Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Global warning... again...

Prin
March 13th, 2007, 06:04 PM
I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but this anti-Gore documentary is working it's way around...

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" (a bit of it...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk

What do you think of it?

For those who can't watch movies, here's a site with a sort of summary..
http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_Warming_Swindle.htm

wdawson
March 13th, 2007, 09:05 PM
i'v not watched the whole thing yet but will tomorrow.

but i do think the climate is and always has been changing,long before we came.what happened to the dinosaurs?,ice age,massive and devestating storms have happened through out time.that said all the pollution we contribute does not help.......and besides that....it's been cold this winter...where is global warming:rolleyes:

LynLyn
March 13th, 2007, 09:14 PM
I watched "an inconvenient truth" a couple of weeks ago, and even i believe it. I will definitely do my part to try to make the world a livable place for any possible future children.

RolandsMom
March 13th, 2007, 09:59 PM
I am totally convinced that what Al Gore has put in front of us is truth. What possible reason would anyone have to make up stories like that adn the physical proof is, imo, indisputable. Its not new the whole el nino thing but there has been a significant rise in the phenomenons (sp?) affects on the earth. Someone has just been brave enough to put it out there.
we have changed all our light bulbs to the energy efficient ones and besides feeling great about the energy saving we have saved a load on our energy bill!! hehe i sound like an advert.

Prin
March 13th, 2007, 11:20 PM
I believe An Inconvenient truth too... But even if you don't, and you don't believe we are responsible for global warming, if there is any at all, it doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to keep our planet as clean as you can. :shrug: If you don't believe in global warming, surely you've seen smog... and litter... Right?

lt_danish
March 13th, 2007, 11:56 PM
If you don't believe in global warming, surely you've seen smog... and litter... Right?

I am going to use this quote next time I get into a discussion with someone about global warming. I bought Gore's DVD for my dad for an x-mas present. As his line of work is concerned greatly with the environment and effects humans have on it. He also loved it and felt there were a lot of truths in what he was saying. Why do people think this is a hoax??

Prin
March 14th, 2007, 12:10 AM
Because "scientists" say so. :sad:

lt_danish
March 14th, 2007, 12:13 AM
He he, I think it was 'scientists' that first said the world was flat. And another group of them that were 'radicals' and said it was *gasp* round. Only time will tell i guess.

Prin
March 14th, 2007, 12:16 AM
I've got my lifejacket ready. :D

Rick C
March 14th, 2007, 08:25 AM
In the New York Times yesterday, scientists ask Al Gore to step back:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

An interesting book to read is Kimberley Robinson's "Fifty Degrees Below," the same guy who wrote the Sci-Fi classic series Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

RolandsMom
March 14th, 2007, 09:13 AM
I hope he tells them exactly where to go! I really dont think that there icould possibly be anything negative about bringing the plight of the dying earth to the public. even if its not us doing so much damage (but i believe we are), it can only be a good thing and bring on positive change. I dont think we need to be scientists to recognise the severe changes on the earth that is directly related to the increase in pollution. ( Prin you have a good point there) ha! let me stop there. i could go on and on and on.... i feel very strongly about this subject!!!!

Schwinn
March 14th, 2007, 12:30 PM
I tend to take the position of the article that Rick posted. For a long time I've said, I'm sure it's not as bad as the alarmists say, and I'm sure that it's worse than I think.

I remember in Orillia when the lake didn't freeze until February, and everyone was screaming about global warming. "First time in 50 years!" Wait a minute, if it happened 50 years ago...Same with temperatures. A lot of highs that were broken in the past few months were dating back to the 1950's. And when you compare temperatures this year to last year (for this area, anyway), back in December and the beginning of January, there was a 20 degree difference some days. Climate change doesn't cause a drop of 20 degrees in one year. As a matter of fact, all else being equal, the difference in temperature should be almost discernable from one year to the next. Yet we hear alarmists talking about how this winter is an example of climate change.

It's also been proven that there has been cycles throughout the earth's history that the climate has been warmer or colder than other times. As someone mentioned earlier, the earth thousands of years ago used to be much warmer than it is now. And if you believe the Inca's, they predicted that the world would go through climatic turmoil, starting around now, and lasting until about 2015. I'm not a superstitious person, but so far, they seem to have made the closest predictions. We'll see how good they were in eight years, I guess.;)

At the end of the day, I think you'd have to have your head in the sand to think we aren't having at least SOME effect on the climate. At the same time, I don't think it's as dire or severe as some are saying. Any balance view of the climate taking in both man-made and natural changes seem to be labled as denial (which it isn't, it's just trying to look at the big picture). I think the truth is, we don't know for sure how much is natural, and how much is caused by man. That being said, I'm going to try to hedge my bets by using flourescent bulbs and recycling. It certainly won't hurt...me or the enviroment.

Prin
March 14th, 2007, 04:49 PM
Sure, there are cycles, but there's no doubt that we've seen more extreme weather in the past 2 years than we have in a lonnnnng time (at least in my lifetime). Back in the day, there were extreme highs and lows, but one episode rarely followed another in the quick succession we're seeing today.

Are humans a major factor in climate change? How can we not be? We're devastating the Earth. There's no doubt about that at all. We're killing everything around us. There's constant evidence to that effect. Our trees are disappearing constantly. Pesticides, herbicides are everywhere, and GMO plants are taking over where they shouldn't. Animals are becoming more tolerant and dependent on humans. Birds are disrupted by humans. Everybody's biological clock is disrupted by the light pollution we create. Fish are becoming alarmingly infertile in rivers all over the continent because of the hormones we flush down the toilet and the pesticides we use. Not to mention the effects on humans ourselves! Asthma, resistant bugs, cancers, among others, all on the rise.

What will it take for all of us to wake up? If it's not global warming and its resultant extreme weather patterns, what will it be?

Stacer
March 14th, 2007, 06:10 PM
I don't know if I could watch the other 7 parts to that video, I get so frustrated listening to that kind of stuff. The scientists have taken an extreme opposite stance, as though there's no room for anything in between. There's no possibility that we could be exacerbating climate change just a teeny weeny little bit? I think those scientist are bitter that they weren't asked to be on the UN commitee for climate change.
The other thing that really irked me was the statement that the environmental movement is for the purpose of preventing Africa from developing. Yeah, right. I think Africa's problems with development have more to do with civil wars and corrupt goverment officials funnelling money into their own pockets than a bunch of granola crunching, birkenstock wearing environmental workers (ie:me). Everything I'm doing is to keep Africa down, hmmm.

Climate change and CO2 aside, we cannot deny that we are putting crap into our air that has never before in the history of man been emitted. All the new and crazy chemicals being created and when we are finished with whatever purpose that chemical was created for it gets dumped where ever, which eventually makes it into our water cycle, which includes evaporation into the air we breathe and into the atmosphere that prevents the earth from warming . And that's gotta affect how the temperatures fluctuate.

I get all riled up on this topic so I'll stop now. Maybe I'll come back later and add more, I gotta make supper.

lt_danish
March 14th, 2007, 08:25 PM
Ha ha, people thinking we humans don't have an effect on the earth. Just look at some of the CRAZY stuff we are doing to the earth!

The World - Dubai (http://www.theworld.ae/)
If we do silly stuff like this that you can see from far above the earth I am sure there is some impact with all those crazy SUVs I see driving around the city buring off petrolium. Stacer, I like you point, where is the in between stance??

Mocha's mum
March 14th, 2007, 08:46 PM
Wherever there's a theory, there's a conspiracy theory...like the moon landing, or 9-11.

My belief is that if we piss off mother nature enough, she'll kick us out like the unwanted house guests we are....:shrug:

Another :2cents: from my very tired brain....

RolandsMom
March 14th, 2007, 09:20 PM
well said Stacer.
And Mochas mom i agree about mothers nature, shes about to kick some serious butt!!!

