It's Official: Canada can do nothing to stop climate change.
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Istanbul @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:05 pm
Scape Scape:
You should restate your assumptions then. Do you like breathing? If you were a miner in a coal mine and the canary dies are you going to leave or keep mining?
The heights of Kilimanjaro are nearly bare now, the north and south poles are rapidly and markedly retreating and the oceans are turning acidic. If there was to be a change in the climate it would effect the most extreme and vulnerable parts of it such as the highest elevations, deepest oceans or the poles first. These are not an assumptions, they are all facts. If you want to be the lemming and jump off that cliff ahead I won't stop you but don't take me with you and your 'open mind'.
The heights of Kilimanjaro are nearly bare now, the north and south poles are rapidly and markedly retreating and the oceans are turning acidic. If there was to be a change in the climate it would effect the most extreme and vulnerable parts of it such as the highest elevations, deepest oceans or the poles first. These are not an assumptions, they are all facts. If you want to be the lemming and jump off that cliff ahead I won't stop you but don't take me with you and your 'open mind'.
Tsk tsk tsk! How can I let that pass?
The canary is there to detect methane not CO2. But you are right. Smell methane and get out of there or at least eject the perpetrator.
$1:
The snow jobs of Kilimanjaro
Financial Post
Published: Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, both the book and the movie, spread the idea that the snows of Kilimanjaro, the majestic African mountain, have all but melted away under the oppression of global warming brought on by human activity. Within 10 years, says Gore, there will be no more "Snows of Kilimanjaro." Among many media to follow the same Kilimanjaro story, CBC-Radio's The Current last month aired a documentary titled The Vanishing Snows of Kilimanjaro.
The ice cap is getting smaller, said the CBC, "a lot smaller. Some reports suggest as much as 82% of the ice has vanished in the past century. The most drastic predictions suggest the snows of Kilimanjaro will be gone by 2020. The culprit, scientists say, is climate change."
What scientists actually say is that the Kilimanjaro's big meltdown has been taking place for some time, and that climate change as we have come to know it -- brought on by carbon emissions -- is not one of the culprits. According to the second draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, still under official embargo, the sun may be the biggest cause of snow loss at Kilimanjaro.
Here's what the IPCC scientists say: "Glaciers on Kilimanjaro behave exceptionally. Even though the thickness of the tabular ice on the summit plateau has not changed dramatically over the 20th century, the ice has shown an incessant retreat of the vertical ice walls at its margins, for which solar radiation is identified as the main driver. The mass balance on the horizontal top ice surfaces is governed by precipitation amount and frequency and associated albedo, and has sporadically reached positive annual values in recent years. In contrast to the plateau ice, the shrinkage of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro's slopes is constantly decelerating."
Financial Post
Published: Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, both the book and the movie, spread the idea that the snows of Kilimanjaro, the majestic African mountain, have all but melted away under the oppression of global warming brought on by human activity. Within 10 years, says Gore, there will be no more "Snows of Kilimanjaro." Among many media to follow the same Kilimanjaro story, CBC-Radio's The Current last month aired a documentary titled The Vanishing Snows of Kilimanjaro.
The ice cap is getting smaller, said the CBC, "a lot smaller. Some reports suggest as much as 82% of the ice has vanished in the past century. The most drastic predictions suggest the snows of Kilimanjaro will be gone by 2020. The culprit, scientists say, is climate change."
What scientists actually say is that the Kilimanjaro's big meltdown has been taking place for some time, and that climate change as we have come to know it -- brought on by carbon emissions -- is not one of the culprits. According to the second draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, still under official embargo, the sun may be the biggest cause of snow loss at Kilimanjaro.
Here's what the IPCC scientists say: "Glaciers on Kilimanjaro behave exceptionally. Even though the thickness of the tabular ice on the summit plateau has not changed dramatically over the 20th century, the ice has shown an incessant retreat of the vertical ice walls at its margins, for which solar radiation is identified as the main driver. The mass balance on the horizontal top ice surfaces is governed by precipitation amount and frequency and associated albedo, and has sporadically reached positive annual values in recent years. In contrast to the plateau ice, the shrinkage of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro's slopes is constantly decelerating."
Now I lifted that off a respected climatological savvy site where most of the IPCC's rants are debunked or at least explained.
Another gem Scape, the Antarctic is getting colder and packing more ice.
