Global Warming

[fre2bnude]

How many of you accept what the scientists are saying about global warming taking place?
I do, I know many say that it's not true and the globe naturally goes through cycles where the temperature is affected and will rise and fall as a matter of course, I also believe that is true but I do believe what we are doing to affect the ozone layer is enhancing that natural cycle and making it happen a lot faster.
There are so many things growing in the garden at odd times of the year now, at times when they would normally die. What I found amazing yesterday was how warm the weather was. The sun was shining in a clear blue sky, and though there was a wind blowing it wasn't cold and I spent most of the day, nude, cutting logs in the garden and sunbathing on our roof balcony. That, I find amazing for the middle of October in North Wales. Hope I can do it again today, don't know yet it's still dark outside.

[fre2bnude]

How many of you accept what the scientists are saying about global warming taking place?
I do, I know many say that it's not true and the globe naturally goes through cycles where the temperature is affected and will rise and fall as a matter of course, I also believe that is true but I do believe what we are doing to affect the ozone layer is enhancing that natural cycle and making it happen a lot faster.
There are so many things growing in the garden at odd times of the year now, at times when they would normally die. What I found amazing yesterday was how warm the weather was. The sun was shining in a clear blue sky, and though there was a wind blowing it wasn't cold and I spent most of the day, nude, cutting logs in the garden and sunbathing on our roof balcony. That, I find amazing for the middle of October in North Wales. Hope I can do it again today, don't know yet it's still dark outside.

[smoothm]

While there are definite cycles in earth's temperature, study of ice core samples and even sea floor core samples show that these fluctuations, in the past, were nowhere near as great as they are this time. We are in a period of above average temperatures not seen in the past 2 million years.

Other temperature rises caused polar ice caps to melt, the movement of water from the cold polar regions to the warm tropical areas stopped, and the polar caps refroze. When the caps refroze, they did so with a vengence, causing the various ice ages.

This time, the polar ice caps have retreated extremely rapidly and no one knows what will happen. Estimates of impending ice ages within the next couple of decades to hot, dry deserts in the temperate zones are all being proposed.The earth is warming, but no one knows what this means at present.

[hm0504]

Thanks for starting this topic fre2bnude. May I suggest you restart it using the poll facility of CFF we can gage numberically the answer to your question as well as discussing it.

Personally, I have little doubt that human activity is significantly altering the earth's climate.

[Trailscout]

Global warming has occured. Industry has contributed to it, but volcanic activity, increases in solar radiation and other non-human factors may have played a part as well.

Regardless of the presence of other causes, we must still consider reducing the warming that we do have control over.

If global warming melted the Artic icecap, it is indeed possible that it could trigger an ice age in the northern hemisphere dispite a net gain in heat in the Earth overall.

Rapid shifts in the Earth's climate spell disaster for the world's food supply. Even if some areas that are now desert become fertile grasslands, farmers in other areas, accustomed to growing certain crops would find that the climate was too warm for apples, too rainy for wheat, too dry for vegetables. Even if there were no net loss of cropland, it would be years before agriculture could adjust to the changes.

As the polar icecaps melted and caused the innundation of coastal areas, millions of people would be forced to move. The nightmare that occured in New Orleans would be repeated hundreds of times over.

[nudeM]

I'm sure that human activity has something to do with global warming, but a small part, as compared to natural activities, one being volcanoes. I am convinced volcanoes are a major player of global warming, but I also agree that we are in a natural cycle as well.

If you have watched "The Day After Tomorrow", there are several factors that also contribute. Although only a movie, there is a strong message of what could happen, if the situation goes into extremes.

Here where I live, I have noticed that during the colder months, the days have significantly become warmer. I remember on Christmas day a couple of years ago, I actually had a barbeque. The weather was that warm. I just couldn't believe it so I took the advantage to fire up the grill.

This past year, we, central California, set the record for the most consecutive days of over 100 degrees (26). But we set the previous record about 10 to 15 years ago (25).

That is why I strongly believe we are in a cycle. I just hope we have a nice winter, a nice freeze. Around here, the freeze is good for several crops which rely on it to develop a nice crop for the following year. This is true for the nuts i.e., walnuts, almonds, pistachios, pecans, etc. But on the same token, a nice freeze can ruin citrus crops.

Getting back to the actual warming, we as humans can do our best to try to better the climate, but we are no match for mother nature, for it is she, who has the last word. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[jon71]

Global warming is melting the ice caps, just slowly. Every summer (locally) they melt some and every winter they refreeze. Since global warming began they melt just slightly more and refreeze slightly less. The thing is it's a cumulative effect.

[True Brit]

Having stored away all my summer gear last month and bringing out my winter gear, we in the UK now find ourselves basking in glorious sunshine with temperatures of 22c-70f. Yesterday i was sunbathing naked during the middle of October, unbelievable.

Global warming is taking place with freak weather patterns occuring around the world, the Polar ice caps are melting very fast, sea temperatures are rising which can fuel hurricanes, Amazon rain forest is drying up, Floods, draught and extreme heat across the world.
Our planet is cetainly very sick at this moment.

WAKE UP AMERICA!! you are the largest polluters on this planet, Your goverment must accept that global warming is being fanned by burning fossil fuels and that your country must sign up to the Kyoto Protocol on reducing carbon emissions which is gradually destroying the Ozone layer.

If we fail to deal with this today, your children will have to deal with it tomorrow and by then it will have far reaching consequences.

[Naturist Mark]

There is no doubt about the fact of global warming. The only debate is about the causes. The vast majority of peer reviewed science indicates that the major cause is human activity - i.e. pollution & greenhouse gasses. The dissenters are almost entirely those hired or sponsored by the energy industry - they are the new "tobacco scientists".
Wikipedia - Global Warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming)

If you don't trust the vast majority of serious scientists, how about the number crunchers? When it comes down to dollars and cents, the insurance industry is betting that global warming is real, and it's terrified.

