Thread: Climate chaos? Don't believe it

I've heard this before. That other planets in our solar system are also heating. I'm not even going to make a call, though. regardless of if were responsible for global warming or not, were still fucking up the enviornment big time, and its high time we realized that and stopped, or at least cut back drasticaly. if that means people cant drive their cars as much, than so be it. we need to wise up.

It's December 4 and 24 degrees here in Detroit this fine morning. A hundred miles north of us, they are under a blanket of crusted snow the likes of which is rarely seen before January. They'd love to see some global warming up there.

.6 degrees C in a hundred years. Yeah - let's destroy all ability for humans to create wealth over that. Makes perfect sense to me. Never mind that one volcanic eruption can (and repeatedly has) injected more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in a matter of weeks than all of combined human activity has produced since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

It's all about government wresting yet more control, in the eternal, ongoing march toward global totalitarian government. They will never give up. If this one doesn't work, they'll manufacture another crisis - one, not so ironically, that will as always demand EXACTLY the same kinds of global tyrannical control over economies and activity that they've been angling for throughout history.

While the change has been relatively minor, I think it's a shame that the main argument against caring is "well, it won't be a problem in MY lifetime!" Most people don't admit it, but there's definitely an unconscious feeling of comfort and safety that goes along with the fact that it's someone else's mess to clean up. Actually, the REAL scary people are those that are relying on the rapture to explain away their carelessness... Ugh...

Al Gore's house is far less eco friendly than the common man's house.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022801823.html

He also likes to ride around in private jets.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2VV309lbB8c

He also buys carbon credits to completely offset the carbon he produces.

The scientific consensus is in favor of anthropogenic global warming, I'm afraid, and there is a considerable body of evidence that has gathered over the decades. Al Gore may eat children when no one is watching, but he's only a visible figure in humanity's shift toward awareness of the atmosphere(as silly as that sounds).

I don't think it's possible to do much about it, however, except cut emissions where possible and adapt to the inevitable changes in climate that will occur. The latter is most important, and receives the least attention.

Economically speaking, however, much more good can be done with far less money in far less time by fighting aids and starvation in Africa. You don't get a Nobel prize for that inconvenient truth, though.

I never liked Al Gore's solutions to global warming, they jsut seemed like new ways to funnel money to the federal government and control our population.

We need to switch fuels, but there's this bullshit talking point reiterated over and over again that our technology isn't there yet. We could have had sustainable fuel sources since the 80s. And why do we keep punding forests into oblivion as if ignoring the fact that they're the greatest defense against ozone destroying pollutants.

Al Gore....whomever the messenger, it should be treated as top priority.
First it was his agenda to regain a seat for presidency, then - not upon His request, he one the Nobel peace prize. Now it's for money?
I do not think much of Al gore. I also think that him winning the Nobel peace prize was very inappropriate. All that aside, why always find a diversion from the issue?

Who should be the spokesman? God? I think he is speaking.

I agree, but his solutions still suck even if he is spreading awareness.

I don't understand how it can hurt to assume it's true. It's like buying insurance, but this time the stakes are much bigger. So we cut down on oil consumption, invest in alternative energy, and quit producing so much pollution. Is that so horrible? I can think of a few other problems that would solve at the same time. It would be a good thing even if there were no such thing as global warming.

How come nobody ever talks about any other kind of pollution anymore? It's global warming or nothing.

Unless you believe that oil is oozing up from the earth in an infinite supply, it will run out some day, so why not start getting prepared? Not to how buying it supports the wrong kind of people who happen to live on top of it.

Global warming doesn't mean that every place gets uniformly warmer. No one knows exactly what might happen. For example, the gulf stream could shift and Europe could go into an ice age.

It can hurt because all of the recommended responses to it involve the curtailment of human liberty and the consolidation of power in an aspiring global government.

CO2 is not pollution - it is plant food. It is also the one common element in all human activity. Calling CO2 "pollution" then controlling and taxing it is the wet dream of global tyrants.

