Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Climate Change Thread
#71
What's surprising to me is that this news may surprise some people out there...

Quote:

A document leaked from the UN secretariat says the world will warm by about 3 degrees Celsius this century if the greenhouse gas cuts being proposed at Copenhagen are followed through, exposing the huge gap between the rhetoric of world leaders at the conference and climate science.

Scientists say the 3-degree rise would most likely have severe consequences on human development for centuries, and might well trigger "tipping points" that cause uncontrollable climate change.

The document, marked "confidential very initial draft - do not distribute", shows the pledges made to date would fall well short of the stated aim of world leaders, including that of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, to hold world temperature rises to the safer level of 2 degrees.

Quote:

"What this shows, to me, is that the world leaders think political reality is more important than scientific reality," Mr McKibben said from Copenhagen. "Somehow they think they are going to be able to outmanoeuvre physics."

Reply
#72
Our society, or rather, societies, are not built to deal with issues that span more than a few years, and require at least SOME sort of leap of faith.

I am not the least bit surprised this entire thing seems to go bust. Mankind pulling it together only works in movies, or during alien attacks. For all the rest, we arent able to put aside egoism and short-term goals. Its how we are wired. Which is pathetic, because we well understand the CONCEPT of long-term goals, altruism and simple fucking common sense, but a majority of us choses not to act on said knowledge.
Reply
#73
The situation all but guarantees that we'll end up trying radical geoengineering to stave things off in the decades to come.

If you have the time, I highly recommend this talk by Stewart Brand.

http://longnow.org/seminars/02009/oc...inking-green/#

Quote:

This talk launches Brand's new book: Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto.* His argument is that taking account of the emerging global forces of climate change, urbanization, and biotechnology forces a rethink of some traditional environmental positions.*

Cities are Green, with huge room for improvement.* Nuclear power is Green, with better still to come.* Genetic engineering is Green and shows potentially revolutionary promise.* Direct intervention in the climate---geoengineering---may be necessary.* The classic environmental project of restoring natural systems has to step up in scale and deepen the quality of its science and engineering.

Reply
#74
So we need to continue to grow in economic strength, and develop new tech, I am good with that.

The last thing we needed to do was set up reeducation camps and dismantle cities like the Cambodians did after their victory back in the seventies. That worked out so well before.

We're always going to need an economic base that's strong enough to come up with this tech everyone wants to use to save us. We can't go back to a pre-industrial economy and not expect billions to die of starvation and disease. I know there are some Earth Firsters out there that advocate that sort of thing, but I'd like to think those are few and far between.
Reply
#75
Quote:

Originally Posted by Conservative Neighbor

12-18 inches in Philadelphia IN DECEMBER!!! First time since the 1960's. EXPLAIN THAT, AL GORE!

^^^My conservative neighbor who had a snow blower.

Seriously, it must suck to be Al Gore whenever it snows.
Reply
#76
This makes me feel slightly better about the coming climate-pocalypse

A German reporter said flat out "You're Rediculous" to Inhofe's face. Hooray!
Reply
#77
Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate
View Post
This makes me feel slightly better about the coming climate-pocalypse

A German reporter said flat out "You're Rediculous" to Inhofe's face. Hooray!

Sounds like everyone received a cold reception at the big meeting, including Obama. Getting blown off by the Chinese spoke volumes about how the current pecking order has changed.
Reply
#78
The dingbat weighs in via Tweeter:

Quote:

SarahPalinUSA

Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng

I can't believe that thing was ever that close to power.

Ions. Son of a bitch.
Reply
#79
She doesn't need spelling. She's a maverick.
Reply
#80
Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend

Quote:

PARIS (AFP) – Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.

I read about this study last month. Devoted pet owners are unyieldingly crazy in their own special way (I know this because I am one) and they will not change, so I wonder what they really expect people to do.
Reply
#81
Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios
View Post
The dingbat weighs in via Tweeter:



I can't believe that thing was ever that close to power.

Ions. Son of a bitch.

Gosh, I wonder what Joe Lieberman thinks of string theory. I'd like to hear Dick Cheney chime in with his views on quantum electrodynamics, too.
Reply
#82
Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios
View Post
The dingbat weighs in via Tweeter:



I can't believe that thing was ever that close to power.

Ions. Son of a bitch.

That makes me actually really fucking mad. The McCain people KNEW she was a retard (as we are now learning as they open up to the press), yet they worked to decieve the American people and put her in a position of ultimate power.

That in my book is treason.

"Country First"? ROFLMAO

Quote:

Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng

Anyone who writes like that for public consumption is not fit to run for dog catcher.
Reply
#83
I heard that the Hackers were working for Russia's new KGB. Any truth to that?

