Discussions
Gore & Climate Change: Is it Religion?
Posted by globalgirl • 12/14/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: climate change, Gore, nobel peace prize, religion
During Gore's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, he said "It is time to make peace with the planet". On Friday, Gore attended a news conference stating, "We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."
Sounds to me like Gore thinks climate change is a religious issue. Thoughts?
If you feel so inclined, please comment on my latest blog:
globallyminded.com/Blog/files/Nobel-Peace-Prize-2007:-Gore,-Climate-Change-...
User Comments
-
To me it's a moral issue..
Edit: Isn't Gore some kind of evangelic christian?-
I'm not sure about his religious background. I don't recall him speaking about Christianity...maybe.. -
No, I don't believe so.
-
Al Gore has gone on record claiming he is a Christian, yes. Evangelical? Harder to say.
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0D81730F93AA15756C0A96F958260 -
Just because someone goes to church does not make them a follower of Christ, let alone an evangelical Christian.
Gore has made his views quite clear over the years through speeches, books and The Inconvenient Truth, including the following articles that shed light on his belief of Mother Earth/Gaia. Please see the following link to his book, Earth in Balance on Google where he references Gaia:
books.google.com/books?id=QDbNhec98iEC&dq=al+gore+mother+earth+belief&pg=PP...
In addition, for those interested, more articles here:
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n1_v13/ai_19007864/print
National Review Article
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v46/ai_15779196/print
The following quote taken from the National Review article link above:
"Gaia is the Earth Mother, a cultural catchall goddess whose cult, worshippers allege, traces back 27,000 years to the Aurignacian Cro-Magnon peoples. Basically, Gaia is the personification of planet Earth, viewed by adherents as a living goddess." -
Sorry for the mentioning of evangelic christianity. Not sure where I picked that rumor up.
-
You don't need to apologize; I think many people believe the same. He has positioned himself this way to gather the votes and approval of conservatives. Most people don't probe deeper to find out what politicians and/or leaders really believe.
We have all seen leaders of countries proclaim one thing and do another. In fact, our current US administration is a fine example of this.
I like engaging in these types of discussions and learning new things. -
globalgirl: In the first link, Gore is quoting Lovelock. He's not claiming he believes the Gaia Principal is religious truth. The second two articles only claim to be stating what Gore believes, as you yourself seem to be doing.
On the other hand, the article I posted quotes Gore, specifically, stating his beliefs. You can choose to agree or not, but if all it takes to prove Gore isn't a Christian is to claim he isn't, then by stating Jesus never existed and publishing an article to that effect, I've conclusively proven he doesn't. -
Good point, Chris, but let's look at what Gore states in his book he authored, In Earth in the Balance:
"My own faith is rooted in the unshakable belief in God as creator and sustainer, a deeply personal interpretation of and relationship with Christ, and an awareness of a constant and holy spiritual presence in all people, all life, and all things." (page 265)
Let's look at what Gore says in this book to really comprehend his spirituality of PANTHEISM and Earth Goddess worship:
"A modern prayer of the Onondaga tribe in upstate New York offers another beautiful expression of our essential connection to the earth: 'O Great Spirit, whose breath gives life to the world and whose voice is heard in the soft breeze... make us wise so that we may understand what you have taught us...'" (page 259)
"The richness and diversity of our religious tradition throughout history is a spiritual resource long ignored by people of faith, who are often afraid to open their minds to teachings first offered outside their own system of belief. But the emergence of a civilization in which knowledge moves freely and almost instantaneously throughout the world has. . . spurred a renewed investigation of the wisdom distilled by all faiths. This panreligious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization's responsibility for the earth is concerned." (pages 258-259)
"The spiritual sense of our place in nature . . . can be traced to the origins of human civilization. A growing number of anthropologists and archeo-mythologists. . . argue that the prevailing ideology of belief in prehistoric Europe and much of the world was based on the worship of a single earth goddess, who was assumed to be the fount of all life and who radiated harmony among all living things. . . . [Ceremonial sites] seem to confirm the notion that a goddess religion was ubiquitous throughout much of the world until the antecedents of today's religions--most of which still have a distinctly masculine orientation--swept out of India and the Near East, almost obliterating belief in the goddess. The last vestige of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity . . . .
[I]t seems obvious that a better understanding of a religious heritage preceding our own by so many thousands of years could offer us new insights . . . ." (page 260)
~~~~~~~~~
Thoughts? -
globalgirl: I see a marked difference in saying "this is what I believe" and "this is what others have believes, perhaps we could learn from them as well."
Gore, at no point, indicates a belief in pantheism. He merely states it existed, it pre-dated Christianity (which is historically accurate) and we could learn from it. -
I have to agree with Unfettered on this one, GlobalGirl. As one example, I'd cite Catholic monk Thomas Merton, who referred extensively to the beliefs and writings of various Eastern religions in his writings. -
Very good point. I am on a quest to understand his worldview, given his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech and comments in his book, Earth in Balance. Perhaps his comments were meant to build bridges with people of different faiths? Time will reveal more of his worldview.
I really appreciate everyone's comments, understanding and thoughts. -
globalgirl: There, we are in complete agreement. I'm a little alarmed at the importance people place on Gore's opinion at times. Also, the fact people often quote weathermen as credible sources of scientific thought (given the fact NOAA doesn't seem to require understanding of climatology). But as Gore has put himself forward as a champion of the cause, I think questioning his motives, or at least examining them, is highly relevant.
-
I'm weighing in on this late. I don't see any relevance of Gore's belief's to the problem of climate change, rather I see it as a shill. It keeps the discussion going, and fragments interests - as well as lending some prestige for his cause. He is a political animal.
He has approached his cause with a strategy that has been informed by his own experience and counsel from advisers. It has been long a practice of those wanting political acceptance or elevated prestige to write a book that will appeal to a large enough audience because it will resonate with them, attract and keep them emotionally, keep them sympathetic, etc. As two local examples, Kennedy and Clinton. With new age movements and the acceptance of 'new' religions in the States, it is an excellent tact. It must be, because this is where he must build his base.
As for pantheism, Christianity has addressed this, but as Panentheism, through radical exponents like Meister Eckhart.
My hats off to Gore. He really knows how to hit many targets (audiences) with one cause :-) -
@unfettered: Yes, it is relevant to ask because Gore invited us to do so through his speech, books, etc.
@alias: "He has approached his cause with a strategy that has been informed by his own experience and counsel from advisors."
Based upon your research, what do you think Gore's motivation is, really? Is it because he is so passionate about climate change? Or something else? -
To profile Gore, one will discover a man always in need of recognition - beyond what he is by both nature and talent. The difficulty for him (or exactly for the larger body politic) has been that he busted out of the borders of Tennessee as a local politician, by good fortune became the Vice President of the United States, and for several years has been looking for something to do with equal or greater prestige. He's an affable guy with intellectual limitations. He aspires to things that he is innately not suitable for. He means well, however. He has a propensity to elevate himself to importance (as he did by crediting the Internet to himself). With this said, he has found a cause (he was looking for a while for one) that gives him lift and visibility both in the States and now worldwide, earns him significant capital (but this is an outcome), can pontificate, as he is known to do, etc. His limitations and quirks are well known in his party. Many were relieved when Congress didn't impeach Clinton; many in his party didn't want him as president. The matter of the party wanting him as president later is a different matter with other dynamics in play. The question of his sincerity about global warming is difficult to question. It is a concern for all, him as well. His ability to walk his talk, has not been demonstrated, however. As a result, I understand that some ascribe to him a sense of privilege; maybe, maybe not. His religious orientation and proclivities are contradicted by other facts of his political life in Tennessee. I have never been able to confirm his alleged associations with the 'Tenessee Mafia' (similar accusations were made about Clinton in Arkansas). This profile is not meant to discredit Gore. I realize by posting this that it is public and may or will precipitate strong reactions. It is meant to understand the man, only, and should not be construed as a judgment. I further understand that there will be those who wont believe that is the case. If it should be problematic for the community or BC, I willingly and politely leave with no reservation.
-
@globalgirl, bravo: 'Just because someone goes to church does not make them a follower of Christ, let alone an evangelical Christian.'
To be a follower of Christ means doing what he says; in light of this not many are. They hymn his praises but don't do what he says. His consistent theme on helping others lays it out as a condition. Not many really do. Too many look to heaven for blessings yet don't bless others in ways they can. Interesting :-) Misers looking for heaven's blessings? :-)
To up the ante, it is also clear from his words on this theme that it has nothing to do with being his follower. When he told the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, neither were Christians :-) and the rich man could not escape the consequence of not blessing another.
Personally, it is frightening in application. When one acquires such gain from a universal problem, it might be better that money be received in one hand and given by the other to causes that support life.
On the other hand, perhaps the Bible is just another 'Living Document' :-) -
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
PLEASE START POSTING ON THIS NEW THREAD HERE:
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/climate-change-more-on-global-warming-rel...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
-
-
Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth? It's a human thing. Breaks down how we've degraded the planet and what we can do to reverse what we've done. He's a true environmentalist. So I suppose it's a moral issue. One for our children and our children's children.
-
I have not seen the movie.
Did I just hear you gasp?
-
-
Commented. Short answer: yes, and I have no problems with that either.
edit: moral, spiritual . . . whatever gets people to open their eyes and act appropriately -
I have to agree with Jungl, it's a moral issue that I believe Gore speaks about. It goes beyond just "saving the earth"; it has everything to do with making a better environment for us. The Inconvenient Truth is something to be watched by every person who lives on this planet in my opinion.-
I agree and think it should also be known that Gore has been traveling giving this speech for over 11 years. Which to me says he has some serious moral convictions about our state of environmental affairs.
-
-
You are confusing "spiritual" with "religious". They are not the same.-
Please elaborate, ghostytwofish (and just what does your name mean?!).
-
-
Maybe that 'religion' is called humanity.......-
Is Gore's religion humanity? Or is it something else?
-
-
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out Gore feels taking care of the planet to be a religious or spiritual issue as well as a practical, scientific and humanitarian one.
-
I have no idea what Gore's religious or spiritual beliefs are, but it's clear that all his years of speechifying based on science haven't made a dent, so he might as well try a new approach.
-
here here! Agreed -
Ha! That's an excellent point.
-
Well, we all know Gore invented the internet - he told us so!
-
-
Gore has done exactly what he set out to do...make money.
For someone that is supposedly so in tune with global warming you would think he would do something to lessen his energy use. Instead he uses private planes to fly everywhere, has several mansions that alone have the carbon foot print of small communities and he won't divest of his largest stock portfolio which just happens to be occidental petroleum.
Gore is the modern day equivelant of a snake oil salesman.-
I see the smear campaigns by faux news are working.
-
Still, Gore doesn't emit as much as the Bush administration's ridiculous endless winless war in the Middle East.
-
And, Talen, let's not forget his support of a UN Global Tax!
-
-
Forgot to add that Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.
-
How are they smear campaigns...they are public record and the truth.
-
I guess this is the source of the smearing www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
"Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy."
You can find dirt on every person on this planet if you are good at digging and cherry picking.
-
-
One of many sources. It's not quite cherry picking when the man touts one thing and does the exact opposite. Yes, he owns a hybrid car but he's driven around in limo's everywhere. Public records show his holdings in OXY as well as the mine on his land. Public records also show his extensive use of private planes paid for by others.
There are many people who advocate cleaning up the planet and live as they talk unlike Gore who makes millions from his snake oil and then does nothing.
Gore is nothing but an American politician that can't be trusted with anything...they lie too much.-
Seems like he is getting his act together then:
www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2140795.ece
"Peace Prize winner shuns limousine and takes the train"
If Gore is a fraud at least he have done a good job at getting people aware of the threats to mother earth. -
He has done a great job diverting attention from the real problems. Now people have turned their heads and aren't looking at the chemicals being dumped and the landfills and the pesticide usage. Now the only thing you hear is the doom and gloom of Global Warming and thats a disservice to what really needs to be done.
Less money is being spent on EPA budgets over global warming initiatives. You don't hear the stories of of oil tankers losing their oil at sea or huge companies dumping their waste into the waterways. You only hear the Global Warming threat because thats the new "cause". When everyone wakes up and realizes how badly they've been misled by people like Gore the world will be in much worse shape. -
No doubt there are many serious threats to the planet, but that doesn't make the global warming threat go away.
-
The dismantling of the EPA and its ability, or even desire, to monitor chemical pollution has nothing to do with Al Gore. This has been presided over by the Bush administration, who have done the same thing with the Fish & Wildlife Service (and the FDA). Just read about why environmentalists are having to sue the Federal government now to obey the endangered species act, and how Bush appointees have left in disgrace after systematically ignoring internal scientific reports in the case of endangered species, including salmon, which are killed by very small amounts of certain specific pesticides. I can offer two links, though the first one (on salmon) linked to a primary news story that has "expired" on the Time website: greenchemistry.wordpress.com/2007/11/06/advocates-sue-to-enforce-pesticide-...
The Washington post story referred to here is still up:
greenchemistry.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/7-decisions-on-species-revised-from...
This describes how independent investigations by the Inspector General and Congress led to the recent resignation of a Fish & Wildlife appointee and the reversal of many of her decisions because of a blatant disregard for the facts.
I will also say, however, and approximately echoing what talen32 and jungl have both said, that it IS very important to make sure that we don't ignore one kind of environmental problem in our haste to fix another.
-
-
Great comments going on here, taking it to places I did not intend. Nonetheless, Talen disclosed some really interesting facts.
Fast Company had an interesting article about Al Gore (www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-gore.html)
"Gore has become a millionaire many times over...In addition to the steady flow of six-figure speaking gigs, he has become an insider at two of the hottest companies on the planet: at Google... as an adviser in 2001, pre-IPO (and received stock options now reportedly worth north of $30 million), and at Apple ...joined board in 2003 (and got stock options now valued at about $6 million). He enjoyed a big payday as vice chairman of an investment firm in L.A., and, more recently, started a cable-television company and an asset-management firm, both of which are becoming quiet forces in their fields.
Financial disclosure documents released before the 2000 election put the Gore family's net worth at $1 million to $2 million. ... They have a new multimillion-dollar home in a tony section of Nashville and a family home in Virginia, and have recently bought a multimillion-dollar condo at the St. Regis condo/hotel in San Francisco. Available data indicate a net worth well in excess of $100 million."
All that said, I'd like to go back to my earlier question.
What did Al Gore mean that climate change is a "religious" issue? -
You are confusing "spiritual" with "religious". They are not the same.
I agree.-
Agree with what?
Since Gore used "spiritual", let's stick with this word.
How is climate change a spiritual challenge? -
By the way, Webaction, why don't I see your avatar in the "Recent Readers"? Are you a guest?
-
-
sorry, I made myself invisible
spiritual as opposite of material. -
Can we substitute "spiritual" for "philosophical" or "lifestyle" or "psychological"?
I'm all for educating about climate change and fighting environmental abuse! We MUST (re)learn how to be better stewards of our land-water-air. However, this newest wave of environmentalism may just be a flash in the pan/pants and people will leave it behind for another generation after they've satisfied their feelings of guilt. That's the doom and gloomer in me coming out... sorry... maybe we're all in for a spiritual/envirnonmentalist Revival. Go to it!!!! I've seen the outcome of too many "Revivals" to not be cynical.
It IS is in danger of becoming new religion!! And with a new religion/ spirituality, there comes the haves and have-nots. There will be dedicated, humble practitioners and high-profile hypocrites. There will be shame and judgment passed around with the offering plate.
And just as the money and marketing follow the fad (i hope it isn't a fad)... there will be corruption.
The christians are trying to find ways to lay claim on the idea of being God's (christian-god) stewards to the earth... something many of them have neglected to think about until now as it becomes another badge they can where on their Sunday-best.
I would like to see more done by the persons/corporations who ultimately marketed and pushed us into this mess to begin with. They will try to market their way out of it too. They will market it as our responsibility to buy their products so we, as ever-consuming-individuals, can fix the mess they help put us in.
As for Gore... i haven't read or watched his stuff. I'm pretty hard-core environmentally friendly... just wary of buying into new prophets of doom... but people want saviours and prophets... and Gore tapped into that niche... like tight!-
There's no shame in reducing pollution.
There IS shame in blaming the U.S. alone (which feeds about HALF THE PLANET, and protects most of the rest -- no thanks to the timid dolts at the UN) in an era in which Red China, India, and Russia are more flagrant and less enchanting prospects for remedial behavior in the growing 2nd World.
Maybe if we just air drop some more rubbers over Beijing or Belarus from our B-52's it will make it all better. -
Regarding your sentence, 'And just as the money and marketing follow the fad (i hope it isn't a fad)... there will be corruption.' there will be, I fear.
I have spent time with a friend in Vienna of great character whose home could pass as a railway station (at least the week I was there) with all its traffic of EU and UN visitors. He revealed with shrewdness, aplomb, and the magic of charm how corrupt these officials are. He did this to refute a comment I made once that the Americans are above corruption. In the end, I was disgusted, learning that a number of visitors, no matter where they came from, were. So, as a result, I am confident there is or will be corruption regarding plans for 'fighting global warming'.
-
-
The rings of Saturn may be warming faster than the poles of earth. When does Al Gore blast off for the Intergalactic Warming MeetUp?
-
Is there life on those rings?
-
It's just barely possible.
I think the point is that the earth has warmed up a lot more than it has right now and nothing terribly bad has happened.
Actually, the high point of the Middle Ages came when the planet averaged a few degrees warmer than it is now. The Plague came during the little ice age.
So I'm not going to freak out just because the planet is warming up. It happens. We'll get over it. -
"Intergalactic Warming MeetUp"
Now that is very funny.
Someone recently told me about an intergalactic federation and that they joined.
Really.
-
-
"Is there life on those rings?"
I don't know, what say we send Hillary and Al and Pelosi and reid on up to investigate in person.
Hell, I'll help them pack the union hall Volvo.-
LOL.
They'll probably do less damage there, certainly.
Good grief. How anyone can take seriously the man who claimed to have invented the internet is beyond me.
Hilary is just, ew. Pelosi I really don't know that much about, and I don't really care to. -
Al Gore never said he invented the internet-- what he said (truthfully) is that he had early on recognized the potential of the technologies that others were developing and pushed for funding for the research and implementation of these technologies that became the internet.
Unfortunately-- that doesn't fit into a sound bite.
-
-
Oh no, the right wing americans are back
-
Yeah, but they're just bitter 'cause they're going to lose big time in the coming election.
[edit] Or they're seeking solace. [/edit] -
Um, actually, I'm not right wing. I may look like it sometimes but I'm not. I just don't see any point in getting worked up over something that is quite likely a natural occurrence that would be happening now whether humans were around or not.
And I'd think the same thing whether Al 'I invented the internet' Gore was pushing it or not.
-
-
freeatlast's blog: www.hotforjesusformerfundie.blogspot.com
don't understand why Gore is issue, global warming is issue (since '70), not Gore!
Gore & Climate Change: Is it Religion?
stupid question.-
Actually global warming is recent. In the 1970's everyone was talking about global cooling because of cfc's.
-
Webaction,
When you have the Nobel Peace Prize winner make a statement that "the climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity", one must question WHAT kind of spiritual challenge.
Gore & Climate Change: Is it Religion?
This, my friend, is NOT a stupid question. -
The quality of Webaction's comment is mirrored by the level of his interaction with the group since June. (Just checked his profile page. Not much going on there.)
-
sorry stoneman you're right - webaction out.
-
Webaction, you left the discussion because of a comment that was an error. When you participate and how often is not a criteria to judge your thoughts and opinions.
You are entitled to speak / write when you have something to say. The BlogCatalog is not someone's Fiefdom, they are not the Lord of the land, and you have parity with us all on any theme discussed.
Perhaps (MOZDA?), a comment is meant in a silly way, a spot of humor, a dash of wit... that fails :.)
You are not what someone thinks of your opinions, and a discussion is not a place to kill someone socially when there's a disagreement. The value of an opinion is based on its sincerity and Time's ability, in a second or years, to show it correct or not.
I remember the vitriol poured on Velikovsky many years ago. He was brilliant, and propounded many theses.
In the end, Time showed him more right than those many who denounced him.
And can you imagine this? So many 'smart' people ridiculed Velikovski for his learned opinions, but there was one lone man who respected Velikovski and died with Velikovski's book next to himself .. Einstein.
:-) -
I was around in the 1970s-- we were definitely concerned about global warming-- though we called it "the greenhouse effect" back then. There was some effort to do something about it then with a clean alternative energy initiative, but once Reagan became president in 1981-- alternative energy was pushed onto the back burner.