I am in agreement about real pollution, Moonbeam - and have witnessed in my life amazing strides in reigning in pollution. I remember going on vacation as a kid and being able to SMELL Detroit just a bit south of Bay City on the way home, after a week of breathing clean air. That's not the case anymore. I remember when Lake Erie was pronounced dead - now we fish it and swim in it. I remember when a guy who fell into the Rouge River DIED from exposure to the poisons in it. Now there are fish and ducks and people canoing and fishing it... it goes on and on, and that's just here in what used to be a HUGELY polluted industrial center.

How did this all get cleaned up? It didn't happen by bankrupting industry and eliminating our ability to create wealth - I'll guarantee you that. It also didn't happen by paying homage and taxes to the United Nations.

One of the biggest road blocks I believe is that the earth does go through these cylces, as recorded. It seems obvious to me that the earth, any earth/planet will inevitably and consistently go through an ever changing cycle.
When changes occur it is easy to point the problem in that direction.
So yes it may be naturally warming. But that in addition to our interferences, this exacerbates the problem, like a snowball effect.

It is like quiting smoking, you will not change until you either really want to or have to. With global warming, it will be the latter, and sometimes that is too late. The earth has lung cancer.

Our liberties should not supersede today that of our survival tomorrow. It is a global issue and it involves a global community.
Other aspiring and growing nations, just getting their feet wet, are like us during our booming years. They are not going to scale back anything, as they see their economy finally beginning to grow.

Originally Posted by Howie

Our liberties should not supersede today that of our survival tomorrow. It is a global issue and it involves a global community.
Other aspiring and growing nations, just getting their feet wet, are like us during our booming years. They are not going to scale back anything, as they see their economy finally beginning to grow.

With all due respect, Howie - I don't think you've been reading the recommendations of the IPCC, considering the results of creating of a new global currency based on carbon, or recognizing that producers of REAL and truly grotesque pollution are all exempt from Kyoto - and that when the throttle is yanked back on economic activity in the Western (and vastly cleaner) world, the very worst offenders on the planet will be plunging forward without restraint - in terms of environmental OR human cost. Why would this be, do you think? Why would this be acceptable to a western Entrepreneur?

Originally Posted by pj

With all due respect, Howie - I don't think you've been reading the recommendations of the IPCC, considering the results of creating of a new global currency based on carbon, or recognizing that producers of REAL and truly grotesque pollution are all exempt from Kyoto - and that when the throttle is yanked back on economic activity in the Western (and vastly cleaner) world, the very worst offenders on the planet will be plunging forward without restraint - in terms of environmental OR human cost. Why would this be, do you think? Why would this be acceptable to a western Entrepreneur?

Based on credits and such for less carbon and other emission control ideas?

I did not want to put ourselves (USA in particular) on a pedestal because the western world is always under the watchful eyes of the suppressed nations.
But we are one of the only countries taking the environment with any seriousness at all.

Originally Posted by pj

How did this all get cleaned up? It didn't happen by bankrupting industry and eliminating our ability to create wealth - I'll guarantee you that. It also didn't happen by paying homage and taxes to the United Nations

While these strategies seem harsh and demanding, we our in an entire different scenario. The world is the player now. Not just us like I was eluding to in my other post. However again, it is we that are only scaling back on coal powered industry and other carbon monsters.
Striving for alternative energy and creating new commerce is a foot forward, no?

As far as the UN, no I am not up to speed with that. I would like to see the UN dismantled because of the lack of proficiency. So to give them taxes seems even more absurd to me.

Originally Posted by Howie

As far as the UN, no I am not up to speed with that. I would like to see the UN dismantled because of the lack of proficiency. So to give them taxes seems even more absurd to me.

Well, you are buying into a scenario that is being published and promoted by the very agency you would like to see dismantled, while presenting themselves as the only hope for the survival of humanity in light of their determinations.

Think about that. It might help also to think about Oil for Food, Darfur, Russian/USSR laundering and bribery, human rights violations, sexual exploitation by "peacekeepers," the utter ineffectiveness of the IAEA, their choices of members for Human Rights and other councils - do check out who sits on these... - , their positions on and inaction in Cuba, the Sudan, Uganda... shall I continue?

