The word, regarding Global Warming by Niki2

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

KPO nailed it. It's not CONVENIENT for heavily-industrialized nations to believe in climate change. They have a vested interest in the status quo.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2011 10:58 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yeah, that's kind of what I was trying to say in my last paragraph. We "don't believe" (or are convinced not to believe) probably by the same kind of brainwashing Russia and China use, only in our case it's motivated by the politicians being paid off by industry. Pfft. A pox on both their houses!

Almost funny, that here the word is that global warming is some kind of hoax cooked up by "elites" to make money for...I'm not sure who...and Gore is reviled, while the rest of the world seems to have recognized the validity of the problem and moved on to SOLVING it. Sigh...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2011 11:00 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

By the way, I just saw the title, which was supposed to be "The WORLD, regarding global warming" (just in case anyone thought I was trying to say this was the definitive WORD on global warming). I just can't win today...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2011 1:26 PM

Is the earth's climate changing? Probably, only long term data gathering will prove it. Is human action a cause, let alone a major cause? Unlikely.

Before you light your torches and sharpen your pitchforks, I would like a clearly defined explanation of the carboniferous era. CO2 levels were HIGHER than they currently are and the climate was COLDER. Even Gore has retreated from using the term global warming.

What an inconvenient truth.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2011 1:57 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

HW, climate depends on a lot of things. I don't expect to see a one-to-one relationship between CO2 and temperature. There may have been crustal shifts or orbital wobble.

I did notice, though, that the main feature of the "Carboniferous Period"... the one which gives it its name... was the laying down of coal deposits. In other words, carbon was being extracted from the air and placed into epochal storage. Carbon sequestration, if you will. Since everything else was not equal, reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide can be said to lead to lower temperatures.

Inconvenient, indeed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 1:26 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
KPO nailed it. It's not CONVENIENT for heavily-industrialized nations to believe in climate change. They have a vested interest in the status quo.

Because there is no man made climate change. That's never been what any of this is about, and everyone knows it.

"Let's not change the climate. Let's change the system!"

- “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell….let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.”

-Hugo Chavez, on the issue of CLIMATE CHANGE

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 5:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
HW, climate depends on a lot of things. I don't expect to see a one-to-one relationship between CO2 and temperature. There may have been crustal shifts or orbital wobble.

I did notice, though, that the main feature of the "Carboniferous Period"... the one which gives it its name... was the laying down of coal deposits. In other words, carbon was being extracted from the air and placed into epochal storage. Carbon sequestration, if you will. Since everything else was not equal, reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide can be said to lead to lower temperatures.

Inconvenient, indeed.

But that sequestration wasn't happening overnight. That was due to large areas of plant matter continuing in a cycle, laying down carbon beds over hundreds if not thousands of years.

There's a stronger argument that depletion of forests is a greater cause than the addition of carbon to the atmosphere. If you are aware of the snowball earth theory, the carbon that caused the global snowbelt only built up to the level to cause a greenhouse effect because there was no rain to carry the carbon to the oceans.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 6:07 AM

Eh, limestone will carbon sequester at decent rates too. While there were some points in history where CO2 was high and temperatures low, arguing that CO2 isn't even a greenhouse gas because of those instances is an untenable position, any more than saying it's ALWAYS a greenhouse gas. You'd have more traction saying that the properties of CO2 absorption vary based on concentration in the atmosphere (which is itself related to elevation, the troposphere behaves very differently than does the outer atmosphere).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040203234243.htm

I'm in the middle, really - I think it's manmade and we could get some storms, droughts, and at worst some sea level changes, but I also know that CO2 levels have been higher in the past, and so has temperature. I figure there probably is some interest out there looking to exploit what's going on in a power-grab, and that's why it's important to push back by looking at sustainable alternatives and so on.

Sustainability and self-sufficiency really only helps everyone. So if we want to fight the controlling interests, it should be us, the little guys, driving the alternative market, making our own fuels and energy. It's also wise to not pollute ourselves into sickness, and to consider our own property rights relative to whatever pollution a business is generating.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 8:55 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Plants eat co2 so more co2 should cause more plant growth right? To bad we're cutting those down and ruining the environment with real pollutants.

