Global Warming Do You Care?

[ClaytonSeymour]

Do I care? NO.

Am I selfish? YES.

The future generations will have to deal with this, like my Grandparents had to deal with WWII, it will be good character building for them.

I intend to enjoy my time on this planet and live it to the full; I'm not prepared to voluntarily do anything towards slowing down global warming if it compromises my lifestyle, or costs me financially.

[wilko]

It will

[JimsKnight]

It won't cause it's all smoke and mirrors for the masses.

I can't believe this dreary thread is still going.

It's run its course, can the mods close this now?

The voices of reason have already spoken but the brainwashed tree-huggers and dreamers are too many.

Ho Hum

[JetsetBkk]

Oh, you gnostic gnu! Your gnomic utterances from atop the gnarled gneiss have obliged me to to gnaw the gnocchi and gnash my gnashers when it comes to the correct spelling of "gnauss". If only I'd had the nous of the deniers!

I'm a gnu, a ganother gnu! Didn't somebody sing a song about that?

It's quite wonderful....you really don't get the point do you?

It's YOU that I find so fascinating - not the debate - how on earth did you work out how to operate a computer? walk and talk at the same time? get house-trained?

If I wanted to discuss global warming or climate change do you seriously think I would even entertain the idea of doing it with something with the abysmally inadequate abilities of yourself - this thread is like the insect house at Regents zoo...you go to look at the creepy crawlies and shudder...this is a web site about all things pertaining to Thailand and the weird and wonderful wildlife therein of which you, sir, have got to be one of the weirdest - with the possible exception of the copy & paste perpetrator of sexual inexactitudes - Chloe - I just hope your cage is firmly locked!

:D This is classic! Absolutely no discussion of global warming facts, not even plagiarism, cut'n'pasting, nothing! Just pure flaming and insults. Keep it up, wilco. Great stuff!

[HS Mauberley]

The voices of reason have already spoken but the brainwashed tree-huggers and dreamers are too many.

Hmm. That'll be 'tree-huggers' like Tesco, Nokia, Lloyds TSB, Nike, Sainsbury's, Johnson & Johnson, Anglo American, British Airways, Cadbury Schweppes, eBay, Pirelli, L'Oreal, Diageo and Pacific Gas & Electric Company, will it? Business call for plan on climate

I suppose it goes without saying that the voices of reason are the intellectual colossi such as yourself and the ever-entertaining Chloe.

Well as much as it pains me to say it, if I had to choose between the two, it's Tesco's for me. Climate change deniers are the fringe of the fringe. Someone earlier referred to David Irving - climate change deniers belong in the same intellectual dead-zone. Christ, even the White House is finally starting to acknowledge that it's real and it's serious and I for one wouldn't want to put myself in a position that made me look more stupid than George Bush. Still, if the cap fits...

Edited December 5, 2007 by HS Mauberley

[SamuiBond]

The future generations will have to deal with this, like my Grandparents had to deal with WWII, it will be good character building for them.

Instant classic! Genuine and yet so humorous feedback. Its like saying to your children who are screaming on the back seat that this is where I jump of and leave them in dissapearing car by themselves...

[SamuiBond]

I believe in scientific facts. Some of these facts are buried in the ice...

[wilko]

Oh, you gnostic gnu! Your gnomic utterances from atop the gnarled gneiss have obliged me to to gnaw the gnocchi and gnash my gnashers when it comes to the correct spelling of "gnauss". If only I'd had the nous of the deniers!

I'm a gnu, a ganother gnu! Didn't somebody sing a song about that?

It's quite wonderful....you really don't get the point do you?

It's YOU that I find so fascinating - not the debate - how on earth did you work out how to operate a computer? walk and talk at the same time? get house-trained?

If I wanted to discuss global warming or climate change do you seriously think I would even entertain the idea of doing it with something with the abysmally inadequate abilities of yourself - this thread is like the insect house at Regents zoo...you go to look at the creepy crawlies and shudder...this is a web site about all things pertaining to Thailand and the weird and wonderful wildlife therein of which you, sir, have got to be one of the weirdest - with the possible exception of the copy & paste perpetrator of sexual inexactitudes - Chloe - I just hope your cage is firmly locked!

