PDA

View Full Version : Scientists Offer Dire Forecast for Earth



WMR
03-12-2007, 05:26 PM
Scientists Offer Dire Forecast for Earth
Climate Report Warns of Global Warming Effects

By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP

WASHINGTON (March 10) - The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.

Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.

For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.

The draft document by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on global warming's effects and is the second in a series of four being issued this year. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.

But some scientists said the overall message is not likely to change when it's issued in early April in Brussels, the same city where European Union leaders agreed this past week to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Their plan will be presented to President Bush and other world leaders at a summit in June.

The report offers some hope if nations slow and then reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but it notes that what's happening now isn't encouraging.

"Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent," the report says, in marked contrast to a 2001 report by the same international group that said the effects of global warming were coming. But that report only mentioned scattered regional effects.

"Things are happening and happening faster than we expected," said Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., one of the many co-authors of the new report.

The draft document says scientists are highly confident that many current problems -- change in species' habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs, and increases in allergy-inducing pollen -- can be blamed on global warming.

For example, the report says North America "has already experienced substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from recent climate extremes," such as hurricanes and wildfires.

But the present is nothing compared to the future.

Global warming soon will "affect everyone's life ... it's the poor sectors that will be most affected," Romero Lankao said.

And co-author Terry Root of Stanford University said: "We truly are standing at the edge of mass extinction" of species.

The report included these likely results of global warming:

Hundreds of millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than 1 billion people in Asia could face water shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people, depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air.

Death rates for the world's poor from global warming-related illnesses, such as malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. Malaria and dengue fever, as well as illnesses from eating contaminated shellfish, are likely to grow.

Europe's small glaciers will disappear with many of the continent's large glaciers shrinking dramatically by 2050. And half of Europe's plant species could be vulnerable, endangered or extinct by 2100.

By 2080, between 200 million and 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming's effects.

About 100 million people each year could be flooded by 2080 by rising seas.

Smog in U.S. cities will worsen and "ozone-related deaths from climate (will) increase by approximately 4.5 percent for the mid-2050s, compared with 1990s levels," turning a small health risk into a substantial one.

Polar bears in the wild and other animals will be pushed to extinction. :(

At first, more food will be grown. For example, soybean and rice yields in Latin America will increase starting in a couple of years. Areas outside the tropics, especially the northern latitudes, will see longer growing seasons and healthier forests.

Looking at different impacts on ecosystems, industry and regions, the report sees the most positive benefits in forestry and some improved agriculture and transportation in polar regions. The biggest damage is likely to come in ocean and coastal ecosystems, water resources and coastal settlements.

The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America, Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects.

"In most parts of the world and most segments of populations, lifestyles are likely to change as a result of climate change," the draft report said. "Net valuations of benefits vs. costs will vary, but they are more likely to be negative if climate change is substantial and rapid, rather than if it is moderate and gradual."

This report - considered by some scientists the "emotional heart" of climate change research - focuses on how global warming alters the planet and life here, as opposed to the more science-focused report by the same group last month.

"This is the story. This is the whole play. This is how it's going to affect people. The science is one thing. This is how it affects me, you and the person next door," said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver.

Many - not all - of those effects can be prevented, the report says, if within a generation the world slows down its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. If that's the case, the report says "most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely to occur."

The United Nations-organized network of 2,000 scientists was established in 1988 to give regular assessments of the Earth's environment. The document issued last month in Paris concluded that scientists are 90 percent certain that people are the cause of global warming and that warming will continue for centuries.

WMR
03-12-2007, 08:32 PM
What does everybody think about this article? The fact that over a thousand scientists are pretty much in agreement over some statements/hypotheses that are pretty damn frightening/harrowing really stuck with me after reading this warning.


Hundreds of millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than 1 billion people in Asia could face water shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people, depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air.


The global instability from such a scenario kindles within me possible apocalyptic futures such as were depicted in the Terminator film series. It sounds crazy until you think about the world-wide implications of HUNDREDS of millions of people growing more and more desperate as they and their children slowly starve. Nuclear proliferation much?

