Environment Out Of Control?

[Gerontion]

No, don't. Michael Crichton is a science fiction writer, not a scientist. He has no relevant training. None. Zero. Zip.

A thorough examination (written by real scientists) of why State of Fear is execrable nonsense can be found at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...e-of-confusion/

[britmaveric]

No, don't. Michael Crichton is a science fiction writer, not a scientist. He has no relevant training. None. Zero. Zip.

A thorough examination (written by real scientists) of why State of Fear is execrable nonsense can be found at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...e-of-confusion/

Go on read it - great read and lot of his info is based on hard science and supported through plethra of source material.

BTW In that case Al Gore has zero credibility!!!

Edited April 25, 2007 by britmaveric

[esprit]

It is unfortunate that the worst contibutor, in Al Gore's film, is the US, A country whose President was financed in the main by the O & G industry, whose products and processes contribute so greatly to the impact of global warming.

It is also unfortunate that due to human greed whatever industry can generate mega-bucks, will thus seek to influence major political decisions albeit fossil fuel production and use or the internet. No major nation actually gives a fig about the less fortunate. Plenty of good words paying lip service yes and the odd few million in aid which invariably gets filtered away for other uses in some countries.

My personal view is that until it becomes politically unacceptable to the majority of voters for big business to donate huge sums of money to any political party or person, with the obvious main aim of protecting their own interests, then nothing substantial will happen, either to alleviate the production and use of fossil fuels or to the other humanitarian interest, assisting poor nations to have the ability to feed themselves.

Global warming and humanitarian assistance may be a headline grabber and many voters listen to the arguments, but unfortunately it is quite often the apathy of many that do not care to vote for a change in political direction that hinders the development process towards a more environmentally aware society. The shame of course is that it is all too easy for us to sit back and reap the rewards in the present whilst believing that in the future some "miracle" will happen. But that is all part of human frailty.

It's not about the oil and gas industry or even the environment. It's about "creative destruction". The primary force in capitalism. It's primary beneficiary is banks and the companies (new) whose paper they peddle.

Whilst I have great sympathy with you with respect to Banks as the Demons of civilised society capitilism, through all its faults can not be the sole instigator of global warming. In the communist era, when factories were built cheaply to refine metals etc and coal fired power stations were constructed without second thoughts to the pollutants produced, these industries significantly contributed to the production of greenhouse gases and thus global warming. It is not the economic or political model that is at fault, it is the human race that facilitates the usage of those political ideals.

[lannarebirth]

It is unfortunate that the worst contibutor, in Al Gore's film, is the US, A country whose President was financed in the main by the O & G industry, whose products and processes contribute so greatly to the impact of global warming.

It is also unfortunate that due to human greed whatever industry can generate mega-bucks, will thus seek to influence major political decisions albeit fossil fuel production and use or the internet. No major nation actually gives a fig about the less fortunate. Plenty of good words paying lip service yes and the odd few million in aid which invariably gets filtered away for other uses in some countries.

My personal view is that until it becomes politically unacceptable to the majority of voters for big business to donate huge sums of money to any political party or person, with the obvious main aim of protecting their own interests, then nothing substantial will happen, either to alleviate the production and use of fossil fuels or to the other humanitarian interest, assisting poor nations to have the ability to feed themselves.

Global warming and humanitarian assistance may be a headline grabber and many voters listen to the arguments, but unfortunately it is quite often the apathy of many that do not care to vote for a change in political direction that hinders the development process towards a more environmentally aware society. The shame of course is that it is all too easy for us to sit back and reap the rewards in the present whilst believing that in the future some "miracle" will happen. But that is all part of human frailty.

It's not about the oil and gas industry or even the environment. It's about "creative destruction". The primary force in capitalism. It's primary beneficiary is banks and the companies (new) whose paper they peddle.

Whilst I have great sympathy with you with respect to Banks as the Demons of civilised society capitilism, through all its faults can not be the sole instigator of global warming. In the communist era, when factories were built cheaply to refine metals etc and coal fired power stations were constructed without second thoughts to the pollutants produced, these industries significantly contributed to the production of greenhouse gases and thus global warming. It is not the economic or political model that is at fault, it is the human race that facilitates the usage of those political ideals.

Oh, I wasn't implying that banks were the instigators of global warming. I see them as instigators of capital intensive "remedies" that they can turn around and unload on the citizen/shareholder. Then, as in war, when the public sees they can make a nice buck from it, they'll all be on board.

