| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
windoggi
Joined: 22 Feb 2002
Posts: 2743
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I guess jealousy. Everybody wants something for nothing.
_________________
/w\ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| windoggie wrote: | | ...yet still sails thousands upon thousands upon thousands of hours? |
Don't forget the motorcycle racing.
| reinerehlers wrote: | Are global warming / cooling laws or theories?
Is it the fault of the "rabid right" / conservatives that politicians / legislators are influenced by corporations? I would think greed is the common trait the influences both parties. Even if conservatives were open to sensible regulations, who would you blame for the corruption that legislators entertain? The whole system needs an overhauling, but that means that people would have to stop being so inherently greedy. |
Somewhat true...
But it IS the conservatives, tea baggers, and rabid righties who are screaming for reduced environmental regulations.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17752
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
but NW--this remains supremely stupid:
| Quote: | | nobody, being me, said that island formation and erosion were the only causes of rising sea levels. |
In fact, island formation have no effect on sea level rise to about the 16th decimal point. None. Can't be found. Minor compared to, for example, the gravitational pull of the Greenland ice sheet. When caught in making something up that doesn't make your point--you just kept digging. All that you have proved is that you are a stubborn fool.
Of course, I could recommend some basic oceanography and physics text's, and if you read them and tried to understand them, and read some sources that weren't from the Murdoch empire, it is possible you might learn something and not look so foolish. Not holding my breath.
You're great at the clown show part. It's sad you don't have any idea why you are so funny--but that is a clown tradition.
Maybe you can give us a treatise, from the conservative bubble, of what is affecting sea level--and how it has nothing to do with CO2? We need another laugh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
" Everybody wants something for nothing."
You're so right windoggie. I guess if we take that thought and look back over the global warming debate. Let's ask a simple question. Should we have more or less environmental laws and regulations, and does greed figure in for those that want less regulations and heightened scrutiny? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17752
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bard--I think we need to close your high school too. If they taught reasoning like this, the United States is in trouble:
| Quote: | | They can't even find a missing jumbo jet after 2 weeks. How can they predict climate change? This planet is too vast to predict anything beyond the 7 day forecast. |
Of course tracking a missing jumbo jet, where all the transmitters have been shut off by humans, over a vast area, is nothing like measuring heat with thousands of sensors and satellites. Heat provides a signal that cannot be turned off. Unfortunately, reasoning ability seems to be able to be turned off utterly.
Tell me, was this little bit of foolishness home-grown, or did you hear on Fox?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mac and Pueno. Your efforts have not been wasted. The warming science is steadily becoming more pesuasive, and harder to refute in a meaningful way. Credible research that can be trusted (free of bias) seems to have multiplied over the last year alone, in contrast to the earlier exstremism which so angered many of us.
One of the errors those of us who are sceptics made was to take each individual claim, or 'fact', and argue against it alone, as often happens in a court of law. But, as Holmes stated, individual pieces of information on their own may be open to interpretation, but each added together can become compelling. (Not quite what he said, I know, but his meaning was clear.)
I think it takes a very closed mind to science to any longer deny that we, to quite an extent, are about to affect the worlds climate. The question in my mind is, to what extent (if at all) the predicted cooling (imminent mini-ice age of 200+ years duration) will counteract the future warming trend. It really is a case of wait and see!
Meanwhile, it appears our government is at last taking our sea defences more seriously, by allocating extra funds. (Winter flooding a wake-uyp call.) Our coast may be easier to defend than yours in that a lower percentage of our population live in areas at risk, except, of course for London. But the capital wiull obviously be defended by what ever it takes! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| swchandler wrote: | | ".... does greed figure in for those that want less regulations and heightened scrutiny? |
Not always. Some, like me at times, hate being told what to do, answering to others, or feeling like they're being manipulated and controlled. That's a big part of why I'm self employed. I have learned that I can tolerate the government agencies involvement in my business by conforming, but by doing it indirectly through my accountant. It has nothing to do with greed but everything to do with reasons stated above.
Then there is also another reason, which may or may not be associated with greed, but I'm sure it shared by both the left and the right. It is "show me that you are responsible with money" attitude, or disgust in the past examples. If government, left or right, didn't show such disregard to responsible spending at times I think more people and corporations would be fine with the imposed regulations. It's hard to be happy about giving money through regulations to those who have shown such irresponsibility with OUR money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Speaking of greed, the UN as well as the US is going to have to clamp down harder by raising carbon taxes higher, or something, if they want to control the weather.