:D This is classic! Absolutely no discussion of global warming facts, not even plagiarism, cut'n'pasting, nothing! Just pure flaming and insults. Keep it up, wilco. Great stuff!

Do you think this thread deserves anything else?

[wilko]

Denier is a measurement of thickness of thread - I'd give this thread an extremely high denier rating...

[Spee]

Hmm. That'll be 'tree-huggers' like Tesco ...

................

Well as much as it pains me to say it, if I had to choose between the two, it's Tesco's for me. Climate change deniers are the fringe of the fringe.

All the anti-oil doom and gloomers want to reduce world populations and drive men back into the Stone Age to "save the planet." Not that it will ever happen, but if the actual true "fringe of the fringe" have their way, there won't be any choosing of Tesco (or any other large multi-national conglomerate that depends on oil to conduct its core business). You and everyone else would be living in a cave or mud hut and depending on hunting and foraging for basic survival, and getting your water from the same stream that your upstream neighbor takes a crap in every morning. Jeez, talk about denial. Pot, kettle, black.

[HS Mauberley]

Hmm. That'll be 'tree-huggers' like Tesco ...

................

Well as much as it pains me to say it, if I had to choose between the two, it's Tesco's for me. Climate change deniers are the fringe of the fringe.

All the anti-oil doom and gloomers want to reduce world populations and drive men back into the Stone Age to "save the planet." Not that it will ever happen, but if the actual true "fringe of the fringe" have their way, there won't be any choosing of Tesco (or any other large multi-national conglomerate that depends on oil to conduct its core business). You and everyone else would be living in a cave or mud hut and depending on hunting and foraging for basic survival, and getting your water from the same stream that your upstream neighbor takes a crap in every morning. Jeez, talk about denial. Pot, kettle, black.

You're absolutely right. Nike, Tesco, Nokia, and all the others see tremendous economic potential in our living in mud huts. Think of all those Nike trainers we'll be able to buy as we scratch away for a few roots. And no doubt we'll be furiously topping up our mobiles as we grill the few remaining rats for our monthly feast. Lordy, if only we were all as perceptive as you Spee. Just think what a world it would be!

[Cobalt60]

Oh yes still rumbling along I see, the rude are still being rude to those they are supposedly superior in intellect to.

Well the self appointed ambassadors for the melt down mob have certainly alienated me, I have decided, if you need to be that offensive to others because your views are not 'right' then no, I dont care, I will take my chances with the weather, rather that, than be an obnoxious pompous doom proclaimer.

Warm here innit ?

[Upcountry]

It doesn't matter what you <deleted>'sters say pro or con, it's a good thing that the world is slowly getting scared into moving past an oil based society. I don't care if Al Gore's story can be knocked for scientific errors and be accused of political ideology, whatever helps mankind find a way to develop better technologies for energy is a GOOD thing. Repeat, GOOD THING.

Yeah, we have to go through some pain, but even if the scientists that show evidence of human caused global warming are wrong, the world will be a better place for the change, as long as the money men don't come up with something worse.

[xyborg]

<br />heres the real reason for global warming<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I bloody knew it was all a con, those pesky polar bears!! Hilarious.

[JetsetBkk]

The voices of reason have already spoken but the brainwashed tree-huggers and dreamers are too many.

Hmm. That'll be 'tree-huggers' like Tesco, Nokia, Lloyds TSB, Nike, Sainsbury's, Johnson & Johnson, Anglo American, British Airways, Cadbury Schweppes, eBay, Pirelli, L'Oreal, Diageo and Pacific Gas & Electric Company, will it? Business call for plan on climate

It's called a "band-wagon" and it's also a "no-lose situation" for them. Geddit?

[JetsetBkk]

:D This is classic! Absolutely no discussion of global warming facts, not even plagiarism, cut'n'pasting, nothing! Just pure flaming and insults. Keep it up, wilco. Great stuff!

Do you think this thread deserves anything else?

Probably not! It's way past the time anyone's going to change their mind....

Denier is a measurement of thickness of thread - I'd give this thread an extremely high denier rating...

That's pretty good actually! Best thing you've posted so far!! Very clever!

