Climate shift is biggest security risk: Australia (Reuters)

Status
Not open for further replies.
“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.”


- Professor Kirill Kondratyev, Russian Academy of Sciences

Climate change I love it....so what has the planet really been doing for the past billion years? Explain to me how the ice that was once miles thick over what is now the North Eastern united states melted well before the industrial revolution....

I love how history means since record keeping for the artic began in 1972....

Or how a hundred years ago, well before humans started really dumping in CO2, the great frozen northwest passage was passable?

Or how the antarctic has set record ice levels and has been the coldest yet????

Now we got global dimming and apparently women drinking alcohol increases their chance for breast cancer, in fact leaving your home increases your chances of cancer hell staying in your home increases them....in fact just living is detrimental to your health....

Just to get started

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent


http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/12/record-antarctic-ice-levels-ignored-media

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/no...-arctic-ice-melt-disgracefully-ignore-history

Kind of like how people during Y2K made a killing on the fears of the world going to end....Perhaps it is just a scare tactic to make us all happy little socialists, obviously we cant do anything right without the government telling us what to do....

Research the flaws in the record keeping equipment tracking "climate change" if these errors are occuring just in the US alone imagine what is happening in areas with less funding...

Climate change, like the planet is supposed to run like a machine and weather is never supposed to change, then what the hell are weather pasterns and storm cycles of 25, 50, 100 years??? Glacation cycles of 25,000 years????

Let's not even get into solar flares, solar radiation, angular velosicty of the earth, effects of the mood, earthquakes, or volcanoes...

Think about this the earths core is solid while the outer core is molten....one day (way the heck off) it will all become solid after it cools (past billion years haven't done much) when this happens the magnetic field that is created by it will disappear thus leaving us, well dead...

Sorry for the random and disjointed post, I'm slammed at work and just wanted to quick vent on the topic whilst taking a break...

Cheerio carry on ;)
 
“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.”


- Professor Kirill Kondratyev, Russian Academy of Sciences
Click to expand...

I loved what he said...
 
bulldogg said:
Methinks the planet will heal herself of this primate infection. Global warming is another way in which this rock keeps things in balance. We won't all die but enough of us so that we're manageable again. The world is overcrowded and can't support the current population let alone its ever increasing numbers. If the coastlines flood and people get packed in tighter they will begin to thin themselves out. The rise in temp and increased water are will bring a rise in diseases currently limited to tropical regions. Hence people with no immunity to malaria or dengue will drop like flies. Certain plants and animals will drop off as well reducing the food supply and thin the herd even more. The humans that ride this out and make it to the other side will be stronger and the species will be improved by it. However, between here and there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Click to expand...

Agreed absolutely.
The Earth is not going anywhere. WE ARE!
Which is why it's important.
Several factors affect climate change but this time around it is mostly human activity. Solar activity is actually the biggest traditional source of climate change but none of the evidence suggests that is the case this time around.
If anything, the depletion of the ozone layer is also a huge problem, though that has very little to do with global warming.
 
Last edited:
Donkey said:
Sorry for the random and disjointed post, I'm slammed at work and just wanted to quick vent on the topic whilst taking a break...

Cheerio carry on ;)
Click to expand...

Your argument has a multitude of problems not the least of which is that it misses the point, we already know about cyclic climate change and all the lets ignore it because "environmentalists" are backing it arguments.
What is continually being overlooked is the effects that will happen (regardless of what is causing them) as this cycle continues.

Lets imagine for a second none of this is man made its all 100% natural, sea levels are still going to rise and this is going to cause us massive disruptions, economies will collapse hell Bangladesh will probably disappear along with much of the Pacific and a sizable proportion of Coastal North America (where will these people go and who will they displace?) and here you lot are hanging on tight to the argument that we should do nothing about it because Al Gore is backing it.

Basically the sooner we work on minimising the effects of this cycle on mankind the less disruption it will cause.

I love how history means since record keeping for the artic began in 1972....
Click to expand...


