Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

I don't see that contradicting what I posted.


Choisya wrote:

On the other hand.

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Biodiversity is greater in warmer climate areas, saysthis article.  And whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, yuou belive or accept that human life started in a tropical climate.

 

So what?  Well, the implication is that the, assuing global waring is real, the warmer the globe gets, the more biodiversity that will emerge over time.  If a warmer climate were to kill off a few arctic species, such as the polar bar (and this is by no means agreed on), it is equally likely to replace it with a bunch of news species which, without the global warming, would never have had the chance to come into existence.  If global warming forces some specie, such as coral, to migrate toward the poles, new species, and perhaps more of them, will emerge to replace them.  

 

If the seas rise (and keep in mind that this can only happen by the melting of land-based glaciers; the melting of the polar ice cap will do nothing to change sea level, any more than a melting ice cube raises the level of water in a glass of water), that will create new inter-tidal areas where new species will have an opportunity to arise and flourish.

 

It could even be argued that, far from being a disaster for the globe as a whole, global warming could be a boon to life on earth.   So fire up those gas guzzlers, folks; you're the true environmentalists!


 


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

[ Edited ]

I emailed your post to my eldest daughter who has just been awarded an MSc in Architecture : Advanced Energy and Environmental Studies and is about to embark on her PhD on similar topics.  This is her response: 

 

'It is inaccurate to state that seas will only rise by the melting of polar ice caps. It also happens through thermal expansion of the oceans (water expands when it gets hot) Here are some of the effects as cited by UNFCCC

A few possible consequences of rising sea levels:
     
  • Billions spent on adaptation – if you can afford it.  The US has roughly 20,000 km (12,400 miles) of coastline and more than 32,000 km (19,900 miles) of coastal wetlands. A recent study estimated the costs of adapting to even a one metre sea level rise in the US would amount to US$156 billion (3 percent of GNP).  Most countries don't have this kind of money to spend. 
  • With only a one metre sea level rise some island nations, such as the Maldives, would be submerged. Already, two of the islands that make up Kiribati (a Pacific island nation) have gone under the waves, and in early 2005 others were inundated by a high spring tide that washed away farmland, contaminated wells with saltwater, and flooded homes and a hospital.      
  • If current warming trends continue, cities like London, Bangkok and New York will end up below sea level – displacing millions and causing massive economic damage. Alexandria, Egypt, is one of the many cities that could be inundated by a one meter sea level rise. At some point, building higher and higher sea walls becomes impractical, and even the wealthiest nations will see cities flood.   [London's flood defence, the Thames Barrier, is already inadequate. C.]
  • Rising oceans will contaminate both surface and underground fresh water supplies. - worsening the world's existing fresh water shortage. Underground water sources in Thailand, Israel, China, Vietnam and some island states are already experiencing salt water contamination.   
  • Rural populations and farmland (especially rice) on some coasts will be wiped out.  For example, according to the UK Royal Society a one metre sea level rise could flood 17 percent of Bangladesh, one of the world's poorest countries, displacing tens of millions of people and reducing its rice-farming land by 50 percent.   
There is some good news, though. If we act rapidly to reduce emissions we can still prevent the worst effects of climate change.  Switching to renewable energy sources, if we do it fast enough, is our only hope to avoid disastrous sea level rise.

Stop the gas guzzlers now!!!'

 

 

 

 

Everyman wrote:

Biodiversity is greater in warmer climate areas, saysthis article.  And whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, yuou belive or accept that human life started in a tropical climate.

 

So what?  Well, the implication is that the, assuing global waring is real, the warmer the globe gets, the more biodiversity that will emerge over time.  If a warmer climate were to kill off a few arctic species, such as the polar bar (and this is by no means agreed on), it is equally likely to replace it with a bunch of news species which, without the global warming, would never have had the chance to come into existence.  If global warming forces some specie, such as coral, to migrate toward the poles, new species, and perhaps more of them, will emerge to replace them.  

 

If the seas rise (and keep in mind that this can only happen by the melting of land-based glaciers; the melting of the polar ice cap will do nothing to change sea level, any more than a melting ice cube raises the level of water in a glass of water), that will create new inter-tidal areas where new species will have an opportunity to arise and flourish.

 

It could even be argued that, far from being a disaster for the globe as a whole, global warming could be a boon to life on earth.   So fire up those gas guzzlers, folks; you're the true environmentalists!


 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-16-2008 09:10 AM
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

Yes, I understand that you have bought completely into the global warming theory.  I remain skeptical, remembering full well that in my youth the warning of just as many just as eminent scientists was of the coming ice age, and suspecting that this worm will turn yet again in fifteen or twenty years and we'll be back to some other dire Malthusian prophecy. The GW crowd may be right, they may be wrong, and we will find out eventually. 

