Climate changes?????

[cycloneye]

I see this thread sliding into the political arena and that is not what this forum is about.Let's not turn this into a political fest.

[Ivanhater]

let me bust in here right quick, i think this is an appropriate thread to discuss politics with this issue..that out of the way, before this debate goes on this is not an argument, this is just an exchange of views and both sides respect the others, let the debate continue

[Steve]

FWIW,

Maybe both sides of the Global Warming debate can be happy with the USA and Austraila set to annouce a 5 nation pact known as "beyond kyoto" which looks toward alternative technologies to replace fossil fuels down the line. It's a step in the right direction IMHO.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050727/us_ ... climate_dc

Naturally, not everyone will be happy with it. But we also have to understand some of the other issues - slowing of the Gulf Stream and desalinization of the NW Atlantic which leads some of the countries (ie. U.K.) to be more serious in their approach rather than the wait-and-see approach we more or less take here. Obviously they fear turning into Siberia and I can't say I blame them. But there's no definitive proof either way other than that climate changes are taking place. Again, I tend to believe that the upper and lower baselines of climate are unknown since history doesn't go nearly as far back as geology .

Steve

[arcticfire]

Well one thing you have to keep in mind is people as a whole are largly totally dence. Thus something dramatic has to happen before they will start accepting the idea of change.

Climate change is real, and it's been pretty drastic , especially where I am here in alaska. So I don't have to be convinced, my seasons and weather up here has already in the past 5 years gone totally screwy. I refuse to dicuss the politics of the whole issue but I luagh anytime someone says whats happening is normal.

When I was in HS it was scientists saying global warming wouldn't impact anything for hundreds of years. Afterall in geological time nothing happens quick by our definition. Now bit over 10 years later it's "climate change is screwing up our world and can happen rapidly". Nevermind the debate on if we are contributing to it.

Be carefull just how much you base your opinon on what the current trend in science communities is saying. They just everyone else are human , prone to mistakes and by no means have any inside information on the future. They can barely tell you where a hurricane is going in 2 days , nevermind where the whole worlds climate is going in 2 years , or 20, or 200 years.

Basing climate predictions on whats to come based on what happened in the past is largly like saying a hurricane is going to go to a specific spot because it did in the past. Man may or may not be the predominate factor in the recent changes , but no one should argue changes are not happening. The climate is changing and who knows what that will cause weather wise.

Another poster remarked how different the world was when dino's where around. Well thas fine , but have you ever considered that no one was around then to ask if 200mph hurricans where slamming into the coast every other day?

Regadless what happens with the climate , the world will be fine. It's us humans in our little stick houses along the coast , and dependence on large scale farming that are in trouble one way or the other.

[jasons2k]

Depending on who argument you believe
Bush - there isn't such a thing as man made climate change

If you are going to summarize the President's stance on climate change, please PLEASE at least get it right.

Bush's position IS NOT "there isn't such a thing as man made climate change". That's what the New York Times may want you to believe but that is not correct and please do not post as such.

The general stance of the Bush administration is that while it is quite possible that man is probably influencing climate change, the answer is by no means yet definitive, especially "how much" we are influencing it. That seems to be the key question.

As far as doing something about it, the Bush adminsitration is working hard to get something on the table that works for everybody. He is often called evil for not endorsing the Kyoto treaty - but why on earth should we bear the brunt of the COSTS involved (and yes, it is EXPENSIVE) when other countries like China and India get a free pass? How is that fair or effective?

Furthermore, when you start assessing the real dollars involved to make some of the changes, you have to be pretty darn sure that you're not wasting money on a lost cause - which it would be if we can't get developing countries to be on board as well.

Please don't misinterpret my post as anti-environment or pro-pollution because I am not. I want clean, clear air just like the guy next door with 4 kids. All I'm saying is first - quote accurately and second, look a little deeper into the issue.

And to answer the other post "Did Bush really make that comment??" the answer is NO he did not.

Sorry, but I felt the need to bust in here. Climate change is happening and happening quickly. The Bush administration is not handling this issue very well and has done little to improve environmental controls.

Quote:

The general stance of the Bush administration is that while it is quite possible that man is probably influencing climate change, the answer is by no means yet definitive, especially "how much" we are influencing it. That seems to be the key question.

RESPONSE:

How do you figure? I think there is enough evidence over the last 100 years to say that man has influenced the climate tremendously. I think the top scientists have given Bush all the evidence he needs to make an assertive effort in controlling pollutants.

Quote:

Bush adminsitration is working hard to get something on the table that works for everybody.

RESPONSE:

Are you serious? In what way is he working hard?

Quote:

but why on earth should we bear the brunt of the COSTS involved (and yes, it is EXPENSIVE) when other countries like China and India get a free pass? How is that fair or effective?

RESPONSE:

Why not. If we are the major polluters, then why shouldn’t we bear the responsibility of paying the costs involved. Australian and Americans have the dubious distinction of being the two biggest greenhouse gas polluters in the world.


Lastly, it is not a lost cause to spend the money, if it has not been tried.

