Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Climate Change ? What Climate Change ?
shadow boxer
The Finger Painter & Master Ranter
in Zocalo v2.0
Of the [B]3200[/B] questions asked of the candidates, only [B]eight(8)[/B] were about climate change.
When asked during opinion polls, Americans rated the various policy priorities.
[B]Climate change came in at twenty first (21st).[/B]
I don't think I need to say much more aside from I hope the US pulls it's head out of its collective ass before it's too late.
When asked during opinion polls, Americans rated the various policy priorities.
[B]Climate change came in at twenty first (21st).[/B]
I don't think I need to say much more aside from I hope the US pulls it's head out of its collective ass before it's too late.
Comments
A2597: Seconded.
so yeah whilst individually it may be a different story, collectively, you suck Uncle Sam
I know there is climate change, but to say we're the sole cause of it is a little stupid. That said, I'm in favor of getting off fossile fuel ASAP. But I also feel that we have other dangers that are just as harmful such as genetically manipulating plants. (Example: Where have all the Bees gone? I all but gurentee you it's a result of pesticides and herbicides and genetic manipulation of the food we eat).
We do alot of things to screw up this planet, and they all need to be taken care of. We're here as stewards of this planet, and we're doing a piss poor job. But lets quit the fear mongering, we should know from Peta that it doesn't work.
I understand scientists are also examining whether that might be related to climate change.
logic it out...
A:
Put chemicals in the bees nutrients, which has been a problem for many years, but the US is absofriginlutly insane upon doing (Just read it up, it's sickening the crap they tell us is OK to eat)
or:
B:
Subtle changes in climate.
Which is more likely to make a bee lose it's ability to navigate? And which is more likely to be paid to be kept silent? Trust me, if it's chemicals, we'll never hear about it. Any evidence of that will be ridiculed and thrown out by people getting paid off.
When asked during opinion polls, Americans rated the various policy priorities.
[B]Climate change came in at twenty first (21st).[/B]
I don't think I need to say much more aside from I hope the US pulls it's head out of its collective ass before it's too late.[/QUOTE]I [i]would[/i] watch all the goings-on of Australian politics, important and unimportant alike, so that I could bitch to you about what doesn't line up with my agenda for your government, but I don't enjoy wasting my time.[QUOTE=shadow boxer;170801]source = [url]http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2185688.htm[/url]
so yeah whilst individually it may be a different story, collectively, you suck Uncle Sam[/QUOTE]You suck too. Have a nice day! :)
- cars with high CO2 emissions
- life stock in general
- air traffic
- fossil fuels in general
What are the proposed solutions?
- cars with lower CO2 emissions (expanding public transportation)
- eat less meat, become a vegetarian
- there are already planes being tested with alternative fuels but until then maybe changing our flying habits could go a long way to reducing this problem
- alternative energy, solar, wind and natural gas
Then there are other reasons for global warming outside our control, like water vapor, solar radiation (the sun goes through cycles).
I do believe that the planet can sustain a finite number of people and that we may have to curb our own head-count in order to not tip the balance. Just because we haven't settled everywhere on the planet doesn't mean it is wise or possible to do so. We humans do exhale CO2, so we are part of the problem. Deforestation doesn't help either because AFAIK trees are natural CO2 converters and we keep cutting down those trees. (Maybe we should introduce a "Plant-A-Tree-Day"... hugging trees won't do us any good...)
Another thing that has been bothering me is this globalization thing that's been going on and the negative effects it's having on our planet and the people. The plus side is that there is economic growth for the western hemisphere, but that's not going to last forever.
Global trade is also a good example of the kind of insanity that's taking place. I'm not even talking about toys/electronics being make in China and sold in the US and Europe. I'm talking about fruits and vegetables flown in from Africa and South America to be sold in the northern hemisphere. I mean, WTF, is that really necessary? What's the CO2 footprint of a bag of prunes flown in from Chile or grapes from South-Africa? Are they completely mad? Who's buying this stuff? I'm guessing it must make economic sense because it's probably cheaper, but who's going to pay the environmental bill? I fear that buying low-cost, going the cheap route is going to cost us dearly in the end. Someone's going to have to pay and it's not just with money.
