| Author |
 Topic  |
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
 Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:14:18
|
| Does anybody else see the Greenhouse gases/Global Warming debate as a giant red herring? I'd rather the people who are into protecting our resources and our health take a look at all the Brown sites and dumping and landfill and recycling management and hazardous chemicals pesticides fertilizers pharmaceuticals etc. in our soil and water. I know that was a difficult sentence, and for that I apologize. Obviously, emmissions are an important issue, and they should be reduced, but when it comes right down to the nitty gritty, we are screwing ourselves royally by focussing on a hairline leak in the roof, rather than a major hole in a load-bearing wall. I am sorry if this takes the discussion too far off its original intent - I can make a new topic if anybody's pissed. |
 |
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:22:59
|
apl4eris - if this discussion has strayed from the topic YOU could hardly be blamed. LOL. I agree with your post. Damage to the ground, waters etc. is a massive issue.
COF - My reading of the protocol is that China, India and Mexico are exempt from the emmission reduction standards. So, they can sign on to the treaty but do not have any emmission requirements. If I am wrong I would love to know because it is a major issue with it IMO. |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:32:23
|
| dallas, i referred to how they build up their arguments. Not living conditions. i thought that was pretty clear, but then again - maybe it wasn't. I was pushing it anyway, no doubt. But the republicans (maybe it is an all american (USA) phenomena) constant reference to religion is deeply worrying for people outside your country. Maybe it's a culture thing. I just don't get how a person like Bush can be taken seriously. Now, that is frightening, considering the military power of your country. "May God bless this great nation of hours and kill the bad people in axis of evil." Kyoto is a small worry compared. You know, from an outsiders perspective. I'll let it rest. |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:33:52
|
| i can be blamed for the off topic movement. too impulsive at the moment. back to topic. |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:37:59
|
| Yeah, the religion in American politics is an incredibly complex issue, and probably worth every bit of its own topic. I do want to quickly note before I close, as I can speak as a citizen, that this administration is far from the first to mix religion with its politics. I agree that it has very disconcerting elements, and I would love to talk about it elsewhere, if anybody wants to go so far as to make a new topic. |
Edited by - apl4eris on 12/02/2003 09:38:49 |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:46:15
|
I see Ivandivel. That is Americana. From the Constitution to the Declaration of Independence to every President in our history, the Grace of God is a part of the rhetoric. Clinton used it extensively. Bush mentions God, Our Creator, etc. extensively. He does so, as have previous Presidents and politicians, to be inclusive of other religions. Whether Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and so on, references to God can be applied to themselves. He only mentions Jesus Christ when asked about his personal religious beliefs. Those comments make people uneasy, I would argue unnecessarily uneasy, but, uneasy to say the least.
I just have a hard time buying into the fact that the world needs to fear the US. I agree with the Italian PM who said (paraphrasing) "the US has a strong track record when it comes to Liberation". He obviously cited his own country after WWII as an example but there are plenty of others. The US populous has no colonial desires and wouldnt tolerate any. |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:52:18
|
I agree with that statement, but which Italian PM said that, Dallas? The current one? If so, he doesn't have much credibility to make those judgements, because I've gotta say, IMHO, that that guy is balls out crazy, and he is the type of leader that scares the willies out of me. More than just shades of Il Duce.
But hahaha that is also a whole new topic. Dangit. |
Edited by - apl4eris on 12/02/2003 09:53:37 |
|
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 10:02:36
|
On the subject of America as a whole, there is no question it is a great country which has done a great many wonderful things throughout history. However, my feelings toward my neighbours to the south or somewhat mixed. Imagine for a moment, if you will, an analogy. America is like McDonald's. It's big, it's powerful, it has a lot of wealth and is recognized around the world. McDonald's is terrible. They serve food which is generally bad for your health to a populous which is struggling with serious dietary issues including obesity, heart disease, etc. In recent years they have started offering their "lighter choices" menu, but this hardly makes up for decades of selling something which is essentially harmful. In additon, they have marketed their product to children, and have always been seen as a place to take the kids. On the other hand, they also contribute to charitable organizations, support things like my own countries Olympic programs, and have their own "Ronald McDonald House", which I'm sure helps thousands of kids every year. These are all extremly positive things, and would be sorely missed if McDonald's were gone.
I don't mean to start a debate about fast food, I just mean that to me, America is McDonald's. Or any giant corporation. They do great things. They do terrible things. They do great things that contradict the terrible things. I guess it comes down to morals. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason, the wrong thing for the right reason, etc.
