Poll: More practical way to deal with Climate Change

[betsy]

Definitely, there's something going on with this planet.

looking at all the earthquakes (mostly big ones) happening very often now, volcanoes waking up and erupting, plus all the unusual and frequent storms, etc...all seem to be happening one after the other.

But I tend to believe though that the earth is going through its own natural cycle....

Can eliminating green gas stop these? No.

One thing for sure though....climate change is coming. And if it's a sure thing, we better prepare ourselves to adjust to it.

The funding should be more concentrated in getting people prepared. That might even mean eventual relocation for those that will be gravely affected. Why should we throw money away on something that scientists are saying is a sure thing to come?

Well, forget the polls. I always mess this thing up. But still, what do you think?

[B. Max]

Definitely, there's something going on with this planet.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the planet, I think there is something wrong with peoples heads.

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/1318

Saturday night brought snow flurries amounting to over 20 cm by Sunday morning, stalling the regular duties of the Easter Bunny in his east-coast route.

The head bunny is on strike because of unworkable conditions, claiming climate change has made its work close to impossible. Bunny says it will not return to egg hiding in Canada until it sees more effort from both the government and Canadians to help tackle climate change.

[ScottSA]

Definitely, there's something going on with this planet.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the planet, I think there is something wrong with peoples heads.

Exactly. I bet they don't even get the irony of pointing at snowstorms as evidence of Global Warming...oops, I mean "Climate Change".

[Posit]

Global warming does not necessarily point to warmer temperatures. What it means is that severe weather patterns will continue to get worse. Snow in July anyone?

[B. Max]

Global warming does not necessarily point to warmer temperatures.

ROFL

[Rue]

Global warming does not necessarily point to warmer temperatures. What it means is that severe weather patterns will continue to get worse. Snow in July anyone?

when we are at the point od debating scientific phenomena with people who say since its snowing there is nothing wrong I seriously wonder if you really believe such people get it. They won't get it until its in their back-yard-until it effects them personally they won't get it. That unfortunately is human nature. Until someone dies in front of their eyes or they are personally inconvenienced they will deny. Its what we humans do best.

[Rue]

To answer Besty's question it is human nature when faced with a crisis as to a situation we feel powerless to stop to deny it.

As part of that denial we go into another phase called submission which is a passive way of saying, its too late.

In fact the anti-climate change lobby would love you to feel its too late. They are spending a fortune to get you to believe just that.

Its not too late, just as its never too late to stop smoking cigarettes.

It is not too late to find alternative sources of clean energy and to cut back on coal burning, fossel fuel consumption and using certain chemicals. We have the technology to do just that.

The only thing stopping us is the oil lobby which does not want us to stop using their product or our own lifestyle which has addicted us into wasting energy.

It does not take much to change our habits.

[Rue]

Definitely, there's something going on with this planet.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the planet, I think there is something wrong with peoples heads.

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/1318

Saturday night brought snow flurries amounting to over 20 cm by Sunday morning, stalling the regular duties of the Easter Bunny in his east-coast route.

The head bunny is on strike because of unworkable conditions, claiming climate change has made its work close to impossible. Bunny says it will not return to egg hiding in Canada until it sees more effort from both the government and Canadians to help tackle climate change.

There is no consequence to burning coal.

There is no consequence to burning fossel fuels.

There is no consequence to emitting toxic chemicals into our air and water supplies.

The air pollution and smog we create has no consequence.

Yuk yuk. Hah. Hah. Hee. Hee. It snowed today.

There you go. I just thought I would add that to your Easter Bunny its snowing comment. You seem to have forgot to add it on.

[Posit]

"Watch Spot run" when the oil lobby steps up to defend the plastic grocery bag ban because it will mean that vegetable bags and packaging are next.

