Climate change or global warming and who did it?

[Winston001]

Farg? A WITCH you say??


Burn HER Burn Her

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

It must be global warming sorry climate change... winter is here... frack its cold

[puddytat]

Just thought I'd rake over the coals a tad with this ....I know no one who does not accept that it has been Humans that are responsible for the polluted state for the Worlds Oceans which are slowly but surely turning acidic & on the point of "tipping"....not to mention the pollution of freshwater.
So why then, when its commonly accepted that it is us that are responsible for the sorry state of the Oceans that cover 3/4 of the worlds surface that people cant handle the idea or get thier head around that we have had an affect on the Atmosphere.

[Jantar]

Just thought I'd rake over the coals a tad with this ....I know no one who does not accept that it has been Humans that are responsible for the polluted state for the Worlds Oceans which are slowly but surely turning acidic & on the point of "tipping"....not to mention the pollution of freshwater.
So why then, when its commonly accepted that it is us that are responsible for the sorry state of the Oceans that cover 3/4 of the worlds surface that people cant handle the idea or get thier head around that we have had an affect on the Atmosphere.

I don't know of anyone who claims that man doesn't have an effect on the atmosphere. Where the difference lies is in just what that effect is. There are some (getting fewer in munber) who believe that the main effect man has is to cause Global Warming, while others believe that the main effect is to cause acid rain. Then some believe the main effect is to produce vast amounts of soot and sulphides (which have opposite effects to each other).

[puddytat]

Well we must be living on different planets!
It'd be good if we could combine those different beliefs, call it a politically acceptable name & get on with the job of doing something about them....
Can anyone come up with something? How about....errrummmm, I know!!How'bout

[mashman]

Well we must be living on different planets!
It'd be good if we could combine those different beliefs, call it a politically acceptable name & get on with the job of doing something about them....
Can anyone come up with something? How about....errrummmm, I know!!How'bout

"Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency — and the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of scientific advisers — and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone, smog's main ingredient. The decision rests in part on reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy."

damn, not even Obama can do it...... the polluters win again, and all to save the economy stoooopid fuckin economy

[Woodman]

Like I've said before, its time to start shooting people and blowing shit up.

Yes we will have a big war and lots of people will die, but we have been having wars since day dot and to be honest I can't think of any of them that were for useful causes. Selfish yes but not useful.

Don't panic cause it won't happen so just accept that its been a pretty good ride so far and watch it turn to shit from the sidelines.

[mashman]

Woohooo... game on

[SPman]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released the second part of its Fifth Assessment report, focusing on impacts. The report had been widely leaked ahead of its release, and on a global scale predicts war, disease, and famine. But there's also a regional chapter on Australasia, which is equally grim reading. Australia gets the worst of it, of course - they will lose the Great Barrier Reef and lose key species no matter what we do - but New Zealand is going to cop it as well, from fire and flood:

o increased frequency and intensity of flood damage to settlements and infrastructure in Australia and New Zealand, driven by increasing extreme rainfall although the amount of change remains uncertain; in many locations, continued reliance on increased protection alone would become progressively less feasible [Table 25-1, 25.4.2, Box 25-8, 25.10.3]
[...]
o increased damages to ecosystems and settlements, economic losses and risks to human life from wildfires in most of southern Australia and many parts of New Zealand, driven by rising temperatures and drying trends; local planning mechanisms, building design, early warning systems and public education can assist with adaptation and are being implemented in regions that have experienced major events [25.2, Table 25-1, 25.6.1, 25.7.1, Box 25-6]

The flooding risk will be exacerbated by sea-level rise, which will turn one in 100 year floods into annual events in some regions. Which is something you'd expect local councils to be taking into account in their planning rules. Unfortunately, when they try, rich residents take them to court to try and protect the value of their soon-to-be worthless homes long enough to flick them on to the next sucker (who will then no doubt take the council to court for failing to warn them of the risk of inundation). I expect it will be a similar story with wildfire risk: people will say "you can't put that on my LIM, because no-one will want to buy my house!" Its the whole story of climate change write small: a slow drift to apocalypse, with any move to prevent or limit it foiled by the selfish and greedy rich.

As for our government, they're basically ruling out doing anything:

"We're not playing God on this. That natural process will determine what happens to adaptation of human beings and other mammals and species," he said.

The New Zealand carbon emissions account for 0.2% worldwide. The Government says it's up to local authorities to do what is needed.

So, they won't try and save our climate, our coast, or even our endangered species (some of which face being wiped out by climate change), because that would be "playing god". Which invites the question: what fucking good are they?
And why are we paying Tim Groser a generous ministerial salary for this portfolio if he is ruling out doing anything at all?

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

[mashman]

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

Nope, can't be true as it doesn't fit in with the plan. In some dark corner, I'll welcome such disastrous changes with open arms.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Damn Alieums... its all there fault

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

I/S[/B]}
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released the second part of its Fifth Assessment report, focusing on impacts. The report had been widely leaked ahead of its release, and on a global scale predicts war, disease, and famine. But there's also a regional chapter on Australasia, which is equally grim reading. Australia gets the worst of it, of course - they will lose the Great Barrier Reef and lose key species no matter what we do - but New Zealand is going to cop it as well, from fire and flood:

o increased frequency and intensity of flood damage to settlements and infrastructure in Australia and New Zealand, driven by increasing extreme rainfall although the amount of change remains uncertain; in many locations, continued reliance on increased protection alone would become progressively less feasible [Table 25-1, 25.4.2, Box 25-8, 25.10.3]
[...]
o increased damages to ecosystems and settlements, economic losses and risks to human life from wildfires in most of southern Australia and many parts of New Zealand, driven by rising temperatures and drying trends; local planning mechanisms, building design, early warning systems and public education can assist with adaptation and are being implemented in regions that have experienced major events [25.2, Table 25-1, 25.6.1, 25.7.1, Box 25-6]

The flooding risk will be exacerbated by sea-level rise, which will turn one in 100 year floods into annual events in some regions. Which is something you'd expect local councils to be taking into account in their planning rules. Unfortunately, when they try, rich residents take them to court to try and protect the value of their soon-to-be worthless homes long enough to flick them on to the next sucker (who will then no doubt take the council to court for failing to warn them of the risk of inundation). I expect it will be a similar story with wildfire risk: people will say "you can't put that on my LIM, because no-one will want to buy my house!" Its the whole story of climate change write small: a slow drift to apocalypse, with any move to prevent or limit it foiled by the selfish and greedy rich.

increased frequency and intensity of flood damage to settlements and infrastructure ... blah blah blah

Stop building settlements on flood plains and old river beds would be a good start...

[Jantar]

As part of the literature review for my PHD my climate advisor suggested I read the IPCC report and then the papers it references. I have had an advance copy for a couple of weeks, and am still working through the literature. However the language and threats raised in the WGII report do not reflect what the scientific papers are saying.

Then the news reports are even more alarmist than the actual IPCC report. Its no wonder the public are turning off.

[mashman]

As part of the literature review for my PHD my climate advisor suggested I read the IPCC report and then the papers it references. I have had an advance copy for a couple of weeks, and am still working through the literature. However the language and threats raised in the WGII report do not reflect what the scientific papers are saying.

Then the news reports are even more alarmist than the actual IPCC report. Its no wonder the public are turning off.

What are the scientific papers saying then?

[puddytat]

increased frequency and intensity of flood damage to settlements and infrastructure ... blah blah blah

Stop building settlements on flood plains and old river beds would be a good start...

Stop rebuilding them too.....