Prin
March 14th, 2007, 09:21 PM
Yep, who knows what's really going on, but you just have to look out your window, right? :shrug:

hazelrunpack
March 14th, 2007, 09:30 PM
I believe the Earth is warming...but I just saw a news brief published by national geographic that Mars is warming, too. That points to changes in the solar constant (there's an oxymoron for you :D) as a root cause of the warming.

There is widespread concensus among scientists that global warming is occurring--but that's where the concensus stops. Despite what Al Gore claims, there is not concensus among scientists that humans are the cause.

I've seen reputable scientific opinions that even if the Kyoto protocol is followed religiously by every developed and developing nation on Earth, it wouldn't be enough to reverse the warming. But it's a moot point--since you know universal compliance will never happen. (Even if the US signs on, China never will...)

And, IMO, as long as the human population (with all its concomitant food and energy needs) is on the rise, the human component to global warming will not go away, even with universal compliance with the Kyoto protocol.

I still think that we're spending too much time pointing fingers and trying to lay blame for something that is likely out of our hands, and not spending enough time trying to figure out what we're going to do when the effects of the warming kick in. Humans tend to be crisis oriented. They distract themselves with inconsequentials until it's crunch time, then react and hope technology will bail them out. Dangerous philosophy... It would be nice to see some planning ahead of time for a change... (And I'm not talking about instituting the Kyoto protocol--I'm talking about planning for crisis management before the crisis occurs.)

Just my :2cents:

RolandsMom
March 14th, 2007, 10:06 PM
there is no doubt that the earth is doing its natural warming cycle but we are certainly contributing to the exessive warming its doing. I dont think its the point of the normal natural cyclical warming process we are going through, i think its the above "normal" range that its becoming. (does that make sense? i know what im trying to say but im not sure im saying it like i mean....:rolleyes: :shrug: )

hazelrunpack
March 14th, 2007, 10:12 PM
There isn't a good concensus as to how much of it is actually attributable to humans--but there have been times in the past when Earth's temperature was far and away warmer than it is now. I believe humans are contributing, but I don't believe that there's much we can do about it. :shrug: From the data I've seen, it's looking like it would continue no matter what...

That's why I wish we'd start turning more energy toward planning instead of looking for a cause. By the time we find the root cause, we'll be well into the crisis.

Prin
March 14th, 2007, 10:15 PM
Won't hurt if we all do our part. :shrug:

hazelrunpack
March 14th, 2007, 10:20 PM
Won't hurt if we all do our part. :shrug:

I agree. It won't hurt. Not sure how much it will help, though. :shrug: An eye-blink of delay won't help in the long run--but some planning now could go a long way in averting disasters. I'd just like to see the focus of the debate change...

RolandsMom
March 14th, 2007, 10:29 PM
i just feel that regardless of the global warming impact we are having, even if we werent having a negative effect, we should still be taking care of our earth. the rate the forest are dissappearing, the natural habitat of animals is dissappearing so fast that soon the natural order of things will dissapear too adn so on and so forth. it sux and people should be paying attention. the rate of extinction is unbelievable. i know, a little off topic but still very relative and im pretty sure its all related. oh this is a topic that could just be discussed for so long without a real resolution. its up there with abortion and religion!!! yikes. its nice to hear so many opinions though

RolandsMom
March 14th, 2007, 10:31 PM
Is what is happening now not planning though? Kyoto is a plan of some sort. I realise thats we are just about at the panic stage already but i say rather late than never. a stitch in time and all that...

hazelrunpack
March 14th, 2007, 10:39 PM
Is what is happening now not planning though? Kyoto is a plan of some sort. I realise thats we are just about at the panic stage already but i say rather late than never. a stitch in time and all that...

The thing I have against the Kyoto protocol is that it's costly and yet doesn't go far enough. It likely wouldn't reverse the warming.

The type of planning I'd like to see is long-range planning--like what to do when the coasts are threatened with rising water; how to handle food production when the seasons advance; weather-proofing (which sounds trite but isn't when you're talking changing climate)...practical solutions as opposed to short-term delaying tactics that are expensive without really giving any long-term benefit.