I'm sorry but all 3 of your responses need some reading up IMO.

Q1: 100 years. OK. Whatever. Please see posts above from some others.
Q2: I guess you missed all the news at G-8 where they are working on a Kyoto alternative. The news sources are out there, you just have to look beyond CNN, AP, NY Times.
Q3: And it won't be that way much longer. We are reducing greenhouse gasses and those other countries are dramatically increasing greenhouse gas output, at a much faster rate than when the US became industrialized. If we're gonna be all in this together then yes, they need to pay their fair share too.

[jasons2k]

FWIW,

Maybe both sides of the Global Warming debate can be happy with the USA and Austraila set to annouce a 5 nation pact known as "beyond kyoto" which looks toward alternative technologies to replace fossil fuels down the line. It's a step in the right direction IMHO.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050727/us_ ... climate_dc

Naturally, not everyone will be happy with it. But we also have to understand some of the other issues - slowing of the Gulf Stream and desalinization of the NW Atlantic which leads some of the countries (ie. U.K.) to be more serious in their approach rather than the wait-and-see approach we more or less take here. Obviously they fear turning into Siberia and I can't say I blame them. But there's no definitive proof either way other than that climate changes are taking place. Again, I tend to believe that the upper and lower baselines of climate are unknown since history doesn't go nearly as far back as geology .

Steve

Excellent post, and it does show that the current Administration is not ignoring the climate change issue as some would have u believe. Thanks Steve.

[Ivanhater]

isnt the air much cleaner than it was in the 70s?

[wxcrazytwo]

Depending on who argument you believe
Bush - there isn't such a thing as man made climate change

If you are going to summarize the President's stance on climate change, please PLEASE at least get it right.

Bush's position IS NOT "there isn't such a thing as man made climate change". That's what the New York Times may want you to believe but that is not correct and please do not post as such.

The general stance of the Bush administration is that while it is quite possible that man is probably influencing climate change, the answer is by no means yet definitive, especially "how much" we are influencing it. That seems to be the key question.

As far as doing something about it, the Bush adminsitration is working hard to get something on the table that works for everybody. He is often called evil for not endorsing the Kyoto treaty - but why on earth should we bear the brunt of the COSTS involved (and yes, it is EXPENSIVE) when other countries like China and India get a free pass? How is that fair or effective?

Furthermore, when you start assessing the real dollars involved to make some of the changes, you have to be pretty darn sure that you're not wasting money on a lost cause - which it would be if we can't get developing countries to be on board as well.

Please don't misinterpret my post as anti-environment or pro-pollution because I am not. I want clean, clear air just like the guy next door with 4 kids. All I'm saying is first - quote accurately and second, look a little deeper into the issue.

And to answer the other post "Did Bush really make that comment??" the answer is NO he did not.

Sorry, but I felt the need to bust in here. Climate change is happening and happening quickly. The Bush administration is not handling this issue very well and has done little to improve environmental controls.

Quote:

The general stance of the Bush administration is that while it is quite possible that man is probably influencing climate change, the answer is by no means yet definitive, especially "how much" we are influencing it. That seems to be the key question.

RESPONSE:

How do you figure? I think there is enough evidence over the last 100 years to say that man has influenced the climate tremendously. I think the top scientists have given Bush all the evidence he needs to make an assertive effort in controlling pollutants.

Quote:

Bush adminsitration is working hard to get something on the table that works for everybody.

RESPONSE:

Are you serious? In what way is he working hard?

Quote:

but why on earth should we bear the brunt of the COSTS involved (and yes, it is EXPENSIVE) when other countries like China and India get a free pass? How is that fair or effective?

RESPONSE:

Why not. If we are the major polluters, then why shouldn’t we bear the responsibility of paying the costs involved. Australian and Americans have the dubious distinction of being the two biggest greenhouse gas polluters in the world.


Lastly, it is not a lost cause to spend the money, if it has not been tried.

I'm sorry but all 3 of your responses need some reading up IMO.

Q1: 100 years. OK. Whatever. Please see posts above from some others.
Q2: I guess you missed all the news at G-8 where they are working on a Kyoto alternative. The news sources are out there, you just have to look beyond CNN, AP, NY Times.
Q3: And it won't be that way much longer. We are reducing greenhouse gasses and those other countries are dramatically increasing greenhouse gas output, at a much faster rate than when the US became industrialized. If we're gonna be all in this together then yes, they need to pay their fair share too.

whatever. your right and I am wrong. Kyoto alternative, another bush bogus policy. I'll tell you what type in exactly this on google and see what you get.

"failure"

and press I am feeling lucky and see what you get. lol

[jasons2k]

isnt the air much cleaner than it was in the 70s?

Yeah, just talk to my grandparents who live in Birmingham. It's like night and day, almost literally.

[Sanibel]

Antarctic ice core samples going back hundreds of thousands of years show the fluctuating levels of CO2 the atmosphere undergoes. Natural warming cycles are related to these natural rises in CO2 levels.