Does the world need to fear the US? Certainly it can at least question its motives. I'm remineded of the scene in "A Few Good Men", where Jack Nicholson is on the stand, and is angry that Tom Cruise "sleeps under the protection I provide, and then question the way in which I provide it". |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 10:15:11
|
Apl4eris - the comment was after the Italians lost some soldiers in Iraq. So it is the current guy. I dont know enough about him to endorse him or anything. I just saw the clip on the news and thought that it was an obvious point that those who accuse the US of colonialism or hegemony seem to forget.
Speedy - I can see where you are coming from. I wont nitpick your analogies because I dont wholly disagree with them, but, I think they have some flaws. I see a lot of the rest of the world holding the US to standards far, far above the standards they require of themselves. |
|
|
|
JamesM
= Cult of Ray =
308 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 12:15:54
|
I really need to put my pride and apologize to Dallas here; I'm in agreement with him on several points, namely the situation in Kyoto. Whether I believe what the U.S.'s intentions are for not voting in favor of the bill, the fact remains that there really isn't enough resonating evidence to really vote in favor FOR the bill - and can the U.S. propose a "no action" response to this situation (not voting one way or another)? Asking this to any posters out there more informed than myself.
As far as Democrats go, like I said, I'm not one, nor am I Republican. Far too often has bi-partisan politics in this country generated, perhaps not excuses, but rationalizations for problems rather than actual solutions. As far as the ideology that Socialism generates an authoritarian government - well, that wasn't the idea of it; the Soviet bastardization of said idealism was truly a horrible thing to behold - by placing an emphasis on the worker as person who wishes to gain material possessions, which would eventually lead to one having more than the other, which leads to envy, which leads to greed: Lenin effectively killed any hope of Marx's idea of work as a practice, as the reason to live, leading to a productive and harmonious lifestyle, as coming into fruition. Something which he came to realize during the last year of his life.
-Jimmy M. |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 12:22:36
|
Thanks, but, no apology necessary. I dont think my responses in general fit the "your an idiot" category, but, my first post on this thread did. Your response was in that vein.
|
|
|
|
MangyKid
- FB Fan -
170 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 13:14:39
|
| Rule 26- Politics are for gays. |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 13:47:59
|
Thanks, I'll check it out...
Yeah, most of our media is right-leaning, but I try to filter the bias out on either side as best I can.
 "Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 00:21:58
|
From a few topics back, re: cigs - i'm pretty sure the manufacturer's of cigerettes, and their scientists, were the ones who didn't find any connection between lung cancer and smoking.
Lomborg claims (in that Nat. Post article anyway) that the global warming that's occuring could result in more temperate area's.....wtf?? At what cost??
The polar caps melting is a HORRIBLE reality, and would result in unimaginable disasters.
I cannot take the comments of this man seriously when he (seemingly) dismisses these consequences..! |
|
|
|
Scarla O
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
947 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 02:42:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
I agree with the Italian PM who said (paraphrasing) "the US has a strong track record when it comes to Liberation". He obviously cited his own country after WWII as an example but there are plenty of others. The US populous has no colonial desires and wouldnt tolerate any.
The Italian Prime Minister is a crook who is in a coalition with neo-fascists (one described Benito Mussolini not so long ago as "the greatest statesman of the century") so i would be very careful when name-checking Berlusconi.
The US does NOT have a strong track record when it comes to liberation - it has a long track record when it comes to intervention.
You make it sound like the US involvement in WWII was an act of altruism - the US would have left Europe to the Nazi's were it not for Pearl Harbour.
The media in the US is weak and the spectrum of political debate is narrow. The picture painted on the news and discussed by politicians bears little resemblance to what is actually happening. I have little doubt that the american people have no desire for colonialism but they have been lied to every day for the last 50 years by successive governments (democrat and republican) about the aims of US foreign policy - which is to intervene whenever foreign nations adopt domestic policies that jeopardise the flow of american capital.
|
|
|
|
benji
> Teenager of the Year <
New Zealand
3426 Posts |
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 06:56:28
|
Scarla your propaganda defies history. Italy, Germany, Japan, now Afghanistan and Iraq I could go on and on and on. Intervention? What a blatant re-writing of history to say that the US has not been the single greatest liberator in the history of the planet. Bar none. Nobody even a close second.