 

But I also understand that for those who believe, global warming is as a encompassing a belief as religious belief.  They want everybody else to believe, too, and alter their lives to follow the edicts and dictates of their chosen leaders.  

 

 


Choisya wrote:

I emailed your post to my eldest daughter who has just been awarded an MSc in Architecture : Advanced Energy and Environmental Studies and is about to embark on her PhD on similar topics.  This is her response: 

 

'It is inaccurate to state that seas will only rise by the melting of polar ice caps. It also happens through thermal expansion of the oceans (water expands when it gets hot) Here are some of the effects as cited by UNFCCC

A few possible consequences of rising sea levels:
     
  • Billions spent on adaptation – if you can afford it.  The US has roughly 20,000 km (12,400 miles) of coastline and more than 32,000 km (19,900 miles) of coastal wetlands. A recent study estimated the costs of adapting to even a one metre sea level rise in the US would amount to US$156 billion (3 percent of GNP).  Most countries don't have this kind of money to spend. 
  • With only a one metre sea level rise some island nations, such as the Maldives, would be submerged. Already, two of the islands that make up Kiribati (a Pacific island nation) have gone under the waves, and in early 2005 others were inundated by a high spring tide that washed away farmland, contaminated wells with saltwater, and flooded homes and a hospital.      
  • If current warming trends continue, cities like London, Bangkok and New York will end up below sea level – displacing millions and causing massive economic damage. Alexandria, Egypt, is one of the many cities that could be inundated by a one meter sea level rise. At some point, building higher and higher sea walls becomes impractical, and even the wealthiest nations will see cities flood.   [London's flood defence, the Thames Barrier, is already inadequate. C.]
  • Rising oceans will contaminate both surface and underground fresh water supplies. - worsening the world's existing fresh water shortage. Underground water sources in Thailand, Israel, China, Vietnam and some island states are already experiencing salt water contamination.   
  • Rural populations and farmland (especially rice) on some coasts will be wiped out.  For example, according to the UK Royal Society a one metre sea level rise could flood 17 percent of Bangladesh, one of the world's poorest countries, displacing tens of millions of people and reducing its rice-farming land by 50 percent.   
There is some good news, though. If we act rapidly to reduce emissions we can still prevent the worst effects of climate change.  Switching to renewable energy sources, if we do it fast enough, is our only hope to avoid disastrous sea level rise.

Stop the gas guzzlers now!!!'

 

 

 

 

Everyman wrote:

Biodiversity is greater in warmer climate areas, saysthis article.  And whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, yuou belive or accept that human life started in a tropical climate.

 

So what?  Well, the implication is that the, assuing global waring is real, the warmer the globe gets, the more biodiversity that will emerge over time.  If a warmer climate were to kill off a few arctic species, such as the polar bar (and this is by no means agreed on), it is equally likely to replace it with a bunch of news species which, without the global warming, would never have had the chance to come into existence.  If global warming forces some specie, such as coral, to migrate toward the poles, new species, and perhaps more of them, will emerge to replace them.  

 

If the seas rise (and keep in mind that this can only happen by the melting of land-based glaciers; the melting of the polar ice cap will do nothing to change sea level, any more than a melting ice cube raises the level of water in a glass of water), that will create new inter-tidal areas where new species will have an opportunity to arise and flourish.

 

It could even be argued that, far from being a disaster for the globe as a whole, global warming could be a boon to life on earth.   So fire up those gas guzzlers, folks; you're the true environmentalists!


 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-16-2008 09:10 AM

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Bibliophile
KathyS
Posts: 6,898
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

Whether we believe, or not believe, in global warming [or anything else] - Isn't it better to be aware, than stick our heads in the sand?

 

Whether gas guzzlers create these situation/problems, or anything else that emits toxins into our air that we breath, don't you think we need to at least think about the possible problems it may incur to future generations?  What does it hurt to change?  What does it hurt to stay the same?

 

We need to take the future of this little planet a little more seriously.  The selfishness,  in which  we think we are invincible, is becoming ridiculous.

Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

I agree Kathy!!

KathyS wrote:

Whether we believe, or not believe, in global warming [or anything else] - Isn't it better to be aware, than stick our heads in the sand?

 

Whether gas guzzlers create these situation/problems, or anything else that emits toxins into our air that we breath, don't you think we need to at least think about the possible problems it may incur to future generations?  What does it hurt to change?  What does it hurt to stay the same?

 

We need to take the future of this little planet a little more seriously.  The selfishness,  in which  we think we are invincible, is becoming ridiculous.


 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

The question is, aware of what?   And is it possible for there to be too much awareness?  Our modern world of instant communication has seduced us into thinking that it is somehow incumbent on us to know and worry about what is happenng everywhere all the time.  We can't possibly be aware of everything in the world that may affect us, so we have to be selective.  And in the meantime, IMO we need to focus primarily on the people and concerns which are most central to our lives -- our families, neighbors, communities. 

 

I heard Al Gore interviewed the other day.  He was asked how we get China and India to modify their behaviors, since their actions (China builds a new coal fired electricity plant every week)  dwarf any improvements we can make.  His answer was that we need to demonstrate the way in our own lives.  To which I say, you start, Mr. Gore.  Get rid of that huge house which sucks up far more energy than any individual with concern about our planet needs.  Stop flying all over the globe spewing more toxins into the air in a single flight than my car emits in an entire year.   If one of the most self-declared aware people on the planet doesn't "get it" in his own life, why should I think it's that important?

 

BTW, Gore defends his energy use by claiming that he pays extra for "green" power and donates to other carbon-offsetting activities.  What this says is that it's okay for the rich to use far more than their fair share of energy, but not for the middle class or poor who can't afford such offsets.  (And if we could, if we all donated to the planting of trees instead of reducing our energy use, fat lot of good that would to the environment, and where would we put all those trees, and what would be the fossil fuel implication of the energy and fertilizer needed to grow the seedlings so we could plant trees that would have an impact now rather than sticking an acorn in the ground which might be ready to sop up excess carbon dioxide in twenty or thirty years).

 


KathyS wrote:

Whether we believe, or not believe, in global warming [or anything else] - Isn't it better to be aware, than stick our heads in the sand?

 

Whether gas guzzlers create these situation/problems, or anything else that emits toxins into our air that we breath, don't you think we need to at least think about the possible problems it may incur to future generations?  What does it hurt to change?  What does it hurt to stay the same?

 

We need to take the future of this little planet a little more seriously.  The selfishness,  in which  we think we are invincible, is becoming ridiculous.


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
RTA
Wordsmith
RTA
Posts: 920
Registered: ‎08-19-2008
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate


Everyman wrote:

Yes, I understand that you have bought completely into the global warming theory.  I remain skeptical, remembering full well that in my youth the warning of just as many just as eminent scientists was of the coming ice age, and suspecting that this worm will turn yet again in fifteen or twenty years and we'll be back to some other dire Malthusian prophecy. The GW crowd may be right, they may be wrong, and we will find out eventually. 

 

But I also understand that for those who believe, global warming is as a encompassing a belief as religious belief.  They want everybody else to believe, too, and alter their lives to follow the edicts and dictates of their chosen leaders.  

 


Perhaps it’s more responsible, rather than assuming someone has “bought completely into” one position or another, to recognize that someone might have a different perspective on the matter.  What Choisya offered was her perspective, but it didn’t, in any way, demonstrate that she has “bought completely into” anything.  (Well…waitaminute…perhaps it does.  She offered information on a point of contention, so perhaps it demonstrates that she has “bought completely into” the practice of supporting her position with relevant research and information.) 

 

That Choisya’s perspective on this topic differs than yours doesn’t necessitate that she examined it with any less rigor, or less of an open mind than you might have.  Notice that Choisya hasn't accused you of having “bought completely into” the skeptics’ positions, nor has she compared your position with unexamined religious dogma, despite the different position you represent here.  I think she probably understands that you value some information differently than she, and so you offer a different perspective.  It might be a better course to extend the same consideration to her, rather than jumping to presumptuous conclusions. 

 

 

Choisya, thanks to your daughter, and to everyone on this thread for contributing to the discussion.  I know far too little about this topic and appreciate the info that’s been provided, thus far.

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
KathyS
Posts: 6,898
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

[ Edited ]

Everyman wrote:

The question is, aware of what?   And is it possible for there to be too much awareness? 

 

To answer these questions:  To be aware of what?  Just look around you, and what do you see?  Of course you can't "see" air, unless it's filled with pollutants.  You now live is an area that gives you sea breezes, and fresh air is probably accepted as the norm.

I grew up in the LA area,  (and I think you lived there, once?) and if you don't think I didn't "see" these pollutants,  you're mistaken.  And by all means, I certainly felt them in my lungs!  Concentrated amounts of pollutants are hazardous to everyone's health, not to mention the plants that fight for their lives to give us back that much needed oxygen to our lungs.

 

Just as an example of our pollutants.  I had bought a car that was made in England, in the 70's.  After I drove it for a few months, I saw something happening to everything that was attached to rubber.  Things started to fall apart.  I won't go into the horrible outcome.  The English manager of that auto dealership told me that the "rubber" on these imported cars, start to deteriorate because of the ozone quality of our American air.  At that time our pollutants destroyed "real rubber".  Our cars are made, now, with synthetics that can withstand this deterioration.  I guess at that time, England had better air quality than ours.  Things change over time.

 

And to answer your second question:  NO, you can't be aware of "too much".  That's the statement that causes me to see people ignore issues, or as I had said, stick their heads in the sand.  There is no such thing as being "too aware" - IMHO.

 

Our modern world of instant communication has seduced us into thinking that it is somehow incumbent on us to know and worry about what is happening everywhere all the time. 

 

I'm sorry to hear that "our modern world of instant communication has seduced" - you!  To know is not necessarily to "worry about what is happening everywhere all the time."  It only should make you aware.  And if you feel so inclined, to do something about what is happening, if you feel there is change needed.

 

 We can't possibly be aware of everything in the world that may affect us, so we have to be selective.  And in the meantime, IMO we need to focus primarily on the people and concerns which are most central to our lives -- our families, neighbors, communities.

 

Yes, we do have to be selective, but to be concerned with just our "central", self-centered lives, does make me wonder if our own world is so limited, we see these other views as not important enough to consider thinking about.

 

I heard Al Gore interviewed the other day.  He was asked how we get China and India to modify their behaviors, since their actions (China builds a new coal fired electricity plant every week)  dwarf any improvements we can make.  His answer was that we need to demonstrate the way in our own lives.  To which I say, you start, Mr. Gore.  Get rid of that huge house which sucks up far more energy than any individual with concern about our planet needs.  Stop flying all over the globe spewing more toxins into the air in a single flight than my car emits in an entire year.   If one of the most self-declared aware people on the planet doesn't "get it" in his own life, why should I think it's that important?

 

If I believed everything Al Gore says, or does, I'd be in big trouble.  Yes, I wish he'd start with himself....but I don't look at what, or who he is, as a person, I look at the results of what his awareness has created.  He does become the contradiction, so I can see the differences and changes I would like to see in the world around me.  I'm not saying I buy into every Tom, Dick, or Harry, or fanatic, who try's to tell me that their way is the only way.  And the fanatic who tells me the world is coming to an end, tomorrow, or in four years:   I do think we should look to bottom line of all of these environmental concerns. 

 

I don't model my life on who Al Gore is, and what he has.  Yes, I do wish people would live the life they profess others to see, but I can't control that other person.  I can only control (most of the time) myself.  If there are laws that tell someone how big their house has to be, or the kind of car he drives, then we see results.  I don't make the laws, until I elect someone who will.  Yes, again, I agree Al Gore is not the role model we should be having, but I have to look past that, as I said, and see what it is I, personally, need to do to counteract the damage we've already caused in this world.  Yes, again and again, it does make me just as angry as you, to see hypocrites telling us what we should, or shouldn't do.  We can only do, what we can do.

 

BTW, Gore defends his energy use by claiming that he pays extra for "green" power and donates to other carbon-offsetting activities.  What this says is that it's okay for the rich to use far more than their fair share of energy, but not for the middle class or poor who can't afford such offsets.  (And if we could, if we all donated to the planting of trees instead of reducing our energy use, fat lot of good that would to the environment, and where would we put all those trees, and what would be the fossil fuel implication of the energy and fertilizer needed to grow the seedlings so we could plant trees that would have an impact now rather than sticking an acorn in the ground which might be ready to sop up excess carbon dioxide in twenty or thirty years).

 


KathyS wrote:

Whether we believe, or not believe, in global warming [or anything else] - Isn't it better to be aware, than stick our heads in the sand?

 

Whether gas guzzlers create these situation/problems, or anything else that emits toxins into our air that we breath, don't you think we need to at least think about the possible problems it may incur to future generations?  What does it hurt to change?  What does it hurt to stay the same?

 

We need to take the future of this little planet a little more seriously.  The selfishness,  in which  we think we are invincible, is becoming ridiculous.


 

 


 

Message Edited by KathyS on 10-16-2008 01:58 PM
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

Perhaps it’s more responsible, rather than assuming someone has “bought completely into” one position or another, to recognize that someone might have a different perspective on the matter.

 

Well, I suppose you could say that the KuKluxKlan had a "different perspective" on race relations than I do, or that Osama bin Laden has a "different perspective" on whether it is acceptable to crash airplanes into buildings than I do, but I think there is something beyond mere "different perspective."

 

Choisya and I have been going round about the climate debate for a long time, and I am quite satisfied to say that she has "bought completely into" the concept of global warming being bad for the earth.  If she disagrees, she can of course say so herself. She is quite articulate and capable of contesting viewpoints she disagrees with; I've never found that she needed a defender to try to come to her rescue. 

 


RTA wrote:

Everyman wrote:

Yes, I understand that you have bought completely into the global warming theory.  I remain skeptical, remembering full well that in my youth the warning of just as many just as eminent scientists was of the coming ice age, and suspecting that this worm will turn yet again in fifteen or twenty years and we'll be back to some other dire Malthusian prophecy. The GW crowd may be right, they may be wrong, and we will find out eventually. 

 

But I also understand that for those who believe, global warming is as a encompassing a belief as religious belief.  They want everybody else to believe, too, and alter their lives to follow the edicts and dictates of their chosen leaders.  

 


Perhaps it’s more responsible, rather than assuming someone has “bought completely into” one position or another, to recognize that someone might have a different perspective on the matter.  What Choisya offered was her perspective, but it didn’t, in any way, demonstrate that she has “bought completely into” anything.  (Well…waitaminute…perhaps it does.  She offered information on a point of contention, so perhaps it demonstrates that she has “bought completely into” the practice of supporting her position with relevant research and information.) 

 

That Choisya’s perspective on this topic differs than yours doesn’t necessitate that she examined it with any less rigor, or less of an open mind than you might have.  Notice that Choisya hasn't accused you of having “bought completely into” the skeptics’ positions, nor has she compared your position with unexamined religious dogma, despite the different position you represent here.  I think she probably understands that you value some information differently than she, and so you offer a different perspective.  It might be a better course to extend the same consideration to her, rather than jumping to presumptuous conclusions. 

 

 

Choisya, thanks to your daughter, and to everyone on this thread for contributing to the discussion.  I know far too little about this topic and appreciate the info that’s been provided, thus far.

 


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

Again Kathy I agree with you. It would be nice if celebrities that drove hybrid cars didn't also take personal jets everywhere but some do. That doesn't mean we can't do our part. I also thought Sheryl Crow was  a big phony, telling us how much toilet paper to use, but that does mean we shouldn't conserve and recycyle and whatever we can do. It's a good lesson to teach children also, because its about giving back and not just take, take, take. That applies to more than the environment.

KathyS wrote:

Everyman wrote:

The question is, aware of what?   And is it possible for there to be too much awareness? 

 

To answer these questions:  To be aware of what?  Just look around you, and what do you see?  Of course you can't "see" air, unless it's filled with pollutants.  You now live is an area that gives you sea breezes, and fresh air is probably accepted as the norm.

I grew up in the LA area,  (and I think you lived there, once?) and if you don't think I didn't "see" these pollutants,  you're mistaken.  And by all means, I certainly felt them in my lungs!  Concentrated amounts of pollutants are hazardous to everyone's health, not to mention the plants that fight for their lives to give us back that much needed oxygen to our lungs.

 

Just as an example of our pollutants.  I had bought a car that was made in England, in the 70's.  After I drove it for a few months, I saw something happening to everything that was attached to rubber.  Things started to fall apart.  I won't go into the horrible outcome.  The English manager of that auto dealership told me that the "rubber" on these imported cars, start to deteriorate because of the ozone quality of our American air.  At that time our pollutants destroyed "real rubber".  Our cars are made, now, with synthetics that can withstand this deterioration.  I guess at that time, England had better air quality than ours.  Things change over time.

 

And to answer your second question:  NO, you can't be aware of "too much".  That's the statement that causes me to see people ignore issues, or as I had said, stick their heads in the sand.  There is no such thing as being "too aware" - IMHO.

 

Our modern world of instant communication has seduced us into thinking that it is somehow incumbent on us to know and worry about what is happening everywhere all the time. 

 

I'm sorry to hear that "our modern world of instant communication has seduced" - you!  To know is not necessarily to "worry about what is happening everywhere all the time."  It only should make you aware.  And if you feel so inclined, to do something about what is happening, if you feel there is change needed.

 

 We can't possibly be aware of everything in the world that may affect us, so we have to be selective.  And in the meantime, IMO we need to focus primarily on the people and concerns which are most central to our lives -- our families, neighbors, communities.

 

Yes, we do have to be selective, but to be concerned with just our "central", self-centered lives, does make me wonder if our own world is so limited, we see these other views as not important enough to consider thinking about.

 

I heard Al Gore interviewed the other day.  He was asked how we get China and India to modify their behaviors, since their actions (China builds a new coal fired electricity plant every week)  dwarf any improvements we can make.  His answer was that we need to demonstrate the way in our own lives.  To which I say, you start, Mr. Gore.  Get rid of that huge house which sucks up far more energy than any individual with concern about our planet needs.  Stop flying all over the globe spewing more toxins into the air in a single flight than my car emits in an entire year.   If one of the most self-declared aware people on the planet doesn't "get it" in his own life, why should I think it's that important?

 

If I believed everything Al Gore says, or does, I'd be in big trouble.  Yes, I wish he'd start with himself....but I don't look at what, or who he is, as a person, I look at the results of what his awareness has created.  He does become the contradiction, so I can see the differences and changes I would like to see in the world around me.  I'm not saying I buy into every Tom, Dick, or Harry, or fanatic, who try's to tell me that their way is the only way.  And the fanatic who tells me the world is coming to an end, tomorrow, or in four years:   I do think we should look to bottom line of all of these environmental concerns. 

 

I don't model my life on who Al Gore is, and what he has.  Yes, I do wish people would live the life they profess others to see, but I can't control that other person.  I can only control (most of the time) myself.  If there are laws that tell someone how big their house has to be, or the kind of car he drives, then we see results.  I don't make the laws, until I elect someone who will.  Yes, again, I agree Al Gore is not the role model we should be having, but I have to look past that, as I said, and see what it is I, personally, need to do to counteract the damage we've already caused in this world.  Yes, again and again, it does make me just as angry as you, to see hypocrites telling us what we should, or shouldn't do.  We can only do, what we can do.

 

BTW, Gore defends his energy use by claiming that he pays extra for "green" power and donates to other carbon-offsetting activities.  What this says is that it's okay for the rich to use far more than their fair share of energy, but not for the middle class or poor who can't afford such offsets.  (And if we could, if we all donated to the planting of trees instead of reducing our energy use, fat lot of good that would to the environment, and where would we put all those trees, and what would be the fossil fuel implication of the energy and fertilizer needed to grow the seedlings so we could plant trees that would have an impact now rather than sticking an acorn in the ground which might be ready to sop up excess carbon dioxide in twenty or thirty years).

 


KathyS wrote:

Whether we believe, or not believe, in global warming [or anything else] - Isn't it better to be aware, than stick our heads in the sand?

 

Whether gas guzzlers create these situation/problems, or anything else that emits toxins into our air that we breath, don't you think we need to at least think about the possible problems it may incur to future generations?  What does it hurt to change?  What does it hurt to stay the same?

 

We need to take the future of this little planet a little more seriously.  The selfishness,  in which  we think we are invincible, is becoming ridiculous.


 

 


 

Message Edited by KathyS on 10-16-2008 01:58 PM

 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

[ Edited ]

I have not bought completely into the GW debate and have my own quarrels with the fanatical hairshirt brigade, as does my very sensible daughter but what I have bought into is listening to people who have spent some years of their lives studying the problems we already face instead of coming to conclusions myself based upon very little scientific knowledge.  I also do not think that all major European government would be putting a great deal of their GDP into energy conservation, recycling, solar power etc etc if they did not think there were problems looming which would severely effect their voting populations within the foreseeable future.

 

Perhaps because you live on a fairly remote island you do not see the problems all around you caused by pollutants of one sort or another or the toxic landfill caused by the dumping of cars and white goods.  Those of us who live in more urban environments, especially those who live in large towns, are only too aware of these problems and of the need to do something about them, even if we are not directly affected ourselves.      

 

There is no need to look at Malthus or prophesied Ice Ages, our generation were also warned about the pollution caused by burning coal long before Clean Air Acts were imposed by governments upon our populations (London, Los Angeles etc).  Do we have to get to the stage again where people are dying before we are sensible enough to do something about it?   

 

   

.

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Yes, I understand that you have bought completely into the global warming theory.  I remain skeptical, remembering full well that in my youth the warning of just as many just as eminent scientists was of the coming ice age, and suspecting that this worm will turn yet again in fifteen or twenty years and we'll be back to some other dire Malthusian prophecy. The GW crowd may be right, they may be wrong, and we will find out eventually. 

 

But I also understand that for those who believe, global warming is as a encompassing a belief as religious belief.  They want everybody else to believe, too, and alter their lives to follow the edicts and dictates of their chosen leaders.  

 

 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-17-2008 07:01 AM
RTA
Wordsmith
RTA
Posts: 920
Registered: ‎08-19-2008
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate


Everyman wrote:

Perhaps it’s more responsible, rather than assuming someone has “bought completely into” one position or another, to recognize that someone might have a different perspective on the matter.

 

Well, I suppose you could say that the KuKluxKlan had a "different perspective" on race relations than I do, or that Osama bin Laden has a "different perspective" on whether it is acceptable to crash airplanes into buildings than I do, but I think there is something beyond mere "different perspective."

 

Choisya and I have been going round about the climate debate for a long time, and I am quite satisfied to say that she has "bought completely into" the concept of global warming being bad for the earth.  If she disagrees, she can of course say so herself. She is quite articulate and capable of contesting viewpoints she disagrees with; I've never found that she needed a defender to try to come to her rescue. 

 


Everyman, I’ve responded to you in "Odds and Ends" because this discussion isn’t so much about the climate debate as it is about discourse. 
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

I suggest that people who have been persuaded by the Al Gore et. al. dogma not go to this site and definitely do not download his PowerPoint presentation (if you don't have Power Point, free readers are available on the Internet).  

 

It contains some very inconvenient truths, such as that:

 

Concerning claims that global warming will exacerbate the problem of hurricanes hitting the US, he notes that the decate 1990-1999 had the second lowest number of category 3, 4, and 5 hurricanes to hit the mainland US of any decade in that century.  The highest decade was 1950-59.  

 

In 1915, over a century ago, Alaska had 100 degree temperatures north of the Arctic Circle.  

 

The warmest year ever recorded in the US was 1934; twenty states set all time new high heat records. 

 

In 1900, Alaska glaciers were melting at the rate of one mile per year.  

 

In 1000 AD, farmers were growing crops and brewing beer in Greenland.  There was a reason it was called Greenland. 

 

Thomas Jefferson, who kept a daily log of weather, in his 1781 Notes on the State of Virginia, wrote "A change in our climate however is taking place very sensibly.  Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory of even the middle aged.  Snows are less frequent and less deep."  

 

In 1817, the President of the Royal Society, London, wrote to the Admiralty "a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an inpenetrable barrier of ice has been during the past two years, greatly abated."  

 

In 1843, Noah Webster wrote "The temperature of the winter season, in northern latitudes, has suffered a material change, and become warmer in modern, than it was in ancient times...Indeed I know not whether any person, in this age, has ever questioned the fact."

 

In 1922, the U.S. Weather Bureau wrote "The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot.... Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared."  

 

I have to go for the moment but will return with more,  but in the meantime here are some specific points for those who think points should be responded to to respond to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

A few more points for those who think points should be responded to to respond to.

 

Satellite observations of sea ice began in 1979.  In 2007, a record was set for the most Antarctic sea ice.  Brrrrr.

 

1998 was a warm year for the globe, exciting all sorts of dire predictions. But the globe has been cooling, not warming, since then.   The temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade (and the coldest in this millenium, of course.)

 

U.S. CO2 emissions have grown more, based on annual change data, during Democratic presidencies than during Republican presidencies.  The annual change was almost 4% under Truman, just oer 2% during Eisenhower, nearly 4% under Kennedy-Johnson, just over 2% during Nixon-Ford, 1.8% per year under Clinton-Gore, and just 0.2% under Bush.   Overall, since WW2 it has averaged 2.5% during years of Democratic control of the White House and 1.3 during years of Reublican control.  Who are the real environmentalists?

 

How has Koyoto worked?  Under Koyoto, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased 18.0%.  For countries that ratified the treaty, the increase was 21.1%.   For non-ratifiers, the rate of increase was 10%.  For the US, the largest non-ratifier, the increase was 6.6%.  So much for the benefits of Koyoto.

 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

Everybody knows tha  the polar ice is melting, going away, disappearing.  Right?

 

Oops. No, it isn't.  

 

Hmmm.   Wonder why the majopr media all trumpet any decline in ice, but never mention increases.  Why might that be?  Could it be that it's not politically correct to question global warming??

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

I suggest that people who have been persuaded by the Al Gore et. al. dogma...

 

Why is what Al Gore et al writes 'dogma' yet what Roger Pielke et al writes is not?  Has anyone here quoted Al Gore? He is a prominent American statesman but he is not a prominent world scientist. His Nobel Peace Prize award was in conjunction with the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, which does not carry out research on climate change but reports on the findings of other bodies.  I suspect that much American opposition to Al Gore's opinions on climate change is influenced by his politics.  Presumably if folks here quoted Republican sources in favour of global warming etc. they would be better received.     

 

 


Everyman wrote:

I suggest that people who have been persuaded by the Al Gore et. al. dogma not go to this site and definitely do not download his PowerPoint presentation (if you don't have Power Point, free readers are available on the Internet).  

 

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

U.S. CO2 emissions have grown more, based on annual change data, during Democratic presidencies than during Republican presidencies.  The annual change was almost 4% under Truman, just oer 2% during Eisenhower, nearly 4% under Kennedy-Johnson, just over 2% during Nixon-Ford, 1.8% per year under Clinton-Gore, and just 0.2% under Bush.   Overall, since WW2 it has averaged 2.5% during years of Democratic control of the White House and 1.3 during years of Reublican control.  Who are the real environmentalists?

 

How has Koyoto worked?  Under Koyoto, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased 18.0%.  For countries that ratified the treaty, the increase was 21.1%.   For non-ratifiers, the rate of increase was 10%.  For the US, the largest non-ratifier, the increase was 6.6%.  So much for the benefits of Koyoto.

 

This is the most ridiculous use of statistics I have seen in a long time and not worth a serious response!

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

A few more points for those who think points should be responded to to respond to.

 

Satellite observations of sea ice began in 1979.  In 2007, a record was set for the most Antarctic sea ice.  Brrrrr.

 

1998 was a warm year for the globe, exciting all sorts of dire predictions. But the globe has been cooling, not warming, since then.   The temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade (and the coldest in this millenium, of course.)

 

U.S. CO2 emissions have grown more, based on annual change data, during Democratic presidencies than during Republican presidencies.  The annual change was almost 4% under Truman, just oer 2% during Eisenhower, nearly 4% under Kennedy-Johnson, just over 2% during Nixon-Ford, 1.8% per year under Clinton-Gore, and just 0.2% under Bush.   Overall, since WW2 it has averaged 2.5% during years of Democratic control of the White House and 1.3 during years of Reublican control.  Who are the real environmentalists?

 

How has Koyoto worked?  Under Koyoto, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased 18.0%.  For countries that ratified the treaty, the increase was 21.1%.   For non-ratifiers, the rate of increase was 10%.  For the US, the largest non-ratifier, the increase was 6.6%.  So much for the benefits of Koyoto.

 

 

 

 


 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

[ Edited ]

Wonder why the major media all trumpet any decline in ice, but never mention increases.  Why might that be? 

 

Try reading more world newspapers and/or TV.   

 

Try this for an answer.

 

Could it be that it's not politically correct to question global warming??

 

Try using fewer ad hominem arguments.

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Everybody knows tha  the polar ice is melting, going away, disappearing.  Right?

 

Oops. No, it isn't.  

 

Hmmm.   Wonder why the majopr media all trumpet any decline in ice, but never mention increases.  Why might that be?  Could it be that it's not politically correct to question global warming??


 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-18-2008 03:47 PM
Distinguished Bibliophile
KathyS
Posts: 6,898
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

[ Edited ]

:smileyvery-happy:

I wonder which party dominated the congress during these times of "Dem. and Rep. Presidencies".  Seems like that would be the criteria, too.

 

Which party sleeping in the White House has not much to do with anything, as far as I can see...unless the Dem. President is driving a "gas guzzling" Ford SUV, and the Rep. President is driving an ecologically correct Japanese electric import, during those years...or.....horse and buggy?  A hay burner!  I wonder how these emissions were checked....?  Eeewww.... Don't get me started on my visuals!

Sorry, couldn't help myself. :smileytongue:

 

My guess is (and I've voted for both parties at different times in my voting history) that there might be more jobs generated and filled (Union based) during the Dem. party's reign, causing more emissions  from factories, and or on the highway?   Or there were more Democrats who smoked pipes and cigarettes, than Republicans....or.... more hot air coming from Washington DC!  Hey, it's as good an answer as anything!


Choisya wrote:

U.S. CO2 emissions have grown more, based on annual change data, during Democratic presidencies than during Republican presidencies.  The annual change was almost 4% under Truman, just oer 2% during Eisenhower, nearly 4% under Kennedy-Johnson, just over 2% during Nixon-Ford, 1.8% per year under Clinton-Gore, and just 0.2% under Bush.   Overall, since WW2 it has averaged 2.5% during years of Democratic control of the White House and 1.3 during years of Reublican control.  Who are the real environmentalists?

 

How has Koyoto worked?  Under Koyoto, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased 18.0%.  For countries that ratified the treaty, the increase was 21.1%.   For non-ratifiers, the rate of increase was 10%.  For the US, the largest non-ratifier, the increase was 6.6%.  So much for the benefits of Koyoto.

 

This is the most ridiculous use of statistics I have seen in a long time and not worth a serious response!


Everyman wrote:

A few more points for those who think points should be responded to to respond to.

 

Satellite observations of sea ice began in 1979.  In 2007, a record was set for the most Antarctic sea ice.  Brrrrr.

 

1998 was a warm year for the globe, exciting all sorts of dire predictions. But the globe has been cooling, not warming, since then.   The temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade (and the coldest in this millenium, of course.)

 

U.S. CO2 emissions have grown more, based on annual change data, during Democratic presidencies than during Republican presidencies.  The annual change was almost 4% under Truman, just oer 2% during Eisenhower, nearly 4% under Kennedy-Johnson, just over 2% during Nixon-Ford, 1.8% per year under Clinton-Gore, and just 0.2% under Bush.   Overall, since WW2 it has averaged 2.5% during years of Democratic control of the White House and 1.3 during years of Reublican control.  Who are the real environmentalists?

 

How has Koyoto worked?  Under Koyoto, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased 18.0%.  For countries that ratified the treaty, the increase was 21.1%.   For non-ratifiers, the rate of increase was 10%.  For the US, the largest non-ratifier, the increase was 6.6%.  So much for the benefits of Koyoto.

 


 

 

 
Message Edited by KathyS on 10-18-2008 02:37 PM
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

His Nobel Peace Prize award was in conjunction with the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, which does not carry out research on climate change but reports on the findings of other bodies.

 

The problem comes when they only choose selective findings which suit their preconceptions and ignore data which doesn't fit into their desired result.  And also when they can't or won't change their projections when the data underlying them chagnes or is proved to be misinterpreted.  

 

Al Gore is mentioned so often because he has, with a great deal of help from the media and the international community and all the groups which have paid him big bucks to give she same basic Chicken Little speech over and over, made himself the poster child for the global warming crusade.  It has nothing to do with his politics per se.  If Margaret Thatcher had  had made the movie, gotten the Nobel Prize, trumpeted the issues all over the global media, made millions giving speeches on the issue, and been the "go-to" interviewee for many of the documentaries and news stories, would you contend that the opposition to the rush to oversell global warming was based on her politics?  

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.