[canuckamuck]

I believe in scientific facts. Some of these facts are buried in the ice...

Nice chart!

It shows that we were in a bigger mess 500,000 years ago, and that the real problem was 2.5 million years ago when dinosaurs had dino sized SUV's. We still paying the price for their arrogance.

[ClaytonSeymour]

The future generations will have to deal with this, like my Grandparents had to deal with WWII, it will be good character building for them.

Instant classic! Genuine and yet so humorous feedback. Its like saying to your children who are screaming on the back seat that this is where I jump of and leave them in dissapearing car by themselves...

As I said - I'm selfish.

I'm also very sceptical too, especially as it's in the government's interest to prove global warming in order to increase taxation.

[peter991]

Forests are not green

The Amazon may not help in the battle against rising temperatures. By Mac Margolis.

Think of global warming and the usual set of apocalyptic images comes to mind, from glaciers crashing into the sea to Biblical deluges. But what does climate change sound like? "Usually when you walk through the rain forest you hear a squishy sound from all the moist leaves and organic debris on the forest floor," says ecologist Daniel Nepstad, a researcher at the Woods Hole Research Center and longtime scholar of the Amazon rain forest. "Now we increasingly get rustle and crunch. That's the sound of a dying forest."

Predictions of the collapse of the tropical rain forests have been around for years. Yet until recently the worst forecasts were almost exclusively linked to direct human predation, such as clear-cutting and burning for pastures or farms. Left alone, it was assumed, the world's rain forests would not only flourish but might even rescue us from greater folly by sopping up the excess carbon dioxide and other planet-warming greenhouse gases. Now it turns out that may be wishful thinking. Some scientists believe that the rise in carbon levels means that the Amazon and other rain forests in Asia and Africa may go from being assets in the battle against rising temperatures to liabilities. Amazon flora, for instance, holds more than 100 billion metric tons of carbon, equal to 15 years of tailpipe and smokestack emissions. If the collapse of the rain forests speeds up dramatically, it could eventually release 3.5 billion to 5 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year - making forests the leading source of greenhouse gases.

The issue casts a pall over the United Nations' climate talks in Bali this week, where experts are discussing how to cut emissions after the Kyoto Protocol winds down in 2012. The evidence is worrisome. Uncommonly severe droughts brought on by global climate change have led to forest-eating wildfires from Australia to Indonesia, but nowhere more acutely than in the Amazon. Some experts say that the rain forest is already at the brink of collapse. The direst predictions come from the British meteorological office's Hadley Center, where a team led by Peter Cox forecast a massive "dieback" of plants, killing the rain forest by 2100. Critics dismissed these claims as too pessimistic, but Hadley's scientists went beyond the research norm by plotting not only temperature and rainfall but how carbon from the forest - say from fires or rotting trees - feeds back into the atmosphere.

Because the "carbon cycle" is vexing to plot, most meteorologists leave it out of their computer models. Yet extreme weather and rogue development are conspiring against the rain forest in ways that scientists have never seen. Trees need more water as temperatures rise, but the prolonged droughts have robbed them of moisture, making whole forests easy marks for the pioneers' cocktail of chainsaws and kerosene. The picture worsens with each round of El Ni?o, the unusually warm currents in the Pacific Ocean that drive up temperatures and invariably presage droughts and fires in the rain forest. Runaway fires pour even more carbon into the air, which jacks up temperatures, starting the whole vicious cycle all over again. Understanding the Amazon now means tracking the assault on the ground and from the air, and the view isn't pretty. "With the synergy between climate change and deforestation, you don't have to invent any numbers to show that over half the Amazon will be cleared or crippled by 2030," Nepstad says.

More than paradise lost, a perishing rain forest could trigger a domino effect - sending winds and rains kilometers off course and loading the skies with even greater levels of greenhouse gases - that will be felt far beyond the Amazon basin. In a sense, we are already getting a glimpse of what's to come. Each burning season in the Amazon, fires deliberately set by frontier settlers, ranchers and developers hurl up almost half a billion metric tons of carbon a year, placing Brazil among the top five contributors to greenhouse gases.

