Global Warming, the real threat to society

[Jeremy]

Actually my point was nothing to with if what the average person does. I was simply saying that the things we do, we do because ultimately they make us feel good. Addressing climate change is another thing where we can put in time and effort and feel good about the results, or we can spend money and effort and short term projects, destroy the environment, and end up feeling bad. What I'm saying is that even from a selfish point of view, it makes sense to deal with climate change.

Yeah... I got that. No need to repeat yourself.

I always think it's best to say things twice to people who are a bit slow.

[Jeremy]

Actually my point was nothing to with if what the average person does. I was simply saying that the things we do, we do because ultimately they make us feel good. Addressing climate change is another thing where we can put in time and effort and feel good about the results, or we can spend money and effort and short term projects, destroy the environment, and end up feeling bad. What I'm saying is that even from a selfish point of view, it makes sense to deal with climate change.

Yeah... I got that. No need to repeat yourself.

I always think it's best to say things twice to people who are a bit slow.

[mosher]

Yeah... I got that. No need to repeat yourself.

Actually you never appear to get anything, so repeating often seems necessary.

You're really frustrating dude, the only reason I want you to come back and post in any thread is in the hopes that you will take the time to read the things that people are saying as they tear your idiocy apart. Maybe some of their logic will sink in and you will finally lose some of your naivity and ignorance.

Jeremy, I think that your 'double post' is the first thing on modified to make me LOL in a while. You rule!

[HighDemonslayer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_ ... lar_trek_1

Frostbite ends Bancroft-Arnesen trek

By PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press Writer Mon Mar 12, 5:28 PM ET

MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.
(....)

The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming.
(....)


-n

[C-Fan]

Well, that one article convinced me. I guess global warming was a big hoax. Some lady got frostbite by going up north? I guess that the overall global temperatures haven't been rising, and that atmospheric levels of CO2 haven't reached alarming rates. Humanity may have lost 3 toes to frostbite, but think of all the peace of mind we've gained, knowing that global warming doesn't exist. Seems like a fair tradeoff to me.

[Outsider]

I guess I may just be adding fuel to the fire, but I just love a nice fire so...
this article is from yesterday's New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html
Its a bit long, I guess, so if you don't feel like reading all of it, I'll summarize my favorite points:

Lots of main-stream and non-corporate sponsored scientists from a range of fields, a range of respected academic and environmental institutions, and a range of countries, disagree with Al Gore's view of climate change as expressed in his film and book, "An Inconvenient Truth." They accuse him of exaggerating, sometimes deliberately, or of simply being wrong. They give many good examples.

And I'll draw special attention to one other favorite point:

The World Health Organisation states that over 150,000 people die every year because of global warming.

From the article below:
Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,â€

[Jeremy]

Just to be clear, it is not Al Gore who claims that 150,000 people died in 2000 as a result of climate change. Al Gore simply stated the study by the World Health Organisation; a body of the United Nations. You can read the entire report here;

http://www.who.int/whr/2002/en/

The World Health Organisation also put out another report in 2003 about the risks and responses to climate change.

http://www.who.int/globalchange/publica ... index.html

---------------

It may be that Al Gore exaggerated, or went with the highest predictions, instead of the average predictions, but isn't it better, when millions of peoples homes are in danger of being destroyed, and about 20% of life on Earth is in danger of becoming extinct (at a very conservative estimate) that we do what we can to stop that, even if we're wrong?

Lets look at the evidence for a moment. There is scientific consensus (to say that greater than 99% of climate based scientists agree) that global warming is happening and happening because of human actions.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686

There has been substantial and an ever increasing rate of loss in biodiversity, especially in recent years.

http://www.pnyv.org/idec2006/HB/index.htm

Scientific information since the cut off date for evaluated information resulting in the last IPCC report shows that sea levels are actually rising faster than predicted by that report.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stor ... 870127.htm

http://www.a2mediagroup.com/?c=167&a=13655

We should consider these facts;

Current extinction rates are between 1000 and 10,000 times higher than prior to human existence.

http://app.iucn.org/info_and_news/press ... s2000.html

For 3000 years up to 1900, the rate of sea level rise was 0.1 to 0.2 mm per year. Since 1900 the rate of sea level rise is 3 mm per year, or 15 to 30 times greater than it was for 3000 years.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/426.htm

13 of the 15 largest cities in the world are on coastal plains

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/impact/flooding.shtml

Currently 2,800,000,000 people live within 100km of the coast.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1726

An average of 10,000,000 people are displaced due to environmental disasters every year.

http://www.byronenvironmentcentre.asn.au/refugee.htm

A 1cm rise in sea levels typically erodes 1m of beaches

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/221.htm



Give all those facts, isn't it clear that we should be doing whatever possible to prevent and lessen the effects of global warming, in order to prevent the likelihood of sea levels rising significantly, the world experiencing more extreme natural disasters and the continued loss of biodiversity?

Wouldn't it better to do whatever we can to stop global warming, and be wrong that the impacts could be as bad as predicted, rather than to do little, and have the impacts be as bad as predicted?

According to Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the economic costs of climate change; if we work to prevent climate change and our predictions are exaggerated, it will cost us 1% of GDP. However, if we continue with our current efforts and do not significantly reduce climate change and our predictions are accurate, it will cost us 20% of GDP. 20% of GDP is $9,000,000,000,000 USD, and accounting for inflation, is more than the great depression, World War 1 and World War 2 cost combined.

Personally I am more than happy to "waste" 1% of GDP in order to prevent the possibility of losing 20%.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independe ... _index.cfm



There are a number of reasons we can criticise Al Gore and his film over. However the fact is that after the release of that film, and also the releases of the Stern Report and the IPPC report, climate change has finally become a serious issue with a consensus outside of science that it is occurring. The Australian Government, which has denied climate change is occurring for the last 10 years (waiting for conclusive evidence) has now budgeted tens of millions of dollars into reducing Australia's emissions (8th in the world per person). With the up coming election, climate change is the biggest issue being discussed. 92% of Australians now favour measures being taken to combat global warming. 70% believe we should do that even if there is significant cost.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 872029.htm

Wouldn't you agree that the recent combination of climate change warnings has resulted in a significant change in global policy towards addressing the problem? Considering what is at stake, is scaring people with the worst predictions really that bad, especially when you consider that the IPCC 2001 predictions on sea level rise were 50% too low over 6 years? (already sourced above).

[Uranos]

the question isnt about if global warming is present or not, whatever the truth is its better if we start acting now anyways for the good of our future!

[james]

The question is not what can global warming do for you, but what can you do for global warming.

[Switch Kicker]

The question is not what can global warming do for you, but what can you do for global warming.

Wouldn't it be, "The question isn't what can global warming do against you, but what can you do against global warming?"

[Outsider]

Pretty sure he was kidding, Switch. I thought it was funny, anyway.

[Switch Kicker]

I know he was kidding. I just think it's kinda funny to say the opposite of the original quote, because in this case, it works.

[Scott]

Just to back-up what Jeremy said,
in the lead up to year 2000 we spent $300b or approx. 0.7% of GDP on
the millenium bug. (figures from wikipedia and imf)
I'm pretty sure climate change presents more of a threat to our way of life.

[HighDemonslayer]

While the scientific debate continues on this, we should give some thought to the truly horrendous emitters, and how our level of sacrifice might compare to the reckless, energy abandon they display.

What if every modified.ca member gives up their car, and starts pulling a rickshaw around town, and then gets negated by a single, obscene emitter?

Everybody who made bigger sacrifices, would have been played for fools, their efforts meaningless to every person on earth.... except perhaps their own selfish ego.




Other individuals should be analysed, for their carbon footprints.

If their carbon footprints are out of proportion, to the benefit they provide to society, then we need to consider seizing their assets and properties, to curtail their genocidal habits.

If they could flee the country and continue their genocidal polluting in another country, we need to consider imprisoning them in advance.

Some groups have been calculating Al Gore's carbon footprint, since his movie came out, so we should be able to analyze others as well.


The emission habits of several million citizens could be negated by stopping a few hundred truly undeserving individuals.


-n

[Switch Kicker]

While the scientific debate continues on this, we should give some thought to the truly horrendous emitters, and how our level of sacrifice might compare to the reckless, energy abandon they display.

What if every modified.ca member gives up their car, and starts pulling a rickshaw around town, and then gets negated by a single, obscene emitter?

Everybody who made bigger sacrifices, would have been played for fools, their efforts meaningless to every person on earth.... except perhaps their own selfish ego.




Other individuals should be analysed, for their carbon footprints.

If their carbon footprints are out of proportion, to the benefit they provide to society, then we need to consider seizing their assets and properties, to curtail their genocidal habits.

If they could flee the country and continue their genocidal polluting in another country, we need to consider imprisoning them in advance.

Some groups have been calculating Al Gore's carbon footprint, since his movie came out, so we should be able to analyze others as well.


The emission habits of several million citizens could be negated by stopping a few hundred truly undeserving individuals.


-n

Such as celebrities who drive large vehicles, Escalades (Spelling?) and Hummers for instance. With their "50 inch rims" and... very dumb and pointless largness...

Reminds me of that line from "Over the Hedge" lol. The racoon is guiding the animals around teh newly built saburb neighborhood, and he points out a really big SUV, the racoon goes, "This, is an SUV. Humans use it to get around because they are slowly losing their ability to walk." (It's an 8 seater saburban. btw) And then one of the other animals goes, "How many humans ride in that huge things?" Racoon goes, "Just one. And over here we got...." I died when I saw that.

A Hummer (civilian ones anyway...) isn't even a utility vehicle. They are only used to show just how fucking loaded you are. They should be banned. They have no practical use in the world, they eat up gas... Either that, or they should tax the SHIT out of them. Lets say... 50% taxation on hummbers. And you can't get an SUV of any kind without going through a screening process to prove whether or not you need the larger vehicle... Screw it, I'll just leave it at that.

[slapdash21]

so the dude who claims to have no problem with hundreds of children starving daily takes issue with people who drive SUVs? i hope you see the discrepancy here. i really do.

[Slowsis]

I have a negative carbon footprint big enough for about half of modified. I think Mosher makes up for the other half. Not joking.

Here is a clue how.

http://www.americanforests.org/resources/ccc/index.php

[Jeremy]

I also have a negative carbon footprint.

Like with everything, I think if you have a problem with something, say the amount of greenhouse gas emissions released into the air, the first step is to do as much you can personally do. Of course worry about what other people are doing, but start by setting the example of what you'd like other people to do. If you sit back and complain about other people, but don't do anything yourself, you're just as much a part of the problem as they are.

I don't believe we're going to solve this problem by attacking people for the emissions, but by helping them reduce them.

If I turn around to somebody and say; "what the fuck are you doing? You're destroying my planet and killing people, that makes you a bad person," that probably will make them feel aggressive and alienated to my cause. Rather than supporting my view, they're going to oppose it. On the other hand, if I say something like; "It's fantastic that you're so successful, you could save this much more money by reducing your carbon emissions and increasing your energy efficiency, and you're not only helping yourself, but you're helping everybody," surely while I'm asking the person do to the same thing, the second approach would be much more successful.

It really doesn't matter what Al Gore's carbon emissions are, we can't do much to change it and it's an irrelevant issue compared to the real issue, which is the global emissions. My understanding is that he offsets his emissions by buying carbon credits, which means that the total average of his emissions, and thus his effect on the problem is 0 or even negative emissions. Some ignorant conservatives attack this but consider the case for a moment. Al Gore pays money for trees to be planted. Trees take carbon out of the atmosphere. If Al Gore did not pay that money, those trees would not be planted. Al Gore also releases carbon into the atmosphere. The problem with global warming is that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is rising. AL Gore is clearly not responsible for the rising amounts of carbon. If all individuals and businesses had negative carbon emissions there would not be a problem.

[HighDemonslayer]

I just achieved a negative carbon footprint.


How did I do it?

I just bought $300 worth of carbon offsets.

Now I can feel good about the "negative" amount of carbon I produce.


I actually bought the offsets from myself.

So it didn't cost me anything really. I paid myself.

Clearly , buying offsets from yourself is a legitimate practice, and I should be able to brag about, and you should brag about me too, because of the Sustainable Sensitivity I exude.


-n

[Slowsis]

I planted the trees myself, with a shovel and bags of seedlings. Literally thousands of them....86,100 to be exact. Carbon offsets and various other ways of buying your way into a false sense of accomplishment are poor excuses for environmentalism.

Next summer I might be going to British Columbia to replant forests devestated by the Pine Beetle. This insect has been ravaging Canada's western pine forests....and is able to do so because of climate change. Check it..... http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets ... 4010_74010

Heres a quote for those to lazy to read the whole thing.

In a series of studies tracking decades of annual temperature and precipitation patterns in various regions of central and southern B.C. now infested with pine beetles, Allan Carroll, a researcher with Natural Resources Canada's Pacific Forestry Centre in Victoria, has built a powerful case. He concludes a long run of warmer winters and hotter summers has vigorously encouraged beetle proliferation. "There's been a 25% increase in the traditional area extremely suitable as habitat for the beetles,'' Carroll says, after noting the insects didn't easily survive extremely cold winters or moist summers back when they were more often common in central B.C. "There's no question [their] range has expanded over the last 30 years due to ameliorating climate."