Now this indicates how little you know of science, certainly we only have have recorded history going back to to 1972 but we have analysed history going back 650,000 years thanks to core sample analysis if you would like to educate yourself further on this matter I would suggest getting hold of papers by:

Spahni, Renato et al -- Atmospheric Methane and Nitrous Oxide of the late Pleistocene from Antartic Ice Cores.

And:

Siegenthaler, Urs et al. -- " Stable Carbon Cycle-Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene.

Sorry no links as the site I use requires a subscription but the abstracts should be easily google-able.

And for those that want to study this further high-resolution deuterium profiles are available showing Antarctic climate variability over the past 800,000 years by obtaining the paper Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the past 800,000 years by Jouzel et al. so as you can see science has a fairly good idea on climate change extending back a few years prior to 1972.
 
Last edited:
phoenix80 said:
Inferno, global warming is a hoax...
Click to expand...



well prove it.


i have provided a ton of evidence that it's not, where you keep wavering between;

"it's a hoax"

"oh i mean that it's man made is a hoax"

"but seriously, it's all a hoax"

come on man, you're supposed to be a the smart one, all of us are just ignorant....get to work and prove that global warming is a hoax, and i'll tear it apart just as easily as i have already
 
Does it really matter, of course the world is going to heat up as we get closer to the sun, the worlds weather patterns throughout its life span has changed, its apart of the nature of things.

And since the world is screaming to its doom you think I have enough time to dash down to the pub for a quick pint?
 
Bush seeks flexible CO2 targets

President Bush suggests CO2 emissions targets at country level, hinting the US may not agree to global targets.

--

Our Generational Mission
Al Gore has it wrong.

By Bjorn Lomborg

Editor’s note: This piece is excerpted from Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg Copyright © 2007 by Bjorn Lomborg. Excerpted by permission of Knopf, a division of Random House, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher. In one recent survey in Australia, environmental concern came in as absolutely the most important priority for the leaders of the world, before eliminating poverty or dealing with terrorism, human-rights issues, and HIV/AIDS. In another survey, the United States, China, South Korea, and Australia found improving the global environment a more important foreign-policy goal than combating world hunger. South Korea put it first on its list of the top sixteen global threats.

Why are we so singularly focused on climate change when there are many other areas where the need is also great and we could do so much more with our effort?

Al Gore gives us two reasons. First, it is a planetary emergency: “At stake is the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth.” Yet this turns out to be far from the truth. As we saw above, this is not what the science is telling us for the temperature rise over the coming century. If anything, the science tells us that fewer people will die with moderately more heat. Of course, Gore has several other arguments, which we will also address below.

Gore’s second reason is probably more telling and closer to the truth. He tells us how global warming can give meaning to our lives.

The climate crisis also offers us the chance to experience what very few generations in history have had the privilege of knowing: a generational mission; the exhilaration of a compelling moral purpose; a shared and unifying cause; the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict that so often stifle the restless human need for transcendence; the opportunity to rise. . . . When we rise, we will experience an epiphany as we discover that this crisis is not really about politics at all. It is a moral and spiritual challenge.​
He explains how global warming can give us a moral imperative, like the one Lincoln had for fighting slavery or Roosevelt had against fascism or Johnson had for the rights of minorities.

It seems unrealistic to expect that climate change will give us such singularity of purpose. If anything, the ten-year drawn-out battles around the relatively minor restrictions of Kyoto show us that anything costing individual nations trillions of dollars will be strongly contested and lead to strife rather than serenity.

But perhaps more important, should we go for the exhilaration of a generational mission just because it makes us feel good? Should it not actually be because we are doing the best our generation can do? And this, of course, brings us right back to asking whether there are greater opportunities for us to engage first.