-
Stupid indeed.
-
-
Perhaps the discussion goes on tangents because of a preoccupation with vocabulary. Nonetheless, it is effective rhetoric when Gore describes Climate Change as a religious issue. Doing so, he is attempting to make it an 'ultimate concern' for all of humanity. A theologian once defined religion as any ultimate concern. By addressing it this way, he is endorsing his own concern and enthusiasm for this issue. It is a self-endorsement for credibility, and like a true believer, he makes no apologies for his fervor.
With that, there is difficulty in accepting his arguments for change, because he has, like a good true believer, sanitized the facts, data, and models of explanation about global warming. He has homogenized the remaining facts, and data, and presented to the world an evangelistic crusade against mankind in an heroic attempt to save nature, and like a saviour, mankind.
Laudible. Valient. He's the Modern Crusader. Like a hero in a Hollywood movie.
The difficulty in his approach is that he doesn't tell the whole truth - CONVENIENTLY. And our climate issues were expected a long time ago. Historical data in ancient text have suggested that the climate goes through sever changes. The Greeks spoke about. The Romans fashion was dictated in part by very hot times.
I wonder sometimes, what is remembered of what was studied at grade school through university. In my studies in Medieval History - before Global Change was in fashion - climate addressed and what its impact was on society. It was far warmer than it is today. The support facts are too numerous to advance here now, and any interest person can quickly find them.
Another item historically is that the Great American SouthWest was really baking under the sun a thousand years ago. And there is evidence from Canadian studies that it was the fjords wee very warm, too. The evidence resides in the sea or better said ocean beds. In one data set I know of, it showed, I think it was, 80 years of ample warm weather, an immediately turn extremely cold from the plankton evidence for decades. These facts, anecdotal and physical, are CONVENIENTLY ignored. A convenient truth.
There other factors effecting global warming are the sun and moon. Moon position long, long, long, long ago was demonstrated to correlate with an 18 year cycle of good and bad weather ( I think correlated with the American mid-west). The sun also goes through cycles, off the top of my head there are four. These have shown correlations with global warming and cooling.
This is just a general comment to the Question of Gore's new religion. It's just that so much science is NOT INCLUDED that makes his sincerity difficult if not impossible to accept.
He jets around the world (speaking about carbon footprints :), making enormous amounts of money 'talking' on the subject (sounds like a Dallas preacher who became very rich with his 'religion'), and ignore things middle school kids are taught.
For instance, plants like CO2, it's their bread and butter and desert in one. Trees warehouse CO2. But the plant kingdom is being raped, pillaged and killed off by settlers around the globe. Stripping lands, swamps, and fields for raw resources, housing and commercial development, etc, MAY have been the worse man-made offence against nature, and a contributor of Global Warming. Maybe Gore should persaude the world to plant trees and field everywhere a car once drove. .-)
In any event, the post is too long, in spite of more that can be written.
Gore's means well. Its just that the total truth can be very inconvenient.
please excuse thetypos.-
With all my typos and grammatical errors, you'd think I learned English in the Gulag. Blame it all on my speed typing. :-)
-
At least you're writing in English.
[edit] Given the length of your post here, though, perhaps you could have written a blog post? {/edit] -
Its 3 in the morning here, and fell into a stream of consciousness on the subject. In wine - and preconscious - is truth :-) That said, am still learning etiquette appropriate for discussions. On the flip side, I was struck by some comments having a scent of, hmm, belittling, maybe? I'm not quite sure. Maybe it was just humor. It can be difficult to determine, the humor that is, without a :-)
-
-
@aliasinkhorn
e sad stvarno lupash, Gorove rechi su upuchene americhanima, a njima doista treba objashnjavati kao dvogodishnjacima, zar nije tako?-
Postovanje... Engleski, webaction. Molim.
-
-
Let me make this quite simple.
Does anyone see any parallel with Gore's statement and James Lovelock's Gaia Theory?-
Michael Crichton (author of many books, including Jurassic Park) believes that environmentalism is a religion. See the transcript of a speech at the Commonwealth Club:
www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html -
I don't see a connect between Lovelock and Gore. Lovelock provides a way of understanding the geo-ecosphere. His approach is rooted in an understanding that is closer to the spiritual than Gore's religious effusion. I see Lovelock approaching these issues and science with a love - I see Gore's as opportunistic.
-
So we are back at the play of words. Gore said "spiritual".
Are you familiar with Gore's book, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit?
www.amazon.com/Earth-Balance-Ecology-Human-Spirit/dp/1594866376 -
You can read more about Gaia here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis -
I have to post my FINAL comment on this thread about Gaia.
Anyone hear of the Virgin Earth Challenge? www.virginearth.com/?
I am just now finishing my latest long blog post on "The Virgin Earth Challenge and Gaia Capitalism" which you will find on my Globally Minded blog (getting ready to publish this morning): globallyminded.com/Blog/index.php
Richard Branson recently won the UN Citizen of the Year Award for his eco-advocacy. Branson and Gore are both on the bandwagon, spreading their propaganda or, better stated, "global warming fear campaign".
This is VERY interesting to me as it continues to tie together the relationship between Gore and Lovelock and Lovelock's "Gaia Theory" now conveniently called Earth System Science!
To be continued...
-
-
Who cares as long as it is an issue and people take notice I dont care if the catholics christians buddhists want to tackle the problem of climate change I dont care about what label is given to it if it makes people care who cares-
Yep.
-
-
-
It should be noted that Lovelock's concerns about water supply and food production, oceans rising, etc, are concerns for an unalterable and inevitable future - if other irrefutable scientific data is allowed into discussions.
These matters we face have occurred before in history, and have caused mass migrations, etc, before the last hundred years of automobile use, and the past hundred or two of fossil burning industries.
My remarks are not welded to a political agenda - and I fear that is what has happened to the science of global warming.
It is interesting that throughout history, paticularly Western history, when science has become political more harm is done than good. And when the subject borders on social hysteria, no correct approach is performed.
There is certain geo- and astro-evidence that cannot be ignored, but is, and all that we have been taught by teachers and professors till the past few years is forgotten. The world, physically, and organically, goes through cycles. There are those of great spiritual persausion who have said long before Gore took the mantle of saviour, that these things would happen, but due to the social and spiritual decay of humankind around the world. If Gore's religion can be right, why not theirs? :-) -
Wasn't it the VP of the weather channel who said Gore's findings were not supported by most of the scientific meteoroligists.
I worked at a tv station too where the very popular weather man did a segment on the theory of global warming and basically said he didn't believe in it either.-
@awannabe
Excellent point. The direction of concerns and reactions led by Mr Gore on Climate Change have outpaced the science. This is troubling. And it has become difficult for those scientists with the expertise to express doubts and new findings to be heard equally.
Consider current events this way reader:
I tell you my research suggests the climate is warming up principly because of autos and factories and home heating, etc. You have political prestige, would like a crusade because you are politically idle, and would like to be back in the political arena and news limelight again. You run with the issue. Later, I say, 'Ooops, I have found things that make me want to reconsider this matter. I have some second thoughts, some professional misgivings. Let's wait and get things right.' However, in the meantime you have acquired an entourage of supporters. You're on an unstoppable global mission, you're on international news, talking to some of the most important decision makers on the globe, you are being financially compensated for speaking engagements at a rate that would feed tens-of-thousands of hungry people around the world on that day - AND YOU IGNORE ME. Why, you were once a junior leader in one of the most powerful countries in the world, now you are at the next level, world politics, leader of a global cause DIRECTED AT the entire living planet. And, if you have no shame for taking personal credit for the Internet, you will have none in this matter, also.
1. There is a problem IN global warming for Planet Life. 2. It has happened before. 3. Human Life has contributed to the problem. The question is, to what degree, by what percent? What other factors contribute, whether human or natural in origin?
Global Warming's discourse and campaign on climate change has hijacked and muzzled common sense and has made the basic rules of thinking an enemy of the people. Interesting :-) But I'm an OK regular chap if I'm goose-stepping in a parade of Global Climate followers. Interesting :-)
This is not to be construed that I don't think there's a problem or a problem for humans. It is meant to help readers see things proportionally. And speak the truth. 1. Human's CONTRIBUTE to the problem. 2. The problem will be here now WITHOUT human contribution. 3. The geologic and historic evidence says so.
I have read several articles authored by supporters of Mr Gore's campaign and curiously, I have found no remarks, no fears for DEFORESTATION, especially the rapacious deforestation in Brazil. Did someone forget about the amount of oxygen the Amazon makes for life on this planet? :-)
And why is little being said in the media about Chinese factories putting out enormous, billowing volumes of black smoke daily? We have become too cultured to note it as an issue for fear of offending a nation? Hmmm.
There's more to add, but never mind.
Here's just one article of a number in support of @awannabe's post
Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
August 29, 2007
www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse...
Belief is great. Doubt is great. Proof is greater. -
@aliasinkhorn:
This was a good post, I am in the midst of trying to see the link but the server is going nuts. Lots of readers I guess, which is a good thing since the article reveals the number of growing scientists that discredit global warming.
Also, corporations, as we all know, have rights just like humans.. they do what they want when they want to do it. (BTW, have you read Thomas Hartmann's book, Unequal Protection? It's on my list of books to read - has come highly recommended. www.thomhartmann.com/unequalprotection/). They don't want to be accountable for their carbon footprint, let alone anything else.
**need to move on down this thread**
-
-
I don't see a problem with his speech. Its actually someone trying to come across with a positive approach so what wrong with that?
Global warming is a serious problem that we are having with the facts that the planets temperature has been raising a few degrees. It may not seem like much but its enough to kill all the coral reef with just a 2 degree difference in the planet.The toxins that come out of the tail pipe of a muffler on your car is a big threat not only to the planet but to us humans as well. Take a look at Los Angeles itself and see how much smog there is in the air and compare it to the past back in the 50's. Why do people think that global warming is a hoax I will never understand. The truth is all around us. Until it becomes a serious problem up in everyones face will people then say oh we have a problem here which then will be too late.
The creation of the electric car actually exist and runs just as well and better then its gasoline counterparts and cost much less to operate. So why with the third degree on something positive?
As far as being religious what is wrong with being religious? Religion is everything and without it there is nothing left. So if Gore said it in a religious way more power to him. God created this planet and everything in it. Giving each one of us free will.-
Global warming is a global statement. Too global. Those trumpeting Global Warming don't appear interested in addressing climate contradictions and anomalies to their cries of alarm. And I personally bristle at a lack of intellectual integrity.
Let's alter the semantic world of distress a little and say: there's warming. Super. Yes, there's measurable warming - in different places around the globe. There's also registered cooling, too. Weather pattern changes are occurring everywhere. The ice sheets are receding, but they're getting thicker. Summers are getting hotter in places. But in other places, winter is getting colder.
Has this happened before on Planet Earth? Yes. Will this happen again if there are no humans on Planet Earth. Yes.
Was there an Al-Gore-Saurus millions of years ago bellowing to other 'saurs, 'Global Warming! Global Warming! Stop passing gas!' Maybe. :-) But they sure weren't driving cars and burning fossil fuels, and seem to have had a similar problem, if not worse, once upon a time. :-)
And as for smog, I hate it. Smog is getting worse everywhere as more and more people worldwide move into cities (this is a phenomena that is truly bad, and the UN is deeply concerned about for a number of excellent reasons) and drive their autos around and about. Auto use impacts local weather patterns for cities, especially on weekends, apparently. I'm with ya on electric cars. Hmm, but we can't have electric planes, boats ...
So, coming back to the semantic world of distress, cars and other human factors CONTRIBUTE to the problem but are not the cause. With me? Sorta putting Mills Method of Scientific Inquiry to use on a big scale here.
To sum it up, I'm concerned about Global Climate, not Global Warming. My best guess is that it will get very cold in the next dozen to twenty years. But that's because of solar activity. From a rational perpective, the consequence of this frightens me, because I have been to many places and have seen the terrible things humans can do to each other over intangibles like beliefs and ideologies - what will they do to each other to drink water, farm, eat, and stay warm? Truly, I will die happy and in peace, if I'm wrong on this.
As for God, you keep the best company, and pay no mind to others what they say about religion, with or without Gore's name. If they'd been saved by an angel, or mocked by a demon, they'd be more polite :-)
-
-
By Spiritual I am assuming he meant living with compassion, to think consciously about the damage we are doing to the planet. Spiritual in Einstein sense, not God sense. I did not get religious undertone at all.
We are all doing damage to the environment and even if we try to live as green as possible, by just being here... we are contributing to the decline but I don't think we should stop because it is inevitable. There are things that people can do to make a difference. I don't think the solution is going back to living like a unibomber or stop the progress of mankind. It is living with thought not only to ourselves but the environment around us. It's changing our mentality of consuming more and more and instead consume what we need and try to do away with the lavish lifestyle that we worship and emulate. For example, do you really need an SUV that's size of a tank... or can you do with a smaller car or just do with one if you feel that you really need all that room.
Gore has been an advocate of the environment for a very long time. I remember even during his vice presidency.. before the issue of Global Warming became a hot topic, he would speak about it. I do believe that he is a man who is truly passionate about this cause... it's just now that he's getting recognition for it that people are trying to discredit him... and like Jungl pointed out... if you dig enough.. you can always find the dirt. No one is perfect.
What I don't understand are the people who are very outspoken about the Global Warming and think it's all a hoax. It feels like that they don't want to give up their lifestyle and make some perhaps inconvenient changes that would benefit not only the Earth but their children and grandchildren. Their belligerence and nay-saying is mind boggling. To me, their are like Ostrichs digging their head into the sand. Sad really.-
The worldwide discussion on Climate Change, has become a platform for a number of opinions that are now beginning to shake out into two main camps. The Global Warming camp has risen to ascendancy, has successfully cornered the media exposure, has captured the UN, and will be soon engineering solutions at a considerable expense to the world.
In the meantime prominent scientists (right now) are beginning to say that their models are not complete and there are currently significant contradictions regarding the climate. In response, they do not get front cover, or front page exposure - at least not yet, and in some cases are paying for their corrective remarks with their careers.
What do the Global Warming elite fear if other scientists say, 'Wait a minute, look at this'? Something peculiar here; maybe there is an Achilles Heal on the Global Warming side of the science.
When these types of dynamics arise, and an honest intra-science review and examination of data and models is spurned, there is a polarization of popular opinion, and 'believers' are 'born' out of the polarization, and ready to do anything to protect their 'cause'. Gore knows well what he is doing.
And I ask, 'Where's Global Warming's enemy? Where?' Yes, there is warming. But strangely, not everywhere. Ah, by the way, the Ozone was a major scar some years ago and for a long time. Freon was substituted with something else. Now the reports are that the Ozone whole is getting smaller. Was there hsyteria over this matter? Was there an Al Gore pushing a Global Solution? Hmmm. :-)
Another factor that makes the discussion dangerous is that it now hangs over a personality. Mr Gore is the Lone Ranger for humankind. So anything said objectively about Global Warming is an attack against a compassionate man who cares, like a modern day saint, just for the people. Let his freely given compassion match his wallet - let him do it without being paid.
There is ample evidence that a thousand years ago it was so hot on planet earth, that the ancsetors of present day Norway, Sweden, and Denmark roamed the Atlantic and cultivated Iceland (of all places!) and cultivated Greenland (of all places!) and may have made it to the North American mainland, in boats on high seas that had weather favorable for such long trips in their long boats, no less! :-) Better, more rugged craft centuries later (following the cooling) had a difficult time crossing the Atlantic at a lower lattitude.
It was not only 'WARM' on Greenland and Iceland. Once upon a time, the UK, was warm too. Warm enough to have a thriving wine industry :-) Today in Global Warming they import their wine! :-)
So, yes there is 'warming'. Yes, it will happen and go away as usual based on an astral calendar, not ours.
Yes, we MUST DO SOMETHING, THOUGH. And quickly. AND THIS SHOULD BE SEPARATE FROM GLOBAL WARMING.
Our planet's resources cannot sustain being cannibalized at an accelerating rate indefinitely. It was once said, 'for the rest of the world, it will take three to four more earths to live like the U.S.' Twenty years later, China has a projected appetite that makes the US's resource consumption look like the need for baby food.
One last thing, I have gone on record with many people here in Europe: 'I wouldn't be afraid of the warming. I believe there will be a major cooling.'
-
-
To me, an even better question is, does one's perceptions of the science behind global warming really depend on Al Gore? Or on whether this is a "religious" or "spiritual" issue? Does global warming become more or less true if a religious movement says yes or no?
-
I've read and heard about scientists who have lost their jobs for not declaring and/or believing that climate change is man-made. We must ask why. Why is their growing propaganda that it is more of man's (and that of multinationals - since corporations have their own inalienable rights these days) irresponsibility than the earth's natural cycle.
Again, whether or not global warming is man-induced, we need to steward the earth's resources with care.
-
-
A remark I omitted about Global Warming might be of value, with the provision that I cannot remember the Danish Scientist's name. It was reported recently in the news that this Danish scientist had originally been an early exponent of Global Warming, been hailed as a great scientist, fronted on Time magazine (if I recall correctly) four years ago, etc; he has now moderated his views.
This change apparently has taken a toll on his professional career, as well. In an interview he basically said that yes there is warming, but (if I recall correctly) not that bad, and that the expense to fight it economically would be better spent in other ways. (I have looked for the bookmark without result).
If there is interest in looking at Global Warming data for different regions around the world, check co2science.org. It reviews data, and provides an excellent summary for past temperatures - compared to present ones. Eye-opening. I discovered that it was nearly a full degree warmer for my ancestors between 700 - 1000 in one part of Europe than today. Check it out.
www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/regions/europe.jsp
The beauty of science is that it is self-correcting. The ugliness of science is that too many find scientists suffer before corrections.-
The Danish is called Bjørn Lomborg and he is not a scientist. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjørn_Lomborg
Now it is my turn to digg some dirt: ExxonMobil has contributed $90,000 to co2sience.org
-
-
I think whatever it's about, we have to concerned about it. -
There are numerous data sources available, and substantial studies and research journals available - I chose CO2Science because a scientist I know from the Ukraine sent me an email about it :-) I don't see the matter as a crusade. I see it as a matter of academic and scientific integrity. If public facts don't appeal to the collective intelligence of Global Warming camp, then let them demonstrate where these facts are in error.
From my perspective, theory has become fact. And a greater number of scientists are beginning to come forward to say there's a problem, 'our models were in error, they didn't factor this or that'. This is honesty, and it is appealing to me in a world full of predatory lies, prevarications, and deceit. It frightens me further, because it has become political (not religious) football.
I am continually amazed by one aspect of my education. Was I the only one taught about the cycles of the moon and sun, precession and their influence on weather, and that there is demonstrable evidence for significant cycles, etc, etc, etc?
I had coffee with a brilliant man of science and one of my dearest friends. He's originally from Chile. We discussed the weather, Global Warming, and as we spoke a disagreement developed on the subject. He was getting agitated, so I spent some minutes reminding him of what was known and taught to us as university students for so long. To make a long story short, he said, 'You have right!'
Humans can make and find enemies on any subject. History is replete with this 'signature' of human geings. They kill each other over ideas. And all the killing our ancestors did for some ideas are no longer relevent or held dear. We are civilized: we find new reasons :-)
So, I agree with you, the corporations trade our health for shareholder wealth. They poison our bodies with foods and drinks that they knew or suspected were not good for us. They don't always tell the truth about the drugs they develop that in certain circumstances cause irreparable harm because they want to recover their development costs. The list is big.
What matters is understanding Nature, the one factor that appears to be dismissed in the discussions. To address Nature is NOT DISMISSING HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY FOR adding to the warming.
Nature has done far worse than the automobile. Does this statement refute man's responsibility? No. It said Nature has done worse.
There are some scientist that are more concerned about the rise in earthquakes and volcanic activity. (But no one listens to them) If several volcanoes erupt, it will make global warming a more polite discussion among ladies and gentlemen :-)-
But you seem to be saying that scientists who have said "there is a problem with global warming" are correct, and those who in fact claim it is happening are in error. Unless I'm misunderstanding you. Isn't it possible the ones who see the error are, in fact, wrong?
-
P.S. Regarding Bjørn Lomborg. I wrote from memory an article from a reputable publication. The fact that he was revered as a man of intelligence on the subject of global warming remains. And, he had the integrity to make a public correction. I must believe in Heaven because the graves are full of people paid a price for doing what they believed was right in the face of social and professional punishment. Hmm.. Antigone, where are you now?
-
I'm no scientist and I can be pretty fundamentalist in my views on protecting the nature.
