Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
UN beleives that natural disaters aren't natural; Blames America for them
Topic Started: Jan 21 2005, 02:41 PM (1,005 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Jan 25 2005, 03:36 PM
But would you vote for people to put policies in place to tackle climate change and/or pay more for your petrol or allow a nuclear station to be built near where you live? etc.

I would do all to a certan degree on the date we have now.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
ds9074
Jan 25 2005, 04:43 PM
FOR YOUR INFORMATION I AM TAKING A COURSE STRONGLY RELATING TO CLIMATE CHANGE - Bsc Honors (THATS A BATCHELOR OF SCIENCE COURSE BY THE WAY) in Geography with Environmental Policy.

Esteemed scientists are predicting that Climate Change could cause human civilisation to be set back a 1000 years, it is not hysteria I am making up. The effects are not just going to be that its a couple of degrees warmer where you live. In some places the warming will be extreme, generally we will see very servere and unusual weather patterns (both warm and cold) and, as polar glaciars melt we will see sea level rises of several metres sufficient to inundate New York, London and many other places.

What you seem to have done is TWISTED what I have said into "ds says climate change is going to end life on earth". THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING, and indeed I would take issue with anyone who suggested that. Work I have done shows pretty clearly that the life sustaining mechanisms of this planet are quite capable of continuing and that greenhouse gas levels will subside due to natural processes of the carbon cycle over GEOLOGICAL TIME.

I am not even saying that the effects of climate change will wipe out humanity. We are a race of survivors and are highly adaptable. What I am saying is that our civilisation, what we have built and the way we lead our lives, that could be lost if we dont take action on climate change. When the Roman Empire fell the civilisation inhabiting the British Isles (I use this example because I know most about it, but the effect was similar across the old Roman Empire) fell apart and reverted back to a much similar way of life to pre Roman times. The great Roman Baths, villas, public buildings, mosaics etc were lost. Even 1000 years later we were only just starting to explore the new world and in many ways were still behind the classical period in terms of development. This what we risk.

Great reply ds! I really enjoy reading your perspective on the Environment/Global Warming. I used to have a professor who taught politics and Environmental Policy and you remind me of her very much.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
24thcenstfan
Jan 25 2005, 03:59 PM
ds9074
Jan 25 2005, 04:43 PM
FOR YOUR INFORMATION I AM TAKING A COURSE STRONGLY RELATING TO CLIMATE CHANGE - Bsc Honors (THATS A BATCHELOR OF SCIENCE COURSE BY THE WAY) in Geography with Environmental Policy.

Esteemed scientists are predicting that Climate Change could cause human civilisation to be set back a 1000 years, it is not hysteria I am making up. The effects are not just going to be that its a couple of degrees warmer where you live. In some places the warming will be extreme, generally we will see very servere and unusual weather patterns (both warm and cold) and, as polar glaciars melt we will see sea level rises of several metres sufficient to inundate New York, London and many other places.

What you seem to have done is TWISTED what I have said into "ds says climate change is going to end life on earth". THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING, and indeed I would take issue with anyone who suggested that. Work I have done shows pretty clearly that the life sustaining mechanisms of this planet are quite capable of continuing and that greenhouse gas levels will subside due to natural processes of the carbon cycle over GEOLOGICAL TIME.

I am not even saying that the effects of climate change will wipe out humanity. We are a race of survivors and are highly adaptable. What I am saying is that our civilisation, what we have built and the way we lead our lives, that could be lost if we dont take action on climate change. When the Roman Empire fell the civilisation inhabiting the British Isles (I use this example because I know most about it, but the effect was similar across the old Roman Empire) fell apart and reverted back to a much similar way of life to pre Roman times. The great Roman Baths, villas, public buildings, mosaics etc were lost. Even 1000 years later we were only just starting to explore the new world and in many ways were still behind the classical period in terms of development. This what we risk.

Great reply ds! I really enjoy reading your perspective on the Environment/Global Warming. I used to have a professor who taught politics and Environmental Policy and you remind me of her very much.

Did she have a British accent? :D (just kidding, trying to lighten up the mood)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ds9074
Jan 25 2005, 03:43 PM
FOR YOUR INFORMATION I AM TAKING A COURSE STRONGLY RELATING TO CLIMATE CHANGE - Bsc Honors (THATS A BATCHELOR OF SCIENCE COURSE BY THE WAY) in Geography with Environmental Policy.

