2
   

Global Warming, Pollution, and Politics

 
 
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 09:30 pm
@RDRDRD1,
The evidence is before anyone who is interested in the truth. If you are not, very well. I have nothing else to say, and no I have no interest in participating in a debate about how exactly we should radically change our society and reduce our living standards in order to combat a purely imaginary, propoganda fueled threat.

Thanks
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 09:57 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;74438 wrote:
The evidence is before anyone who is interested in the truth. If you are not, very well. I have nothing else to say, and no I have no interest in participating in a debate about how exactly we should radically change our society and reduce our living standards in order to combat a purely imaginary, propoganda fueled threat.


Someone a little salty that Aedes started going through the list of signers to your insignificant paper that no climatologists take seriously, and is filled with people that have no knowledge of the workings of climate. As I have said, the paper is a literature review, and is not scientific--not to mention, a poorly constructed literature review at that. For a good literature review, see the IPCC report. I have read it a few times, and have been following its ongoing advancement and drafts for years now. That paper was put together by a large group of climatologists and oceanic and atmospheric scientists. Not to mention, the report itself is peer reviewed, not just the sources they derive their information from.

But thanks anyway for trying to derail a thread by changing the subject of what was originally intended to be discussed. This thread was not about reducing our living standard (are you blind and not able to see that the powers that be are doing that anyway with society at the moment as it stands). This thread is about doing what is fair, and making sure that no one has to share more than their fair share of the burden so others can live more comfortably at their expense. That is what we have in the world today, because developed countries continue to sour the environment by using more than their fair share of resources, and forcing lesser countries and people to take on more of the burden of pollution than they deserve.

But besides that, I love how a conversation about global warming is quickly shifted to Al Gore by a libertarian or conservative that has not looked into the vast literature on global warming other than an Al Gore propaganda piece put together by Hollywood. Is it sensationalized, of course that is Hollywood for you. But sometimes in order to reach everyday common people, you need to scare the sh!t out of them a little.

Anyway, lets get back to making this a constructive thread on how we can begin to change the status quo, and work towards evolving society beyond the industrial age and the failed debtor economy that has exasperated the global warming/pollution problem.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 01:33 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;73565 wrote:
I don't mean to steal your thunder T., but the first thing needed to solve these problems is the realization that anthropogenic global warming is not occuring and that the natural climatic changes that are occuring do not present nearly the threat which Al Gore's animation of Miami underwater would suggest.

Basic evidence of this claim, which I will detail later (its a bit late on the east coast):

1. While there is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and atmospheric temperature, it is not as it appears on cursory examination: as we got in Al Gore's propoganda. Increases in temperature have always preceded increases in CO2; likely because sea water contains more dissolved CO2 than is in the atmosphere and releases more when warmer. This explanation also accounts for the delay between rising temperature and rising CO2 that's evident in the record; i.e. oceans take centuries to warm or cool in response to changing atmospheric temperatures, as water has a very high specific heat.

2. CO2 is a very insignificant greenhouse gas. Water vapor accounts for well over 90% of all greenhouse warming. Moreover, human emmited CO2 accounts for a tiny fraction, well under 10%, of CO2 produced on earth and released into the atmosphere, which comes mainly from geothermal activity and micro-organisms.

3. The 'incredible' and 'unprecedented' rise in atmospheric temperature over the last century and a half is fictional. That data begins around the Monder minimum, one of the coldest periods in the last 10,000 years. In other words, the increase is more of a return to norality than a exceptional event.

4. Even this increase is suspect, because these measurements are based on ground temperature, in many cases at urban sites where there is a definite and well documented 'heat island' effect. In the last 25 years, satellite imagery shows virtually no increase in atmospheric temperature, as woukld be the case in there were greenhouse warming.

5. Finally, there is no a consenses amoung relavent scientists in the field. According to recent polls, almost 40% were either not sure about anthropogenic global warming, or were convinced that it did not exist.

More to come...night

Have you seen this video?

YouTube - 2. Climate Change -- the objections
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 02:19 pm
@Theaetetus,
They should shift cargos transported by lorries and vans etc to trains but it's more expensive.
RDRDRD1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 02:40 pm
@Caroline,
It may be too expensive for the UK, Caroline, but it makes perfect sense for North America where trucks can roam thousands of miles.
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 03:07 pm
@Theaetetus,
I find it fascinating that there are people out there that believe this is one big overblown conspiracy thing; I shouldn't, but I do. That it's become politicized, too, shouldn't be much of a revelation either; unfortunately, this has the most damaging effect, that being the polarization (circling the wagons) between different political ideologies on an issue that, itself, doesn't contain any direct correlation to the political theater.