That doesn't mean we (the environmentalists) can't be skeptical, but I have yet to see any big uprising in the number of "real" scientists that are questioning the IPCC.
About this Bjørn Lomborg. He is well known to cherry pick the facts that suit him and his agenda. A Danish scientist even made a site about all the errors in Lomborgs books: www.lomborg-errors.dk/ -
I agree with you, aliasinkhorn.
-
-
Unfettered, I confess there's a problem in discussing this matter, because it is templated in black and white, right and wrong. Clearly this obstricts effective conversation.
The matter present, I think is this: mankind has effected the atmosphere. By itself, it is a grave matter. Unfortunately, doesn't work by itself, IT ITSELF IS INFLUENCED by other factors. The percentage of mankinds influence on climate change may be disputed, but it is not at 100%. Plus, the climate has gone through extraordinary changes and will continue to, even if we are wiped out off the planet by a comet today.
The difficulty in discussing this is that there doesn't appear to be the appropriate science foundation usually acquired in grammar, middle school and high school to make discussion rational and without agenda. And I say this without intent to aggravate.
I have no agenda. Unless the truth is an agenda.-
Fair enough. Rather than telling people they don't have the "appropriate science foundation" to discuss this rationally, why not provide them some?
Here's one place to start: www.aip.org/history/climate/
(nB) This site promotes a book, but also gives very relevant links to data. It is part of the American Institute of Physics website, as part of their History of Physics section. It is updated annually. -
Unfettered .. I understand why I created a confusion for you noted in your last post. The para ...
'So, I agree with you, the corporations trade our health for shareholder wealth. They poison our bodies with foods and drinks that they knew or suspected were not good for us. They don't always tell the truth about the drugs they develop that in certain circumstances cause irreparable harm because they want to recover their development costs. The list is big.'
.. was an aside. I wanted jungl to know I understand his concerns about immoral and irresponsible corporations and if I understood him correctly b... but it is clever by half to attack a data site because of its sponsor.
The data and facts can be cross-checked by and through other sources. If jungl finds that the data has been misrepresented or altered he can raise the issue - AND I WILL BE WITH HIM ON IT. .-)
-
-
As I said further up, I'm no scientist and have not the expertize to cross check such data.
It is just common sense to not trust a site called co2sience.org when it is sponsored by the oil industry. -
UNFETTERED :-) This is a discussion not online distance-learning. If my words, phrases, and sentences don't inspire enough regard to at least ponder what I have said, then it is enough that I only wrote. :-) As you can see, I need the keyboard practice. .-)
Interested members of the discussion can now build on your post, and examine the science behind the arguments on global warming, and might share information from the internet pro and con ... believe the net is so thick with information on the climate that if it were a forest you wouldn't be able to walk through it .-) -
I am from a part of the world where a man's common sense was regarded as being superior to a faculty education. So I'm pleased my friend and truly understand you and appreciate your concerns. I might have done a better job telling you in the posts above.
My recommendation as a researcher is focus on things: articles, data summaries discussed or printed, and look for
incongruities,
look for things that dont add up
or plain dont make sense, and
look for contradiction.
This is a beginning. But when you're done with this, check the heck out of your conclusions.
Always CHECK YOUR CONCLUSIONS.
And when you've finished, let the world know what you've discovered.-
Any disregard you may have sensed probably had to do with your assertion that rational discussion wasn't possible due to a lack of basic science education. As if you were stating you were the only person interested or informed on the subject. You seem to be asserting, over and over again, that science is the method by which this should be understood, so I was simply providing a jumping-off point for people who were interested and, perhaps, had the requisite knowledge to understand the data.
I haven't particularly stated my own views on global warming, just because they didn't seem to be particularly relevant to the original idea of the thread: whether global warming was a religious or spiritual issue.
My only point in posting a link to data was to allow further study by those who wanted to do it, as you yourself did when you posted the link to www.co2science.org
-
-
I don't know whether Al Gore thinks it's a religious issue, but he's welcome to make it one. You'd think that "making peace with the planet," or however anyone wants to put it--should cut across all ideologies, religious, spiritual, political, scientific, wouldn't you? Whether global warming is a huge threat, a tiny threat, or not a threat at all, why wouldn't everyone who lives on and enjoys the benefits of the planet want to do their best to make sure they leave the least damage behind after their time here instead of arguing over how much damage we may or may not have done so far. Sort of a pride of participation kind of thing. The same reason you don't leave your clothes strewn all over your bedroom floor . . .-
Gmstepp, I can't stop smiling for the pleasant sense and power of your words. Like a twist of lemon in a glass of cool water. Refreshing perspective :-)
-
Yes, I agree. Every human being should be involved in stewarding the earth. I find it interesting that some think it is the responsibility of others, diffusing their involvement in the problem. Whether or not global warming is induced by humans, we have a responsibility to make use of natural resources in a responsible manner, caring for animals, the earth, and human life.
-
-
@aliasinkhorn
Are you saying that everyone should do such thorough research before they can make up their mind?
There will always be someone questioning the conclusions and thank god for that.
But as of today there is pretty much a consensus among the scientific community that we are one of the causes of global warming.
So what should we do then? Do nothing because there might be a chance that the IPCC is totally wrong?
As you might have seen I live very close to the nature and I can clearly see changes in the eco-system around me. Climate change might be one of causes for the deterioration.-
-
I love nature, too, jungl, since my earliest years. I told my mother when I was four that my only wish in life was to live in the woods with the trees and animals. I still feel that way, but destiny continually gets in the way. :-)
I am not affiliated with any group on these issues, and better so. My only affiliation is to common sense. I approach people this way, and everything I have ever achieved.
I see an issue in how people are being led on the issue. It troubles me. I see people discuss the issue passively. This troubles me, too.
Putting all possible differences aside ....
The scientific community must have continual open forums on climate, ecosystem, technology and economics;
the solutions will gell with these categories addressed;
the process must be continual, non-political, and collaborative;
it must be open to ideas and advancements outside their circles (the best ideas often, historically, come from 'outsiders')
Hoi Poloi must immediately push their governments to address deforestation - particularly in Brazil. A Russian professor of physics who died jogging about twenty-five plus years ago was extremely concerned about CO2, warming, deforestation - I said to him, 'Then we must plant trees everywhere!' He said, 'It's too late'. Is it?
Fertile land must be protected. Years ago, in the states, I saw some of the most choice farmlands and woodlands razed for suburban housing developments. I said to a friend, 'One day these people will be sorry.' He smirked at me and asked, 'Why?' I replied, 'For a couple of reasons. Because the air needs the earth, and man needs both,' meaning these lands once cleaned the air, took good care of CO2 and made Oxygen. He then asked, 'What is the other reason?' I answered, 'The other reason is because it will cost time and money for fuel for so many people to travel to their work. And we've had a couple of major oil crises already; there will be more.' Now the crisis has become CO2, not just the availability of oil sources to drive to and from work. ( I always thought that America could be 'held hostage, because without fuel for workers to drive to and from their suburban estates to work, business would slow to a crawl. But this is another matter. )
As for doing our homework on the matter of climate change, it is our obligation to seek and share information on the subject. As citizens, to be the watchman, police and MAYBE umpire regarding what is done, its speed,, its comprehensiveness, its logic, its VALUE, etc. We are ALL STAKEHOLDERS in the result. But we cannot continually behave like passive stockholders in a company. We have no proxie in this issue! NO ONE. Me, you, our kids, and everything else in nature has a stake, therefore everything living under the sun must be heard - or Nature will get sick on us, and we will have no excuse. -
I remember the first time I traveled the breadth of Guatemala, a land rich in natural resources, and we rounded a mountain corner to see an empty, barren, and deforested valley for miles and miles. I felt sick to my stomach. We build bigger and bigger homes thinking this is indicative of one's success. I find it so irresponsible (I recently did a post about eco-friendly homes by the way) and insane.
Here is how I look at it: Whether or not global warming is induced by man or part of the natural cycle of the earth, does not exempt me from being a socially responsible citizen with the resources of this planet. -
...
Considering how often scientists change their mind on what is and isn't so, I'm going to continue to take such accusations of responsibility with several grains of salt. (Maybe a whole barrel.)
Still, stewardship is a very important thing. I happen to like the outdoors. I happen to think the local real estate agents who were filling in the local swamp to make "lake front" property were a bunch of incompetent con artists.
Well, not so incompetent since people actually bought the houses. Idiots.
I also look out over the vast acreages of open space in this part of the country and wonder how anyone could think we're losing our natural resources.
Of course, I live in Minnesota, not New York.
-
-
I am very tired and just sent a post that for some reason got lost in posting.
I will summarize it by saying that nature can take care of CO2. It has always done a good job of that. The critical problem is expanding deforestation around the world, especially the Amazon. The US has seen a continual decline in migratory birds from the Amazon. This is an ill omen.
Nature can handle the CO2. But without forests and fields, it wont happen well enough. And we or our children will pay the piper.
I must retire. Laku noć. Good night.-
Good point.
More CO2 = more plants.
You know how big everything got in the early Paleolithic period? -
@brigid, LOL. I think you got a point!
-
-
Posted a reply to awannabe's post above. Please excuse me for not posting properly here.
-
As frustrated I have been with many Christians I know who have only recently begun to divide their Republican politics from their religions tenets, I see many who are taking a Biblical look at the issue of Climate Change in specific and environmentalism in general and realizing that they have more in common on these issues with the liberals they know than they hardline - hands-off - the market will take care of it type Republicans they have been electing.
A nice post titled "Becoming a Good Steward of the Earth (or “How I stopped sticking my head in the sand and faced the reality of global warming.”) at fastingandfeasting.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/becoming-a-good-steward-of-the-... shows his own Biblical reading that led him to his current position.-
Thanks, Techfun. I read the post and share the same understanding of man's responsibility to steward the earth and to worship God in the process (in my view, earth and God are not one in the same).
-
True GG, but HOW people come to conclusion that stewardship of the earth is an ACTIVE process and take personal responsibility for their impact on the earth really doesn't matter to me.
-
I find I am smiling with your one sentence summation of the issue at hand. Well done.
Aliasinkhorn, the pond that separates us does not divide our thoughts.
-
-
I look across the pond at the State amused at the conflation of religion with an issue that effects their biology .-) I like it :-)
-
Al Gore did attend seminary. He did at one point consider a career in the ministry. Let us assume that religion does play a role in his life.
The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelmingly robust. That it poses a danger to life on this planet is also supported by a preponderance of scientific evidence.
However, acting on this scientific knowledge is a political act-- and in his case, he probably sees his ethical impulse to act to come from his spiritual life. The science is valid-- maybe Gore understands his moral sensibilites in the context of religion, but he's hardly a sectarian-- so I'm not sure what the problem is.
Science provides knowledge, but not the impulse to act upon that knowledge.-
"Science provides knowledge, but not the impulse to act upon that knowledge." --- Yep. That's why I occasionally use Brecht, _Galileo_ or Dürrenmatt, _The Physicists_ in my classes. There seems to be a deficit of knowledge out there about the boundaries between science and other areas of human knowledge.
-
@Ianthal
"Science provides knowledge, but not the impulse to act upon that knowledge."
And so you are implying that moral and spiritual compulsion gives him the impulse to act. I agree.
-
-
Been see-sawing on whether to add an article to the dicussion. It has relevance, I think, however doesn't directly apply to the theme. What won me over to add this article is the sentence in the Discussion header: "We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."
As a moral and spiritual challenge, as a problem that seeks for a religious zeal to engage and overcome, by us, by our governments, for the sake of human life, then where are the limits to technologies being developed that effect the climate and put human life at risk? Is there a Moral Imperative in universally addressing Climate Change that should be applied across all human endeavors, including military ones?
Needless to say, every nation's security is important, and to continually find ways to inhibit conflict or win one, is necessary.
But where do we draw the line? Where does the 'moral and spiritual challenge' end? Take a look at this headline from www.globalresearch.ca:
Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare
‘Climatic warfare’ has been excluded from the agenda on climate change.-
Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare
‘Climatic warfare’ has been excluded from the agenda on climate change.
HAARP is fascinating (if not highly disturbing)... it is not a myth nor a conspiracy. Indeed, HAARP has been used to manipulate weather patterns. Note, however, that this does NOT mean that ALL weather anomalies or climatic disasters are related to HAARP. -
-
@Unfettered, I know it sounds crazy, but take a look at this article on Wired:
blog.wired.com/defense/2007/12/secret-document.html
Also, if you want, please take a look and download the pdf file HAARP: Research and Applications. It's from the Air Force Research Laboratory and Office of Naval Research. -
globalgirl: I'm well ware of HAARP's existence. I am not aware, nor did this super secret PDF make it clear, that HAARP has been used as a "climatic weapon". Also, given that HAARP admits foreign nationals (without security clearance), is one of many facilities with such capabilities, and is a joint program of many universities as well as the government, I'm hard-pressed to see how climate control could spring out of this program unnoticed. Does HAARP have some potential uses for which we should be aware and mindful? Certainly.
Notable words missing from the PDF you mentioned: Weapon, Weather, Climate.
HAARP is a completely transparent project. If it were being used as a weapon, I doubt so many people would have access to it. I'm not trying to say you're off-base in bringing it up. Just that there doesn't seem to be any evidence at all HAARP has ever been used in such a way. -
My brother is an active Lt Colonel in the Army with a Doctorate level degree and he is knowledgeable about HAARP and its uses.
We need to look past the play on words (climatic warfare) and understand the technology being used. -
The part about words missing may prove to be untrue. I'm still reading. I was under the impression I was looking at a search-able PDF file, but am now aware I'm looking at scanned images.
-
globalgirl: OK. I've read the PDF. There is absolute NO INDICATION in it whatsoever that HAARP would be used, or even could be used, to modify weather in any way. If you're reading it differently, I'd like to see where your information is coming from.
On that note, I should also point out I have a background in physics and mathematics. Certainly not graduate level, but enough to know what I've been reading here. -
True, indeed. However, this does not mean that HAARP is not used for climatic changes.
Why do you think the military is interested in this technology?
Asking questions is a good use of one's mind. -
globalgirl: I'm not sure what you mean about climatic changes, if you're not indicating weather control. The military clearly states what interests it has in the paper you suggested I read. They include interrupting communications, as well as research.
I have to put the question back to you. What makes you think HAARP could be used for climatic changes? -
@Unfettered, Many are preparing new advanced technological weapons for the next war. There are things going in development that were once elements in science fiction.
-
alias: This is most likely true. However, such a general statement as that, and HAARP is used for climatic changes are entirely different statements. Since the ability of HAARP to affect the weather was presented as fact, I'm only asking for proof of that, which I have been unable to find anywhere, including the PDF presented as evidence.
The statement "all squares are rectangles" is also true. The reciprocal statement, "all rectangles are squares" isn't. By the same logic, saying "Many are preparing new advanced technological weapons for the next war" may be true, but implying that all technological advances are weapons for the next war isn't.
If we're going to say HAARP is being used for climatic changes, I think it's fair to ask for proof. That's all I'm doing. -
This is a link that aliasinkhorn placed here earlier and it is worth a look
regarding climatic warfare:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7561
Michel Chossudovsky is a Canadian economist. He is a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
I am getting tired and need to rest on this matter for now.
However, please keep it coming as I think this discussion is very, very good and interesting (as I see some of you yawning in utter boredom!). -
globalgirl: OK. If you think an economist has the knowledge and experience to comment conclusively on matters of physics, I suppose I can't change your mind. However, I find this conversation is no longer practical, so I'm going to bow out. I'd just like to point out, in closing, the original PDF you posted as "evidence"...wasn't. And, as you made clear, its origin was the military itself.
I don't particularly have any interest in trying to convince people what is a credible source and what isn't. That's up to you to decide.
-
-
There is vigorous discussion about Global Warming on a number of blogs. Jennifer Marohas' The Politics and Environment Blog recently had strong sentiments from both sides of the fence regarding Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner on sea levels. Recommended reading.
December 07, 2007
IPCC Accused of Falsifying Sea Level Data
www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002611.html
Another post was on a significant news item regarding an open letter to the Bali Conference that strangely got scant international news exposure - and Bali ignored. Recommended reading.
December 14, 2007
Open Letter to Bali: Give Up Futile Attempts to Combat Climate Change
www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002624.html
Has Global Warming (as opposed to Climate Change) become the new religion after all?
Are scientists who disagree with Global Warming doctrine apostates?
None of the above?
What da ya think? :-) -
Bruce Anderson, from UK's newspaper The Independent had something to say on the matter of Global Warming - with a twist.
He glibly weaves the notion of Religiosity in his comment. Tho, he seems to be speaking on both sides of the issue, I think his points on the GW Religion are on target.
My opinion only :-)
WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT YOU SAY. WRITE NOW :-)
Bruce Anderson: The environmental debate has to be rescued from the flagellants who would cut growth ...
Like all fanatical cults, they have their Devil, in the US, and their rituals, in recycling plastic bags, et al
comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/bruce_anderson/article3258031.ece-
Your link was broken, here is another regarding
Aliasinkhorn's recommended reading:
Bruce Anderson, from UK's newspaper The Independent had something to say on the matter of Global Warming - with a twist:
comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/bruce_anderson/article3258031.ece
Going to read it soon and will comment later. -
@aliasinkhorn:
excerpt taken from your link from the INDEPENDENT: comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/bruce_anderson/article3258031.ece
"We can be fairly sure that this is not going to happen and the blame lies with the enviro-"mentals". They are not pursuing disinterested science, in the spirit of the Stern report. Their environmentalism is a religion. Like all fanatical cults, it is hostile to science and to reason. It has its Devil: the US, abetted by the Western consumer. It has its rituals: recycling plastic bags, etc. It offers endless excuses for self-flagellation, such as possessing plastic bags in the first place. It even has its own temples."
Thanks for this editorial link.
-
-
Gore and his quest to 'save the planet', which God made perfectly and is still around, even with all these 'perils' politicians make claim to, will never die or be destroyed. If anything, the planet will be renewed, with or without us.
Yes, I believe global warming is a religion to many, many people. This is talked about in the Bible. You loving the creation, not the Creator.
Personally, I think global warming is a way to get all humans into some sort of submission, getting us ready for the new world order. If you think it does not exist, google it, yahoo it, altavista it, whatever, there is plenty of information on the Internet about the NWO and the NAFTA superhighway.
Total submission, folks, this is what these 'leaders' are all about.-
And radical right-wing conspiracy theories is what you appear to be about.
*sigh* -
It is unkind to use epithets to discredit a person, when it is distinguishably rational and gentile in the company of a lady to politely put your compellingly persuasive facts on the table.
Everyone has their opinion and usually factor, consciously or unconsciously or both, interests, values, etc, with what they know. What they know, among many sources, is often dependent on whom they believe and disbelieve.
The object of Global Warming has been slowly wrapped into a self-proclaimed institution of religiosity with accompanying religious creed, priesthood and high priest, about a problem not just about the consequences and outcomes of modern human life but at the cost of rational science whose hallmark can be stated in the past tense: It once had the responsibility and ability to correct itself through open and vigorous debate.
It is disconcerting that a problem of significant proportion can be a closed subject; it is disconcerting that a problem that impacts all life can ignore historic evidence, data retrieved from core samples, etc; it is disconcerting that measures can be found imperfect but not adjusted; it is disconcerting that models have not factored or addressed variables that also have bearing on analysis... I wont bore you with more.
It is disturbing that empirical, analytical, and theoretical science has become anal retentive. I shutter to learn that politicians weep and ignore contra findings, or at least findings that say, 'Wait a cotton pickin' minute', 'Hold yoo're horses there pardner', here's the latest news.
There are many who would agree with Momoftwingirls: there is a backroom agenda on Global Warming. It is to acquire global money :-) .. its a bonanza for the UN, who for some years has looked as useless to the world as ice cream in a blizzard. Ah, and then there are others who have a stake in this bonanza.
What I have - perhaps too obliquely - suggested in my comments to this discussion is that There Is Science That Has Been Around For A Long Time That Suggested That Climate Change Will / Would Occur.
There are academic peered review publications with articles that you would not bring into a court of law to support your case for CO2 and Greenhouse Effect being responsible for Global Warming. Unless you'd want to look foolish :-)
With this, Momoftwingirls and other's like her should be addressed with the power of intelligence. They hold their opinions in good faith. You might approach them the say way.
-
-
Conspiracy, yes, theory, not so much. It is so easy for you to say that though, but it would behoove you to do some actual reasearch instead of shooting the messenger.
Right wing, I used to be, today, well informed and more independent.
Go Ron Paul!!!-
twin's mom: It might behoove you to learn about people before accusing them of not having researched things and knowing of what they speak. While BC does occasionally have people spout off about unverifiable things, like a plot to create a new world order (which can't even consistently be defined by people who fear it) or that allowing the free movement of goods between the US and our large trading partners via the planned multi-modal infrastructure improvements is a bad thing, Stoneman is not one of them.
-
techfun, corrections might best be applied to both sides. That the notion of a new world order is implausible to put it nicely :-) there is as much reason to discuss that subject as there is Global Warming A La Gore - but on a different Discussion board for sure .-)
She is not capable, nor am I, to know the dignity of the person behind the Pseudonym, so at best this must be a forum of equals. We all craft our thoughts, some more carefully than others, some better, some worse, in such a way that, nevertheless, we are still known for what we believe :-)
If there are some rules of etiquette that proscribe certain types or categories of remarks, or modes and ways of communicating in Discussions, or certain taboos over and above civil norm, please direct me to it. The probability to offend, even innocently these days with hair trigger reactions is extremely taxing, and it would be a great help to know the etiquette. I still get lost looking about for things on BC .-) Thank you. -
aliasinkhorn: I beg to differ. In this medium you absolutely CAN know the dignity - to use your word - behind the pseudonym, in the best way possible by reading their words. It doesn't take long, while participating in these forums, to get a decent idea of various people's personalities, political leanings, technical skills, sense of humor, and depth of knowledge.
Yes, Mark coould have voiced his frustration differently, but when someone espouses a non-mainstream - dare we say radical - position such as linking the idea of addressing climate change with a conspiracy to create a new world order to control everyone, that they should be willing to support the idea right here where they said it instead of implying ignorance on the part of scoffers and telling them "do some actual reasearch(sic) instead of shooting the messenger".
As far as rules of etiquette, basic respect should dictate those, but on a discussion forum I try to follow a basic ideal of trying to say something to keep discussion flowing and avoid the one line come-backs and insults. Not so say I have never insulted anyone, but when I do its usually a full paragraph. -
Bravo :-) We have much in common. But a point of order :-) .. to provide flow to the discussion and to judge a contributor seem to be at odds. Better, I presume, to let the flow continue in spit of what is flowing in it :-)
-
And, techfun, can you take my measure from my comments? Do you know the head behind the words? Can you tell what I believe? Feel? Think?
This notion that a person can be discredited because they link a non-mainstream, radical idea to climate is not appropriate. It is about the free, spontaneous, contributions of BC members ... not an opportunity to comment ex cathedra on a participant.
Momoftwingirls' comment was brief. We do not know what she knows. Perhaps she knows things that would be valuable to share. We may never know. And certain remarks will assure we wont. I think there was a lost opportunity to engage Momoftwingirls and find out.
I know may things, also, that are unfortunately true, that never make the news, and if I wrote them in a discussion would most likely get the same response that Momoftwingirls received.
Had she been engaged, she might have been persauded by his notions, or at least the seeds would have been planted for a change in them.
A pity.
Better to let the discussion flow, as you say you want. Much can be learned, if nothing else but about ourselves :-) -
Alias, I haven't seen you around much before; apologies if I've missed you, but I'm inclined to think that if you'd been around a bit longer you would have a better measure of the "dignity of the person behind the Pseudonym". Most of us here, for instance (including MOTG, I'm quite sure), know that Mark is a history professor, that he is quite reserved about expressing political opinion, and that his perspectives are always rooted in a broad historical context that definitely adds dimension to the conversation. In short, everyone who frequents this place (again, undoubtedly including MOTG) knows that Mark does not speak without educating himself on a subject, and that if he's speculating he says so quite clearly.
-
Nope, I can't Alias because I haven't read enough of your writing, but in time, if you write based on how you truly feel, then I hope to. Stoneman and globalgirl and MadameX and libdrone and willtaft and others are a different story. I have read enough to have an idea how MadameX will respond to something I say before I say it. That doesn't stop me though since I usually enjoy HOW she says what she has to say.
And read Mark's response. He said: "And radical right-wing conspiracy theories is what you appear to be about." He did not attack her or say anything about her beyond what was evident from her post. If you read her post, can you find any misstatement on the part of Mark's response?
-
-
-
Thumbs Way Up Unfettered! :-)
-
rofl. To the blank post? Sorry about that. I realized too late that I'd clicked the wrong "Reply" and, for some reason, couldn't change it.
If you like, consider it a FNORD -
No problem, my friend. can't do anything right on BC, in the discussion - and worse - on this keyboard :-)
I couldn't figure where to reply, so I posted where I did .. wasn't anything you did .-) -
LOL
-
-
When belief meets fact, which prevails?
Magma may be melting Greenland ice
12/17 Live Science/MSNBC, Hot spot could be contributing factor to Arctic island's record melt-- Global warming may not be the only thing melting Greenland.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22246005/
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
(For the record, I am extremely concerned about post-industrial (minus Chinese) life and its effects on land and air.)-
That's a great question!
As a student of science, I tend to "believe" that facts are most important. However, when faced with a potentially global issue that might require cooperation of scientific and non-scientific minds alike in order to reach a possible solution, it might not come down to facts alone.
There are questions with right answers, but people's perception of the correctness may shape their actions more than the scientific underpinnings, and lead to incorrect courses of action.
Just my belief, of course -
Getting the facts is always a good place to start. What bothers me about reporting like that in the MSNBC article you linked to is the INCREDIBLE level of speculation in an article posed as news:
"Global warming may not be the only thing melting Greenland. Scientists have found at least one natural magma hotspot under the Arctic island that could be pitching in.
"where heat from Earth’s insides could seep through"
"scientists will report here this week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union."
“It could be that there’s a volcano down there,” he said, “but we think it’s probably just the way the heat is being distributed by the rock topography at the base of the ice.”
If this article were posted to Wikipedia it would be flagged in no time. The sheer number of the weasel words used and the fact that its ALL speculation based on a report that is scheduled to be presented to scientific experts in a fairly narrow field of science. What reason can you think of for releasing this news article before the presentation and before the experts are in a position to put it in context? It is just another way of pandering to people who want to see climate change as a scientific controversy when it is not. -
@globalgirl, knowledge can be a dangerous thing. .-)
I have never agreed with Hobbes that 'Knowledge is power.' I have ALWAYS taught that THINKING is. .-) -
@aliasinkhorn:
Interesting article on MSNBC and the correlated links... Of course I am not surprised. -
I should think Greenland would start melting at some point. It really was green when it was first found by the vikings. It wasn't until afterward when things started cooling down that it became the giant ice flow we're all know today.
-
-
I see people saying that Gore has serious convictions about this because he has been traveling and speaking about this for years. But could he be otherwise motivated? I mean, it has made him a lot of money. He was able to produce a movie, and he got a Nobel Prize out of the deal. So what did he do about it when he was Vice President? While he and Clinton signed on to Kyoto, how many times did they send it to Congress to be ratified? None. Wouldn't it have been easier to send that across town that to travel the world speaking?
The fact is, Gore has a business that sells environmental carbon credits. He made millions on his movie. He travels the world telling us to straighten up while his "carbon footprint" is 40 times the size of the average Americans. So I wouldn't call it a religion. To me it's more of a business. By calling it a problem and claiming to have the fix and all the while doing nothing about it, Gore is guaranteeing himself to still have his business tomorrow.-
IF I TOLD FOLKS WHAT I KNOW, THEY'D EITHER HATE AND HUNT ME OR CRUSH TO DEATH WITH LOVE.
Let me just say, your dog can hunt, trlrtrash13 :-) -
@Aliasinkhorn,
Let your knowledge be known. You have an audience. Of course, if and when we disagree, we speak up!
-
-
Wonder what Twain would say about Global Warming. He was usually no one's fool and could exercise a healthy skepticism. Maybe he'd just quote himself. 'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.'
:-)-
LOL!
I really like Mark Twain. Even if he did seem to have a low opinion of religion. (Given what a lot of people were spouting at the time, I can't say I totally blame him.)
-
-
@techfun, The question of publication of any research before journal publication is a matter for the professor, research team, and the news outlet. It is a matter that is discussed and decided upon by responsible parties. It is not even uncustomary to release to the public provisional findings. Look at ScienceDaily, PRWire, etc, as evidence. If this evidence is inadmissable, there should be a crusade against scholars and researcher across the globe on any early scientific disclosures. But this is not a classroom. Just a forum .-)
The difficulty presented in discussion on the topic publicly or at hand here in this forum is 'belief' - not sensible ratiocination. Belief usually precludes the ability to correct or synthesize new data, findings, and analysis - particularly on this subject to date.
This is one explanation why Mr Gore can speak of his Global Warming initiative as - spiritual, religious, whatever word is correct, it matters little to me. (People killl each other over vocabularly; I have never understood fully why.) Making it a belief, closes the doors to any other insights, evidence, etc, etc, etc.
It might be noted that the history of science is riddled with this type of blockade and intransigence.
The article by itself can take the harsh critique. No problem, truly. By itself, it can be poorly remarked. However, if this discussion is to be a catalogue to support for this article, if BC is willing, it can be done.
What is most interesting, if one has followed the geo-physical news on climate warming, is that there has been increasing disclosure that the earth has played a part in it - probably a very big part; and if one has followed news on solar activity research, it looks as tho the universe plays a big part in climate. The recent discovery and tests regarding sun, CO2, and clouds was a mind opener. The researchers had trouble accepting it at first, asd I understand their personal reactions. But these items don't sell newspapers yet. So the fault of faulty public knowledge is not the fault of the scientists. :-)-
Alias: "The question of publication of any research before journal publication is a matter for the professor, research team, and the news outlet." Yea I know. I wasn't giving a blanket statement decrying the advance news coverage of scientific reports in general, just the journalistic style of this one in particular.
And I don't know of anyone who contests that the earth itself plays a role in changes to our climate, to sea levels, to drought and wet cycles. It's what that article fails to mention that bothers me. So many people seemed invested in trying to prove that humans are not responsible for climate change that the changes that are occurring take second place. The problem with Greenland melting is the water run off into the north Atlantic and lack of solar reflection. Whether that melting is a result of geothermal factors under the surface of Greenland, CO2 in the atmosphere, or firebreathing ice dragons living in the ice is irrelevant.
Look at the Boxing Day Tsunami where over a quarter of a million people died and well over a million were displaced. The lesson I feel we should all be taking away from the earth's changeability is how so many people live on the edge of safety. If the earth is hitting a warming period all by itself, it will still be a NEW thing for us despite the fact that the earth has warmed in the past. It has never warmed done this at a time when there are an estimated 6,638,705,959 on the planet (projected to 12/20/07 at 14:09 GMT - www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html). It has never happened at a time when the people of the world lives lives that were so extremely dependent on worldwide trade for daily sustenance. -
@techfun, we hold more concerns in common than this 'pinhole' communication is able to show immediately.
Before Global Warming got elevated and became a glamor-shot crusade, there were other issues I think far more important at the moment with far more dreadful and immediate consequences for humans. These issues had (or still 'have'?) been gradually achieving some visibility. The UN places three significant (among others) concerns for the future: water, agriculture and demand for food, and the phenomenally rapid migration of people around the world into cities. The classic plot for unprecedented catastrophes.
There might be a way of amalgamating these issues with Global Warming. I don't see why, however. Not now. Water and increasing food demands, and urbanization (and migration into country's with well established urban areas), may (I my opinion) will 1. bring on wars, and 2. create health crises unequaled in human history, providing viruses feeding on the largest hosts ever available to them let alone admirably concentrated targets for armies.
I fear for the future of my children. But not because of Global Warming.
And for the life of me, I do not understand why these (former?) UN concerns are not high-profile world concerns for action. -
aliasinkhorn: I think the reason they don't get the attention they deserve globally is because many many people have very nationalistic views and see these things as national and not global problems. Starving refugees in Rwanda do not create smaller portions at my local Red Lobster. I live in the USA where most of us flush our toilets with drinking water and don't think twice about it. People like momoftwingirls, and she is not alone, have this fear of any kind of globally based leadership that could try to address these issues. She is not alone, my own mom thinks the United Nations is a satanic plot aimed at eliminating the US Constitution.
Climate change, on the other hand, is much more clearly global. I bet a lot of Americans can't even tell you that despite having home rule since 1979, that its part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Instead, people can look at Greenland as a frontier place and see trying to save its glaciers as a politically neutral issue. People can wrap their heads around the idea that carbon emissions in China will affect Puerto Rico, ad vice versa.
If the best way to address climate change is indeed to roll back carbon emissions, the core solution to that problem will be part of the way access to water and food will eventually be solved. It will all come down to population levels reaching a sustainable level.
The world's current (overall as well as natural) growth rate is about 1.14%, representing a doubling time of 61 years. We can expect the world's population of 6.5 billion to become 13 billion by 2067 if current growth continues. (The world's growth rate peaked in the 1960s at 2% and a doubling time of 35 years.)
If every single human on earth cut their carbon footprint, water usage, food intake, and housing footprint in half TODAY, we would be right back where we are now in 61 years. Addressing climate change, and the issues you mentioned, will all have to include addressing family planning and population density issues. If we don't address the issue head on, the earth and natural law will do it for us with far more unpleasant results. -
@techfun:
"Addressing climate change, and the issues you mentioned, will all have to include addressing family planning and population density issues."
Yes, this is one of the byproducts of blaming man for global warming - control the population explosion.
I could go on here but I won't... have to keep moving on this thread... -
techfuntechfun, I don't know how I missed reading your post from 9 hours ago, but I am very glad I saw and read it.
I understand the difficulties people not only have with great problems that effect thir lives but also understand from a behavioral perspective what they bring to them, meaning their beliefs. Beliefs, normally being intractable, make fluid, reasonable discourse on important themes as climate challenging - which is quite normal. On the other hand, in my view, it is a process. Some can be influenced with compelling data, charts, rhetoric, etc, others not so easily. If there is absolute integrity in the process, almost always people are persuaded and / or consensus achieved. Not all, and not always, but enough.
If I might be at liberty to add, your post does an eminently good job in putting matters in balance. The variable of population will impact our globe and our societies mutually. The hunger for countries to live like the U.S. will create new dynamics that will have an acute effect on natural resources, geo-strategic interests and geo-politics, and will require substantial attention and effort to avoid conflicts between nations. -
The thing with trying to make predictions on the effect of more people in the world is that it's so hard to take into account changes in technology.
I seem to recall hearing about one program that stated that humanity would overstretch our resources in a couple generations.
This same program when fed info from the late 19th century claimed that we should now be up to our armpits in horse dung.
-
-
@globalgirl, knowledge can be a dangerous thing. .-)
I have never agreed with Hobbes that 'Knowledge is power.' I have ALWAYS taught that THINKING is. .-)-
What's thinking?
-
It is a process - and a subject for another discussion? :-)
It sincerely appears there are BC members more qualified than I to address the topic.
The folks here genuinely invest there lives in reflection and thought, and with humility say they have my respect, all of them. It is difficult and quite an achievement to dash off through the limitations of a keyboard thoughts, feelings, and reasoned opinions.
Thus it's a good reason to be patient with one another :-) -
Yes, alias.
What more do you want to share? -
cogito ergo sum...
i totally agree -
Solomon once said:
"With increasing knowledge, there is increasing pain."
Why? Because it forces one to question the foundation of one's reasoning, belief and truth.
-
-
@MadameX, it sounds like Mark and I have certain characteristics in common.
-
"Gore and his quest to 'save the planet', which God made perfectly and is still around, even with all these 'perils' politicians make claim to, will never die or be destroyed. If anything, the planet will be renewed, with or without us."
Yesterday someone asked why the rest of the world laughs at USA. Opinions like in the quote contribute a lot to the ridicule.-
Odlićno, excellent point and I am hearing more and more derisive remarks about America's overall intelligence. Its prestige and renown for rugged individualism and common sense, and its reputation for sharp, skilled thinking among its intelligentsia and academics are on the wane. At least this is the perception.
Like one well known scholar here in Europe summed it up, 'Americans look like they are dissatisfied with a round wheel, and have engineered a square instead. Quite an achievement, wouldn't you agree?'. His meaning was clear, his words polite. I didn't take the bait, and replied with forced wit, 'The people are simply under the tyranny of the sheep.' This was the best I could do. :-) -
@jung1
Yes, I am not quite sure what belief system her comment was rooted in. I don't hold to the current earth being renewed, with or without us. -
@aliasinkhorn:
I will not take those comments personally.
Sadly, I agree with those comments, especially "The people are simply under the tyranny of the sheep." -
@globalgirl, Heavens to Murgatroyd, weren't directed to you. :-)
But to expose a weakness in a body, even body politic, is not an offense or attack, but an aid :-)
-
-
@globalgirl, temperance in all things, even in disclosures :-)
-
Yes, this is why having civil and documented conversations are so important. Do you have further scientific data to support HAARP? Please reveal this so we can build on this from a scientific foundation. I laughed out loud late lastnight because I read UNFETTERED's comment that he was going to "blow out of here" because of the Econ Professor's support of HAARP was not sufficient. Very valid. Can you provide some resources to satisfy his questions (and any others who may be reading this thread?).
If not, I can do some research. But I am thinking you may have access to such data now. -
By obligation, I must demure :-)
-
@aliasinkhorn:
Why? I know you have information that would be helpful to the scientific inquiry of climatic warfare. Yes?
You said an earlier, compelling comment worth backing up.
IF I TOLD FOLKS WHAT I KNOW, THEY'D EITHER HATE AND HUNT ME OR CRUSH TO DEATH WITH LOVE.
We won't hate you. Unveil what you know (about the issue at hand). -
globalgirl: Maybe aiaskorn has taken oaths to not reveal things? My brother knows far more about the radar systems in Alaska than he can reveal legally or ethically.
-
When the future arrives, nations will do things that were once fiction. If humans were truly good, and did not make 'good' relative in all matters personal and public, the future that will happen couldn't have.
(thank you, techfun) -
Yes, I fully understand. It is because of national security or confidential clauses that many with first hand knowledge do not reveal sources. This here lies the problem - governing the masses with propaganda. Many adhere to what is told to them through education, media and "experts" without thinking for themselves.
I find this troubling that information is kept hidden, that those in power maneuver their agendas like the rest of us were pawns in their game of chess.
TECHFUN: What do you know about what the subject? Interesting about your brother... -
I don;'t know anything about the subject. I just used my brother as an example of what how non-disclosure agreements and security policies can restrict what people can say, ethically and legally.
In June of 2008, I'll have a nondisclosure agreement come to an end but the info I could reveal then would bore you to death. -
What industry Techfun?
-
@aliasinkhorn:
If humans were truly good, and did not make 'good' relative in all matters personal and public, the future that will happen couldn't have.
Compelling. Sadly, I understand your comment. -
globalgirl: Telecommunications. Stuff changes so fast in the industry that a 2 year non-disclosure agreement means that anything you might reveal is probably irrelevant by the time you reveal it.
-
-
Hi,
to be honest, I don't think he's saying it's Religious. I think that people often confuse spirituality (which is an individual quest or relationship - i.e. even Christianity is supposed to be a relationship with God) with religion, which is basically a set of bullshit rules designed to hem people's freedoms and keep them oppressed so they are controlled. So no, Gore isn't saying it's religious, he's saying its PERSONAL.
He is right, though. Out of all of the things that have to change on this planet, it is a spiritual and moral thing - each person must decide for themselves to change their life. That is both moral and spiritual no matter who wants to deny it.
On the other hand, there is scientific evidence on both sides of the table (Same old story, like creationism vs evolution). Based on everything I have heard, researched, and seen, I think that the world climates work in cycles. Just like every single other thing on this planet. That's not to say that we have possibly accelerated on made this cycle more extreme, but it is a cycle nonetheless.-
Thanks for joining the discussion. I haven't seen you before, so welcome to BC. What are your scientific sources?
-
-
@globalgirl
When younger, working at a newspaper, the editorial board wrote the opinions, the journalists wrote the news, and well, or got their walking papers :-)
Now journalism appears to have many cooperative allegiances with particular interests and agendas. Was it Plato (or Aristotle?) that said something like 'You can judge the health of a country by its doctors and courts'. Today he'd add, 'and its journalism.' :-)
By the way, sometimes people acquire privileged information simply by chance in conversations :-) -
I wish that I had the time to read EVERY entry in this discussion because it is probably the most important topic in the world today.
Years ago I wrote a Novel, DESTINATIONS, which is now out of print.
In it I stressed asking, "Who's telling you what and why?"
I copied the following from Newmax this week and it makes me wonder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former vice president and environmental activist Al Gore is joining forces with a venture capital company that’s seeking to profit from the move toward “clean technology” in the $6 trillion global energy business.
Gore is becoming a hands-on partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a major Silicon Valley venture capital firm where an old friend, John Doerr, is a partner.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner’s move comes as the company “makes a risky move beyond information technology and healthcare investing into the fast-growing and increasingly competitive arena of ‘clean energy,’” Fortune magazine reports.
Within several years more than a third of Kleiner’s latest fund, which totals $600 million, will reportedly be invested in technologies that seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Among the companies the fund has already invested in are firms that make microbes to scrub old oil wells, build large-scale solar-power farms, develop solid-oxide fuel cells, and design equipment for use in electric car batteries.
Doerr, meanwhile, will join the advisory board of Generation Investment Management, the $1 billion investment company Gore began three years ago with David Blood, former head of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, to invest in environmentally friendly companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My question is this: If I can convince someone that there is a problem, is it ethical for me to profit from the solution if the problem has not been proven to exist?
There is no question that at the moment carbon dioxide is increasing and the Earth is warming.
However, before you jump off the bridge you should read an article by David Deming,a geophysicist, entitled "Yaer of Global Cooling" which appeared in the Washington Times on December 19th of this year.
While you are at it, check out my Blog and profile at JWMalenda.com/blog as I will be adding a series of articles regarding this topic within the next couple of weeks.-
Can you please add the link for the Newmax article?
-
Great points about Gore's pocketbook & motivation. We discussed this earlier in this thread.
Here is the article referenced. Will read.
www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/1057... -
Well considering the US governments penchant for "market based solutions" I don't think there is anything wrong with Gore being involved in an investment fund that is trying to build a greener economy and provide the tools for the same. Most people call it 'putting your money where your mouth is'. If Gore is risking some of his own money by investing in a fund that will invest heavily in a fund that will make or lose a fortune based on whether or not he is correct in his predictions is quite admirable in a 'lead by example' sort of way.
-
globalgirl: You do realize that Washington Times commentary (not news article) is a classic bait and switch sort of strawman argument, I hope. What Gore is talking about, and saying VERY clearly in his movie and writing, is that his concern is for climate CHANGE. That commentary instead uses the term 'global warming' in a simplistic manner that should be insulting to the reader - at least I found it so - and then itemizes a series of cold snaps around the globe as proof that Gore is wrong.
If you read it carefully, he actually is supporting Gore's position in a very offhanded way. He talks about "Extreme cold weather", "record low temperature", "unusually cold conditions", "coldest winters in decades", "snow fell for the first time since the year 1918", and "coldest ever recorded for April" - those are all David Deming's own words. He's talking about weather extremes and then using the fact that the extreme is on the cold side instead of warm to discredit a claim that nobody has made. -
@techfun, I CAN SEE YOU NEVER LIVED IN WASHINGTON, D.C. :-) I admire you for the strength of your . beliefs.
-
-
This is an excellent review of Global Warming's underbelly. The problem of Climate Change is a real one, but the 'truth about it' has polarized people without its exponents spreading all the cards (of facts) on the table.
Those in the vanguard of Global Warming appear to be uncomfortable addressing other facts. This is not a poker game, even if they're holding 5 Aces and got the biggest cash pocket.
The article @JohnMalenda provides you is one that describes - apparently without any animus - a man who is benefiting financially from his own preaching. Rather than a Global Warming issue, is this a character issue?
The article sited above by @JohnMalenda (& @Globalgirl) describes a completely opposite problem. The science I have referred to in earlier comments based on PHSYICAL EVIDENCE from the earth, reveals a cyclic climate activity as commented by @Coreadrin above and others.
If contrary evidence were heard .-) and applied .-) and extrapolated .-) as other 'models' have been, it would suggest that there will be a Global Cooling - which does scare me. (Crops don't grow on the cold ground; unless there's a new science about this, also.)
With a dispassionate view of Climate Change, ClimateChangeFacts gives an interesting orientation and overview on the subject. And provides the reader with a quiet, reasoned discussion.
You may walk away belittling it, or congratulating yourself that you are more knowledgeable and better informed, or have your existing views substantiated.
DOESN'T MATTER AT THE MOMENT, TAKE A LOOK, THEN MAKE A COMMENT:
Take a look at this site:
Global Climate Change Facts: The Truth, The Consensus, and the Skeptics
www.climatechangefacts.info/
The Global Warming Debate - The Facts
'Virtually all scientists agree that the Earth has warmed a small amount since the year 1000 or, if you choose, since 1850, when instrumented temperature records became reasonably accurate and distributed in key areas of the world. An increasing number believe that any warming is so small it is indistinguishable from the noise in the data sets, and that the data have not been properly adjusted for such things as urban heat island effects, and instrument calibration. This is particularly true of the global data set. Most scientists agree that warming is better than cooling and many believe CO2 provides important enhancements for forests and agriculture, even while also believing we should not be fouling our nest. Our site makes every effort to present the true science of climate change. To show the imbalance, as one reads in the popular press, we have created a companion site that presents the evidence for global cooling, just as the newspapers and alarmists present only the science that supports warming.'-
aliasinkhorn: Did you read that same thing I did in the Newsmax quoted comment? Its about Gore investing time and money in a venture capital firm. It is legalized gambling and he's gambling that the need for technology to address energy and climate and environmental will pay off in our market economy.
He is not buying stock publicly traded stock in a manufacturer of windmills and then speaking about how we need to buy more windmills. Instead he is helping guide cash investments towards up and coming companies to help them get over that hump that most new technology businesses face. Some might fail, and some might be the next Google in its industry, but either way, he's taking risks to help build the kind of technological future he believes in with his own money.
If someone went around the world encouraging bloggers to get out and write and share their views and help effect change in their communities by holding politicians accountable and then spent some of his own money to give Blog Catalog and Wordpress.com the capital they need to expand to the next level, would people be acting like this? I don't think so. -
My way of factoring is not captured by a significant point. Read my post 'letter to a young professional' to provide insight. Note, it isn't elegant, and the whole letter is not included. aliasinkhorn.blogspot.com/2006/07/letter-to-young-professional.html
For a long while I read articles on Global Wraming with interest; they have now become clones of one another, and it troubled me in the beginning of my reviews that other facts were never addressed. Now, I see the journalism as a canard - by whom is unimportant. And, I am known to look at the facts, evidence, unobtrusive measures, etc, no matter how cherished my own long held opinion(s) might be. I would rather be corrected than stupid.
The redundancy on Global Warming is tasteless and boring. There are matters far more and immediately important that are in deed manageable, and quickly. regarding our environment local and world (Which is curious why there was no high dudgeon on what is going on in the Administration noted in @chemrat's post.)
An excellent companion article to the one you critiqued is from OpinionJournal:
OUTSIDE THE BOX
Bali Who?
Under cover of fighting global warming, developing countries try to slow America's economy.
BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110011010&mod=RSS_Opinion_Jou...
Interesting. Add to the mix, beat it, and put it in the oven ... :-) -
What is the motivation for stating our greatest threat is global warming vs global cooling?
Sources posted below from John and aliasinkhorn:
Washington Times: www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/1057...
Take a look at this site:
Global Climate Change Facts: The Truth, The Consensus, and the Skeptics
www.climatechangefacts.info/
-
-
Wrong placement
-
Another reference much too long to include here but which ought to be considered by those of you are on the fence regarding what is fact and what is opinion.
There are many scientists from other countries who do not agree with Al Gore.
Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:47 AM ET
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)
Complete Report without Introduction: (LINK) -
This is only my opinion but Al Gore is considered by most people to be the ultimate authority regarding Global Warming. He is risking nothing if he can convince government and industry to invest in his 'solutions' to the Global Warming problem.
Just as Catholics do not question the Pope, 'true believers' follow directions without question.
Unlike issues of ritual and obedience, which are individual choices and do not affect others, the cost to society will be enormous if the wrong goals are pursued. The US is deeply in debt and to tax us to the tune of trillions of dollars can wreck our economy. It would be an incredible disaster to find that a generation from now that we were wrong--that we were trying to empty the ocean with a bucket.-
JohnMalenda: Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth or read any of books? You are probably right that some people see Gore and an authority, but not by any fault of his. He is extremely deferential to the actual scientists who have been researching this and following it for over a generation. He, as a politician was in a position to help get those scientists some air time, but he has always set himself up as an advocate for them and not an authority himself.
As he has said, it was only when prepping for his lecture series that he got the tutoring and training from experts he needed to understand the science and he realized that most people are not willing to invest the time and energy into doing that, and he hopes to act as, at best, a conduit and translator between the pure science world and individuals who are impacted by the science. -
I agree with JohnMladen, Techfun. As a side note, there have been those in the U.S. government who have been well aware of background agendas in the Kyota Protocol. At the geo-political level, the U.S. has fared well regarding the topic internationally, but there are or can be greater pressures that can and will cost the U.S. in international business if International Global Warming Politics takes deep root and the nations of the world finally prevail in their insistence that the West pay the bill - while they grow their economies polluting the air collectively at a rate that will make U.S. contribution to C02 marginal.
In the end, all this diverts from the science which is being obstructed from being heard completely. And the Messinger from America is obstruction's patron.
-
-
Link to JohnMalends post:
epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=...
Talk about Global Warming, this is chilling news:
'Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution.'
Worth reading.
WHAT'S YOU'RE TAKE ON THIS?
IS THE STATE OF SCIENCE IN TROUBLE?-
Well duh. I've been hearing stuff like this for years. Some scientist or group of scientists do an honest job and come up with the 'wrong' results, and are ridiculed or worse.
And science isn't the only area. Granted, most of my sources are anecdotal, but I also haven't tried to do much research on this. (It's far too depressing. I'd rather read about the fall of Rome.) -
Ah, Brigid, it isn't making mistakes that's tragic, its not correcting them. The prestige and integrity of science depends on being self-correcting :-) Scientists have recently made an earnest effort to do that with an open letter to the Bali conference - which unabashedly ignored it! lol.
The villains in the story might just be the Bali politicos :-)
Hmmm If they had only been this obdurate in their concern about the burning of the Amazon forest, or China's geometric growth in dense black billowing smoke stacks :-) Hmmm -
Excellent link from the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The article brings credibility to the growing number of scientists who discredit global warming. The part about retribution if they vocalize their dissent is deeply troubling.
Gore does think that climate change is a moral and spiritual challenge. He knows what he meant by his statements and choice of words. In the end, whether or not climate change is man-made, I believe we need to be good stewards of the earth and all it contains.
There are enough links in this thread to start a book. A few commentators on this thread think this is hogwash. I pity the mind that does not ask questions, seek understanding and thinks - without falling prey to the massive propaganda about global warming.
In then end, we will all know the truth and how we were lead down this road. -
Science should be self correcting, that is true. However, there seem to be a lot of people who see their careers as being hinged on no one ever refuting the contents of their doctoral thesis.
That causes a lot of problems.
-
-
Oh there is more to read here - I have been busy with other "work" - I'll come back and read through this later. Off to dinner.
-
Unscientific gobbledygook... people quoting a book verbatim without citing sources... heated, pointless debates... yes, it is religion.-
voodoo... Have you read the thread? There is a lot here and sources are cited. This discussion is not about a distant learning course, like aliasinkhorn said earlier People can do their own research though there are SEVERAL reputable links and commentators in this thread.
Take a look. -
Religion is not a bad word .. check out its etymology .-)
-
And Tillich said religion was any 'ultimate concern' And he was a theologian :-)
-
-
The discussion on Global Warming is still open :-) And CO2 has some company
C02 underpins nearly every aspect of discussions on Global Warming. Even though C02 has achieved prominence in Global Warming concerns, it has eclipsed another player, that might be the Big Mama for Global Warming.
Methane Gas.
News on methane gas has made it in the news, but if you are not in the habit of reading everything in the 'backpages' of your local newspaper you're sure to have missed it. Periodically news comes out about methane gas releasing into the atmosphere. Last year it was about the permafrost disappearing in Siberia consequently exposing old marshes AND METHANE GAS RELEASE.
A heavy weight and Big Mama of the atmosphere, it has it's regal influence in atmospheric dynamics. Not as popular as CO2, it's worth getting acquainted with her, BECAUSE SHE'S COMING :-)
BUT IS IT BAD NEWS? YOU BE THE JUDGE!
SEE FOR YOURSELF. BE INFORMED, AND LOOK SMART THE NEXT TIME GLoBAL WARMING COMES UP IN CONVERSATION :-)
www.physorg.com/news72539739.html
Gas escaping from ocean floor may drive global warming
Gas escaping from the ocean floor may provide some answers to understanding historical global warming cycles and provide information on current climate changes, according to a team of scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The findings are reported in the July 20 on-line version of the scientific journal, Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
www.physorg.com/news117390407.html
Scientists Find Good News About Methane Bubbling Up From the Ocean Floor Near Santa Barbara
Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is emitted in great quantities as bubbles from seeps on the ocean floor near Santa Barbara. About half of these bubbles dissolve into the ocean, but the fate of this dissolved methane remains uncertain. Researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara have discovered that only one percent of this dissolved methane escapes into the air –– good news for the Earth's atmosphere.-
You may also want to check out "Study: Siberian Bogs Big Player in Greenhouse Gas" news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0115_040115_siberianpeatbog.html"
From the end of the article: Smith added: "Since we focus so much today on man made sources of greenhouse gases, it's easy to forget that global climate changes also occur naturally. But we're in uncharted territory when it comes to combining man made sources with natural sources."
Smith cautions that if the Siberian peatlands, with 11,500 years' worth of carbon dioxide stored in them, start to rot away, we could be in for a shock.
I know this will have some people thinking, at least ot themselves, that "see, its natural", but they should be asking themselves what the Earth's population was when it last occurred naturally, and how many people depended on transoceanic trade to maintain their lifestyles at that time. -
@Techfun, The link came up 404, but I know there are other pages available on what is occuring with peat marshes.
I am continually tempted to post a listing of research reports published from the past month through the past two years on varying aspects of climate change. What is interesting, from a research perspective, is that they're - figuratively - like a scatter plot. Characteristically, where one sees a problem, another sees a benefit (most recently regarding plants). And surprisingly, in research on climatology or companion disciplines, abstracts, and summaries the words 'believe', 'probably', and 'likely' occur. In fact, research based on earth evidence, ie, deposits, bones, etc, don't use these terms of plausibility. This does not discredit climatology research - it is evidence that the science is not settled.
To discuss climate warming must begin with premises, which, from review, are not provided in the exposition, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. I think this makes for 'An Absence of Convenience'.
These premises would begin with:
global climate change is a natural phenomena
global climate change occurs because of precession, moon orbit, solar activity, etc.
etc...
and that on a bigger scale than human life, Earth has good days and bad. Cycles are a part of existence, for Mother Earth, too.
That modern civilized life activities has exasperated the cycle is clear. To what degree is NOT clear.
What is clear is that environmental issues of the past twenty years WITH IMMEDIATE actionable REMEDIES that are still GLOBAL ORPHANS. -
Its that trailing quotation mark. It should have been:
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0115_040115_siberianpeatbog.html -
@ALIASINKHORN:
"I am continually tempted to post a listing of research reports published from the past month through the past two years on varying aspects of climate change."
Please do post them.
**I am reading through the new posts and will visit the new links you and TechFun are posting. Great stuff** -
@GLOBALGIRL,
Maybe its a good idea; can we sell the linkbase for cash after? :-) -
@Techfun: Fascinating article about Siberian Bogs
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0115_040115_siberianpeatbog.html
Given the wealth of information contradicting man-made climate change (in various reputable sources) how is it that people continue to buy into it? Specifically, what is the PURPOSE of promoting man-made climate change?
Forgive me if this question has been answered here. Understanding motivations are key. -
On methane:
Save the planet! Shoot a cow!
-
-
@techfun, this article is similar to another published almost a year ago, however, showed a photograph of one area and stated these peatbogs were beginning to emit methane at a graduated rate.
There was an interesting American Geophysical Union article report about 6 years ago that addressed methane. I delayed to reply to search and retrieve this article - better than quoting it from memory.
I just found it. This is the link:
www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0112.html-
Oliver Wild's stuff is great. He'd probably be chagrined at people referencing that early work of his from April 2001. His newer peer reviewed stuff can be found linked from his Publications page on his site at www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/~oliver/pubs.htm
One of his 2007 papers "Multi-model simulations of the impact of international shipping on Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate in 2000 and 2030" is really fascinating. For the world economy to continue, international shipping MUST continue. It's not like personal transport that can, sometimes, be moved over to electric vehicles or mass transit.
"Increasing emissions from shipping would significantly counteract the benefits derived from reducing SO2 emissions from all other anthropogenic sources under the (IPCC) A2 scenario over the continents, for example in Europe. Globally, shipping contributes 3% to increases in O3 burden between 2000 and 2030, and 4.5% to increases in sulphate under A2/CGS." -
Yeah I saw the photos and HEARD the methane bubbles coming from a Siberian lake on an NPR feature. I only included it because addresses that issue of a huge, non-oceanic, carbon store that comes up in that Senate report.
-
WO! I was born when the earth was formed and both the earth and me were born without this vocabulary .. SO2, O3! :-) (Gotta speak the street ta get people ta understand .-)
And it makes perfect sense. Where mankind traffics, he leaves a carbon footprint, whether its a mule, a moped, a car, a train, a plane, or a boat.
And your post suggests that the science in its pursuits is evolving.
I will hit the link and review over the next two days. I will be splitting my time between rest, BC, misc, and mentoring a young man from faculty through his psychology dissertation. Secretly, I think he knows more than me :-) -
@TECHFUN - The link was broken for this article:
Multi-model simulations of the impact of international shipping on Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate in 2000 and 2030
Here it is again
www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/757/2007/acp-7-757-2007.pdf
It is really dense and I am too dense to get it all. -
-
-
This is great stuff that's coming up in this discussion. Permafrost contains only a small amount of methane compared to other locations.
Methane is a serious cuprit. All you need to do is dip your hand into some marshy water and you can smell it. It's everywhere that rotting vegetation occurs--whether in a cow's stomach or in a swamp.
The really scary source is methane hydrate wich is compressed into a solid under the oceans by the weight of the water and the cold temperature.
Check out some references:
"Gas (Methane Hydrate--A New Frontier" Dr William Dillon US Geological Service.
"Flammable Ice" Erwin Suess, Gerhard Bohrman, Jens Greinert & Erwin Laush
There are huge deposits off our Carolina coast, (Blake Ridge) and in the Gulf of Mexico. Other major deposits are off Japan's coast, the Nankai Trough and off the coast of Norway.
In fact, I had read a few years back that the shift of the bottom in the North Sea may have released enough methane to have started our current global warming trend about 10,000 years ago.
Although this is an incredibly abundant energy source I have serious concerns about sloppy engineering attempts to tap into this if companies or governments miscalculate and release large quantities of methane. From what I have read methane is about 10 times worse than carbon dioxide as a 'Greenhouse gas'.
We do live on a fragile planet.
If anyone out there who reads these comments has not yet read Jared Diamond's "COLLAPSE", they should do so.
We can survive if we use our heads.-
Links to JOHNMALENDA's sources:
"Gas (Methane Hydrate--A New Frontier" Dr William Dillon US Geological Service.
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/gas-hydrates/index.html
"Flammable Ice" Erwin Suess, Gerhard Bohrman, Jens Greinert & Erwin Laush
www.ebookmall.com/ebook/66903-ebook.htm -
Thanks for the Collapse book recommendation
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed:
www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Succeed/dp/0670033375
Threat of methane via bogs: Here is another commentary in the UK TimesOnline (Dec 17, 2007)
Looming threat to the world climate
The warming of the west Siberian bog threatens our future
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3059...
-
-
More good information regarding alternative energy can be found in National Geographic's October 2007 issue.
The lead article is "Growing Fuel The wrong Way, the Right Way" -
Just read National Gographics reference 2004 from techfun.
Hadn't seen that before. Siberian permafrost is a greater problem than I had read about.
It looks like Siberia and the North Sea are in competetion to do us in.
I do wonder how much surface had been exposed in Siberia at that time. Certainly today there is vast exposure but it must have been a gradual rather than a catastrophic event.
The North Sea event would have been a rapid release which started the rise in temperature which gradually exposed the Siberian land.-
I agree with you on being able to survive if we use our heads, and the discussion on global warming / climate change has many, many components to it.
After reading Techfuns' post and links, I realized 1.) the magnitude of the hijacking of the subject by certain parties, and 2.) how very little attention has been placed on other data that should be factored. I was going to add another link to accompany techfun's post but will add a little wry satire instead '-)
Report to Headquarters
Geologic structures, sediment and other artifacts, give discreet evidence and data regarding the history of earth's cyclic climate change. The irrefutable geologic evidence indicates that earth climate change can be and has been far greater than present conditions reflected in the concerns now displayed among the homo sapien population. Perhaps, this is the crux of the problem for homo sapiens. For the first time on earth, a life form can react, measure, record, hypothesize, argue, debate and discuss climate change that impacts its own species as well as other life forms.
Homo sapiens have been informed by certain select, and certified specialists among their population that their species has precipitated the observed climate change, though these select specialists records do not indicate by what index. Furthermore, many of the homo sapians' specialists communicate findings with caution, and with an absense of certitude.
A member of the homo sapian species, tagged 'Al Gore', has concluded - and aligned with a multiple of homo sapian influence resouces and selected knowledge specialists - that homo sapians are principly responsible for the climate changes and that a radical intervention shall be inuagurated and managed by and through the leadership of an global organization, and shall require funding by its member nations through a non-parity system, with atmospheric based credit allocations and credit trades to be be implemented and deployed with an accompanying punitive program for non-compliance.
NOT BEAUTIFUL WRITING, BUT NO MATTER, THE SUBJECT HAS BEEN MADE UGLY BY OMISSIONS.
Climate change is a serious matter, but the engineering of the context for addressing the problem at the exclusion of other data is an act of piracy.
The following article, among many that can be marshaled to the reader's attention, helps put the subject into a proper perspective with a necessary and fundamental focal point.
DISAGREE? AGREE? PERSAUDED? NOT SURE?
READ IT. THEN PUT YOUR MIND TO THE KEYBOARD AND ADD YOUR THOUGHTS :-)
Climate: Geological Views #1
By Steve McIntyre
www.climateaudit.org/?p=214
There are (at least) 3 things that I find interesting about this graph: 1) from a geological point of view, we are still in an Ice Age. The most recent Ice Age (not individually discernable on this graph), the one ending from 12-17,000 years ago, was one of the deepest in the entire history of the earth; 2) past climate changes have been much larger than the experience of the last millennium; 3) perhaps more surprising, earth’s temperature has careened out of control either up into a Venus-like hothouse of down into a Mars-like icehouse. I don’t get the impression that a whole lot is definitively known about either the causes of major climate change or the reasons for stability. Update (afternoon): Here’s another graphic from www.scotese.com showing climate in the Eocene (Early Tertiary ~ 50 MM years). The caption read as follows:
During the Early Eocene alligators swam in swamps
near the North Pole, and palm trees grew in southern
Alaska. Much of central Eurasia was warm and humid.
-
-
Outstanding input to this discussion.
Let's hope a few million people log onto this Blog and read this material.-
John, TechFun and Alias,
You have added so much data here - fantastic! I have to get caught up on all that has been added - but I did note that Alias said the following and I'd like to get clarification:
"a radical intervention shall be inuagurated and managed by and through the leadership of an global organization, and shall require funding by its member nations through a non-parity system, with atmospheric based credit allocations and credit trades to be be implemented and deployed with an accompanying punitive program for non-compliance."
Define: global organization (UN?)
Funding by member nations: is this related to the global tax initiative?
Punitive program: what would this look like? -
I'm a Johnny-come-lately on this post :-)
The last paragraph was deliberately hyperbolic, in order to underscore the remedies for global warming. I will tie this answer to the comments below regarding volcanic impact on climate, below. -
oops, I didn't finished.
Define: global organization (UN?) Yes, the UN, at this time.
Funding by member nations: is this related to the global tax initiative? Yes; a bonanza and windfall.
Punitive program: what would this look like? This is where imaginative hyperbole comes in; the UN has had difficulty in asserting its authority on major issues around the world, especially regarding conflicts: its catalogue of failure is large. However, in my opinion, there will be (inevitable) consequences for non-compliance through trade, etc. It is also my opinion that punitive consequences would not be uniform. These opinions are based on the seriousness of the behaviors of the countries now addressing climate at the international level, and especially the behavior of the block of accelerating growth countries, such as Brazil, India and China and their positioning and maneuvering and seeking exemptions in these 'discussions'. -
@aliasinkhorn:
My, what will happen to our relationship with China, let alone multinational corporations, if no compliance happens? Rhetorical question. We are a far cry from holding the Chinese accountable to anything (most recent lead in toys and other toxins added to eye solutions/toothpaste, etc), let alone climate change compliance. -
falalala laah lala la laah
-
-
@JohnMalenda, I agree with the proviso that your's is visited also.
-
Hello,
I am back, I have been applyiing for jobs at Monster.com. I need to find work again after 2 years.
Anyway, I see you are talking about HAARP. Have you ever heard of Dr. Nick Begich? He is a scientist in Alaska and his father, a late congressman, was killed in a plane crash in the 1970's I believe. Anyway, Dr. Nick Begich talks sometimes on Coast to Coast and The Alex Jones Show and Radio Liberty. He will talk, I am sure, where ever someone will listen to him talk about the HAARP program. www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/HAARP.htm
Do you ever see chemtrails over your home? I see them everyday and take photos of them and record it too. Usually, the chemicals go over my home at least 4 days a week, AM and PM.
So, who here thinks HAARP is a conspiracy? Who here thinks our government has our best interest at heart and all they want to do is love us and take care of us? I do not, not anymore, not since 2003 when I began learning about all this horrible activity going on through talk radio. Mainstream news will never tell us the truth because it is owned and run my the Rockefellers.-
Can you please describe chem trails?
-
-
Interesting direction the topic has taken. What exactly are chemtrails? We see the trails from planes flying overhead frequently and have heard that those emissions from planes are actually keeping our global temperature down because they help reflect sunlight back into space, thus masking the true progress of global warming. -
Actually they are called "contrails".
Wikipedia description:
Contrails or vapor trails are condensation trails and artificial cirrus clouds made by the exhaust of aircraft engines or wingtip vortices which precipitate a stream of tiny ice crystals in moist, frigid upper air. Being composed of water, the visible white streams are not, in and of themselves, air pollution. However, contrails generated by engine exhaust are inevitably linked with typical fuel combustion pollutants-
So chemical trails and contrails are synonymous? John, what do you think is the purpose?
-
-
Sure,
I have learned, through listening to talk radio, christian and secular, and reading about chemtrails online that the military has been spraying the skies throughout America, Canada, and now parts of Europe with substances that were being referred to as "mystery contrails", but later were named "chemtrails" by investigative reporter and author William Thomas.
Whenever the miliary or out beloved governmentis questions, they flat oout deny what they are doing to us, their own citizens and say they have no knowledge of any spraying going on.
Joe Burton, a reporter, has been investigating and reporting on this story from early on and because of his aggressive investigation, his house had been targeted for direct spraying by low flying, unmarked aircraft.
Taking photos with my digital camera, the zoom is not that far, but I do take photos daily and when you see the chemtrail, I hear no sound coming from the jet. It is silent, stealth like if you will.
I always wonder, am I the only one looking up into my skies? Am I the only one who sees what is going on here?
In a story posted Feb. 15, 1999, Joe reported physical symptoms that his family and his pet have been experiencing from the sprayings. Joe believed that many of these military tankers responsible for the sprayings are remote controlled aircraft (drones), but Al Cuppet (6 years with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff) has told radio talk show host Jeff Rense during interviews on June 1, 1999, May 16, 1999, and May 7, 1999 felt that many of these tanker planes were more likely being flown by foreign pilots, possibly Chinese or Russian.
Yeah, like that is any better and if so, they are in our airspace and we should know about this spraying, right?
You can read more about chemtrails at these websites:
educate-yourself.org/ct/#intro
www.chemtrailcentral.com/
www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Chemtrails
www.worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/Chemtrails.shtml
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I4wWTifb9o&search=chemtrails
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIAWWL4HQDg&mode=related&search=
members.cox.net/davehanson/weirdworld/chemtrail.htm
www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/chemtrails.html
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2004/050304nasachemtrails.htm
www.rense.com/general45/chemt.htm
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/241105vegaschemtrails.htm
You may think some of these websites are a bunch of you know what, and that is your preogative, but since the mainstream media will rarely, if ever, talk about chemtrails, the Internet is the only place to share this information.
The photos you see on these websites are exactly the same photos I take over my city.-
Um, that isn't proven, it's a conspiracy theory. More like an urban myth. I really don't buy it.
I actually watched a documentary on the subject once. They had people from both sides talking about it.
I found the arguments for chemtrails rather weak. If not down right laughable.
-
-
Congratulations, Globalgirl!
You have generated the hottest of discussion sites.
Now, when will I find time to do anything else?-
This is what people say to me: "You ask a lot of questions!"
Indeed, I do!
-
-
A piece taken from Skepicwiki which was referenced above: www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Chemtrails
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The supposed purpose of the chemtrail campaign is admittedly unknown, but speculation includes:
sterilization for genocide or population control
administration of drugs for mind-control or pacification
suppression of human evolution
various activities associated with grand conspiracy theories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is the purpose, obviously it's having little effect!
The population is growing and has become far from becoming more passive. -
Did you know that the incadecent light bulbs will be phased out? Did you know the new and improved light bulbs being touted on TV and Radio are made with Mercury? If one of these bulbs falls, you could become ill from picking it up. Oh, and who cares about taking 50,000 cars off the road when you will not be around to drive from Mercury poisioning.
www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2007/12/19/faq-the-end-of-the-ligh...
www.citynews.ca/news/news_8071.aspx
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003590856_lightbulbs27.h...
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/tech/main2524079.shtml
digg.com/environment/U_S_May_Start_Phasing_Out_Incandescent_Light_Bulbs_In_...
Popular Mechanics even talks about the CFL's and this is what they have to say: Why do CFLs require mercury to produce light?
Compact fluorescent bulbs are made of glass tubes filled with gas and a small amount of mercury. CFLs produce light when the mercury molecules are excited by electricity running between two electrodes in the base of the bulb. The mercury emits ultraviolet light, which in turn excites the tube’s phosphor coating, leading it to emit visible light.
Yeah, like I trust them, on face value. Does not PM work,in some part, for our corrupt government? Of course they are going to say the above statement, they have to push for us buying these CFL's and now, we are going to be forced to purchase them, period.
Whatever happened to choice, does this only apply to abortion(which I am totally against BTW)?
My goodness, I only wish there was a way, with all my new knowledge, to stop our government for trying to eliminate 80% of the population.-
Why do you think the govt wants to reduce 80% of the population?
What is meant by "Does not PM work,in some part, for our corrupt government?" What is PM? -
I don't understand the PURPOSE of these chem trails. I admit I am a skeptic about this BECAUSE this type of purposeful attempt to hurt humanity would hurt the very people that are suspected of doing this.
Please explain the significance and rational of this belief. Thanks.
-
-
Take your pick, light bulbs that contain mercury but reduce electrical power requirements, or build more power plants?
-
Neither.
I'd rather go solar or use another alternative energy source. -
On that note...
From: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency program concedes that not enough has been done to urge people to recycle CFL bulbs and make it easier for them to do so.
"I share your frustration that there isn't a national infrastructure for the proper recycling of this product," says Wendy Reed, who manages EPA's Energy Star program. That programs gives the compact bulbs its "energy star" seal of approval.
She says that even though fluorescent bulbs contain mercury, using them contributes less mercury to the environment than using regular incandescent bulbs. That's because they use less electricity — and coal-fired power plants are the biggest source of mercury emissions in the air. -
@TECHFUN - Thanks, I am a fan of NPR.
GE is the manufacturer of these CFL bulbs correct?
Is this about $$$ more than energy efficiency? -
GE is one of many many producers. I generally use Phillips because they are on the forefront of reducing the amount of mercury used and on energy efficiency ( www.lighting.philips.com/gl_en/news/press/sustainability/archive_2006/reduc... )
But I also use the GE bulbs that are sheathed in a lined globe so they look like normal bulbs and can hold a shade. The sheathing and globe also eliminate ANY accidental risk of mercury exposure due to dropping a bulb. You could get in there with a saw or knife, but its not by accident.
This kind:
-
Thanks for the image, Techfun!
-
'Ho, Ho, Ho... ' While everyone's asleep, and Santa's squeezing down chimneys to deliver presents and eat cookies and drink milk, I'm stealthily including this very late posting on CFL lighting :-)
A Nation of Dim Bulbs
12/23/2007
Weekly Standard, by Andrew Ferguson-
www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/519kutui.asp
Here are some excerpts from this (nearly sarcastic) article:
'The effect of the tightened standards is to make it illegal to manufacture or sell the inefficient incandescent bulb by 2014.'
'The new (CFLs ) bulbs are particularly vulnerable to extremes of temperature, for example; you won't want to use them in your garage in winter. CFLs are also 25 percent longer in size than the average incandescent.'
'You can't use most CFLs with dimmer switches, either; ditto timers. Newer models that can be dimmed and are adaptable to timers will require you to buy new CFL-compatible dimmers and timers.'
'...a CFL bulb can take two to three minutes to reach its full illumination after being turned on. And once it's fully aglow, according to Department of Energy guidelines, you need to leave it on for at least 15 minutes. In a typically chipper, pro-ban article last week, U.S. News and World Report explained why: "Turning a CFL on and off frequently shortens its life."'
'Sam Kazman, of the antiregulation Competitive Enterprise Institute, likes to cite the now legendary Great Light Bulb Exchange sponsored by a local power company in the tiny town of Traer, Iowa. Half the town's residents turned in their incandescents for free CFLs--and electricity consumption rose by 8 percent. The cost of burning electricity went down, and demand increased. Funny how that happens.'
'When a CFL bulb finally dies--after years and years and years!--it cannot be dropped in the trash like an incandescent; it must be recycled by specially equipped recycling facilities. CFLs contain mercury. If one breaks in your home, Kazman says, EPA guidelines suggest you open windows and leave the room for at least a quarter of an hour before trying to clean up the mess. And … don't use a vacuum, which could disperse the poison into the air. Even when they're intact, U.S. News happily tells us, "the bulbs must be handled with caution. Using a drop cloth might be a good new routine to develop when screwing in a light bulb."'
'In creating the ban, Bush and his environmentalist allies were joined by Philips Lighting, which is--you should probably sit down--the world's foremost manufacturer of CFLs. The phased-in ban will position Philips to crowd from the market any troublesome competitors.'
Wouldn't it be better to just plant some trees? :-)
-
-
It's hard to believe that the US government would try to kill off its citizens as some of Momoftwingirls references suggest.
Who would pay the taxes to fund their paychecks? -
Globalgirl, right on!
Let's plan on that! -
It always comes down to money. Follow the money.
I know, it really is hard to wrap out heads around a destruction our government and others are doing. I only began seeing these realities in 2003. Before then ,I was gungho and loved everything Repub/Conserv, but, then, once I began listening to these talk shows, not Right or Left either, my eyes and ears were opened. I mean, at first, I would turn the channel or X out of the show I was listening to because I thought it was a bunch of you know what.
But,when you have babies, twins, and you realize they will be forced to take vaccines, you begin doing reasearch, not only on vaccines and the dangers they cause to the mind and body, but you do even more research on other toxins, then, you find out our government has been trying and still is, doing all they can do reduce our population, by yes, 80%.
The greenies think our planet is over populated and we are the cause of this so called global warming. But, this is a false statement and only a way to control the popluation through mind control, yes, mind control, and propaganda.
This is an interview with now deceased Aaron Russo and Nick Rockefeller about a microchipped population from PrisonPlanet:
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/290107rockefellergoal.htm
www.population-security.org/rockefeller/007_social_aspects.htm
www.population-security.org/rockefeller/008_population_and_public_policy.ht... (slow pop growth(aka abortion)
FULL REPORT: www.population-security.org/rockefeller/001_population_growth_and_the_ameri...
www.pubpol.duke.edu/dfrp/cases/descriptive/rockefellers_population_council....
www.npg.org/forum_series/confronting.htm
www.fdrs.org/world_population_control.html
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58435
Just type in "80% Population Reduction" into your Search Engine and many,many links will pop up for you to read.
Oh, and do not use that lame excuse this is the survival of the fittest either. Hey, I was once "fit" until my government gave me Multipl Sclerosis in April 2005. Sure it was probably building in my body for 10 years, but the symptoms did not begin showing until after my twins were born. So now, I am not as fit as I used to be, but, hey, it is not as if I gave myself this disease. -
I think we're missing something in this discussion.
What else can affect the climate.
The supposed warming cause by people is, what, a degree a decade or so?
When Mount St. Helens blew temperatures went down a few degrees practically over night. Same thing with that island about a hundred years ago. Can't recall the name, it was in the area of the Philippines, I think. The whole island exploded.
And the biggest producers of methane, a greenhouse gas, are cows. They're constantly belching the stuff.-
It was Krakatoa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa
And yes, the possibility for sudden cooling can occur (nearly) immediately with a major volcanic eruption.
Krakatoa is an excellent example of the consequences of a major eruption. It influenced weather across the U.S. for, if my memory serves me correctly, for 3 years or longer.
There are scientists that are more concerned about the hazard to the wellbeing of life and society resulting from volcanoes (and earthquakes).
What is interesting is that the interior of the earth appears to be increasingly active. If there should be a major volcanic eruption, or more, the impact will be of more interest to us than lightbulbs.
Living in Europe puts me 6 to 8 hours behind the discussion curve and I'll stop to catch up on the remarks :-) Last night I fell asleep at the computer trying to stay awake to follow the discussion. Folks, it's great! -
Public interest in volcanoes doesn't occur until there is one, and because they occur so infrequently, science naturally doesn't factor them in climate change.
But they do have a significant impact on weather globally, and have been of increasing personal interest to me in discussions here in Europe regarding climate change. And, of little interest here to anyone else :-) Volcanoes look more like quirks of nature and a geologic episode.
What is profoundly interesting to me is when global warming is discussed - no matter from what side of the fence - volcanoes are not mentioned. One recent major article detailed climate change for the past twenty to twenty-five years and never factored the volcanic eruption in the Philippines in 1992.
This eruption cooled the earth by 1 degree Fahrenheit and is believed to be the cause of 1992's cool summer.
The USGS has a very interesting article on volcanic effect on weather.
Volcanic Sulfur Aerosols Affect Global Climate and the Earth's Ozone Layer volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/SO2Aerosols.html
The article also includes historic examples. '...one of the most severe volcano-related climate effects in historical times was associated with a largely nonexplosive eruption that produced very little ash--the 1783 eruption of Laki crater-row in Iceland. The eruption lasted 8-9 months and extruded about 12.3 km3 of basaltic lava over an area of 565 km2. A bluish haze of sulfur aerosols all over Iceland destroyed most summer crops in the country; the crop failure led to the loss of 75% of all livestock and the deaths of 24% of the population (H. Sigurdsson, 1982). The bluish haze drifted east across Europe during the 1783-1784 winter, which was unusually severe.'
Following this excerpt, consider this: it can happen in the States, as well. -
And it's possible that volcanoes had a hand in the extinction of the dinosaurs. (Actually the shock waves caused by the impact of a comet or large meteor that created volcanic activity on the opposite side of the globe.)
Really, nature is pretty harsh.
-
-
Yes, nature is pretty harsh. Take for instance that monkey in SoCalifornia who attacked its owner, I mean, almost killed him. This is unbelievable to me, but the owners,I believe said, "Oh he is such a nice monkey and he would never do anything like this if not provoked." I am thinking out loud, "Hello!! This monkey is an ANIMAL!!" We try our best to tame the untamed and we wonder why things like this happen. Come on now, Wake up people!! (Pepsi ad).
Speaking of natural occurances, what about Yellowstone National Park's Old Faithful. This will eventually explod and a possible nuclear winter occuring. There really is nothing we can do to stop this from happening. When it is time to blow, it will blow and probably destroy everything and anything in its path. The earth, without our help, does know how to restore itself.-
Yes! This is interesting. Plus I heard the ground is rising there.
-
(I don't know where the rest of the post went I submitted.)
I heard that the ground was rising at Old Faithful, too. It appears there's a lot of pressure building up. Plus I've heard that there's concern about continental earthquakes there for the US. It has some tectonic anomaly in its plate(s).
I met a young man in 1994 out of the US Army who said that he was part of a special team or project for control and I assume marshal law in the event of an earthquake that would strike in the vicinity of Kentucky - as I recall. Apparently the US goverment has some strong discomfort and misgivings about the local population there.
-
-
@brigid, yes, it's conjectured that it all happened that way, because nothing has been found in the any of the dinosaur diaries, last wills and testaments, or newspaper archives - to date, that is.
joking to lighten things up :-)
Volcanic activity may have played a role in the final disappearance of these large reptiles, but other phenomena must have been involved also.
When I was a boy in grade one, we went on a field trip to a state park, and were shown the imprint of a dinosaur's tracks in a rock. The guide told us how it was formed, by the dinosaur walking on soft qround or firm mud. For a child this makes perfect sense also. Except the child knows from mother's kitchen that to make soft hard heat is needed. The guide had no answer to this observation.
In any event, our range of temperature tolerance is small, along with most - but not all - living organisms on earth today. Mother Nature, sometimes takes a hot bath, sometimes a cold shower, and we scream in discomfort ;-)-
Marshal Law, now that is something I am not looking forward to. Are you?
We are indeed living in a Big Brother State or Nanny State.
Oh, oh, oh, do you think our government and military would make Old Faithful explode just to create a police state an control us?
This could happen....I would not put it past our government to, like I previously posted, remove 80% of the population. There is no better way of doing this than by making Old Faithful explode! Kaboom! Kaboom!
-
-
I posted a reply above to Globalgirl's question in reponse to my 'Report to Headquarters' comment. This comment is a follow-on and ties in with my comment on volcanoes, Bali, and Kyoto.
==
Volcanic effects on weather are 'quietly' shaping a better understanding of aerosols' impact. Freon, an aerosol, got chief billing for quite a long time as the villain in ozone reduction.
Volcanoes also spew out aerosol. This aerosol is sulfate. Industrial aerosol from coal-burning smokestack industries, as well as gas, wood, and coal generation for cooking and heating create an aerosol called carbon soot.
Aerosol sulphates create cooling by reflecting back to space solar energy causing cooling - like putting a silver reflector in your car windowshield. When a volcano erupts it spews sulphate which tends to disperse uniformly around earth, causing a drop in temperature uniformly as a consequence. (It should be noted that not all volcanoes emit the 'same' amount of sulphates; Mt St Helen's was 'low'.) There's also industrial sulphate emissions, such as in the U.S.
Industrial and human needs produced carbon aerosols absorb solar energy - in effect trapping it. Evdence for this is found currently in China, where carbon emissions has grown steadily for the past decades with corresponding increase in temperture - especially in the winter - have resulted.
And herein lies the rub for the Kyoto Protocol, the Bali conference, and Global Warming a la Gore; it all becomes an inconvenient truth of a different order.
In regards to aerosols and CO2: Kyoto wanted the US and EU to reduce emissions, exempting countries like China from reductions. However, it appears to me, that tho the US and EU produce a great deal of CO2, the new industrial nations, India and China in the vanguard, produce enormous volumes of carbon soot. And, interestingly, even the proponents of Global Warming put carbon soot right behind C02 in creating increased worldwide temperatures. (The global politics of the matter can be contorted :-)
The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 was fotuitous for science - it helped shed light on aerosols and climate by spewing 30 megatons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere resulting in cooling the globe - including China.
In the end not all aerosols are equal, and effect the climate differently. Sulphates, whether the result of humans or volcanoes, cool the atmosphere. Carbon soot warms it.
And in the end, this all only factors into a greater primordial phsyics of climate that existed long before mankind started smoking coal.-
Well, I did say it was a possibility, not a certainty. ^_^
Those people from the Kyoto Protocol are either nuts or on China's payroll. Possibly both. But then dog piling on America and Europe does see to be rather popular. Actual facts don't matter to these sorts. -
Bingo!
What China is doing is superb and masterful. Several years ago I had conversations with some members of government here and the topic of conversation was the (good) old days and communism. The conversation turned to China. I remarked that it was evident that China had learned a great deal from the mistakes of Hitler and Stalin, among others mentioned. Observing several years later, my opinion remains the same.
China has strategic objectives that define, guide and manage a number of initiatives and programs. Some are are for business, technology, and military intel. Some are population projections around the world, and development of so-called business bases which can be bases for intelligence - and, unfortunately for the West, perhaps other things one day. Other programs are influence and persuasion. Others are simply blackmail. And still others brute force, whether in Tebet or forcing heads of Chinese organized crime in Canada and US to be 'cooperative' with China's wishes.
Applied to Global Warming, Kyoto, and Bali, the Chinese will not be interested in a junior place at the table, will never or only minimally concede to responsible action; it will stonewall, demure or flatly say it will not agree to any initiative that obstructs its overall strategic interests whatever they be - articulated or not.
Everything China does is subordinated to several ends that vector to a greater purpose and final goal.
As a result, the Chinese are not and will not be adverse to financial persausion of principals in global warming - should I say - management. Nor will they be adverse to blackmail. -
@aliasinkhorn:
"Everything China does is subordinated to several ends that vector to a greater purpose and final goal."
Isn't this true for all leaders around the world? (note: not just govt) -
China will attempt to extend control of land mass and sea. In other areas of the world it will have a network for control and manipulation of political-economic geographies. One of its initial aims will create dependency on it, and to supersede the U.S. as an exporter. It is also preparing for war with the U.S. and is spending a considerable portion of its GNP for military equipment and modernization, albeit it has no enemies. Its program is not benign, and its behavior in discussions about global warming will yield great insight into how China will conduct itself in the future.
-
"China will attempt to extend control of land mass and sea. In other areas of the world it will have a network for control and manipulation of political-economic geographies."
The Chinese have been strategically planning this for years and their rights over the Panama Canal concern me, amongst other things.
Did you hear that according to www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59107
"The BBC is reporting that the Panamanian National Assembly has approved a plan to make teaching Mandarin obligatory, "in recognition of China's growing importance in the world economy."
**Shuddering**
-
-
@Brigid
As for the dinosaurs ... hmmmm ... would you believe they had a significant problem once with CO2? Must have been all those good looking dinos driving around with their fast cars looking for pretty dinos :-)
British Antarctic Survey put out a press release a couple of years ago tiled 'Carbon dioxide role in past climate revealed'. The news media must have thought it was an April Fools joke because it was dated April 11 (yes I know it is typed 11 and not 1 :-) In any event Al must have missed it, too.
Read it. Then, let us know what you think, ok?
Excerpt: '..we found points the finger squarely at CO2...'
www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=58-
Alias: Having read that, it seems to indicate that the Gore camp is right - and that our current CO2 levels are on par with past globalwide warming periods. De-coupling C02 based warming science from the blame issue, it appears that we are in for some trouble, or at least some serious changes to our climate.
This thread has been all over the place but just a reminder: It would help if people state whether or not they are addressing the issue of a change in climate or the issue of human's role in a change in climate. They are very different questions and mixing them prevents any rational discussion from reaching a conclusion. -
Techfun: Yes, this thread has gotten a bit messy
-
@techfun
You are right on everything you've written, and I respectfully disagree :-)
This is the first experience I have had with a forum in my life. It appears its very nature allows it to diverge, go on tangents, and return on topic or somewhere in the neighborhood of the topic.
The forim appears to me to be a salon, where each adds a thought, insight, fact, attitude, also, and wit or humor as their respective personalities by nature allow.
I have held back much information and knowledge that is germane - one person will say why didn't you add it! Another will say, just as well, you've added too much, and another will say, hey, that information would have taken us down a more interesting road.
So, I see this activity as exploratory in addition to .. I don't know what, frankly :-) If your opinion is correct, I don't fit. Full stop :-) There will be no problem, no acrimony, etc. :-) I have deeply appreciated the experience.
I hope you understand.
And truthfully, two things: 1. This is the first time since 2001 that I have written so much, and 2. I have felt all along that I was writing too much :-) I am disappointed that the forum could have had so many frequenters yet so few participants.
But, I got to practice my typing again. Thank you. .Ink. -
Here is what you can do regarding engaging readers and involvement: click on the avatars of the readers and send them a shout to invite them into the thread You can simply copy this URL.
This is how I got John pulled into the thread: I saw his avatar, clicked on it and visited his page, found out he worked for NASA, and that his interests include alternative energy. So I sent him a shout, and as you can see, it was effective!
Some readers may get completely overwhelmed by the content here. Understandable. -
Aliasinkhorn; Based on your response, I think you may have misunderstood my point. I wasn't suggesting any limitation on tangents and other divergences from globalgirl's original question. I just meant that when someone is responding in agreement or disagreement with a point, we can do a better job of specifying what exactly we agree or disagree on since that can help shape one's response.
-
@techfun, I fully understand your point.
-
-
@Brigid
And to say nothing about this..?
From Yale University: Deep sea algae connect ancient climate, carbon dioxide and vegetation
www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/Deep-sea-algae-connect-ancient-climate--c...
To Quote:
'The data indicates that between 45 - 34 million years ago the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was up to five times greater than today, with a sharp decrease and then stabilization to near modern day levels between 34 - 25 million years ago.'
I loathe lack of intellectual integrity on and in issues that impact lives.-
"I loathe lack of intellectual integrity on and in issues that impact lives."
Worth recording.
Anyone, what are the reasons for this lack of intellectual integrity? Motivations? -
Well, my Grandpa has said 'Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.'
I think a lot of people have a particular world view and only see the parts that agree with that world view.
-
-
I was not educated in the earth sciences. I am educated in the social sciences. But the requirement for synthesizing findings across disciplines is necessary in all science. The universe doesn't see itself disconnected or fragmented; we do because of our taxonomies.
Out of my research experience, I had a joke: 'Where's the truth? Its in the archives.' Mother Earth throws nothing away (usually) :-) Phenomena happen, and she records it :-)
We have an uncomfortable climatic phenomenon occurring. WE naively assisted it. Some argue we created it. Whichever it is, to put differences aside, it is a phenomena that has occurred before.
We have a responsibility to change our lives and our lifestyles. And we fear to begin the change. We have the gift of intelligence to do it as a species. We have done so many other great things before. Now we can achieve greater ones. And we can do it without goose-stepping to the beat of fear.
Read this article about ice sheets. WHAT DO YOU THINK? AM I OFF MY ROCKER??
Antarctic ice shelf retreats happened before
www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/Antarctic-ice-shelf-retreats-happened-bef...
'The scientists analysed sediments from the bottom of a freshwater lake close to the edge of the present George VI Ice shelf. The results revealed that about 9500 years ago the ice shelf retreated, allowing the sea to flood into the lake. The ice shelf didn't reform until 1500 years later, and has been present ever since.' -
This thread should be locked as it is impossible to follow it.
There need to be a limit on how many messages a thread can hold.
I suggest 100-150.-
The thread is healthy, and should continue.
-
It might be worthwhile for those interested, to save the content of this excellent forum to read and reflect on it at a later date.
-
It is a complete mess and impossible to follow if you dont check it every minute.
On top of that it is bumped all the time to keep it on the front page. -
jungl, I found it difficult when it only had 30 comments. And? I had two choices, 1. stop coming to this discussion (which I nearly did) or 2., use the scroll bar and shift up and down as needed to read threaded comments, which is similar to reading research papers - shifting left and right through pages with graphs, footnotes and endnotes :-)
This Forum was opened by Globalgirl, it is be HER call to close it ..
IF there are people disturbed by this forum, they can start a forum of their own, also.
To complain about this forum with options available is unnecessary. -
Why end it if people are interested? I say, let the thread live as long as there are people commenting, just like any other post.
Climate change is a very relevant, complex, yet controversial subject these days.
Indeed, this thread has taken a different spin than I intended, but I don't care. I like the various tangents, like I was sitting around a dinner table amongst friends, enjoying a delicious meal and engaging, intellectual conversation.
-
-
-
I like the link! :-) Home run, voodooKobra
-
Yes, great links Voodoo.
I laughed when I read your post.
-
-
I only wish that I had more time to spend on this discussion but life's duties call and I must pick up my paintbrush again.
Globalgirl, I thank you for starting this forum. Aliasinkhorn and Techfun I also thank you for all your references and solid input.
Let's hope that reason will prevail based on truth and evidence rather than on opinion and emotion.
There is too much at stake if we blunder.-
Thank you, JohnMalenda. Learned a great deal here, too. And it has been a pleasure to read your comments and read your blog.
-
-
It's true that incandescent light bulbs will be outlawed, and that compact fluorescents will be used by everyone. Did you know you have to dispose of the compact bulbs in a specific way? It takes EPA permission to throw them away, and you have to follow their guidelines when doing so. If one breaks, you have to exit the room and open windows for 15 minutes.
Scientific communities are still at odds as to whether global warming is truly the emergency issue some have led us to believe. While it is occurring, many scientists find it's at no faster a rate than ever.
I suppose my main problem is all the disposable items we all use. Look at the mountains of trash we generate. Even though paper and some plastics are normally biodegradable, they will never degrade in a landfill because they are buried. The don't receive the oxygen necessary to support the organisms that degrade them. So, don't feel too good about throwing away paper as opposed to plastics. Also, paper production actually produces more pollutants than plastic production does.
So, what can the individual do? Reduce the amount of packaging you use for things and reuse whenever possible. Use your own grocery bags. Use fewer convenience foods. Eat at fast food places less often. Use cloth diapers for the baby. Use cleaners that aren't harmful to the environment.
Forget about Gore. He's not the answer. We are.-
Are there any practices you do other than what you wrote?
Are there any groups that help address this the way you have written? -
There are animals that love our trash. I don't think pigeons, squirrels, rats, raccoons, bats, weasels, sparrows, or cockroaches will ever be endangered.
I could add to this list.
(And Mom used to use cloth diapers until they started disintegrating the wash after only two uses.) -
These compact lightbulbs contain mercury and this is why they have to be disposed of in a certain way. How lovely for us. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, if we accidently touch or handle the mercury, we could get sick and die and this is what our national leaders are crossing their fingers for?
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198
I think so and know so. They do not like it that our world has reached what, 6,602,224,175. They goal is to reduce it my 80%,why not let the people reach out, reach out and touch (old AT&T ad) a mercury laden lightbulb.
www.npg.org/forum_series/confronting.htm
www.population-security.org/rockefeller/001_population_growth_and_the_ameri...
www.population-security.org/rockefeller/012_population_stabilization.htm
sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.chem/2007-06/msg00258.html
www.getrealphilippines.com/solution/zpg.html
Yeah, for some reason, and I really wish I knew (total world domination), these elitist want to reduce the population (family, friend or foe) down to a managable size.
Play God is not a good thing.
-
-
@techfun, In any discussion, voice, pen, or type, there is always the option to ask a question for clarification. If there is any uncertainty about any comment, this option satisfies the interest to understand :-)
By the way, the the comments I posted today meant to show - if I failed - that climate change is historically a routine phenomenon. And the posts illustrate that research is seeing current patterns in the evidence of old ones.
These posts are meant to inform and stimulate further discussion. This topic is too important for people, and their chief channels of news and information have not been sufficient.
Of course, it would be wonderful to tag comments to follow some particular remarks in this discussion.
One of the refreshing things I have discovered from contributing in this forum is that I don't have to write like a stuffy scholastic back at university :-) We can write here now without an MLA by our desk, and rules of electronic engagement.
Ah, its so REFRESHING. We can lighten up, and TALK! :-)
BY THE WAY. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF MY POSTS? LIKE THEM? HATE THEM? If they were on a blog would you Digg them? Agree with them, disagree? Had no merit to the discussion? Or did?
What's your gut reaction to news that shows evidence that a popular campaign led by Mr Gore did not tell everything about Global Warming?
Do you get mad at all?
Or in the end, was homeschoolzoo's eloquently simple and direct statement the only one that matters? I think she is wise. Do you?-
I like your posts!
I think it has yet to be determined how much of an impact human activity has had on the climate, but I like your posts. ^_^
I just hope that when we have to use fluorescents they'll fit in the sockets that incandescent bulbs go in. I don't want to have to replace all my lighting fixtures. The disposal requirements seem kinda whacked, too. I seem to recall a news story about that. It was really crazy.
-
-
Just ran accross this and figured, "heck, why not throw my own two cents in."
Sticking to the topics originating title, I find the climate thingy difficult at best (amazingly unbelieveable at worst) to be even considered as a form of ANY type of religion on account of how much of a farce it is. At least the various primary religions, i.e., Catholicism, Hinduism, Christianity and even Islam, have centuries of history behind them. While "global whining" has but a couple decades, most notably the last few years under the watchful eye of the all mighty "goracle."
And with dissenters of the climate crisis now coming forward in droves, it seems to be succumbing to its final deathly spasms. (Thank goodness.)
Now, before any climate-nazi's decide to go ape-nuts, I want to make it clear that I DO believe that we should be taking better care of the environment. THAT, is just plain and simple common sense. But to the extent that the new age greenies are pushing for, I think not. As I've mentioned before in my posts, "I'll get serious about the environment, when environmentalists themselves get serious about it." I.e., giving up their cars and electrical items (pc's, freezers, tv's, etc.)
There, I had my little rant. Sorry about that.
Anyways, here are a few articles I've tapped out over this kinda thing.
hoopyfrooddude.blogspot.com/2007/12/tick-tick-tick-fight-global-whining.htm...
hoopyfrooddude.blogspot.com/2007/12/global-warming-takin-it-in-rear-again.h...
hoopyfrooddude.blogspot.com/2007/12/2007-year-man-made-global-warming-fears...
Enjoy, and keep on Bloggin'!-
Your're spot-on, in my opinion, of course :-)
There is a saying, 'Belief is irrelevant to the truth' - in this case truth's subject is about climate change.
Here's a quote from the article ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’ linked in your post:
'The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”'
With this, is Global Warming:
An opportunistic scheme?
The result of post hoc (ergo propter hoc) thinking?
Both of the above?
I think a problem has grown out of global climate change. And the problem is a person.
TELL THE TRUTH. TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH, MR X :-)
This is not to discredit concern for natural climate change, nor is it to dismiss the need for change in our ways of modern life. We have the brains to do it :-)
BUT WHAT DO YOU SAY? WHAT DO YOU THINK? -
I would disagree with your assertion that climate change is not anthropogenic. The linking of CO2 emissions and climate change, however, is pure pseudoscience. "Global warming" isn't the problem-- the dire predictions of Al Gore and company are politically motivated and completely divorced from reason and good science, and in that sense, yes it is exactly like a religion. And just like a religion, the moral imperatives of environmentalism become conflated and contradict each other, like the protection of endangered species, which is unrelated to climate change and opposed to natural selection. And it's a shame because it detracts from good science and rational efforts to preserve the environment for continued human inhabitance. We have real problems, like overpopulation and topsoil erosion, and yet we're wasting time worrying about harmless "carbon emissions" because Pope Al Gore I says so. -
@yhc, I'm confused by the sentence 'I would disagree with your assertion that climate change is not anthropogenic.' it looks at odds with everything you wrote which I agree with - the remaining balance of it. I made a remark earlier about Mills Method, suggesting that humans contribute, etc, but not the cause. And yes, there are other things that urgently need addressing. The net is this, there is interest to tax nations for 'global warming', but still no interest interest in overpopulation, agriculture and land management, etc. This is cause for alarm. If one man can lead the world to the table for money to fix a problem that cannot be fixed, then let him do the same for problems that can be attacked beginning next week. I am being rhetotical, because I know too much - my interest (which may be taxing to some readers) is to get them to the facts and mad as Hades, and get these other matters addressed. Prying some from beliefs that are founded on fiction is very difficult, yet necessary.
Can you help? -
I meant to edit this sentence : @yhc, I'm confused by the sentence 'I would disagree with your assertion that climate change is not anthropogenic.' it looks at odds with everything you wrote which I agree with.
stipulated, anthropogenic; there are those elements of climate that humans do effect and others which are going to occur with or without humans on earth. -
I ought to have elaborated on that. To deny that global warming is anthropogenic is tantamount to deny that the human population explosion has been affecting the climate. However, if I had read this (very long) thread more closely I would have noticed that we essentially agree as to humans being a contributing factor rather than the (sole) cause. My point was basically that a change in climate doesn't bring with it the doomsday scenario envision by the environmentalism fringe (a viewpoint that has been seeping into the unquestioning popular culture).
I wish I could help, I think it's just going to take time. Decades from now, when oil reserves are running low and food is getting scarce people, people are going to be a lot less concerned about the caribou in ANWR or the snow caps of Kilimanjaro. It usually takes a kick in the ass to get people paying attention to the things that matter. -
@johnsblog42
"While "global whining" has but a couple decades, most notably the last few years under the watchful eye of the all mighty "goracle."
Well said (along with the rest of your post) and very funny.
-
-
Since i posted here anyway, why on earth did Gore get a Nobel PEACE prize for this? Come on, there weren't any better peace activists this year?