Profits of Doom - Why the insurance industry is putting its money on global warming (http://www.cleanenergypartnership.org/news/article_detail.cfm?id=71)
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>If you want to hear some tough talk about global warming, talk to an
insurer. Take this recent statement by Richard Jones, the vice
president for engineering of the Hartford Insurance Company. “Climate
change is real,” said Jones. “To me, proving that earth’s climate is
changing from human actions—namely global warming—is like
statistically ‘proving’ the pavement exists after you have jumped out
a 30-story building. After each floor, your analysis would say, ‘so
far, so good,’ and then, at the pavement, all uncertainty is
removed.” Jones’s alarm over the impending climate catastrophe is not
uncommon, even in an industry known for its buttoned-down, by-the-
book image. As the cost of droughts, floods, wind storms, and other
weather events linked to climate change multiply, insurers have taken
a remarkably active role in speaking out about global warming. [/list]

Insurers forecast global warming (http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/wb/xp-35207)
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>If there is one industry especially skilled at forecasting the future, it is the insurance industry. Insurers turn a profit through careful statistical analysis and charging premiums that exceed losses when averaged over large populations.

It is therefore no surprise that they are taking the threat of global warming seriously.

The challenge with global warming is that precise effects are difficult to predict, and once the changes are measurable, it will be too late to do much about them.

That has not stopped some of the world's biggest insurers from studying the best science and hiring their own researchers to model the risks. If temperatures continue to rise, the insurance market could face significant changes. American International Group Inc., the largest insurer in the United States, to name one, has been monitoring the situation carefully.

The same goes for several international firms that have been calling on governments to take action. For example, the Association of British Insurers in a report released this summer analyzed what would happen if global warming goes unchecked. It found that more intense windstorms, typhoons and hurricanes would likely increase losses for insurance companies by two-thirds, to $27 billion annually by 2080. [/list]

-Mark

[MJ_KC]

We are probably adding to warming by the large area of forest that has been cut down in South America. Sunlight will heat up this area more easily now that it is bare ground.

We are also adding to surface warming by the number of buildings and paved roads being built around the globe. All you have to do is look at the "heat island" effect in large cities. This is bound to add up when looked at globally.

Seeing as how nobody is likely to stop building things or driving cars and trucks, we will just have to learn to adapt as the climate changes.

[Ben_m]

It seems relatively cold to me here this year, compared to recent years http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif .

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ben_m:
It seems relatively cold to me here this year, compared to recent years http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The impact of Global warming isn't just a added degree or two to daily temperatures, if it was it wouldn't be any big deal.

The real impact is that it results in much more energy in weather systems. More extremes. More heat spells, even more cold spells in some areas. More droughts. More floods. It means more storms, and worse storms. More droughts and more periods of excess rain. For instance, while the average number of hurricanes has only increased slightly in the last 35 years, the number of large category 4 and 5 storms has doubled while the number of smaller storms has decreased - article (PDF). (http://www.eas.gatech.edu/research/links/Webster_weather.pdf)

Of course even small changes can have big consequences- such as a slightly more ice melt than new ice in glaciers and ice caps resulting in rising sea levels over time and the flooding of coastal cities. Such as increased ice melt disrupting the Atlantic Conveyor and plunging the east coast and Europe into the cold (but not the fantasy of an overnight ice age as depicted in The Day After Tomorrow) (http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/ct_abruptclimate.htm).

How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age... (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm)

-Mark

[Bob S.]

fre2b:"How many of you accept what the scientists are saying about global warming taking place?"

Which scientists, fre2b? There are so many espousing different theories. I am with the ones who suggest that global warming is mostly a natural cycle. There is no way to know for certain how much human involvement has raised the global temperature.

Brit"your country must sign up to the Kyoto Protocol on reducing carbon emissions which is gradually destroying the Ozone layer."

Brit, Kyoto does not apply to a lot of counties, China included. They will eventually replace the US as the largest polluter and Kyoto will not apply to them.

Is it a good idea to cut pollution? Yes. Is Kyoto necessarily the best way to do it? I don't know. Without all nations involved, no.

I wrote this elsewhere. There are many factors involved in global warming. The natural ice age--interglacial period--ice age cycle, increased sun activity, the repolarization of the planet, changing of the magnetosphere, volcanic activity, etc.

We cannot pin global warming down to one absolute cause. And that is one issue I have with how it is reported, there is the suggetsion that global warming can be stopped. It can't. It will stop on its own.

As was mentioned here, if enough of the polar ice melts, it will disrupt and possibly shut down the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean. If that happens, the east coast of North America and the west coast of Europe will experience a drastic cool down, especially in the winter where temps could average as much as 15 degrees below normal for the whole winter.

But the good news would be hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean would weaken before they hit the east coast of the US.

Is global warming bad? I don't think so. So what if it means people have to move? Those are the risks of living near tidal waters. The Earth can take care of herself. The next ice age is imminent. Then people will eagerly await global warming.

Bob S.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
[
Is global warming bad? I don't think so. So what if it means people have to move? Those are the risks of living near tidal waters. The Earth can take care of herself. The next ice age is imminent. Then people will eagerly await global warming.
Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must admit, I have near heard anybody state that global warming is good. I've certainly not heard this from any credible scientist.

[tarsus]

ask an old man if its warming up [me]. yes i have lived in the eastern u.s. most of my life. and it was colder in the 50's and 60's then now. snow fall is nothing like it used to be in the ohio/ky. regions like it was back then when i was a younger man.

