International Report Cites Global Warming Cause, Effects

[cyenna]

How am I supposed to have a discussion with you about the video or the topic if you don't even want to watch the video?

 

ah, the mysteries of life. I'm pretty sure I already understand what the video is about since I did in fact watch the beginning (as i said before) which summarized the goals of the video. What more do I need? And in those first ten minutes I already disagreed with their philosophy. So I guess we can't have a discussion, merely a "i'm right, you're wrong" kinda thing - which will get us no where. But it sure is fun!

[Piero]

TODAY: The UN Security Council will be debating the issue of climate change today.

link

 

I think anyone who is genuinely interested in what real climate scientists think about various media items that surface, should refer first to realclimate.org or similar outlets.

[Twitterbait]

I hope this thread is still up in 20 years when the media is telling us we are causing a new ice age again...

[reefhut]

NICE

 

I would agree twitterbait.

[SeanF]

And then they will be able to find a bunch of scientists to get paid to study why humans are causing that ice age. There are so many things that can effect the earths climate that unless these scientists are studying all of the factors their research is incomplete but very profitable for them. As far as the UN and their "experts". The people that head up the UN are the same that brought us the Oil For Food program or should we call it the Saddam Hussein palace upgrade program. I won't say that one side or the other is correct but I don't think anyone field such as climatology or any other will be able to figure this out. There are millions of variables that will effect the global climate and nobody knows what is going to happen. Sure if you want to do your part and use less resources that is great but some people take this way to far. Personally having Al Gore as a spokesman pretty much eliminates any respect I am going to have for your point of view. I just laugh when I see all of these people that use more natural resources than most of us are telling the rest of us that we are bad and need to take drastic steps to change it. Like buying carbon offset credits from this new company. Well this company just happens to be owned partially by Al Gore. If you want to obsess over the global impact of humans on the planet that is your right. I personally want to enjoy my life and don't for a minute believe that humans have a signifigant impact on the global climate. Ok here is my question. If Co2 levels are increasing and the ocean is being polluted why are we not having a huge explosion in the levels of phytoplankton in the ocean. Phytoplankton are the largest producers of oxygen on the planet by a long margin so if we were to give them more food in the form of Co2 and nutrients wouldn't we see a signifigant increase in phytoplankton levels wouldn't we? Someday people are going to quit believing everything they hear and start doing some thinking and come to their own conclusions.

[R-3]

I just think its funny that all of this global warming stuff is taking off in the coldest year in like a hundred years. Kinda ironic Late Ryan

[Lowman]

Not to start a huge debate, but I read where this was the warmest year on record by over 3 degrees, mean temperature wise.

[R-3]

I was being sarcastic Bob. I re-read it just now and I could have been a lot more sacrastic. Too many beers last night. Later Ryan

[Lowman]

That's cool man, I misquoted the report, actually it was more like .2 to .5 degrees celcius, not 3 as I previously stated. But 2006 was actually 3 degrees warmer on average than the previous year.

[180Brandy]

And then they will be able to find a bunch of scientists to get paid to study why humans are causing that ice age. There are so many things that can effect the earths climate that unless these scientists are studying all of the factors their research is incomplete but very profitable for them. As far as the UN and their "experts". The people that head up the UN are the same that brought us the Oil For Food program or should we call it the Saddam Hussein palace upgrade program. I won't say that one side or the other is correct but I don't think anyone field such as climatology or any other will be able to figure this out. There are millions of variables that will effect the global climate and nobody knows what is going to happen. Sure if you want to do your part and use less resources that is great but some people take this way to far. Personally having Al Gore as a spokesman pretty much eliminates any respect I am going to have for your point of view. I just laugh when I see all of these people that use more natural resources than most of us are telling the rest of us that we are bad and need to take drastic steps to change it. Like buying carbon offset credits from this new company. Well this company just happens to be owned partially by Al Gore. If you want to obsess over the global impact of humans on the planet that is your right. I personally want to enjoy my life and don't for a minute believe that humans have a signifigant impact on the global climate. Ok here is my question. If Co2 levels are increasing and the ocean is being polluted why are we not having a huge explosion in the levels of phytoplankton in the ocean. Phytoplankton are the largest producers of oxygen on the planet by a long margin so if we were to give them more food in the form of Co2 and nutrients wouldn't we see a signifigant increase in phytoplankton levels wouldn't we? Someday people are going to quit believing everything they hear and start doing some thinking and come to their own conclusions.

