Global Warming Debate

[Count Comfect]

GrayMouser is completely correct here. "Ice-free summer" in the "Arctic" has a very definite meaning of ice-free summers on the Arctic Ocean. No one is suggesting that Greenland will melt away - they are suggesting that the massive sea-ice accumulations that made the Northwest Passage entirely impassable without wintering in the Arctic when the first explorers tried a bit over two hundred years ago will be gone (although they will still re-form every winter; just thinner and thinner and continually melting each summer).

[inked]

Thanks for the clarifications, GM : "since it's the Beeb, and not Fox News, we'll assume they were inadvertent."

Now I can rest assured that the BBC always makes inadvertencies whilst Fox makes malicious twists of interviews.

Oh, and emotionalising in getting people to listen is OK - except of course when it isn't, right?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Thanks for the clarifications, GM : "since it's the Beeb, and not Fox News, we'll assume they were inadvertent."

Now I can rest assured that the BBC always makes inadvertencies whilst Fox makes malicious twists of interviews.

Actually, looking at the whole interview again, it's a question of how inadvertent it was. The guy started with a narrative- "Greenpeace are alarmists"- and went looking for sources to back it up.

Not that I necessarily disagree with him on the whole- Greenpeace are pretty alarmist, and some of their local affiliates in particular pull off some pretty bonehead stunts and come up with Chicken Little pronouncements.

As for Fox, yep, that about sums them up- "Lies and the Lying Liars"

[inked]

GM, perhaps I am merely dense or daft, but could you explicate the difference between "Chicken Little pronouncements" and "Lies and the Lying Liars"?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

GM, perhaps I am merely dense or daft, but could you explicate the difference between "Chicken Little pronouncements" and "Lies and the Lying Liars"?

Sure- Chicken Littles actually believe that the sky is falling.

There are Global Warming proponents who will tell you that GW means the end of human civilization, or even the end of human life or life on the planet.

Lying Liars, obviously, don't believe what they are saying- this is the claim made by GW skeptics about the vast majority of the climatologists in the world who believe in anthropogenic GW ("man-made" is such a sexist term- give the ladies their fair share of the blame).

To the skeptics, these scientists are engaged in a giant conspiracy to practice fake climate science in order to get research grants and/or pursue their nefarious anti-capitalist ideology.

On Fox News, for example, Sean Hannity is too smart to believe the nonsense he spews about "Death Panels" and "Death Books" but, WTH, t serves the cause, it draws in the rubes,boosts ratings and rakes in money, so who cares if it's true or not?

Glenn Beck, OTOH, really is tin-foil-hat black-helicopter flat-out crazy.

Yesterday was especially astounding. He argued on the air, for example, that President Obama intends to create a "civilian national security force," which will be similar to Hitler's SS and Saddam Hussein. Apparently, this has something to do with AmeriCorps, which Beck initially said has a $500 billion budget. (He corrected himself later in the show, though his guest didn't blink when he originally made the claim.)

Towards the end of the show, after scrawling on a variety of boards and pieces of paper, Beck summarized his key observation. On a chalkboard, Beck had written the words, "Obama," "Left Internationalist," "Graft," "ACORN Style Organizations," "Revolution," and "Hidden Agenda." If you circle some of the first letters of these important words, Beck says, it spells "OLIGARH." Beck told his viewers there's only one letter missing. If you're thinking that letter is "c," you're not medicated enough to understand Beck's show.

The missing letter is "y," because the word he hoped to spell is "OLIGARHY." No, that word doesn't exist in the English language, but that's probably because the dictionary was written by some communist community organizer who wants to keep Glenn Beck and his viewers down.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[inked]

Well, since you mentioned it.....
"The President was particularly anxious to deal with Sarah Palin’s so-called “death panels.�

Obama also addressed the so-called “death panels,� calling the idea “an extraordinary lie.� There is a provision in the House bill that provides Medicare reimbursements for counseling to set up a living will and advice on other end-of-life decisions, he explained.

Let’s examine that one, shall we? H. R. 3200 is the most prominent health-care proposal currently before the House of Representatives. In Section 1233, the section the President is referring to, we read:

(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term `advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

Nothing all that terribly wrong so far. But if I indicate to my physician that I do not want the plug to be pulled should it come to that since my beliefs consider such an act to be suicide and that there is therefore no circumstance under which I will change my mind, why do I need to go through this charade again in five years?

