| 5:14 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
When I went outside this afternoon I saw children at school sports outside in shorts and t-shirt, the daisys were in full bloom, little ladybirds and the first butterflies were flying around. All perfectly normal - for April. And many birds didn't even bother flying south this year but staid right were they were.
So nice idea Dell. But unfortunately I fear it's too late to stop climate change it's already here.
| 5:32 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Hmm, I guess no one remembers "Plant a tree in 73"?
| 5:51 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Climate change has been going on for millions of years. Who in their right minds really think that humans are going to do anything to change it?
But even with a "too little, too late" mentality, I don't see anything wrong with planting trees.
| 5:56 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Only us old folks ..
just thee and me ..
did you plant a tree in 73?
I planted some more in 74..
in 75 twenty three were alive,
in 76 though ..five were just sticks
so in 77 their numbers were even
in 78 their apples were great
in 79 the pears were real fine
in 80 I moved ..and someone? took over ..
and so it goes on ..we hope :)
| 5:56 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Who in their right minds really think that humans are going to do anything to change it? |
I think we already did. But don't worry - now we have the rest of the world crteating a new coal fired factory every seven days, we'll know for sure soon.
If we can get to a new planet, we can certainly damage the old one. Sure - she'll recover. But long after our children feel the hurt.
Hey - I'm just saying, turn out the light.
| 6:05 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yeah...just watched "An Inconvenient Truth" last evening (Pay-Per-View). It's all about global warming if you're not familiar with it.
I'm not a huge fan of ole Al Gore, but the facts and science put forth are sound and pretty startling when looked at it as a whole.
Sure climate change is always happening, but we have FAR exceeded anything in our history thanks to the VAST amounts of pollutants we put into our atmosphere.
The attitude of "we can't do anything to harm such a big planet" won't work much longer. Unless something is done, the next 50 years will likely be the most catastrophic ever recorded.
| 6:24 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|we have FAR exceeded anything in our history thanks to the VAST amounts of pollutants we put into our atmosphere. |
Actually, not true at all.
I just read an article about a week ago citing research showing that the current climate changes are normal for a 150,000-year cycle that has repeated numerous times. (Sorry, I don't have a citation for you.)
There's also the meteor strike that killed off the dinosaurs- that happened much faster than the current rate.
Look, I'm certainly not advocating we do nothing. All I'm saying is to avoid a Chicken Little mentality and automatically blame ourselves for something that may be nothing more than the normal course of events that have been going on for millions of years.
As a counter to Al Gore's movie, I suggest reading Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" and check out the extensive citations of data in the back of the book. He makes a very good argument that much of the "scientific data" is biased, incorrect, inconclusive, and contradictory.
| 6:36 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Actually the Carbon Dioxide level in the atmosphere is FAR more than it has been in the last 650,000 years. This has been verified from the drilling of ice cores and testing the various molecules found within the core.
Carbon Dioxide is one of the major causes of global warming as it is what traps the heat. The earths temp. generally parallels the amount of Carbon Dioxide found in the atmosphere. The more, the hotter, the less the cooler.
Do a bit more digging you and you will find the truth. You have to beware of some articles as it's not uncommon for writers to have an agenda.
| 6:38 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
There was also something called the "Little Ice Age" that was going on during the last millennium.
It seemed to end around the time of the Industrial Revolution, when humanity started burning large amounts of fossil fuel.
Are you sure that we are not really supposed to be in an Ice Age right now, but we are holding it off with the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere?
| 6:48 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The best thing about Al Gore's documentary is its name. It sure is inconvenient to accept that we have seriously damaged this planet. It could equally be called unpalatable.
It is also inconvenient and unpalatable to face the reality of what we need to do prevent further damage.
But there are at this point just too many facts, not theory, not conjecture but facts, to deny that global warming is happening. And that is it damaging. And that unless we start facing up to that and dealing with it pretty soon we are facing a horrible future or our children are.