I would like to see that earth taken care of, but I'm worried this distracting co2 non-issue will prevent us from addressing the real problem. Man made climate change as a result of deforestation I think is plausible. The sun could have a bit to do with it as well (it does get rather hot from time to time) but if I don't purchase this co2 scheme I run the risk of being labeled anti-environment and science. Makes these discussions a mite frustrating.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 9:13 AM

Yeah. Although there's also ocean acidification to think about. There's been brachiopod, mollusk, and coral reef die offs in geohistory because all their calcium was precipitated instead of in solution.

Generally you want SOME biodiversity wherever you are in the world, within some reasonable expectations. For example, Antarctica and the exosphere are probably not ever going to be paradise.

Cap and Trade is supported by a number of polluters, so I take that as evidence that the idea is actually a big gimmee to existing companies by reducing competition. On the other hand, some of the substances released by coal burning are more toxic than just CO2, and it can create an acid rain effect, so we can't just dismiss emissions as a problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 10:42 AM

Yeah, I am more concerned about the depletion of rain forests than global warming. The condition of the oceans, re: reef die off and fishing ground depletion is also a concern.

There's also the massive industrialization of China in the last 30 years. To a lesser extent India has also undergone qute a bit of industrial expansion. Comparatively, the US has shrunk its industrial output since the 70's.

The single biggest factor I can think of is simple numbers. We've got too many people.

But the planet isn't in any danger. The human species might be, but the world is going to keep on turning. Maybe with less diversity, but if things keep going south the world will shake us off like fleas.

Toward that end being responsible stewards of the planet is a good idea.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 10:56 AM

Deforestation is also very bad. We have our troubles.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 11:22 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Deforestation is also very bad. We have our troubles.

See, now there's something we can at least discuss. Proper land use management, or what ever. I see no reason why we can't make better use of the resources. I mean, there has to be a happy medium between total slash and scalping of the land, and absolute zero use. Parks and such, obviously would be no-go zones, but staying completely out of some areas is only asking for trouble via massive forest fires.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 11:46 AM

Perhaps Brazil, who is most of the problem, will do something about the problem.

(For those who have yet to do the math, the amount of co2 human industry produced has no effect on the total co2. It's the decrease in consumption that causes the rise. Ergo, deforestation.)

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 12:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Perhaps Brazil, who is most of the problem, will do something about the problem.

(For those who have yet to do the math, the amount of co2 human industry produced has no effect on the total co2. It's the decrease in consumption that causes the rise. Ergo, deforestation.)

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Ergo, man-made climate change.

Huh. Go figure.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 3:12 PM

Didn't ever say it wasn't. Just said it wasn't pollution.

It's actually not the co2 that's mainly causing the temperature increase, it's the loss of the forest convection cycle, will pulls groundwater of about 57F or so into the atmosphere. The change in the pressure profile also disrupts wind currents, but the sheer volume of water circulated be a forest system has a radical effect.

Go to a forest sometime. You don't even have to go in, as you approach it, you can feel the cold, typically 10-15 degrees lower than whatever the surrounding temperature is. In NY we have the Adirondaks which are largely first growth forest. The affect in the truly striking when you approach it. You know instantly when you've crossed into virgin territory by the sharp temperature drop.

But the co2 increase is caused by the deforestation. If we stop deforesting, the co2 and temperature will continue to go up, we will just slow the rate at which this is happening. Forests can actually survive up to 140, which none of the rest of us can. Our main impact on this planet is as the holocene event, we are the equivalent of a giant meteor impact, and have destroyed 1/2 of all life on Earth since out arrival, and are doing so at an accelerating rate. By 2050 we will have killed of 90% of all life on Earth if we don't alter our course.

I suspect this is about all the damage we're good for as a species, because at around this time, we will extinct ourselves. My guess is that the method of our eradication will be a little different than any of the common apocalyptic models: By killing off other animal species, we will become the major food source in niche. Like most animals, we will not be eaten by predators, but rather parasites. As the surface water temperature crosses 90F, human bound parasites will be able to travel freely through the system. Their reproductive rate will easily offset the level of toxins we have donated the water. As we struggle to survive in the steaming plague ridden toxic wasteland we have made, some of us will flee to extreme latitudes, where they may evolve into our replacement species.

I crunched a lot of numbers here, and came up with something on the order of deforestation having about 180,000 times the impact on climate change that human industry has.