RolandsMom
March 14th, 2007, 11:38 PM
oh okay. now i get what youre saying. I do agree with that. Admittedly i dont know a whole lot about Kyoto, only that it is set up for reducing emmissions and so on and so forth. i realise the expense but maybe if everyone pays attention to their own emmissions and impact we could make a huge difference one by one. and then we would be so much closer. (a girl can dream cant she??)

CyberKitten
March 15th, 2007, 12:09 AM
I don't have time (alas, lol) to get into my thoughts on Kyoto tonite but I will not watch a video against An Inconvenient Truth. I have already read so much info - both pro and con - on the subject and I am sure someone can sum it up for me. I thought Gore's film was excellent and with only so much time, I would prefer to use that time doing something that might help the problem (Not sure what exactly what - sending this digitally as oppossed to using paper might be one, lol) - and I save a lot of info digitally now, read newspapers online to try to save trees, etc.).

Kyoto is a complex formula and it is true that it does not go far enough but it was a plan developed by a group of politicians, each with their own constituencies at home (and those who elect them are more important to politicians to any issue unless they are one of the few "true believers" - a Ralph Nader or a Stephen Lewis on the AIDs crisis in Africa or someone opposes to official bilingualism) so it is rather amazed the Kyoto protcols wreree devceloped at all and seems to very difficult to get them actually going anywhere. It is kind of discouraging actually and I would like to hope they are wrong but when 99% of the anti scientists - ie those who disbelive (if that is a word) in global warming - are people who are paid for by a very small group of oil and gas companies (and I say this as someone who has relatives in that industry). I have never understood - and I do not mean to sound sarctic here - how one cannot "not believe" science. This stuff does not even include double blind procedures and stratified samples. It is a question of studying the same part of the ozone layer and other parts of the world that are disintegrating before our very eyes. It scares the he** out of me to think of what will happen when China and India and other countries are as industrialized as we are. This is not to suggest I do not want them not to be but we need new alternatives before then. It also irks me to no end that we were debating this 25 years ago - at least in my lifetime (Older ppl prob can think further back and be upset, people Rachel Carson's age!) - like I can recall attending an "Alternate Energy Fair" in 1977 or some date like that when ppl like Avery Lovins and E. F. Schumaker (sp?) Rosalie Bertrelll and Ursula Franklin and even Ken Dryden (I'll give him points for being an environmentalist even before he entered politics, lol) and a number of people gave presentations about how wind and geothermal and other "soft energy" paths to use Avery's word - were needed and here we are in another century still at it. It's scary and makes no sense to me. I guess I don't see why anyone would say "I don't believe it>' It is like saying I don't believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4. It's that kind of science. I read "The Skeptical Environmentalist." by Bjorn Lomborg, thinking he might have some points but came away upset that someone like him would have been paid by the various companies to do what he did. For one thing, I thought it was inappropriate of him to lead ppl to believe he was a scientist in a hard science field when his doctorate is in political science. Many people read it - possibly believing his thesis that all is not as bad as the majority of scientists are imploring the world to sit and up and listen and take action but it's my guess that at least half of them never bothered to then read the critique of the book in Scientific American or how upset the Danish govt (who pays him as head of an environmental agency) came close to firing him for his work that they determined to be contrary (or against, forget their words exactly) to the standards of good scientific practice. And his was a popular book, some say used by "conservative" groups but that point also frustrates me. There are many conservatives who are ardent supporters of the concerns of global warming - it is NOT an issue that
we can afford to label it as belonging to one poltical side or another, sigh!!

Anyway - nuff said, I'll be here all night if I star writing about this and you all (or y'll or youse as some of my relatives in Ireland say say sometimes as in youse ppl) will be even more bored, lol

Stacer
March 15th, 2007, 09:13 AM
Unfortunately Hazel, humans are reactive, not proactive in most cases. Widespread planning would be hard to do logistically for most of humanity.

Rick C
March 15th, 2007, 09:55 AM
An interesting factoid for consideration regarding Kyoto . . . . . China will be the number one emitter of C02 gases by 2009, overtaking America.

India won't be far behind.

In that vein, third world countries are far and away the most inefficient users of energy on the planet and the least constrained by environmental regulations related to economic growth.

Kyoto seems to punish the most efficient energy users and those most likely to be constrained by the toughest environmental standards.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

CyberKitten
March 15th, 2007, 05:30 PM
I agree with you there Rick - it is almost as if we are really past Kyoto and it does need to be re-examined. I think environmentalists grab on to it because it is all there is at the moment and it took such a difficult time to cobble together. But China and India do seem to get these 'Get out of Kyoto" Free cards and that is not just unfair, it is bad news to the planet!! Granted, they do have regulations under Kyoto but I am not cure Kyoto takes into account what we know now - data that was not necessarily available at the time it was put together. It also irks me from a strictly partisan point of view that the Liberals can claim to be pro Kyoto when the US actually had done more than they ever did when they were ion office but they signed it so we are supposed to believe that is of so important!! Arrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhh!!!! They played politics with it - and still are - while the Tories said what they thought (that Kyoto needs to be re-examined) and that was taken to suggest they opposed doing anything about global warming. There is something wrong with that whole picture!

We may have to take all the world leaders and lock them up in a room somewhere and have them sign a new deal - but they are all so busy adding C02 gases to the environment fighting the Iraq war - not to mention Afghanistan! - that it'll never happen! It is very discouraging!!

Schwinn
March 16th, 2007, 09:36 AM
The thing with cycles is it isn't "the last few years" or even 10 years. There are weather patterns that change in short term (ie, areas go through a period of warm winters), but when looking at global change, you need to look at longer periods. When I was a kid, I remember a couple of winters where we had little or no snow, yet a few years later, we had 10 foot snowbanks. My father-in-law recalls one year in Barrie where they had no snow for the entire winter, and they have not lived there for almost 20 years. The weather cycles that scientists are referring to last 50 or 100 years or more.

Regardless, it's still a question as to whether we are seeing a cycle, or something more. The problem is that it is popular opinion to place the blame solely on global warming, and anyone who questions it is a heretic, denying it's existence. Personally, I think if you watch the two movies (the one above, and Al Gore's), the truth is someowhere in the middle. There's certainly enough evidence from both sides to not only see they each merit thought, but to also see one does not disprove the other. I always figure it's up to someone much smarter than me to figure it out, and since they can't agree, I certainly don't have the answer. As I said before, it'd be foolish to think we don't have some impact, however big, so the least I can do is my part to lesson that.

The big problem with Kyoto is it isn't actually doing anything except given unrealistic targets, and allowing countries to "buy" thier way out of them. Canada is producing too much pollution? No problem we can buy credits from a developing country like India. Meanwhile, India has credits galore, and doesn't need to be concerned with thier enviroment. At some point, when India DOES become developed enough to need thier credits, they've now built thier infrastructure on non-enviromentally friendly technologies. Are they going to go back and start over? Doubtful. They're going to look for other third world countries to buy credits from. Also, everyone thinks it's shameful to be worried about the economy, but it makes sense. The economy isn't just big corporations, but also you and me. If the economy suffers, we suffer. Then we can't afford new cars with newer technology, or upgrading our homes for the enviroment. We "make do" with what we have. And local governments suddenly can't afford to upgrade transit to make it more viable. In most municipalities that aren't large cities, transit is not a viable alternative. And even in Toronto, the TTC is grossly inefficient. If the economy suffers, that will only get worse. I used to be for Kyoto, thinking like most people, "how can something for the enviroment be bad?" But when you look deeper into it, and at the big picture, I think it's an extreme solution that doesn't address long term issues.

Schwinn
March 16th, 2007, 09:37 AM
Oh, and sorry for babbling! ;)