The prospect of collapse is forcing a profound change in environmental thinking. Not long ago, those who lobbied for the rain forests did so on the earnest but limited argument that biodiversity was at risk. Conservation groups raised funds to rescue imperiled species, like the jaguar or the blue macaw, and pressured governments to stop razing ecological "hot spots." Climate change has widened the focus. The ecological hot spot today is the biosphere. "The loss of biodiversity and the composition of landscapes are important, but as symptoms, not determinants of life on this planet," says Nepstad. "It's the big cycles that are running the show, and that's where the rain forests come in."

Not everyone believes the rain forests are fated to desiccate and die. Among the two dozen computer climate models, some say the Amazon will hold its own, and a few predict even more rainfall. Arizona State University ecologist Scott Saleska found that the Amazon bounced back impressively after the withering 2005 drought, "greening up" as intense sunlight penetrated through to the normally shadowy understory. But a greener canopy is not the same thing as a flourishing forest. "Greening comes from the leaves, not the big trees," says Philip Fearnside, a scholar at the Brazilian Institute for Amazon Research. "Drought kills the big trees first."

Too much carbon in the air could also pose a double threat. At first, the forests may flourish; since plants need carbon to grow, processing it into life-giving sugars and chemicals through photosynthesis, the extra dose of CO2 will jolt them into overdrive. "But the forest cannot expand forever," says Scott Lewis, a scientist at Leeds University. Eventually, the overworked machinery of trees will fail, along with the nutrients in the soils. Trees sated with carbon also tend to shut down their stomates, tiny pores on the leaves that take in CO2 and exhale oxygen and water vapor - leading to even drier forests.

The best-case scenario for the Amazon shows temperatures rising 3 to 5 degrees Celsius this century, well above world averages, with rainfall dropping by as much as 15 percent, according to Brazilian climate expert Jos? Antonio Marengo. That means even more blistering droughts, and with every drought, the forest's talent for pumping vapor into the air grows feebler, opening the door to the next drought.

The experts will surely continue to quibble over the details, but no one doubts anymore that keeping the planet habitable will be a lot easier with the rain forests than without them.

[wilko]

Since when have the Greens been part of a govt conspiracy/

[Spee]

C'mon people. If that new pinhead Aussie PM gets it, then everyone oughta be able to.

Rudd: Woof, woof, woof, there's a new sheriff in town. My first act as PM will be to sign Kyoto and that will fix all of Oz's problems.

Rudd Advisors: Oh no you won't because it will thrown the economy into chaos and we won't allow it.

Rudd (with tail between legs): "I am not going to sign on to something that's going to ruin my economy. It's that simple."

From bigshot liberal socialist hero to lame duck in two days. That's one heck of an accomplishment.

And all because he drank the "global warming" koolaid and let his yap write checks that his employers refused to cash.

Well, maybe that's a bit harsh. Spain, France and New Zealand already "owe" the UN tens of billions of dollars because they stood a snowballs' chance of meeting Kyoto targets, and Oz isn't going to be saddled with the baggage after all. Common sense and Econ101 still rules.

'Fess up. Kyoto is nothing more than a socialist vehicle to transfer wealth from productive countries to non-productive countries. Man-made "global warming" hype is not even good enough to be called science fiction. It's corrupt science and political propaganda, nothing more and nothing less.

[JetsetBkk]

From bigshot liberal socialist hero to lame duck in two days. That's one heck of an accomplishment.

Yes, he's moon-walking - appears to be going forwards to join the nutters, but is actually going backwards to common sense.

[mogoso]

If I said snow was white you'd disagree....you haven't read anything I said....or if you did you couldn't understand it......as I've repeatedly said I'll not be drawn into such a fatuous argument when it involves the "brainless and unhinged" such as yourself.

However I'm always amused (it's a masochist thing) to read/listen to the rantings of such amoeba-related mono-cellular efforts at thought processes and on top of that I've had the sadistic pleasure getting you to reply with some more your drivel....get some therapy!

My God! What a crashing bore you are and now it's there for all to see!

I see your usual style of debate is on full bore, throw insults and slurs to detract from the issue.