I lived most of my 59 years in Michigan, and I know the winters there are a LOT warmer than they used to be. They don't get anywhere near the snow they used to get. However, except for this last summer the summers there have gotten cooler.

I've only been in Florida two months today, and so far I love it! I was NEVER able to swim and sun myself outside in Michigan in October.

[shãybare]

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Good for you, Jon-Marc. Glad to hear you are enjoying FL.

All the people worried about Global Warming should learn how to tread water.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
I lived most of my 59 years in Michigan, and I know the winters there are a LOT warmer than they used to be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same is true for northern Ohio. I remember Lake Erie freezing over every winter, doesn't happen anymore. It used to be that winter brought a period of freedom to the people who lived on the Lake Erie Islands because the were no longer dependent on boat and air travel to visit the mainland - by New Year's there would be sufficient ice thickness to let them drive across the lake. They would use their discarded Christmas trees to mark a road in the ice leading from South Bass Island (Put-in-Bay) to the Catabaw Peninsula. Doesn't much happen anymore - except for some ice-fishermen in late winter. This photo is from a 'road' between ice shanty 'towns' in mid-February.

-Mark

[curmudgeon]

I hope my attachment works.

Source: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Warming? Yes. Unprecedented? Not even close.

[NudeAl]

Call me selfish but I am all about global warming! I mean I'm out there in my front yard with a aerosol can in both hands spraying and going come on hurry up already!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gifJust joking! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifI'm not that bad, I only use one can and I recycle! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But I wouldn't mind a slight warm up. I think this thing may even eventually be just a part of the natural cycle of nature. Not everywhere is there evidence of global warming. Iceland for one seems to be the exception to the rule they are in a cool period compared to most of the world. Still over all I agree we must try and read our environment better and not do things to upset the balance of nature.

[Bob S.]

Topher:"I must admit, I have near heard anybody state that global warming is good."

Topher, using curmudgeon's link, In the 1970's concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age... And for the same reasons why scientists today believe global warming is occurring, manmade atmospheric pollution only they thought it was blocking out the sun.

So scientists back in the 70s were stating that glonal cooling was bad. Now they are saying that global warming is bad. Can they have it both ways?

Also in the link, it shows during the Medieval times, it was warmer than it had been in human history. Temperatures had been rising for over 300 years leading up to the warmest times around 1200. Then from about 1400 through the mid 1800s, it was colder than normal, aka the "little ice age".

Since then, temps have generally been going up, with a few dips here and there, most recently between 1955-1985 (US temps only). We are now in a warming trend. It won't last. Eventually, temps will start to go down again. And when they do, global warming will be seen as good again.

Right now, no one would dare say that global warming is good. I am not saying it is, I am just saying it is not bad. It just is.

Bob S.

It doesn't get too warm for me until it passes the upper 80's.

[OZJames]

I believe that global warming is happening and will in due course effect our climate. I am not very convinved that any of the recent calamities were caused by global warming . Seasonal variations will allways happen and droughts in Australia (for exemple) have allways happenned and currently the dry period I believe is due to climatic variations. I think the recognizable effect of global warming will not show for many many years yet.

Despite that a VERY SERIOUS problem is building i.e. destruction of the world due to increasing carbon emmissions, chopping down ALL the trees etc - IT WILL EVENTUALLY RUIN THE WORLDS ATMOSPHERE UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING NOW.

I recently read something about Easter Island. The inhabitants destroyed their life supporting environment by chopping down ALL the trees. Now you would think that at some time before the ultimate destruction that someone would have said "Hey we are going to destroy our life supporting environment if we continue to cut down the trees" Someone may have said that but because of greed others kept chopping down the trees, eventually the people starved.

GREED is the reason our forests are being cut down, greed is the reason our rotten Government is not signing the Kioto protocol - THINK ABOUT THIS

Nudists have a perfect opportunity to help save the world - promote clothes free lifestyles to save on air conditioning costs, cost of clothing (cotton spraying will be reduced), save on washing powder use etc etc Help draw attention to the inevitable effect of global warming.

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by curmudgeon:
I hope my attachment works.

Source: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Warming? Yes. Unprecedented? Not even close. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one is arguing that every global warming event in Earth's past is man-made, only the current one.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:

So scientists back in the 70s were stating that glonal cooling was bad. Now they are saying that global warming is bad. Can they have it both ways?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The cooling effect of particulate pollution is called "Global Dimming", and it IS recognized as a countervailing effect to warming by increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The thing that should scare you is that without this "extra" pollution, global warming would be much worse than what we have observed to date. Perhaps we should stop scrubbing the ash out of coal burner stacks?

-Mark

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OZJames:
...

Despite that a VERY SERIOUS problem is building i.e. destruction of the world due to increasing carbon emmissions, chopping down ALL the trees etc - IT WILL EVENTUALLY RUIN THE WORLDS ATMOSPHERE UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING NOW.

I recently read something about Easter Island. The inhabitants destroyed their life supporting environment by chopping down ALL the trees. Now you would think that at some time before the ultimate destruction that someone would have said "Hey we are going to destroy our life supporting environment if we continue to cut down the trees" Someone may have said that but because of greed others kept chopping down the trees, eventually the people starved.

GREED is the reason our forests are being cut down, greed is the reason our rotten Government is not signing the Kioto protocol - THINK ABOUT THIS

Nudists have a perfect opportunity to help save the world - promote clothes free lifestyles to save on air conditioning costs, cost of clothing (cotton spraying will be reduced), save on washing powder use etc etc Help draw attention to the inevitable effect of global warming.