 

Sean:

 

Go back in the literature and you will find they already did those studies. They were worried that scattering due to human generated particulates would cause the next ice age.

[Twitterbait]

Sean... I have to agree!

[Piero]

IPCC Report #4 released on May 4th. link

 

- responses by real climatologists: link

- real climate scientists responding to that mockumentary. link

[bluecheese]

Ok here is my question. If Co2 levels are increasing and the ocean is being polluted why are we not having a huge explosion in the levels of phytoplankton in the ocean. Phytoplankton are the largest producers of oxygen on the planet by a long margin so if we were to give them more food in the form of Co2 and nutrients wouldn't we see a signifigant increase in phytoplankton levels wouldn't we? Someday people are going to quit believing everything they hear and start doing some thinking and come to their own conclusions.

 

Sean, good question, whom should we believe? Whom can we trust for info when everything could be easily manipulated and fabricated? In either direction!!(flame) Thank God we finally found those WMD!!DOH! And maybe even more of interest is the following statement given to Frank Rich (New York Times) in an August 2001 interview with Carl Rove " We are about to enter the biggest revolution on how the information is used, watch us carefully we will soon create YOUR reality" I'll let you do the thinking and come to your own conclusions...(yes Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are siamese twins separated at birth with each only 1/2 the brain of the other)

 

Check this one in response to your question:

 

A firm called planktos.com is getting a lot of airplay for their bid to create a carbon offset product based on fertilizing the ocean. In certain parts of the ocean, surface waters already contain most of the ingredients for a plankton bloom; all they lack is trace amounts of iron. For each 1 atom of iron added in such a place, phytoplankton take up 50,000 atoms of carbon. What could be better?

 

There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical, there are as many if not more to be really worried. So it's really a question whether it is better that you do nothing and you were wrong or do something that could make things better but you were wrong. Which one would be worse for your kids, for your grand kids?

 

Do you prefer to find a toilet clean when you enter the bathroom or a dirty one? How about the beach? The air you breath? (scratch)

[Piero]

indeed...given uncertainty and potential risk, the safest option would seem to be the most prudent course, regardless of outcome. Logic FTW!

 

Today Bush apparently told the EPA to get going on federal regulations to reduce greenhouse emissions. Head of the Union of Concerned Scientists was on NPR to comment. Said he would cheer Bush if they follow through effectively...but skeptics worry about federal plans subverting local proactive initiatives like California and others' efforts to get a jump on the fed. regardless, good news and a major step in the right direction to declare it a high priority.

 

Bush Orders First Federal Regulation of Greenhouse Gases

[H20cooled]

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

 

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

[Piero]

1) that's not a legitimate report, it's a blog post

2) the author is Marc Merano. google his name before citing him?

3) You're already advocating(in your sig) data from what appears to be an illegitimate source (from the standpoint of qualified scientists).

 

Understandably, I think there's more value in a UN IPCC report. Even our president understands that.

 

but once again....the bigger philosophical picture I think is still being ignored: given uncertainty and risk in ANY situation...the prudent course is the safest option available. Anyone find anything wrong with that? Maybe I'm missing something, but it provides a baseline on top of which we can apply an incremental conflict resolution framework.

[Piero]

Dude....anyone tried syncing Dark Side of the Moon with An Inconvenient Truth? It'll blow yer mind man! - Colbert

 

seriously though, I get the impression that people are slowly reaching the realization that, regardless of your position across the spectrum of personal motivations - from selfish greed to the greater good - it still makes logical sense to embrace the concept of sustainability. Pollution of any kind is a bad thing too. It goes beyond the simple concept of 'don't crap in your house' I think. Sustainable systems are more efficient and produce less waste, and from a purely economic/profit standpoint that translates to better ROI. It's rare to find a situation where selfish greed also equals greater good, but that connection just may 'save us' in the end, idunno.