A quote from an article by Dr. Timothy Ball and Tom Harris

"Science advancesThrough hypotheses based on a set of assumptions. Other scientists challenge and test those assumptions in what philosopher Karl Popper called the practice of 'falsability' Trying to prove hypotheses is what science is all about. Yet the hypotheses than human addition of CO2 would lead to significant enhanced greenhouse warming was quickly accepted without this normal challenge. As Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, Atmosphere, and Planetary Sciences said" the consenses was reached before the science had even begun. Adherents to the hypotheses began to defend the increasingly indefensible by lauching personal attacks, essentially trying to frighten the scientific opponents into silence."

Once again I submit the question, if the global warming has made the earth too hot, what is or should be the correct or ideal temperature? Surely all those scientists that you favor must have an answer to that. After all you follow them blindly, but be careful chicken little the shy might be falling.

I await your usual diatribe of insults and slurs instead of an answer.

One of my favorite books on the subject was written before the global warming hysteria. It by a French author Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie. Published in 1967, translated in 1971. "Times of Feast, Times of Famine exams the ups and downs of climate utilizing among other things, the records from vineyards and historical accounts. But it seems vineyards are marvelous keepers of data, from crop yields and how that particular vintage turns out to wheter the season was dry rainy hot or cool. Theres no agenda in the book pro or con climate change, only that it occurs.

It's quite wonderful....you really don't get the point do you?

It's YOU that I find so fascinating - not the debate - how on earth did you work out how to operate a computer? walk and talk at the same time? get house-trained?

If I wanted to discuss global warming or climate change do you seriously think I would even entertain the idea of doing it with something with the abysmally inadequate abilities of yourself - this thread is like the insect house at Regents zoo...you go to look at the creepy crawlies and shudder...this is a web site about all things pertaining to Thailand and the weird and wonderful wildlife therein of which you, sir, have got to be one of the weirdest - with the possible exception of the copy & paste perpetrator of sexual inexactitudes - Chloe - I just hope your cage is firmly locked!

Wow chicken little, I should be flattered that you find me fascinateing, but frankly I find it a bit repulsive as I don't travel that path.

Of which I might say your attacks on one of the few Thai women posters is as odious and immature as well as not generic to the conversation.

Be back to the subject at hand, as the good Dr. Lindzen stated personal attacks seem to be in order for the faithful of climate change. Notice I stress climate change particulary as the Bali UN meeting stress climate change in the meetings title.

As I keep saying its about the money, it has nothing to do with the science, if it was an open scientific debate in Bali that would be one thing, but dissenting scientists aren't allowed to attend www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22401

Neither are dissenting press, no credentials issued.

So they (the UN) want the US to pony up a yearly payment of 40 billion to give to poorer countries because of climate change and the rest of the world to come up with another 40 million. Just a massive socialist scheme, with nothing but favorable press.

Really if you believe so much in what scientists tell you, this'll really worry you, it's big.

www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml=earth/2007/11/21/scicosmos121xmlCMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

As this thread really has played out, but I had company and couldn't reply sooner.

I'll look for your slurs, and personal attacks as a reply.

[Doza]

Yes yes, the greenhouse effect is a fraud, greenhouse gases like CO2 don't keep us warm, they don't block the suns energy from radiating back into space, the unnatural spewing of more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by mankind can NOT have any effect on the natural greenhouse effect, and therefore how much energy stored as heat gets trapped, none whatsoever, ziltch, and its all a big conspiracy by green groups and tree huggers such as oil companies and big industry and also the governments are all in on it because they get more taxes out of it, and all the leading academic institutions are part of it too because its the only way they can get funding etc etc etc.

Please. That is just F***ed up. I said I was over this thread but the idiocy overwhelmed me. But maybe Im gone now for good.

[Jingthing]

I don't have kids and am not young, so although I live a fairly green life (no car) it doesn't keep me up late at night because I think humans as a species won't lost very long, global warming or not. For people who have children or planning to have children and don't care, I really scratch my head.

I rate the chance of humans taking enough collective action IN TIME to save themselves as very remote. I see a future of more resource wars, oil and water, getting even worse. Have a happy day!

Edited December 11, 2007 by Jingthing

[HS Mauberley]

Be back to the subject at hand, as the good Dr. Lindzen stated personal attacks seem to be in order for the faithful of climate change. Notice I stress climate change particulary as the Bali UN meeting stress climate change in the meetings title.

As I keep saying its about the money, it has nothing to do with the science, if it was an open scientific debate in Bali that would be one thing, but dissenting scientists aren't allowed to attend www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22401

Neither are dissenting press, no credentials issued.

The Heartland Institute is a well known front for Exxon lies (see Exxon Secrets for details) – it’s corporate PR, not science. It’s interesting that despite saying dissenting press and scientists were refused entry to Bali, the link included details of neither (Nice to see that &lt;deleted&gt; Lord Monckton up to his usual crap. That’s right – your scientist was in fact a British Lord who doesn’t even have a degree, so you're in good company there.) The only vaguely scientific name on the list is Vincent Gray, but his comments on the IPCC reports were rejected by the committee and he has never published in peer reviewed papers on climate science. Lindzen is another well-known Exxon whore; just because he’s got a PhD doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth (there’s any number of idiots with real science PhDs from real universities who don’t believe in evolution.)

its about the money

Yes. Short-term profits for corporations at the expense of the long-term viability of the biosphere.

I think humans as a species won't lost (last?) very long, global warming or not

That’s a bit like saying, "Who gives a toss about the holocaust? Those Jews were all going to die of something-or-other anyway."

Edit-

If proof were ever needed of Mill's famous dictum that "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives", this thread is surely it

Edited December 11, 2007 by HS Mauberley

[Jingthing]

That’s a bit like saying, "Who gives a toss about the holocaust? Those Jews were all going to die of something-or-other anyway."

I fail to see the connection at all between global warming and the holocaust. In my case it is not a matter of not caring, more of my very dark pessimism about human nature and how it is playing itself out in the world as our species comes to a close. Live for today! I also think you made a shockingly cheap shot and very offensive.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Jingthing

[HS Mauberley]

That’s a bit like saying, "Who gives a toss about the holocaust? Those Jews were all going to die of something-or-other anyway."

I fail to see the connection at all between global warming and the holocaust. In my case it is not a matter of not caring, more of my very dark pessimism about human nature and how it is playing itself out in the world as our species comes to a close. Live for today! I also think you made a shockingly cheap shot and very offensive.

If I misunderstood you, I'm sorry but you hear responses like this very often. I have no optimism about the future and I think our being able collectively to solve the challenge of climate change is unlikely (in fact, of all the possible futures which I can imagine, I think one in which warming is limited to 2 degrees and thereby runway climate change is averted is probably one of the least likely) but this doesn't mean that throwing in the towel is the right thing to do (which is what I took your post to mean).

---

It's most certainly not a cheap shot. The suffering of the holocaust will as nothing to the suffering in store once climate change gets its claws in. Within a few decades, 30% of the world will be living with absolute water shortages. That means that they're not going to be able to grow sufficient crops, which means that many, many people will die. Yields from climate stressed grains will fall, leading to further starvation. Coastal flooding will destroy highly productive ecosystems and displace hundreds of millions. Even at 2 degrees warming, we are looking at the premature deaths of many more people than died in the holocaust. And on top of this, this low (and probably now unavoidable) level of warming will lead to the extinction of at least 30% of all species. So no, it's not a cheap shot.

Edited December 11, 2007 by HS Mauberley

[rafval]

I dont know about caring, but I think its stupid to be in denial, global warming is happening, its caused by man, and it could have far worse results then just changing the climate. The idea that carbon tax, kyoto, the UN etc is some kind of global conspiracy and therefore a bad idea I also think is pathetic.

[Jingthing]

The holocaust was a genocide targeted at specific groups. The end of the human species is a mass collective suicide, not intentional of course, but still happening. Again, these are not similar situations, but yes, they both result in mass death. Really, of course I support activists trying to save the world, but how any rational person can think that countries like China, India, Russia, the US etc. are going to agree to take enough dramatic action early enough is just a more optimistic person than I will ever be. People don't generally change until there is an observable crisis that directly impacts them in a big way, and by that time, science is telling us it is too late.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Jingthing