I highly doubt that we would deliberately urinate in our own drinking water. But yet the amount of pollution that we pump into the air, and dump as waste into the ground does exactly that to our children and grandchildren. We have seen how in many communities we are reclaiming dumps and brownfields because we have outgrown our inner cities and the government has curbed urban sprawl. We pump carbon into the atmosphere and whether or not it is totally the cause of climate change, it is definitely a contributing factor. And just like there are lots of reasons to stop smoking from protecting our children from second hand smoke, or ridding our clothing of the stink, to our own health etc. there are many reasons to take responsibility for the air we breathe the water we drink and the climate we live under.

However, we are competing with big corporations who stand to lose profits by taking responsibility when they have run pretty much their own game for decades. What we need on top of taking responsibility for our contributions of carbon in the atmosphere is a new paradigm for society that is not based on profits at any cost, but on reasonable capitalism, that profits come after sustainability and responsibility. The mad frenzy of investment usury cannot be sustained as we are running out of regions in the world to exploit and sell our goods to. Rather we must look towards profit as reinvestment in better and greater technologies to remove our impact on the environment, and ultimately on our children and grandchildren.

[B. Max]

There is no consequence to burning coal.

There is no consequence to burning fossel fuels.

There is no consequence to emitting toxic chemicals into our air and water supplies.

The air pollution and smog we create has no consequence.

Yuk yuk. Hah. Hah. Hee. Hee. It snowed today.

There you go. I just thought I would add that to your Easter Bunny its snowing comment. You seem to have forgot to add it on.

Of course you forgot to post the science behind what you said as it pertains to screwing up the eastern bunny, which I'm sure you will do immediately, and not just some rain dance science.

[Canuck E Stan]

This global climate warming change issue is reminiscent of the person who says there sure are a lot of green volkswagen beetles on the streets.

All of a sudden you begin noticing green volkswagens. And decide he's right.

The more we hear about weather, that occurs 365 days-24/7, the less we think of "regular" weather and only think of weather that is different from the norm.

Snow in July? Was this the first time it ever happened?

With the amount of overload of information we receive from multiple sources, we tend to only recollect the unusual.

I doubt if you'll ever hear anyone ever say,boy, that weather sure has been normal for a long time.

Gee,I just saw the third green volkswagen beetle today......sure are a lot of them.

[hiti]

What is wrong with this planet is that too much of our forests and too many trees have been destroyed allowing the build up of carbons.

[BubberMiley]

good thing global warming threads don't produce greenhouse gases.

[Riverwind]

What is wrong with this planet is that too much of our forests and too many trees have been destroyed allowing the build up of carbons.

Old forests are net emitters of carbon as tree decompose. The global carbon cycle has been upset by the release of fossilized carbon in coal and oil. No amount of forest cover could compensate for that. However, our society depends on cheap energy - we cannot feed the people on the planet without it. There are no practical alternatives to coal and oil available so climate change is unavoidable.

Mother nature will eventually take care of the problem by exterminating large numbers of human beings. The only practical thing we can do is prepare ourselves for this inevitability and try to minimize the human toll.

[Posit]

Actually, the Biosphere Project proved that forests cannot correct the problems we have. Once though to scrub the air of carbon dioxide the scientists living in Biosphere 1 and 2 quickly learned that there is a limit to the amount of CO2 the vegetation can absorb. The only way to reduce carbon emissions is to cut back in all sectors.

[Catchme]

However, we are competing with big corporations who stand to lose profits by taking responsibility when they have run pretty much their own game for decades. What we need on top of taking responsibility for our contributions of carbon in the atmosphere is a new paradigm for society that is not based on profits at any cost, but on reasonable capitalism, that profits come after sustainability and responsibility. The mad frenzy of investment usury cannot be sustained as we are running out of regions in the world to exploit and sell our goods to. Rather we must look towards profit as reinvestment in better and greater technologies to remove our impact on the environment, and ultimately on our children and grandchildren.

Exactly, but you are not convince those salivating for Armageddon, or who are making their own huge profits. They care only for themselves, but for different reasons.

The most practical way is lower one's own environmental foot print, and then start lobbying.

[B. Max]

Snow in July? Was this the first time it ever happened?

Of course not, and i'll bet it won't the last time.

I would suggest the easter bunny get himself a four wheel drive.

[Posit]

There are many practical and inexpensive technologies that can help reduce GHE. We just have to suck it and take responsibility to get off the lazy oil-based technologies.

[Riverwind]

There are many practical and inexpensive technologies that can help reduce GHE. We just have to suck it and take responsibility to get off the lazy oil-based technologies.

Really? What are they? Wind is too erratic. Solar is better but the manufacture of solar cells produce tonnes of toxic waste. Nuclear is worse. Biofuels require massive amounts of water and chemical fertilizers.

There are no easy fixes to this problem.

[Posit]

Sure there are. Nuclear power does not emit carbon dioxide. Passive solar contributes nearly 20% of my winter heating needs. Ground and water source heat pumps. Grey water reclaim systems. Low velocity hydro power systems. 24 volt lighting systems...

Walking, bicycling and mass transit can reduce GHEs.

The problems is there is no incentive to create and adopt more efficient technologies because we don't want to give up any comforts even they they are healthier alternatives. With the internet in many homes it is possible to reduce or eliminate the commutes to work and work from home in many jobs. For those that must travel then car-pooling and transit can be used.

Eating less imported fruits and vegetable - especially in winter - and canning and freezing our own local foods is not only better for us but a whole lot cheaper. If you compute the GHE's produced in getting one tomato from South America to here you will see how just one's person's shopping habits can have an effect.

You're just not looking hard enough for solutions and spend way too much time looking for excuses.

[B. Max]

Sure there are. Nuclear power does not emit carbon dioxide. Passive solar contributes nearly 20% of my winter heating needs. Ground and water source heat pumps. Grey water reclaim systems. Low velocity hydro power systems. 24 volt lighting systems...

Walking, bicycling and mass transit can reduce GHEs.

The problems is there is no incentive to create and adopt more efficient technologies because we don't want to give up any comforts even they they are healthier alternatives. With the internet in many homes it is possible to reduce or eliminate the commutes to work and work from home in many jobs. For those that must travel then car-pooling and transit can be used.

Eating less imported fruits and vegetable - especially in winter - and canning and freezing our own local foods is not only better for us but a whole lot cheaper. If you compute the GHE's produced in getting one tomato from South America to here you will see how just one's person's shopping habits can have an effect.

You're just not looking hard enough for solutions and spend way too much time looking for excuses.

Basicly what you are talking about is subsistance living. Why would anybody buy anything from you, not that you would be producing anything that anybody wanted.

[speaker]

You're just not looking hard enough for solutions and spend way too much time looking for excuses.

Basicly what you are talking about is subsistance living.

Subsistance is somewhat different from sustainability. It is true that global warming is inevitable but as posit was making plain there are varying levels to which we must accept inevitability. The more we are able to do in the way of conservation of energy resources, the farther from subsistence we will be able to live.

It's an odd sort of thing that the survivor mentality that got so self absorbed in the last part of the twentieth century had some good ideas going for it.

[B. Max]

Subsistance is somewhat different from sustainability.

It certainly is. However when you shine a light on what the sustainable development crowd advocate, there is no difference.

[margrace]

It seems to me that before we can even make a judgement on any of this we need to know

"A" who the top rated environmental scientists are in North America

"B" why are they top rated

"C" and what do they say and support

Since there seems to be a lot of discussion on here I wonder if anyone here would be qualified in that list. I would also like to know what or who each scientist endorses.

Anyway of finding this out.

[speaker]

It certainly is. However when you shine a light on what the sustainable development crowd advocate, there is no difference.

The difference appears to be that the sustainable development crowd is trying to help us avoid subsistence.

What sort of light do you hold?