Yes, yes those 300,000 dead Iraqi's buried in mass graves hurt the flow of American capital. At least do SOME fact checking. The greatest profiteers from Saddams butcher shop were in order:
France
Germany
Russia
What a coincidence that they were the nations willing to trade more dead and oppressed Iraqi's for cut rate oil. |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 07:03:29
|
Dave - nice attempt to pick and choose. But I still cant agree with you. My statement was about current scientists. There are none who dispute the connection between tobacco and cancer. The tobacco co.'s themselves dont even fight that battle anymore. Sure there WERE hired guns who made that and even worse claims (like it was HEALTHY). We are in a new millenia.
Lomborg is a former GreenPeace activist who had an investment in the global warming industry. He set out to PROVE that global warming and greenhouse effect were real. He was stunned that his analysis proved otherwise. You dismiss his findings because it goes against the propaganda you have fed yourself for so long.
Are you satisfied with my dismantling of your completely vacuous list? I repeat, anyone who does just a bit of reading would have recognized its fallacious nature immediately. |
|
|
|
benji
> Teenager of the Year <
New Zealand
3426 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 07:04:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
What a coincidence that they were the nations willing to trade more dead and oppressed Iraqi's for cut rate oil.
Couldn't it be argued that this is what the US are doing as of right now?
|
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 07:52:59
|
No. Unless you think the US/Britain/Poland/Spain/Italy et al are killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and burying them in the sand. Or putting individuals into plastic shredders, or raping the wives and daughters of dissenters as a matter of policy. All of the money that the US has spent in Iraq, and will spend until an Iraqi government is formed, are grants. Not loans.
Polls taken in Iraq show that the vast majority of Iraqis, 70% in the last one I saw, describe life as better now and also believe that things will get better in the future. 70% may not seem like a 'vast majority' until you realize that about 20-30% of the population were Baathists who profited from Saddam's despot.
The Iraqi's will be free to bring their oil to the world market and sell it to whomever they want. The US hasnt plundered any nation they have liberated. Saddam plundered his people and his nations natural resources for his own gain. I dont think anyone can make the argument that the US led coalition is doing anything remotely similar. |
|
|
|
Scarla O
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
947 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 08:04:51
|
Dallas, I'm glad we can discuss this without the debate degenerating into childish name-calling.
You mention Italy and Germany as benefactors of US liberation? I think you'll find that there were a number of other countries involved in that particular war - countries that were fighting the war from it's very inception and who lost unbelievable numbers of troops in thr process (20 million Soviets were killed).
I think that the US will profit immensely from their intervention in Iraq - who did all of the reconstruction contracts go to? US Construction Companies - why haven't Iraqi Companies been invited to contribute to the reconstruction of their country?
I'm sure France, Russia and Germany have all benefitted from selling arms to Hussein but it was the US who provided Hussein and the Iraq regime with the chemical and biological weapons in the first place.
"Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983)."
Why did the US have a change of heart regarding its policy towards Hussein?
There's no denying that the targets the US administration picks for 'liberating' have been well picked and you could easily be mistaken for thinking that it's actions were those of a nation seeking to increase the total amount of freedom in the world - the Taliban and Hussein were cruel authoritarian regimes, however this is not and has never been the motivation.
Well you could say, so long as that's the end result does it really matter? Yes, it does matter.
For example:
"In 1989, the literacy rate was 95%; and 93% of the population had free access to modern health facilities. Iraq had reached a stage where the basic indicators we use to measure the overall well-being of human beings, including children, were some of the best in the world. Now it is among the bottom 20%. In 10 years, child mortality has gone from one of the lowest in the world, to the highest."
Anupama Rao Singh, Unicef's senior representative in Iraq
"One of the tricks of Imperialism is to pretend that a targeted enemy has been offered a negotiating option, quickly claim that that option has been rejected and then ruthlessly attack or continue sanctions that may be taking a heavy human toll. The beauty of this system is that no matter how many are killed by bombs and how numerous are the children who die as a result of sanctions it is not our fault; they refused our (by definition) reasonable offer to 'negotiate'. They brought it on themselves."
Edward S Herman, Z Magazine, Dec 1999
Don't get me wrong Dallas, I don't have any illusions about the role of other countries in world politics but unfortunately their smaller financial / military clout tends to restrict the interventionist type practices that I believe the US engages in.
|
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 08:10:11
|
Some of the points on his list were clearly exaggerating or using things that could be equally applied to either party for comedic value, but there were a lot of good points on there, too, Dallas. Or at least ironic points, maybe more about America than republicans...
