I love it when people say that global warming is just a theory. It is just Left wing propoganda.
They could not be more wrong. But then agian most people that think that Global Warming has no scientific basis probably don't even fully understand what 'science' is. Because if they did they would see that the facts and the 'science' is indisputable.
We have burned hundreds of billions of barrels of oil, millions of acres of rainforest, billions upon billions of tons of coal, all of which has happened out side of natural process and people think that this has absolutely no effect of the planet.
That is called ignorance. Dangerous ignorance of the highest order.
The signs are everywhere, people can choose to ignore them and pretend that there is not a problem, but that will only make things worse. How many more cities do we need to loose before people get the point? How many Hurricanes does it take to get the message across?
Will every glacier melt and the ice at the poles dissappear before we realize that we have started a chain reaction of change on this planet that needs to be acknowledged, and accepted.
What is so funny is that, the problems are already being addressed, they are just not being addressed publically because it is embaressing to the Bush Administration and to Dick Cheney who have agrivated the planet and the whole situation to no end.
The entire world is already addressing this problem, everybody except Bush is in agreement, everybody is noticing the signs, and many people are worried.
The issue is Oil.
There is too much money in oil and Bush and the East Coast Establishment do not want to give it up just yet. They have not found a way to maintian there control of the US economy without oil just yet, and so they will not let go. Sucks for New Orleans, Florida and for Texas.
The Hurricane season is upon us and it is not going to be fun, it is only going to get worse until we start to make it better.
If Global Warming is Left Wing Propoganda, then Terrorism is Right Wing propoganda (notice the oil connection agian). The fact is that global Warming and enviornmental destruction and pollution is the real global terrorist, it causes a thousand times more death and destruction than all the worlds terrorist combined. New Orleans is a classic example. The droughts and dessertification of Africa is another.
It is time we get our priorities striaght and high time we have respect for this beautiful Earth that gives us life.
Because it can take it away as well.
Ken Maskrey Jun 11, 2006
Actually, it is just a theory...a theory that happens to be wrong. Global warming advocates don't see the real data. What they see is warmed over summaries and second-class measuring instruments. For nearly 20 years, I developed the science behind atomospheric attenuation of high bandwidth propagation of signals thru the atmosphere, including the design of instruments aboard four different satellites: DSP, NOAA-K, L, and M; DMSP; and one other classified system.
These instruments were similar to the raiometric sounders and other NOAA type instrumentation, but with with a resolution of more that 2 orders of magnitude better. The data was linked to a TDRS satellite and down to a receiving station and then directly linked to my server. I was the first one to see the data. The data was ultimately pure.
From that data, I developed adaptive equilization algorithms based on atmospheric effects such as polarization, raindrops, rivulets, warming currents in the atmosphere, increased levels of various atmospherical elements, and so on.
The data that global warming scientists "quote" does not match what I personally saw and measured first hand. Many of their conclusions are based on faulty science, many are based on incaccurate data, most are simply lies.
Once, I was invited to a seminar on core samples taken from the Antartic. This was a US Goverment funded research whose purpose was to determine atmospheric change to look at long term effects of certain belts around the earth, of which, the Van Allen is just one. Again, the empirical data as seen in the core samples themselves were contradictory to what global warming scientists claim.
There simply is no scientific basis for global warming. It's a theory. It's a bad theory. And it's poor science. I mean, there are still people that claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. I put global scientists in that same category.
Now, I like Global Warming as a theory for storytelling and I like when people make fake documentaries claiming it as fact. I applaud their, and Gore's, penchant for fiction...by the way, did you know that Clinton never bought into Gore's global paranoia...that's why during his campaign in the mid-90's he distanced himself from Gore. I actually met Clinton once at the Pentagon and was very impressed...probably the brightest person I ever met...maybe he was coached...maybe not...still, mind like a steel trap.
Me
Science can be made to say whatever you want it to say that is why America loves it.
The point is Ken that our present attitude towards the planet needs to change, before we perminently ruin our habbitat beyond repair.
All science aside, the fact of the matter is our life style is not sustianable for the planet, is causing much hardship not always were it is due, and that things need to change.
What else is indisputable is Hurricanes. Record hot summers, snow in New York one day and 80% the next... this is not normal. Science could give a million reasons as to how and why this occurs and a thousand reasons why it is normal. But it isn't. It was never that way before, we used have what were called seasons... predictable weather patterns. No more.
I don't care about numbers or charts, I care about change. I want to see action and people acting like they care about the future and not raping the planet for present gain.
I fear for humanity if things do not change soon. My fear is not grounded in any science, it stems from the actions I see in front of me, from the choices that Bush Co. has mad and continues to make.
One way or another it is going to end. I feel as though the hard way is being chosen because the rich can afford to relocate.
Ken:
See that's a much better goal...people's attitudes towards their home should be to protect it no matter whether it's perishing or flourishing. The problem with the Global Warming thing is that it's too devisive. It polarizes people, like abortion or immigration or whatever...people just want to take the opposite side.
It's like the last presidental election...Bush didn't win it, the democrats lost it for John Kerry. It's like when Arnold won the Governorship of California...there was such a simple way to beat that, but the CA democratic party polarized the state by putting in Cruz Bustamante....
Call it the Democratic party, call it The Left, whatever, the politics need to change from one of confrontation to one of support. I vaguely remember the speeches of Martin Luther King who was at the same time in a power play with the Nation of Islam...the Government, the news media, and therefore the majority of the people, lumped them together and there was this immense hatred of King. I was in the South and remember wondering why do they hate him when all he wants is freedom and equality which seemed as it should be. The story I got from the old-timers was he was inciting riots...totally false, his peacful beliefs were lumped in with the more radical ideas of the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam.
The point is, like with the PETA people for example, as long as they (whomever) approach issues confrontationally, they will only garner as much opposition as support. Compare Peta's actions with say, HBO's heartbreaking documentary on puppy mills in Arkansas...a story which gets to the whole of the population.
That's what the "left" needs to do to make change. At least as I see it.
And you're absolutely right about science...
Dan Calvisi:
But Ken, aren't you asking us to trust you, one guy, one scientist who had one job and claims that his data happened the be the most pure data available, when there's apparently THOUSANDS of scientists the world over who believe in global warming?
I live in Oakland, near Berkeley, which is a hub of scientists. My brother just got his Phd from Berkeley, actually, and we have many friends in science. And not one of them would agree with you.
Sorry, but I just can't take your opinion on it when there's so much information out there, and has been for decades, that supports global warming.
But I appreciate that you're offering your experience.
Ken Maskrey
My doctorate is from MIT by the way...but it's in Mathematics, not earth science, specifically, the calculus of tensors. Most of my research done at Lincoln Labs.
But I don't ask that you believe me. I could, in fact, show you the data and provide a chain of evidence trail back to the source. There are two problems, one, most people cannot interpret the original data, and two, most people cannot accurately validate the chain of evidence, so no matter what I say or even show you, there's no way you could buy into it.
It's like one man looking at the Earth and saying "How amazing, that this all started from a superstring separation between a clockwise spinning string and a counter-clockwise spinning string that caused, etc., etc.". Then the other guy saying, after looking at the same thing, "This is beautiful, what got created in only 6000 years". Who's right? either?