:feedback:

hebroncougar
03-12-2007, 08:47 PM
While I tend to agree with some of the sentiments, at the same time ,when are the scientists going to start telling people what in the heck to do? I think it's happening, whether we could stop it or not, or are the only cause of it I think is debatable.

KronoRed
03-12-2007, 08:51 PM
Eh who cares? not like any of us will be around when this bad stuff might happen ;)

Oh wait..a lot of us will be :help:

GAC
03-12-2007, 08:52 PM
So why do I have a 401K?

KronoRed
03-12-2007, 08:53 PM
So why do I have a 401K?

So when the ice caps melt you can afford the boat you'll need :D

BoxingRed
03-12-2007, 08:57 PM
Check out the movie Children of Men for a good look at that future.
I think we in the US are able to put a lot of that out of our minds since we will always have water running from our taps and, comparatively, food for our tables.
Things will really come to roost if/when everyone else realizes we're the only ones that have those luxuries.
It's really not too late to turn it around. As Al Gore points out it an Incovenient Truth, we once were directly responsible for destroying the ozone layer with CFCs. People and governments woke up, banned CFCs, and found other technologies and now things are hopefully going to continue to improve.
Problem is, the world wasn't addicted to CFC's. We are addicted to fossil fuels. Solving problems rooted in an addiction is extremely difficult.

BoxingRed
03-12-2007, 09:02 PM
So why do I have a 401K?

I ask myself that all the time.
I know you were making a joke, but on a serious front, I often ask, "Why should I have child?" "Who would force their kid to deal with those kinds of problems?"
It's a toughy.
Sorry if that is a downer, but it really is the essential question that needs to be asked.

George Foster
03-12-2007, 09:04 PM
How do these guys make their living? By getting grants from the government right? Follow the money. They will say anything to get the next grant. Not much grant money in saying that nothing is wrong, just "gloom and doom."

A perfect example of this is when alcoholism was ruled a disease by the American Pshchological Society and the AMA. If it a "disease" you can bill your health insurance to treate it..... Big business!!

RBA
03-12-2007, 09:06 PM
So why do I have a 401K?


Air Conditioning will become expensive?

westofyou
03-12-2007, 09:11 PM
Air Conditioning will become expensive?

Who has air conditioning?

BoxingRed
03-12-2007, 09:12 PM
How do these guys make their living? By getting grants from the government right? Follow the money. They will say anything to get the next grant. Not much grant money in saying that nothing is wrong, just "gloom and doom."

A couple of holes in that thinking that I see.
1. The current executive government and the last few congressional governments haven't exactly been a the fore-front of global warming doom and gloom.
2. There is that pesky stuff called evidence and research. I doubt 1000's of scientists are all corrupt grant stealers.
3. Again, it's very easy to ignore what's happening here in the US. Try heading over to central Africa or Northern China and ask them if they have seen some real and lasting changes in their envrionment.

westofyou
03-12-2007, 09:26 PM
How do these guys make their living? By getting grants from the government right? Follow the money. They will say anything to get the next grant. Not much grant money in saying that nothing is wrong, just "gloom and doom."

A perfect example of this is when alcoholism was ruled a disease by the American Pshchological Society and the AMA. If it a "disease" you can bill your health insurance to treate it..... Big business!!

http://earthhopenetwork.net/pollution_water_china.jpg

http://www.syriait.net/photos/uncategorized/air_pollution_china.jpg

pedro
03-12-2007, 09:31 PM
Global warming is a "grant scam"?

All I can say is WOW.

westofyou
03-12-2007, 09:34 PM
Global warming is a "grant scam"?

All I can say is WOW.

Sounds like Fox News has covered it.

BoxingRed
03-12-2007, 10:25 PM
Global warming is a "grant scam"?

All I can say is WOW.

Actually I am not surprised to hear people say this.
Rick and Bubba went on and on with this theory the other day.