I think that people who argue that there is no such thing as global warming are missing the point slightly. While it's true that we shouldn't be feeding/fed something that's a theory as fact, or a lie as truth, the point is that we still need to curb our emissions. Why does the earth have to be in mortal danger before we say, hmm, fine, I guess we'd better look into this. There are all sorts of other undisputed negatives of a CO2/sulfur/methane/other emitted gasses rich atmosphere (as well as some unknowns). We need to start dealing with our primitive means of producing energy because there are more cars everyday and larger power consumption requirements.
And only "lowlying countries" would be affected by the polar caps melting?! Who is this guy? How about almost every coastal city in the world, except maybe Holland? Victoria, Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Barcelona, Athens, Sydney, Hong Kong, Tokyo, the Phillipines, ...
And once they start melting significantly to cause us problems, then what? It's too late. There's no way we'll just stop producing greenhouse gases and the caps will continue melting, and we can kiss our coasts goodbye, I think. Sure, new ones will develop and then be submerged until we can finally agree far too late on some accord to stop emissions.
But, again, that's if global warming exists, which to my mind hasn't been either proven conclusively or disproven. I believe it exists, but that's not to say I'd be completely shocked if it was not true. However, the reason I brought up tobacco was to remind people that if you think that cigarette companies have lots of money, oil companies, industry, and so on have a LOT at stake on producing toxic emissions, and you have to concede the possibility that not only are opinions going to be bought, but just from the sheer amount of people who depend on these companies, others are bound to at least have friends in these industries whom they will feel conflicted about speaking out against.
Reducing emissions for the sake of reducing emissions is worthy in either case, though. However, Apl makes a good point that there are probably other areas being neglected in this fight against global warming.
"Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
Scarla O
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
947 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 08:16:52
|
I don't think it was ever the US' intention to 'steal' Iraqi oil, but i do think the intention was to ensure that there would be a supply of oil that they would have cheap unhindered access to.
Don't tell me that you really believe that the US government would be happy if a new Iraqi government refused to sell its oil (or sold it at a hugely elevated price) to the States? |
|
|
|
benji
> Teenager of the Year <
New Zealand
3426 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 08:22:04
|
unfortunately until the press in Iraq is 'free' then i won't believe many polls that come out of there.
however, i'm not saying that that may not be the case - i am just very sceptical of any press or polls that come out of iraq while the media is heavily regulated on what they can report.
Also: i thought the US were going to recoup some or all of the money that they have spent in iraq from the oil?
so is this not the case any longer?
And many people do say that Bush is plundering the US's nations natural resources for his own gain with his environmental policies. sure he's not doing it quite so 'majestically' as old Saddam, but if he has his way, it doesn't seem that the results will be much different.
|
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 09:00:35
|
OK where to begin?
COF - that is my whole point on the list. It is inaccurate to assign those issues to Republicans exclusively. Most of the points were factually wrong. The polar ice caps have been changing in size throughout world history. There are different views on what causes this. I dont have the answer.
Scarla o - The US has been fine without Iraqi oil for decades. Absolutely the US and other coalition nations expect the new Iraq to be an ally of the civilized world and all the benefits that go along with that apply. Including trade. The US had enormous economic growth during periods of economic boycott of Iraq, Iraqi oil has no impact on the US economy. The construction contract issue is complex but explainable. Halliburton, the great new liberal punching bag, acquired the contract to do this type of work for the US during the Clinton administration. It bid against other companies to provide rapid response work for the government. Bush inherited the deal. The #1 goal after the Baathist regime fell was to restore services etc. as soon as possible. The US is being criticized today for what some consider a slow moving process in that regard. What type of a bidding process should have been used? How long should companies be given to inspect the areas (its a country the size of California)? How many companies? Bids like that would have taken months to prepare and choose. That is why the US had contracts that were bid upon previously for this type of situation. As far as using Iraqi companies, they were all state and Baathist owned. Run by people who profited and participated in the oppression. That being said Iraqi citizens have been hired by the construction companies, the US military, British military, etc.. The literacy rates etc. means nothing to me compared to the horrible genocide, use of poisen gasses, oppression etc.. What is your response to that? Is there no humanitarian reasons good enough? What if 1 million Iraqi's were being murdered? How many murders is Saddam allowed before some country says enough? You question the motives of the US and I just think you are wrong. If Americans were not on board for humanitarian reasons GWBush approval ratings wouldn't be at 61% (as of today). The second quote is equally wrong-headed IMO. If nations cannot use sanctions, and war is out of the question. All that is left is appeasement. How many lives was this guy from UNICEF willing to allow Saddam to take? Your snippet from 1983 cuts both ways. If it was wrong then to make a pragmatic decision to get in bed with Saddam, why isnt it rightous to correct that mistake now? Doesnt that lend itself to the argument that the US needed to do this to right a wrong? You cant have it both ways, wrong to support, wrong to depose. It could also be argued that the Iraq/Iran war went a long way in making both countries impotent for at least a decade. There are literally hundreds of documented meetings between Chirac and Saddam. He was called Jacques Iraq for goodness sakes. How is that noble and Rumsfelds single trip to Iraq damning? Finally you dismiss and characterize the motivations of the US as if you have some intimate knowledge. You have an opinion. The motivation was to end a despotic brutal regime that had a history of aiding, abetting and harboring terrorists, liberate millions of muslims, and most importandly establish a free and liberated muslim state in the middle east in the hopes that other oppressive regimes either reform or get deposed themselves. You think that Oil that the US has not needed for decades trumps all that? |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 09:05:03
|
| Benji - the polls were conducted by US companies. Not sure if it changes your opinion or not. |
|
|
|
St. Francis
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
548 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 09:19:13
|
Dallas,
Glad to see you are still rocking in the "Free" world... admire your ability to take on all comers...