On the other hand, you, and many others, buy into what other scientists say because it's convienent and it's what you want to hear. Again, I'm not a scientist per se, just a guy that's seen the raw data. One among thousands, I mean, it's not just me.
For years, scientists believed in Alchemy...up until 1968, no one in the scientific community believed in Plate Techonics, that the major and minor plates moved. It was inconvienent. A lot of glob al warming scientists, for example, believe that the sea levels are rising...the data is actually contradictory...in some places it's going up, some down. On the other hand, geologists have proven that plates all over the world shift and move. Denver, where I live, the Mile High city, is actually rising. Maui, where I came from is moving at the rate of something like 2cm per year. But yet, because some ocean levels are rising according to some measurements, the glaciers are melting. See...inconvienent...convienent to ignore one area of science in lieu of another.
Here's something that may interest you, the CFC's that are produced and destroy the ozone layer, really come in second to a problem that scientists have known about since about the 30's,, the amount of lead in the atmosphere. It's deadly and it never leaves. Since 1923 with the introduction of lead into gasoline, lead in the atmosphere went from zero to very serious levels. Sceintists into the 50's maintained that it was not a problem--why--because they tested the urine and feces of people and found no lead.. you call that science? The lead was absorbed by the bones and primarily the spinal column...of course there was none in waste, it didn't leave.
Again, I don't really care that anyone believes me, because personally, I think the world is on a path of destruction anyway and it's far too late to stop it. I'm just here for the debate.
Now, I'm not saying that it's not stupid to pollute the planet like what is happening, I just think that jumping on the Global Warming bandwagon, and it later being proved wrong to everyone's satisfaction, would spell disaster for the ecological movement...we'll see Bruce Dern and four or five rockets full of the last forest blasted off into space....
I'm not a conspiracy buff...I've seen the Government in action and they're far too stupid to organize a complex conspiracy, but, if I wanted to get rid of my competition, I might plant a faulty theory out there, let everyone latch onto it, and then say Ha Ha, got ya with that one.
Dan Calvisi:
It's clear that it's all the fault of McDonald's. And specifically, the chicken mcnugget. Even if they do taste really gooood.
And that's da tufe, baby!
not a scientist, just a guy who doesn't trust anyone especially politicians,
d.
Jeni Lopez:
WE need more solar power first of all... That's obvious as far as things that will help with other 'power' issues...
**It's like the last presidental election...Bush didn't win it, the democrats lost it for John Kerry. ***RIGHT ON THE MONEY. Last night I was watching the comedian LEWIS BLACK's new special and he put it very succinctly. The fat that the democrats couldn't find ANYONE to beat Bush in the last election is UNBELIEVABLE. It's beyond my conception as a democrat that we couldn't find SOMEONE to beat Bush at that point. Are we not trying?
I'm sick of R's and D's alike. NObody seems to know what we're doing or how to solve anything. Yeah, let's build a 700 mile wall to help with illegal immigrants (another LEWIS BLACK TOPIC) when we can't even fix the LEVYS in New Orleans. That'll work.
His suggestion, because of the AXIS of evil N. Korea, Iran and Iraq because their ideology is so 'nutso' and they'll kill anyone man woman child, themselves, happily... is to become CRAZIER than them... He suggested we make the DEAD ronald regan OUR NEXT PRESIDENT, cart his dead carcass out there... and show them WHO IS CRAZY!!
I almost peed my pants...
Anyway, global warming... I don't know... but I agree we need to take better care of our surroundings and that means less STUFF powered by gas and oil and things that destroy the surroundings in our immediate vicinity. Solar Power... smaller cars and less gas guzzlers... Car manufacturers have the ability to make cars more cost effective where fuel is concerned, so that should be made LAW... STANDARDS in fuel effeciency.
But somehow our governmental body seems to have lost the one sense needed to get things done. COMMON SENSE...
That's my 2 and 1/2 cents....
Good thread, Julian. Shame the powers that be think it can't be on the main boards and people can't play nice. This thread is one of the smartest I've read in a long time.
brava!
To Dan
Agreed....
And I also think common sense would tend to agree with global warming. We can't keep treating the earth as a whole the way we do and bad things NOT happen to 'her'.
Notice I describe her as a woman, and reverently so!
Ken:
Here's something i was thinking about on the road today. Basically, everything is just what we believe. I can point back to the science versus religon thing, but take even say, the blue sky. I mean we've been told, can read in a book, hear in science class, and so on, but how do we really know? I mean, maybe there's this blue gauze that drapes the planet. It all depends on who we believe.
Many people don't believe we went to the moon. I can see that, but I've actually had the chance to view some of the stuff left their via a large telescope, but even then, that's just cause I trust what I'm seeing through the glass...it could be not real.
I know this might sound off the deep end, but really, we tend to believe what we want to believe and that's pretty much it.
Now, I never said I don't believe in Global Warming...the idea that burning fuels and putting smoke into the air, just naturally seems wrong and a bad idea. I just contest some of the GW theories out there...and notice the correlation between GW and GWB??? coincidence??? I think not....
So, there's something like 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, and they (let's assume) trust this one guy called the Pope. Then, statistically, this guy is the most trusted guy in the world and we should believe what he says. But we, some of us anyway, don't...we believe other, uncontestably less trustworthy people and what they say. So who's right and who's wrong?
Me:
You are right Ken, everything is ONLY what we beleive.
But that is percisely why it is better to have ideas, ideas that can change rather than beleifs that are set in stone.
The idea of Global Warming seems to fantastic to be real, but then so did the idea of a storm leveling a Major American city, or a tidal wave killing 300,000 people instantly and millions more later. The world is changing very fast, so fast that many people are not able to comprehend or integrate all the new information that is coming to light into their world view. Or it is simply to INCONVIENENT for them to do so. Remember when everybody beleived that the world was flat... that didn't make it flat.
Remember when Galileo said that the earth revolved around the sun and the Church threatened to kill or excommunicate him for speaking about it. Everyone said he was crazy... but he was right. Al Gore is no Galileo but you get the point!
Remember when Newtonian Physics was the order of the day, his model WAS the world as we knew it (to some it still is) but along came relativity and Quantum Physics, (String theory!) and the Newtonian model colapsed under the pressure and questions generated by new 'scientific data', it collapsed because it failed to take into account consciousness into it's model, it was not able to incorporate the fact that matter does just pop up out of no where, that the world of the small is governed by different rules than the world of the large, and then there is the fact that the world of the large is all twisted and consisting of like 12 dimensions... it's all to fantastic to be real!
But it is.
I understand that the Global Warming issue is like a rallying point for the radical left, and that some people take it too far, but don't let that blind you from the physical reality of truth. The world is hurting, things are changing too fast for nature to cope and we have almost killed 90 something percent of the worlds species, we have burnt 80% of the rainforests to the ground (and counting) and we have dug up and burnt all the carbon we could get our hands on for the last 150 years... if you think there will not be consequences from this, you are insane. It needs to stop, especially since replacement technology exists!
It is time to get past what we beleive and get a grip with what is happening!
The point is is that America needs join the Kyoto Proticol Immediately, we need to ween our ecomony and the worlds economy off oil as soon as is practically possible (5 years is more than enough time) and America needs to be moving towards energy independence, period the end.
America is so powerful, we as Americans can change the world profoundly, we can save what is left if we move quickly, but the clock is ticking, and we don't know when the Alarm will go off, maybe it already has, so we need to get started and stop the squaballing.
Some say it is bad for business, but if Energy Independence is bad for your business than your business is bad for humanity and should stop anyhow.
You know what is going to be bad for business: Death, destruction, and choas...
...or is it?
Lets just remember what this is about: Power/Control/Money
We have a chance to do something right, the people in power have a chance to do something right and they must be made to take it, for the sake of the planet and humanity as a whole, whatever the cost is.
It will be a good thing in the long run, and it really isn't that hard.
The oil companies are rich enough as it is right?
Mark A Vizcarra Jun 13, 2006
It would be an easier task for human beings to prevent earthquakes, tornados and hurricanes, or to part the Red Sea once again, than to affect changes in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations, appreciably. The Kyoto Protocol is problematic because it is based on falsehoods, some of which are:
-That CARBON DIOXIDE gas, CO2, is a pollutant.
-That anthropogenic (human generated) CO2 content of air is too high and out of control.
-That the concentrations of CO2 found in air, LOW though these are, still manage to cause global climate change / global warming.
-That human beings / governments can affect, that is reduce, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of planet Earth, at sea level.
This is an ideological battle, not an environmental one. Thus the reason why the Looney Left (aka America haters) have grabbed a hold of the issue. The Socialist/Communists have and will always hate Capitalism and Freedom. They’ll continue to do what they do best to seize their seat of power and control the masses – scare them. Don’t be duped.
Me: RE: Ken Maskrey
No longer is truth “out there” waiting to be discovered.
All knowledge is system-dependent and culturally bound. There is no neutral, timeless, self-evident foundational truth available to anyone or that gives us absolute certainty about anything.
The Augustinian dictum “All truth is God’s truth” has come to mean “Everybody’s truth is God’s truth.”
It all depends on how one looks at it. As scholars ranging from Thomas Kuhn to Parker Palmer to Lesslie Newbigin point out, even the scientist is not some neutral intellect unlocking secrets from the stuff she studies; she brings a certain perspective with her to her studies which colors her interpretation and even her observation of the data.
Add to this the information explosion through an electronic web that is world wide. The world that felt so comfortable, so manageable, is now overwhelming and often unfamiliar. Perhaps this in part accounts for the rapid cultural change we seem to experience.
Enlightenment universal acultural reason begins to look quaint at best, an illusion at worst. Perhaps the most profound cultural change is the proliferation of choice.
Me: RE: Mark A Vizcarra
Tornados, earthquakes and hurricanes are natural processes that we should not and never will be able to stop. But burning fossile fuel, burning rainforests, digging up coal, and drilling and spilling oil is not a part of the natural order of things nad we can stop doing it and prevent the damage it will cause.
C02 is a pollutant, it is a GREENHOUSE gas that traps heat. The planet has never exdperienced the amount of C02 that is presently being pumped into it's atmosphere.
The human generated C02 is too high and is out of control, especially since all the mechanisms for getting c02 out of the air are being destroyed even as the amount going into the air is going up, this is a dangerous imbalance that must be addressed before it is too late.
The conceptrations in the air are already causing climatic change, record hot temperatures, supermassive hurricanes, desertification of Africa, dissapearing glaciers, and melting polar ice caps, not to mention the extinction of millions of species that cannot cope with even a degree change in temperature.
Humans can and MUST affect the c02 conceptrations at sea level! First we can cut our emmisions and second we can generate and create means to suck Co2 out of the air. We can plant trees and explore technologies that will do this for us. Nano technologies that do just that are already being developed, but are a ways off and cannot be realied upon by themselves.
This is an ideological battle, I completely agree.
I also agree that there are some America haters on the Looney far left, just like there are some America destroyers on the evil far right. But blending enviornmental issues with communism (which is dead, it failed and will never return on the scale it was) is folly, and a cop out. This is not about politics, this is about the planet, about humanity and the green earth we inherited. Don't confuse the issue.
I don't hate capitalism and I don't hate freedom, what I do hate is greed and gluttony, I hate destruction, I hate selfishness and the evil way in which the world I love is being drestroyed by old cronies who don't care about the planet, or about gods creatures. They spill oil, pollute, and reclessly kill life and people for their personal gain and power conquests. They don'tr care about the future, or about what will happen as a result of their actions in 5 or 10 years all they care about is how much money they can rape the planet (and humanity) for and it is going to stop!
Don't be duped into thinking that the power has not long ago been seized by the upper echolons of the capitalist, they control the world and and all it's fincances. They are the ones taking away freedom (and life), and they know that no one can take the power away from them, so they do as they please.
The ideological struggle comes from those that care about life, and those that care about money. It is between those that value and worship nature and it's gifts, and those that seek to concor nature and use it's gifts for personal or private gain. Remember at the peaks Capitalism and communism and Fascism are all the same, a few people who call all the shots and make all the descisions, this is just that way it is. But nature and the enviornment cannot and will not go quietly and it must be saved. Saved from ambivilance and ignorance. The world you learned about in school is already gone and the world I learned about is almost gone too, I want my children to see nature, I want them to be able to go to Alaska and not see industrial waste and abandoned oil spills. I want them to be able to breath clean air and drink fresh water.
I want America to be beautiful and clean. I want pollution to be checked and them stopped so that Americans will be healthy and prosperous. I want animals and plants to florish in the parks and birds to fly in the sky and feel like I can still see nature if I want to. I want America to be releaved of hostile relations and bitter struggles over resources it does not need so that lives can be saved and famileis re-united.
If an America that leads the world in technological innovation, that is a beacon of hope and prosperity in the world, that creates green science and rids the world of pollution and takes action that makes the world a better place, while creating a whole new economy and thousands of jobs (that would return to America once we descided to create all our energy on the home front rather than import it), if this America is not for you or is against your beleifs, thenyou are the loon.
The alternative is a wasteland of a planet, no nature, no clean air, darkened skys and disease and cancers caused by the unchecked pollution of the air and water. The cures from the rainforest and from plants (where 90% come from) would be gone, all the worlds amazing wildlife, ancient history, and a descimated east coast that is uninhabbitalbe for 6 months of the year beacuse of hurricanes and powerful storms that make life there to hard to bear. New York would be destoryed by hurricanes and Europe would dry out and them freeze, all of Africa would die and regions that never got hurricanes (like Brazil who just had their first in 30 years or something last year) will also be destroyed... soon th planet would lie in shambles, toxic waste every where and the infrastructure to clean it all would also have been destroyed...
This is not a choice between Capitalism and Communism it is choice between health and happiness, and pollution and death.
Imagine a person that smokes, they have smoked for 20 years and they say, I'm fine, I don't have cancer, I don't feel bad. SO they keep smoking. That is humanity. We cannot wait until we find the inoperable tumor, we have to change our life style now, if we wait for the sign it is already too late.