When it comes to climate change, we`re extremely near to the point of no return, and I honestly don`t think that we`ll be able to compensate in time. I`m just glad I`ll be dead by the time the worst of it comes (hopefully), though I don`t use this as an excuse to live a polluting lifestyle. Some things just transcend money, the world for instance... Sure it sucks that we have to reengineer our world economy, but we dug ourselves into this hole, and there`s no easy way back out. Of course, it`s easy for all you 40+ year olds to just sit back, complain and think "hmm, good timing"...

Yeah - when we were kids, we were being warned about the rapidly depleting ozone layer and the coming ice age due to global cooling. It was the "scientific consensus," we were all going to die, and the 40+ers didn't care. How could they be so cruel?

Of course, both turned out to be bullshit.

Do you know how many times catastrophic warming and cooling have been predicted in the last century alone? Might be interesting to go back and find out... and see how this general theme has been recurring.

Of course, they're now moving from "global warming" to "climate change," just to hedge their bets.

Well I`ve never heard of global cooling, but the depletion of the ozone layer is an ongoing problem that has been more or less fixed with the ban of CFCs.

Climate change is a blanket term that covers all these facets, including global warming. Global warming simply refers to the overall average heating of the planet by a few degrees per decade, when I think climate change, I think more of erradic weather patterns. El Nino, El Nina, unseasonal temperatures (I can`t begin to count the number of temperature records that have been broken here lately), increase in hurricane and superstorm activty, melting of the polar ice caps... When you look at all of this, and consider that the possible reprecussions are even worse, don`t we at least owe it to ourselves to acknowledge that our actions could be at the cause of this? Not to mention that there`s so much conclusive evidence to back this up...

You also have to admit that our scientific knowledge has grown since the events of your childhood, not to mention that we can use advanced computers to create possible models of the clmate`s future, which are pretty bleak... There`s also the fact that the scientific community is barely divided on the matter, there are so many people who have spent their careers researching this, and they have come to the general conclusion that we are more or less screwed, but screwed all the same.

Another point that is seldom looked at is that gowing green is way more economical in the long run. Now if you`re right and we do something, prices will go up for a few decades then settle back down when the new economy`s better efficiency kicks in; but if I`m right and we do nothing, then we can forget about prices because barter will go back in style. Say, I`ll trade you that raft for a dozen cans of beans...


Edit: Howie, I think you misread my post, I said that I would hope not to be here when the shit hits the fan (who does), but that I didn`t use that as an excuse to live a polluting lifestyle.

pj,
I never said we do not turn a blind eye. More cases than I can count.
I don't see how this is buying into a scenario. That is if I am aware of their agenda but at the same time see the relevance in the need for change.
Some of the facts, like the world plans to generate in the next five years for another 1000 coal fired power plants. The bulk of them in countries that do not enforce pollution control. China and India, the two biggest, do not have in place adequate pollution control standards. Their economy is their first and foremost priority. Spear no expense, including the environment.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

When it comes to climate change, we`re extremely near to the point of no return, and I honestly don`t think that we`ll be able to compensate in time. I`m just glad I`ll be dead by the time the worst of it comes (hopefully), though I don`t use this as an excuse to live a polluting lifestyle. Some things just transcend money, the world for instance... Sure it sucks that we have to reengineer our world economy, but we dug ourselves into this hole, and there`s no easy way back out. Of course, it`s easy for all you 40+ year olds to just sit back, complain and think "hmm, good timing"...

If you take a look at your post closely, see how sad it is.
You point out the problem, then state you will be glad YOU are not here and YOU HOPEFULLY??? don't lead a polluting lifestyle.

Well some of us, regardless of age do not claim to wish they are not here like you. They want to resolve the issue for ...get this > THE FUTURE GENERATIONs!!!! THEIR KIDS!!!!
And many WILL act opon our actions and not just "HOPE."

Originally Posted by pj

Yeah - when we were kids, we were being warned about the rapidly depleting ozone layer and the coming ice age due to global cooling. It was the "scientific consensus," we were all going to die, and the 40+ers didn't care. How could they be so cruel?

Of course, both turned out to be bullshit.

Do you know how many times catastrophic warming and cooling have been predicted in the last century alone? Might be interesting to go back and find out... and see how this general theme has been recurring.

Of course, they're now moving from "global warming" to "climate change," just to hedge their bets.

