Humans blamed for climate change

[rmnunez]

Gobal Warming Ready


Climate Change Clothes:

Amid all these warnings, Diesel wanted to present global warming in a "positive context," says Wilbert Das, the company's creative director. People have become used to learning about global warming in a serious and science-heavy fashion, he says. Spoofing the issue provides a "bigger shock," he says, possibly provoking consumers to think more. Possibly. The funny thing about the "Global Warming Ready" campaign is that Diesel gets to have it both ways. Its arch attitude represents the triumph of cleverness over meaning, of sarcasm over what's sacred. It speaks to a culture of parody, in which the meta-news is invoked before the actual news is digested. (Or, as in the recent death of Anna Nicole Smith, the jokes begin before the body grows cold.) The photographic landscapes of Diesel's print campaign are surreal, but certain conventions of the fashion world are secure: The models are still svelte, and stylishness still triumphs over all. You can't be too well-dressed for the apocalypse. washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

[rmnunez]

Another of those consultants working for big bad oilcos?

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural —and not a human-induced cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said. Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said. By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars. Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists. Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Abdussamatov likely will lose his post at that observatory in St. Petersburg.

[Nathan Struth]

@Pooeypants.

I never saw that portion of the graph...but has the temperature gone up with it> at the same rate? My bad. I'm just saying humans didn't "start" the global warmign cycle but I agree that they're acclerating it immensely.

[rmnunez]

I think the proper term is "exacerbating" (making worse), that humans worsen otherwise natural and recurring climate change, but I don't think they do so in any great measure or substantial way, certainly not "immensely". I also suspect the impact of the best efforts by every responsible party ideally will ultimately have negligible impact in mitigating the full impact of whatever can be atributed to the forecasted climate change.

[Milton Bradley]

The thing I find most puzzling about all of this is that the earths atmosphere is known to have evolved over time. ( As it surely is now as well. )


What makes anybody think they can positively say that the atmosphere, and thus the climate had stabilized into the familiar climate that we have for a few generations?


There was a time when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, and since the evolution of carbon dioxide breathing plaants, the atmosphere has been in a constant state of change.


Then man comes along, and starts to greatly modify the ecosystems, and extinct animals, and somehow people are left thinking this is a stable environment? Hell, there is barely any part of the planet that we have not modifies in some way, whether through farming, or fishing, or building.


I still say it is silly to think that the entire system was in perfect balance, and than burning fossil fuels is the sole cause of the situation we see before us.


There are to many parameters in the eaths complex atmosphere for us simple creatures to understand, let alone control.


The old cliche "grasping at straws" comes to mind.

[rmnunez]

Another scientist breaking ranks with the UN's consensus on global warming, seems like a well-credential fellow, you think he was bought by those greedy oilcos and car makers too?

Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank. His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." Dr. Allegre's skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France's political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France's educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...5-fc28f14da388

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Milton Bradley The thing I find most puzzling about all of this is that the earths atmosphere is known to have evolved over time. ( As it surely is now as well. ) What makes anybody think they can positively say that the atmosphere, and thus the climate had stabilized into the familiar climate that we have for a few generations? There was a time when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, and since the evolution of carbon dioxide breathing plaants, the atmosphere has been in a constant state of change. Then man comes along, and starts to greatly modify the ecosystems, and extinct animals, and somehow people are left thinking this is a stable environment? Hell, there is barely any part of the planet that we have not modifies in some way, whether through farming, or fishing, or building. I still say it is silly to think that the entire system was in perfect balance, and than burning fossil fuels is the sole cause of the situation we see before us. There are to many parameters in the eaths complex atmosphere for us simple creatures to understand, let alone control. The old cliche "grasping at straws" comes to mind.

What we're concerned about is the rate of change. No one has claimed that we're expecting the atmosphere to remain constant for all of eternity. There's a reason why they're saying we're causing a mass extinction level event...

[Captain Chaos]

It seems to me that both sides are differing on the degree of certainty here...

The global warming opponents say there is a low probability that humans are warming the Earth.

The global warming believers say there is a high probability.


If we are doing something that has, say, a 5% probability of causing a worldwide ecological disaster, wiping out several species, flooding several countries, etc...

Then, even at that low probability, it might be worth changing our ways.

This is especially true because smog sucks, for other reason.

So does cow poop, but that at least could be considered carbon neutral.


So, even if we disagree about causes, or the probability of causes, can we agree that it is worthwhile to make the necessary changes, just in case, and for other benefits?


So, what solution has the greatest probability of success?


I believe we must seek technological solutions:

1) Electric cars will be outperforming gas-powered vehicles within 2 decades. These bring the added benefit of not funding Middle east terrorist-supporting nations, quieter roads, less smoggy cities, easier-to-repair vehicles, and cheaper cost-per-mile to operate.

2) There are better ways to produce electricity than burning fossil fuels. If we must burn them, there are cleaner ways to do it. We can also burn fuel crops. Some crops concentrate an awful lot of energy from the sun, grow fast, and provide ample energy when they burn. This is a carbon-neutral process that provides local employment, as well.

3) Vat-grown meat. Pooping cows are a large source of CO2. When stem-cell technology is far enough along, we will be able to produce vat-grown meat. Furthermore, this meat, while growing, can be fed in such a way as to produce low-cholesterol meat - so it will be good for you! Animal rights activists might like this one.