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you OZJames for eloquently bringing up this critical topic. One of my ongoing discussions in my brain hemispheres goes like this:

"Left brain lobe: "The Amazon rainforest produces, inter alia, 20% of the world's oxygen; humans (and nearly all life on Earth) depend on the Amazon rainforest for our existence. Yet, we are enthusiastically cutting it down at the rate of 10,000 square miles in the last year alone [1]".

Right brain lobe: "There's no way humans could be that stupid -- committing mass self-extinction by self-strangulation."

Left brain lobe: "Oh yes we are!"

etc., etc., etc.

May I take this opportunity to again recommend the film "At Play in the Fields of the Lord" [2] which will be of interest to both naturists and those concerned about the Amazon rain forest.

[1] http://www.harolddoan.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3081 (http://www.harolddoan.com/modules.php?name=News&amp;file=article&amp;sid=3081)

[2] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101373/

[curmudgeon]

I think Bob S is right on. If the chart of historical temperatures proves nothing else, it shows that the only thing constant is change. Too many people seem to have the idea that the planet was in its optimal state 100-200 years ago -- before recent economic and industrial development -- and that any change from that must be bad. The fact is that climate has always been changing, life forms have come and gone extinct, water has risen and fallen, etc. etc. and the planet goes on. Change is normal.

[Baron Lake]

"Normal" change is normal. Normal change can have devastating consequences. Normal (long term) climatic changes allow for adaptive responses by living organisms (at least the lucky ones). But why wait when Homo Sapiens(bitter irony) can accelerate change to an unprecedented degree, destroy itself and let Gaia get back to "normal"? We can set an example for the next sentient species to crawl up from the ooze.
b.l.
Oh yeah, nearly forgot the "good" side of the picture. Global Warming will allow us to grow food more efficiently so we can sustain the already excessive human population. Yippee.

[Kari P]

There are natural phenomena contributing to the tendence of global warming, but the humans' activity in producing greenhouse gases plays a significant role.

"Change is normal" - this is true. The main problems arise from the speed of the ongoing warming making it very hard to adapt for humans and for other life on the planet.

Americans, please sign the Kyoto agreement! The European Union has done it. You should show the way to others, not expect that you do only what you want in your shortsighted interests.

[curmudgeon]

GREED is the reason our forests are being cut down, greed is the reason our rotten Government is not signing the Kioto protocol - THINK ABOUT THIS
---------
I have no idea how the rainforests got into this thread.

The best reason to not sign the Kyoto protocol is that it would be totally ineffective. So long as the developing nations including China and India are exempted from it, it will have absolutely no climatic impact but would certainly have a major economic one. If that's GREED, so be it.

[OZJames]

Global warming, the air, the environment are all linked.

I agree that considering China and India, whether Australia signs the Kyoto protocol or not will have no substantial bearing on global warming. But we must set an example, someone must start the ball rolling. When we protest in a 300,000 street march each individual person has no power but collectivly the 300,000 people have power to effect a situation.

In the long run, collectivly, the worlds Governments must recognize the impending problem. Because countries are trading with each other all around the world, countries become VERY dependant on that trade. Trade sanctions are now VERY POWERFUL. TRADE SANCTIONS CAN NOW PREVENT WAR and I believe will be used to enforce reduction of carbon emmissions.

We cannot ask China & India to clean up their act unless we have cleaned up ours first.

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bob S.]

Mark:"he thing that should scare you is that without this "extra" pollution, global warming would be much worse than what we have observed to date."

What is so bad about global warming? It is both good and bad. Now I am not suggesting that reducing pollution is not good, in fact, it is smart and a laudable goal, but show me where global warming is all bad.

James:"a VERY SERIOUS problem is building i.e. destruction of the world due to increasing carbon emmissions, chopping down ALL the trees etc"

I also agree that resposible construction should be the rule. It is actually the law here in VA, but there are too many loopholes and people are still building too close to the Chesapeake Bay. It is also stupid to cut down trees without reforesting in a nearby area. In fact, that is the rule in the US. There is a certain number of trees that a company must replant for each tree they cut down. It is also a must as the more trees they plant, the longer they can keep it up.

Most of the Earth's oxygen comes from algae and other sea plants in the oceans, seas, rivers, and lakes. After all, they make up over 70% of the surface of the planet.

And a couple fo years ago, I saw on the news that hurricanes are actually nature's way of decelerating global warming. When the hurricane passes over warm water, it stirs up the waters and brings to the surface cooler water and some photosynthetic plant/algae. That helps to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere. And of course, the larger the storm, the larger the effect.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:

What is so bad about global warming? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>The impact of Global warming isn't just a added degree or two to daily temperatures, if it was it wouldn't be any big deal.

The real impact is that it results in much more energy in weather systems. More extremes. More heat spells, even more cold spells in some areas. More droughts. More floods. It means more storms, and worse storms. More droughts and more periods of excess rain. For instance, while the average number of hurricanes has only increased slightly in the last 35 years, the number of large category 4 and 5 storms has doubled while the number of smaller storms has decreased - article (PDF). (http://www.eas.gatech.edu/research/links/Webster_weather.pdf)

Of course even small changes can have big consequences- such as a slightly more ice melt than new ice in glaciers and ice caps resulting in rising sea levels over time and the flooding of coastal cities. Such as increased ice melt disrupting the Atlantic Conveyor and plunging the east coast and Europe into the cold (but not the fantasy of an overnight ice age as depicted in The Day After Tomorrow) (http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/ct_abruptclimate.htm).

How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age... (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm) [/list]

-Mark

[Bob S.]

Mark, you provided no new info to me. None of what you wrote (or transcribed/copied down) is bad. It is just normal for the Earth.

Climactic changes are occurring all the time. One place gets a lot of rainfall one year, then a little the next. Storms can have more precipiation and can cause more flooding or snow.