Scape @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:34 pm
Arctic Sea Ice Continues to Decline, Arctic Temperatures Continue to Rise In 2005
2006 A record disappearance
NASA: While Antarctica has mostly cooled over the last 30 years, the trend is likely to rapidly reverse
NASA : Snow and Ice on Kilimanjaro
No change in political climate
$1:
By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is "unequivocal." The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
...
Can we change from debating global warming to preparing? Can we define the issue in ways that turn denial into action? In America what matters now isn't environmental science, but political science.
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
...
Can we change from debating global warming to preparing? Can we define the issue in ways that turn denial into action? In America what matters now isn't environmental science, but political science.
Knoss @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:33 am
$1:
Recycling, composing and reusing is something my grandparents did and it is something we all need to relearn again.
not neccissarily, recycling is not a silver bullet and oftentimes it uses more energy to recyble something then to replace something, also composting generates methane and overfertilisation significantly raises nitrous oxide levels. There was anotehr post on here about Vancouver using sewage to generate power, if this come inot play then disposing organic matter via sewage would be better.
$1:
The last tier is to change the way we create and use energy itself and I find that is is not emphasized at all in the energy debate: Energy Independence. We should be encouraging, not making illegal the act of private power creation. Living off the grid should be given tax write offs.
I don't think so people who live off the grid would ber more likely to release volitile organic chmicals such as gasoline inot the are if filling generators or washing machine motors, or propane for stoves. As well people off grid are more likely to use inefficient wood appliances. There is a reason people with wood stoves used expressions like "slaved voer a hot stove" of "if you can't stad the heat stay out of the kitchen."
Knoss @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:35 am
$1:
The canary is there to detect methane not CO2. But you are right. Smell methane and get out of there or at least eject the perpetrator.
methane from coal mines is significant enough to be a problem.
Wullu @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:48 am
Without having run through the previous 8 pages (kind of a lazy Saturday morning here), I must ask these questions.
Why would we want to stop climate change? It is, after all, the engine that drives life on this planet.
How would we go about stopping a process that began a few milliseconds after an atmosphere developed on this planet?
Did I miss the memo that changed the name the hysterics are using from Global Warming to Climate Change?
Wullu @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:05 am
Oh, and just for shit's and giggles, here is an actual intelligent discussion about the IPCC report for dummies (it was after all written for politicians). Wonder how many of said dummies are gonna read the full 1600 page report and not just the 30 page Cole's Notes version.
You are gonna need about two hours to listen to these guys so be warned.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
fire_i @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:10 am
Wullu Wullu:
Wonder how many of said dummies are gonna read the full 1600 page report and not just the 30 page Cole's Notes version.
You say that and you didn't even bother reading the 8 pages of this thread. I smell hypocrisy.
Wullu Wullu:
Why would we want to stop climate change? It is, after all, the engine that drives life on this planet.
How would we go about stopping a process that began a few milliseconds after an atmosphere developed on this planet?
How would we go about stopping a process that began a few milliseconds after an atmosphere developed on this planet?
There's a difference between stopping climate change and stopping unnatural climate change, my friend! Maybe realizing that obvious nuance would help?
Wullu Wullu:
Did I miss the memo that changed the name the hysterics are using from Global Warming to Climate Change?
Chances are you missed every single memo sent by humanity over the last two decades - Climate Change and Global Warming have been used interchangeably for one another since about that much time. So how was living in a cave like?
And to finish, dismissing the IPCC? Well of course, if a panel of thousands of scientists from all over the world who share different beliefs is less trustable than a bunch of politicians... oh, and BTW, politicians are models of intransigeance and generally prefer their own election/re-election over the actual good the country/planet. Oh, and politicians are rarely scientists... usually they're lawyers, functionaries.... sometimes even artists. Why why, these people obviously know better than thousands of scientists put together, no?
And I'll take the time to note, the IPCC scientists represent ideas linked to global warming/climate change PROPORTIONATELY because NO, there AREN'T that many scientists who believe it's a) untrue or b) not caused by humans. Understood? It's not 50/50. Nor 70/30. It's about 80/20. Probably even 90/10, like the IPCC report shows. But I'll be nice. 80/20. So dismissing the IPCC because they didn't include enough scientists who disagree with the current report is like saying the current canadian parliament should be fixed so the NDP, Libs and Cons get exactly as many deputies - after all, their three different ideologies may have good sides, who cares what most people believe is the best ideology to hold? It would only be fair!