But maybe Al got away with what he wanted anyway, who knows.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Climate adaptation faces funding crisis warn UN officials
Last updated on 21 March 2014, 5:11 pm
Collapse of revenue from carbon markets has left Adaptation Fund critically short of money
See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/03/20/climate-adaptation-facing-funding-crisis-warn-un-officials/#sthash.P4tnFKbQ.dpuf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| reinerehlers wrote: | | Greed: when one will override what they know, or that which law dictates, to be unethical or immoral in order to accumulate money, objects or services. |
So greed involves ONLY criminal or immoral actions for personal gain.
I don't think even a small minority of people agree with that restriction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nitwit30 wrote: | Speaking of greed, the UN as well as the US is going to have to clamp down harder by raising carbon taxes higher, or something, if they want to control the weather.
|
UN scientists see grim future if no climate action
By Richard Ingham (AFP)
Paris — UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change, pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed.
A draft of their report, seen by AFP, is part of a massive overview by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), likely to shape policies and climate talks for years to come.
Scientists and government representatives will meet in Yokohama, Japan, from Tuesday to hammer out a 29-page summary. It will be unveiled with the full report on March 31.
"We have a lot clearer picture of impacts and their consequences... including the implications for security," said Chris Field of the United States' Carnegie Institution, who headed the probe.
The work comes six months after the first volume in the long-awaited Fifth Assessment Report declared scientists were more certain than ever that humans caused global warming.
It predicted global temperatures would rise 0.3-4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century, adding to roughly 0.7 C since the Industrial Revolution. Seas will creep up by 26-82 centimetres (10.4-32.8 inches) by 2100.
The draft warns costs will spiral with each additional degree, although it is hard to forecast by how much.
Warming of 2.5 C over pre-industrial times -- 0.5 C more than the UN's target -- may cost 0.2-2.0 percent of global annual income, a figure that could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars each year.
"The assessments that we can do at the moment probably still underestimate the actual impacts of future climate change," said Jacob Schewe of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany, who was not involved in the IPCC drafting.
Many scientists concurred, he said, that recent heatwaves and floods were evidence of climate change already on the march -- and a harbinger of a future in which once-freakish weather events become much less rare.
Among the perils listed in the draft are these:
- FLOODING: Rising greenhouse-gas emissions will "significantly" boost the risk of floods, with Europe and Asia particularly exposed. In the highest warming scenarios of untamed greenhouse gas emissions, three times as many people will be exposed to severe river flooding as with lower warming.
- DROUGHT: For every 1 C (1.8 F) rise in temperature, another seven percent of the world's population will see renewable water resources decline by a fifth.
- RISING SEAS: If no measures are taken, "hundreds of millions" of coastal dwellers will be displaced by 2100. Small-island states and East, Southeast and South Asia will be the biggest land-losers.
- HUNGER: Average yields of wheat, rice and corn may fall by two percent per decade, while demand for crops is likely to rise by up to 14 percent by 2050 as Earth's population grows. The crunch will hit poor, tropical countries worst.
- SPECIES LOSS: A "large fraction" of land and freshwater species may risk extinction, their habitat destroyed by climate change.
- Security threat -
Poverty, migration and hunger are invisible drivers of turbulence and war, as they sharpen competition for dwindling resources, the report warns.
"Climate change over the 21st century will lead to new challenges to states and will increasingly shape national security policies," its draft summary says.
"Small-island states and other states highly vulnerable to sea-level rise face major challenges to their territorial integrity.
"Some transboundary impacts of climate change, such as changes in sea ice, shared water resources and migration of fish stocks, have the potential to increase rivalry among states. The presence of robust institutions can manage many of these rivalries to reduce conflict risk."
By reducing carbon emissions "over the next few decades", the world can stave off many of the worst climate consequences by century's end, says the report.
The IPCC will issue a third volume, on strategies for tackling carbon emissions, in Berlin on April 13.
The panel has issued four previous "assessment reports" in its quarter-century history.
Each has sounded a louder drumbeat of warning about the gigatonnes of carbon dioxide spewed by traffic, power stations and other fossil-fuel burners and methane from deforestation and farming.
The Yokohama volume goes further than its predecessors in forecasting regional impacts in greater detail and emphasising the risk of conflict and rising seas.
The IPCC's last big report in 2007 helped unleash political momentum leading to the 2009 UN climate summit in Copenhagen. But its reputation was dented by several mistakes, seized upon by climate skeptics as proof of bias.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