Everything in your message is inidcative of someone who views climactic change in human terms. I don't. I view climactic changes in planetary terms. I don't rely on the past 150 years of weatherkeeping, I rely on the past million years.

Guess what, the Earth has been hotter than it is now. And somehow, she seemed to have survived fine. We cannot stop global warming, even though that is the message being sent out by environmentalists. And that is the big issue I have with this whole topic.

Bob S.

[True Brit]

What is not normal for the Earth and what has never happened before is the ever increasing hole and the break down of the ozone layer.

As a child on holiday during the 70's + 80's i would use a sun cream with a factor 5 or 6 now i am using 25 or 30 if i dont use this i will get severe burns.

If the ice caps melt then the UK will loose 30% of its land mass and much of Northern Europe will be flooded.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Mark, you provided no new info to me. None of what you wrote (or transcribed/copied down) is bad. It is just normal for the Earth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My standard is what is harmful to human lives. I recognize it as chauvanist, but I do not apologize for my tendency to put people first.

It is true that what man has managed to do to the environment is a small matter compared to what has happened in the Earth's past. There have been repeated global extinctions where nearly every living thing has died, where over 99% of all species alive at the time did not have enough individuals survive to continue the species. Life has always bounced back. (We are currently in a period of mass extinction, primarily caused by agriculture - not pollution.) Even global thermonuclear war is not likely to sterilize the planet - Earth will recover. But not with us.

The threat of Global warming is not that it will destroy the Earth. It is that it might destroy millions of human lives. In my book that is pretty bad.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Guess what, the Earth has been hotter than it is now. And somehow, she seemed to have survived fine. We cannot stop global warming, even though that is the message being sent out by environmentalists. And that is the big issue I have with this whole topic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suspect you may be right that it is too late to reverse the trend. But it may not be too late to put the brakes on and to lesson the severity.

-Mark

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(We are currently in a period of mass extinction, primarily caused by agriculture - not pollution.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Could you tell me more about this?

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(We are currently in a period of mass extinction, primarily caused by agriculture - not pollution.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Could you tell me more about this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, to date much extinction has been the result of loss of habitat- mostly attributable to agriculture, and hunting. A prime example is the creation of the Sahara Desert which was originally fertile grasslands (and is now expanding into Europe) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/desertification/story/0,7369,418412,00.html) . A huge factor was been the introduction of non-native species which decimate local flora and fauna. For the most part pollution has only been a noticeable factor on the global scale for the last century or two.

SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS BELIEVE WE ARE IN MIDST OF FASTEST MASS EXTINCTION IN EARTH'S HISTORY (http://www.amnh.org/museum/press/feature/biofact.html)

Extinction Event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction)

The Sixth Extinction (http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html)

-Mark

[Bob S.]

Brit:"What is not normal for the Earth and what has never happened before is the ever increasing hole and the break down of the ozone layer."

No one knows if the ozone layer has been completely there for millenia. It probably hasn't. But there is another more complex reason for the disappearing ozone layer. That is what is known as a Polar shift (http://www.crystalinks.com/poleshifts.html). A polar shift (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/) happens when the magnetic field around the Earth switches. Our magnetosphere protects the planet from solar winds and most of the radiation from space. We humans have no control over this and it is going to happen just as it has happened many times in the past.

Mark:"My standard is what is harmful to human lives."

I agree that deaths caused by nature are terrible, but death is also natural. We must figure out the best way to protect and save as many people as we can.

Mark:"I suspect you may be right that it is too late to reverse the trend. But it may not be too late to put the brakes on and to lesson the severity."

Again, the trend is caused by nature. It was never about being too late to reverse it. We don't have the technology to reverse the trend. How much we can slow it down is debatable. The only severity we can lessen is the impact to people. We cannot lessen the severity of the warming of the globe.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:

Again, the trend is caused by nature. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No.

The trend is nature's response to the changes mankind is making. That is the whole point - THIS round of global warming is the result of human activity. Global warming is the result of a new climatic equilibrium. Sure it IS nature in the respect that nature always finds an equilibrium. The change in equilibrium THIS time is due to all of us. There is no guarantee that the new equilibrium will be beneficial to us, indeed it is highly likely that it will not be. It isn't going to wipe out life on Earth (unless the new equilibrium jumps to something akin to the Planet Venus), but it can disrupt the lives of billion and end the lives of millions.

Hey, did you notice they are now tracking Tropical Storm Alpha? For the first time in history they ran out of letters of the Latin alphabet to name the storms and have moved on to the Greek alphabet.

-Mark

[gamblefish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

The trend is nature's response to the changes mankind is making. -Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Butt...if mankind has evolved as per the theory of evolution, then isn't he part of nature? And as part of nature, then isn't any change that we make to the environment natural? (I just made my head hurt...)

[Bob S.]

Mark:"The trend is nature's response to the changes mankind is making."

Maybe some of it, but not all of it. Humans are not the sole reason for this new rise in global temperatures. Most of it can be attributed to nature.

Mark:"There is no guarantee that the new equilibrium will be beneficial to us, indeed it is highly likely that it will not be."

It will be both beneficial and detrimental to us. Let's just take the loss of the gulf stream. Yes, it will plunge much of the northern Atlantic coastlines into cooler temperatures, especially in the winters, but it also will help to save the East coast of the US from devesatting hurricanes. Without the warm waters, hurricanes will not have the energy to strenthen. It may, in fact, lessen the strength of all hurricanes.

Mark:"? For the first time in history they ran out of letters of the Latin alphabet to name the storms and have moved on to the Greek alphabet."