Do something now.
Ken Maskrey -bio
Jun 15, 2006
RE: Julian W Tyler
Replies:
Julian W Tyler
But what you're saying is kind of like saying "throw strikes"...."everybody do good"...
Now, this may come as a suprise, but I love the world as it is...full of hate, terrorists, pollutors, greedy people, and so on...without that, it'd be really boring...I don't want a happy, well cared for planet.
I can't speak for Mark, but as a Navy fighter pilot, I would imagine that since he's trained to fly and fight, a boring world probably isn't in his best interest (or was) as well. Reporters...you think they want a happy world? Writers, most everyone here, you guys really want this utopian existance where the only inspiration is the malfunction that comes once a year from your floating bubble-car? Not me....I love killing, explosions, etc. I love devastation, hurricanes and tsunamis killing thousands...I sat mesmerized by the terrorist attacks, loving the mayhem and destruction...I stop at car accidents and take pictures when I can.
I don't have any children, don't plan to, and don't care one iota about anyone else's. Personaly, I hope to watch from the afterlife as all the remaining citizens of the planet choke on toxic fumes.
Seriously, it's good entertainment.
Me:
Ken that is horrible.
The world will always have hate, and destruction, but it didn't always have it on the scale it is getting to (towards the enviornment that is).
If you have such utter disregard for posterity and humanity you will not have a happy afterlife and may be born striaght back into the suffering. You could end up being born an African child that knows starvation his whole life until he dies slowly and painfully of plague, or you could be born a rat that is forced to eat toxic filth until your insides litterally dissovle...
It is your problem too, and if you don't care, or worse, make things worse, I assure you the universe will have it's karmic retribution, and beleiving in Karma is not a prerequisit of punishment.
Besides you will not have to wait until your afterlife to watch the toxic fumes and suffering, if we continue at the rate we are going, without an iota of care, you, in this life, may become a victim of the global destruction.
It is your mentalities and ways (and others like you) who created this problem and if you think you can escape the consequences... guess agian. The wolrd and the universe does not work that way.
I suggest you care at least.
Ken
Maybe, but you'd be suprised how many people feel the same way.
But see, I know exactly what happens after we die, and I assure you, it's not a God-Divine heaven or hell scenario; neither is it some Kharmic life restoration thing; nor is it just simply death.
Consciousness is a separate entity from the human form entirely. A simple thought experiment will prove this to some people (remember, there is no truth). Think about the universe or something really, really large...inside your mind you can imagine things far greater in size and scope than the physical size of your brain. Therefore, it is "safe" to imagine that conscious, if something tangible, is composed of compoents very, very small...again from thought experiments, the size of the smallest conscious particles can be calculated to be smaller than the Plank length...where general theory breaks down.
Then, if you find the M-theory model of our reality to be acceptable, that we exist in 4-dimensions where every point is in turn a 7-dimensional knot, then the mind, or consciousness can "slip" across the boundary of multiple existances by aligning into knot space.
As our consciousness grows and expands, i.e. learns, we exhibit more control and therefore change the structure. As the structure changes, when we die, there is a detent or an attraction of our conscious to physical realities. Right now, those of us that live in this reality, are at such a developmental stage that we are attracted to the human form...it may be that earlier versions exist in sub-species, but I doubt it.
Also, this explains dreams...dreams are not some kharmic, tell-all vision, but simply partial slippage across the knotted boundary as our conscious becomes still, unperterbed by sight and sound, and we slip to other existances, but without physical control...without the time to learn how to use wherever we are in a few hours of sleep.
Therefore, existance on this planet is irrelevant. Whether this planet lives or dies is irrelevant. To me, and what I believe, it is just a stop along the way...a sitcom in the much larger realm of existance. I think no more about preserving the harmony of life and nature on this momentary planet stop than I do about worrying about stepping on an ant.
While others around me worry and complain and live in fear and terror...I laugh at them...I wait for them to step into the moving traffic and splatter themselves along the asphalt. It's only temporary.
Everyone has their own version of what will happen to them when they die. None, other than mine, have a basis in mathematics and physics...well, I guess just dying might to some extent. So whatever on believes, it's generally their "faith" that drives and controls it. I feel the same way...except, I can show calculations that support my beliefs...
I think a lot of people, to some extent, subconsciouly belive what I do...criminals for instance...would you do anything steal, rape, kill, etc., if there were no punishment, which really means cost?
It's also interesting to note, that, in the model for all or most state laws, nothing is really illegal, i.e. against the law. What is stated in the model are the "costs" for doing certain things. So in effect, laws are really nothing more than say, a table menu.
Dave Fogerson -bio
Jun 15, 2006
RE: Ken Maskrey
I recommend anyone interested enough in this topic read Michael Chrichton's book "State of Fear." I am just finishing it now. Crichton has put together a well crafted story full of legitimate scientific references that really makes me question my assumptions about the environment that I now realize have been force-fed to me over the years.
My current opinion about global warming (and environmental issues in general) is the same as the prevailing wisdom about Hollywood: nobody "knows" anything. Making long-reaching policies and expenditure plans based on ignorance is just plain crazy.
My completely underinformed 2 cents.
Ken Maskrey
You didn't like State of Fear, did you? I don't mean anything about the political, global warming stuff...it was just so much more boring than anything Crichton ever wrote...It didn't even sound like his writing...compare that to Jurassic Park, or better yet, Prey...It just kept going and dragging...I kept wanting it to end.
Dave Fogerson
The biggest problem with the book is it's "on the nose" dialogue (the screenwriter in me). From an artistic point of view, yeah, it's not exactly his best. But the subject matter, and presentation of documentation is making me scratch my head and question what I believe. Which is, in fact, it's purpose. That's what I'm enjoying about it.
My fave Crichton is Rising Sun. Haven't read Prey. Is it good?
Ken Maskrey
Prey is edge of your seat Crichton...high tech, at least 3 years ago...very cool...I really liked Rising Sun, but then the movie came out and I got a bad taste from it. Not like crichton's other movies...I even liked Timeline movie, though not nearly as good as the book.
And yeah...I think you're right about State of Fear...I think it was the "on the nose" dialogue...my wife kept thinking it was so preachy, but because he kept giving both side's views, the preachiness was unfocused.
Mark A Vizcarra
Again Julian...nice try. All I'm saying is you might want to read some scientific and historical data before being duped by political propaganda from a pathetic idealogy that just divides and scares people so they can pander and get back into a seat of power -- God help us. Oh and just to let you know...as a 21 year career military veteran, I knew of no fellow officer who wasn't a proud voting member of your so called Evil Right -- but I'm sure you already knew that seeing that your enviromental hero Al Gore fought to have our overseas absentee ballot votes in the 2000 election not counted.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts...you might want to read this article.
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
Dave Fogerson -bio
Jun 15, 2006
RE: Mark A Vizcarra
Politicized science is, by it's very nature, suspect because the people doing the research know darn well who's footing the bill, and know that they expect results that support their side of an argument.
This is true of science sponsored by conservatives and liberals alike.