 

I can also relate to some of the frustration with how the media presents the isssue of climate change, and I can see how the tendency towards dramatization may turn people off to an idea if they don't already have confidence in the sources or for that matter the scientific method. It's unfortunate, but we all know that the media is interested in eyeballs before anything else, eh? It's one thing to possess a lack of confidence in a source of data, but a lack of confidence in the scientific method itself reflects a lack of understanding.

[bluecheese]

A sad Truth

 

Piero, yes there is some of that but also keep in mind that some people just live in their own reality and will not change their mind even when it will blow in their face.

 

Take the example of smoking (flame) . We now have the exact mechanisms and agents that cause cell damage and result in lung cancer. Yet many people still smoke and some of them even refute the scientific data as propaganda by the "environmentalist".

I had to seat an entire flight to the East coast listening to this guy trying to convince me how smoking was actually better for you.DOH! (threaten) DOH! (threaten)

 

The bottom line is education and acurate information is what we need. Unfortunately we have entered a very odd period where made-up facts and reality are now mixed together. Everyone is a specialist of some sort, and unless you truely check their credentials many of those so called specialists (show cased on TV) that are believable are actually complete ignorant on the topic. The worst things are the docu drama which are polluting the media and make you believe you are getting accurate facts when they are quite often very subjective and thus inaccurate. Even an inconvenient truth is full of mistakes that scientific have picked on, and that is why it sends the "non believers" ballistic!

 

This, plus the arrogance of our politicians just shows how easily we are manipulated and do exactly what the executive branch is hoping we do, divide ourselves and argue against each other without even knowing the entire truth of the arguments. As long as we stay divided out of believes and can't get unified under one common thread we wil lose to those who would like us to stay divided, ignorant, hypnotized and controlable. This thread is a perfect illustration how it works and how again they win!

 

So we have to hope that the common sense will prevail and that whatever the issue is, the path with the least potential negative impact is what "we" as a species we decide to support.

 

Of course whose "common sense" are we talking about here...(nutty) some would argue that as we destroy ourselves and reduce our genetic pool, we will eventually disappear but the planet will survive, leaving space for another species to take other through natural selection. After all Ants deserve a turn at the kingdom they already outnumber us...(laugh)

[Piero]

"Our President has been (in)famously skeptical about the dangers of climate change: We don’t have all the data, and why waste time putting on a seatbelt until you feel some impact? But after last month’s Supreme Court decision that, under the Clean Air Act, carbon dioxide is indeed a pollutant—one that can be regulated by the EPA—it looks like ..."

 

link

 

I just found the seatbelt analogy funny and appropriate. I'm not citing anything, although I didn't realize that the Supreme Court has designated combustion-based C02 emissions as a pollutant. Obviously we're not talking about respiration C02...so I think we can all continue to breathe. :P

[Twitterbait]

We are all going to die...

[reefgeek84]

We are all going to die...

 

Not if we humans reverse global warming...so as soon as we stop driving cars, using electricity and move out of our homes to live in the woods, we will all live immortal lives. *note the unbelievable hefty amount of sarcasm.

[Twitterbait]

but what about the carbon dioxide we breathe out and the methane from our flatulence... it is out of control!!! plus if we all move to the woods and become vegetarins we will eat all the food the other animals eat (plus when i eat veggies... wow, look out)

 

I am confident we are doomed and there is a chance i am partly to blame.... (yahoo)

[Piero]

FOX? I'm a bit surprised, pleasantly though.

 

"When Rupert Murdoch, the cantankerous and conservative owner of Fox News, enthusiastically joins the fight against climate change, you know we're past the tipping point on the issue. Think landslide. Last week, the media mogul pledged not only to make his News Corp. empire carbon neutral, but to persuade the hundreds of millions of people who watch his TV channels and read his newspapers to join the cause. Messages about climate change will be woven throughout News Corp.'s entertainment content, he said, from movies to books to TV sitcoms, and the issue will have an increasing presence in the company's news coverage, be it in the New York Post or on Hannity & Colmes. Yes, as Murdoch told Grist in an exclusive interview on his climate plan, even Fox News' right-wing firebrand Sean Hannity can be expected to come around on the issue." link

[drock59]

http://nobelpeaceprize.org/

[Twitterbait]

I wouldn't give Gore my used toilet paper, much less a friggin nobel prize...

sounds like they are having a hard time finding real people to award