Wullu @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:20 am
Fine party line there fire.
After leaving this thread I wander over and read not one, not two, but three different actual scientific papers and some opinion pieces on this subject.
I would post the links, but you would not read them anyway. After all completely debunking Al Gore and his cronies just don't fit in with your little world view.
The last 20 years? Utterly inconsequnetial applied to the vastly complex system that has been operating on this planet since an atmosphere formed on this planet. Sorta like seeing a Ford Mustang on the street and concluding that everyone in Canada drives a Mustang. That is the sample size you are talking about.
There aren't many scientists that believe it is untrue? So I can take from that, that you did not listen to the two hour interview with the professor of paleoclimatology that I posted the links to then? And I am the hypocrite here? All you needed to do was listen. Afraid you might hear something that contradicts you?
Ahh, what the hell, I will post the links I mentioned, just so you can ignore them as well and continue living in the chicken little world you inhabit.
1
2
3
Note the two pages of outright falsehoods that the author of the first piece caught the poster child of global warming making.
Scape @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:18 pm
Wullu: Pg 6 I presented topics that challenge the assumptions behind climate change in an attempt to broaden the depth of the debate.
On Page 7 I stated what is already well know about the change in the planet that we can see and measure, basic stuff really. Neither you are I are experts in the field so neither of us can claim any more than the basics. I will not attempt to sway or debate you as you have already stated your ignorance and have stated your contempt for any debate. Nor will I debate any of the links that you present without some attempt by yourself to present them. There is no sense in trying to reason with someone who already has come to a conclusion. I will not debate an idealoge but if you wish to present an honest debate I welcome it.
ORVA @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:27 pm
Everyone knows that the science on man made glogal warming is left wing loonacy out to destroy hard working private entrepreneurs.
The only scientists who are right are the ones who say it's crap.
It always takes a minority over a majority of left wing nut cases in the world of the UN to figure out the truth.
PluggyRug @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:14 pm
Like I stated in another thread....
With experience you do not need science.
Where is the experience?
ORVA @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:17 pm
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Like I stated in another thread....
With experience you do not need science.
Where is the experience?
With experience you do not need science.
Where is the experience?
Unless you are one of those tree hugging losers who believe everything the liberal media tells them, then you relise the ones who know the truth are experienced.
Those being the ones who deny it.
PluggyRug @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:20 pm
ORVA ORVA:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Like I stated in another thread....
With experience you do not need science.
Where is the experience?
With experience you do not need science.
Where is the experience?
Unless you are one of those tree hugging losers who believe everything the liberal media tells them, then you relise the ones who know the truth are experienced.
Those being the ones who deny it.
Well, I don't watch CBC, if thats what you mean.
BeaverBill @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:58 pm
Harper's a good right wing capitalist. Would be political suicide to go against American thinking. Before it was an non issue until, of course, the american administration recognizes that it's a 90% + possibility that humans affect the planet. Now there's a possibility that it's an issue but we can't do anything about it so we'll just keep making a profit until our corrupt political system deems it a crisis. There's no short term profit and benefit for a political party for changing current enviornmental policies that haven't reached "crisis" porportions...anyways any sort of regulation will slow growth ( not to mention, cut political handouts, payouts and backing) as major companies (the ones who are running the government) mercilessly exploit resources and pollute the land in practically an unregulated manner leaving the people living on the land with the mess to clean up when they've all long gone.
Harper was right when he said Canada will never be as great as the US... at least not under his administration.
Zipperfish @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:51 pm
Wullu Wullu:
Without having run through the previous 8 pages (kind of a lazy Saturday morning here), I must ask these questions.
Why would we want to stop climate change? It is, after all, the engine that drives life on this planet.
How would we go about stopping a process that began a few milliseconds after an atmosphere developed on this planet?
Did I miss the memo that changed the name the hysterics are using from Global Warming to Climate Change?
Why would we want to stop climate change? It is, after all, the engine that drives life on this planet.
How would we go about stopping a process that began a few milliseconds after an atmosphere developed on this planet?
Did I miss the memo that changed the name the hysterics are using from Global Warming to Climate Change?
Probably the best thing to do is read the previous eight pages. And yes, you missed the memo.
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next