It is very well possible that we planet should be warming even if there was no industrialized civilization. Systems can adapt up to a given unit of energy per unit of time and this is definitely evident with the temperatures seen in geologic records.
The problem is the [B]rate of change[/B]. Is the energy per time ratio higher than it has ever been in the past? How much of a factor is human activity contributing to this [B]rate of change[/B].
If we did nothing it would go up in a way nature is adapted to handle.
Putting coal into the air alters the temperature, increases it.
America is putting the most by far per person. China expected to produce the most air born CO2 soon.
America expected to be harmed much by the increase in temp. Insects helped the most.
I do not **** Uncle Sam.
[I]Has Prudence ever killed anyone ?[/I]
[I]Has Prudence ever killed anyone ?[/I][/QUOTE]
The short answer is, yes. Prudence can kill when applied at the wrong time. But fortunately, climate change, isn't one of those times.
I still want to know what % of the air is man made.
All the plutonium in the environment is man made.
It it were, wouldn't every planet, moon, and asteroid be warming, as well? I know some of them are, but those can be attributed to local or seasonal effects.
[url]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html[/url]
[url]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I thought that I heard about other planets heating up.
I don't know the answer for that... but I have coincidentally read that human kind has volcanism beaten in the business of emitting CO2 so badly... that a single large industrialized country (USA) emits multiple times the amount of C02 produced by all active volcanoes on Earth. But CO2 is just a small percentage of air, and perhaps the easiest to industrially produce (just burn something with carbon in it).
Regarding the question somone else asked earlier, about whether Earth "should" naturally be cooling or heating... well, it depends on the period of time you consider. If you examine the perspective of the next 25'000 years, it seems we're already overdue a new glaciation. If you examine the perspective of the next 100 years, it looks a lot more uncertain.
But whatever the case is, if warming does occur, I have a vested interest in slowing it.
The city where I live is a coastal city, and would experience inconveniences upon sea level rise and stronger storm surges. My city is a relatively safe one, enjoying post-glacial land level rise to counterbalance possible sea level rise... but land level rise is slow here, and sea level rise upon warming could outpace it by tens of times. Other cities, exposed to the elements more than where I live, would pay more dearly. Some of them would suffer a lot from flooding.
Also, the land which I inhabit is on the edge of the habitat of the [i]Picea abies[/i] fir tree. North of here, it definitely grows. South of here, hell no. Over here... pretty decently and there's a lot of it, but it's never too secure in its existence. If climate were to take a significant turn for warmer, it could easily spoil an appreciable chunk of local forests.
Finally, since I have no desire to depend on fuel imported from far away, and even less if the fuel comes from politically restrictive societies, and ends up sponsoring authoritarian governments... the issue of whether warming is occurring is really a moot point to me. I want to improve my own energy autonomy, and contribute to improving the local economy's energy autonomy.
So in the short term I'm e-biking and reducing my home's wattage. Coincidentally, moving into a new apartment will improve thermal insulation and reduce heating bills a lot. I also have the devilish plan of building a rainproof e-trike during summer... pictures will be used to describe if it gets completed and works. It may be the first powered vehicle I've used which recharges itself without needing anyone to mess with power cords. :D That is, of course, only possible due to using very low wattage (about 250).
Again, this does not take into account the rate of change. There have been hotter and colder period but these changes took place over a period of thousands of years. The cooling that took place from the time of the dinos to the current global climate was on the order of millions.
The meteorologists did the science and have proof.
Has that one man's idea been passed through the Scientific Method?
What is the several million year history of Mars climent (weather) to compare.
[url]http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html[/url]
I have no motivation whatsoever to find or verify the source, simply because I do not care enough. However, I just thought that you should know that some scientific source out there somewhere says the exact opposite of what you said, or says something that sounds a lot like the exact opposite of what you said.