years but no one has ever said anything. There have been mudslides for generations it's just was not as news assessable as it is now.
But will one of the Pro Climate Change believers comment on the fact that these Vikings were in an area that was not snow covered then it became snow covered and now it's not snow covered anymore. I sense a trend.
sooo ... the fact that there was a natural disaster in 1864 means that humans can't have an influence in creating additional ones in the future!??
seriously ... read up on the science of global warming ...
we've had more deaths this weekend in mexico ... and even more displacement of people ... it's only the beginning ...
Ok.....so whats your theory on the whole Viking artifacts being found?
this link didn't work but i went back to your original ... i'm not sure what you want comment on as you sent me to an article that pretty much says the ice thaw is caused by global warming ...
are you suggesting - the evidence of artifacts somehow debunks global warming!? ... if so, can you please clarify?
Comments
sorry ... again - i respectfully am telling you that you don't understand the science behind climate change ... please read up on it ... you can't possibly understand it if you are questioning the things you are ...
and please - i beg of you to stop using the world/earth is so old reasoning ... it's flawed beyond belief and been addressed by the experts ...
if anything should tell you that climate change is real - all you need to do is see that the world (UN) meet like twice a year to try and come to a conclusion and that there is no dissent in the need for action but simply what that action should be ...
also - i resent the notion that this is some scare tactic ... what are we trying to manipulate people into doing? ... being more sustainable? ... i didn't know that was so evil? ... it's not like we are trying to make people go to war or buy drugs they don't need ... and the FACT is - we aren't doing anything ...
and lastly - the proof of climate change is already evident ... even if you don't want to believe the disasters are related to it ... sea ice is disappearing faster than ever .. which has huge implications for northern people and wildlife ... i mean, i could list a thousand things but if you're simply going to say that the world is old ... then why bother i suppose ...
i really dont care what you resent polaris. if the thought that the freakout around climate change is not a scare tactic to you then theres nothing i can say. nd ive never said it was. what i said was if you scare the people they will shut down.
i tend to take all on board and then half it. i stop and look and see that mankind will not kill the earth but will, worse case scenario, kill its habitability for mankind. but then i see the last major climate change.. the ice age.. and see that mankind managed to adapt. sure mankind didnt have the capabilities back then as they do now for destruction.. and absoutely ive no idea how mankind will cope with what is coming.. even though ive no idea what that exactly is coming. but i also have no idea by how much the temperature of the earth will rise. but then again temperature isnt a blanket thing is it?? even within the same country different climates sit side by side. the tropical rainforest of far north queensland is vastly different from the dry desert interior of northern south australia.
all you need to do is see that the world (UN) meet like twice a year to try and come to a conclusion and that there is no dissent in the need for action but simply what that action should be ...
are you kidding me with this??? the UN tends to justify their own existence by any means necessary. and never have i said we shouldnt change our behaviour. but wont i wont do is become an environmental fundamentalist. its just not who i am.. but that doesnt mean im ignorant of what were doing and what needs to done. im just of the opinion that its bigger than mankind.`and i agree polaris.. were not doing anything to combat what were doing to the planet. were talking talking talking seemingly hoping itl resolve itself. its kinds like the whole peace thing. we crap on about it but we still go to war for hatever reasons and we justify our actions as being good for.. whatever ... when in fact what we do isnt good for anyone... least of all the people.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
the last ice age happened over 10,000 years ago ... what kind of adaptaption are you referring to? ... how many people were around before and after that ice age?
as for the UN - i suppose i should ignore all their reports on human rights abuses in Israel then ... cuz, they are just justifying their own existence ...
fair enough on not changing because of who you are ... you should have simply said that instead of trying to say things that have been addressed by the scientific community ...
you are right on one point ... it is bigger than mankind - in so much as we are destroying species and our biodiversity daily ... i'm sorry to say - the situation is dire ... people are dying and suffering because of the consequences of climate change - unfortunately, for those of us in western nations ... most of those people are in poorer developed countries and our concern for them pales ...
Chill wind: winters to get colder
Low solar activity is expected to cause the winter jet stream to bring bitterly cold Arctic air, writes DICK AHLSTROM
GLOBAL CLIMATE is warming, with 2010 expected to go down as yet another record year. You can count on our winters being colder than usual, however, at least for the next few years.
“There is a difference between global climate and regional climate, and there is a very peculiar thing we are finding about the European climate,” says Prof Mike Lockwood of the University of Southampton and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. Colder winters are expected because at the moment solar activity is very low.
Solar activity, in this case, does not mean direct heat or light from the sun but the energy emitted from the solar surface by sunspots. “What we are finding is that Europe and western Asia are particularly prone to solar influences, especially in winter,” Lockwood says. “What we are seeing is much cooler winters if solar activity is low.”
Last winter was particularly cold here and on the Continent, and low-temperature records were set.
Lockwood, who is Southampton’s professor of space and climate physics in the school of mathematical and physical sciences, believes we will see more of the same this winter. Climate change naysayers argue that temperature changes come down to a weakening or strengthening sun, but in fact Eurasia’s colder winters will be triggered by the jet stream, Lockwood explains. It is a phenomenon known as “set stream blocking”.
Sometimes the normal winter flow of the high-altitude jet stream “gets kinked into a reverse S-shape”, says Lockwood. “What happens in a blocking event is the normal flow changes, the warm westerlies get disrupted and we get cold Arctic air from the north and east.”
This in turn changes the weather we see on the ground. “Although the jet stream is very high up it is known to direct weather patterns further down.”
The thing that gets the jet stream into a winter twist is none other than the sun, but only when it is not very active.
“There is no doubt that the frequency of those blocking events in winter is higher when solar activity is low,” says Lockwood. “What was a slight surprise is that the sun was changing the jet stream, but only when the jet stream has travelled across the Atlantic and begins hitting land over Europe.”
Lockwood believes that the phenomenon may have been responsible for the “Little Ice Age” in Europe, a time between about 1650 and 1700 when people skated on the frozen Thames. During that time astronomers noted that there were no sunspots for 50 years, and Europe became extra cold.
Scientists have directly monitored solar activity continuously throughout the space age, giving us more than 40 years of data and a chance to assess the links between activity and temperatures, says Lockwood. Activity can also be inferred by other methods, and when examined over time it shows that recent years have seen very high activity.
“We find the sun typically goes through 400-year to 500-year solar minimums and maximums. This was one of the 24 grand maximums in the past 9,000 years,” he says, putting the recent solar levels in the top 15 per cent.
All of this is expected to change. Activity has rolled back and is expected to decline still further. “We have returned to the lowest solar-activity conditions since the 1920s,” Lockwood says. “I would anticipate more cold winters in Europe. This is despite and on top of a gradually warming world.”
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Hey polaris...what happened to your ability to talk about this subject? I'd say an attitude like that is likely to turn more people away then open their minds.
And scare tactics can be used for anything...in order to get people to do what you want, live how you want them to live...so I wouldn't dismiss it outright just because you not taking people to war. It's what the religious right uses to keep others from getting equal rights after all, and that's not a war nor does it really benefit them in any tangible way.
And I wouldn't be using the UN to prove anything.
i didnt say i wouldnt change because of who i am.. what i said was i wasnt going to become an environmental fundamentalist.
as to how many people were around before and during the last ice age(which youll rmember were still coming out of) i have no idea but what i do know is mankind as a species didnt disappear.. so they clearly adapted. and what adaptation am i talking about??? the ability to survive in a changing climate.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
but how many people died in the ice age? ... is humanity's (at least some portion of it) survival the only thing that matters at this point ... i mean - yeah ... mankind will survive a lot of shit ... heck ... we had some people survive being nuked ... but the reality is that because of climate change - many will die and suffer ...
and would you like to clarify your position on the UN?
it's quite possible ... but this is me staying on point ... it's been my assertation throughout this thread that if people read up on what the basic principles of climate change are - we wouldn't be having this discussion ... if one is going to continually reiterate a point that has been addressed by numerous experts - my focus is then to continue to hammer that point ...
scare tactics are only of concern if the consequence being discussed is false ... such as iraq threat to the world ... gay people are sinners ... etc.. what part about the consequences of climate change are false?
and lastly - please provide me any publication by the UN that is false ... it may be dysfunctional but i don't know of any report it publishes as being full of lies or manipulation ... also - my point there was also to indicate that if every single country agrees that climate change is a problem and that they feel compelled to meet about it ... wouldn't it validate it? ... i mean what benefit is there for these countries to meet on a subject that has no foundation?
absolutely many will die.. as they always have. i doubt anything we do as a species will stop or even curb that. my contention re: population and sustainability is that its always been a management problem.
as for the UN... i think they are mainly ineffectual. they are ignored on many things and have no real power that i can see. if handful of countries can, and do play the veto card, whats the point of them? so we can pretend to be one big happy human rights abiding democratic family? if you think all nations are in practice equal, then you are sourly mistaken.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
well ... what i am contending is that if we address climate change - we can curb some of that suffering ..
largely ineffectual does not have bearing on the information coming from them ... are we to then say their report that the israel's floatilla raid was NOT a violation of international law because they are dysfunctional group?
i didnt need the UN to tell me israels raid on the gaza flotilla was a breach of international law. what i need to see and what the palestinians desperately need is for those members of the UN who are more than capable, to act upon such a violation.
and yes i agree agree polaris.. we need to address our actions in relation to what we are doing to this planet. i have never had an opinion to the contrary. but what i wont do is freak out and run around saying the sky is falling.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
again ... i don't disagree that they are ineffectual ... my question is - should we ignore their findings when they publish reports such as the one on the floatilla simply because they can't make significant changes?
fair enough - it appears then that we only disagree on the severity of the issue ...
no we shouldnt ignore it, but like everything, we should question it nondismissively.
i knew all along thats all we disagreed on... i was just waiting for you to catch on.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You're not reading me right, maybe I'm using bad explanations of what I'm trying to get across. Obviously carbon dioxide is the straight forward problem, but 7 billion of us are the cause! Maybe some more than others, but still.. If there were 7 million people instead of 7 billion, we wouldn't have a global warming problem.. That is my point. This planet isn't designed to support 7 billion of us, whether the carbon dioxide is coming from automobiles or it is restricted to coming out of our asses. Get rid of gasoline and there's still a million ways we sucking more than our share of resources from the planet
Do you get what I'm trying to say? We can put effort into slowing global warming down, but it's still going to happen. Maybe we should consider why there are 7 billion of us demanding more than our own share of energy on a planet that isn't designed to support 7 billion of us.
Read Ishmael and you'll understand the point I'm trying to make.
im fairly certain ive asked you this question before, if not you then someone else... i could go back and check but i dont want to.
how do you know how many people the earth was 'designed' to support?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Because when we relied on nature, nature restricted us to numbers in the hundreds of thousands. When we started controlling nature and the planet through agriculture, our numbers boomed.. in the grand scheme of things, we are sucking more resources from the planet than it evolved us to have. Remember, Ishmael?
This is all theory, but it makes sense to me. We'll find out in a few years if it all catches up to us I guess.
yes i remember a gorilla telling me the state of things.
and i understand all that. and i dont condone the raping of the earths resources but think about it this way...
weve evolved to a point where we are capable of doing just that. this is Nature. and it is our nature. were intelligent enough to invent this technology but were not intelligent to live sustainably. progress??? not in my eyes.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I guess there's just many ways to look at the same thing. I think a lot of us are debating from different angles of the problem.. like arguing if the glass if half empty or if its half full.
what you just said is what isaid just in different words.
i think humans are the most paradoxical species on earth.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
population definitely plays a significant role in all environmental issues however, as it relates to climate change - it is only significant in so much as yes - 7 billion people living the way we do obviously will contribute much more than 7 million ... having said that tho - we can easily manage our emissions to address climate change but the problem primarily is economic greed and ignorance ... americans produce on average 20 tonnes of emissions a year which is almost double that of japan and germany ... standard of living in these countries are relatively the same ... it's a matter of priorities ...
i've read ishmael
edit: canadians are just as bad as americans in terms of our emissions and our use of being a northern country is ridiculous as we are almost double that of norway ...
agreed
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=ho ... =823960437
Natural disasters happen every year. I’m pretty sure you can look throughout history and every year there were mudslides and severe flooding in different parts of the world every year. Now, these things are terrible but has anyone ever taken this into account that maybe we are a "News Overload" society. I mean earthquakes happen every day in bowels of the earth right? 15 years ago this was not news worthy story but now....it's on Yahoo's home page story #3. Earthquake detected miles below the earths crust. This has been going on for millions of years but no one has ever said anything. There have been mudslides for generations it's just was not as news assessable as it is now.
But will one of the Pro Climate Change believers comment on the fact that these Vikings were in an area that was not snow covered then it became snow covered and now it's not snow covered anymore. I sense a trend.
Natural disasters happen every year. I’m pretty sure you can look throughout history and every year there were mudslides and severe flooding in different parts of the world every year. Now, these things are terrible but has anyone ever taken this into account that maybe we are a "News Overload" society. I mean earthquakes happen every day in bowels of the earth right? 15 years ago this was not news worthy story but now....it's on Yahoo's home page story #3. Earthquake detected miles below the earths crust. This has been going on for millions of years but no one has ever said anything. There have been mudslides for generations it's just was not as news assessable as it is now.
But will one of the Pro Climate Change believers comment on the fact that these Vikings were in an area that was not snow covered then it became snow covered and now it's not snow covered anymore. I sense a trend.
sooo ... the fact that there was a natural disaster in 1864 means that humans can't have an influence in creating additional ones in the future!??
seriously ... read up on the science of global warming ...
we've had more deaths this weekend in mexico ... and even more displacement of people ... it's only the beginning ...
what vikings are you talking about?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100914/lf_ ... _vikings_1
this link didn't work but i went back to your original ... i'm not sure what you want comment on as you sent me to an article that pretty much says the ice thaw is caused by global warming ...
are you suggesting - the evidence of artifacts somehow debunks global warming!? ... if so, can you please clarify?