After studying the rhythm cycles of CO2 rises and subsequent warming phases exhibited in the ice, scientists concluded that our present atmosphere has 3 times the amount of CO2 than any natural warming cycle ever contained. The only thing that could possibly account for the extra amount is the known man-made CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial age...

[wxcrazytwo]

type in exactly this on google and see what you get.

"failure"

and press I am feeling lucky and see what you get. lol

[jasons2k]

whatever. your right and I am wrong. Kyoto alternative, another bush bogus policy. I'll tell you what type in exactly this on google and see what you get.

"failure"

and press I am feeling lucky and see what you get. lol

I hope I didn't mean to make you feel like I was saying I am right and you are wrong, case closed. Just saying I think more reading is needed. Please research both sides of the issue. 99% of what you hear is one-sided.

Anyway, we all know the Google bit is rigged.

Sorry Mods for this thread, I'm out.

[wxcrazytwo]

whatever. your right and I am wrong. Kyoto alternative, another bush bogus policy. I'll tell you what type in exactly this on google and see what you get.

"failure"

and press I am feeling lucky and see what you get. lol

I hope I didn't mean to make you feel like I was saying I am right and you are wrong, case closed. Just saying I think more reading is needed. Please research both sides of the issue. 99% of what you hear is one-sided.

Anyway, we all know the Google bit is rigged.

Sorry Mods for this thread, I'm out.

lol, okay..

[wxcrazytwo]

whatever. your right and I am wrong. Kyoto alternative, another bush bogus policy. I'll tell you what type in exactly this on google and see what you get.

"failure"

and press I am feeling lucky and see what you get. lol

I hope I didn't mean to make you feel like I was saying I am right and you are wrong, case closed. Just saying I think more reading is needed. Please research both sides of the issue. 99% of what you hear is one-sided.

Anyway, we all know the Google bit is rigged.

Sorry Mods for this thread, I'm out.

lol, okay..

[Steve]

That's true Sanibel, and the other key we get from glacial ice is how fast some of the glaciers are melting. Forget hurricanes because down the line (if the trend continues), our coastal regions won't look anything like they do today. A 10 or 15' rise in water (much less 25-100' or more) submerges plenty of what is now our coast.

But there's a spark with the CO2 emissions. The flipside is that the plant kingdom gets a windfall and produces more oxygen. Now we don't want every part of America to look like the side of an interstate, and some biodiversity would be lost to museums, arboretums and such, but nature would at some point balance out the CO2 I would think.

Steve

[mike18xx]

Depending on who argument you believe ...Bush - there isn't such a thing as man made climate change

If you are going to summarize the President's stance on climate change, please PLEASE at least get it right. Bush's position IS NOT "there isn't such a thing as man made climate change". That's what the New York Times may want you to believe but that is not correct and please do not post as such.

The New York Slime hasn't been correct about anything since its man Walter Duranty was collecting a Pulitzer for straight up lying about the conditions inside Stalin's Soviet Union (including the Ukranian famine-genocide) in the early 1930s.

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=446194
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45097
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

[mike18xx]

He is often called evil for not endorsing the Kyoto treaty - but why on earth should we bear the brunt of the COSTS involved (and yes, it is EXPENSIVE) when other countries like China and India get a free pass?

Every signatory on to Kyoto fully intended to violate it like crazy; the whole purpose of the thing was to see if the US would be stupid enough to sign on to it and thereby cripple itself (which would mean, in the zero-sum fantasy world of the socialists, that they would relatively progress).

[jasons2k]

He is often called evil for not endorsing the Kyoto treaty - but why on earth should we bear the brunt of the COSTS involved (and yes, it is EXPENSIVE) when other countries like China and India get a free pass?

Every signatory on to Kyoto fully intended to violate it like crazy; the whole purpose of the thing was to see if the US would be stupid enough to sign on to it and thereby cripple itself (which would mean, in the zero-sum fantasy world of the socialists, that they would relatively progress).

[jax]

He is often called evil for not endorsing the Kyoto treaty - but why on earth should we bear the brunt of the COSTS involved (and yes, it is EXPENSIVE) when other countries like China and India get a free pass?

Every signatory on to Kyoto fully intended to violate it like crazy; the whole purpose of the thing was to see if the US would be stupid enough to sign on to it and thereby cripple itself (which would mean, in the zero-sum fantasy world of the socialists, that they would relatively progress).

DING DING DING DING Correct Answer!!!
Collect $200 And Advance to Free Parking!

[P.K.]

He is often called evil for not endorsing the Kyoto treaty - but why on earth should we bear the brunt of the COSTS involved (and yes, it is EXPENSIVE) when other countries like China and India get a free pass?

Every signatory on to Kyoto fully intended to violate it like crazy; the whole purpose of the thing was to see if the US would be stupid enough to sign on to it and thereby cripple itself (which would mean, in the zero-sum fantasy world of the socialists, that they would relatively progress).

That wasn't the point of it at all. I can't find the figures at the moment but several EU nations, Germany have been particulary good, have decreased emissions. I'll admit some had increased them though. This is costing us money as well to impliment it.