The thing is that in my opinion, conservatives should be in favor of limiting carbon because it takes money away from Oil Rich Terror Sponsers like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Reply
#84
How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room.
Reply
#85
Now that China seems to pick up the mantle of being the primary obstacle to a consensus about the required action, I wonder if the disproportionate percentage of 'climate skeptics' in the US general population will go down. Because I feel a lot of them were mostly reacting to the perceived 'US bashing' that followed every such conference and didn't have any problems with the theory.
Reply
#86
RE: Sniake -

Slap your forehead, sir. Oil is a globally traded fungible commodity. It doesn't matter where we get the 'majority' of our oil. The fact that we're the largest consumer of oil on the planet places significant pressure on the globally traded oil price, which in turn massively inflates the size of the 'Arab dick' we must suck (a tasteless metaphor, sure, but when Saudi Arabia is taking that money, along with the billions in direct aid we give them, and funding Salafist schools around the world, its close enough). It is functionally impossible to become independent of 'foreign oil' so long as oil is traded on a global market and the majority of that oil is produced in the Middle East (hence the fun graphic YT posted, that you slapped down in your ignorance).
Reply
#87
No, they won't. The Libertarians still oppose industrial regulation for ideological reasons, and the Republicans are still in the unenviable position of having to defend their allegiance to their energy-industry patrons. Rather than defending poor business practices they pretend such practices are not a problem. It's rather similar to defending policies of torture by claiming torture is really just frat hijinks.
Reply
#88
A lot of the Euro-based media is going with the line that China was just using the meeting to make a statement that they are the only superpower around, and could give a shit about the rest.
Reply
#89
Yeah, anyone who has played Fallout knows how this turns out. Count me in on the market for bomb shelters.

Which sort of seems to be the underlying point of climate change that no one ever brings up. Amidst all the disruptions of weather patterns, crop cycles, and things like that, nation-states are going to be under extreme pressure. Global conflict seems to be the most likely outcome of that.
Reply
#90
Another ouch on IPCC

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6991177.ece
Reply
#91
That an error has been made public and corrected is just more proof of fraud and conspiracy.

It's not an ouch, it's how things are supposed to work.
Reply
#92
Quote:

Originally Posted by pervis42
View Post
A lot of the Euro-based media is going with the line that China was just using the meeting to make a statement that they are the only superpower around, and could give a shit about the rest.

Yeah, the China outlook isn't half as rosy as some of us had hoped it would be.
Reply
#93
People are surprised China wanted to prove what a douchey bully it could be now it's the one of the biggest dogs in the yard?

I'm shocked - SHOCKED I tell you!
Reply
#94
China so far has been great at managing to combine the worst parts of capitalism and communism into a potent, pungent and toxic mix of shit. And they're not afraid to share their handiwork with the world.

I just wish us over here in Europe could get over our ideological hang ups and complexes and get our shit together.
Reply
#95
Quote:

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0ddRxN6xl

NASA has deleted their references to the melting glaciers also, because you know... they were independant and did their own work on everything.
Reply
#96
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
NASA has deleted their references to the melting glaciers also, because you know... they were independant and did their own work on everything.

Of course, this does not mean the glaciers aren't in trouble.

You're clear about that and didn't mean to imply otherwise, right?
Reply
#97
Osama thinks climate change is real.

Now can we do something about this issue? Because if we end up drowning and starving half the worlds poor people all because we CHOSE not to avert this disaster, we're going to have a million Osamas to worry about.

The dunderheadedness of the Republicans who were jeering at mentions of climate change in the SOTU confounds me
Reply
#98
Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate
View Post
Osama thinks climate change is real.

Now can we do something about this issue? Because if we end up drowning and starving half the worlds poor people all because we CHOSE not to avert this disaster, we're going to have a million Osamas to worry about.

Well, I guess that's settled. Osama and Gore agree--two of the great minds of their generation.

Don't worry about it being our fault we're making more Obamas by somehow causing their destruction. They hated us hundreds of years before we build the car engine, they don't need new excuses to want to kill us all. The old ones will do just fine.
Reply
#99
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector
View Post
Well, I guess that's settled. Osama and Gore agree--two of the great minds of their generation.

Don't worry about it being our fault we're making more Obamas by somehow causing their destruction. They hated us hundreds of years before we build the car engine, they don't need new excuses to want to kill us all. The old ones will do just fine.

I am saying that climate change will radicalize previously non radical populations.

Not that it's going to make muslims nuttier. Though it will.


PS watch your Osama/Obamas. I will assume that was unintentional.
Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate
View Post
PS watch your Osama/Obamas. I will assume that was unintentional.

Yep, it was.

I throw myself to the mercy of Christina Hendricks.
Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector
View Post
Yep, it was.

I throw myself to the mercy of Christina Hendricks.

Haha no worries
Reply
It snowed 21 inches at my house today so there is no man-made global warming. Sorry guys. I'm out.*

*Does anyone know the difference between climate and weather?
Reply
The great global warming collapse.

Quote:

“I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper skepticism,” says John Beddington, the chief scientific adviser to the British government. He is a staunch believer in man-made climate change, but he also points out the complexity of climate science. “Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.” In his view, it's time to stop circling the wagons and throw open the doors. How much the public will keep caring is another matter.

Reply
The Problem with Man-Made global warming science (which I beleive in) is that people saw an opportunity to make money off of regulations. Hybrids, Wind Plants, Nuclear Energy, increased grants for glacier research.

The problem is that the Oil Companies are even worse, but that unfortunately isn't an excuse for exagerrating shit inorder to get more money.
Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Closer
View Post

Yes, this is reasonable. The problem is that the other side isn't reasonable. They don't carefully tote up facts and weigh options; they already know what they want the science to say, so they wait for openings and then attack, using irrational methods. That's why scientists, who are supposed to be open-minded, circled the wagons in the first place. The global warming "skeptics", i.e. the people with vested interest in the status quo and their mouthpieces, politicized the debate to the extent that actual, honest skepticism can't be employed. If there had been a reasonable discussion about this, it wouldn't have been about "choosing sides" and an all-or-nothing attitude.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)