To be fair, Gore does point out that there are many other generational missions:
The understanding we will gain [from tackling climate change] will give us the moral capacity to take on other related challenges that are also desperately in need of being redefined as moral imperatives with practical solutions: HIV/AIDS and other pandemics that are ravaging so many; global poverty; the ongoing redistribution of wealth globally from the poor to the wealthy; the ongoing genocide in Darfur; the ongoing famine in Niger and elsewhere; chronic civil wars; the destruction of ocean fisheries; families that don’t function; communities that don’t commune; the erosion of democracy in America; and the refeudalization of the public forum.​
But as the list goes on, it becomes clear that it is in need of realistic prioritization. Gore essentially tells us we should fix all things from climate change to democracy. And it would be beautiful if we could do so. But so far, we haven’t addressed any of these very well. Perhaps it would be wise to start thinking about which we should do first.

Gore tells us that we need to hear the voices of the future speaking to us now. We have to imagine them asking: What were you thinking? Didn’t you care about our future? He is absolutely right.

Do we want future generations to say that we have spent trillions of dollars and perhaps done a little good for rich people in a hundred years? Or do we want future generations to thank us for giving billions of poor people a new beginning and a better life, which will enable them to better deal with whatever challenges the future holds?

In other words, do we just want to feel good, or do we actually want to do good?

— Bjorn Lomberg is the author of Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming.


http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YzQzYWM0ODQ2ZmJiODY1ODc2YTBmMmVlMmM4NzllZjI=
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't agree with Bush on his plan because I do believe that CO2 is warming our planet. Scientists do know that CO2 is a thermal energy. I think that scientists still need to do more research on how CO2 is melting the ice and makes it hotter through doing experiment in lab.

:shock:
 
Miss Janis said:
Well, I don't agree with Bush on his plan because I do believe that CO2 is warming our planet. Scientists do know that CO2 is a thermal energy. I think that scientists still need to do more research on how CO2 is melting the ice and makes it hotter through doing experiment in lab.

:shock:
Click to expand...

Well heres a turn up for the books I do agree with him on this to a certain degree, I don't agree that voluntary limits are a viable option because for the most part voluntary=do nothing however I do agree that controls should not harm economies especially developing ones.
I also do not agree that global targets are a bad thing as this problem is in itself a global one and will require a global commitment to solving it.

Science for the most part already has an idea what is happening (as it has happened before) its been experimented on to death which also leads to a phenomenon called Paralysis by Analysis, another words we spend so much time looking at all the possible outcomes that you end up doing nothing at all.

Personally I cannot see a way forward on this issue until it is depoliticised and sadly that wont happen until politicians a treading water.
 
Green testified before a Senate committee this week on whether climate change action can produce job growth. He recently engaged in a three-part online debate on regulating greenhouse gas emissions.


Hayward's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth . . . or Convenient Fiction? highlights gaps in scientific understanding of climate change and combats the pessimism of the modern environmentalist movement.


Karlyn Bowman, who documents public opinion about climate change, argues that although most people are concerned about global warming, it is not a top priority for them.
 
Last edited:
Well seems the Bush plan is dead in the water.

Critics angry at Bush climate plan
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News


US President George W Bush infuriated his critics by professing world leadership on climate change at his meeting of the top 16 world economies - while offering no new substantive policy and implicitly rejecting binding emissions controls. Mr Bush, who has been sceptical of climate change, said at the forum in Washington that our understanding of the science had moved on.
He agreed that energy security and climate change were major challenges and pledged to solve both problems - but dismissed notions of despair.
The American president said clean technologies like nuclear power and clean coal would protect the economy as well as the environment.
He said the US wanted to work with the United Nations towards a long-term goal on greenhouse gases.
Delegates upset
He also proposed a new global fund from the US, Japan and Europe to channel clean technology to developing countries.



