Who says climate change is a negative phenomenon, why must we intervene, why must we play God and alter the weather? There’s been times when the earth has been far warmer, there’s been times when the earth has been far coolrer, long before the dawn of man. Perhaps warmer weather is optimal for life, life in general seems to thrive when the earth was relatively warmer (obviously there’s such a thing as too warm, but what is it exactly, where do we draw the line?). As it became cooler/warmer, some species died off, other species had to adapt/mutate, and others thrived. There’s a lot of money to be made off of carbon taxes, consolidating the economy, and government determining how much fuel you can use, and who (they tend to come down harder on the working and middle classes, and small businesses, which is a way of big business eliminating its competition), what, where, when and why you can use it, fines, penalties and so on and so forth. I agree there are genuine environmental issues like deforestation, immigration, gmos and chemtrails, but climate change is likely not one of them. I think we should focuse on the issues that’re obviously a product of human intervention, instead of something which is not at all obviously a consequence of our interference, something silly like carbon dioxide, I mean carbon dioxide is natural, animals exhale it, plants inhale it, and animals exhale a hell of a lot more of it than vehicles will ever do, how is that pollution? It’s just a wealth/power making scam, which is yet another reason why we can’t trust government (ie organized violence. If peaceful individuals don’t give a shit about the environment, what makes you think aggressive authoritarians give a shit?) to intervene to save anything. Government is corrupt and incompetent, as history has demonstrated time after time. It’s up to individuals to alter their consumption habits and peaceably, rationally, convince and persuade others there’s problems in need of sollutions (but you’d rather bypass that slow process of peaceable, rational debate, you reckless, tyrannical authoritarians). Modern life and living can be detrimental, not just to the health of Gaia, but the health of individuals. It likely needs to be dealt with calmly, rationally and organically… or maybe I"m wrong, maybe it doesn’t need to be dealt with at all, or in the manner I believe it needs to be deal wtih, you see libertarians acknowledge the possibility that they’re wrong, their fallibility, where as authoritarians think everyone who doesn’t agree with them and go along with their scheme precisely in the manner they propose is criminally insane and should be locked up. I care about my health, I minimize stress, I walk/ride my bike as much as I can, I consume organic foods and medicines as much as I can. Peoples attitudes are already changing appropriately and proportionately.
We’re already doing that anyway.
Haha, I notice you snuck chemtrails in there.
Did you read the info graphic I posted? It’s pollution because we are creating too much of it, and we are doing so faster than the atmosphere and plant life can process it. Poop is natural too, but I don’t want to be swimming in it.
Yes but now we’re taking it a step further, by interfering with human nature in addition to nature. If interference is the problem, then is more interference the solution?
Did you like that? I just had to huh? Couldn’t resist. But it’s true, it’s happening, possibly in the name of climate change, it’s being conveniently covered up like everything else in this country for reasons of “National Security”. I watched a documentary recently where scientists were proposing we sulphur trail the sky in order to deflect sunlight and avert climate change or some crazy shit like that. Now, if I could just find that documentary. Oddly they were even showing pictures of real chemtrails as they were debating and discussing sulphur trailing the atmosphere.
I’d be much, much more worried about artificial chemicals manufactured in a laboratory than carbon dioxide, yet the ecofascists seem to focus the bulk of their energies on carbon dioxide. More shit might be bad for you and me, but it’s good for plants and what’s good for plants is good for you and me, so, where does that leave your argument? Carbon dioxide is like shit, let’s help plants grow. There was a hell of a lot more carbon dioxide during the Jurassic period, and we all know how small and malnourished plants and animals were back then.
Yes, I think so. Assuming, of course, that we want to keep living the way were are. Otherwise, we’d have to modify our life styles on a massive scale such that further intervention wouldn’t be necessary.
I’d be much, much more worried about artificial chemicals manufactured in a laboratory than carbon dioxide, yet the ecofascists seem to focus the bulk of their energies on carbon dioxide. More shit might be bad for you and me, but it’s good for plants and what’s good for plants is good for you and me, so, where does that leave your argument? Carbon dioxide is like shit, let’s help plants grow. There was a hell of a lot more carbon dioxide during the Jurassic period, and we all know how small and malnourished plants and animals were back then.
[/quote]
I think it leaves my argument right where it was. Shit is good for plants so long as it isn’t too much, too fast for the plants to process it; otherwise the plants would obviously die. That’s kind of the point. Carbon dioxide in itself isn’t bad, but it could be if the levels get out of control. Keep in mind that when I say it could be bad, I mean relative to our current ecosystem. Our ecosystem wasn’t the same in the Jurassic as it is now. We want to maintain optimum conditions for life as we know it to persist.
Radical change can happen with or without government. Without government would be more organic and isn’t that what we want, organic change? Artificial change is what’s got us into this mess in the first place. In some cases, man may want to downscale, downsize and powerdown the economy,in others he may want to make his technology more efficient,in others he may want to do nothing.Let’s let individuals decide what kind of changes are compatible with their beliefs and their lifestyles rather violently impose change from the top down
There’s no indication shit (co2/warmth) is piling up at a faster rate than it’s piled up in the past. How do we know present conditions are optimal for life as we know it? Increased levels of co2/warmth seemed to benefit the dinosaurs.I’m not saying more co2/warmth would benefit us,but there’s no reason to believe it wouldn’t,and if life then was anything like life now,it seems more warmth/CO2 might be beneficial,although it’s difficult to say with certitude
A recent study has found that a mean temperature rise globally of 1.5 degrees will release more CO2 and methane from permafrost melt than all the CO2 and methane currently in the atmosphere and could do so in less than a decade. That’s guaranteed to “pile up” faster than earth’s present biomass could handle. That temperature rise of 1.5 degrees could become reality within ten years. Even if it took 50 years, we aren’t doing anything that might slow the rate of temperature increase down.
Should this temperature rise produce the projected levels of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere, greater acidification of the oceans would follow, and if you destroy the phytoplankton, write your obituary…
Now who’s playing chicken little?
For anyone interested in the global warming scam I would recommend Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth by Christopher Booker and Richard North.
+++Modern society has regularly, in recent years, been gripped by a series of headline making “scares” - from mad cow disease to SARS – which have become one of the most conspicuous and damaging features of our modern world. This book is the first to tell the inside story of each of the major scares of the past two decades, showing how they have followed a remarkably consistent pattern. It analyzes the crucial role played in each case by scientists how have misread or manipulated the evidence; by media and lobbyists who eagerly promote the scare without regard to the facts; and finally by the politicians and officials who come up with an absurdly disproportionate response, leaving us all to pay the price, which may run into billions of dollars. Scared to Death culminates in a chillingly detailed account of the story behind what the authors believe has become the greatest scare of them all: the belief that the world faces disaster through manmade global warming. In a final chapter, the authors take on its proponents such as Al Gore in a devastating critique of the consensus on global warming and its consequences.+++
books.google.co.uk/books/about/S … edir_esc=y
Basically, the facts are these. Global warming is a lie. The hockey stick graph promoted by Al Gore and others was fabricated, and in fact, the 1930s were hotter than any decade since. There was a period of cooling from 1940 to 1975, just when carbon emissions were at their highest. Since then, the temperature has risen again somewhat. Measurements taken near cities, however, have been distorted due to the heat of the city. The cycles of cooling and warming are not linked to carbon emissions, but are very closely linked to the sunspot cycle, which is an indicator of the strength of the sun’s magnetic field.
During the Medieval Warming Period temperatures were higher than today and more land was under cultivation. In general, warmer periods (one coincided with the Roman period as well) were times of increased prosperity and stability. This is obvious when you think about it. Something that is warmer and wetter is more likely to be conducive to life and growth than something that is colder and drier.
The measures taken to combat global warming are patheticially ineffectual, and grossly expensive. Nothing we can do as humans, save, for example, exploding all our nuclear weapons at once, could possibily have any real effect on the climate, which is a force of nature beyond our control. It is typical human arrogance to assume that we can.
To summarise:
- Global warming isn’t actually happening.
- Even if it is, it is caused by the sun.
- Even if humans are causing it, there’s nothing we can do to stop it.
- Global warming is a good thing.
Don’t get me wrong, I am most certainly an environmentalist. But this is a completely separate issue.
Maia,
As I wrote earlier, the what is causing it is a side issue. What is important is our contribution to warming and doing what we can to control that. The denial that warming is happening simply is bollocks. If one is uncertain, then all they need to do is look at the comparative satellite imagery over the last decade of arctic ice melt or the shrinking coral reefs as ocean acidity increases. All the conspiracy theories become irrelevent with that imagery. All the this much, what it means, when it is going to happen, blah blah blah makes for interesting books and newspaper articles, but it isn’t just “scare” tactics. Quite frankly, if it doesn’t scare you, it should. Climate change is happening, and the results arent going to be pretty. The idea that there is nothing we can do about it may be true, but there is no way to know that without making the effort. Is controlling carbon emissions expensive? As compared to what?
Sitting on our ass pretending we have nothing to do with global warming followed by the “can’t do anything about it” is defeatism of the worst sort. But playing “you can’t see me” is a common human attribute so maybe you’re right. Just continue on till the bad consequences start rolling in and then blame the other guy.
Sorry, but that’s just emotive pleading. I heartily recommend that book. Global warming isn’t actually happening. The figures have been forged. The ice caps have actually been getting thicker in recent years, in the interior of Antarctica and Greenland.
The trouble with saying that we should try and do something is the crippling effect it has on the economy.
Tell me, Maia, in this book do they get into the whole 9/11 - Al Qaeda scam? I’m amazed by how many people still believe that a couple of dozen people could outwit the C.I.A., N.S.A., F.B.I., NORAD, D.I.A. and so on when they didn’t even seem to be aware they were being constantly watched.
I’m kinda with Maia here - I’m an environmentalist, but I don’t believe in global warming (well, not the potentially catastrophic man-made kind). But I do believe in anthropogenic climate change, and even potentially catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. For example, the deforestation of Europe will have changed the climate in this part of the world, though I don’t have access to enough data to say precisely what the impact has been. Nonetheless, the air quality in Europe in worse (less nourishing to human life) than it was 500 years ago, I am confident of that.
Forget the publicly available data on temperatures because it has all been processed through a series of calculations designed to take account of the urban heat island effect, but the science behind those calculations has never been publicised, never been subject to peer review, and the scientists primarily responsible in this country would rather become criminals by destroying that data than release it for public scrutiny. That is not how honest science works. That so many other scientists (professional or ideological) will defend this, usually using political reasonings, speaks volumes about how widespread this sort of intellectual and moral corruption is in the scientific establishments.
But hey, we get iPhones out of it so science must be good, right?
No, it didn’t mention any conspiracies about 9/11. For a very good reason, in my opinion, namely, there weren’t any. Except the obvious one, that a bunch of Muslims decided to commit mass terror in the name of Allah.
Maia - let me get this straight. You’re an environmentalist that thinks that driving zillions of cars around and around every day doesn’t have an adverse effect on the atmosphere?
I didn’t say anything about government intervention or violent imposition. However, I don’t think it’s best to let each individual decide what is compatible with their beliefs. Some people’s beliefs are wrong and they shouldn’t be allowed to justify careless behavior because of them. Take “dommsdayers”, for example, who believe the world will be ending soon so it doesn’t matter what we do to it. That isn’t a remotely practical or beneficial attitude.
Actually yes, there clearly is an indication of that. I don’t get why you keep comparing us to dinosaurs. Carbon dioxide and methane are detrimental to life at certain levels. Also, the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect, which contributes to global warming.
Maia,
I realize you would have problems “seeing” satellite images of arctic and Greenland ice melt, but have someone you trust to google up those satellite images and tell you what they see. I think some of your information is either skewed or dead wrong. The ice melt is happening - period. The same thing is happening in Antarctica as well. The satellite images provide overwhelming proof of global ice melt. I didn’t mention glacier retreat, but that is happening all over the globe as well.
Of course, all the pictures could have been photoshopped, but that leads to conspiracy theory and I’ll have no part of that until someone provides proof positive that global warming is a hoax. The evidence that global warming is occurring is overwhelming.
No, I’m sure it does. It doesn’t cause global warming though.
There’s no evidence that increased carbon dioxide causes the greenhouse effect, and good evidence that it doesn’t. The greenhouse effect is actually caused by water vapour, which is dependent on cloud cover, which in turn is dependent on the sun’s magnetic field.
No, there are multiple greenhouse gases. And carbon monoxide molecules absorb heat energy—that’s your evidence. I’d love to see evidence to the contrary if you have it.
Why not? Because you say so?
Good old argument by assertion that avoids the key question, namely how this ‘bunch of Muslims’ managed to successfully evade the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA, NORAD and the rest of the multi-trillion dollar military intelligence complex of the United States. And not how this did this once, on the morning of 9/11, but did this consistently since 1989, from the point at which that military intelligence complex last admits that this ‘bunch of Muslims’ was our proxy army against the Soviets. It also avoids the issue of this same ‘bunch of Muslims’ continuing to function as our proxy army against the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo, against Gaddafi in Libya (at least twice), against the Iranian theocracy (Jundullah and the MEK), as well as being used by the Algerian, Pakistani, Saudi, Egyptian and Afghan security services within their own borders and beyond.
But fuck all that, right? That doesn’t matter, because it’s easier to just think some bunch of Muslims did it.