Dave Fogerson -bio
Jun 15, 2006
RE: Ken Maskrey
... but because he kept giving both side's views, the preachiness was unfocused.
Hmm. I didn't get that at all. Although he presented both sides, it was usually in the form of one person voicing the popular view, and another person completely slamming that view with numerous references (I've never seen a "novel" with so many friggin' footnotes). He constantly portrayed people holding current popular views as unaware and uneducated. Sounds pretty preachy to me, and definitely one-sided.
That said, Chrichton's reputation for accurate science in his stories is what is giving me pause for thought in the reading of this book. The man's definitely done his homework. I should probably go see the Gore movie after I finish the book. Then again, my head just may explode.
I'll have to go out and get Prey when I finally finish this one. Nothing like a good read.
Julian W Tyler -bio
Jun 15, 2006
RE: Dave Fogerson
Since science can be made to say whatever you want it to say, I think we should just throw it out all together. There is no way we can understand the enviornment in it's entirety, and science has failed us as a society... it has caused more problems than it has solved.
The point is that if we look around at the world today we see a world that is dieing from our actions, a world that is being destroyed at an unprecidented rate. The oceans are all almost completely dead, the forests are all burnt to the gound and the world is covered in cement and buildings, uncleaned oil spills and toxic filth, with people that crank out pollution and garbage at ever increasing rates...
We need to develope sustainable technologies, we need to stop polluting, and we need to get past the internal combustion engine that was invented over a 100 fucking years ago! We need change!
The world is a very different place today than it was 30 or even ten years ago... the worlds population hads more than doubled in that time and if we don't develope a new model for society we are all going to drown in our own filth.
We need to stop making filth!
Dave Fogerson -bio
Jun 16, 2006
RE: Julian W Tyler
Science has failed us as a society??
That's a pretty bleak view. And patently untrue.
Come on now, you can't really believe that science has failed you.
Do you really need a list of ways in which you personally have benefited from science?
How many diabetics can live well because of synthetic insulin? How many lives have been saved from terrible diseases being wiped out? How many glasses of clean water have you consumed in your lifetime? How often do you go on the Internet to express yourself? I could go on forever.
Julian W Tyler -bio
Jun 16, 2006
RE: Dave Fogerson
It's a bold claim I agree, maybe too bold, but hear me out.
(And mind you I don't think science is all bad, I do think it is getting better and more helpful)
The universal values of science, reason and logic were intorduced (late 18th century) to rid the world of myths, superstition, and the religious ideas that kept humanity from progressing right?
So as science took center stage, religion was abandoned (mostly) and god disappeared in a 'Nietzscheian' puff of rational logic.
Then came the industrial era, where all the forsests of Europe were cut down, all the coal was dug up, and weapons were built and then wars were fought and then millions of people were rationally exterminated in death camps... all in the name of reason, of rationality and with the help of science.
Science gave us the ability to kill on a global scale, it gave us drugs and pollution, it nearly destroyed the world, while telling us it was for the best.
It is so funny that you brought up diabetics, your right science did give us synthetic insulin, but it also gave us the ability to make high fructose corn syrup which has spawned a diabetes epidemic in America that is threatening the fabric our society! One in three kids today will get diabetes, becuase of the scientific ability to make junk food, to manufacture sugars!
Science at it's peak has taken us back to where we were before... At it's peak, at the levels of quantum mechanics and physics we see that science tells us the same things that the Eastern Mystics said all along! See Fritof Kapra's 'Toa of Physics'.
First science told us that consciousness is not part of the equation, it cannot be included in any rational argument of discussion. Recently last 20 years, this idea has had to be reversed, in subatomic experiments (and others) the observer is an inescapable part of the equation. For instance if you are trying to prove light is a wave, and you set up an experiment, and prove your point, you say Yes! Light is a wave. But then you find that another person was doing experiments that proved light is a particle, and they were also right! They each tested for something, were looking for a result, and science gave it to them... they can't both be right according to science... but they are. According to science that is.
Science has come to the point where it cannot help us to understand that which we really need to understand... ourselves. The spiritual world and the forces of the universe that we cannot set up experiments to test for, weh have to use our consciouness, our minds to find and seek the answers.
Science has it's use and purposes, don't get me wrong, but it did not do what it promised, and it made a big mess, that now, paradoxically, only science can clean up.
Science these days is taking new twists and turns and is being infused with imagination and magical inginuity... nano-swarms, particle smashing, cloning, terraforming, photo-propulsion... it's crazy dude.
Science failed us, and now it must save us... such is postmodernism.
Me:
Global Dimming
by Anup Shah
This Page Created Saturday, January 15, 2005
This page: http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp.
To print full details (expanded/alternative links, side notes, etc.) use the printer-friendly version:
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp?p=1
On January 15, 2005, the BBC broadcast its weekly acclaimed Horizon documentary. This one was about a dangerous phenomenon called Global Dimming.
Burning of fossil fuels is creating two effects, Two effects of fossil fuel productions are:
Greenhouse gases that cause global warming
By-products which are pollutants that cause global dimming
What is global dimming?
Fossil fuel use, as well as producing greenhouse gases, creates other by-products. These by-products are also pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide, soot, and ash. These pollutants however, also change the properties of clouds.
Clouds are formed when water droplets are seeded by air-borne particles, such as pollen. Polluted air results in clouds with larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. This then makes those clouds more reflexsive. More of the sun's heat and energy is therefore reflected back into space.
This reduction of heat reaching the earth is known as Global Dimming.
*Impacts of global dimming: millions already killed by it?*
Global warming results from the greenhouse effect caused by, amongst other things, excessive amounts of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere from fossil fuel burning. It would seem then, that the other by-products which cause global dimming may be an ironic saviour.
A deeper look at this, however, shows that unfortunately this is not the case.
*Health and environmental effects*
The pollutants that lead to global dimming also lead to various human and environmental problems, such as smog, respiratory problems, and acid rain.
The impacts of global dimming itself, however, can be devastating.
Millions from Famines in the Sahel in the 70s and 80s
The death toll that global dimming may have already caused is thought to be massive.
Climatologists studying this phenomenon believe that the reflection of heat have made waters in the northern hemisphere cooler. As a result, less rain has formed in key areas and crucial rainfall has failed to arrive over the Sahel in Northern Africa.
In the 1970s and 1980s, massive famines were caused by failed rains which climatologists had never quite understood why they had failed.
The answers that global dimming models seemed to provide, the documentary noted, has led to a chilling conclusion: “what came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations [from Europe and North America] contributed to the deaths of a million people in Africa, and afflicted 50 million more” with hunger and starvation.
*Billions are likely to be affected in Asia from similar effects*
Scientists said that the impact of global dimming might not be in the millions, but billions. The Asian monsoons bring rainfall to half the world's population. If this air pollution and global dimming has a detrimental impact on the Asian monsoons some 3 billion people could be affected.
*As well as fossil fuel burning, contrails is another source*
Contrails (the vapour from planes flying high in the sky) were seen as another significant cause of heat reflection.
During the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, all commercial flights were grounded for the next three days.