We have a lot of problems to deal with if we don't want to become extinct, and I think it's essential that we prioritize those in a reasonable way. Lack of jobs is not going to cause us to go extinct, and neither is a lack of energy. Lack of food is actually not something we're anywhere near, but clean water is an issue, and rainfall is a really serious issue.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 3:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Deforestation is also very bad. We have our troubles.

See, now there's something we can at least discuss. Proper land use management, or what ever. I see no reason why we can't make better use of the resources. I mean, there has to be a happy medium between total slash and scalping of the land, and absolute zero use. Parks and such, obviously would be no-go zones, but staying completely out of some areas is only asking for trouble via massive forest fires.

Yes and no. Forest fires generally have a human cause, even when it's not obvious. Someone builds a dam, they dry up the land. Then, some yahoos go out and build a campfire. Sometimes it's peasants or ranchers trying to seize land.

Several things you have to do:

The balance of the planet is relatively stable most places, but the planet as a whole is in extremely rapid decline, and headed towards uninhabitable and unfarmable for a couple of reason.

1) Water distribution. The worst idea of the 20th c. was probably massive dam projects. Water diversion is acceptable, considering that a tremendous amount of fresh water pours into the ocean each year, far more than humans use, but humans have to be careful about where they are siphoning water from to make sure they don't lower water tables and collapse ecosystems and agricultural ones.

2) Water contamination. Not only is drinking water an issue, consuming anything is an issue if you toxify an area with stable deadly pollutants like nerve gas. Sure, you don't want to drink the water from a fracked ranch, but I'd strongly advise against drinking the milk or eating the beef that comes from it. CFCs integrate themselves very nicely into biological material, and even the corn you grow is going to be deadly. Not ear by ear, but it will take about a teaspoon of ultra-volitile CFC nerve agents to do you in, and that's cumulative. It might take you two or three years consuming the stuff before you notice some advanced degenerative neuropathy.

3) Air pollution. Not co2, if we can please have a little sanity, if it's naturally present and non-toxic then it's not pollution. Sure, you might modify the co2 level, but you're having a truly nominal effect on the overall. OTOH, you start pumping methylene chloride into the atmosphere and that will be all the methylene chloride up there. Again, if we can stop worrying about hypothetical impacts to the ozone layer and deal with the real world, the danger here is that it's a toxic nerve gas which not only can you inhale, but it can rain down and contaminate your water supply.

This cross contamination is an issue in the US, state by state, but just imagine how it is in the rest of the world: If Beijing or Pyongyang is pumping water soluble neurotoxins into the air, that will rain down on Japan, regardless of local Japanese environmental regulations.

4) Deforestation. This is probably the world's #1 problem, but I want to break it down into several smaller problems all with deforestation as a cause: (in order of increasing problem)

a) The increase in co2 from the loss of a carbon sink. This is hard to predict, but the effects won't be good, and will contribute to global warming, but this is probably the least of our worries.

b) Global warming. The loss of the convection cycle is making the mean global temperature go up. The good news and bad news is that we're not doing it, it's mainly Brazil, central Africa and S.E. Asia, but it will affect us, and it will also indirectly effect us by affecting them, through loss of food production, and possibly crisis and emigration.

c) Loss of rainfall. This is catastrophic because it will be devastating to the world's agricultural yield and the portion or the world which is habitable. This will lead to mass movements of people, a decrease in food and energy production, and further desertification and overall environmental degradation.

d) Biomass loss. (Topsoil erosion and wildfires in deforestion areas) If it weren't for this, the others could be reversible by reforestation. Unfortunately, it's not. 90% of the biomass of a deforested area is lost forever. It would take millions to hundreds of millions of years to replaces a first growth rainforest. What we can replace it with is second growth forest or farmland, which will be at best 10% of the environmental engine it is attempting to replace.

e) Species loss. Variety is the spice of life, and, of life expectancy. Life extending science depends almost entirely on the discovery of new biological systems, and over 90% of the species on earth live in small biodiversity hotspots, which are being rapidly destroyed, and are unknown, unstudied, and uncatalogued. Every clearcutting or trawling operation is literally cutting short the life of everyone on this forum, and this planet, by years, due to the loss of species. The biodiversity drain is the real apocalypse here. Deforestation is the major source, and the secondary ones are overfishing and desertification.

To explain exactly how this adversely effects medicine, you could look at the history of medicine, but there's a much better way to understand it: You just have to think about how biological sciences work.