-
Glad you got to read the thread. These comments you read at your first post had a pedigree. You articulate the issues perfectly. And yes, the absence urgent interventions not being addressed with the same zeal global warming initiatives currently have has vectors that point to a terrible catastrophe for humans.
-
It is political, and has significant self-interested parties involved.
-
The financial gain from global warming alarm is estimated to be greater (by some magnitude that skips my mind at the moment) than the worldwide information technology bonanza of the past three decades. Its a cash cow, and interested parties want to be at the top.
-
Too true, I heard something on the radio the other day about how Enron was itching to get into the "carbon credit" trading business. It may or may not be accurate, but it has the ring of truth, and gives you some idea as to what's actually propelling the hysteria.
-
YHC, glad to see your participation here.
Yes, how did Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize?! This makes a mockery of the very prize he received.
Did you notice how he said "It is time for us to make PEACE with the planet"? Let's meditate on that one for a minute. As if WE are in a position to do so! -
yhc, sure you've seen it this way: there have been urgent needs globally for the essentials of life, ie, land, crops, water, etc., but nothing has moved any of the very parties that are now in line to stop global warming, and conveniently omitting contra-evidence. Its about money.
-
Thanks global, this is a fascinating topic for me. As for Gore winning the peace prize, I think it's symptomatic either of the pervasiveness of groupthink infecting the highest and supposedly most sophisticated levels of society, or, as alias observed, it is motivated by money --or both. In any case, it's frightening that a Nobel Prize can be given away based on bad science.
-
-
Personally I think the earth would change regardless if we humans were here or not.
I think its just part of the natural cycle of things. The dino's once roamed the earth, now they are gone. What goes around comes around I suppose.-
Exactly, livefree.. with or without humans... I like your name by the way. I like being free and living free.
-
Been giving your comment a lot of thought, and in sum, this is my tentative conclusion:
Because the subject of climate change has been single-handedly overtaken by Mr Gore's zeal, it has quickly condensed into a belief system, with a self-confirming theory displayed as fact that has adherents, that brook no critique or disagreeing views.
Notwithstanding the science on climate change is not settled, Gore's zeal has taken, with the Nobel Foundations' imprimatur, the look of an apostolic mission, that now looks like a modern day cult with its acolytes on a pilgrimage to Bali.
While thinking on this, Hannah Arendt's remarks on human nature came to mind: the tendency of people to accept things uncritically and conform to group opinion (like riding a wave).
-
-
For those who have interest, here is the MONEY angle ala-Gore.
hoopyfrooddude.blogspot.com/2007/11/ive-said-it-for-while-now-gores-in-it.h...
The only time I've ever even seen the term trillion when in connection with money was when it was connected to the deficit.-
Great article on Newsmax (and I like your blog!)
The last paragraph is insightful to all who will see:
Asked why he is combining his environmental advocacy work with a profit motives, Gore — who is already an advisor to Google and a director at Apple Inc. — told Fortune: “We all believe the market must play a central role.”
**As Gore stuffs his deep pockets with more green in the name of going green.
-
-
And for those who wonder if there were any BETTER candidates for the Nobel?
This was Gores competition for the prize.
www.irenasendler.org/
It was beyond a mockery globalgirl. But I wrote a lil' about this too:
hoopyfrooddude.blogspot.com/2007/10/was-there-any-doubt-al-gore-wouldnt-get...-
I had heard of Irena Sendler but confess I never took the time to read about her life. After reading your link, I am incredulous that she did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize. A life time of dedication to a cause that will resonate through many lives for interminable time is given short shrift by an august body such as the Nobel Foundation.
The act of awarding Mr Gore the Nobel Peace Prise, in my eyes, has ruined its authority to judge and, more unhappily, shamelessly makes a mockery of Alfred Nobel's expressed requirement to honor people for outstanding achievements in the sciences, literature, and selfless work for peace. It appears that the requirements are now based on celebrity news profiles.
And, I get very uncomfortable when a prophet gets rich from his warnings. -
@Johns: You are a comedian of a wonderful sort. I enjoy your truth telling posts, set in the midst of humor and outrage.
Irena Sendler deserved the Nobel Peace Prize - hands down. I am chagrined to tell you that I was not familiar with her humanitarian work. But I will research more about her as the Holocaust has always fascinated me for a number of reasons. -
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's really a shame that the left has taken up this embarrassing cause so fervently, because it gives so much fuel to the Republicans, where they are otherwise pretty much ideologically bereft. Nothing against you personally johns, as I agree 100% with your very eloquent post about Sendler getting robbed, but this has to be the only issue where I find myself consistently agreeing with the type of people who are in favor of *ahem* a border fence. I guess politics makes for unlikely bedfellows.
-
@yhc, when it comes to American politics, never apologize about whose buggy you got to ride in to get where you want to go :-) On the other hand be sure you can pay the fare in the coin he wants; there'll be one to pay :-)
-
-
So then, in answer to the question that started the original discussion, have we concluded that Al Gore is the Messianic leader of a new semi-religious cult?
Will he bring us salvation?
Do we take the 'leap of faith' or do we rely on numbers and scientific fact rather than emotion?
Thank you all for your contribution of numbers and facts.-
I might make some folks chagrined, but I am reposting this comment where I failed to in the first place. My apologies.
Been giving your comment a lot of thought, and in sum, this is my tentative conclusion:
Because the subject of climate change has been single-handedly overtaken by Mr Gore's zeal, it has quickly condensed into a belief system, with a self-confirming theory displayed as fact that has adherents that brook no critique or disagreeing views.
Notwithstanding the science on climate change is not settled, Gore's zeal has taken, with the Nobel Foundations' imprimatur, the look of an apostolic mission, that now looks like a modern day cult with its acolytes on a pilgrimage to Bali.
While thinking on this, Hannah Arendt's remarks on human nature came to mind: the tendency of people to accept things uncritically and conform to group opinion (like riding a wave).
-
-
Ok, after reviewing Aliasinkhorn's comment, I can concede that the current "climo-enviro-crapola" can be considered a form of sect/cult/fringe form of a religion, (in some form.)
But with the growth of enviro-fascists that has rallied around him ever since his quest had begun, I'd tend to lean towards the cult-ish variant than a religious variant, as these folks seem to be trying to "diefy" him more so than merely follow. Does Jonestown seem familiar here? (Don't drink the kool aid.)
What is really of more concern to me than the "crisis" itself, is the amassed power inherant in such a position. A phrase that comes to mind which has been cited many times, yet seems to be paid little mind by many is;
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
--Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887.-
I agree with your points in comment.
There is a lot of social science to support alarm about centralizing control and management of climate change. It becomes a political horse and only a few can get on or get to ride it. The next tier are those who want to be 'close' to the riders.
Can you imagine if the Moon Mission had been a politically controlled project with those in power deciding what was the science to be applied and what was to be ignored?
Now we have, I believe, this phenomenon resident in the UN et. al. on climate change. -
THANKS to all who have contributed to a most fascinating discussion, with facts and data, bringing us to a conclusion of Gore's real motivation behind his climate change position.
-
"facists" and "nazis", you seem like a really nice person.
-
@jung1, you were referring to John's comments? He was attempting to get a point across of the extremism of the enviro-religion. Probably too strong of words, but...
-
Don't think jungl was referring to me. Why I can agree with johnsblogs42 is because earlier I was thinking that there appears a similarity ...(ie, fascist).
I didn't put it in my comment earlier or in my comment to him because it is hyperbolic and is an emotionally charged term for many. For me its a metaphor. Nevertheless, it takes many words to explain the use; too many for forum. -
@John/Ink:
I completely understand and support the fervor of your statements. You don't need to explain to me. This is a LOADED thread and there is much that is NOT being said but is available if people want to dig deeper.
"The truth will set you free"
-
-
After the references to the Sen. Inhofe sponsored report: "Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007" I ended up writing a post about the report at blog.techfun.org/400-skeptical-scientists
Did any of the people who cited the report actually read the whole thing and research these so called "experts" and prominent scientists? The spin level on this document would make Joseph Goebbels blush.-
The difficulty is that there is spin. My experience in the political world is that truth to often is to spin what Cinderella was to her sisters: something to dislike unless it serves an objective.
If your premise or belief is that the science is settled, then your mind is comfortably made up. Not everyone rode your bus.
Coming from an entirely different science background, it is amusing to see the tenets of science in general subordinated to agendas.
This is not to suggest that there is no contribution by mankind TO climate change. It is not to suggest that there isn't an imperative to change our way of transport, heating, lighting, etc. Of course there is.
But in following your posts, it's a curiosity why time is spent on questioning the backgrounds of so many that have a contrary position? If it is, it is distastefully ad hominem. -
And I used to teach that it is interesting that we teach about those who (often) didn't go to faculty and contributed to our knowledge as a culture who were ridiculed, dis-enfranchised, imprisoned, or executed by the very same type of people today that teach them (students) and do these things again to others now.
-
@Techfun:
Your fact finding produced compelling information but does not, in my assessment, negate the debate. -
globalgirl: The point is not to negate ANY debate. The debate will go on even after events predicted by the IPCC are a matter of history. (Regardless of whether some, all, or none of those predictions come to pass.) The point is that when someone like me who is NOT a climate scientist has to rely on experts to provide information that will affect my lifestyle, my voting choices, my shopping selections, and my charitable donations that I should be able to trust the information provided on US Government websites.
I know everyone just says that we can't trust politicians but I am not happy accepting that as a given. We should question authority when we see that our government infrastructure is being used to disseminate outright lies. Calling lobbyists and journalists "prominent scientists" to give weight to an argument is unfair and dangerous. If they do it on this issue, can they be trusted to ensure we have access to safe food and pharmaceuticals and that our crops are not sprayed with chemicals that will harm us somewhere down the line.
Its when people look at these things in a shallow view that we get into areas where debate occurs for the sake of debate. Aliasinkhorn, for example, seemed to have come to the conclusion there was at a possibility that I feel the science is in question, to the point that he had to ask. He said, But in following your posts, it's a curiosity why time is spent on questioning the backgrounds of so many that have a contrary position? after reading a post that defended the positions of some of people quoted in the Inhofe report because what they have to say is FAR FAR FAR more interesting and important than the soundbite sized quotes used in the report.
He goes on to characterize at least some of the post as "distastefully ad hominem" attacks for merely pointing out that sometimes "experts" have a motive for lying, or lack the claimed expertise as described in the reports introduction.
Debate should never be closed on ANY issue where a true consensus has not been reached. But the fact that debate is ongoing should not be taken as a justification for paralysis of will. As stated by one of the experts in the report that I liked a lot, it doesn't matter if humans are causing climate change or not because we can't stop it. We can and should however, in his expert opinion, put our efforts into mitigating its effects. Picking out a scape goat to blame just takes the attention away from things we CAN effect to the benefit of everyone. -
Correction: Third Paragraph second sentence should have read...
Aliasinkhorn, for example, seemed to have come to the conclusion there was at a possibility that I feel the science is settled, to the point that he had to ask. -
Tho the circumstances of my life make it a most humble one, I was educated and trained by the best, and have walked in the halls of power and into the rooms of the most learned. This altogether sometimes puts me in a difficult position when discussing publicly important issues. Sometimes I have proprietary knowledge. Climate change is no exception.
The problem occurs with the background of knowledge brought to the discussion. Some know more, some know less, and all have done their best to formulate a view on the matter, or accede to one provided. This is normal.
In participating in this forum, it was my intent to address the issue against the original theme: 'Gore & Climate Change: Is it Religion?' In order to address this effectively, 'Global Warming' must be examined as well, because this is the foundation of the theme.
Because this is my first forum participation in my life, frankly I wasn't sure how to participate. I could see problems immediately for me; my inclination is to sit with some fine chaps and discuss a subject unrelentlessly among us all. On the other hand, we can see each others' faces, too. I think you'll understand my meaning.
Yet where ever a discussion goes, I have always centered on the merit of the argument and the facts. I have never cared f5rom where or whom they've come from. This does not mean I'm a succor; many have learned hard lessons that I'm not. So, I have acquired respect because the only threshold, the only baseline, the only standard for me is the truth - which many times is not resident in the facts.
So, approach is important in discussions, and points of views have their gremlins of belief and agenda. Should I see that that is the case, I do what I can to dissolve them from the discussion, or to expose them. I am not always successfully, but I am always satisfied that I did it or made the attempt.
I have never sought the alienation of anyone in a debate, and a number in my life have nearly collapsed to find me a friend in me in spite of what transpired. But there is for me a hidden line in the sand.
Reading your post on your blog I thought, what problem does he see that I don't? Frankly, I thought it was a non sequitur to open with remarks about James Inhofe and the Iraq conflict. What relevance?
Your comment I respond to above is eloquent; it is understood and deeply appreciated - and not because of points of view. Should I have blundered into a misunderstanding, my apologies. -
Ah Aliasinkhorn, you saw the early draft that was up there earlier. The WP cache had an earlier draft there if you saw anything about Iraq. If you look now you will see the finished post. I flushed the cache so if you see anything about Inhofe's Iraq comments just refresh and should be fine. I'd originally focused more on the other odd things that have come out of Inhofe's office before switching tacks in support of the scientists.
-
@techfun, I read it .. but not for a third time :-) I tapped the Digg and saw that you got a wonderful comment comparing O'Reilly's No Spin Zone to - what was termed - 'Spin Free Zone'. Actually the compliment said O'Reilly's claims to be spin free. I'm too long in the tooth to leave mother wit for anyone else :-)
I think you have some worthy sentiments, and I am struggling not to touch one of them. In order to avoid doing that, I must not reply. .-)
If you wish me to make a comment on it, please reply.
-
-
Yeah, sorry about using the non-pc terms, globalgirl was correct in her assumption that they were used to get the point accrossed. But it gets me so frustrated to see the B.S. inherent with this enviro thing. Especially like the "strong-arming" of the American Undersecretary in the recent Bali gathering. That was a serious sham. If the environemntalist crowd was really serious about doing something to change the human-element, they wouldn't have crowded so many private jets onto Bali, that they had to start parking them on nearby islands after dropping off their passengers.
'Nuff said.
But I'll mention it again, I DO believe we should take better care of the environment, that's just common sense. Recycle, whatever you will. But let's not bankrupt a country any further by pressing into unnecessary and useless legislation.
"Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources."
-Ronald Reagan -
Consider these:
Neutral Overview of Climate Change .. Very good and interesting.. Good place to start. Tho it was written several years ago. It has no ideology behind it.
Earth's Fidgeting Climate
science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm
This is one of four videos on the subject of climate change. Smacks of things I learned in faculty - pre-Gore.
Past & Future Climate change - Pt 1of 4
UK.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=VDX2EXKYYQW
Interesting video views on climate and datasets:
Sir David Attenborough: The Truth About Climate Change
UK.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=S9OB9WDBXX0
The Science and Politics of Climate Change
UK.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=XUXDKXWHTSO
I'd rather be talking about alternative energy sources and technology:
Clean Energy Solutions for Climate Change
UK.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=MWPJOESXN-G
Electricity from all kinds of renewable sources
UK.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=NALBVHYYYUA&FEATURE=RELATED
Renewable carbon negative energy
UK.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=0OI1KYONWAU&FEATURE=RELATED
I have consulted with two gentlemen in Croatia.
One developed a system for bio-fuel, bio-mass, and land management and reclamation that was packed with such genius that he finally got backing with USAID and local government. People in the US were so amazed by it that they want to do it there.
The other gentleman has recently patented a system that can produce 500 to 600% reduction in electrical costs for hot water. We are still developing literature for it.
There are many other people 'out there' that have ideas. Knowledge didn't park its car in Academe. :-) Knowledge and ideas seem to be in the most unlikely places :-) History is full of examples .-)-
I will take a look at these links later. This thread has consumed a lot of my time and thinking, but I enjoy it. Stimulating conversation. Now, may all have a MERRY CHRISTMAS and I'll post about this after the festivities.
FA LA LA LA LA
-
-
i love this question
-
I've been wondering when you were going to pop in. Now which question are you referring to, considering there are MANY in this one thread?
-
Is it religion?
I've been avoiding it for days. There's not enough storage on Blogcatalog once I get started.
-
-
By putting a religious, spiritual, or philosophical bent on global warming it becomes a way to avoid the real consequences of the issue.
It is an environmental issue. The concrete reality of it is if you go to greenland the glaciers are melting, if you go to Indonesia, some of the islands are flooding, if you go to the Netherlands, they have to build bigger dykes to keep the sea out.
Concrete realiities scare people. They don't want to acknowledge when it is ten degree warmer where they live, or there is a lot less snow. By turning something into an abstraction, they can ignore the world around them.
The more abstract it is the more comfortable some people become.
I consider it my spiritual duty and my human duty to show people what
is in front of them. Some people simply cannot pay attention to anything.
To pay attention to something is to learn about it. Learning is impossible
without attention and it is very uncomfortable.-
You bring up a great point. It's an environmental issue, and Americans have demonstrated a concern about the environment for longer than any other nation.
The many environmental problems that Americans have encountered have been addressed over the years. Its record is equal to none. Americans have performed the largest number of public works in the world, many done by the Army Corp of Engineers. There will be need to do more.
To quote, 'The average global citizen generates 4.5 tons of carbon dioxide annually, compared to the 20 tons generated by the typical American each year.'
It now comes down to what Americans do in their daily lives and what choices they make as consumers. Choosing 'carbon-offset' products might be a good beginning. Clean Air/Cool Planet has produced "A Consumer's Guide to Retail Carbon-Offset Providers", describing the 'eight most reliable sellers of carbon-offsets'. -
@wehireu, How do you approach people on the problem?
-
-
To look after the environment is not a religion, it is a moral, social and conscience issue. What Gore has done is brought focus to the issues worldwide like no other individual has.
For example, no one outside the USA would care about Gore. I mean, in Australia only ever hear about the President. I will not make any comments on the current one, it is not my place. However, I do suspect that if Gore had been elected the 20 tons per USA resdent would be considerably lower, or heading in the lower direction. I am hopeful that the newly elected Australian government will also turn Australia into the greener nation.
Honestly, it is not hard to be greener. Think about how simple it is to change to energy efficient light globes, solar power for outdoor lights, growing your own produce, recycling waste and conserving water. All the measures are simple. You do not have to go out and spend a fortune, every bit of conservation helps.
As for personal transport, get out of the gas guzzler and onto a bus/train. Yes it is not as convenient, but it is by far the simplest and quickest measure you can take.-
You make excellent points, shadowknight! with some exception maybe. lol
The way the American system works isn't a dictatorship - yet, anyway. The approached to initiatives is also political initiative, as well. The congressional constituents have power for change, at least ideally. Sometimes their government fills the vacuum when the people don't speak or speak up. So Gore couldn't have made fiats all day long to make or influence environmental change. It probably works the same there in Australia.
Americans changing consumer habits is one place to start, however. Another one is lawn, garden, park .. you name it, if they help Mother Nature do her job, it will impact the environment, and possibly significantly.
To appreciate what we do with the landscape to help, read this the following article. Now this speaks of doing something on a large scale, but everyone doing something on this plot of land collectively can and should make a difference.
Wilder parks can tame climate change threat
Huge tracts of Britain's landscape should be reclaimed from farming and go back to nature to lock up carbon dioxide and counter global warming, says a government ecology expert
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/23/climatechange.carbonemissions -
ERROR : but everyone doing something on this plot of land collectively can and should make a difference.
but everyone doing something on their own plot of land can or should make a difference collectively.
-
-
HAS ANYONE HEARD ABOUT HOW MUCH COAL IT TAKES TO SAVE ONE 2MB FILE ON HARD DRIVE?
There was an article that came out several years ago that showed how much coal is required to save one 2MB file to disk. It was astounding.
*IF* my recollection serves me correctly, it takes 2 pounds of coal.
IN ANY EVENT, THE QUESTION IS, WOULD YOU GIVE UP YOUR COMPUTER TO HELP SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT? -
It took awhile, but after two days an old friend at MIT finally answered my email request for information on climate change. Surprised by his answer because he referred me to videos on youtube. I was disappointed until I viewed them all.
They are compelling disclosures on climate change.
There wont be any question in the credentials of these scientists, and their university affiliations are tops flight.
These videos provide excellent demonstration of both findings, methodologies, and critiques of the process in exploring climate change. And their opinions surprised me in light of present activities by the UN and the Bali conference.
Past & Future Climate change - Pt 1of 4
UK.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=VDX2EXKYYQW
Interesting views on climate and datasets
Sir David Attenborough: The Truth About Climate Change
UK.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=S9OB9WDBXX0
The Science and Politics of Climate Change
UK.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=XUXDKXWHTSO
(time to retire before the sun rises :-) -