It has been around 50 years since they started naming storms. We have had 22 storms, which is the record in all of those years, but is probably not the record since recordkeeping started or in the hundreds of years before that. Now I wonder why they don't have any names for U, Q, X, Y, or Z. If they could find 12 names for each of those letters (6 make, 6 females), they should use them.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Mark:"The trend is nature's response to the changes mankind is making."

Maybe some of it, but not all of it. Humans are not the sole reason for this new rise in global temperatures. Most of it can be attributed to nature.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the current trend is man made.

-Mark

[Kari P]

Bob S.,

"We must figure out the best way to protect and save as many people as we can."

The best way to protect mankind is to significantly reduce the production of greenhouse gases. This will save lives! It's better to make the worsest thingst not to happen than to allow them and only equip for them.

Mark says what I believe is the truth.

[curmudgeon]

To say that there is a "consensus" that global warming is caused my human activity certainly depends on one's definition of a consensus. It generally implies at least near unanimity -- a status that is clearly lacking with regard to the cause of global warming.

See, for example, http://www.geopoliticalreview.com/archives/000595.php
And: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/10/...g-new-under-the-sun/ (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/10/global-warming-something-new-under-the-sun/)

Also totally ignored in the debate is the observation that Mars is also undergoing global warming. This would seem to support the possibility of solar caused warming.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1660

To say that there is a consensus that the majority or even a significant part of global warming is caused by human activity simply overstates the case tremendously.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by curmudgeon:
To say that there is a "consensus" that global warming is caused my human activity certainly depends on one's definition of a consensus. It generally implies at least near unanimity -- a status that is clearly lacking with regard to the cause of global warming.

See, for example, http://www.geopoliticalreview.com/archives/000595.php
And: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/10/...g-new-under-the-sun/ (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/10/global-warming-something-new-under-the-sun/)

Also totally ignored in the debate is the observation that Mars is also undergoing global warming. This would seem to support the possibility of solar caused warming.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1660

To say that there is a consensus that the majority or even a significant part of global warming is caused by human activity simply overstates the case tremendously. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about "a vast and overwhelming majority" of those scientists not on the Exxon payroll?

There is no doubt that the vast majority of those who have studied the issue agree that there IS global warming right now, and that it IS primarily the result of human activity.

This was discussed near the beginning (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/7150031183/r/2550052183#2550052183) of this topic.

According to Wikipedia: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and explicitly endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", most prominently the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). A small minority of qualified scientists contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures. Uncertainties do exist regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and a hotly contested political and public debate exists over what actions, if any, should be taken in light of global warming. [/list]

Scientific opinion on climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

Attribution of recent climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change)

Global Warming Skeptics - the new Tobacco Scientists: Exxon funded program to recruit and train new scientists who lack a "history of visibility in the climate debate" and pay them to develop materials depicting supporters of action to cut greenhouse gas emissions as "out of touch with reality." Guess Who's Funding the Global Warming Doubters? (http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=35431296&CFTOKEN=68636776)

-Mark

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by curmudgeon:
To say that there is a consensus that the majority or even a significant part of global warming is caused by human activity simply overstates the case tremendously. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I just ran a search on this subject using Google and there is a very large group of scientists who disagree with the idea that human activity is the primary cause of global warming. They consider this idea a myth.

There are also quite a few who do not think that a modest increase in temperature would be bad. In fact they think it could have some very good benefits.

Only time will tell who is right and who is wrong.

[curmudgeon]

Sorry, Mark, I'm still not impressed.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/lamb020705.htm

"Incompetence and corruption at the UN appears to be swirling around and around in ever-widening circles. The oil-for-food scandal continues to grow, which the UN insists is under investigation, led by Paul Volker, who now, it has been revealed, has substantial business ties with several central figures in the investigation. Then there are the sexcapade scandals that seem to follow UN peacekeepers wherever they go. The peacekeepers didn’t go to Rwanda or the Sudan, while government-backed savages hacked to death nearly a million helpless people.

And now, a top researcher for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has resigned, charging that the IPCC leadership is hyping a pre-conceived global warming agenda that is contrary to established scientific fact.

In an open letter to the climate change science community, Chris Landsea, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said:

"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
-----
There's more, but those interested can follow the link.

[Bob S.]

Mark:"The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the current trend is man made."

But there is disagreement over how much man has contributed.

Kari:"The best way to protect mankind is to significantly reduce the production of greenhouse gases."

I agree that reducing pollution is a laudable goal that should be on the forefront of all govts and businesses. But the question remains: is Kyoto the best way to approach this goal?

But remember, decreasing pollution will have little bearing on the future of this global warming period. It could end even if the US does not sign Kyoto.

Tell me anyone. Can the incresed sun activity be discounted for global warming? Can the effects of polar shifting be discounted? Can other natural processes be discounted? No.

Bob S.

[OZJames]

Bob S<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I agree that reducing pollution is a laudable goal that should be on the forefront of all govts and businesses.

But remember, decreasing pollution will have little bearing on the future of this global warming period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob, perhaps you are right and perhaps you are wrong - BUT - I think there is an indisputable fact to be considered. In every city of the world pollution of the air is a major problem - the air is being poisened. It is already very unpleasant to be in poluted city air. Life is meant to be pleasant

Our school science taught us that we need oxygen to breath and live a healthy life and we breath out carbon dioxide. Plants absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. There is a huge increase in use of oil driven vehicles all emitting carbon dioxide and other poisenious gases.

AT THE SAME TIME - the people of the world are cutting down forests, especially in the Amazon and we all acknowledge that the Amazon forest is the "lung of the world" - if that goes we go.

So we must admit that emission of poisons into the air is increasing and the clensing forests are decreasing.