Nobody likes to be faced with inconvenient and unpalatable facts like so there is a rush to discredit them, to wish them away as a sort of defence which is as understandable as it is pointless.
Dells trees won't of themselves make a lot of differnce, though they certainly won't do harm. But the awareness raising effect of something like this is just as important if not more so, and on that basis all credit to them.
|There's also the meteor strike that killed off the dinosaurs |
Not sure that is a very comforting comparison!
| 7:49 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I live on this planet, so, I believe, I have an obligation to try to make as little impact on it as possible and try to give back what I take.
Climate changes are quite normal if you look back over thousands of years.
Or hundreds of thousands of years.....
Ego stops me beliving that man is the definitive cause of any current change....
...but then perhaps we are.......
Oh, I'm always planting stuff....
| 9:03 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I like trees. That's where I get my firewood.
| 9:48 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I always wondered why it is so difficult to figure this out.
(Not that I've done it)
It should be easy to determine how much C02 man puts in the air. What is that percentage of the total. Then look at spikes (Mt. St. Helens) how much was that as a percent of the total. I would imagine if the man made contribution is two or three times a volcano, every single year, then we have a problem, if it's on fifth of that, it's just hysteria.
I won't bother to check though. I live my life and have a pretty good time. If the earth warms up a bit, I'll go outside in the winter more often.
| 9:53 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Here's an interesting article that just came out today dealing with Europes focus on global warming and what will happen if nothing is done immediately.
and another article out today on climate change that also restates what I said earlier about the carbon dioxide levels being at their highest in 650,000 years.
I think some people need to wake-up a bit to the reality.
[edited by: Philosopher at 9:58 pm (utc) on Jan. 10, 2007]
| 10:03 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If I thought you'd know what one was ..I'd call you a philistine ( sense adjectival ) So I'll appeal ;-), to your self innnerest :)
..trees is what they makes strats out of ..cut em down when they are too young ( just for kindlin' ) and there'll be no more geetarhs ..
and you'd have to become an ayuhrgeetarhwrist..
..remember the pic? ;-)
and where d'ya'll think they make yellah pads and those pencils from that those lawyeh guys stick in theyuh noses and ears and uthah beezarh such places during those long trials ..huh
'n' toothpiks ..
and ya need wood ta make jack daniels ..cos it sure don't taste like it's made with good grain ..
dogpile on the mod :)
| 10:15 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
And while M is picking somthing or other and thinking of a response..:)
on a serious note ..this is the second week, in Jan and the birds here are singing like spring time ..the trees are all in bud ..and it's 10°c over normal ..and france as a whole is officially 8°c over the average temp for the last 100 years ( and last winter at this time we had ice and snow and minus 5°c most of Jan ..and I'm sitting in the path of the gulf stream ) ..
And my fishermen friends are catching mediterranean octopi and other stuff where normally they caught lobster ..
It's not coming ..
It's here ..
and accelerating ..
all we can do now is try to make it last for less than the next couple of thousand years ..because everywhere the swings in climate are going to get a whole lot more extreme and worse before they get better ..if we all wake up and do something ..maybe it will only last 20 to 50 generations ..if we as a species get real real lucky ..
you can keep making your money ..but try to make a change ..
| 10:15 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
See [junkscience.com...] and other pages on the site for some good debunking of the general hysteria about global warming.
[en.wikipedia.org...] has a good list of arguments for/against the "concensus" of global warming and the magnitude of its effect.
| 10:48 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Choose to disbelieve if you like, but is not a myth or hysteria. It's real.
It's not just a few crackpots. It's entire governments.
Look at the Kyoto Protocol
All but two advanced nations on the planet of signed it (sadly the US is one that hasn't..with australia the other).
It's not just a myth...it's reality and we are smack dab in the middle of it.