This allowed climate scientists to look at the effect on the climate when there were no contrails and no heat reflection.
What scientists found was that the temperature rose by some 1 degree centigrade in that period of 3 days.
**!****!******Global Dimming is hiding the true power of Global Warming****!****!********
The above impacts of global dimming have led to fears that global dimming has been hiding the true power of global warming.
Currently, most climate change models predict a 5 degrees increase in temperature over the next century, which is already considered extremely grave. However, global dimming has led to an underestimation of the power of global warming.
Addressing global dimming only will lead to massive global warming
Global dimming can be dealt with by cleaning up emissions.
However, if global dimming problems are only addressed, then the effects of global warming will increase even more. This may be what happened to Europe in 2003.
In Europe, various measures have been taken in recent years to clean up the emissions to reduce pollutants that create smog and other problems, but without reducing the greenhouse gas emissions in parallel. This seems to have had a few effects:
This may have already lessened the severity of droughts and failed rains in the Sahel.
However, it seems that it may have caused, or contributed to, the European heat wave in 2003 that killed thousands in France, saw forest fires in Portugal, and caused many other problems throughout the continent.
The documentary noted that the impacts of addressing global dimming only would increase global warming more rapidly. Irreversible damage would be only about 30 years away. Global level impacts would include:
The melting of ice in Greenland, which would lead to more rising sea levels. This in turn would impact many of our major world cities
Drying tropical rain forests would increase the risk of burning. This would release even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, further increasing global warming effects. (Some countries have pushed for using “carbon sinks” to count as part of their emission targets. This has already been controversial because these store carbon dioxide that can be released into the atmosphere when burnt. Global dimming worries increase these concerns even more.)
These and other effects could combine to lead to an increase of 10 degrees centigrade in temperature over the next 100 years, not the standard 5 degrees which most models currently predict.
This would be a more rapid warming than any other time in history, the documentary noted. With such an increase,
*Vegetation will die off even more quickly
*Soil erosion will increase and food production will fail
*A Sahara type of climate could be possible in places such as England, while other parts of the world would fare even worse.
*Such an increase in temperature would also release one of the biggest stores of greenhouse gases on earth, methane hydrate, currently contained at the bottom of the earth's oceans and known to destabilize with warming. This gas is eight times stronger than carbon dioxide in its greenhouse effect. As the documentary also added, due to the sheer amounts that would be released, by this time, whatever we would try to curb emissions, it would be too late.
>>>>>“This is not a prediction,” the documentary said, “it is a warning of what will happen if we clean up the pollution while doing nothing about greenhouse gases.”<<<<<
Root causes of global warming also must be addressed
If we were to use global dimming pollutants to stave off the effects of global warming, we would still face many problems, such as:
Human health problems from the soot/smog
Environmental problems such as acid rain
Ecological problems such as changes in rainfall patterns (as the Ethiopian famine example above reminds us) which can kill millions, if not billions.
Climatologists are stressing that the roots of both global dimming causing pollutants and global warming causing greenhouse gases have to be dealt with together and soon.
We may have to change our way of life, the documentary warned. While this has been a message for over 20 years, as part of the climate change concerns, little has actually been done. “Rapidly,” the documentary concluded,
>>>>“we are running out of time.”<<<<
Julian W Tyler -bio
Jun 16, 2006
RE: Mark A Vizcarra
This article is more circustancial than anything I have ever seen!
>>>Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down.<<<
Where is this data coming from? What studies corroberate this? Seems pretty circumstancial. There was melting but then there was recovery... please.
>>> The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. <<<<
12 years it took to reach average agian then? Is that what he means. A sharp decrease of 15% is not something to gawk at!
>>Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."<<<
And that is all we need to hear! If a whole bunch of scientists are seeing changes in their local area's of study that means someone needs to sound the alarm bell! It is very hard to study the globe, the global climate as a whole, it would be very expensive and very time consuming and could takes years, but if you study it in peices, in local area's and find you are seeing the same effects as others...
It's not a coincidence, I promise.
Time to wake up.
It is time we some some results, there has been a lot of talk and very little action on this front... Georgie Boy and Arnold, lets see it.
Two words: Bullet Train! <---- This is a no Brainer Arnold! Get it going!
Somebody please get the California Bullet train back on track!
Somebody please tell Dick Cheney that Global Warming is just as if not more important than Terrorism. Pollution is a terrorist without a border and a friend of know one... oil companies are rich enough already!
The World has had enough!
Below is a compilaton my words and other peoples, read it and/or add your own thoughts!
* * * * * G L O B A L W A R M I N G * * * * * * *
I heard yesterday that hundreds of major American Cities are voluntarily joining the Kyoto Protocol, moving towards sustainability, even without the support of the present administration; which is amazing and so great to hear since this is a gloabl issue that is bigger than America and should not be up to one Texan, or someone who has shot someone in the face.
It is time for us all to accept that there is real change going on and that it will accelerate if it is not addressed and reversed. We cannot afford to 'wait out' present administration policies, it could be too late by then.
America has a responsablitity to create and use energy efficent technology and share it with the world, otherwise our air will get worse, despite our efforts, as China and India begin to pump vastly growing pollution into the air. We need to be a model for enviornmental policy, and energy efficentcy, share and sell our findings, or we cannot stop everything from getting worse and worse.
Blaming anyone will not fix the problem. Lets get with the fixing and less with the finger pointing we are on a short time frame here.
Everybody knows Clinton was far from perfect, but if Bush cannot see that the glaciers all over the planet are melting, Florida had four Hurricanes, ect then he is really stupid.
But the president doesn't matter, you should do what YOU can so your grandchildren can see New Orleans or go skiing, and enjoy nature. It is up to us individually not them. I don't think it wise to count on liars (polititions in general) to get anything done.
Think Globally; act locally.
Bush pulled us out of the Protocol saying it would hurt the economy, which translates as energy industry profits. It seems to me developing new technologies, re-working broken systems and finding ways to be more efficient would only generate more profits, especially in the long term, think of your grand kinds...
Imagine a large ocean liner heading on a collision corse with an iceberg. You can't turn the ship at the last second, it must begin turning well in advance or it will not subvert disaster. It is time to start turning the ship. Disaster is in sight. Numbers can be made to say anything, i think we all know our present actions are not sustainable.
"Also, you have to consider that science does not completely understand the ecosystem in total."
It is hard to understand an ecosystem that is suffucating under the pressures of modernization, it is hard to study an ecosystem that is rapidly diminishing. It is hard to know how long it will take for us to see the full results of our action for the past 150 years. One thing is certian, change is accelerating and and it shows no signs of slowing. Most of the oceans are dead, the rest are dieing, how can we study those ecosystems, we can't. All we can do is accept that they are dieing and work to save what is left and slow the death, and try ad developed technology to save it.
"It's a big place. To think that one species such as humans can destroy the planet is a bit conceited. The planet will survive, while humans may not."
What about nuclear weapons, humanity has within it's grasp the ability to destroy the planet, this is without question. The entire modern era was about concuring nature, not studying it. Humanity has been selfish more than concieted.