Once such loyalties get involved, the entire subject becomes mired in an emotional soup of finger pointing, indignation and claim-vs-counterclaim. That such a broad-reaching issue has been relegated so, is sad and potentially dangerous - yet another testament to the folly of associating issues not intrinsically political, with politics.

Dang
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 03:21 pm
@Theaetetus,
Here is a recent article that describes a linear relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and warming of global temperatures.

Quote:

Carbon Emissions Linked To Global Warming In Simple Linear Relationship

ScienceDaily (June 11, 2009) - Damon Matthews, a professor in Concordia University's Department of Geography, Planning and the Environment has found a direct relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Matthews, together with colleagues from Victoria and the U.K., used a combination of global climate models and historical climate data to show that there is a simple linear relationship between total cumulative emissions and global temperature change.

These findings will be published in the next edition of Nature, to be released on June 11, 2009.

Until now, it has been difficult to estimate how much climate will warm in response to a given carbon dioxide emissions scenario because of the complex interactions between human emissions, carbon sinks, atmospheric concentrations and temperature change. Matthews and colleagues show that despite these uncertainties, each emission of carbon dioxide results in the same global temperature increase, regardless of when or over what period of time the emission occurs.

These findings mean that we can now say: if you emit that tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change. If we want to restrict global warming to no more than 2 degrees, we must restrict total carbon emissions - from now until forever - to little more than half a trillion tonnes of carbon, or about as much again as we have emitted since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
"Most people understand that carbon dioxide emissions lead to global warming," says Matthews, "but it is much harder to grasp the complexities of what goes on in between these two end points. Our findings allow people to make a robust estimate of their contribution to global warming based simply on total carbon dioxide emissions."

In light of this study and other recent research, Matthews and a group of international climate scientists have written an open letter calling on participants of December's Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change to acknowledge the need to limit cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide so as to avoid dangerous climate change.



Carbon Emissions Linked To Global Warming In Simple Linear Relationship
0 Replies
 
RDRDRD1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 06:05 pm
@Khethil,
What's curious Khethil is the uniquely American-aspect of this. American conservatives dispute global warming science as a hoax and yet it was Britain's Conservative "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher who first raised the call to tackle the problem. One of the strongest advocates in Europe today is Germany's conservative (Christian Democrat) Chancellor, Angela Merkel. She also happens to hold a PhD in physics. The Right does get it, just not in America. What's happened is that the climate change issue has been transformed into the latest front of America's "culture wars." It's a political football, more than anything else, in the United States.
salima
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 07:37 pm
@RDRDRD1,
RDRDRD1;74844 wrote:
What's curious Khethil is the uniquely American-aspect of this. American conservatives dispute global warming science as a hoax and yet it was Britain's Conservative "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher who first raised the call to tackle the problem. One of the strongest advocates in Europe today is Germany's conservative (Christian Democrat) Chancellor, Angela Merkel. She also happens to hold a PhD in physics. The Right does get it, just not in America. What's happened is that the climate change issue has been transformed into the latest front of America's "culture wars." It's a political football, more than anything else, in the United States.


politics will use whatever it can for a football. whatever works-and this is working in america because if they accept as reality the danger of global warming and believe it is caused by humanity they will have to take responsibility and bear the burden for what they are a major partner in causing. you are quite right it has been changed and used to represent a threat to western culture somehow-that is a political ploy, to disguise one issue as another that provokes more emotional response from citizens.

in the world, as a global issue, those who are on the top rungs of the economic ladder (which is also synonymous with power) do not believe that they are holding themselves back while they try to keep everyone else from going forward. but just as the saying 'a chain is only as strong as its weakest link' states, this world is only as rich as its poorest nation, and each nation is only as rich as its poorest person.
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 07:46 pm
@Theaetetus,
Most politicians who have a problem with global warming are ones who have a financial stake in companies that produce greenhouse gases.

Most scientists who have voiced opposition to anthropogenic global warming are not actually climate scientists, and are probably just allying based on their political views.

Having a PhD in physics might help someone read a journal article better, but that's not what makes one an expert in climate change.
RDRDRD1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 07:54 pm
@Aedes,
And Thatcher herself held a post-graduate science degree from Oxford.
Joe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 07:58 pm
@Aedes,
This is why the state is becoming too influential. If you have come to your decision about global warming because of one scientist over another, then so be it. Most people dont really care enough yet because "Government" is arguing over it. God I hate authority. Its getting very counterproductive. Getting? lol, nevermind.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 08:05 pm
@Theaetetus,
Well, as much as we hate the government, they're the ones with money and who can create policy. One can only hope that they find ways to get scientists exposing them to the scientific state of the art.

I'm not sure I want scientists making policy. But they sure should be educating those who do.
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 08:08 pm
@Joe,
Joe;74897 wrote:
This is why the state is becoming too influential. If you have come to your decision about global warming because of one scientist over another, then so be it. Most people dont really care enough yet because "Government" is arguing over it. God I hate authority. Its getting very counterproductive. Getting? lol, nevermind.


I know what you mean Joe. We need science to operate without the influence of government. That is the only reason why there is even a debate about global warming. Between politician deniers and scientist that work for corporations that have an interest in denying that global warming is happening, it is causing a serious divide among the people that is dangerous. When over 95% of climatologists believe that man is causing global warming, but only 60% of the citizens believe it, there is a serious issue with negative propaganda going on.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 08:13 pm
@Theaetetus,
I'd bet less than 60% of our citizens know the capital of New York State, so we're doing pretty well if 60% believe that global warming is manmade Smile
Joe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 08:19 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;74905 wrote:
I know what you mean Joe. We need science to operate without the influence of government.


It does and it doesnt at the same time. Depends on what people like to hear. I feel like im just ranting against authority again but I cant help but notice more and more what is happening socially because of it.
0 Replies
 
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 08:23 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;74909 wrote:
I'd bet less than 60% of our citizens know the capital of New York State, so we're doing pretty well if 60% believe that global warming is manmade Smile


Isn't it New York City (I am only joking). I am sure that if you asked anyone what the capital of Pennsylvania was, 99% would get it wrong. And I am sure at least 75% get the NY capital wrong.

---------- Post added 07-04-2009 at 09:26 PM ----------

Joe;74914 wrote:
It does and it doesnt at the same time. Depends on what people like to hear. I feel like im just ranting against authority again but I cant help but notice more and more what is happening socially because of it.


I know what you are saying. The real issue is that people do not understand what the authority on the topic is. We need to be listening to the climatologists on the issue, not the politicians. Most of the climatologists that are dissidents, are funded in some way by the automobile or oil industries. When only less than 5% of climatologist do not agree with human caused global warming, that should say quite a bit where that 5% comes from.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 08:32 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;74916 wrote:
Isn't it New York City (I am only joking). I am sure that if you asked anyone what the capital of Pennsylvania was, 99% would get it wrong. And I am sure at least 75% get the NY capital wrong.
I had an intern a few months back who'd gone to medical school in North Dakota, and she was pissed that she couldn't stump me with the capitals of the Dakotas. Then I asked her the capital of North Carolina (the state I'm in, and she now lives in) and she guessed Charlotte. Good thing she's Canadian, I let her get away with it. Of course I also knew the capital of Manitoba, her province, (but I've been to Winnipeg before).
0 Replies
 
RDRDRD1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 08:33 pm
@Theaetetus,
Even here on Vancouver Island we know it's Albany. I did my undergrad in the US during the early Nixon era and I've been fascinated with the struggle between the American people and their government ever since. At moments it seems to go beyond adversarial to borderline predatory. Politicians and their media cohorts have become grand masters at wedge politics, driving enormous divides between camps on issues such as global warming. What I cannot understand is why so many Americans complacently line up in one camp or the other instead of together turning on those who manipulate them with fear, distrust, lies and division? Disagreement and debate are wonderful things when they're not overlaid with anger and resentment. Climate change, as can be seen in comments on this site and others, is one of those wedge issues on which it's becoming impossible to find civil discourse. Enough.
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 08:37 pm
@Theaetetus,
It's not as bad as you say. There are 300 million of us, and of countries with populations like this none is even close to as diverse. It's pretty hard to generalize...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 09:18:54