|
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 09:51:16
|
| I think I can get 100% agreement that its a sickness. Although I maintain my credo of only counter-punching. I dont start any of this stuff. |
|
|
|
St. Francis
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
548 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 13:01:00
|
ahhh well you have to reprezent I suppose... once I unshakle myself from general lazyness I am sure I will have a retort for this thread.
In the meanwhile an acquantence, Trevor Daily, appears to be doing a good job toiling on the blue line for your stars...
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 21:43:10
|
I feel the need to peep up about global warming. I'm no expert in the field but I have friends that are and I think it's a fallacy to say that scientist that work in that area aren't nearly unanimous in their belief that global is occuring. Sure there is disagreement about the extent and consequences of the warming (how could there not be when one is making predictions about something that has never been observed before and is occuring at a global scale), but there is general agreement that it is occuring. I believe that the Republican response that we need further study before we can take action is simply a stalling tactic and a defense of their big business supporters.
To support my opinion here is a link to a review released by the US National Academy of Science in which they conclude that global warming is occuring (I put more faith in the opinions of National Academy members than a former Greenpeace activist):
http://www4.nas.edu/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument
And here is press release that I got on an email list today (sorry for the length):
BOULDER-Two of the nation's premier atmospheric scientists, after
reviewing extensive research by their colleagues, say there is no longer
any doubt that human activities are having measurable-and
increasing-impacts on global climate. Their study cites atmospheric
observations and multiple computer models to paint a detailed picture of
climate changes likely to buffet Earth in coming decades, including
rising temperatures and an increase in extreme weather events, such as
flooding and drought. The study appears December 5 in Science as part
of the journal's "State of the Planet" series.
The coauthors-Thomas Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data
Center, and Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)-conclude that industrial
emissions have been the dominant influence on climate change for the
past 50 years, overwhelming natural forces. The most important of these
emissions is carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps solar radiation
and warms the planet.
"There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is changing
because of human activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest
human influence on global climate," they write. "The likely result is
more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme precipitation events, and
related impacts, e.g., wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes, and
sea-level rise which will be regionally dependent."
Karl and Trenberth estimate that, between 1990 and 2100, there is a 90
percent probability that global temperatures will rise by 1.7 to 4.9
degrees Celsius (3.1 to 8.9 degrees Fahrenheit), because of human
influences on climate. Such warming would have widespread impacts on
society and the environment, including continued melting of glaciers and
the great ice sheets of Greenland, inundating the world's coasts. The
authors base their estimate on computer model experiments by climate
scientists, observations of atmospheric changes, and recorded climate
changes over the past century.
However, there is still large uncertainty in understanding the global
climate and how it will change, says Karl. If temperatures rise 1.7
degrees, the expected changes would be relatively small, whereas a
4.9-degree increase could bring drastic impacts, some of which may be
unforeseen.
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen by 31 percent since
preindustrial times, from 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to over
370 ppmv today. Other human activities, such as emissions of sulfate and
soot particles and the development of urban areas, have significant but
more localized climate impacts. Such activities may enhance or mask the
larger-scale warming from greenhouse gases, but not offset it, according
to the authors.
If societies could successfully cut emissions and stabilize carbon
dioxide levels in the atmosphere, temperatures would still increase by
an estimated 0.5 degree C (0.9 degree F) over a period of decades, Karl
and Trenberth warn. This is because greenhouse gases are slow to cycle
out of the atmosphere. "Given what has happened to date and is projected
in the future, significant further climate change is guaranteed," the
authors state.