Betterread
03-12-2007, 10:35 PM
Excellent topic and post, WilyMoRocks. While the US has signed but not ratified the Kyoto treaty, there are some initiatives being taken:

(taken from Wikipedia)
As of January 18, 2007, eight Northeastern US states are involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI),which is a state level emissions capping and trading program. It is believed that the state-level program will indirectly apply pressure on the federal government by demonstrating that reductions can be achieved without being a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol.

Participating states: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts.
Observer states and regions: Pennsylvania, Maryland, District of Columbia, Eastern Canadian Provinces.
Formerly participating states that have dropped out: Rhode Island
On August 31, 2006, the California Legislature reached an agreement with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to reduce the state's greenhouse-gas emissions, which rank at 12th-largest in the world, by 25 percent by the year 2020. This resulted in the Global Warming Solutions Act which effectively puts California in line with the Kyoto initiative.

As of March 11, 2007, 418 US cities in 50 states, representing more than 60 million Americans support Kyoto after Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle started a nationwide effort to get cities to agree to the protocol.

Large participating cities: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, Denver, New Orleans, Minneapolis, Austin, Portland, Providence, Tacoma, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Little Rock, West Palm Beach, Annapolis, Madison, Wisconsin, Lansing, Michigan

Caveat Emperor
03-12-2007, 10:46 PM
Honestly, the stuff they write about happening as a result of global warming is almost too "big" to even comprehend.

And, to listen to most scientists talk about it, we're already too far down the path to do much about it. The only real hope we have is to develop some new technology within the next 30-40 years that either regulates the temperature or helps to deal with the symptoms of global warming (better desalinization technology to convert salt water into drinking water; more efficient farming technology).

I mean -- when you read this, what do you do as a citizen? You can try to conserve as much as possible, but it doesn't matter unless a lot of people around the world get on the same page -- and that doesn't seem like its going to happen.

RBA
03-12-2007, 11:20 PM
I'm doing my part. I'm paying $3.07 a gallon for gas, so the oil companies can develop new technologies to solve Global Warming. :thumbup:

TeamBoone
03-13-2007, 12:00 AM
Read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". Yes, it's a novel, but all the scientific references contained within the covers of the book is based on facts (complete with references). It might change your mind about the fear of global warming.

George Anderson
03-13-2007, 12:11 AM
A good book to read is "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" by Christopher Horner. The author was on Mike Mc Connells show the other day and gives a pretty convincing argument that the global warming scare is nothing but a last ditch attempt by the leftists in the world to control the worlds economy. A good read!!

MaineRed
03-13-2007, 12:17 AM
I agree TeamBoone.

And what about the Global cooling scare these same scientist were filling our ears with in the 70s?

The Earth is not a stable place. Things change. All the continents used to be connected. Why do I feel as though if Al Gore and his band were alive back then he would have bee screaming that such and such was causing half of the planet to fall into the ocean?

And who cares about Polar Bears? Conditions they can't live in can be taken up by something else. That is why we used to have dinosaurs and no longer do. Things change.

westofyou
03-13-2007, 12:24 AM
a pretty convincing argument that the global warming scare is nothing but a last ditch attempt by the leftists in the world to control the worlds economy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/0330chewbacca.jpg

WMR
03-13-2007, 12:39 AM
Polar bears being displaced is not something that will occur within a vacuum. In order for that to happen, their habitat has been destroyed to the point where they no longer have sufficient ice floes to go through their various stages of life. What does that mean? The ice caps have melted significantly. What does that mean? The oceans of the world have risen. How many millions would be affected/displaced if the world's oceans rose... five feet? Ten?

Has any species throughout Earth's history possessed the technology to adversely affect her atmosphere like humans? Clearly the answer is no.

Read about how many deaths occur in a year in Tehran, Iran due to poisoning from fossil fuel emissions. You want to tell me humans don't have an affect on how this planet ages? You want to risk the lives of our children and their children on the supposition that global warming will not ultimately have a disastrous impact on our planet and on humanity?

What's the downside to cleaning up the messes that we are creating? A cleaner planet? Cleaner air? Maintaining the diversity of wildlife that we were blessed enough to inherit?

I'm an Eagle Scout, a hunter, and an avid conservationist and the proposition that "no one should care about the polar bears" is, to be blunt, not only idiotic but an incredibly rudimentary and amateurish way to view the beautiful and astonishing blessings provided through appreciation and dedication to conserving and venerating Nature.

Conditions they can't live in? I suggest you have a look at my other thread dealing with detecting catastrophic asteroid collisions with our planet. Do you suggest we suspend the attempts to identify and thwart any such potential dangers to our planet? If a collision should occur, we shouldn't bemoan not doing more since if we can't survive in the conditions as they evolve (like the DINOSAURS?!?!) we don't deserve to survive?!

I choose to take a more enlightened approach to our Planet and the Creature's who habitat it; humans at the forefront, but certainly not excluding other species when such exclusion is absolutely unnecessary.

M2
03-13-2007, 12:52 AM
Actually I am not surprised to hear people say this.
Rick and Bubba went on and on with this theory the other day.

And therein lies the problem. When thousands of responsible scientists go ignored after showing the off-the-charts amount of carbon dioxide we're pumping into the earth's atmosphere and laying out what the effects will be and yet people instead turn to two radio wags named Rick and Bubba for their expertise on the subject ... well ... that's Darwin in action.

Chip R
03-13-2007, 12:55 AM
It is easy for people in the US to put this out of our minds because it won't affect us more than places like Africa and Latin America. But, if this does happen, who are they going to go to to help them out? The richest nation in the world, that's where. And if they can't survive in their land, where are the survivors going to go? Same place, right here in the good old US of A. Now maybe all that stuff is going to happen and maybe it ain't. But if it does, we better be prepared to deal with it. That's going to involve some long range thinking. Something we aren't at good at.

fargo55
03-13-2007, 01:11 AM
While I tend to agree with some of the sentiments, at the same time ,when are the scientists going to start telling people what in the heck to do? I think it's happening, whether we could stop it or not, or are the only cause of it I think is debatable.

I agree that the Earth is heating up. What I am unsure of is the reversibility of the trend. My home state of North Dakota was under the largest known glacier in North America just 10,000 years ago. So, I'm pretty sure we have been in an upward trend for more than the automobile and fossil fuels could have accounted for. This to me, would demonstrate the Red River Basin and it's geologic significance, to be a telling reminder of a very long-term trend. One that outdates any possible contribution from the industrialization of our country. That does not mean we should not be aware of our situation. I'm in favor of massive reductions in the consumption of fossil fuels for simpler reasons. I would like to see our country free of the dependence that we have on Middle East oil. I think that our contribution to the wealth of that region has kept them from joining a more rational economic reality. So, while I am concerned about the Planet, I'd be more in favor of the immediate. Us being able to leave the Middle East to their own business of working towards peace, without us.

FoReel
03-13-2007, 01:23 AM
Has any species throughout Earth's history possessed the technology to adversely affect her atmosphere like humans? Clearly the answer is no.



Our intelligence is our biggest strength, to bad it might be our downfall. This is not a liberal or conservative issue, it's a global issue, saying that I view myself a pretty conservative person but reading that wants me to go do something about it.

WMR
03-13-2007, 02:00 AM
I agree that the Earth is heating up. What I am unsure of is the reversibility of the trend. My home state of North Dakota was under the largest known glacier in North America just 10,000 years ago. So, I'm pretty sure we have been in an upward trend for more than the automobile and fossil fuels could have accounted for. This to me, would demonstrate the Red River Basin and it's geologic significance, to be a telling reminder of a very long-term trend. One that outdates any possible contribution from the industrialization of our country. That does not mean we should not be aware of our situation. I'm in favor of massive reductions in the consumption of fossil fuels for simpler reasons. I would like to see our country free of the dependence that we have on Middle East oil. I think that our contribution to the wealth of that region has kept them from joining a more rational economic reality. So, while I am concerned about the Planet, I'd be more in favor of the immediate. Us being able to leave the Middle East to their own business of working towards peace, without us.

I recently saw a documentary where scientists, on an expedition to the north pole, utilized a process similar to counting the rings of trees to calculate more-or-less exactly the age of ice currently melting.

Their findings? The ice that is melting RIGHT NOW is MILLIONS of years old. What does that mean? The ice in the arctic circle that IS melting is ice that remained frozen through the last ice age and thaw. What does that mean? What occurred in places such as North Dakota was almost certainly the inevitable 'conclusion' and 're-birth' of some sort of cataclysmic event (asteroid?). What scientists are observing now is a phenomena most likely unrelated to previous global temperature changes because the areas of ice affected have remained intact for, literally, millions of years.

pedro
03-13-2007, 02:07 AM
A good book to read is "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" by Christopher Horner. The author was on Mike Mc Connells show the other day and gives a pretty convincing argument that the global warming scare is nothing but a last ditch attempt by the leftists in the world to control the worlds economy. A good read!!


I'll get right on that.

BoxingRed
03-13-2007, 07:35 AM
It is easy for people in the US to put this out of our minds because it won't affect us more than places like Africa and Latin America. But, if this does happen, who are they going to go to to help them out? The richest nation in the world, that's where. And if they can't survive in their land, where are the survivors going to go? Same place, right here in the good old US of A. Now maybe all that stuff is going to happen and maybe it ain't. But if it does, we better be prepared to deal with it. That's going to involve some long range thinking. Something we aren't at good at.

I agree 100% Chip. Global Warming is a national security issue.

zombie-a-go-go
03-13-2007, 08:36 AM
Read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". Yes, it's a novel, but all the scientific references contained within the covers of the book is based on facts (complete with references). It might change your mind about the fear of global warming.

Sorry, TB; Crichton is a hack and his science is terrible. Even the people whom he interviewed for his 'facts' have expressly stated that Crichton drew incorrect conclusions from what he was told/shown and twisted his research to support the conclusion he wanted for his work of fiction.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

Here are some other scientists speaking, specifically, about State of Fear:


"The best peer-reviewed science since Jurassic Park."


"Filled with laugh-out-loud errors."


"The car chases drew me in, but the misleading graphs were the real fun."

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcrichton.asp

Michael Crichton is a fiction novelist. I'll say that again. He gets paid to make **** up.

I think you and MaineRed should see this:


Nevertheless, Kenner excels at getting equally fictitious lawyers and Hollywood celebrities to see the error of their ways. But for some reason, Crichton never has his mouthpiece argue against another scientist who reads the evidence on climate change differently and can cite literature to back his or her view as well. In our world--the real world--you can find a small army of these. I have interviewed many of them, heard others lecture, and met still more at conferences. In Crichton's universe, however, they seem not to exist.

Crichton's scientific footnotes--which he promises "are real"--similarly misrepresent reality. In the text of State of Fear as well as in its 20 pages of citations, Crichton glosses over a high profile 2001 National Academy of Sciences report entitled Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Key Questions, which opens with the following passage:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary effects are suggested by computer model simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs.

The mention of "human-induced warming and associated sea level rises" is particularly interesting, because Crichton seeks to debunk concerns about rising sea levels. Crichton's footnotes also exclude statements by the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, which broadly agree with NAS. No wonder real life climate experts, of the sort that Crichton excommunicates from his "novel," have scathingly critiqued his depiction of their field and the level of understanding it has achieved.

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/crichton/

Do yourself a favor and Google "Crichton State of Fear." See what comes up. Every link to a scientific organization's website says the book is a load of crap. Only the conservative political policy websites, and Crichton's own site, say "great book!"

Now ask yourself; who do you trust when it comes to science? Scientists or pro-business politicians and a fiction novelist? It boggles the mind that people can be so blind, so self-deluded, and so unwilling to face the cold reality of what we are doing to our planet by way of our addiction to burning fossil fuels that they're willing to believe a man who wrote a book about cloning dinosaurs for an amusement park and radio hosts named "Bubba" over people who have doctorates in climatology.

