 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (3)big recycle belb ...and 127 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614087 Today 7 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Also, what would it actually take to convince you guys? The actual catastrophy? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I got 2 minutes in and stopped. I have no idea what Global Dimming is, but to be blunt, if I have to sit through minutes of 2 dorks who don't seem to agree on anything or of rehearsed it at all, I can live without knowing about it. Drunken Mastah: Nah, irrefutable proof that humans, a) Are a significant factor in global warming and b) That it would not happen anyway (within say 50-100 years) would be perfectly adequate. I am familiar with (and agree, to an extent) with the Precautionary Principle that manic miner discussed. My problem with it is this: We can dramatically change our way of life, greatly inconveniencing ourselves and still make very little difference. I don't mean "we as individuals don't count", I don't agree with that. I mean the proportion of what we as individuals are responsible for only reduces marginally. I remember reading an article in the Guardian a while back about a journo who, for a fairly significant period of time (it was at least for 6 months), tried to not cause any environmental impact. He threw himself into it wholeheartedly (he was in favour of this sort of change- he wasn't out to prove how hard it was), amongst other things, he made sure all his food was grown locally, was fair traded, organic, etc. sold his family's cars, used public transport (which he could as he lived in London, most places in the UK it's not a viable option). He conceded that it had been very hard and the extra effort had taken up a great deal of his free time (cycling instead of driving to the shops), he had a lot less disposable income and that for many people in the country, it simply would not be possible to do everything to the extent he did (they may live too far from shops etc.). In spite of all this, he seemed happy. How much did he reduce his impact? 24%. So, what else should he have done? What's he to do with the other 76%?! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
People would be more prepared to say, "okay, maybe it won't happen, but lets act like it will anyway, just in case" if: a) What was required of you was practically possible, without throwing yourself back to the dark ages (in which case, you might as well wait for the cataclysm and at least delay it by a few years). b) Their actions would dramatically reduce the human effect (even if that turned out to only be a tiny fraction) on global warming. I'd like to ask a question. Irrespective of what you think causes global warming, if this disaster happens, what exactly do you think will happen? Will we change overnight and all live on small self sufficient farms powered by renewable energy? Will governments tolerate the inevitable disolution of their power that the closing of an age of technology would bring? I think we're more likely to (at least in the first decade of things getting really bad) likely to see isolationism in the few regions which will remain habitable, a largely closed door to immigrant into them and business carrying on as normal, albeit with a lot more money being spent on renewable energy-powered air conditioning and research into the alternatives. Meanwhile, in hotter bits of the world, people die in droves while the governments in cooler regions make token (but ultimately meaningless) gestures of aid. I know the latter scenario is a great deal more bleak, but I also think it's a lot more likely. That is, if this disaster ever occurs. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*immigration |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nobody's saying we've all got to go 100% green. just make small changes to our lives. the funny thing is that if gamblers like yourself who play the devil's advocate prevail, then those of us left will certainly have to go 100% green, and society as a whole will take a huge step back. I really don't see the point of being a skeptic when there's such a huge body of evidence to assert the contrary. It's exactly the same as being a Creationist in today's world. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You make me sound like some ogre who rapes mother earth with scant regard for the consequences. :) I love nature and I am actually fairly green. I have done woodland conservation work since I was a child. I recycle, repair and re-use wherever possible (in the gap since my last post I was actually working a bit of metal in my garage to make it fit a new purpose, so I wouldn't need to buy a ready made mount for my GPS). All the food in our house is organic (admittedly this is more the gf's doing than mine), most of it is fair traded too. We run things like the washing machine/bread maker on timers overnight. Only this month, I switched to a water meter. Most of my colleagues drive big cars on business trips, whereas I ride a (as small as you can realistically use for distance riding) motorbike. I walk for short errands into town (1-2 miles), rather than go by car. It's more usual for me to stay in the UK than go abroad for holidays. Last time I did that "How many earths would it take to support your lifestyle for everyone on earth" tests I got 1.7 earths, which is pretty good for someone living in the developed west. I'm also actually really interested in renewable energy and conceed that eventually petrol will run out. I still can't help but feel that in spite of all this, it doesn't make much difference compared to all the other things that cause global warming and that if it's going to happen, it will anyway. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, first of all you won't ever get irrefutable proof.. that's an impossibility. You will, however, get, as we now have, adequate proof (a correlation between observed increased pollution and observed increased global average temperature plus more extreme abnormal weather) and currently accepted by the majority of scientists in the field. Now, about that reporter. He didn't actually do all he could, so that 24% reduction isn't the full story. That's what he could do with today's situation. What needs to be done, what needs to be changed, isn't just your own habits, but also that of the government, so to speak. You need political guidelines and engagement in the market to encourage less pollution and sanction more pollution. In other words, you need more restrictions and taxes on the bad stuff and better subsidies for the good stuff. If you complain about bla bla it's all a conspiracy to make money off taxes, remember that tax money doesn't just go into a huge black hole, it comes out on the other side. Now, to change policy, you need lots of people in a group doing a collective effort to make the politicians change their policy. If that reporter had gone more out of his way to do something like that, I'm sure he could easily have cut his impact by much more, and it would be easier for everyone to do the same. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Nothing will happen over night. The richest countries will have enough money and time to build barriers to keep the rising sea level at bay. USA may even manage to build that hair brained outer space sun screen some maniac proposed. The problem with this is that it just shows a lack of will to take responsibility; "oh, we can just fix it afterwards, so let's keep up damaging it now." There's also the problem of all the poor countries like the Maldives (highest point is 2,3m above sea level, and they don't have any actual natural resources) which will be swallowed up by the sea. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think anyone who doesn't believe in global warming and that it has a negative effect on the environment is really kind of ignorant. I'm not trying to start anything here, but really, it doesn't take a genious to realize that pollution does harm to the environment. Correct me if I'm wrong, because it's been a while since I watched that movie, but pollution makes the ozone layer thicker isn't that right? Now that's not too hard to believe because it makes sense that chemicals pumped into the air might react with other natural chemicals there. If the ozone layer is thicker, then less heat from the sun will get out, which means the temperature will rise. If the temperatures rise then the polar ice caps will melt. Obviously that's a bad thing. I dunno, I guess I just don't see what reason anyone has to make this shit up. I guess these environmental groups are trying to make money off it some how?.................... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's also a problem, as implied by me in #02067784: People buy some organic food and recycle some things and think they're green, think they're "doing all they can" while "all you can" involves quite a bit more. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In that scenario, I'm alright. Even though I live on the coast I bought a house above the maximum possible sea level. I'd also welcome a few degrees more heat to extend my blissful weeknight bbqs down the beach and swimming in the sea by a couple of weeks. What was the downside again? Mwahaha! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I also think you, as too many others, think it's harder to accomplish anything than it actually is, and thus it becomes so: As I said, you need lots of people to change things, but if everyone locks themselves up at home in a corner going "I can't do anything anyway," it does indeed get harder to do this. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That story you mention doesn't really have any point as far as I'm concerned. Obviously one person is not going to dramatically have an effect on global warming, but does that mean people should stop trying to encourage people to reduce their own emissions? The whole point of focusing on the individual is that eventually if millions of people take the effort of the man you mentioned, maybe there will be a significant effect. The main problem is changing the whole culture and infrastructure in my opinion. Everything is based around stuff which polutes, be it cars, machinery, energy sources, whatever. Obviously if one person tries to go against that it will be difficult, but the whole point is to try and change that whole culture and get things moving towards more environmentally friendly methods on a large scale. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I agree. Like I said, the whole point of focusing on the individual is not really that one person can dramatically effect this, but that if millions of individuals listen and change their own lifestyle then there will be a dramatic effect. People need to ignore the fact that they themselves can't make an impact and just change things anyway. Then once a lot of people start doing this we'll see results. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That was for ceri, not funkmaster. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I was a bit late there, but your reply is good. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and here's a graph (in norwegian). It has some of the doomsday predictions you're requesting, and is simplified for laymen. Mellomistid, varm = Middle ice age, hot Global temperatur = you'll figure it out Istid, kald = Ice age, cold Over naturlig nivå = Above natural level År før nåtid = Years before now I dag = Today År i fremtid = Years in the future Menneskeskapt drivhuseffekt = Human greenhouse effect Terskel for bredannelse = Threshold for the creation of glaciers Naturlig temperaturutvikling = Natural temperature development The prophetic parts of this is the 1000 years into the future prediction. The peak that first goes up and goes down again is because they're calculating in the final end of all fossil fuels (which doesn't necessarily mean the end of pollution, but they're assuming we haven't found more shit to burn by then.. or we've died). The natural temperature development is probably derived from those observations one has made about naturally occurring phenomena, like distance to the sun plus knowledge of past variations, which occur with a certain regularity. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ooops. here it is. too much studying today, I need some food. |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
For the people interested: The IPCC reports are widely considered to be the most authoritative written on climate change. They consider the latest scientific evidence and are written and reviewed by thousands of the world's leading climate scientists. Their conclusions are then discussed and finalised by representatives of 190 national governments. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i hate this debate more and more every time i see it. it's so full of ad hominem attacks by both sides that it is almost impossible to even tell what the important points are, much less debate them on their merit. for instance, the swindle guy compares the environmentalists to nazis, and alludes to the politician's political agendas. And redrum counters with "I wonder which corporations funded that movie.". both points might be valid, but neither even begin to address the factual truth of the debate. (below are hypotheticals used solely to illustrate my point) Al Gore may very well be using his movie as part of an interest generating ploy for an upcoming presidential campaign. But, that just can not be used as proof that the facts in the movie are wrong. Conversely, the swindle documentary could be funded in its entirety by Exxon, and that wouldn't be conclusive evidence that its conclusions are incorrect. Both of those could and should be considered when looking at the facts of the debate skeptically, but too often those types of points become the sole basis of the debate. Which is very frustrating to me, and ultimately makes me not even care. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ceri, you'rre offit |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
NAZIS |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the real danger is hail. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I still haven't got a proper reply to my question about what, exactly, is being doubted. You can say that you doubt that we are having such a large effect on the environment, but on what basis do you doubt this? Do you believe greenhouse gases to not have the effect they supposedly do? Do you believe we release less than we supposedly do? What is it you doubt? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
THIS is the REAL danger: |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
OMG!!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Anyway, if only one person tried and changes its lifestyle in order to prevent global warming, it would already be a good thing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
A new report released with the effects that have already been observed. It's probably available at your local newspapers homepage, I can only link a norwegian article. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Also, will the sceptics answer my question? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There's a link to the pdf in the linked page... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
they're still crying. it's hard to face the facts |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ah, so their tears are clouding their vision so they can't read the reports. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, it's pretty emotional so i wouldn't make fun of it if i were you |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oops, sorry. I hope didn't step on anyone's toes. Unless they're jews or niggers of course. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
answers?! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Actually, I'd like to add another question. First, to reiterate the first one: What, exactly, is it you doubt? The effect of greenhouse gases? The amount of these gases released by humans? What? Now, then... Why do you think I believe we are the cause? And what do you think I would say if you asked me "Why do you think I don't believe we are the cause?" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
God damned, why do they drop off the now online list whenever I bump? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
don't push it. you're getting on everybody's nerves. let them come to their own senses. if they want to reply, they will. this is not a debating contest. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm just bumping to catch their attention. This topic kind of died for a while so they could be unaware of its resurrection. And no, it isn't a contest, but this is the only place I'm likely to get a proper reply to that particular question, which I kind of need... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