We also realized chlorofluorocarbon were one big reason for this depletion no?
We have facts, and regardless of who or what is causing this there will be problems, shifting weather problems, depleting glaciers, raising sea levels.
Are these facts disputable at this point?
First time in recored history that the North west passage has opened

Originally Posted by Howie

We also realized chlorofluorocarbon were one big reason for this depletion no?

That was the "consensus." Further research - after eliminating R12 and replacing it with something FAR more damaging to the environment - but, by an AMAZING coincidence, proprietary, which R12 no longer was - it was discovered that the ozone hole is a naturally recurring event that is tied to solar activity, the sunspot cycle and seasonal changes... and that we just didn't have the technology to notice it before. Oh - and nobody has EVER explained how a heavier than air chemical manages to get into the ozone in the first place.

We have facts, and regardless of who or what is causing this there will be problems, shifting weather problems, depleting glaciers, raising sea levels.
Are these facts disputable at this point?

We have rhetoric and and a "consensus" by a group under the auspices of one of the most corrupt international organizations in history... oh - and we have Al Gore, who is already very heavily invested in the global companies best poised to profit from carbon credit trading.

And then we have a huge and growing number of climatologists and scientists who proclaim this whole thing one of the biggest scams in history - one of whom is the founder of The Weather Channel.

First time in recored history that the North west passage has opened

Um... no. First time we've SEEN it, perhaps.

Ever wondered why Greenland is called Greenland? Might want to look into that one.

You might also enjoy reading "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years", by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Edit: Howie, I think you misread my post, I said that I would hope not to be here when the shit hits the fan (who does), but that I didn`t use that as an excuse to live a polluting lifestyle.

I took it the wrong way. sorry.

All I know is Greenland is ice and Iceland is green, no?

Ok pj,
We can both relate to the book - Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance.
The issue of following their natural feelings. He put it something like a mass movement of anti technological left emerging, or something like that.
I'm saying the illusion can go both ways.

I too am dubious of most claims of coming catastrophes, war propaganda and government's scare tactics. We in turn also have to be aware not to turn a blind eye to overwhelming data. As Spartiate mentioned, we do have technological advances far from that 10-5 years to 5 days ago. With the internet and the massive amounts of data available, how could a hoax be generated with any
Again, even if we are not the cause, if this is a natural earth cycle, is this data all manifested for a scheme?
There would surely be more profitable schemes wouldn't there be?

OK, this is starting to sound more and more like a conspiracy theory thing, when people start denying the facts because the sources "aren`t credible" (and if the majority of Earth`s scientific community isn`t credible, then who is?), arguments just become loops where no one even cares to give anyone any leeway, because, you see, I don`t think that anyone who refuses to believe that climate change is a threat, is "credible".


Just recycle, use compact fluorescent light bulbs, turn the AC down a degree or two, walk once in a while... It won`t hurt anyone.

Do remember Phaedrus' observation about scientific method in general.

There's really not much more for me to say here, other than that the myth is perpetuated like any other. It's a sexy, scary story. It gets press. It promises certain groups power and wealth - groups that can afford to promote it heavily.

And it has become a religion.

**EDIT**

Oh - and I might add that the majority of the earth's scientific community has, at various times, been at "consensus" about a flat earth and about the need to globally implement Eugenics to save the human race - a consensus that one Adolph Hitler took very seriously.

Your message is strong and comprehensive.
Can you really compare the scientific community of today with the one in place back.... uuuh, when the earth was flat?
I am not saying that in one hundred more years we will not look back and see so much more than we see now, but advancement is a slow progression, but it is progress none the same.
How do I know that the climate data, satellite images and others are not a hoax. I don't.

If in fact it is not a hoax, then what you say will be a blessing.

If it is a hoax, the pawns will be maneuvered such for the advantage of the King.
It's good to be King.

Originally Posted by pjOh

I might add that the majority of the earth's scientific community has, at various times, been at "consensus" about a flat earth...

No doubt. Historically, we tend to get things wrong more than right in many arenas, especially science. But that doesn't suggest that we get everything wrong.

More to the point, which is worse: assuming Global warming is happening and being wrong, or assuming it isn't and being wrong?