:bang: :bang: :bang:

Sea Ray
03-13-2007, 09:11 AM
I don't know if these predictions are valid or not but I don't stay up at night worrying about them. Just as I didn't worry about the Y2K predictions in the late 90s. Nor the ice age predictions in the late 70s.

World temps have varied throughout the history of the earth. Two questions:

1) Are people the cause of it this time?

2) Can people control the earth's thermostat?

There are those out there that think gov't can solve any problem, including lowering global temps. I disagree wholeheartedly. It's a big world out there and there's precious little we can do to turn back global warming if it is indeed happening. There are much more powerful influences on global climate than mankind.

westofyou
03-13-2007, 09:17 AM
Now ask yourself; who do you trust when it comes to science? Scientists or pro-business politicians and a fiction novelist? It boggles the mind that people can be so blind, so self-deluded, and so unwilling to face the cold reality of what we are doing to our planet by way of our addiction to burning fossil fuels that they're willing to believe a man who wrote a book about cloning dinosaurs for an amusement park and radio hosts named "Bubba" over people who have doctorates in climatology.
Hey.... Mike McConnell is a popular Cincinnati, Ohio, radio talk show host. His show has been nationally syndicated since July 2006.

Now why should I listen to a scientist again?

919191
03-13-2007, 09:19 AM
There are much more powerful influences on global climate than mankind.


I don't know much about this issue myself, but I think it is time for some self-education.

What other influences could there be? Those crazy little meerkats?

zombie-a-go-go
03-13-2007, 09:31 AM
Hey.... Mike McConnell is a popular Cincinnati, Ohio, radio talk show host. His show has been nationally syndicated since July 2006.

Now why should I listen to a scientist again?

Because, oh, who cares? It's our children who'll have to deal with the worst of it. Not me. Just those two little girls over there at the kitchen table busy coloring away in their Sesame Street and Hello Kitty coloring books.

And when it comes to the fate of my kids, who can be bothered with doing a little bit of research? Good God, man, you think I have the time in this busy schedule to tell my kids not to accept rides from strangers or why they shouldn't stick their toys in the electric socket? Hell no! I've got a baseball game to watch!

Anyway, I've got to go jump into my SUV now and drive to the grocery store two blocks over - hopefully Mike McConnell will be on the radio.

zombie-a-go-go
03-13-2007, 09:32 AM
I don't know if these predictions are valid or not but I don't stay up at night worrying about them. Just as I didn't worry about the Y2K predictions in the late 90s. Nor the ice age predictions in the late 70s.

World temps have varied throughout the history of the earth. Two questions:

1) Are people the cause of it this time?

2) Can people control the earth's thermostat?

There are those out there that think gov't can solve any problem, including lowering global temps. I disagree wholeheartedly. It's a big world out there and there's precious little we can do to turn back global warming if it is indeed happening. There are much more powerful influences on global climate than mankind.

There's that can-do American Spirit for you.

Sea Ray
03-13-2007, 09:36 AM
I don't know much about this issue myself, but I think it is time for some self-education.

What other influences could there be? Those crazy little meerkats?

Something other than CO-2 emissions caused the glaciers to melt 10,000 years ago.

Mankind does not have the power to control global climate. We can't just throw a switch and warm/cool things off.

There are those who think gov't is the answer to poverty, racism, homelessness and hurricane relief. If gov't can't solve those problems, you think they can control global climate? Al Gore's arrogance in overestimating gov't's power and influence is astounding.

I hope these dire predictions are not right, but if they are, strap yourself in and get ready for a wild ride 'cause driving more hybrid cars and burning more ethanol is not going to effect global temps.

zombie-a-go-go
03-13-2007, 09:39 AM
Mankind does not have the power to control global climate. We can't just throw a switch and warm/cool things off.

However, we can act to lessen the effects, if not mitigate them completely. Just because things are going to get bad doesn't mean we shouldn't try to keep them from getting even worse.

But you've got that boat pictured in your avatar to haul around, so I'm sure you don't want to listen to anything that might suggest that you could make a difference by driving less or giving up some of your God-Given-Luxuries.

919191
03-13-2007, 09:41 AM
Anyway, I've got to go jump into my SUV now and drive to the grocery store two blocks over - hopefully Mike McConnell will be on the radio.


You ever see The Gods Must Be Crazy? I love the seen early in the film, when it shows the lady, a member od civilized society
peeling out of her driveway into the street to a mailbox about 30 feet from where she started her car. She mails something, then peels out again, and drives the 30 feet or so back to her original spot.

westofyou
03-13-2007, 09:44 AM
Al Gore's arrogance in overestimating gov't's power and influence is astounding.

Yeah, he's the only crazy guy in the government from my last count... oh and John Kerry, yeah him too.

919191
03-13-2007, 09:44 AM
Something other than CO-2 emissions caused the glaciers to melt 10,000 years ago.

Mankind does not have the power to control global climate. We can't just throw a switch and warm/cool things off.

There are those who think gov't is the answer to poverty, racism, homelessness and hurricane relief. If gov't can't solve those problems, you think they can control global climate? Al Gore's arrogance in overestimating gov't's power and influence is astounding.

I hope these dire predictions are not right, but if they are, strap yourself in and get ready for a wild ride 'cause driving more hybrid cars and burning more ethanol is not going to effect global temps.

Look, I don't have really any knowledge about this issue, and I am frankly ashamed of it. This issue does seem one that alot of people form their opinion based on partisanship loyalties. I am not saying this is you- but it is out there.

Sea Ray
03-13-2007, 09:45 AM
However, we can act to lessen the effects, if not mitigate them completely. Just because things are going to get bad doesn't mean we shouldn't try to keep them from getting even worse.

But you've got that boat pictured in your avatar to haul around, so I'm sure you don't want to listen to anything that might suggest that you could make a difference by driving less or giving up some of your God-Given-Luxuries.

Excellent post. (Rep points coming your way!)

The idea that giving up that boat and the global warming situation will improve is a perfect example of that Al Gore arrogance that we control global climate.

Sea Ray
03-13-2007, 09:52 AM
Look, I don't have really any knowledge about this issue, and I am frankly ashamed of it. This issue does seem one that alot of people form their opinion based on partisanship loyalties. I am not saying this is you- but it is out there.


I think every issue has its partisanship loyalties. In this case some support pouring a lot of money and fear into this issue. Some don't. I think this thread clearly shows who falls in which partisan category and there's nothing wrong with that.

But I don't think politics has anything to do with it. I don't think how you feel about abortion, the Iraq war, tax cuts or embryonic stem cell research has anything to do with where you come down on global warming.

George Anderson
03-13-2007, 09:55 AM
Hey.... Mike McConnell is a popular Cincinnati, Ohio, radio talk show host. His show has been nationally syndicated since July 2006.

Now why should I listen to a scientist again?

Actually I was referring to a book written by Christopher Horner giving an different view point on the whole global warming hysteria. You can put your head in the sand and ignore an opposing view point or you can open up a book and actually read what other educated people are saying on the subject.

919191
03-13-2007, 09:59 AM
Actually I was referring to a book written by Christopher Horner giving an different view point on the whole global warming hysteria. You can put your head in the sand and ignore an opposing view point or you can open up a book and actually read what other educated people are saying on the subject.

Heck, in college a guy down the hall from me had a book- an actual hard-bound book that was about the dangers of drugs. I still remember a section that actually said that it was fact that one marijuana cigareet can cause flashbacks years later in life.

westofyou
03-13-2007, 10:00 AM
Actually I was referring to a book written by Christopher Horner giving an different view point on the whole global warming hysteria. You can put your head in the sand and ignore an opposing view point or you can open up a book and actually read what other educated people are saying on the subject.

Yes, it is I who has his head in the sand, thanks for pointing that out.:laugh:

paintmered
03-13-2007, 10:05 AM
Take it to the peanut gallery.