But shouldn’t you get all that in writing, Chris? You know, just in case? Sure, I’ve got no problem with that except for the fact that my doctor’s “explanation� doesn’t have to take my beliefs into account.

(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include–

(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and

(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).

Of course, there are explanations and there are explanations.

(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State–

(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and

(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).

What in the world does “program for orders for life sustaining treatment� mean?

Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include–

(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;

(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;

(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and

(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.

Feeling better about all this? Keep going.

(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term `order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that–

(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;

(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and

(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.

But here’s the key. Even if all your I’s are dotted and all your T’s are crossed, it might not matter at all.

(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items–

(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;

(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;

(iii) the use of antibiotics; and

(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’.

Sure would be nice to know what those “other items� are. Advantage, Ms. Palin."
http://themcj.com/?p=6382#comments

and elsewhere, too. But kinda nice to read the factual stuff, ain't it? Got your AC off, walking to work, and not wasting anymore electrons on the 'Moot? GM.

Of course, the House bill could be lying...........

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, it's still cooling, ya'll. Now we have MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE instead of global warming, eh? Like Flavor of the Week at the ice cream joint, I suppose? Sort of like the science at the ice cream parlour, come to think of it. One idea, just applied to a lot of different areas............refrigeration; so global warming.

Pitiful stuff this. A brainless rambling showing that really you don't have much to say on this topic except deny, deny, deny. Admittedly I've ceased being shocked by it

Take my advice please and take off your red, emotionally charged, reasoning-impairing hat and put on the white hat, the one where you strictly collect information. Just do it, save yourself further embarassement.

[inked]

So, CH, the changing words have not a meaning? Why change 'em, then?

Talk about a faith-based paradigm.....................

[Coffeehouse]

Discussing the meaning of this word or that is a non-starter, it doesn't have a bearing on what the issue of global warming (or climate change if you will) is about.

I think the most important point I would make is this (to skeptics), concerning global warming: Arguments are thrown all over the place about (incorrect) historical statements, pre-industrial data of ppms in the atmostphere or rise and fall of mean temperates, faulty models, etc. But they are missing the point: What is outright terrifying the vast majority of scientists of all walks isn't that there is an average increase in mean temperatures, it is the rate at which it is happening. This is the focal point of the problem. No natural process, neither increased solar activity nor any long-term process, can explain an increase in the mean global temperature of 0.8 degrees Celcius over the past century. Yet when the CO2-emissions from mankind is factored in the science makes a lot more sense. Simply put, when they see that CO2-emissions increase the ppm-level (currently at about 380), and creates a positive feedback for increased mean temperatures in the atmosphere, at the rate that it is happening, the questions flourish.

You can be skeptical of models, but these are (presented by universities and scientific organizations), while not perfect, still advanced models. They are numerous, they are constantly developing and ridding themselves of flaws, and they are showing the same disturbing pattern. At the level of CO2-emissions currently taking place in the world the global biosphere (all animal-, plant-, and oceanlife) just can't keep up. The oceans can only take up CO2 to a limit and when that limit is passed acidification occurs, destroying the life of microorganisms (like plankton: the building blocks of the ocean and as a consequence, vitally important to the rest of the worlds animal- and plantlife). Icesheets, in Antarctica, the Artic and the Himalayans, are melting at rates unprecedented. At rates that can not be explained unless our emissions are factored in. All of the evaluations of this science lies for you to read about, to evaluate yourself and create a better understanding. Even better all of the data is out there as well. If you are interested in proving you are right you better go and find all the data that disagrees with you and see just how well off your point-of-view is.

So I'm asking you Inked. Stop (from my view) abusing this thread, put on the white hat... You're presenting arguments completely irrelevant to the issue. In a debate as fundamental and large in scope as global warming, you have to argue your point with facts, facts and more facts, not meaningless word-spinning or presenting links to articles with at best dubious points. And given the ocean of evidence stacked against the fringe views of global warming skeptics I hope you think twice about the next post (Are you interested in actually enlightening yourself on the issue or is posting on this thread just a place you've found to vent willy-nilly views on seemingly anything that remotely seems relating to the issue?).

[inked]

Frankly, Coffeehouse, I've read in respectable SCIENCE NEWS that outgassing of CO2 from permafrost will potentially be so great as to negate any human contribution. Permafrost has outgassed before, (see historical record of glaciation) before human impact (several times). Is that global warming or climate change since it is demonstrably not human impact? Just for the record, of course, and so I won't "abuse" this thread by inappropriate language or inappropriate questioning of a popular paradigm - with or without real science to back it up being immaterial, I realize.

[Coffeehouse]

You're staring at the answer.

The melting of permafrost in f.ex. Siberia is an example of the positive feedback loops which have been triggered by a rise in mean temperatures. CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere, the mean temperature rises, the average temperature and length of winters in the northern hemisphere increase and shorten, and the permafrost melts. It is a very well documented example of the severity of climate change. The rate of melting of this permafrost is staggering and isn't explained by natural process, but even more so is the amount of CO2 and methane that scientists at first put to half the levels that they've now discovered actually exist. Again the most alarming piece of evidence is the rate that it is happening. It's not taking hundreds or thousands of years, it's occurring in decades.

This melting doesn't negate the human contribution as it's a direct result of it. It points to the need for us to decrease our burning of fossil fuels unless we want the entirety of permafrost-covered Siberia to melt away. This is pretty elementary.

[GrayMouser]

This is getting OT, but...

Your source says that to here, it doesn't sound bad, but this is the part where they sneak in the "snuff Granny " option.

Originally Posted by inked

.But here’s the key. Even if all your I’s are dotted and all your T’s are crossed, it might not matter at all.


(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items–

(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;

(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;

(iii) the use of antibiotics; and

(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’.

Sure would be nice to know what those “other items� are. Advantage, Ms. Palin."

http://themcj.com/?p=6382#comments

and what does the dreaded subparagraph A(ii) say? (see your post above)

(A)(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

The horror- they're actually going to ask you, in consultation with your doctor, family, and lawyer, what kind of life-sustaining treatment you would like- same as in every other living will only the government will be paying for the consultation- cue drums, drums in the deep.

From APs FACTCHECK:

WASHINGTON – Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.

Nothing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision. The provision that has caused the uproar would instead authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes. Here are some questions and answers on the controversy:

Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?

A: No.

Q: Then what's all the fuss about?

A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.

Q: Is anything required?

Monsignor Charles Fahey, 76, a Catholic priest who is chairman of the board of the National Council on Aging, a nonprofit service and advocacy group, says no.

"We have to make decisions that are deliberative about our health care at every moment," Fahey said. "What I have said is that if I cannot say another prayer, if I cannot give or get another hug, and if I cannot have another martini — then let me go."

Q: Does the bill advocate assisted suicide?

A: No. It would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.

Q: Who supports the provision?

A: The American Medical Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and Consumers Union are among the groups supporting the provision. AARP, the seniors' lobby, is taking out print advertisements this week that label as false the claim that the legislation will empower the government to take over life-and-death decisions from individuals.

Q: Should the federal government be getting involved with living wills and end-of-life questions — decisions that are highly personal and really difficult?

A: It already is.

The government requires hospitals to ask adult patients if they have a living will, or "advance directive." If the patient doesn't have one, and wants one, the hospital has to provide assistance. The mandate on hospitals was instituted during a Republican administration, in 1992, under President George H.W. Bush.

Q: How does a living will work, and how is it different from a health care proxy?

A: A living will — also called an advance directive — spells out a patient's wishes if he or she becomes incapacitated. Often people say they don't want to be kept alive on breathing machines if their condition is terminal and irreversible.

A health care proxy empowers another person to make medical decisions should the patient become incapacitated.

There's also a power-of-attorney, which authorizes another person to make financial decisions for someone who is incapacitated.

Such legal documents have become standard estate-planning tools in the last twenty years.

Q: Would the health overhaul legislation change the way people now deal with making end-of-life decisions?

A: It very well could.

Supporters of the provision say the main consequence would be to formally bring doctors into a discussion that now takes place mainly among family members and lawyers.

"When you execute a legal document with your lawyer, it ends up in your files and in the lawyer's files," said John Rother, a senior policy and strategy adviser for AARP. "Unless the doctor is part of this discussion, it's unlikely that your wishes will be respected. The doctor will be the one involved in any decisions."

The American Medical Association says involving doctors is simple common sense.

"There has been a lot of misinformation about the advance care planning provisions in the bill," AMA President Dr. James Rohack said in a statement. "It's plain, old-fashioned medical care."

Q: So why are some people upset?

Some social conservatives say stronger language is needed to protect seniors from being pressured into signing away their rights to medical treatment in a moment of depression or despair.

The National Right to Life Committee opposes the provision as written.

"I'm not aware of 'death panels' in the bill," said David O'Steen, executive director of the group. "I'm not aware of anything that says you will be hauled before a government bureaucrat. But we are concerned ... it doesn't take a lot to push a vulnerable person — perhaps unwittingly — to give up their right to life-sustaining treatment."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/...nd_of_life_q_a

Of course, who will save Staphen Hawkings from the threat of National Health Care?

From Investor's Business Daily:

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

[GrayMouser]

As for me, as I've posted before, I bike to work, my kids bike to school and my wife works out of our home. We have a motor scooter and a small motorcycle for running errands, though we live in walking/biking distance of most of our daily needs. I have a mini-van (eleven hundred cc engine) that I use to haul bulk groceries once a week (round trip about two miles) and to go to the beach on Sundays- about five miles each way.

A/C is my downfall, but I've started to ration it- only two rooms in the house, for four hours a night- our bedroom and one of the kids bedrooms. They each have their own room, but if they want a/c they have to bunk together.

As for wasting electrons on Entmoot, the downfall of human civilization is a small price to pay for such stimulating conversation.

[Coffeehouse]

Bar the A/C it seems like a fairly low-emission livelihood GM. Kudos!

As for myself, I'm a student. As such my consumption is low all year round, I don't have a car, I take the bus to my university or walk depending on the weather. I've driven exactly 0 miles of any fossil fuel burning transportation vehicle on land my entire life (yes, I do drive boats, max is a 40 hp engine, in the summer...).

Apart from that I...

Sit in total darkness when I study. No light. I use the reflection in my eyes of the moonlight or sunlight, depending on the hour of the day, to illuminate the books in front of me. I don't use CO2-emitting pens to write with, but instead use sand spread out across a table to write and draw, that way spending a finite amount of sand for an infinite amount of time. This sand was by accumulated by walking on the beach many times so that I spent a minimum amount of energy (and thus emission) to collect it.

[inked]

So, CH, the permafrost containment of CO2 and CH4 is not natural? I mean, most of the CH4 they sequester is actually from ruminants, not humans, and the methanogenic bacterial population of the planet (large biomass there, by the way), not to mention outgassing of volcanos and subterranean gases.

In no prior period of glacial retreat has there been such outgassing? Healing the ozone hole has resulted in warmer temperatures and shifts in weather patterns reducing the length and depth of cold - is all that due to human endeavor or are we sitting on a natural cycle demonstrable from what little we know of glaciation/retreat from ice core sampling?

To aid the planet, should we
kill the cows
stop the methanogens
stop breathing
alter our (now dead) lifestyles by inhibiting decomposition (how?)
just kill off enough people to preserve Western lifestyles sustainably (nukes?)
return to hunter-gathering after humans re-emerge from surviving primates

Is there anything in your paradigm that is natural processes beyond the control of humanity?

On National Geographic, the Human Genome, they stated that at one point there were only 2000 humans on the planet (we were an endangered species!). Shame we didn't succumb, huh?

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by inked

Is all that due to human endeavor or are we sitting on a natural cycle demonstrable from what little we know of glaciation/retreat from ice core sampling?

How about industrial carbon emissions being the trigger of such a climate altering process?

Originally Posted by inked

To aid the planet, should we
kill the cows
stop the methanogens
stop breathing
alter our (now dead) lifestyles by inhibiting decomposition (how?)
just kill off enough people to preserve Western lifestyles sustainably (nukes?)
return to hunter-gathering after humans re-emerge from surviving primates

Lord Stern was probably bent on keeping breathing because the Stern Review suggested actions such as the establishment of a global price on carbon as well as extensive world-wide issuing of policies promoting low-carbon technologies. But then Stern, unlike some (inked?), believes in the evidence he's analyzed that our industry is indeed a contributor to economically non-favourable climate change.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

In no prior period of glacial retreat has there been such outgassing? Healing the ozone hole has resulted in warmer temperatures and shifts in weather patterns reducing the length and depth of cold - is all that due to human endeavor or are we sitting on a natural cycle demonstrable from what little we know of glaciation/retreat from ice core sampling?

This is an important point, because it shows how many global warming skeptics are confusing the cards. They are, exactly as you're asking me now, making the assumption that because the current melting of permafrost is argued by the scientific community (most scientists, institutions, laboratories, etc that form this consensus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change) to be the result of our burning of fossil fuels, it automatically means that no melting of the permafrost ever happened before, or no glacial retreat ever happened before. Obviously the two latter statements are false.

Bear with me. Has there been dramatic melting of permafrost in earlier times? Yes. Has it been on the same scale? Most likely scientists say pointing to samples from ice cores. Has glacial retreat caused massive global climatic change before? Yes. But that's not the issue.

The issue is not whether serious global climatic change has happened before, it's why and how it's happening now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...rost_peat_bogs). It is the rate at which it is happening, it is the point at which it began accelerating (start of the industrial revolution) and last but not least the overwhelming evidence presented to scientists in Australia, East Africa, the Himalayas, Hawaii, Siberia, Greenland, Antarctica, Indonesia, Svalbard and a swathe of other places, on a weekly basis, year after year after year after year showing how burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and land change (for agriculture, urbanisation) are directly altering the earth's atmosphere.

We have a global problem. Although local initiatives are important, we have a problem that needs global cooperation. The countries of the world meet in December, in Copenhagen (capital of Denmark). This will be in many respects the abandoning of the Kyoto Protocol and moving on to far more substantial commitments. This is a summit where a lot of things need to be decided though I can't say I'm very optimistic. Basically what needs to happen is that rich, developed nations across the board must make binding commitments to poor, developing nations. And all the focus will be on three economic and pollutant hotspots: USA, EU and the Far East (China, India, Japan). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COP15.

Yesterday and today Ban-Ki Moon, the Secretary-General of the UN, was in Svalbard with my (Norwegian) government to see the melting of icesheets and visit the scientific community stationed there, and at least judging by what he has said in interviews he's understanding the gravity of the situation just a little bit more. Hopefully he will give world leaders a hard time in December.

[Amael]

The only reasonable solution seems to be to develop, and quickly, technologies that will either reduce our demand on energy (not likely) or increase the efficiency of environmentally-safe energy production and make sure that it is indeed environmentally safe. Even if some energy-producing system has a big sticker on it saying "environmentally safe, 100% guaranteed" this doesn't mean that it is.

The technology exists most likely to increase solar power efficiency by many times over, yet it still isn't given much thought at all. There are not enough working towards this effort. So it does come down to a gglobal effort. Geopolitical boundaries and angst still extant, the chances of getting full global cooperation are small.

Even if one were to present the evidence in a more believable fashion than it has already been provided (good luck on that as it's already believable enough as it is), some people have their focuses that they will not turn away from no matter what evidence they are given. And even if they are to accept this evidence, what are they going to do? Politicians of late have not been creative when it comes to problem solving. And even then, do they muster the dedication to go forward with a plan and proceed forward no matter what?

Awareness of the climate shift, this global warming, alone isn't going to increase the chances (not enough) and the measures need to be pushed, whether or not it takes a big dedication of money from every developed nation on the planet. It's either the global scientific and political communities cooperate now and then deal with the consequences of putting a lot of money into this, or accept a graver fate and give into the inevitable heightening of global warming if it just goes on as business as usual. Everyone's afraid of the risks, especially now more than ever, because of the economic crisis that has dampened the world markets. But that risk is nothing compared to the risk the entire world takes by not doing so.

If all currently-available scientific evidence is unbiased and is reproducible then we have a major problem on our hands. Even if that evidence is slightly skewed the problem still remains because it's a big enough problem that slight miscalculations won't make any difference.

Science has brought humans to the surface of the moon on 6 occasions. We now benefit from technologies such as I-Pods, computers, and such. How is it that something more hasn't been done?

The Earth's surface itself bears the scars of humanity's mistreatment of the planet. Some 1 to 2 billion people do not have safe drinking water. The water and soil both are terribly polluted, despite extensive cleanup measures in other areas. If the cleanup measures succeeded in some parts and may continue to clean the planet's surface up, then we can also do something to at least slow global warming's acceleration.

No matter what we do, even if we act, it may take 50 to 200 years for the atmosphere to recover. The temperature may still rise for a while after these efforts are put into place, and then with lag will level off and we'll be safe for the most part. But if we don't act, catastrophe.

Some companies and governments have cleaned up their acts, but as of yet it isn't enough. It just shows a minimal amount of dedication. Complacency and arrogance in humanity's own accomplishments are among the attitudes holding back the effort. Some companies and other institutions in general don't see any problem at the moment, so they think there will be no problem in the future. Well it turns out that they're wrong.

There are good people amongst these companies and governments. Good, but complacent. Everyone likes to think they mean well in and of themselves. But some critical thought on their part is needed, along with the patience, strength of character and dedication to see it through. Perhaps they need to open their eyes to the evidence before them. They would understand the immediate need, if they would only think about taking it seriously.

Yesterday and today Ban-Ki Moon, the Secretary-General of the UN, was in Svalbard with my (Norwegian) government to see the melting of icesheets and visit the scientific community stationed there, and at least judging by what he has said in interviews he's understanding the gravity of the situation just a little bit more. Hopefully he will give world leaders a hard time in December.

And I hope the world leaders will listen. There is some hope there I think, worth holding onto. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

And obviously, anything emitting CH4 rightly scares the crap out of me! Methane was what is believed to be one of the triggering components of the Permian-Triassic Extinction: the worst extinction event in the last billion years! 95% of all life on this world was made extinct by this event over a period of just tens of thousands of years, yet the rate at which the methane was released likely wouldn't compare with the current rate industry is shooting this stuff into the air!

Humans think in time frames such as days, weeks, months, years, decades or centuries, and it will only take decades to kill over half of all life on Earth. It would be a much faster version of the PT Extinction event! Personally, that scares the living heck out of me! And I'm not exaggerating either.

By 2030, Glacier National Park will no longer be known by that name.

400,000 square miles of Arctic Sea have melted. If you were to put that into a perfect square, that would be an area of 633 by 633 miles, or about the size of Texas if not a little more.

15 to 37 percent of all plant and animal species may be extinct by just the year 2050. What does this say for 2100? For 2100, that's quite uncertain. Given the acceleration, if the trend remains uncontested, there wouldn't be much left I'd be guessing. Though I don't know for sure. Either way that's quite a risk to be taking.

People take more seriously what some celebrity did to get on the bad side of the police than they took (not so) seriously the obvious threat towards life on Earth.


I used to resist the idea of global warming for it kept being mentioned all the time that it just got annoying. And I think a lot of people were led astray just because they were somehow inconvenienced by the very idea itself. I don't hate the people for whatever thoughts they have on that. People are people. But decisions can be good or bad. And the decision of many to stand back while life ends, it's somewhat suicidal, I think. It's like they're in a nuclear reactor room, the reactor is about to blow, but will not blow if they press a few buttons, yet they just stand there and wait for it to blow up!

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Amael

The only reasonable solution seems to be to develop, and quickly, technologies that will either reduce our demand on energy (not likely) or increase the efficiency of environmentally-safe energy production and make sure that it is indeed environmentally safe. Even if some energy-producing system has a big sticker on it saying "environmentally safe, 100% guaranteed" this doesn't mean that it is.

The technology exists most likely to increase solar power efficiency by many times over, yet it still isn't given much thought at all. There are not enough working towards this effort. So it does come down to a gglobal effort. Geopolitical boundaries and angst still extant, the chances of getting full global cooperation are small.

Even if one were to present the evidence in a more believable fashion than it has already been provided (good luck on that as it's already believable enough as it is), some people have their focuses that they will not turn away from no matter what evidence they are given. And even if they are to accept this evidence, what are they going to do? Politicians of late have not been creative when it comes to problem solving. And even then, do they muster the dedication to go forward with a plan and proceed forward no matter what?

Awareness of the climate shift, this global warming, alone isn't going to increase the chances (not enough) and the measures need to be pushed, whether or not it takes a big dedication of money from every developed nation on the planet. It's either the global scientific and political communities cooperate now and then deal with the consequences of putting a lot of money into this, or accept a graver fate and give into the inevitable heightening of global warming if it just goes on as business as usual. Everyone's afraid of the risks, especially now more than ever, because of the economic crisis that has dampened the world markets. But that risk is nothing compared to the risk the entire world takes by not doing so.

If all currently-available scientific evidence is unbiased and is reproducible then we have a major problem on our hands. Even if that evidence is slightly skewed the problem still remains because it's a big enough problem that slight miscalculations won't make any difference.

Science has brought humans to the surface of the moon on 6 occasions. We now benefit from technologies such as I-Pods, computers, and such. How is it that something more hasn't been done?

The Earth's surface itself bears the scars of humanity's mistreatment of the planet. Some 1 to 2 billion people do not have safe drinking water. The water and soil both are terribly polluted, despite extensive cleanup measures in other areas. If the cleanup measures succeeded in some parts and may continue to clean the planet's surface up, then we can also do something to at least slow global warming's acceleration.

No matter what we do, even if we act, it may take 50 to 200 years for the atmosphere to recover. The temperature may still rise for a while after these efforts are put into place, and then with lag will level off and we'll be safe for the most part. But if we don't act, catastrophe.

Some companies and governments have cleaned up their acts, but as of yet it isn't enough. It just shows a minimal amount of dedication. Complacency and arrogance in humanity's own accomplishments are among the attitudes holding back the effort. Some companies and other institutions in general don't see any problem at the moment, so they think there will be no problem in the future. Well it turns out that they're wrong.

There are good people amongst these companies and governments. Good, but complacent. Everyone likes to think they mean well in and of themselves. But some critical thought on their part is needed, along with the patience, strength of character and dedication to see it through. Perhaps they need to open their eyes to the evidence before them. They would understand the immediate need, if they would only think about taking it seriously.



And I hope the world leaders will listen. There is some hope there I think, worth holding onto. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

And obviously, anything emitting CH4 rightly scares the crap out of me! Methane was what is believed to be one of the triggering components of the Permian-Triassic Extinction: the worst extinction event in the last billion years! 95% of all life on this world was made extinct by this event over a period of just tens of thousands of years, yet the rate at which the methane was released likely wouldn't compare with the current rate industry is shooting this stuff into the air!

Humans think in time frames such as days, weeks, months, years, decades or centuries, and it will only take decades to kill over half of all life on Earth. It would be a much faster version of the PT Extinction event! Personally, that scares the living heck out of me! And I'm not exaggerating either.

By 2030, Glacier National Park will no longer be known by that name.

400,000 square miles of Arctic Sea have melted. If you were to put that into a perfect square, that would be an area of 633 by 633 miles, or about the size of Texas if not a little more.

15 to 37 percent of all plant and animal species may be extinct by just the year 2050. What does this say for 2100? For 2100, that's quite uncertain. Given the acceleration, if the trend remains uncontested, there wouldn't be much left I'd be guessing. Though I don't know for sure. Either way that's quite a risk to be taking.

People take more seriously what some celebrity did to get on the bad side of the police than they took (not so) seriously the obvious threat towards life on Earth.

I used to resist the idea of global warming for it kept being mentioned all the time that it just got annoying. And I think a lot of people were led astray just because they were somehow inconvenienced by the very idea itself. I don't hate the people for whatever thoughts they have on that. People are people. But decisions can be good or bad. And the decision of many to stand back while life ends, it's somewhat suicidal, I think. It's like they're in a nuclear reactor room, the reactor is about to blow, but will not blow if they press a few buttons, yet they just stand there and wait for it to blow up!

This is an excellent post Amael, I will try to respond more thoroughly later sometime when I have more time on my hands, suffice to say that human beings will react with some sort of natural reflex of disbelief to the scale of the problems we're facing. It's a self-preserving mechanism that everyone has, though hardly rational.

[inked]

Global Warming solutions like these?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6817280.ece

Or, climate change solutions?

Remember the law of unintended consequences...............