This is a total charade... It's a total humiliation
Visiting delegate
But some visiting delegates were outraged by what they said was a stream of spin running through the speech.
One (who understandably asked not to be named) said: "This is a total charade.
"The president has said he will lead on climate change but he won't agree binding emissions, while other nations will.
"He says he will lead on technology but then he asks other countries to contribute funds, without saying how much he'll contribute himself.
"It's humiliating for him - a total humiliation."
Some delegates were particularly upset by the extravagant invitation by Mr Bush for other nations to follow the US lead in cutting emissions while increasing the economy.
Emissions did indeed buck the upward trend by dropping a fraction of 1% in the US during 2006 - but even the American government admits this was due to a warm winter, cool summer and an oil price they considered far too high.
Moving on
Significantly, some of the visiting delegates indicated they were already planning for Mr Bush's departure from the White House.
The Germans said they had spent the past two days in productive meetings with US Democrats.
More diplomatically, the British said the issue of climate change stretched beyond any political cycle so it was natural to look ahead.
Certainly the Democrats are hoping to push an energy bill through the US Congress soon - maybe within the next few months.


Mr Bush would then be forced to veto it to prevent it passing.
And this may not prove popular as opinion polls in the US suggest the American people are more concerned about climate change than ever before.
Delegates, though, are not dismissing the Washington meeting out of hand.
They say all talks on climate change bringing together the major economic powers are useful in some way - forging personal relationships and building trust.
A number of delegates said the Chinese were becoming less defensive with every international meeting on climate - and that will be vital if China is to be helped to deal with its booming emissions.
And some said it was useful - albeit tedious - to hear American officials lecturing them with the very facts of climate change that they had been ignoring for years.
The US has offered to continue this Washington process of discussions if it is deemed helpful by the United Nations.
Mr Bush himself says he is organising a summit of world leaders next summer.
Privately, some European delegates are already saying they hope their political leaders are not invited.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7019346.stm
 
The problem with the environmental laws (and this comes from a greenie) is that the process in making the industrial waste disposals clean kicks up the price of the products to such high levels that producing regular products such as regular steel etc. becomes economically unfeasible. So they have to focus on creating specialized products that would justify the high price tag. But say that the Chinese or other industrial spies managed to get this technology and create it through dirty processes... you got your specialized product at a very very low price and that will sell while the one made cleanly will not.
That is the problem.
And if your stuff doesn't sell, then your economy suffers. And when your economy can't catch up with your opponent's economy, you are in a world of s**t. Especially if that country is China.
I believe that the BEST place we can make a difference is at home. Global warming is a real threat and a real issue, but until the technology for making industrial processes cleaner becomes cheaper, getting the industrial emissions down to size isn't going to happen. Better life habits alone and selecting gas efficient cars, turning off unnecessary lights etc. can help cut down on pollution.
Save electricity, save gas, save water. It'll save you money as well.
Clean stuff needs to also be economically cheaper stuff (at least in the long run) for everyone for measures to be taken seriously.
Unrealistic CO2 emission caps aren't going to work and I think that a lot of the political level stuff is often a farce used by politicians to boost their standings because they know it simply will not work. People do that. They involve themselves in an impossible mission, say they've tried and try to put on a good face and make themselves look like politicians or economists with a heart for nature and the future of humankind. They will even sign treaties knowing that not enough signatures will be made to enact it.
It's bulls**t.
Education and technology are key.
 
phoenix80 said:
You know my thoughts....:angel:
Click to expand...

Well I'd certainly like to hear them Phoenix80.

I know we butt heads occasionally, but it is for reasons such as this. You almost never post anything that is original, it is as if you have no mind of your own and rely solely on other peoples opinions and quotes to get you through life. We all know what the "eggheads" on both sides of the argument think. How about some original thought of your own?

Some time back you posted a series of photos of your travels and pets, they were absolutely brilliant, how about some more "original" content.

Surely there is more to you than this?
 
Last edited:
I'm not concerned about global warming or coastal flooding. I'm worried about the ice age that will follow and how little of humanity will be able to survive it. Maybe we'll be extinguished in a nuclear war for what little arable, habitable will remain uncovered by glaciers.

Contrary to what bulldogg said, I don't think the species would be better off after surviving such a cataclysm. Because those in power would be the ones with the best chance of survival, and we've already proven that we put the inferior fools in command.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top