[the gent]

^^So are you claiming that concentrations of atmospheric CO2 haven't increased by a third on pre-industrial levels? Or are you saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Or am I missing something? You see, when you get rid of all the rubbish about environmentalism being a religion or how awful Gore is or the how Kyoto was industrial sabotage aimed at the Americans, there are some basic facts that have to be dealt with. On the other thread about global warming, I posted a quotation from a joint statement issued by the scientific academies of dozens of countries, all of whom agree that the consensus view of the scientific community is that anthropogenic climate change is real and dangerous. Even the American military (well known tree-huggers to a man) acknowledges this. If, however, you are privy to information of which the Royal Academy is ignorant, do please post it.

Ah.

Science as truth, perhaps?

Trouble is, there is no such thing and pronouncements made by what may pass for the scientific community are generally as self serving as their egos will allow.

The reality is quite apparent, the prognosis is simply unknown as is the significance of current data which so exercise the professional neurotics.

There are rather more important things to worry about than global warming which will develop irregardless of man's supposed intervention.

[mogoso]

My personal view is that until it becomes politically unacceptable to the majority of voters for big business to donate huge sums of money to any political party or person, with the obvious main aim of protecting their own interests, then nothing substantial will happen, either to alleviate the production and use of fossil fuels or to the other humanitarian interest, assisting poor nations to have the ability to feed themselves.

================================================================================

=========================

What about large private donors? Soros group Move on says they own the democrat party in the US. Soros funds tens of millions into org. devoted to change the US gov't.

As far from removing human caused CO2, put in back where alot of it came from, the cutting of the worlds forests and jungles released it from the plants. Lets just reforest areas, and after all isn't man is 9th on the emission of Co2 after the natural causes.

I think I seen where acre of land could be saved in the Amazon for everyone who gives up eating beef. So if someones that active an enviormentalist or man made global warming stooge, give up that steak, or hamburger to show your proper concern.

Many of the worlds scientists Russian, German (Planck Inst) Australian (Eastman is one I think) simply say the suns hotter, and I believe it. That idiot Gore uses nutitionists, social scientists, biologists, and any that an ist after his name. Very few are climatologists and none work for private industry unless you count those in universities whom gain monies to do research. Gores proud of saying this is the warmest in recorded history, and how long have we been recording and keeping records.

Go back to the warming period at the end of the dark ages, where it is estimted the temp rose 5 degrees and the French wine makers were complaining about vineyards being established in Northern England. But that warming period dried up wetlands that diseases incubated in and help the rise of the middle ages. Crops could be grown longer, less starvation. More food more leisure, more time for invention and the arts.

[Glauka]

I am an Environmental studies student. I have focus on environment and its relationship with economy, politics and society. Most of the time we think about ecosystems as just of part of nature full of animal, plants microbes...

However we could say that society, economy and politics are also ecosystems...they are all inter-related so any alteration that is make in one of them affects the rest.

Someone brought up the human proverty. Well many people in developed countries face poverty becasuse the have not access to their natural ecosystems anymore. Land is private and is owned by rich companies from the west which will use the ecosystem to their own interest. Most of these companies managers are taken the decisions about how to manage the land without knowing really what is going on down there. They do not know how the local society works. How the manage the land. Which rights over the land they have within their small community...etc. The local community social system starts to change because they have not access to the land and their way to get their income has to be done by other means and no by the traditional ones (wich are the most sustainable.

Also the soil of many developed countries are exauted they are poor in nutrients, the water is contaminated, forest are logged thus local people have not resource to do their living. These ecosystems cannot provided their services anymore due to many years of bad management. who suffer? the local. Thus one can conclude that human poverty in many countries and the ecosystem damage are related. Thus by a sustainable management we can save natural ecosystems and erradicate poverty in many parts of the world...

Well i will stop now i could continue but now is too late...tomorrow maybe...

What about sustainable development?What will happen to the economy if most natural ecosystems are exploited and cannot regenerate themselves anymore thus they can provide their services anylonger? What will happen if we start to understand that anything that you do in your every day life will affect the life of many people in some other countries? What will happen if the rate of extinction of plants and animals reach a point where there is not turning back and we realize that they are very important in natural ecosystem fuctions?...

Well I stop now.

I hope that my incorrect use of english do not overshadow the point I try to make here.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Glauka