Downing Street says that belated US recognition of global warming could lead to a post-Kyoto agreement on curbing emissions.
George Bush is preparing to make a historic shift in his position on global warming when he makes his State of the Union speech later this month, say senior Downing Street officials.
Bush and Blair held private talks on climate change before Christmas, and there is a feeling that the US President will now agree a cap on emissions in the US, meaning that, for the first time, American industry and consumers would be expected to start conserving energy and curbing pollution.
'We could now be seeing the beginning of a consensus on a post-Kyoto framework,' said a source close to the prime minister. 'President Bush is beginning to talk about more radical measures.'
weather is a global phenomena ... australia has been suffering mass drought the last decade or so ... it is not normal ...
the rate of sea-ice disappearance is far far greater in recent times vs any other time short of immediately post-glaciation ...
our biodiversity is decreasing daily ... much of it was due to habitat loss and development but now we are losing species due to climate change ... sure, some species may adapt better than others but in the grand scheme of things - our diversity is getting worse ... it is why we have scientists in each field studying the impacts and they aren't reporting good things ...
if you read the IPCC report on indicator species - you will see that the impacts lean heavily towards the negative ...
Well look we are back where we started. How can you tell that the current 'drought' isn't the regular climatic conditions and the previous era was simply a wet spell?
Well look we are back where we started. How can you tell that the current 'drought' isn't the regular climatic conditions and the previous era was simply a wet spell?
You can tell by what plants and animals existed there in the past.
At the end of the day - if you believe in the greenhouse effect - then you must believe that we are warming the planet. Regardless of your unproven theory is correct or not.
not only are we 'warming the planet', we are POLLUTING it. so, agree or disagree with the 'global warming theory', you can NOT deny that we are polluting the water, polluting the air, and destroying the land.
not only are we 'warming the planet', we are POLLUTING it. so, agree or disagree with the 'global warming theory', you can NOT deny that we are polluting the water, polluting the air, and destroying the land.
You can tell by what plants and animals existed there in the past.
At the end of the day - if you believe in the greenhouse effect - then you must believe that we are warming the planet. Regardless of your unproven theory is correct or not.
And the greenhouse effect is fact. It exists and there's no denying that. Without the greenhouse effect we would have no atmosphere. It's common sense that if we put huge amount of the gases that created our ozone into the atmosphere that it's going to accelerate the process.
And the greenhouse effect is fact. It exists and there's no denying that. Without the greenhouse effect we would have no atmosphere. It's common sense that if we put huge amount of the gases that created our ozone into the atmosphere that it's going to accelerate the process.
Yeah, BUT even if we STOP to spread greenhouse gases NOW, greenhose effect won't get smaller - it will continue for more 20-25 years....
so we have to think about future if it will be better for our children!
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi
Yeah, BUT even if we STOP to spread greenhouse gases NOW, greenhose effect won't get smaller - it will continue for more 20-25 years....
so we have to think about future if it will be better for our children!
if we can stop china and the us from putting so many pollutants into the air; global warming will start to reverse. the plants and trees will use the CO2 and replace it with O2.
if we can stop china and the us from putting so many pollutants into the air; global warming will start to reverse. the plants and trees will use the CO2 and replace it with O2.
of course! that's the way it goes!
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi
Yep. We have an extraordinarily resiliant eco system, but we're hurting it much faster than it can fix itself.
it wouldn't have gotten so bad if you didn't cut down all the bloody trees. acid rain has killed so many and the population boom = construction boom which wipes out even more.
it wouldn't have gotten so bad if you didn't cut down all the bloody trees. acid rain has killed so many and the population boom = construction boom which wipes out even more.
Yes, why is it that people, so many people don't really understand the value of trees?
And what percentage of global climate change is attributable to the greenhouse effect? That is the real question.
True.
But it is fact that our climate changes as a result of the greenhouse effect (like you said, the degree is debateable),.. given the possibility alone you'd think everyone would be on the progressive side of this issue but there are somehow still people who shout heresy when someone mentions it.
And what percentage of global climate change is attributable to the greenhouse effect? That is the real question.
What Effect Do Greenhouse Gases Have on Climate Change?
Given the natural variability of the Earth’s climate, it is difficult to determine the extent of change that humans cause. In computer-based models, rising concentrations of greenhouse gases generally produce an increase in the average temperature of the Earth. Rising temperatures may, in turn, produce changes in weather, sea levels, and land use patterns, commonly referred to as “climate change.”
Assessments generally suggest that the Earth’s climate has warmed over the past century and that human activity affecting the atmosphere is likely an important driving factor. A National Research Council study dated May 2001 stated, “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and sub-surface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.”
Add to this that a rise in temperature will do no good for anybody and can only cost human life, why not at least try to do anything about it?
Where does this come from? What about the extension of the agricultural belt for impoverished nations, less people dying from cold temperatures, more available freshwater...
given the possibility alone you'd think everyone would be on the progressive side of this issue but there are somehow still people who shout heresy when someone mentions it.
Some people I guess aren't suckers for a Greenpeace scare campaign?
Where does this come from? What about the extension of the agricultural belt for impoverished nations, less people dying from cold temperatures, more available freshwater...
Where did you get that? The impoverished nations will be the ones who will suffer the most.
Where does this come from? What about the extension of the agricultural belt for impoverished nations, less people dying from cold temperatures, more available freshwater...
do you work for an oil and gas exploration company by chance?
less people dying?? ... climate change has brought us deep cold spells too - people are dying as a result of climate change now ... people are most adept at coping with weather patterns that fall within the norm ... we have friggin' people dying of the cold in arizona where they are not used to it ...
severe drought is another impact of climate change affecting agricultural production ... and freshwater!! ... crikey man - we're polluting all the fresh water ...
this is the one thing you are completely wrong about.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn5011
Fresh water will be in ever shorter supply as climate change gathers pace. A that increasing temperatures will dramatically affect the world's great rivers.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5477/284
A large proportion of the world's population is currently experiencing water stress and rising water demands greatly outweigh greenhouse warming in defining the state of global water systems to 2025. Consideration of direct human impacts on global water supply remains a poorly articulated but potentially important facet of the larger global change question.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/FS/e_FSA9.htm
For thousands of years we have found it necessary to control water – in order to have it where we want it, when we want it. Nonetheless, some areas still suffer from drought, and some from flood. This is due partly to the natural variability of climate and partly to inappropriate land and water use. Now climate seems to be changing beyond that natural variability, and this is likely to impact on the availability and distribution of water.
severe drought is another impact of climate change affecting agricultural production ... and freshwater!! ... crikey man - we're polluting all the fresh water ...
rivers are running dry because of dams or glaciers that are shrinking, the new amounts of snow are none or massive creating floods, and yes the polution.. E.g. the Rein is hardly a source for fresh water anymore, since many factories polute it.
rivers are running dry because of dams or glaciers that are shrinking, the new amounts of snow are none or massive creating floods, and yes the polution.. E.g. the Rein is hardly a source for fresh water anymore, since many factories polute it.
no kidding!! ... its a clusterfuck out there and this guy is trying to sell us on all these "benefits" ...
This is a false statement. How we adapt to climate change will determine if their is a cost in human lives or if any good can be found in the changes.
This is a very grim assessment of man's ability to adapt. And pretty nihillistic if global climate change is primarily driven by non-manmade events.
lives are already lost ... anyways - it is man-made ... even your conservatives have admitted to that ... no new information has come out in the last few years except for evidence ...
This is a false statement. How we adapt to climate change will determine if their is a cost in human lives or if any good can be found in the changes.
This is a very grim assessment of man's ability to adapt. And pretty nihillistic if global climate change is primarily driven by non-manmade events.
Adapt to long periodes of drought, less fresh water, that includes water for crops, huricanes, floads, loss of bio diversity, more skin related disease, increase of insects and bacteria, no indeed I can almost not see the upside of climate change. And even if we succeed in adaption, what about our food and water? And not admiting that these events, this change is due to mankind is shutting your eyes for the truthiness, dude.
There is no agenda of fear mongering, or an nihilistic idea, just a deep concern that this world is our only home and we shouldn't lose it, and even if all these things don't happen, innovation and switching to non poluting, environment friendly energy resources will last us as long as we will need it.
Some people I guess aren't suckers for a Greenpeace scare campaign?
That and the agricultural statement you made are INCREDIBLY ignorant things to say.
First of all, "greenpeace scare campaign" is the kind of phrase fox news uses to assure it's loyal conservative viewers that they shouldn't even consider believing in environmentalist causes,.. "ignore it! hippies! they're all hippies! lies lies lies! It's just a scare campaign! Al Gore's fright fest! Don't look at it". Utter bullshit.
But anyway..
The impoverished nations will indeed suffer, but everyone is basically fucked if that happens.
Considering if the glaciers melt... The agricultural goldmines in north america (and elsewhere) will freeze over, putting a dent in the world's food production that it won't be able to cope with. Essentially everyone starves.
There is no agenda of fear mongering, or an nihilistic idea, just a deep concern that this world is our only home and we shouldn't lose it, and even if all these things don't happen, innovation and switching to non poluting, environment friendly energy resources will last us as long as we will need it.
You honestly do not think that their is an agenda in fear mongering!!! Do you think scientists are somehow not blinded by or not tempted to getting bigger funding (and profit) by over stating negative outcomes? Are scientist impervious to human emotions such as greed?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
You honestly do not think that their is an agenda in fear mongering!!! Do you think scientists are somehow not blinded by or not tempted to getting bigger funding (and profit) by over stating negative outcomes? Are scientist impervious to human emotions such as greed?
Dont forget ideological reasons. Those who desire more government regulation in the economy would certainly have a reason to stress the worst possible scenarios regarding global warming in order to justify drastic action.
You honestly do not think that their is an agenda in fear mongering!!! Do you think scientists are somehow not blinded by or not tempted to getting bigger funding (and profit) by over stating negative outcomes? Are scientist impervious to human emotions such as greed?
Hopefully they have a hunger for facts and proving what we don't know yet. Sure there are those that might over- or understate theories based on fact, but I was only refering to what I wrote and I have a sceptical view on scientists as a whole since they renew and improve theories all the time, but they are the people providing knowledge and these days peer reviews by other environmental scientists ensure that there is an impact of man on the climate change. Ignoring that is not something I can do.
Fear is not what I would describe what I feel, hope for a future in a beautifull and peacefull world would be better, but eh just watch the news and you'll see we have a long way to go. Cynicism is appropriate, but with hope you can come a long way.
Dont forget ideological reasons. Those who desire more government regulation in the economy would certainly have a reason to stress the worst possible scenarios regarding global warming in order to justify drastic action.
And this applies to every person on every angle, again a vast mayority of the scientists agree on this topic and you try to pin that on idealistic views...?
Comments
Bush and Blair held private talks on climate change before Christmas, and there is a feeling that the US President will now agree a cap on emissions in the US, meaning that, for the first time, American industry and consumers would be expected to start conserving energy and curbing pollution.
'We could now be seeing the beginning of a consensus on a post-Kyoto framework,' said a source close to the prime minister. 'President Bush is beginning to talk about more radical measures.'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1989997,00.html
Thx Bush, it was time already to take some huge steps!
Well look we are back where we started. How can you tell that the current 'drought' isn't the regular climatic conditions and the previous era was simply a wet spell?
You can tell by what plants and animals existed there in the past.
At the end of the day - if you believe in the greenhouse effect - then you must believe that we are warming the planet. Regardless of your unproven theory is correct or not.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Yeah, BUT even if we STOP to spread greenhouse gases NOW, greenhose effect won't get smaller - it will continue for more 20-25 years....
so we have to think about future if it will be better for our children!
if we can stop china and the us from putting so many pollutants into the air; global warming will start to reverse. the plants and trees will use the CO2 and replace it with O2.
of course! that's the way it goes!
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
it wouldn't have gotten so bad if you didn't cut down all the bloody trees. acid rain has killed so many and the population boom = construction boom which wipes out even more.
Yes, why is it that people, so many people don't really understand the value of trees?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
But it is fact that our climate changes as a result of the greenhouse effect (like you said, the degree is debateable),.. given the possibility alone you'd think everyone would be on the progressive side of this issue but there are somehow still people who shout heresy when someone mentions it.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Given the natural variability of the Earth’s climate, it is difficult to determine the extent of change that humans cause. In computer-based models, rising concentrations of greenhouse gases generally produce an increase in the average temperature of the Earth. Rising temperatures may, in turn, produce changes in weather, sea levels, and land use patterns, commonly referred to as “climate change.”
Assessments generally suggest that the Earth’s climate has warmed over the past century and that human activity affecting the atmosphere is likely an important driving factor. A National Research Council study dated May 2001 stated, “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and sub-surface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.”
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
Add to this that a rise in temperature will do no good for anybody and can only cost human life, why not at least try to do anything about it?
Where does this come from? What about the extension of the agricultural belt for impoverished nations, less people dying from cold temperatures, more available freshwater...
Some people I guess aren't suckers for a Greenpeace scare campaign?
Where did you get that? The impoverished nations will be the ones who will suffer the most.
naděje umírá poslední
do you work for an oil and gas exploration company by chance?
less people dying?? ... climate change has brought us deep cold spells too - people are dying as a result of climate change now ... people are most adept at coping with weather patterns that fall within the norm ... we have friggin' people dying of the cold in arizona where they are not used to it ...
severe drought is another impact of climate change affecting agricultural production ... and freshwater!! ... crikey man - we're polluting all the fresh water ...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn5011
Fresh water will be in ever shorter supply as climate change gathers pace. A that increasing temperatures will dramatically affect the world's great rivers.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5477/284
A large proportion of the world's population is currently experiencing water stress and rising water demands greatly outweigh greenhouse warming in defining the state of global water systems to 2025. Consideration of direct human impacts on global water supply remains a poorly articulated but potentially important facet of the larger global change question.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/FS/e_FSA9.htm
For thousands of years we have found it necessary to control water – in order to have it where we want it, when we want it. Nonetheless, some areas still suffer from drought, and some from flood. This is due partly to the natural variability of climate and partly to inappropriate land and water use. Now climate seems to be changing beyond that natural variability, and this is likely to impact on the availability and distribution of water.
no kidding!! ... its a clusterfuck out there and this guy is trying to sell us on all these "benefits" ...
This is a very grim assessment of man's ability to adapt. And pretty nihillistic if global climate change is primarily driven by non-manmade events.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
lives are already lost ... anyways - it is man-made ... even your conservatives have admitted to that ... no new information has come out in the last few years except for evidence ...
There is no agenda of fear mongering, or an nihilistic idea, just a deep concern that this world is our only home and we shouldn't lose it, and even if all these things don't happen, innovation and switching to non poluting, environment friendly energy resources will last us as long as we will need it.
First of all, "greenpeace scare campaign" is the kind of phrase fox news uses to assure it's loyal conservative viewers that they shouldn't even consider believing in environmentalist causes,.. "ignore it! hippies! they're all hippies! lies lies lies! It's just a scare campaign! Al Gore's fright fest! Don't look at it". Utter bullshit.
But anyway..
The impoverished nations will indeed suffer, but everyone is basically fucked if that happens.
Considering if the glaciers melt... The agricultural goldmines in north america (and elsewhere) will freeze over, putting a dent in the world's food production that it won't be able to cope with. Essentially everyone starves.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Fear is not what I would describe what I feel, hope for a future in a beautifull and peacefull world would be better, but eh just watch the news and you'll see we have a long way to go. Cynicism is appropriate, but with hope you can come a long way. And this applies to every person on every angle, again a vast mayority of the scientists agree on this topic and you try to pin that on idealistic views...?
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08