Poll: More practical way to deal with Climate Change

[B. Max]

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

It really doesn't matter. We know what's behind it.

http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html

...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary. which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations..." [1] Maurice Strong , opening speech at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development

Maurice Strong, who led the Rio conference, seems to agree. His ranch in Colorado is a gathering place for Buddhist, Bahai, Native American, and other earth-centered religions. Yet, while spearheading the restructuring of the United Nations (see " World Heritage Protection?"), he also helped design the blueprint for the transformation of our communities. And in his introduction to The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, he called local leaders around the world to "undertake a consultative process with their populations and achieve a consensus on 'Local Agenda 21' for their communities."

Achieving that consensus meant painting scary scenarios of a hurting, dying planet that frighten children, anger youth, and persuade adults to submit to the unthinkable regulations. (See "Saving the Earth") It means blaming climate change on human activities and ignoring the natural factors that have - throughout time - brought cyclical changes in climate, storm patterns, wildlife migration, and ozone thinning (there has never been a "hole").

[ScottSA]

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.

The sustainability crowd:

54% Ganja-smoking hangerson who think peasant life is a romantic romp in the fields roughly comparable to a Marxist utopia where folks "hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner" and presumably shag a la free love all night. The reason they think peasant life is like that is because their sole experience with it involves buying hemp sandals made in some peasant cottage industry sweat shop and reading Che Guevarra slogans on the bottom of red posters. These folks are the ones who sign petitions calling for the banning of dihydrogen oxide on the grounds that it causes sweating.

30% New worlders who use the environmental movement as a vehicle to A ) bring about a single world government based on "fairness" and "equity" (read: communistic).

10% People with some basic grounding of knowledge who actually believe that manmade actions are heating up the planet.

5% Opportunists who use the movement as a vehicle to secure cash. This includes folks like Suzuki and Gore, who see a bonanza in donation money and speaking fees; and the academic world of grant funding, which explains why so many scientists in fields wholly unrelated to weather manage to find an angle vaguely related to weather change...the funding taps are as open to global warming this decade as to AIDs last decade or feminist studies the decade before that.

1% Scientists who sincerely believe that global warming is manmade.

[Canuck E Stan]

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.

Of course, we can help both the CBC and the environment with (get ready for this).......Global Climate Idol.

A television show that puts the climate scientists up against each other.

The public then gets to vote their favourite scientist and the judges put in their two cents worth.

The CBC would make a bundle sending this show around the world.

Other than Gore and Dion I don't know any other "experts" that could be judges.

[speaker]

The sustainability crowd:

54% Ganja-smoking hangerson who think peasant life is a romantic romp in the fields roughly comparable to a Marxist utopia where folks "hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner" and presumably shag a la free love all night. The reason they think peasant life is like that is because their sole experience with it involves buying hemp sandals made in some peasant cottage industry sweat shop and reading Che Guevarra slogans on the bottom of red posters. These folks are the ones who sign petitions calling for the banning of dihydrogen oxide on the grounds that it causes sweating.

30% New worlders who use the environmental movement as a vehicle to A ) bring about a single world government based on "fairness" and "equity" (read: communistic).

10% People with some basic grounding of knowledge who actually believe that manmade actions are heating up the planet.

5% Opportunists who use the movement as a vehicle to secure cash. This includes folks like Suzuki and Gore, who see a bonanza in donation money and speaking fees; and the academic world of grant funding, which explains why so many scientists in fields wholly unrelated to weather manage to find an angle vaguely related to weather change...the funding taps are as open to global warming this decade as to AIDs last decade or feminist studies the decade before that.

1% Scientists who sincerely believe that global warming is manmade.

54% Ganja smokin hangerson who think reality tv is a romp in the fields compared to reality and wouldn't have it any other way. who think that driving to work alone, consuming as much as possible, watching tv and ranting afterwards is a god given right because they have no experience other than that. get their slogans from old ross perot commercials and sign petitions giving away democratic opportunity because it might cause thinking.

30% corporate dust bunnies who use the anti environment movement to bring about more profits for their up ladders.

15 % who sincerely believe that the right wing talk show hosts haven't addled their brains on cocaine.

and 1% scientists who believe they can make more money catering to the exxons of the world, because there is not a percentage of scientists that does not believe that global warming is being forced by human

behaviour.

[betsy]

I still don't buy what environmentalists are saying. I've read somewhere that just a single forest fire of so many hectares produces more than all the cars' emission in one year.

My position on this is that everything happening now (not only climate changing) all over the world....is just earth going through a natural cycle.

Who knows, maybe it's about due to shift again and change things around (maybe not in our lifetime). Those strong volcanoes lately from differnt parts, and volcanoes getting active....something is happening down there.

[Posit]

"....something is happening down there."

The I would suggest an urgent trip to your GYN.....:lol

[geoffrey]

Betsy, I think our GHG emissions make a difference, it's not the panic scenario that Gore would tell you, but the basic science behind it is pretty secure. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we're producing alot of it. What else is there to know?

There is no need to trash our economy and way of living for it, but we have to take a long hard look at our environmental practices in the West and in emerging industrialised nations. Personally, I think the amount of poisions and toxic pollution in our air, water and soils are a much bigger threat... there's a good chance that most of us will die of environmental cancers in our lifetimes. Very frightening indeed.

I fear that the Kyoto zealots are threatening the progress we should be making in these, and other areas. GHGs are an important issue, but one among many that deserve equal attention.

[ScottSA]

Betsy, I think our GHG emissions make a difference, it's not the panic scenario that Gore would tell you, but the basic science behind it is pretty secure. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we're producing alot of it. What else is there to know?

CO2 is a half of one percent of our atmosphere, which makes it just this side of being a trace element. The heating effect in no way reflects the actual teensy miniscule increase in the amount of CO2 we're producing, which is itself a fraction of natural CO2 production. On top of that, there is a historic 800 year lag between a heating wave and an increase in CO2, which would suggest that the present increase in CO2 is an effect of the Little Optimum. I don't see the science being solid at all, and what's more important is that a lot of scientists outside the funding loop don't see it as solid either. In fact, the only "science" involved are computer models and theoreticals, since the actual observations don't jive with the modelling.

If we want to work on increasing the rate at which the planet has been cleaning up and reforestating, that's one thing, but using some ridiculous bogeyman that in all probability is natural to scare people into it is not on at all.

[geoffrey]

If we want to work on increasing the rate at which the planet has been cleaning up and reforestating, that's one thing, but using some ridiculous bogeyman that in all probability is natural to scare people into it is not on at all.

I think that was my point.

.5% is still a sizeable chunk. A .5% increase in the average temperature is enough to cause some variation in our climate. Personally, I don't trust our ability to mess around with such things, it's best to err on the side of caution, with CO2 emissions and combatting them.

[Riverwind]

The heating effect in no way reflects the actual teensy miniscule increase in the amount of CO2 we're producing, which is itself a fraction of natural CO2 production.

Put a leaky plug in your bathtub that allows 1 liter/minute of water to flow out of the tub. Turn on the tap to pour 1.001 liter/minute into your bathtub. A 100 liter bathtub would start overflowing in 70 days.

[ScottSA]

The heating effect in no way reflects the actual teensy miniscule increase in the amount of CO2 we're producing, which is itself a fraction of natural CO2 production.

Put a leaky plug in your bathtub that allows 1 liter/minute of water to flow out of the tub. Turn on the tap to pour 1.001 liter/minute into your bathtub. A 100 liter bathtub would start overflowing in 70 days.

Yes, but you're ignoring the fact that a giant hole has already been bored in the tub right next to the leaky plug. It's called the ocean, among other much more prolific producers of CO2 than we can ever hope to be.

[speaker]

Yes, but you're ignoring the fact that a giant hole has already been bored in the tub right next to the leaky plug. It's called the ocean, among other much more prolific producers of CO2 than we can ever hope to be.

I haven't seen anywhere that the ipcc or people in general who see that our practices, our emmissions, our deforestation, are ignoring the other global warmers that are forcing factors. Just that they recognize that our impact is something that the world hasn't had to deal with in previous warmings. It is in addition to. It will make things worse because of that.

[Guthrie]

The heating effect in no way reflects the actual teensy miniscule increase in the amount of CO2 we're producing, which is itself a fraction of natural CO2 production.

Put a leaky plug in your bathtub that allows 1 liter/minute of water to flow out of the tub. Turn on the tap to pour 1.001 liter/minute into your bathtub. A 100 liter bathtub would start overflowing in 70 days.

Yes, but you're ignoring the fact that a giant hole has already been bored in the tub right next to the leaky plug. It's called the ocean, among other much more prolific producers of CO2 than we can ever hope to be.

except the oceans don't produce any net co², they produce net oxygen

[ScottSA]

The heating effect in no way reflects the actual teensy miniscule increase in the amount of CO2 we're producing, which is itself a fraction of natural CO2 production.

Put a leaky plug in your bathtub that allows 1 liter/minute of water to flow out of the tub. Turn on the tap to pour 1.001 liter/minute into your bathtub. A 100 liter bathtub would start overflowing in 70 days.

Yes, but you're ignoring the fact that a giant hole has already been bored in the tub right next to the leaky plug. It's called the ocean, among other much more prolific producers of CO2 than we can ever hope to be.

except the oceans don't produce any net co², they produce net oxygen

That's irrelevant. One doesn't cancel out the other. Nice try woody. Then of course there's volcanic activity and one almost as large as the ocean: decaying plant matter. My understanding is that human produced CO2 is a small part of the overall production of CO2.

[gc1765]

+

That's irrelevant. One doesn't cancel out the other. Nice try woody. Then of course there's volcanic activity and one almost as large as the ocean: decaying plant matter. My understanding is that human produced CO2 is a small part of the overall production of CO2.

Link

[betsy]

Betsy, I think our GHG emissions make a difference, it's not the panic scenario that Gore would tell you, but the basic science behind it is pretty secure. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we're producing alot of it. What else is there to know?

There is no need to trash our economy and way of living for it, but we have to take a long hard look at our environmental practices in the West and in emerging industrialised nations. Personally, I think the amount of poisions and toxic pollution in our air, water and soils are a much bigger threat... there's a good chance that most of us will die of environmental cancers in our lifetimes. Very frightening indeed.

Not to mention all the chemicals in our food...whether to preserve them for shipping, or for longer shelf-life, or for better taste, etc.., We are saturated with chemicals.

Yes, I see what you mean and yes, I guess our greenhouse emission does contribute to it.

I fear that the Kyoto zealots are threatening the progress we should be making in these, and other areas. GHGs are an important issue, but one among many that deserve equal attention.

We need to approach this in a very practical manner. I shudder to think that we blow billions to satisfy Kyoto....and then, not have enough funds to maneuver around when we do really and direly need it!

[stevoh]

CO2 is a half of one percent of our atmosphere, which makes it just this side of being a trace element. The heating effect in no way reflects the actual teensy miniscule increase in the amount of CO2 we're producing, which is itself a fraction of natural CO2 production. On top of that, there is a historic 800 year lag between a heating wave and an increase in CO2, which would suggest that the present increase in CO2 is an effect of the Little Optimum. I don't see the science being solid at all, and what's more important is that a lot of scientists outside the funding loop don't see it as solid either. In fact, the only "science" involved are computer models and theoreticals, since the actual observations don't jive with the modelling.

We do know for a fact that in the last 100 years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from around 200 ppm to 320 ppm. We also know through ice core samples, that this concentration of CO2 has not existed in the atmosphere for at least the last 400 000 to 600 000 years.

So, if we are such a minor contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere, where has all that extra CO2 suddenly come from?

[Catchme]

Betsy, I think our GHG emissions make a difference, it's not the panic scenario that Gore would tell you, but the basic science behind it is pretty secure. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we're producing alot of it. What else is there to know?

There is no need to trash our economy and way of living for it, but we have to take a long hard look at our environmental practices in the West and in emerging industrialised nations. Personally, I think the amount of poisions and toxic pollution in our air, water and soils are a much bigger threat... there's a good chance that most of us will die of environmental cancers in our lifetimes. Very frightening indeed.

Not to mention all the chemicals in our food...whether to preserve them for shipping, or for longer shelf-life, or for better taste, etc.., We are saturated with chemicals.

Yes, I see what you mean and yes, I guess our greenhouse emission does contribute to it.

I fear that the Kyoto zealots are threatening the progress we should be making in these, and other areas. GHGs are an important issue, but one among many that deserve equal attention.

We need to approach this in a very practical manner. I shudder to think that we blow billions to satisfy Kyoto....and then, not have enough funds to maneuver around when we do really and direly need it!

There is a need to change our way of living that is the very first step towards a "practical manner" and then we need to pressure our government representatives to stop practises that are compounding it.

The CPC will do diddley squat, as we can see by their supporters here, and by their infamous, and useless Clean Air Act. The Liberals also did nothing, though what Dion would do if in government is unknown.

[geoffrey]

So, if we are such a minor contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere, where has all that extra CO2 suddenly come from?

Where did it all come from before when the concentration was this high? The fact is, it's unscientific to assume that the problem is man made, or to assume that we can change things by living like cavemen.

[Catchme]

So, if we are such a minor contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere, where has all that extra CO2 suddenly come from?

Where did it all come from before when the concentration was this high? The fact is, it's unscientific to assume that the problem is man made, or to assume that we can change things by living like cavemen.

It is NOT unscientific to assume the problem is man made in fact it is quite the opposite, science is proving it is man made.

The most recent start to higher CO2 emissions commenced around the time of 1st Gulf War, and could be because of the massive oil well fires, which scientists back then stated would happen. Then we have clear cuts around the world taking out trees that are CO2 sinks, and we have the massive pine beetle kill that is also destroying trees, plus industrial emissions, then we have people. That is simplified and not complete example wise, but it is enough to see quite clearly that the problem is man made.

Again here is a link to graphs that show when it started spiking and where the world was back 1000 years.

Cooking Our Fish Bowl: Climate Change Report Paints Grim Future

One of the authors of the recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has some advice for mankind:

"Don't be poor in a hot country, don't live in hurricane alley, watch out about being on the coasts or in the Arctic, and it's a bad idea to be on high mountains with glaciers melting," said Schneider, the Stanford scientist who was one of the study authors.

Very grim. We need to get a handle on this, but I don't have confidence that we will until something systemically horrible happens -- like the loss of all polar bears, or bumblebees, or frogs. Until we think that mankind could actually be severely impacted, the rich will keep exploiting the low-costs of a carbon dependent energy world.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

[White Doors]

The most recent start to higher CO2 emissions commenced around the time of 1st Gulf War, and could be because of the massive oil well fires,

HAHAHAHA!!!!

ROFLMFAO!!!

Is this what you have?

haha

That would be miniscule compared to a volcano erupting.

Such a deep thinker!

hahaha

sad..

[geoffrey]

Oh don't worry Catchme, I believe in Global Warming. I just find it such a tradegy that the GHG issue is so overblown that the other far more critical environmental issues of our time are ignored.

Global warming is almost surely contributed to by man, to what extent, who knows? And that's where the problem rests. If we throw billions and billions at GHG for an unknown outcome. There is a strong possibility at this point that reducing GHG emissions won't do anything at all, it may be too late.

If that same effort and amount of money was thrown at reducing our exposure to toxins that are killing all of us today, we'd have many millions more lives saved within the next 50 years (and going forward) instead of maybe, possibilty, saving a few depending on the way some things may or may not work out.

[Catchme]

Oh don't worry Catchme, I believe in Global Warming. I just find it such a tradegy that the GHG issue is so overblown that the other far more critical environmental issues of our time are ignored.

Global warming is almost surely contributed to by man, to what extent, who knows? And that's where the problem rests. If we throw billions and billions at GHG for an unknown outcome. There is a strong possibility at this point that reducing GHG emissions won't do anything at all, it may be too late.

If that same effort and amount of money was thrown at reducing our exposure to toxins that are killing all of us today, we'd have many millions more lives saved within the next 50 years (and going forward) instead of maybe, possibilty, saving a few depending on the way some things may or may not work out.

Funny I do not think there are any more important environmenmtal issues, what would you suggest they are?

Well, if it is too late the billions spent trying to slow it are of no matter then are they? You can't have it both ways.

If you look(ed) at the graphs you will see the spikes starting at the time of the 1st Gulf War, scientists and environmentalist warned at the time the amout of oil wells burning would increase Global Warming by CO2 emissions, and it did. However, after that the spike did not decrease, human fossil fuel consumption has increased, not decreased. As has clear cuts.

Forest fires around the world have also increased CO2 emissions,and the Indonessian peat fire that started because of clear cutting rain forests also have had significant impacts.

The increase in forest fires is because of the unstable weather patterns and by droungt also caused by CO2 emissions.

Practical immediate solutions would be:

1. Immediate investing in hemp production and industry for paper products, this would do

several positive things alone.

- decrease the need for cellulose from trees, that are being clear cut for such purposes.

- increase the amount of carbon sinks needed, and keeping the ones in place that we

already have

- provide economic sustainabilty for environmentally friendly economics

- reclaim marginal and overused land by re-building top soil levels

- keep top soil levels in place that may be blown away because of drought, and thereby

become semis arid and arid land that is useless

- create hemp fibre products that replace those made from plastics that are made from

fossil fuels

2. Invest in glass making industries that would halt the over use of plastics. This would also create market industries in areas that need economic revitalization, as would hemp production.

3. Tax plastics and plastic containers and those that make them, heavily so that people are encouraged to use refillable packaging

4. Industry and governmental facilitation of dual use, or triple use industries, such as channeling steam and heat output from industry into such things as warming greenhouses in nothern climates.

5. Invest in brick manufacturing that would create a new medium for housing as opposed to wood structures. This would also cut down on clear cuts, living trees for CO2 sinks and create industry for displaced work force. It could also be done in areas where economic decline has commenced but that have some of the needed requirments for such an industry. Brick structures are also more energy conserving.

6. Change from our current GDP designation for well being to a GPI.

7. Force industry that is making huge profits from fossil fuel extraction to be environmentally safe

[stevoh]

That would be miniscule compared to a volcano erupting.

from: U.S. Geological Survey

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

[White Doors]

That would be miniscule compared to a volcano erupting.

from: U.S. Geological Survey

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

Yes, ALL human activities. She is trying to tie the first gulf war into global warming.

Don't be obtuse, it doesn't look good on catchme, try not to catch it from her if you know what I mean.