[edited by: Philosopher at 10:54 pm (utc) on Jan. 10, 2007]
| 11:02 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
That junk science site is certainly well named. According to it, passive smoking is no biggie, trans fats are just fine and asbestos could have saved the twin towers. Oh and global warming is just hysteria. Mmm.
| 1:18 am on Jan 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
At the lowest point on the arc of 'reason to act' I confront the issue as a matter of hedging my bets, at the very least, in the interest of future generations if not my own.
Given the magnitude of the adverse outcome is it more rational or less rational to disregard the risk? (that the projections are accurate)
Would I rather be wrong in choosing to tilt towards conservation, or would I rather be wrong in tilting towards disregarding or denying the risk?
My conclusion is that it comes down to a choice to minimizing risk when the adverse outcome of realizing a risk reaches the magnitude of global consequences of some significance.
It strikes me as more rational to needlessly minimize the risk - with there likely being some consequence - economic or otherwise - than to wrongly disregard it, and thereby possibly increase or actualize the risk.
[edited by: Webwork at 1:29 am (utc) on Jan. 11, 2007]
| 5:26 am on Jan 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Pascal's wager, modified:
If global warming exists, we do nothing, we all perish: our gain is zero.
If global warming does not exist, our loss (the investment in our mistaken belief) is measurable but not insurmountable.
Might be best to plant a few trees!
| 12:59 pm on Jan 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
There is nothing we can do to stop Climate Change (as explained our climate is in constant flux) but we can slow speed at which change is occurring.
Problem is that so few people understand it, care about it or have even heard of it.
Of the 6,000 residents recently questioned in one of our polls - only 2% were actively doing anything to reduce their carbon footprint. This comes from a fairly well educated area. Surprisingly, backlashes against moves to slow climate change are starting to rise too. Recycling is talking a bashing in the national press (UK) at the moment despite the increased rates nationwide.
There is a large pot of DEFRA funding being distibuted to authorites throughout the UK. They aim to change behaviour of the public by 2010 but I don't hold out much hope with the current public attiutdes.
I quizzed my friends about this and sadly almost all of them have resigned themselves to an inevitable apathy. It would seem that the 'public' are massively misinformed on not only the way it will effect us but also how making minor changes to daily life CAN slow the impacts that climate change will bring.
| 1:30 pm on Jan 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Necessity being the mother of all invention, I guess it means we get to seed the galaxy that little bit sooner...
| 3:36 pm on Jan 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|There is nothing we can do to stop Climate Change |
Theoretically, if we can model - and thereby understand - the processes that have set climatic shifts in motion we might possibly, with some greatly measured wisdom and significant advances in science and technology, be able to either affect, or even halt, the cycling. (Assuming it's not a matter of solar energy shifts and that we never quite master fusion as an energy source here on earth.)
What I'd like to know is whether the cycling plays a life sustaininig role, perhaps by virtue of some system rebalancing that the cycling achieves (even as a side effect) OR whether the capacity for earth to sustain life is, in its essence, built upon the cycling.
Maybe we overestimate our role on planet earth anyway. Perhaps, as science fiction writers have mused in their prose, we're just a form of herd, awaiting harvesting by some extra-terrestrial agent that considers humans a delicacy. ;0/
Our capacity to overestimate our importance is as considerable as it is constant.
Now, back to your meaningless work. There is much of value to be done before we are eaten or otherwise extinguished by our own devices.
Oh, and plant a tree, drive less, organize your shopping trips for maximum efficiency, turn down the thermostat, replace incandescent lights with flouescent bulbs, insulate your house better, use low volume flush toilets, . . . and for heaven's sake stop watering and fertilizing your lawns. Mother earth LOVES WEEDS.
Or haven't you notice? ;)
[edited by: Webwork at 3:38 pm (utc) on Jan. 11, 2007]
| 12:35 am on Jan 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The world over, 10,000 year old glaciers have melted away to almost nothing, in the span of a human lifetime. A CHILD can understand that the world is hotter than it has been for 10,000 years. I don't understand all the adults who still thing global warming is "just a theory."
How else do you explain the glaciers?