If current emissions continue, the world would face the fastest rate of
climate change in at least the last 10,000 years. This could potentially
alter ocean current circulations and radically change existing climate
patterns. Moreover, certain natural processes would tend to accelerate
the warming. For example, as snow cover melts away, the darker land and
water surface would absorb more solar radiation, further increasing
temperatures.
Karl and Trenberth say more research is needed to pin down both the
global and regional impacts of climate change. Scientists, for example,
have yet to determine the temperature impacts of increased cloud cover
or how changes in the atmosphere will influence El NiŅo, the periodic
warming of Pacific Ocean waters that affects weather patterns throughout
much of the world. The authors call for multiple computer model studies
to address the complex aspects of weather and climate. The models must
be able to integrate all components of Earth's climate system-physical,
chemical, and biological. This, in turn, will require considerable
international cooperation and the establishment of a global climate
monitoring system to collect and analyze data.
Because of the broad range of potential change in temperature, it's
extremely important to ensure that we have a comprehensive observing
system to track unforeseen changes and variations, says Karl.
"Climate change is truly a global issue, one that may prove to be
humanity's greatest challenge," the authors conclude. "It is very
unlikely to be adequately addressed without greatly improved
international cooperation and action."
|
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 00:31:23
|
Dallas - i'm pretty sure cig. co's were saying there was no link until just a few years ago. A friend works for the gov't's tobacco reduction campaign, i'll try and get more details from her.
Personally, i don't trust anyone in GreenPeace, and find they put sensation over fact, and so i don't give Lomborg much credit. Especially if he's out for media attention - is he gonna get it agreeing with everyone else, or coming up with something opposing it? Maybe he's onto something...it seems likely he's not, and is misrepresenting the facts.
If he were to simply detail what he thought, i might be more open to what he's saying, but he declaring it like it's such a great thing. That leaves me wondering.
You never really addressed the oncoming melting of the polar caps, and the disaster it brings....*if* there's any chance we're causing the planet to warm up, would you agree we need to do something? |
|
|
|
Scarla O
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
947 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 02:00:06
|
Dallas, you keep on assuming that I'm bashing the US and ignoring everybody else. I'm well aware of the role that France, the UK and others have played in the past and of their colonial histories, however none of them have the confidence / financial clout to intervene on the global scene in the self-interested fashion that the US has continued to do for the last 50 years.
I'm sorry this next quote is so long, but it echoes the sentiments I've been trying to relay. It's from the Sunday Herald (a Scottish newspaper):
"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary.
Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report on 'energy security' from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Sr.
The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: 'The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de- stabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments.
'The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.'
Baker who delivered the recommendations to Cheney, the former chief executive of Texas oil firm Halliburton, was advised by Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron, the US energy giant which went bankrupt after carrying out massive accountancy fraud. The other advisers to Baker were: Luis Giusti, a Shell non-executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of BP and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco. Another name linked to the document is Sheikh Saud Al Nasser Al Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister and a fellow of the Baker Institute. President Bush also has strong connections to the US oil industry and once owned the oil company Spectrum 7.
The Baker report highlights massive shortages in world oil supplies which now leave the US facing 'unprecedented energy price volatility' and has led to recurring electricity black-outs in areas such as California.
The report refers to the impact of fuel shortages on voters. It recommends a 'new and viable US energy policy central to America's domestic economy and to [the] nation's security and foreign policy'.
Iraq, the report says, 'turns its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so', adding that there is a 'possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time' in order to damage prices.
'Unless the United States assumes a leadership role in the formation of new rules of the game,' the report says, 'US firms, US consumers and the US government [will be left] in a weaker position.'"
***
Of course I don't have 'intimate' knowledge regarding these matters but I HAVE read alot and I do have an MA in political science.
|
|
|
|
benji
> Teenager of the Year <
New Zealand
3426 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 02:14:58
|
I don't deny global warming is an issue we face, i am just sceptical of the ability to conclusively disassociate human-induced effects and causal mechanisms with those occuring naturally.
|
|
|
|
Grizwald
- FB Fan -
Canada
100 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 05:29:45
|
TO WRITE ANYTHING ON THIS THREAD IT MUST CONTAIN BE ATLEAST 100, 000, 000 WORDS, OR ELSE GET THE HELL OFF!
Cult Of Ray you say?, I mean The Cult Of J www.The-Cult.vze.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