Don't you want humanity to survive? Most of it is already struggling, Africa is drying out faster and faster and lakes are dissapearing and people are starving. It is to late to study the ecosystem as it WAS. Most of the rainforest is already gone, millions of species have gone extinct in the last 150 years, an unprecidented thing usually requiring meteor impact or something. You cannot tell me 6 billion people are not taking a toll on this planet, and the planet is going to fight back unless we start to work with it.
"But, even if there were definitive proof, beyond a reasonable doubt...things still wouldn't change. It's just human nature. It's not a good thing, just the way it is."
Then we are all doomed, at least our children are.
Things can be done and need to be done. Technology is on our side. It is a daunting task but to simply say "Oh well there is nothing we can do" is just plain ridiculous and fool hearty. If you have cancer do you just say "oh well there is nothing I can do" or do you say "Alright, I accept this, I am going to make real changes and I am going to fight this and rise up better and anew". Don't be a quitter.
So in a similar situation, you think a person with cancer should just accept it and watch there physical self wither and die? (Tell that to Lance Armstrong) The planet has cancer, it can be cured, it just takes the right medicine and acceptance of the problems. Why can we not get past denial and ambivilance?
The real problem is that solutions cramp big energy profits, cleaing up the mess of modernization is not going to be cheap and nobody takes on the oil cartel and walks away a winner.
What is it going to take before people will WANT things to change?
Divide and concure is the name of the game; ironically under the guise of "United We Stand"
Great debate here, to everyone. I have to add some thoughts on this, as I try to stay as current as I can on these issues.
First, with regard to the sustainability of life on this planet, I have to discourage EVERYONE from adopting the opinion that human life is unsustainable in the long-term, or it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we just say right now, "Hey, there's no chance of changing all the bad things that have been done to the planet, so let's just kick back and enjoy it while we've got it," is a tempting thing for a lot of people to say, but it's also the rallying cry of those who feel that significant change is either unfeasible or just too difficult. By feeling this way, then, we really are dooming the planet, because, if we just say right now, "Yeah, human life will be wiped out at some point in the future, because we have really poor judgment skills," then we really will be wiped out because of ignoring the problems at hand.
Anyway, by that long ramble, what I'm trying to say is that every civilization has a turning point. Ours is at the very least almost at hand, I would go so far as to say that it really is at hand as we speak. The actions we take today and in the near future will determine whether or not we're here as a society in the coming centuries and millenia. Every civilization has to make a choice at that turning point - for the earliest humans that choice was basically "kill or be killed," from the vicious animals to the first murderous mongrels of our ancestors, to preserve meant to protect one's self. For European civilizations, the choice was to stay close to home and proscribe to the doctrines of the anti-scientific Roman Catholic Church, or to expand their civilization to further shores, running the risk of sailing off the purported edge of the planet.
For us, the choice is one between hedonism and reactionism or preservation and progressivism. Do we just say to ourselves, "Hey, life as we know it will be over in a couple of hundred years anyway, let's just enjoy it while it lasts," and, "Anybody that looks cross-eyed at us, let's nuke 'em," our do we pull our heads out of the sand before that sand is turned to glass and say things like, "We can change our future, but not if we don't act, otherwise we're just dooming ourselves."
Anyway, let me slide my soapbox away while I move to a different topic, the cyclical nature of the globe's climate. Yes, there is a several-hundred-year process of global warming and global cooling that has taken place ever since our planet first cooled into a ball of rock. The problem I have is that when I look at the numbers over time, each time the planet has gone through a warming period, the global average has been a little higher each time before the trend reversed into the global cooling, and has cooled off slightly less each time it has cooled. So, it's sort of like an out of control balance, for which we are contributing to the imbalance. Look at the following chart, just as an example.
(I'll get it in soon)
This shows a pretty eye-opening view of the last 120 years or so, the time period for which these measurements are most reliable, due to the fact that detailed records weren't kept BEFORE this time and so are left to geological studies of ice sheet composition and bedrock striations. At any rate, you'll notice that during the first part of this table, spanning the infancy of the American industrialization era and the full-swing of the European industrialization, shows a relatively stable temperature, with the Earth's characteristic warming/cooling trends. Most remarkably, though, is what we see after American industrialization really takes off, right around 1910 or so, and European industrialization has really had a chance to get a foothold in the ecosystem. The temp raises more each time, and decreases less each time. Now, there is no reliable data on the behavior of the climate before this time period, but it doesn't realistically look like we're flirting with an ice age anytime soon.
The last thing that worries me is the idea that humankind isn't capable of wiping out the planet. Quite to the contrary, actually. It's not egotistical or unrealistic to think that one species can do that - not that we will cause the planet physically not to be here anymore, but rather, what capacity will the planet exist in? One needs look no further than Venus to learn what the Greenhouse effect can do to a planet capable of sustaining life. It is very likely that Venus, based on atmospheric composition and landforms, was a planet not at all unlike today's Earth at some point in the galactic history. However, something happened during the evolution of Venus that caused a Runaway Train Greenhouse Effect to be set in motion. Obviously not a populace of ecologically-uncaring Venusians, but something extra-planetary, most likely the impact of a comet or the nova of a nearby star creating chemical reactions in the Venusian atmosphere. One of the primary gases which contributed to this runaway effect was CO2. The chain reaction of gaseous buildup was one that couldn't be reversed by any natural processes - rising air temperature contributed to rising metabolic processes in the seas, rising metabolic processes in the seas contributed to rising temperatures, both of these contributed to rising air pressure, rising air pressure in turn contributed to both air temperature and oceanic and atmospheric metabolic processes. Likewise, each of these things contributed to a rising level of greenhouse gases, and vice versa. Each of these things fed off each other, transforming the Venus of millions of years ago, one much like Earth, to the Venus of today, with an atmospheric pressure 90 times greater and an air temperature hundreds of times greater than that of Earth.
Now, carry that over to Earth. If the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere continues to increase, (both because of clear-cutting of forests decreasing the number of plants metabolizing that gas, and because of artificial processes pumping that gas out) then this planet is well on its way to becoming another Venus. Yeah, the planet itself may still be here long after we've killed ourselves off, but at 900 degrees, with several hundreds of pounds of air pressure, and clouds of sulfuric and hydrofluoric acid raining down on the planet, will it really matter that it's still here?
Okay, sorry about the long ramble there, but I love a good debate. I don't think our fates are sealed, we just need to put forth some effort to reverse or stabilize it.
"The last thing to address is your question of how to REACH all of the people on the planet and make them stop killing the planet and thereby our species."
The interent! We live in a day and age where you can reach EVERYONE inderectly and billion directly; instentaneously.
"It seems to me that the answer to the entire question lies in choice and, to a certain extent, modifying the choices. The future of the ecosystem, whether they are currently aware of it or not, lies in the hands of our Government."
Wrong. It lie's in each of our hands, most people however just hand over this personal power to the government, and now we can see that the government is not acting the globes or the global public best interest (like raising the MPG requirerments saving billion of barrels of gas). So it is time for people to take this power back, which was what I said was begining to happen with those cities voluntarirly joining the Kyoto Protocol. Every person needs to demand and support change, counting on the government to look after and protect you in this day and age is complete folly!
I see humanity not as viral but as sometimes or regionally Cancerous, some cells are multipling out of control and are affecting other parts, hurting other systems and threatening the very survival of the whole. The planet has a way of balancing itself out, but as the sheperds and protectors (we say we own it after all) of the land and the planet we should strive to balance ourselves to it rather force it to balance away us.
"So it comes down to one million-dollar question: which is easier - changing Government, or changing six billion people simultaneously? I would say the former would be easier, though still a daunting task. We need to focus on changing the ones in power, the ones with the power to make these global changes, and stop depending on the Terran population as a whole to "make the right choices." Heretofore it hasn't happened, and it won't unless the populace's choices are modified by those with the power to do it. "
I would just like to say that i love this debate as well, this is an issue that is very dear to me, and I cannot help but seek to understand it and stay the fear in my mind for the direction we are heading. But I know that it does no good to be afraid, fear never helps in fighting, being creative or manifesting real change, taking on the powers that be and demanding that what is right and just (towards fellow humans, life and the planet in general) be done. This will not be easy, cleaing up the mess of the industrial age, stoping toxisity from rising, and fixing the mechanisms that are damaging the web of life (I know it sounds so cliche but it the best analogy) are monumental tasks. But to not rise to the challenge, to ignore the facts and continue to be destructive, produce distructive things and be frivolous because it is profitable (in the short term, in the long term it brings red ink) must be slowed and then eventually stopped altogether.
"So it comes down to one million-dollar question: which is easier - changing Government, or changing six billion people simultaneously?"
The two are unequivically linked. The people can change the government and the government can change the people. The real question is who WILL change first. When I see Bush on TV I remember that presently the people have a much better shot : ) Soon the people will not be tolerant of unsustainablity (like hundreds of billions of dollars of deficiet spending... on war no less.) and will demand the people in power move towards reason and real change. Did anyone hear about the energy bill that Bush shoved down the throat of congress? Billions of dollars to energy/oil companies that are already reporting billion dollar profits??? I hope that with these tax payer dollars they are getting for funding enviornmental friendliness, sustianablity, green energy or at least, or maybe cleaing up old oil spills or something. I would hope this money would be used for the public good, for the long term and the planet but then I come back down from the clouds.
America is the modern day Rome of the world. It is the last Superpower, the largest most stable economy, and a force that must be reconded with all over the globe. The true power of this nation is far greater and more awsome than most people realize. Once you add the power of Military, media, techology, aerospace, Hollywood, the CIA, closeness with Brittian, you begin to see a differnt picture of this nation take shape,
"With great power comes great responsability" --Spiderman
This country is filled with promise that is not being utilized for whatever reason. The people of America have no idea how lucky they are and how much of an impact they have on the rest of the world. We vote for people who descide global policy, who can use/summon the most powerful military on the planet for right or wrong.
If America wants to be the leader of the world (if not too bad we already are and passing the baton could be disasterous) it needs to act like the leader. It needs to be an example, it needs to act like the Beacon of Light it presents itself as. If we don't stop polluting and cestroying how can we ask others not to? There pollution is our problem as well. I wish America would lead the world in the green revolution, force others to stop polluting and create a world that will be clean, pleasant and bristeling with life and nature. This is not an abstract notion, this is possible. For America to not move in this direction, invest in the technology of the future (stem cells, Bioeniniering, Aerospace, Energy efficentcy, Genetic enginiering), is to continue down the road of decline. I do not wish to see America decline, I wish it would wake up and or grow up.
In regard to Mars, I see visiting colonizing and terraforming [altering the enviornment of the planet to make it more hospitable] this planet as antidotal to the human cancer problem...
**Side note**
Humanity is not a cancer per se, the cancer stems from gluttony, malace, and greed within humanity. These real human emotions and mentalities are contagous, are spreadable but are cureable. Humanity can paradoxically be both the cure and the illness.
Going to Mars gives humanity a unified goal, will require many technological breakthroughs and applications and will open our eyes as to our place is this vast solar system and galaxy.. Many secrets and insights as into Human history and the history of earth in general lie waiting and burried on the red planet; some of these secrets are so fantastic that the could unravel the very fabric of our existence and our reality itself. We have much to learn, a long way to go, and a truely amazing future in store for us, if we want it. We have only just begun to awaken, to fully see and use what we have and what we can do.
I don't mean to sound preachy, I am just speakin' from the heart!
>>"Humanity is not a cancer per se, the cancer stems from gluttony, malace, and greed within humanity. These real human emotions and mentalities are contagous, are spreadable but are cureable. Humanity can paradoxically be both the cure and the illness."
That's a much BETTER analogy than mine...I think it (humanity) can be either...right now it just happens to be the bad kind.
>>"This country is filled with promise that is not being utilized for whatever reason."
That too is right on the money...my take though is that I don't see how any gradual change will ever occur. There are too many people fighting it at every step of the way.
Also, on the subject of Mars...never gonna happen...not as a Government program anyway...there are oly three ways this will happen: (1) The most likely is that private enterprise will get tax benefits and first dibs on anything and everything there and privately execute the mission; (2) The rise of a second superpower that initiates some Cold-War race to get there, as was the reasons for going to the Moon. I think we all admit that there was no scientific reason to send a man to the moon. Purely political.; (3) The dissolution of the US as a superpower and rise of the EU...which, is a reasonable possibility.
In fact...a rise by the EU as a superpower would likely be the best way to initiate global ecological thinking...Get the EU to embrace China and Japan then become a dominant economic force.
Don't put to much pressure on the EU, it is dealing with it's own identity crisis, and in fact it could be in the USA's best interest to keep it appart. I think it will eventually solidify but it is not going to be a quick process. Very similar to the Isreal Palistine situation on certian levels, ancient disputes working themselves out, never quick. And in order to be a Super power you need an army.
In regard to Mars, it has already begun my friend, the plans are on the table and the technology is being perfected. And the private sector is already invloved.
China has tons of money, but major people/population/social problems.
Japan is getting older by the day.
The U.S. is becoming more diverse, and is in the process of morphing it's economy.
The EU is torn, in dispute, not politically unified, and presently ill equipted.
The U.S. seems a fantastic dream come true, a huge unified market, a very powerful political base and the worlds most powerful (by very far) military. Who's cards would you wish to have?
In light of recent events I don't see how anyone (with a brian) can deny the fact that global warming is real, that human kind is finally beginning to see the results of centuries of polution and nature destruction. Nature has begun to fight back, it is not over, the battle has only just begun.
We can loose this battle, in fact we will loose this battle if we don not adapt and change our stratagey.
Everything has changed, cities are gone, boarders are imaginary, problems are communal and the internet is changing everything. Why is our energy policy not changing? Why is the government not addressing this change, accepting it and moving to deal with it? Everything has changed except the Bush Co. agenda...
Did you know the Forbes top wealthiest Americans saw there incomes skyrocket in recent years even as millions (1,000,000's) or Americans slipped BELOW poverty levels... this is a recipe for disaster.
I think we need to shift back for a while... rethink some things a bit huh?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Inconvienent Discussions
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment