Gentlemen, Revolutionaries, Scholars & Bules
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#66322 - 14 Dec 07 08:14 Climate change stress
riccardo Offline
Pujangga

Registered: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 2195
Loc: Jakarta
I just got this email (see below in italics) from a friend of a friend, but I was taken aback by the presumptuousness. Why does he take it for granted and assume that I should or would agree with his position?

I'll tell you what I do agree with: I actually prefer warmer weather to cold weather; quite a lot. I also like water and water sports and if there's going to be more water (from all the melted ice), then I say the more the merrier.

Some say it will drown places like Jakarta and Amsterdam and London -- as if it's also taken for granted that those things would be inherently "bad". Well, I say a bit of spring cleaning for Mother Earth is probably in order and if a couple million idiots are hastening their own demise, then I say the more the merrier.

The strong and the smart will always survive. The whiners and languishers will disappear.

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

I just signed an emergency petition trying to save the crucial climate change talks in Bali, Indonesia right now by telling the US, Canada and Japan to stop blocking an agreement. You can sign it here:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/bali_emergency/98.php?cl_tf_sign=1

Almost all countries have agreed to cut rich country carbon emissions by 2020--which scientists say is crucial to stop catastrophic global warming, and will also help bring China and the developing world onboard. But with just 24 hours left in the conference, the US and its close allies Canada and Japan have rejected any mention of such cuts.

We can't let three governments hold the world hostage and block agreement on this desperate issue.

There's still 24 hours left to turn this around - click below to sign the petition - it will be delivered direct to summit delegates, through stunts and in media advertisements, so our voices will actually be heard. But we need a lot of us, fast, to join in if we're going to make a difference. Just click on the link to add your name:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/bali_emergency/98.php?cl_tf_sign=1

Thanks!
_________________________
Just here proffering my pearls to swine, my throat to wolves and my trousers to the flagpole.

Top
#66323 - 14 Dec 07 08:27 Re: Climate change stress [Re: riccardo]
chewwyUK Offline
Pujangga

Registered: 14 Sep 06
Posts: 2392
Loc: Jakarta
i was going to comment ... but then decided i can't be arsed anymore. With that starting point there seems very little chance of going anywhere good with this thread
_________________________
Edited by Piss Salon
Edit Reason: taste

Top
#66324 - 14 Dec 07 08:32 Re: Climate change stress [Re: riccardo]
KuKuKaChu Moderator Offline
Pooh Bah

Registered: 09 Oct 05
Posts: 10790
Loc: Centre of the Universe
i got the same message an hour ago.

i didn't sign only because they were asking too many personal questions.

also, the US is not the only 'bad boy': China and India have shown little good faith in regards to concern for the natural environment.
_________________________
KuKuKaChu: dangerously too sophisticated

Top
#66325 - 14 Dec 07 09:13 Re: Climate change stress [Re: KuKuKaChu]
Dilli Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 26 Feb 06
Posts: 8044
Loc: Nearest Bar
And where does Indonesia stand in this debate?

Answers on the back of a postage stamp please!
_________________________
Menace to Sobriety


Top
#66331 - 14 Dec 07 10:48 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Dilli]
Roy's Hair Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 08 Nov 06
Posts: 3974
Loc: jakarta
I rather think the world's sole remaining super power should be setting a good example here, your thoughts chairman Ricc?
_________________________
Chinese like more traditional patterns on their ring.

Top
#66334 - 14 Dec 07 10:56 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Roy's Hair]
Roy's Hair Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 08 Nov 06
Posts: 3974
Loc: jakarta
But instead that irrascible petrol head Bush scuppers the whole deal:


US proposal threatens climate change deal

· Bali conference may end in failure after opt-out leak
· EU threatens boycott if emissions cuts ignored
David Adam and John Vidal
The Guardian, Friday December 14 2007


Environmental activists release turtles at a beach near the venue of the UN climate change conference in Bali. Photograph: Sonny Tumbelaka/AFP/Getty

The US was accused last night of trying to derail a global agreement on climate change by proposing that it becomes a voluntary agreement where countries set their own targets and timetables for reduction of greenhouse gases, rather than a legally binding one.

With just one day left of the 14-day talks between representatives from more than 180 countries in Bali, it looks increasingly likely that no agreement will be reached by ministers.

The proposed text, tabled late last night and leaked at about midnight local time, would effectively allow any country to opt out of the next round of the Kyoto agreement. Observers said last night it could take climate change negotiations back more than a decade.

"These are wrecking tactics," said Keith Allott, head of climate change at the nature charity WWF-UK. "The stakes are now very high and they are proposing to destroy the protocol completely. The Bush administration is trying to kill real progress."

"This is an extraordinary attempt by the Bush administration to kill off the fight against climate change," said John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK. "If they get this text through, then it will give a free pass to any nation that wants to keep polluting."

The proposed US text uses phrases such as "as appropriate", "depending" and "may" in reference to emissions cuts, which would effectively make any agreement reached voluntary. Last night it was understood that the US move was being supported by Canada, but fiercely opposed by the EU and Britain.

Commenting on earlier American intransigence, James Connaughton, the senior US negotiator in Bali, said: "The US will lead, and we will continue to lead, but leadership also requires others to fall in line and follow." Negotiators will now have an almost impossible task to reach consensus on the so-called "road map" for a new deal to come into force by 2013. Discussions in the past few days have been overshadowed by an increasingly bitter row over carbon targets between the US and Europe, which escalated all day yesterday when EU officials demanded that Washington "wake up" over global warming.

In what was taken as a threat to boycott US-led talks on climate change between the world's biggest polluters next month in Hawaii, they warned that attending that meeting would be "senseless" unless the Bali agreement contains clear targets.

The US does not want a suggestion that industrialised countries cut emissions by 25% to 40% by 2020 included in the final document, which will provide the foundation for a treaty on global warming after the Kyoto deal expires in 2012.

Stavros Dimas, the European commissioner for the environment, said that the cut in emissions for rich countries was an "indispensable" part of the text.

The Portuguese environment secretary, Humberto Rosa, said the EU was disappointed that the US was not prepared to accept the targets but he denied it was boycotting the US-led meeting. "We're not blackmailing anyone," he said. "No Bali, no meeting - we take it as logical, not blackmail."

Earlier, the former US vice-president Al Gore, urged delegates to take urgent action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

"My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali," he said, calling for the new treaty to be implemented two years early, in 2010. He suggested the US stance might change, telling delegates to "save a blank space in your document" which could be filled later by a more amenable president.

EU officials argue the targets are crucial, because the world needs an idea of where it is heading; whereas Washington feels countries have been quick to agree targets and then failed to meet them.

The UN climate chief, Yvo de Boer, said he was worried that a final "Bali road map" would contain an agreement to negotiate a new climate deal by 2009, but no specific targets for emission reductions. "What is a road map without a destination?" asked Dimas. "Europe has long been leading the fight against climate change. Now is the time for other industrial nations to wake up and show leadership, not only in words but in deeds."

The US delegation said that although it rejects specific targets, it hopes to reach an "environmentally effective" and "economically sustainable" agreement. Haggling over numbers was counter-productive, said Connaughton.
_________________________
Chinese like more traditional patterns on their ring.

Top
#66340 - 14 Dec 07 11:41 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Roy's Hair]
riccardo Offline
Pujangga

Registered: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 2195
Loc: Jakarta
Quoting: Roy's hair
I rather think the world's sole remaining super power should be setting a good example here...


BUT.. who decided what a "good example" is?

The point of my original post wasn't about turtles, dolphins, trees, Bush or temperature changes as much as it concerned THE ASSUMPTIONS being made. Do all of you people come from opinion-less, Orwellian, uber-conformist societies?

I have strong opinions, to be sure, but never once have I made a BLANKET ASSUMPTION that everyone believes the same things as I do or should believe the same things I do. That's what too many people in the world today are doing.

That's the point. People are so blinkered in their own little way of thinking that they cannot even fathom something from someone else's point of view -- or are too lazy to try. They cannot even fathom that there might be differing points of view.

And for the record, I like turtles and if there is more water for them too, then we're all stoked.
_________________________
Just here proffering my pearls to swine, my throat to wolves and my trousers to the flagpole.

Top
#66346 - 14 Dec 07 12:00 Re: Climate change stress [Re: riccardo]
Roy's Hair Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 08 Nov 06
Posts: 3974
Loc: jakarta
There are differing points of view. There's also hard science. The scientific method is about objective, empirically provable facts. If you don't agree then I suggest you log in here:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
_________________________
Chinese like more traditional patterns on their ring.

Top
#66348 - 14 Dec 07 13:23 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Roy's Hair]
riccardo Offline
Pujangga

Registered: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 2195
Loc: Jakarta
Quoting: Roy's hair
There are differing points of view. There's also hard science. The scientific method is about objective, empirically provable facts.


You are still NOT getting it. It's not about the science or the fact that it's getting warmer, I understood that way before you people or Al Gore made it a cause célèbre. But people are still presumptuously assuming that people like me should consider -- as Al Gore and others do -- that those factual conclusions are definitely a BAD thing.

Can it be possible that someone believes the fact that is getting warmer and think that is okay... Or must we all believe that warmer=BAD? You seem to have made your mind up that warmer=BAD and adamantly, dogmatically think I should see things exactly the same as you and others.
_________________________
Just here proffering my pearls to swine, my throat to wolves and my trousers to the flagpole.

Top
#66350 - 14 Dec 07 14:02 Re: Climate change stress [Re: riccardo]
Dilli Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 26 Feb 06
Posts: 8044
Loc: Nearest Bar
Ostrich - Head - Sand time again Ric?
_________________________
Menace to Sobriety


Top
#66357 - 14 Dec 07 15:34 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Dilli]
riccardo Offline
Pujangga

Registered: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 2195
Loc: Jakarta
Blinkered minds in a sand pit full of dogmatic self-righteousness time, actually.
_________________________
Just here proffering my pearls to swine, my throat to wolves and my trousers to the flagpole.

Top
#66363 - 14 Dec 07 17:27 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Roy's Hair]
riccardo Offline
Pujangga

Registered: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 2195
Loc: Jakarta
Okay, I'll try to simplify this for everyone:

We can all agree that the there is scientific and photographic evidence and proof beyond any doubt that these are, in fact, dogs in this photo. OKAY... everybody still with me? Just to recap, we agree that these are dogs.


Now that we've established that, each person decides if they like dogs or not. Are dogs inherently good or bad? I think they are good, and I like dogs. But a couple billion people around the world are scared poop-less over dogs and consider them vile creatures. Okay... to recap: everybody agrees they are dogs, but some think dogs are good and some think they are bad.

The problem comes about when those that think dogs are bad ASSUME that everyone else on the planet should conform to their way of thinking.



Attachments
dogs.JPG


_________________________
Just here proffering my pearls to swine, my throat to wolves and my trousers to the flagpole.

Top
#66364 - 14 Dec 07 17:31 Re: Climate change stress [Re: riccardo]
KuKuKaChu Moderator Offline
Pooh Bah

Registered: 09 Oct 05
Posts: 10790
Loc: Centre of the Universe
can you run that by me again?
_________________________
KuKuKaChu: dangerously too sophisticated

Top
#66365 - 14 Dec 07 17:42 Re: Climate change stress [Re: KuKuKaChu]
kenyeung Offline
Pujangga

Registered: 16 Apr 07
Posts: 2374
Loc: Indonesia
Those aren't dogs. The one on the left is a cat wearing a canine costume. The one on the right is Al Gore.

Top
#66367 - 14 Dec 07 18:31 Re: Climate change stress [Re: kenyeung]
Roy's Hair Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 08 Nov 06
Posts: 3974
Loc: jakarta
they are dogs. No doubt about it. Dogs = good. sea level rising, destruction of coastal environments, food shortages, spread of warm climate bacteria around the globe, loss of species = good too. It's all good baby
_________________________
Chinese like more traditional patterns on their ring.

Top
#66373 - 14 Dec 07 18:58 Re: Climate change stress [Re: KuKuKaChu]
Choc_Cow Offline
Member**

Registered: 25 May 06
Posts: 1200
Loc: Di Puncak
Quoting: KuKuKaChu
can you run that by me again?


It means those rich people with luxurious water-view residences will have to pack up & move to high grounds soon (Time for me to invest in Mount Druitt).

Top
#66374 - 14 Dec 07 19:02 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Choc_Cow]
KuKuKaChu Moderator Offline
Pooh Bah

Registered: 09 Oct 05
Posts: 10790
Loc: Centre of the Universe
Quoting: Chocolatea
Quoting: KuKuKaChu
can you run that by me again?


It means those rich people with luxurious water-view residences will have to pack up & move to high grounds soon (Time for me to invest in Mount Druitt).

i bought some land on mt merapi in sleman. no worries about sea levels there, but the volcano's a bit of a worry ...
_________________________
KuKuKaChu: dangerously too sophisticated

Top
#66375 - 14 Dec 07 19:04 Re: Climate change stress [Re: KuKuKaChu]
Piss Salon Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 27 Jun 06
Posts: 4039
Loc: Jakpus
Did you really? Are we talking Central Jakarta?
_________________________
place within us love that truly gives, tenderness that truly unites, self-offering that tells the truth and does not deceive, forgiveness that truly receives, loving physical union that welcomes

Top
#66376 - 14 Dec 07 19:09 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Piss Salon]
KuKuKaChu Moderator Offline
Pooh Bah

Registered: 09 Oct 05
Posts: 10790
Loc: Centre of the Universe
Quoting: Piss Salon
Did you really? Are we talking Central Jakarta?

you really need to get out and about more, piss my lad.
_________________________
KuKuKaChu: dangerously too sophisticated

Top
#66379 - 14 Dec 07 19:51 Re: Climate change stress [Re: kenyeung]
Piss Salon Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 27 Jun 06
Posts: 4039
Loc: Jakpus
It's funny, I have an English mate trying to sell a wicked kick-asre property on those very same slopes. It's a beautiful property built right where the Dutch predicted would never be struck by lava or the pryo ... phro ... phirero ... (google) ... pyroclastic flow.
_________________________
place within us love that truly gives, tenderness that truly unites, self-offering that tells the truth and does not deceive, forgiveness that truly receives, loving physical union that welcomes

Top
#66401 - 15 Dec 07 14:21 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Roy's Hair]
Dilli Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 26 Feb 06
Posts: 8044
Loc: Nearest Bar
We are not talking about a significant increase in temperature here! 2 degree's will do it!

There is understandably a lot out there on the net on this subject, but, to put it into plain human terms, here are a couple of paragraphs which are not assumptions.

A rise of two degrees centigrade in global temperatures – the point considered to be the threshold for catastrophic climate change which will expose millions to drought, hunger and flooding – is now “very unlikely” to be avoided, the world’s leading climate scientists said.

A study from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put the inevitability of drastic global warming in the starkest terms yet, stating that major impacts on parts of the world – in particular Africa, Asian river deltas, low-lying islands and the Arctic – are unavoidable and the focus must be on adapting life to survive the most devastating changes.

Plus two degrees: the consequences

Africa: Between 350 and 600 million people will suffer water shortages or increased competition for water. Yields from agriculture could fall by half by 2020 while arid areas will rise by up to 8 per cent. The number of sub-Saharan species at risk of extinction will rise by at least 10 per cent.

Asia: Up to a billion people will suffer water shortages as supplies dwindle with the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Maize and wheat yields will fall by up to 5 per cent in India; rice crops in China will drop by up to 12 per cent. Increased risk of coastal flooding.

Australia/New Zealand: Between 3,000 and 5,000 more heat-related deaths a year. Water supplies will no longer be guaranteed in parts of southern and eastern Australia by 2030. Annual bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.

Europe: Warmer temperatures will increase wheat yields by up to 25 per cent in the north but water availability will drop in the south by up to a quarter. Heatwaves, forest fires and extreme weather events such as flash floods will be more frequent. New diseases will appear.

Latin America: Up to 77 million people will face water shortages and tropical glaciers will disappear. Tropical forests will become savanna and there will be increased risk of coastal flooding in low-lying areas such as El Salvador and Guyana.

North America: Crop yields will increase by up to 20 per cent due to warmer temperatures but economic damage from extreme weather events such as Hurricane Katrina will continue increasing.

I get the feeling that if dogs could do something about this they would!

_________________________
Menace to Sobriety


Top
#66403 - 15 Dec 07 14:33 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Dilli]
Dilli Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 26 Feb 06
Posts: 8044
Loc: Nearest Bar
And as for the American Governments attitude, let me look at it from a different direction.

No one seems to care about the upcoming attack on the World Trade Center site. Why? Because it won’t involve villains with box cutters. Instead, it will involve melting ice sheets that swell the oceans and turn that particular block of lower Manhattan into an aquarium. Good for turtles I would imagine.




The odds of this happening in the next few decades are better than the odds that a disgruntled Saudi will sneak onto an airplane and detonate a shoe bomb. And yet that government will spend billions of dollars this year to prevent global terrorism and … well, erm erm, essentially nothing to prevent global warming.

Why are they less worried about the more likely disaster?

I'd say it's due to the way the human brain evolved to respond to threats that have features that terrorism has and that global warming lacks.

Global warming lacks a beard and a moustache. Global Warming does not set off metal detectors at airports. Global Warming does not grow opium to sell for weapons. Global Warming does not use high tech detonators or suicide bombers to disruput and kill.

Global warming isn’t trying to kill us, and that’s a shame. If climate change had been visited on us by a brutal dictator or an evil empire, the war on warming would be the American nation’s top priority
_________________________
Menace to Sobriety


Top
#66441 - 16 Dec 07 14:04 Re: Climate change stress [Re: kenyeung]
riccardo Offline
Pujangga

Registered: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 2195
Loc: Jakarta
A different point of view and guess what... He's not one of those scary, big, bad Americans, he's member of the House of Lords in the UK and a Nobel Laureate. Bit of a long read, but give it a go.


_____________________________________________________________

Dishonest political tampering with the science on global warming


DENPASAR (JP) As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords – through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers – profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate’s alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year’s Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.

Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.

My contribution to the 2007 report illustrates the scientific problem. The report’s first table of figures – inserted by the IPCC’s bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent – listed four contributions to sea-level rise. The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10.

The result of this dishonest political tampering with the science was that the sum of the four items in the offending table was more than twice the IPCC’s published total. Until I wrote to point out the error, no one had noticed. The IPCC, on receiving my letter, quietly corrected, moved and relabeled the erroneous table, posting the new version on the internet and earning me my Nobel prize.

The shore-dwellers of Bali need not fear for their homes. The IPCC now says the combined contribution of the two great ice-sheets to sea-level rise will be less than seven centimeters after 100 years, not seven meters imminently, and that the Greenland ice sheet (which thickened by 50 cm between 1995 and 2005) might only melt after several millennia, probably by natural causes, just as it last did 850,000 years ago. Gore, mendaciously assisted by the IPCC bureaucracy, had exaggerated a hundredfold.

Recently a High Court judge in the UK listed nine of the 35 major scientific errors in Gore’s movie, saying they must be corrected before innocent schoolchildren can be exposed to the movie. Gore’s exaggeration of sea-level rise was one. Others being peddled at the Bali conference are that man-made “global warming” threatens polar bears and coral reefs, caused Hurricane Katrina, shrank Lake Chad, expanded the actually-shrinking Sahara, etc.

At the very heart of the IPCC’s calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005).” Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million.


In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.

Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physical law – the Stefan-Boltzmann equation – that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC’s 2007 report do not mention it once.

The IPCC knows of the equation, of course. But it is inconvenient. It imposes a strict (and very low) limit on how much greenhouse gases can increase temperature. At the Earth’s surface, you can add as much greenhouse gas as you like (the “surface forcing”), and the temperature will scarcely respond.

That is why all of the IPCC’s computer models predict that 10km above Bali, in the tropical upper troposphere, temperature should be rising two or three times as fast as it does at the surface. Without that tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot”, the Stefan-Boltzmann law ensures that surface temperature cannot change much.

For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere – and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong. Next time you hear some scientifically-illiterate bureaucrat say, “The science is settled”, remember this vital failure of real-world observations to confirm the IPCC’s computer predictions. The IPCC’s entire case is built on a guess that the absent hot-spot might exist.

Even if the Gore/IPCC exaggerations were true, which they are not, the economic cost of trying to mitigate climate change by trying to cut our emissions through carbon trading and other costly market interferences would far outweigh any possible climatic benefit.

The international community has galloped lemming-like over the cliff twice before. Twenty years ago the UN decided not to regard AIDS as a fatal infection. Carriers of the disease were not identified and isolated. Result: 25 million deaths in poor countries.

Thirty-five years ago the world decided to ban DDT, the only effective agent against malaria. Result: 40 million deaths in poor countries. The World Health Organization lifted the DDT ban on Sept. 15 last year. It now recommends the use of DDT to control malaria. Dr. Arata Kochi of the WHO said that politics could no longer be allowed to stand in the way of the science and the data. Amen to that.

If we take the heroically stupid decisions now on the table at Bali, it will once again be the world’s poorest people who will die unheeded in their tens of millions, this time for lack of the heat and light and power and medical attention which we in the West have long been fortunate enough to take for granted.

If we deny them the fossil-fueled growth we have enjoyed, they will remain poor and, paradoxically, their populations will continue to increase, making the world’s carbon footprint very much larger in the long run.

As they die, and as global temperature continues to fail to rise in accordance with the IPCC’s laughably-exaggerated predictions, the self-congratulatory rhetoric that is the hallmark of the now-useless, costly, corrupt UN will again be near-unanimously parroted by lazy, unthinking politicians and journalists who ought to have done their duty by the poor but are now – for the third time in three decades – failing to speak up for those who are about to die.

My fellow-participants, there is no climate crisis. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Take courage! Do nothing, and save the world’s poor from yet another careless, UN-driven slaughter. (Christopher Monckton)

The writer is an international business consultant specializing in the investigation of scientific frauds. He is a former adviser to UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher and is presenter of the 90-minute climate movie Apocalypse? NO! He can be reached at monckton@mail.com.
_________________________
Just here proffering my pearls to swine, my throat to wolves and my trousers to the flagpole.

Top
#66443 - 16 Dec 07 15:01 Re: Climate change stress [Re: riccardo]
riccardo Offline
Pujangga

Registered: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 2195
Loc: Jakarta
This whole Climate Change diatribe (with Al Bore and his "Inconvenient Truth" at the forefront) reminds me of the world's reaction to the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

In both cases, unconscionable tall tales were told via slick Hollywood productions (in Cambodia's case it was "The Killing Fields") and an ignorant public comprised of too many LCDs swallowed it up without questioning or further research.

It is, of course, much easier for lazy humans to grasp the interesting-to-watch Hollywood films, rather than do real research. And the trippy thing is that those erstwhile tabula rasae that do read further, only read stuff that reinforces/regurgitates exactly what the film told them.

Couple of interesting links:
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
_________________________
Just here proffering my pearls to swine, my throat to wolves and my trousers to the flagpole.

Top
#66453 - 16 Dec 07 17:28 Re: Climate change stress [Re: riccardo]
chewwyUK Offline
Pujangga

Registered: 14 Sep 06
Posts: 2392
Loc: Jakarta
bloody hell ric the view from the perch you sit on must be awesome! Must be great work to look down on the plebs all day long. I am surprised you still socialize with the masses - who knows what you would catch

Kind Regards,

The Ignorant Public
_________________________
Edited by Piss Salon
Edit Reason: taste

Top
#66454 - 16 Dec 07 17:36 Re: Climate change stress [Re: chewwyUK]
Capt. Mainwaring Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 16 Aug 06
Posts: 3225
Loc: here
Quoting: chewwyUK
bloody hell ric the view from the perch you sit on must be awesome! Must be great work to look down on the plebs all day long. I am surprised you still socialize with the masses - who knows what you would catch

Kind Regards,

The Ignorant Public


Did you see the Chairman cry because the Indonesians decided to hold concurrent meetings?

Absolutely classic - great big ponce.



The easiest way not to have to follow a directive is to disagree with that directive in the first place.

I don't give a bollocks about global warming - I live on a hill.
_________________________
I also made a vegetarian version,with tempe and tofu chunks for myself and others.Get over it.
Kosong.Wolo.Setunggal.Setunggal.Setunggal.Kosong.Pitu.Setunggal.Kosong.Wolo=Tempik

Top
#66461 - 16 Dec 07 19:53 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Capt. Mainwaring]
Roy's Hair Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 08 Nov 06
Posts: 3974
Loc: jakarta
The movie was a little alarmist but that's what's needed. The IPCC report itself is authored and backed by over 2000 scientists. It's all about the numbers. It's easy to find a few lone climate sceptics on the web but 2000? There are of course many things we don't know about the process but two indisputable facts : Mankind pumps out a lot of CO2 and CO2 traps heat. These facts are not disputed by anyone. Why is it hard to believe that we can therefore affect the climate by burning in a few hundred years, the carbon that it took nature millions of years to lay down in the first place.


Edited by Roy's hair (16 Dec 07 19:54)
_________________________
Chinese like more traditional patterns on their ring.

Top
#66464 - 17 Dec 07 00:56 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Roy's Hair]
riccardo Offline
Pujangga

Registered: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 2195
Loc: Jakarta
Quoting: Roy's Hair
The IPCC report itself is authored and backed by over 2000 scientists. It's all about the numbers.


This comes from the link I posted above

IPCC & Consensus

One of the biggest barriers to a rational discussion about climatology, is the persistent and sinister use of the ‘consensus’ argument. The idea that there is a consensus between ‘the world’s top scientists’ is used to brow beat politicians, to forestall media criticism of the global warming orthodoxy and to marginalise and ridicule those scientists who dare to speak out against the theory of man made global warming.

Until now, few people have explored the nature of this ‘consensus’. Who are these ‘top scientists’ and who says they all agree? As readers will see, from the few introductory links below, the ‘consensus’ is not all it seems. We urge readers to look at Professor Reiter’s testimony, for example, to the House of Lords

/.../

On the wider political and economic implications of the global warming alarm we would recommend two excellent books:

“Adapt or Die” - ed. Kendra Okonski

“Sustainable Development” – ed. Julian Morris

More Information:
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/ipcc_consensus.html

...
_________________________
Just here proffering my pearls to swine, my throat to wolves and my trousers to the flagpole.

Top
#66469 - 17 Dec 07 05:33 Re: Climate change stress [Re: riccardo]
KuKuKaChu Moderator Offline
Pooh Bah

Registered: 09 Oct 05
Posts: 10790
Loc: Centre of the Universe
ricc, have you ever considered working for the tobacco lobby?
_________________________
KuKuKaChu: dangerously too sophisticated

Top
#66473 - 17 Dec 07 06:46 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Dilli]
The Great Gonzo Offline
Member+

Registered: 13 Dec 06
Posts: 134
Loc: Big Durian
The problem with the climate change problem is I wonder if there is bugger all we can do about it?

I read somewhere... but forget where... that if we accepted Kyoto full on, it would only prolong the climate change effects by a minuscule amount. So loads of cash should not be wasted on such a futile endeavour (such as carbon credits, etc), but instead that money should be spent on R&D for more CO2 friendly methods of heating and transportation, etc...

I am almost finding myself in agreement with Rich on this one... in that we will have to learn to adapt and survive, because how in the hell are we going to even slow down the CO2 producing machine of an economy we have now? Especially if we don't get China, India, etc, on board?
_________________________
"Oh, you're not so bad yourself, Cockface. Where are you two from? Nose City?"

Top
#66474 - 17 Dec 07 06:52 Re: Climate change stress [Re: The Great Gonzo]
Dilli Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 26 Feb 06
Posts: 8044
Loc: Nearest Bar
"instead that money should be spent on R&D for more CO2 friendly methods of heating and transportation, etc..."

I completely agree. This is in line with what I believe, however, it is possible to have the two courses of action take place concurrently.
_________________________
Menace to Sobriety


Top
#66476 - 17 Dec 07 09:03 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Dilli]
Roy's Hair Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 08 Nov 06
Posts: 3974
Loc: jakarta
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to liste
_________________________
Chinese like more traditional patterns on their ring.

Top
#66478 - 17 Dec 07 09:53 Re: Climate change stress [Re: riccardo]
Roy's Hair Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 08 Nov 06
Posts: 3974
Loc: jakarta
Quoting: riccardo


I'll tell you what I do agree with: I actually prefer warmer weather to cold weather; quite a lot. I also like water and water sports and if there's going to be more water (from all the melted ice), then I say the more the merrier.



Water sports ay? rubber sheeting on the old tempat tidur I trust?
_________________________
Chinese like more traditional patterns on their ring.

Top
#66486 - 17 Dec 07 11:44 Re: Climate change stress [Re: riccardo]
Sammy Jankis Offline
Member+++

Registered: 21 Oct 07
Posts: 490
Loc: Manila, Philippines
Quoting: riccardo
Quoting: Roy's Hair
The IPCC report itself is authored and backed by over 2000 scientists. It's all about the numbers.


This comes from the link I posted above

IPCC & Consensus

One of the biggest barriers to a rational discussion about climatology, is the persistent and sinister use of the ‘consensus’ argument. The idea that there is a consensus between ‘the world’s top scientists’ is used to brow beat politicians, to forestall media criticism of the global warming orthodoxy and to marginalise and ridicule those scientists who dare to speak out against the theory of man made global warming.

Until now, few people have explored the nature of this ‘consensus’. Who are these ‘top scientists’ and who says they all agree? As readers will see, from the few introductory links below, the ‘consensus’ is not all it seems. We urge readers to look at Professor Reiter’s testimony, for example, to the House of Lords

/.../

On the wider political and economic implications of the global warming alarm we would recommend two excellent books:

“Adapt or Die” - ed. Kendra Okonski

“Sustainable Development” – ed. Julian Morris

More Information:
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/ipcc_consensus.html

...


_________________________
I got nothin'.
- - -
Come Hate With Me
http://thehateproject.blogspot.com

Top
#66487 - 17 Dec 07 11:49 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Sammy Jankis]
Roy's Hair Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 08 Nov 06
Posts: 3974
Loc: jakarta
there is consensus among the scientific community that A) Climate change is real B)The mothership connection is the roadmap to peace and prosperity and C) Bootsy Collins would make a great secretary for the environment.
_________________________
Chinese like more traditional patterns on their ring.

Top
#66489 - 17 Dec 07 11:58 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Roy's Hair]
Sammy Jankis Offline
Member+++

Registered: 21 Oct 07
Posts: 490
Loc: Manila, Philippines
Quoting: Roy's hair
there is consensus among the scientific community that A) Climate change is real B)The mothership connection is the roadmap to peace and prosperity and C) Bootsy Collins would make a great secretary for the environment.


_________________________
I got nothin'.
- - -
Come Hate With Me
http://thehateproject.blogspot.com

Top
#66490 - 17 Dec 07 12:06 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Sammy Jankis]
Sammy Jankis Offline
Member+++

Registered: 21 Oct 07
Posts: 490
Loc: Manila, Philippines
In addition to my above postings:





That is all.

/Phasers on full sarcasm
_________________________
I got nothin'.
- - -
Come Hate With Me
http://thehateproject.blogspot.com

Top
#67460 - 03 Jan 08 09:05 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Sammy Jankis]
Roy's Hair Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 08 Nov 06
Posts: 3974
Loc: jakarta
The plot thickens...

Trees absorbing less CO2 as world warms, study finds

· Shorter winters weaken forest 'carbon sinks'
· Data analysis reverses scientists' expectations

James Randerson, science correspondent
The Guardian, Thursday January 3 2008

The ability of forests to soak up man-made carbon dioxide is weakening, according to an analysis of two decades of data from more than 30 sites in the frozen north.

The finding published today is crucial, because it means that more of the CO2 we release will end up affecting the climate in the atmosphere rather than being safely locked away in trees or soil.

The results may partly explain recent studies suggesting that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing faster than expected. If higher temperatures mean less carbon is soaked up by plants and microbes, global warming will accelerate.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel peace prize with Al Gore, has concluded that humanity has eight years left to prevent the worst effects of global warming.

Carbon uptake by land and sea is crucial to predictions about future warming. "We are currently getting a 50% discount on the climatic impact of our fossil fuel emissions," the climate scientist John Miller of the University of Colorado wrote in a commentary on the research in the journal Nature - meaning that half of what we put out is sucked up by the oceans and ecosystems on land.

"Unfortunately, we have no guarantee that the 50% discount will continue, and if it disappears we will feel the full climatic brunt of our unrelenting emission of CO2 from fossil fuels."

The surprise rethink concerns abundant evidence from around the world that winter is starting later and spring earlier. In northern attitudes, spring and autumn temperatures have risen by 1.1C and 0.8C respectively in the past two decades. That means a longer growing season for plants, which scientists thought should be a good thing for slowing warming. This increased growth is even visible from space, with satellite measurements indicating a greening of the land. As plants take up more CO2, that should put a break on CO2 increases.

However, the new data suggests that is too simplistic. The team analysed data from more than 30 monitoring stations spread across northern regions including Siberia, Alaska, Canada and Europe. The data, which goes back to 1980, charts the levels of CO2 in the local atmosphere. This is a product of both uptake by plants during photosynthesis and release of CO2 by plants and microbes during respiration.

The team focused particularly on the date in autumn at which the forests switched from being a net sink for carbon into a net source. Instead of moving later in the year as they had expected, this date actually got earlier - in some places by a few days, but in others by a few weeks.

"The information that we had from satellite data, that the greening was increasing, looked like a positive sign. There was hope that this would help us to mitigate emissions," said Anders Lindroth at Lund University in Sweden, who was part of the research team. "But even if we have a greening, it doesn't mean that we have a positive effect on the carbon balance ... it's bad news."

"This means potentially a bigger warming effect," said Timo Vesala at the University of Helsinki, who led the study.

The precise effect the trend will have on future warming is hard to predict, said Colin Prentice of the University of Bristol. "Over a longer period of decades, models predict changes in vegetation structure, including tundra regions becoming forested, and the forests tend to take up far more carbon than the tundra. So I would be sceptical about reading any particular future implication into these findings."

The research could partly explain results by the Global Carbon Project, which confirmed that the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is accelerating. Between 1970 and 2000 the concentration rose by about 1.5 parts per million (ppm), but since 2000 the annual rise leapt to an average of 1.9ppm - 35% higher than expected. Part of the rise is due to increased CO2 production by China, but the team said weakening carbon sinks were also to blame.
_________________________
Chinese like more traditional patterns on their ring.

Top
#67495 - 04 Jan 08 04:06 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Roy's Hair]
The Great Gonzo Offline
Member+

Registered: 13 Dec 06
Posts: 134
Loc: Big Durian
I wish it would warm up faster... it was fucking -17 here today...

and on Monday its supposed to get up to +11...

Crazy weather!
_________________________
"Oh, you're not so bad yourself, Cockface. Where are you two from? Nose City?"

Top
#67500 - 04 Jan 08 07:12 Re: Climate change stress [Re: The Great Gonzo]
Roy's Hair Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 08 Nov 06
Posts: 3974
Loc: jakarta
Is the old Percy shrivelling in the cold boss?
_________________________
Chinese like more traditional patterns on their ring.

Top
#67554 - 04 Jan 08 23:49 Re: Climate change stress [Re: Roy's Hair]
The Great Gonzo Offline
Member+

Registered: 13 Dec 06
Posts: 134
Loc: Big Durian
Nope, I managed to find a Percy warmer made in Changchun
_________________________
"Oh, you're not so bad yourself, Cockface. Where are you two from? Nose City?"

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >


Moderator:  NetCop