Whenever someone comes up with a theory of what kind of mechanism might do this or that, it needs to be taken apart, studied, new chemicals sequences, and repeatedly tested... but before we can do any of that, we have to actually *know* that it's there. The most striking breakthrough in recent years was Resveratrol, a compound found in grapes native to the Sahara, where we evolved, but now only present in the eastern US. The compound bioactively does nothing in our systems, but rather it acts as a key, specifically encoded, to unlock a sleeper or "hitchhiker" gene, which contains a powerful DNA repair gene.

Think about the profound implications of this. 90% of your DNA is sleeper or hitchhiker genes. They lie dormant until unlocked. What we are and what we could be can be determined by not just keys like this, but enzymes not in our DNA, but used by our system that we don't even know exist.

Early humans were incredibly careless, and destroyed their own native habitat. Fortunately for us, that base of biodiversity had spread, long ago, under Pangea, to central africa, asia and s. america, as well as some to n. america and europe, though not as much, due to climate.

This gives us a second chance to recover these powerful enablers of our hidden potential. This isn't mysticism, it's established science. There are supplements you can take, and many of you are already taking, that extend your life and slow your aging. There are others that cure diseases, and compensated for genetic weaknesses or acquired conditions.

But how will we know these miracles when we find them? (THIS IS THE REALLY KEY PART)

By watching them in action in biological systems of plants and animals that are still alive. This cuts out years of research for each compound, and collectively, centuries or millennia of research. When you capture some tiny toad and watch it release an anti-carcinogen or rapid-healing agent, you know what it is and what it does right a way with some simple tests. If you had to discover that mechanism by looking for a mystery molecule absent from the human system, it would be like looking for a needle in the Sahara.

Biodiversity is not just fuzzy animals and neat-looking trees: It is the greatest library on earth, containing more information than humans could ever hope to come up with of what we are, and what we could be, and the most alien life forms on earth we could ever hope to meet, and it's disappearing so fast it will all be gone within your lifetime.

For all we know, there is nothing up in space, but there is a tremendous amount down here on Earth. And even if there are other systems like this out there, evolution does dictate that they will not be compatible with our own DNA (not even everything on earth is. Almost everything, but that's a result of communication, it's by design, so to speak, and not by accident.)

In other words, it's irreplaceable.

Consider this:

In North America, our own agricultural industry destroyed almost all of the native species, saving out only a handful. Those handful have added decades to our life expectancy. Just think what our forebearers threw away. And then think that the wealth of biological information in the tropics dwarfs that in other regions, and think what we throw away every day. I will guarantee you, in terms of knowledge, each and every day we throw away more information about ourselves and how to solve our problems than the human race possesses. And we do it for a few million measly bucks.

ETA: Everyone should probably read this rant. I don't think people have thought enough about this issue.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 8:46 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I think that linking taking care of the earth with man-made "global warming" is problematic because it creates a political issue where there doesn't need to be one. Most everyone can agree that we need to be sustainable, to take proper care of our resources, be good stewards of our world. But then it seems like "global warming" is a turn off to some and then they get weird and somehow stop thinking that the environment is important because they don't want to get involved politically.

I think that climate change is normal and happens, its happened before and it will happen again, things run in cycles. I'm starting to think though that DT may be on to something about deforestation. And if that's the case then we do indeed have a hand in the climate changing, but I don't think its just us, I think it is also the cycle. I think that convincing people of DT's deforestation theory would be more effective than saying its all humanity's fault for using co2. If we had enough trees to injest it then we wouldn't have a problem.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 2:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Perhaps Brazil, who is most of the problem, will do something about the problem.

(For those who have yet to do the math, the amount of co2 human industry produced has no effect on the total co2. It's the decrease in consumption that causes the rise. Ergo, deforestation.)

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Ergo, man-made climate change.

Huh. Go figure.

I'm going to chide you for a logical fallacy there Kwicko. Buying carbon credits or a fuel sipping car has zero impact on the state of the rainforests. While the depletion of those rainforests may be caused by man the populist attack on carbon output is not going to stop the rise in CO2.

We're in the process of destroying the mechanisms that remove that CO2 from the atmosphere. Not to mention all the other good forests do for the environment.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 2:05 AM

I have always found it very odd that in modern development they come in, cut down all the trees and name the streets of the new development after the trees they just cut down. Humans are descended from arboreal species. It would be natural and probably stress-reducing if our homes were located near trees. I know that one of my first acts upon moving into my current home was to plant a pear tree in my postage stamp back yard. In the ten years I've been here it has grown to a height of over 20 feet and a branch spread of 12 feet. It will be growing there long after I move. At least I hope it will.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 2:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Perhaps Brazil, who is most of the problem, will do something about the problem.

(For those who have yet to do the math, the amount of co2 human industry produced has no effect on the total co2. It's the decrease in consumption that causes the rise. Ergo, deforestation.)

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Ergo, man-made climate change.

Huh. Go figure.

I'm going to chide you for a logical fallacy there Kwicko. Buying carbon credits or a fuel sipping car has zero impact on the state of the rainforests. While the depletion of those rainforests may be caused by man the populist attack on carbon output is not going to stop the rise in CO2.

We're in the process of destroying the mechanisms that remove that CO2 from the atmosphere. Not to mention all the other good forests do for the environment.

That would actually make sense if I had mentioned an attack on carbon output.

I simply pointed out, for all those who so vehemently deny that people could ever have any impact on climate, that deforestation points to them being wrong.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 3:03 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I simply pointed out, for all those who so vehemently deny that people could ever have any impact on climate, that deforestation points to them wrong.

Deforestation is an evolutionary problem. If the forests cannot resist or recover from the effect of man then they deserve to die.

Mankind is as much a part of the enviroment as any other species. To deny us our impact is to deny nature itself.

That said its clear climate change is a myth created by those seeking to further a discredited socialist economic theory. I agree that reasonable restraints protecting air and water quality and other enviromental problems are necessary and proper (just like cities needing trash collection and sewers once they reach a certain size and population density). But the idea that we are all going to die unless we transfer money and power into the hands of an elite minority who know 'what's best' for us...hell that's not even original.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 3:44 AM

Uh... Well, I agree with half of that. Man is part of the environment, but I've always been a little iffy on the whole "indiscriminate killing" and "specicide" thing.

Most things only kill stuff to eat them, with few exceptions. That's really about the only kind of killing I think is justifiable, and even then I hold myself to some concept of avoiding consumption of sentient lifeforms that I don't hold against other people.

We may USE trees, but we don't really EAT them. So our impact on the ecosystem is a little different even compared to other animals, and that probably should be taken into consideration.

Plus, what you propose would cause extreme desertification and lots of human death, so I'm going to call out that natural selection as a justification for deforestation is maybe a really, really bad idea.

Quote:
I agree that reasonable restraints protecting air and water quality and other enviromental problems are necessary and proper (just like cities needing trash collection and sewers once they reach a certain size and population density). But the idea that we are all going to die unless we transfer money and power into the hands of an elite minority who know 'what's best' for us...

I can agree with this though. What's good for the planet and what's good for us doesn't have to be mutually exclusive, and the last thing I wanna see is those same people who've been destroying us AND this world tighten their death grip down even more.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 6:02 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
But then it seems like "global warming" is a turn off to some and then they get weird and somehow stop thinking that the environment is important because they don't want to get involved politically.

Well said, I wish the same. But I think it’s as much about MONEY as politics, as shown by which countries are less active on the issue. Where there is something to be gained by NOT changing the status quo, politics will come in and the information people receive becomes censored and/or slanted and people will have a vested interest in taking sides. Hero illustrates that perfectly. Take the profit out of the equation, and the politics would follow.

Hardware, what you said about your tree made me smile; I wish there were more like you. I’ll have to get a shot of Baltimore Canyon, where they’ve taken it to the extreme. We had a tiny redwood tree come up next to our driveway, and another next to the house in back. We let both grow, and now they are twice the height of the house. The one in front we shouldn’t have allowed, because it doesn’t get enough from the groundwater and is sparse and not healthy looking. We didn’t realize that at the time, until some tree guys working next door told us; now I actually WATER the poor thing...watering a redwood, what a concept! But I love what you did and agree 100%.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 9:03 AM

Hardware,

Yes. If you go to an old growth forest, several things will strike you: the light is moderate, there's cover over your head, the temperature is moderate, there is running water all over and the floor is covered with a six inch sponge of moss confortable enough to sleep on. It is only then that I realized that all a house is, is an attempt to try to recreate a forest.

Hero,

You're an idiot.

Mike,

Hardware has a point. I ignored it, but you were attempted to jack a partisan talking point which was irrelevent to the issue. That's precisely he reason I had always avoided the "man made" issue. It was a menaingless talking point.