Regardless of whether the temperature is warmer or not - eventually the air in the world will become so poluted that it will not sustain life.

So why don't we give the (negative viewing) scientists the benefit of the dought and start moving NOW to collectivly reduce emissions. Somebody has to start - let Australia and USA sign the Kyoto protocol and start pushing other countries to join.

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bob S.]

James:"So we must admit that emission of poisons into the air is increasing and the clensing forests are decreasing."

Yes and both should be reversed. I find it stupid to deforest an area with no plans to reforest somewhere else or, preferably, in that same area. There needs to be less tearing down of rain forests. Now to convince the countries where this is happening.

James:"et Australia and USA sign the Kyoto protocol and start pushing other countries to join."

But we are both signatories of the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate. (http://www.pm.gov.au/news/media_releases/media_Release1482.html) This treaty is meant to do the same as Kyoto with less restrictions that may have an economic impact on the countries. Both Kyoto and APPCDC have the same goals. The only difference is their implementation.

Bob S.

[Mountain Goat]

Love a good discussion~

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
James:"So we must admit that emission of poisons into the air is increasing and the clensing forests are decreasing."

Yes and both should be reversed. I find it stupid to deforest an area with no plans to reforest somewhere else or, preferably, in that same area. There needs to be less tearing down of rain forests. Now to convince the countries where this is happening. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is where some sort of incentive is most appropriate. You can call it stupid to deforest but there is very little to motivate, say, Brazil to retain their forests if they can be exploited in other ways. Big money can be made growing soy and cattle grazing for trade - and is, leading to the current boom in deforestation. Leaving the forests only attracts a small flow of tourism, not commensurate with the money to be had.

Why would Brazil retain the Amazon?

Well, why not give them carbon credits, making the ownership of a large forest an asset in itself? Under the Kyoto Protocol forestry is an asset and growing more forests gains your country financial credit.

It sounds like a very good idea, no?

How else are you going to stop "stupid" deforestation from third world countries? Put economic sanctions on them to stop them developing that resource to keep in poverty?? Lecture them?

Nah. Let's do something wiser and more timely.

Pollution is bad. Wanna lower it? Why not put a disincentive on polluting? Industries that find ways to produce more products while emitting less will profit. It will encourage every industry.

Prices will go up - but that is only because the price we are paying now does not take into account the full price of purchasing decisions - the biggest price of not doing anything may yet be yet to come.

By the way, the "countries where it is happening" is America and Australian, both with some of the highest emissions per capita despite being "advanced". China and India can serve their populations with much lower emissions.

Even if there were a 5% chance that human-caused global warming is going to be the catastrophe it could well be, it would be a shame to destroy the legacy of 10,000 years of human civilisation with the greed of our generation.

What is the real loss that could be incurred from US and Australia agreeing to Kyoto?
Who would die?

At worse, economically, Kyoto would redistribute wealth to poorer nations while stemming pollution and deforestation. In New Zealand there is one person even growing forests rather than using a relatively unmanagable farmland for agriculture - and getting the benefits for it (under Kyoto). Without Kyoto there would be no motivation for that.

Any reply?


Mountain Goat

[namedun]

I feel as long as our society continues, no programs we create will ever stop pollution and the destruction of the environment. It's written into the very foundation of our production that the world is at our disposal. In fact I've even noticed that this is a religious trend.

[OZJames]

Bob S & Mountain Goat - Sorry i have been off the air for a few days and have not been able to kick this topic along.

MG, what you are saying seems to come from the ideas in a FANTASTIC BOOK called

"Natural Capitalism"
http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2000/02/22/a/

I do not have time to explain today, but I think this book is a MUST READ especially for the global warming sceptics. How we can clean up the world and MAKE MORE MONEY

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Mountain Goat]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OZJames:
MG, what you are saying seems to come from the ideas in a FANTASTIC BOOK called
"Natural Capitalism"
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I promise I didn't steal ;-) I haven't read the book.

Some other links:

Emissions per capita
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/emissionsindividual.html

Emissions is India per capita are one-sixth of the global average
http://www.teriin.org/climate/ghg.htm
(and even with its huge population still is only in the top 10 emitters, not number one)

And they are one of the reasons the US chooses not to enter Kyoto?

Criticism of the APPCDC
http://sustainablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/buzz-over-kyot...ativesupplement.html (http://sustainablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/buzz-over-kyoto-alternativesupplement.html)


Mountain Goat

[Bob S.]

Should it be Kyoto, APPCDC, or some other pact, if the end result is a cleaner environment, what does it matter? The US and Australia both see Kyoto as too expensive and are trying to go in another direction. Their goals are the same as Kyoto. A country will be more apt to follow a pact if they can agree with it.

I am not saying that Kyoto is all bad. It has some good ideas. You, Goat, highlighted a few of them such as rewards for keeping rainforests and for finding cleaner technology.

Goat:"it would be a shame to destroy the legacy of 10,000 years of human civilisation with the greed of our generation."

What legacy of the past 10,000 years are you talking about? And which greedy generation are you talking about? Surely not this one. Greed is not what is keeping the US and Australia from joining ratifying Kyoyo. National economic security is the reason.

Bob S.

[Mountain Goat]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Should it be Kyoto, APPCDC, or some other pact, if the end result is a cleaner environment, what does it matter? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would argue that APPCDC is unlikely to result in anything. There are many qualms we can have about APPCDC. It is empty diplomacy.

It has no real goals or mechanisms in it. It is like a gentlemen's agreement without the gentlemen being particularly honorable.

How will they know they have made any impact at all? How will they arrest the yearly increase in emissions? It is just fluffy words about sharing technologies. Nothing to motivate them, force them or require them to put in their fair share.