There are many other relevant technologies that I am not listing here. We, as a society, need to push these technologies forward. Why? Because it might help avoid an ecological catastrophe, it will help spur the economy through greater efficiency, it will help avoid local smog, help avoid funding terrorism, and many other benefits.


Thus, regardless of our disagreement over the probability of causes - can we agree that we, as a society, need to expend far-greater resources pursuing technological solutions?

[Milton Bradley]

The natural cycles of a warming, and cooling earth are already percieved as catatrophies.


Look at the present day Sahara. Just imagine them trying to pin the blame for that on you, or your country.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Milton Bradley The natural cycles of a warming, and cooling earth are already percieved as catatrophies. Look at the present day Sahara. Just imagine them trying to pin the blame for that on you, or your country.

yeah...

I would be fine with us 'fixing' the Sahara. I bet the resident there would not mind so much either.

[rmnunez]

Chaos: So, even if we disagree about causes, or the probability of causes, can we agree that it is worthwhile to make the necessary changes, just in case, and for other benefits?

What bothers me is that though it may be beneficial to reduce pollution anyway, we have critical lefties make pariahs of some arguing their pollution in particular is sending the whole world to hell in a handbasket. Within 4 years it is expected China will pollute 5 times more than the US, I'd expect to hear something from the critical left by then on how awful someone other than those terrible united statians are, for not curbing their emissions.

[fushigi]

Quote by: rmnunez Within 4 years it is expected China will pollute 5 times more than the US, I'd expect to hear something from the critical left by then on how awful someone other than those terrible united statians are, for not curbing their emissions.

First, please cite your reference for this claim.

As for the reason the world isn't harping on China, maybe the difference is that China admits global warming is caused by human activity and takes responsibility for combating it. Of course, what they propose is ridiculously inadequate, but it's better than denying responsibility altogether.

I gotta say, I saw Al Gore's documentary too, and it seemed short on science and long on scare tactics. However, he was dead on about one thing: only when the US takes a lead in the fight against CO2 accumulation will there be any positive change. When the US takes leadership, China will be forced to comply down the road, the same way countries had to comply when the US took leadership on cutting CFCs to restore the ozone layer in the '80s.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: rmnunez What bothers me is that though it may be beneficial to reduce pollution anyway, we have critical lefties make pariahs of some arguing their pollution in particular is sending the whole world to hell in a handbasket. Within 4 years it is expected China will pollute 5 times more than the US, I'd expect to hear something from the critical left by then on how awful someone other than those terrible united statians are, for not curbing their emissions.

Focusing on the conflict, and on how much each side dislikes the other, takes energy away from focusing on the solutions.

China needs to be producing electricty from energy crops, not oil.

If we focus on inventing efficient solutions, China will follow suit, in time, because it will be economically beneficial for them to do so.

We sure as hell ain't gonna convince China to spend lots of money on less efficient technologies.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: rmnunez What bothers me is that though it may be beneficial to reduce pollution anyway, we have critical lefties make pariahs of some arguing their pollution in particular is sending the whole world to hell in a handbasket.

The irony here being that it is not the "Critical Lefties" whos factories are belching smoke 24/7.


It is the Globalists ( Right, and Left ) who are shipping everything to China, and back, and then lecturing us about conserving energy.


It is the Right who owned the bulk of that munufacturing power to begin with.


It is the Globalists who have relocated their production facilities ( and its pollution ) overseas.


Your side has nothing to bring to the table except Talking Points, hypocrisy, and the old finger pointing routine.

Quote by: rmnunez Within 4 years it is expected China will pollute 5 times more than the US, I'd expect to hear something from the critical left by then on how awful someone other than those terrible united statians are, for not curbing their emissions.

Hmmm, and here your heros are the ones selling them technology, and then relocating their factories there. Almost as if they somehow managed to figure out how to play the part of "bad guy" in this story as well.


Oh, and it was nice that you try to blame the Chinese for those American factories, and the pollution they create. Yeah, it was so kind of you to attempt to transfer the blame from your heros to the people trying to scrape out a meager existance at the hands of the totalitarian Chinese government working with the benevolent American slave drivers.

[brien]

It is very interesting to see PETA now calling for Al Gore to become a Vegan because they blame bovine flatuence as a serious contributor to global warming.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: brien It is very interesting to see PETA now calling for Al Gore to become a Vegan because they blame bovine flatuence as a serious contributor to global warming.

I thought Vegans drank milk, and ate yogurt, cheese, and other milk products.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I thought Vegans drank milk, and ate yogurt, cheese, and other milk products.

Yes, but only products from human milk

[brien]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I thought Vegans drank milk, and ate yogurt, cheese, and other milk products.

I think they only drink soy milk, eat soy yogurt, soy cheese, and other soy products. Hey, I don't care, but all I hear from the Al Gore camp are crickets.
It remains to be seen if he tells them to f*ck off.

[rmnunez]

China is generating the energy it needs for its tremendous industrial growth with coal-fired thermoelectrical power generation plants, this isn't united statian techonology and its much more contaminating than anything seen elsewhere before.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: rmnunez China is generating the energy it needs for its tremendous industrial growth with coal-fired thermoelectrical power generation plants, this isn't united statian techonology and its much more contaminating than anything seen elsewhere before.

They are also major oil importers.