Think about it. If the co2 level wwre suddenly to soar to 13,000 ppm because of some extraterrestrial debris related to the fall out of some moon smashing into Jupiter, it would still extinct the human race, and so we'd still haveto do something about it.

So, by the letter of it, you are correct, but by the spirit, Hardware has a point. Let's just move passed this stuff and focus on the problem at hand, about which we appear to be not be in disagreement, discounting the ignoreworthy.

So, if we can. Let's proceed to a solution.

ETA: niki, status quo? Really? You think Brazil fits this model? brazil is practically a land owning aristocracy. Just becausr it's a socialist country doesn't mean there isn't an economic ruling elite, and the balance of power, iirc, is much more unbalanced than in the US.

Or did you mean that Americans were less inclined to see the need for change because the US is a more egalitarian society?
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 9:09 AM

just this AM, saw on the local MSM TV news, there's a giant heat wave, everywhere from Texas- Minnesota east, that's gonna be a roaster for the next several days. And they emphasized that it isn't even really summer yet.

SO, since the cold wave this Winter proved that Global Warming ain't so, maybe this proves that it is...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 9:19 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
just this AM, saw on the local MSM TV news, there's a giant heat wave, everywhere from Texas- Minnesota east, that's gonna be a roaster for the next several days. And they emphasized that it isn't even really summer yet.

SO, since the cold wave this Winter proved that Global Warming ain't so, maybe this proves that it is...

It's called SUMMER.

Seen this pattern happen before, not too long ago, actually. My god... get a grip.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 9:27 AM

I think that was the point, AU. Pretty sure that was sarcasm. Neither winter cold snaps or summer heat waves (or vice versa) prove anything one way or another, they are too short term a snapshot to draw any conclusions from.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 10:00 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Snow in Hawaii today...3 inches.
http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/hawaiis-mauna-ke
a-summit-blanketed-with-3-inches-of-snow/

http://whatreallyhappened.gsradio.net:8080/hr1060711.mp3

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 10:30 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Snow in Hawaii today...3 inches.

Its pretty rare...which means its happened before and will happen again...which means its normal.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 10:34 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Damn.. its hot in the south.

Hey, Im all for the possibility of "global climate change".

Why not? I beleive in heroes too.

But my question is this..

How does taking money from working people and putting them in technologies that don't work, raising gas prices, or having some douchebag like Gore/Moore whining...

help?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 11:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think that was the point, AU. Pretty sure that was sarcasm. Neither winter cold snaps or summer heat waves (or vice versa) prove anything one way or another, they are too short term a snapshot to draw any conclusions from.

'Zackly, Byte. Damn, my first reply got lost somewhere-- was pretty snarky and concise-- I wondered how you could get it and he didn't. It was a pretty uncomplimentary cheap shot at him. I'm mellowed out now a couple of hours later, so I won't bother to repeat it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
just this AM, saw on the local MSM TV news, there's a giant heat wave, everywhere from Texas- Minnesota east, that's gonna be a roaster for the next several days. And they emphasized that it isn't even really summer yet.

SO, since the cold wave this Winter proved that Global Warming ain't so, maybe this proves that it is...

It's called SUMMER.

Seen this pattern happen before, not too long ago, actually. My god... get a grip.

It's funny, because every winter you say that about a blizzard, a snow storm, or a cold snap: "See? Global warming is a hoax!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 1:40 PM

America loves a winner!

Wait...blizzards, snow and cold. In winter ?

Really?

Gosh.

Do you even READ your own posts ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 1:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think that was the point, AU. Pretty sure that was sarcasm. Neither winter cold snaps or summer heat waves (or vice versa) prove anything one way or another, they are too short term a snapshot to draw any conclusions from.

'Zackly, Byte. Damn, my first reply got lost somewhere-- was pretty snarky and concise-- I wondered how you could get it and he didn't. It was a pretty uncomplimentary cheap shot at him. I'm mellowed out now a couple of hours later, so I won't bother to repeat it.

How did Byte get it and Rappy not? Easy: Byte's quite intelligent. Rappy? Not so much.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 1:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Wait...blizzards, snow and cold. In winter ?

Really?

Gosh.

Do you even READ your own posts ?

Do YOU?

You try to use cold weather in winter to "disprove" climate change, so it's really funny that you're so dumb as to not get it when someone points at hot weather in summer as "proof" of climate change.

As I say, you really are not very intelligent. Quite an accomplished liar, but not particularly bright.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 1:44 PM

America loves a winner!

Y'all are getting your posts mixed up. Only thing that matters is that man made global warming is a hoax.

Smart enough to figure that one out, at least.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 1:45 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Do YOU?

You try to use cold weather in winter to "disprove" climate change, so it's really funny that you're so dumb as to not get it when someone points at hot weather in summer as "proof" of climate change.

As I say, you really are not very intelligent. Quite an accomplished liar, but not particularly bright.

But the global warming nazis DO try to use hot weather in summer as " proof " of global warming.

Keep tossing the personal attacks around, because it's clear you have no case, what so ever.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 2:09 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I use the term "climate change" or "the change in the earth", "global warming" as a term is a total turn off, meaning that its easy to stop listening when it is said, at least for me, since my favorite camping place isn't usable until after memorial day weekend now when it used to be open at the end of April/beginning of May. DT has convinced me about his deforestation theory. I thusly now believe that we are a part of the problem because we deforest. But I still don't believe that we are all of it. The other thing is that the earth has been through a lot in its life, ice ages, huge eruptions, meteors etc. and I think that it will adapt as long as we keep our deforestation problem under control, which we aren't doing now. If we can do that then I believe that we'll whether the changes fine in the end.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 2:21 PM

when i actually did the math, i was surprised by how little volcanoes contributed... Like, less than cats sneezing.

ETA: actually, it turns out, more than cats sneezing, but less than mice sneezing.

Mike, Rap, get a room. On second thought, that's illegal in Georgia and frowned upon in Texas, and from the bickering you've probably been married too long anyway,

Can we get back a solution rather than another round of bitchslap tennis?

Does mice winning over cats mean that Tom is a member of a persecuted minority?

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think that was the point, AU. Pretty sure that was sarcasm. Neither winter cold snaps or summer heat waves (or vice versa) prove anything one way or another, they are too short term a snapshot to draw any conclusions from.

'Zackly, Byte. Damn, my first reply got lost somewhere-- was pretty snarky and concise-- I wondered how you could get it and he didn't. It was a pretty uncomplimentary cheap shot at him. I'm mellowed out now a couple of hours later, so I won't bother to repeat it.

How did Byte get it and Rappy not? Easy: Byte's quite intelligent. Rappy? Not so much.

the word I think I used was "dumbass."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 2:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
just this AM, saw on the local MSM TV news, there's a giant heat wave, everywhere from Texas- Minnesota east, that's gonna be a roaster for the next several days. And they emphasized that it isn't even really summer yet.

SO, since the cold wave this Winter proved that Global Warming ain't so, maybe this proves that it is...

It's called SUMMER.

Seen this pattern happen before, not too long ago, actually. My god... get a grip.

It's funny, because every winter you say that about a blizzard, a snow storm, or a cold snap: "See? Global warming is a hoax!"

Again, exactly what I was getting at...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 2:33 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Mike, Rap, get a room. On second thought, that's illegal in Georgia and frowned upon in Texas, and from the bickering you've probably been married too long anyway,

Can we get back a solution rather than another round of bitchslap tennis?

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

I assure you, it's entirely non consensual on my part, and Kwickie is the one doing the stalking.

And no, such activity ( sodomy - if that's what you're inferring ) is not illegal here in GA.

Just so folks know, not in any way making an endorsement for or against.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 2:38 PM

Huh. So now asking you to apologize for your lies is called "stalking", eh?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 4:14 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Huh. So now asking you to apologize for your lies is called "stalking", eh?

Nothing to apologize for, because I didn't lie.

And yes, it's called 'stalking'.

At least, that's what you're attempting to do, but I'm really just leading you around on a leash.

ROFLOL!

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2011 4:40 PM

I seem to recall a climatologist, way back in the 80's saying we had been experiencing a 100 year mild weather phase. IIRC he stated that the calm period would end and we would have wider extremes of weather. After a very unscientific sample I'd say he might have had a point. Root cause? Who knows. I'm going to dig to see if I can find a reference to the original paper.

EDIT: While searching for the original article I mentioned I found this:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling
/paleoclimate/index.html#causes
An interesting page from the University of Michigan explaining paleoclimatology.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2011 5:41 AM