Global warming - more bad news !

**idleidolidyll** · 5th October 2007, 08:36

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Dude that's pathetic, both the faux-paranoia and the reference. It's also wandering seriously off topic.

it was a well referenced post in direct relation to the post it replied to.

as for faux-paranoia: YAAAWWWNNN!!!

**Joni** · 5th October 2007, 08:39

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Dude that's pathetic, both the faux-paranoia and the reference. It's also wandering seriously off topic.

There are at least half a dozen threads going seriously off topic at the mo... and they all have one common denominator!

**idleidolidyll** · 5th October 2007, 08:48

Originally Posted by Joni

There are at least half a dozen threads going seriously off topic at the mo... and they all have one common denominator!

In relation to climate change and global warming, governments' political positioning is an important indicator with regard to how they approach the issue or even if they give credence to it.

if a government is more right wing (an indicator of obedience to commercial or corporate interests above those of ordinary people), they are more likely to be denyers and to do bugger all to ameliorate the problem if it is likely to have any impact on profit margins.

Any conversation has a raft of approaches and ideas and it is human nature to wander around a bit.

Moderators who fail to grasp or understand typical conversation are most likely to overreact and ruin interesting discussion/debate

**Grahameeboy** · 5th October 2007, 08:53

Originally Posted by idleidolidyll

In relation to climate change and global warming, governments' political positioning is an important indicator with regard to how they approach the issue or even if they give credence to it.

if a government is more right wing (an indicator of obedience to commercial or corporate interests above those of ordinary people), they are more likely to be denyers and to do bugger all to ameliorate the problem if it is likely to have any impact on profit margins.

Any conversation has a raft of approaches and ideas and it is human nature to wander around a bit.

Moderators who fail to grasp or understand typical conversation are most likely to overreact and ruin interesting discussion/debate

I am glad I have a simple approach to life.....this stuff gives me a headache

**idleidolidyll** · 5th October 2007, 08:56

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Meh, who gives a fuck, it'll happen tolerably slowly.

says you. legitimate scientists on the other hand, are suggesting that a relatively sudden tip is likely and a rapid acceleration of melting is quite likely.

I posted a link to science as opposed to hearsay, have a read

Originally Posted by Ocean1

As for the media? who the hell listens to 'em, at least for more than to learn which particular social angst is fashionable... If you don't like their product you've got the same choice as anyone else when it comes to supporting them.

Sadly far too many people do. Others discuss issues amongst their buddies, who get their ideas from the media, and fool themselves into thinking they have had some kind of epiphany and are more knowledgeable than legitimate experts.

Media owners understand all too well how to manipulate public debate without the public even knowing that it's happening.

**Winston001** · 5th October 2007, 09:13

Originally Posted by davereid

It just seems to me, that a tree grows and absorbs CO2 in its biomass. Then it dies, falls to the forest floor and decays, releasing the CO2.

Not exactly. The carbon mainly remains bound up in biomass which makes fertile soil. Methane is released which is a problem but a lot of the carbon remains in the earth.

I completely agree about Greenland and other land based ice, rising water levels.

But I never remember Greenland being quoted, it was always the floating ice cap that was talked about.

That's because the Arctic cap contains the North Pole and kind of captures journalists imagination. There is also the result that the Gulf Stream will move away from Europe if polar waters warm up. Tundra thaws and releases frozen organic carbon. Wildlife adapted to the northern climate dies.

I guess it comes down (for me at least) to some skeptical questions

Is it really getting warmer ?
If it is, is it really human activity ?
If it is human activity can will Kyoto reverse it, or just cost a lot of money ?
Do we want to reverse it - is it really that bad ?
Lots of money in Kyoto - where does it all go ? (suspicious bastard)

Excellent questions:

The trend of global temperatures over 100 years indicates the Earth is warming.

Humans have been burning coal and oil at fantastic rates for 150 years. The proposition that this has no effect on the environment is a theory - just as climate change is also a theory. Change is supported by myriad studies.

Kyoto cannot reverse it - it will take 100 years for present emissions to reach stability = some warming. The point of Kyoto is to restrain future emissions adding to the mix.

Is it that bad? For NZ, probably not. For most of the 6 billion (who live in the Third World) starvation, disease, floods, war, displacement of huge populations is certain.

By Kyoto money I assume you mean the cost of carbon credits. Christchurch City sold carbon credits to a Dutch company a couple of years ago because of the City's green waste recycling scheme. It was real money and Christchurch received it.

At the root of the problem is the Earth's burgeoning population. 6 billion is too many. Everyone wants a Western lifestyle and fair enough. That takes energy.

I have no doubt mankind will survive - but a lot of species will disappear and billions die very unpleasantly.

**Pixie** · 5th October 2007, 09:42

So when the hippy greenie arseholes get all excited about biofuels,it suddenly becomes ok to rip out rain forests to grow fuel crops?
Or maybe they are just so ignorant of the real world that they don't even realise this is what is happening.

The best/only answer for the environment?

...kill 6 billion humans

**Mr Merde** · 5th October 2007, 09:53

According to these ice core samples, CO2 as measured in parts per million , was higher 140,000 years ago than it is today.

Please note that in comparrison to the figures from 20,00 years ago and about 140,000 years ago the rise is very similar.

Now please answer me this

140,000 years ago.

Who was depleting the rain forest, driving around in hydrocarbon burning vehicles and poluting the atmosphere with great amounts of CO2.

Merde

**Pixie** · 5th October 2007, 10:01

Originally Posted by Mr Merde

According to these ice core samples, CO2 as measured in parts per million , was higher 140,000 years ago than it is today.

Please note that in comparrison to the figures from 20,00 years ago and about 140,000 years ago the rise is very similar.

Now please answer me this

140,000 years ago.

Who was depleting the rain forest, driving around in hydrocarbon burning vehicles and poluting the atmosphere with great amounts of CO2.

Merde

Ask a greenie and he'll probably tell you it was the saucer people

**Ocean1** · 5th October 2007, 10:04

Originally Posted by Mr Merde

Now please answer me this

140,000 years ago.

Who was depleting the rain forest, driving around in hydrocarbon burning vehicles and poluting the atmosphere with great amounts of CO2.

Merde

Oldrider??!!

.

**Mr Merde** · 5th October 2007, 10:07

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Oldrider??!!

.

Of course, how remiss of me for not actually thinking of the most obvious reason. I thank you for a very plausible answer to my question

Oldrider you have some questions to answer.

Merde