Earlier, most countries at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 made similar goal-less pledges to reduce emissions. Not surprisingly, emissions and pollution kept rising (except in the case of countries who had economic crises). Why? Why would anyone do something so troublesome and costly when one's competitors might not. It is what you call a Prisoner's Dilemma in economics.

APPCDC is a feel-good summit with no strings attached. It will most likely to serve only as light relief from the diplomatic pressure from rest of the world for their refusal to sign Kyoto.

Now why would China suddenly spend more on science and share it with the US and Australia? The US has enough trouble giving patented AIDS medication to poor Africans. China and India have bigger troubles on its hands than spending to help save the world.

How will this agreement in the real world change anything at all?

If they agreed to Kyoto such technology would be immediately to their benefit. They would be compelled to do it "for their economic security". The advances in solar panel technology would go ahead faster, funding would be found for nuclear power (which actually is one thing that looks like happening in the US).

Yes, greed is what is keeping the US out. It is the wealthiest country in the world, and it fears that poor developing countries might gain an advantage?? There is no sense in that.

All of Europe, Japan, Canada, Russia and New Zealand are all members of the Kyoto Protocol. These are the US's chief competitors in the key areas. There are no competitive disadvantages if your competitors are willing to accept the same burdens.

Now, the US economy will be a free-loader on the rest of us who will make a concession. What could have been solidarity is again in vain to US unilateralism. Sound familiar?

And for that, the only reasons The US administration chose to abandon it was that China and India were not part of it - countries that combined have a population 8 times that of the US, yet comparable total emissions (at this point in time).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3143798.stm

The US has grown wealthy being a polluter too. Just like most advanced countries, and should accept some loss for that now that it is apparent that it has damaged the collective good of the global climate.

The 10,000 year legacy is the results of our civilisation. We have become a self-determining species capable of shaping our futures. In one generation, we can gamble it all for what is not a big sacrifice.

And economics CAN recover. Our country was one of the first to liberalise trade in the 1980s. We removed all protectionism and subsidies. At first there was immediate economic hardship, but once the new environment was adjusted to, we thrived.

Our climate-influenced civilisation however WILL NOT recover in the worst case scenario. It will be a feed-forward reaction leading to unstoppable changes that will likely lead to a global catastrophe. We will be catapulted beyond our wills into a climate "correction".

Kyoto is there and ready for immediate action - and looks as our most effective weapon to lower the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Almost the whole industrialised world (bar the US) were ready to collectively reduce our emissions. India and China would have been included at a later date when their emissions get remotely close to what their population suggests.

And if it is economic security you are worried about, then you have valid concerns - your country being fiscal loose and leveraging itself to the hilt is regrettably the biggest problem. You were commenting earlier how climate change could favour us in some ways.
Well, the burst of the US economic bubble would also have a bright side too.

In fact, now it is probably the only way for US emissions to go down... which would be bring a global recession... which would lower emissions rather quickly. It would however be a rather more painful jolt than any concessions to Kyoto.

And if you could have one less Hurricane Katrina, would the US make some other concessions for Kyoto (which could reduce the occurrence of hurricanes).


Mountain Goat

[naturistcoloradocpl]

May I recomend that everone read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. It is fiction, but any scientific references are backed by real data that is easy to check on. Before we jump on the bandwagon of Global Warming, we need much more verifiable proof.
How can we predict what will happen in 20 years when we can't even accuratly predict the weather for next week?

Gary
Be happy in the skin your in!

[Jason Heh]

I wonder if anyone is talking to these "Out of Control" volcano's. I've even heard that some of these things never shut down. Some are as wide as 1000 smoke stacks.

I'm from Ohio and you can see where the glaciers stopped on their way south. These glaciers where 1 to 2 miles thick. I've always wondered what kind of SUV they used to melt that kind of ice, since all the car factories in Detroit would have been under 3-4 miles of ice? Must have been all the camp fires to stay warm that did it.

Even permafrost was thawed once.

When we have lived and studied this planet for a while longer can we ever make snap judgements about what we think might be going on. It was not to long ago we thought the planet was flat.

[KirkOntario]

I love Marc Steyn on the hypocrisy surrounding Kyoto and the way the USA under Bush gets compareed to Canada.



"Well, by the end of 2003, Canada's greenhouse-gas emissions were up 24.2 per cent.

Meanwhile, how are things looking in the United States? As you'll recall, in a typically "pig-headed and blinkered" (Independent) act that could lead to the entire planet becoming "uninhabitable" (Michael Meacher), "Polluter Bush" (Daily Express), "this ignorant, short-sighted and blinkered politician" (Friends of the Earth), rejected the Kyoto treaty. Yet somehow the "Toxic Texan" (everybody) has managed to outperform Canada on almost every measure of eco-virtue.

How did that happen?

Actually, it's not difficult. Signing Kyoto is nothing to do with reducing "global warming" so much as advertising one's transnational moral virtue. America could reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by 87 per cent and Canada could increase them by 673 per cent and the latter would still be a "good citizen of the world" (in the Prime Minister's phrase) while "Polluter Bush" would still be in the dog house, albeit a solar-powered one."
"

[jon71]

Bush's reputation as a polluter is supported by the facts. His "clean air initiative" would have greatly weaken existing anti-pollution laws.

[nifocinphx]

The global warming issue continues to be in the news. Here's Mark Fiore's February 1st animated editorial cartoon concerning the topic.

Flamey McGassy - http://www.markfiore.com/animation/flamey.html
---------------------------

[Naturist Mark]

Interesting cartoon. I just happened to be reading this story (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow?bid=4&pid=56326) about the intimidation and silencing of NASA scientists who dare to confirm the science behind Global Warming.

-Mark