Esteemed scientists are predicting that Climate Change could cause human civilisation to be set back a 1000 years, it is not hysteria I am making up. The effects are not just going to be that its a couple of degrees warmer where you live. In some places the warming will be extreme, generally we will see very servere and unusual weather patterns (both warm and cold) and, as polar glaciars melt we will see sea level rises of several metres sufficient to inundate New York, London and many other places.

What you seem to have done is TWISTED what I have said into "ds says climate change is going to end life on earth". THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING, and indeed I would take issue with anyone who suggested that. Work I have done shows pretty clearly that the life sustaining mechanisms of this planet are quite capable of continuing and that greenhouse gas levels will subside due to natural processes of the carbon cycle over GEOLOGICAL TIME.

I am not even saying that the effects of climate change will wipe out humanity. We are a race of survivors and are highly adaptable. What I am saying is that our civilisation, what we have built and the way we lead our lives, that could be lost if we dont take action on climate change. When the Roman Empire fell the civilisation inhabiting the British Isles (I use this example because I know most about it, but the effect was similar across the old Roman Empire) fell apart and reverted back to a much similar way of life to pre Roman times. The great Roman Baths, villas, public buildings, mosaics etc were lost. Even 1000 years later we were only just starting to explore the new world and in many ways were still behind the classical period in terms of development. This what we risk.

DS, You said this:

Quote:
 
IF THEORIES ON GLOBAL WARMING PROVE TRUE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COULD BE SET BACK 1000 YEARS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE END OF OUR WAY OF LIFE.



By the way, physics and meteorology have more to do with so-called global warming than geography. This is an engineering problem; it should be left to engineers to find the cause, not to politicians to propose "solutions" before any problem has been defined.

Then again, I'm not a nanny-stater.

P.S. "Bachelor"
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 25 2005, 04:05 PM
The Sisko
Jan 25 2005, 01:26 PM
As long as the fossil fuel industry has money to lobby, people will refuse to believe it until it's too late.

Oh please...

Tell me this. If global warming is a fact, why did our Congress vote down Kyoto 95-0 during the CLINTON Administration? Maybe someone realizes that this farce was nothing more than a way to boost third world countries at our expense through the social engineering policies beloved by the UN and nanny staters?

Because they didn't want to put the powerful oil and petrochemical industry lobby groups off side. They were scared shitless of these very powerful and very wealthy groups.

Now you have an regime in power in the Whitehouse who are openly in-bed with these industries and who are being fed a load of anti-science and pseudo-science by their lobbiests , few, if any of which have any understanding of the sciences and sciences involved. All they see is short term $ signs and of cause there isn't a politician alive in the USA who looks any further forward than the very next election or who doesn't think "what's in it for me" (all mindful of all those appointments to boards that they hope to secure on leaving politics one day).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 25 2005, 05:12 PM
ds9074
Jan 25 2005, 03:43 PM
FOR YOUR INFORMATION I AM TAKING A COURSE STRONGLY RELATING TO CLIMATE CHANGE - Bsc Honors (THATS A BATCHELOR OF SCIENCE COURSE BY THE WAY) in Geography with Environmental Policy.

Esteemed scientists are predicting that Climate Change could cause human civilisation to be set back a 1000 years, it is not hysteria I am making up. The effects are not just going to be that its a couple of degrees warmer where you live. In some places the warming will be extreme, generally we will see very servere and unusual weather patterns (both warm and cold) and, as polar glaciars melt we will see sea level rises of several metres sufficient to inundate New York, London and many other places.

What you seem to have done is TWISTED what I have said into "ds says climate change is going to end life on earth". THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING, and indeed I would take issue with anyone who suggested that. Work I have done shows pretty clearly that the life sustaining mechanisms of this planet are quite capable of continuing and that greenhouse gas levels will subside due to natural processes of the carbon cycle over GEOLOGICAL TIME.

I am not even saying that the effects of climate change will wipe out humanity. We are a race of survivors and are highly adaptable. What I am saying is that our civilisation, what we have built and the way we lead our lives, that could be lost if we dont take action on climate change. When the Roman Empire fell the civilisation inhabiting the British Isles (I use this example because I know most about it, but the effect was similar across the old Roman Empire) fell apart and reverted back to a much similar way of life to pre Roman times. The great Roman Baths, villas, public buildings, mosaics etc were lost. Even 1000 years later we were only just starting to explore the new world and in many ways were still behind the classical period in terms of development. This what we risk.

DS, You said this:

Quote:
 
IF THEORIES ON GLOBAL WARMING PROVE TRUE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COULD BE SET BACK 1000 YEARS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE END OF OUR WAY OF LIFE.



By the way, physics and meteorology have more to do with so-called global warming than geography. This is an engineering problem; it should be left to engineers to find the cause, not to politicians to propose "solutions" before any problem has been defined.

Then again, I'm not a nanny-stater.

P.S. "Bachelor"

Yes it is an engineering problem (being firstly and foremostly a chemist and chemical engineer by profession and having actually worked for many years in these professions - and by staying abreast of the technical and scientific literature in my disciplimes (amongst others) , something that I doubt ABG does by the way , I will say that what I know and what have learnt supports what DS says .

And the human geographical viewpoint expressed by his professor seems to me to be very plausible.
Why ? since a great many of the developed and developing world's major cities and industrial centres are actually located very near the coast and could easily be submerged should the sea levels rise just a few metres.
And there is the FACT that we are all reliant on crops that are dependent on certain climatic conditions, what may well change dramatically - what happens is every major crop in USA say fails for maybe a 3 or 4 years ? or for a decade ?
Similarly what if the tropics become drier (a lot drier and the monsoons fail for a decade of more while the climate readjusts after some climatic tipping point is reached (like The Gulf Stream stopping say, or a reversal of some other key oceanic current, there is evidence in the literature that indicates we may be very close to this happening based on current climatic and oceanographic trends) , and rice crops through out asia fail and keep failing ?

HOWEVER , few practicing engineers operate in an environment or manner that they can make unilateral decisions on the application of technological (engineering or physical) solutions since these ALWAYS involve CAPEX. It would be nice , but IT SIMPLY DOESN'T HAPPEN.
Engineers respond to requirements of their companies (focusing on KPI's and ensuring "safe" operations and "profitable and financially efficient and effective" processes are maintained with minimum UPSETS and maximum plant availability and yield and utilisation. Engineers are constrained by the financial and CAPEX limitations placed on them by their upper management (the CEO , the BoD) and by OHS and Environmental legistrated requirements.
Many (I would say most) engineers accept there is a problem, many regularly propose and try to impliment projects to reduce the environmental footprint of their plant or company (most often meeting a brick wall when it comes to getting the required CAPEX and obtaining a go-ahead) .

Businesses will not readily respond to reduce emissions (or other deliterious effects of their environmental footprint) without harsh penalties being imposed for non-compliance (often it makes financial sense to accept and pay the token penalties their recousetrance approaches , as the penalties are way too small) , or without the application and enforcement of strict national regulations.
It is a rare event when a industry voluntarily nominates to clean up it's act because it is the right thing to do, or because of market forces (unless a buyer strike forces their hand), it just doesn't happen.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
DS, You said this:

QUOTE 
IF THEORIES ON GLOBAL WARMING PROVE TRUE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COULD BE SET BACK 1000 YEARS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE END OF OUR WAY OF LIFE.


Yes I know I did. I said way of life, not life on earth.

Quote:
 
By the way, physics and meteorology have more to do with so-called global warming than geography.


I actually think Geography is a key subject in relation to climate change. It is the subject which draws together the data we have on changes with the physical environment with ideas about the functioning of the human environment. Geography is the subject that deals with human/physical interaction. That is clearly highly relevant. For example on my course I have looked at both physical processes with glaciers and how these can tell us about climate changes, theortical ideas about global warming, geological ideas about the carbon cycle, political ideas in terms of International, EU and British environmental policy, political theories of power and governence, and economic studies (supply, demand, elasticity, externalities, tax incentives etc.) Few other subjects are so wide ranging.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Quote:
 
theortical ideas about global warming,


This is quite telling, because even you admit that this is nothing more than a THEORY.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Just as evolution and relativity are "only" theories.

We all know who profits from lax environmental laws.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Democrats?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 26 2005, 12:57 PM
Quote:
 
theortical ideas about global warming,


This is quite telling, because even you admit that this is nothing more than a THEORY.

Thats not "quite telling" its what I have been saying all along. Either you havent been reading my posts or your argument is getting desperate.

What I am saying is that we are faced with the potential for catastrophe if the theory, which has a growing and strong body of evidence, is correct. If we dont act and it proves true the consequences are so bad that we cannot afford to wait for 100% proof. We must take precautionary action. The risk is too high to take the chance.

Every time I approach a busy road crossing near my house I could just carry on walking and not look. While I might have some evidence for traffic it would be hard to provide 100% proof its going to hit me. Its quite possible that I could walk across the road fine and carry on with my business. Yet I take the time to stop and wait for the lights to change, not because I am sure I will get hit by a car if I dont but because the consequences of getting hit by a car are so grave I am not willing to take the risk. If the person next to me crosses and is fine and I wait the time it takes feels "wasted", yet its possible that the person next to me could cross be hit and die in which case I would be thankful for my caution.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ds9074
Jan 26 2005, 11:55 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 26 2005, 12:57 PM
Quote:
 
theortical ideas about global warming,


This is quite telling, because even you admit that this is nothing more than a THEORY.

Thats not "quite telling" its what I have been saying all along. Either you havent been reading my posts or your argument is getting desperate.

What I am saying is that we are faced with the potential for catastrophe if the theory, which has a growing and strong body of evidence, is correct. If we dont act and it proves true the consequences are so bad that we cannot afford to wait for 100% proof. We must take precautionary action. The risk is too high to take the chance.

Every time I approach a busy road crossing near my house I could just carry on walking and not look. While I might have some evidence for traffic it would be hard to provide 100% proof its going to hit me. Its quite possible that I could walk across the road fine and carry on with my business. Yet I take the time to stop and wait for the lights to change, not because I am sure I will get hit by a car if I dont but because the consequences of getting hit by a car are so grave I am not willing to take the risk. If the person next to me crosses and is fine and I wait the time it takes feels "wasted", yet its possible that the person next to me could cross be hit and die in which case I would be thankful for my caution.

Desperate? Hardly. I'm trying to cut through all of your hysteria. It IS hysteria, short on fact and long on speculation. I read the BBC link (more like the B-BS link). I laughed out loud at the propaganda worthy of everyone's favorite, Josef Goebbels.

Once again, you make an ad hominem comparison with your cute (albeit silly) allegory about crossing the street.

Quote:
 
we are faced with the potential for catastrophe if the theory, which has a growing and strong body of evidence, is correct.

I have the potential of winning a million bucks in the lottery, if I'm correct and I get those six numbers right.

Why can't you simply state FACT. Proven FACT. Because it is a theory.

I can say that my car may break down some time in the future, so now is a good time to replace the engine, but it is MEANINGLESS. Just like your road crossing argument.

Kyoto must go. If any (and I mean ANY) country were serious about this "problem," exemptions would never be allowed. NEVER. Especially of countries with populations over double and quadruple the US population, respectively. It is a anti-capitalist tool meant to curb our growth and influence.

I have NOT seen a "growing and strong body of evidence" appearing, and I read all the trade rags and scientific magazines (and the pseudo-scientific ones as well). What do I see? Hysteria. I see models skewed so badly that they are laughable. Any statistician would put his boot up your a$$ to propel you out of his office if you told him that the level of the Thames river was going to rise between 9 and 88 centimeters in the next 95 years.

Unlike Sisko, who thinks that all I want to do is spew hydrocarbons into the air and dump nuclear waste in his backyard simply because I'm a Republican, I actually like a clean environment. The air is CLEANER overall than it used to be (look at London one certain night in 1954). I don't want to go off on a rant here, but look at some data and try to be objective. Wonder what someone's agenda is. Look at a source that might not agree with yours, and ask why. In other words, THINK.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
The printed word is indeed powerful. Many would believe it even if it was not true, simply because it was written down (documented). I submit that this is where discretion and research are very, very important--in fact, necessary--in reaching one's own conclusions about such things.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
I wonder who gains an advantage and profit from uneccessarily restrictive environmental laws based on poor science and speculation?

I wonder why all the past hundreds of millions of years of continual climate change are natural and fine and normal, but now if there is not absolutely a static climate over the entire earth, it is evil old human industrial activity destroying the world? If we were to suddenly enter an era without climate change in one direction or another, that would be genuine cause for concern. It is normal historically for the climate to change. This is what we know. What causes changes is what we have theories about.

Why do most of the 'green house gasses' come from unindustrial parts of the world, when the mean old USA is the culprit?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Amazing that people don't think tons and tons of fossil fuels burned day and night wouldn't have any effect. :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus