Hi wolf and et al, Still at it, eh? Any agreements yet? LOL c.i.
Yes, the environmental nazi marches on!
Btw, did you know that the nazis were the first to introduce ecological protection in their legislation? Forests and other natural areas were considered to be independent judicial entities, representable by lawyers!
Bush, learn!
wolf wrote:Btw, did you know that the nazis were the first to introduce ecological protection in their legislation? Forests and other natural areas were considered to be independent judicial entities, representable by lawyers!
Bush, learn!
While Wolf jokes about this, we can all judge the similarity of the positions here. Ignorant zealots, short on knowledge and understanding, but long on single-minded conviction and certainty, to whom skepticism is an alien concept, are all capable of much harm if allowed to influence events.
Look who dragged up in my slipstream! The automated debunker program named george-ob-1. Ok, let's sharpen our knives a bit.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) latest report:
Quote:Today's CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not during the past 20 million years. The rate of increase over the past century is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years. The CO2 isotopic composition and the observed decrease in Oxygen (O2) demonstrates that the observed increase in CO2 is predominately due to the oxidation of organic carbon by fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. An expanding set of palaeo-atmospheric data from air trapped in ice over hundreds of millennia provide a context for the increase in CO2 concentrations during the Industrial Era. Compared to the relatively stable CO2 concentrations (280 ± 10 ppm) of the preceding several thousand years, the increase during the Industrial Era is dramatic. The average rate of increase since 1980 is 0.4%/yr.
The increase is a consequence of CO2 emissions. Most of the emissions during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning, the rest (10 to 30%) is predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation. CO2 is the dominant human-influenced greenhouse gas, with a current radiative forcing of 1.46 Wm-2, being 60% of the total from the changes in concentrations of all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/taroldest/wg1/016.htm
How do you plead, program?
Response to George Monbiot article on climate change
George Monbiot's article on climate change gives expression to a wonderfully broad sense of reality. His initial premise--that "our existence is governed by material realities"--brings forth, with faultless logic, his conclusion that, to deal with the looming environmental catastrophe he predicts, we will need "draconian regulation, rationing, and prohibition." If, indeed, this environmental threat is purely material in nature, material power--i.e., regulation, rationing, and prohibition, enforced, of course, by the guys with guns who interfere with your freedom materially (imprisonment or death) when you violate that draconian law--is the only answer! Materialists--consciously or not--will always end up proposing solutions involving armed men (and, more recently in history, women.)
We suggest that the threat is not a material one, that its roots are to be found in man's spirit, and that, therefore, its solution lies there, as well.
If this is so, what is actually needed, and would alone be effective in a way that would not continue the endless cycle of power-mongering by left-wing proponents of "regulation and prohibition" and their right-wing counterparts, proponents of economic license at all costs, is a movement that could awaken individuals from the dream state Monbiot so correctly describes, not, as he proposes, by "usurp[ing] it with our rational and predictive [read: materialistic] minds," but by penetrating to the reason (a spiritual thing) humanity is in that dream state, in the first place: People, in general, want to be happy, and part of happiness is trusting others, including those in power, to do the right thing and to tell the truth.
The dream that governing powers can be trusted is an ideal (also a spiritual thing) that needs to be made a reality; and the path to that reality lies in reviving the consciousness, formerly universal among the spiritually-minded, that money is the root of all evil. Money buys all exploitation and most duplicity; there is nothing that can be accomplished with it that could not better and more virtuously be accomplished without it. (Yes, I said "virtuously.") We in America are the inventors of the oxymoron, recognizable as such in Europe, of the "Christian businessman." Of course, there have always been merchants in Christendom, but the idea of overtly linking one's faith in Christ to one's service to Mammon could only arise in a culture that puts God's name on its currency.
As long as government, whether of the left or of the right, sees the application of monetary power (which also pays for the military and police enforcers--the ones with the weapons, remember) as the way to get things done, the misuse of the environment, and thus the end, as Monbiot says, of life as we know it, will remain as inevitable as night following day. For if we cannot overcome the tendency to use force against our fellow human beings, how in the name of anything holy can we honestly imagine having the capacity to deal with the environment in ways that do justice to one another? Without this justice, war will continue, and with war, the decimation of the environment.
One could ask, then, what is the more dangerous dream state: to have a naive and thus foolish hope in the goodness of humanity and the good will of the universe towards us, or cynically to believe that "regulation" will do anything but perpetuate a state of armed conflict with others, to the continued detriment of the environment it is supposed to "protect"? A truly awake person would suggest, I think, that we mediate between our ideal--that humanity can become good--and the reality--we do live in a world where money rules (almost) everybody--by grasping the initiative to think in the following way, or one like it: "I commit myself to non-violence, and, rather than enforce my good will upon others by legislation backed by guns (thus turning it bad), I will freely share my own spiritual and material resources with others of like mind and heart, so that our common goodness, unadulterated by the use of material power, may overwhelm the dark forces of ignorance that continue to becloud the consciousness of others."
To doubt that this is possible is to keep the door wide open to the kind of never-ending tit-for-tat we see, as just one example, between Israel and Palestine; but cannot we who bear the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi carry it forward, now that the great tit-for-tat of the Cold War has been over for twelve years, and before the potentially greater one our President has felt it necessary to engage us in with the terrorists goes much farther?
In the name of all that is holy,
John Stirling Walker
Venkah Gjermundsen
Peña Blanca, New Mexico
It is a fact that you can not combat ecological devastation without building strong democratic ties. The large majority of the world's population is concerned about the planet's condition. The point is to translate this preoccupation into politics. The coup d'êtat's we had since 2000 are our worst enemy. No more Bush, no more CIA, no more oil lobbies - please! Do not let this ecosystem go down the drain. It's uniquely calibrated to our biological condition, we can not do without it.
footnote.
President Putin of Russia has announced Russia's intention of rejecting the Kyoto treaty, effectively ending this chapter in the attempt of 'environmentalists' to legislate for the world.
Interesting comment on this action from the head of the Russian academy of sciences, "The only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto protocol would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming."
However I am quite sure that Wolf and others will continue to insist that 'the sky is falling in'.
Well, George, although Putin was expected to clarify the timetable for the ratification of the protocol in his opening speech at the World Climate Change Conference in Moscow in late September, he reportedly told that "the decision (for the ratification) will be made only after detailed investigation by the government and in full accordance with Russia's national interest."
Quote:[...]
Yet one Russian expert on climate change has not given up hope, saying he will continue to urge the Russian government to ratify the pact, aimed at curbing global warming.
[...]
"Russia blocked the protocol from entering into force and blocked the activities of 118 countries that have ratified it," remarked Alexey Kokorin, a climate change program coordinator with the environmental group World Wide Fund for Nature.
Kokorin believes that Putin's September statement does not necessarily constitute a retreat, stating that Putin only chose to delay his decision for the following reasons.
"The first is that Putin wanted to show the world that he will not give in to any pressure from the European Union and other countries that ratified it," he said. At the same time, Putin is trying to maintain good relations with the U.S. and EU by postponing his decision, he added.
Finally, Kokorin said, Putin is eyeing both a parliamentary election slated for December and presidential election slated for March.
"Even though a majority of the people in Russia acknowledge the danger of climate change and support the protocol, it remains a controversial issue, and government officials are widely divided (over whether the country should ratify it)," Kokorin said, citing this as a factor behind Putin's actions.
from The Japan Times, October 6, 2003:
Russian expert holds out hope for Kyoto
wolf wrote:Btw, did you know that the nazis were the first to introduce ecological protection in their legislation? Forests and other natural areas were considered to be independent judicial entities, representable by lawyers!
Bush, learn!
Unlike yours, my family has first-hand experience with the legislations of both societies: ecologically correct Nazi Germany and the environment-polluting USA. As it turned out, Nazi Germany killed more of us than America did. So, to put this as politely as I can, we like America better. The fact that you find the Nazis worth emulating is abundant reason never to take you seriously again.
-- Thomas
george
The "they say what they say because their livlihood depends upon their view gaining ascention" does not work in your favor.
I am very much afraid that Wolf has not persuaded me that there is really any such thing as "global warming" which would cause problems to our planet.
I would respectfully ask Mr. Wolf to state in clear terms why the so called "global warming" would damage our earth.
I do not think he can do so.
I patiently await his response.
And as for the bad mannered response of Mr. Blatham to George Ob1- I have only to state that George OB 1 is correct- The Russians have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
As starters, I will remind Wolf that during the tenure of the most scientifically minded and brilliant president we have ever had- William Jefferson Clinton- the Kyoto Protocol WAS NOT RATIFIED BY THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. THE VOTE WAS 95-0.
Even Ted Kennedy voted against it.
I will patiently await wolf's response or anyone else who feels that they can defend what I feel is an absurd premise- namely, that Co2 will destroy the world in short order.
Walter Hinteler- You are always well informed on matters such as the environment. I would welcome your input. I would welcome a specific statement as to why "global warming" will destroy our planet.
Your comment about the Russians was interesting but the bottom line was, of course, that the Russians had rejected the Kyoto Protocol.
Italgato
ad 1)
I didn't make a comment, but quoted and just copied and pasted an article.
ad 2)
Thanks for your welcome. However, my dummy amateurish environmental opinion wouldn't stand any qualified interpretation, especially not such of an expert like you are.
Besides, believe it or not, I decide myself, when and where and why I will contribute on this board. (Especially, when it's nearly early morning here.)
Mr. Hinteler: You flatter me. I am not an "expert" merely an avid reader who tries to solve problems by referral to appropriate sources.
Be seeing you.
Cheers- Mr. Hinteler.
PS- My wife is one half German- I always tell her that it's her good half.
blatham wrote:george
The "they say what they say because their livlihood depends upon their view gaining ascention" does not work in your favor.
Evidently you are referring to the quote from the Head of the Russian Academy of Sciences. I quoted him to give a flavor of what may be the Russian government's position. I don't see that it works either in my favor or against it.
Putin did cite his interest in avoiding any injury to the Russian economy as a result of the agreement - the same issue raised by President Bush. Perhaps one could argue that motive may underly arguments that the global warming matter does not merit fixing. Is that what you are getting at?
My position is that, while it is clear that greenhouse gasses are accumulating in the atmosphere, it is not at all clear that sustained global warming will be the result - many other components of a complex dynamic could readily counter that result or reduce its effect below the noise level due to other, known variables. Further, even if one accepted the worst case warming scenario, it is far from clear that the net global effect would be significantly adverse, and that the "problem" would be at all worth the high known cost of fixing.
George ob1 is a much better writer than I am. He has, in several paragraphs, showed how insubstantial the "global warming" allegations really are.
Thank you, George Ob 1
