Global warming survey

[cmg]

In NYC right this moment, it is 70 degrees F. ( I believe that might be 21 degrees Celsius for the rest of you.)  People are wearing shorts, tee shirts and sandals on the streets -- and this is early January!  This doesn't seem like a blip on the screen either, because temperatures here have been averaging in the upper 40s and 50s F all winter.  We've had days of temperatures in the 60s for weeks now.  It's unheard of.  Usually, we are freezing this time of year, buried under ice.  But no snow whatsoever, which is absolutely freaky.

How is the weather elsewhere on the globe?  Is everyone else experiencing an unseasonably warm winter?

[lau]

i heard on the news yesterday that some plants are already starting to bloom again..in minnesota

[jre58591]

its actually been really cold over here. i mean, for us californians, its been REALLY cold and windy. yesteday it as about 40ºF with 50 mph gusts. we think that is cold, but i know that some of you think thats beach weather.

[rc]

Unseasonably warm in southern Alberta.  It should be so cold right now that I'm afraid to go outside.

I saw an interesting documentary a few nights ago about El Nino, how they gradually discovered how the weather of the world is all interconnected and occassional fluctuations could turn things topsy turvy.  There are theories that extended el nino's were responsible for wiping out ancient civilizations.  They also figure that global warming can trigger longer and more frequent el ninos until there's a state of perpetual el nino.

...and here I sit on my computer, sucking up energy to pass time, after dropping my brother off where there's no parking because every single person on the block owns a car.

I was a skeptic, but our lack of winter has me wondering.  Interesting times we live in!

[johnny-boy]

Daffadils are up here in Pennsylvania. The flowers are very confused with this weather.

John

[prometheus]

Here we also have a total lack of winter. Two days of autumn storms and two nights just below 0.

That's all we had. But winter can still come.


As for global warming. I already realised something was going on by looking at the data produced and listening to the scientists in the field.  The ideo of global warming because of greenhouse gasses is actually quite old. I thought that global warming was a 'fact' about 10 years ago.

I don't really understand those people that are skeptic. I mean on basis of what?
And now we have a few years with strange weather including a winter with spring weather and suddenly they start to wonder. If you are going to base these things on your personal biased everyday experience then you will have problems understanding what is really going on.

This year has been one of extremes. One of the hottest augusts ever, then amazing amounts of rain in September. Then, delayed fall with very warm October, November and December.

I do remember just a few years ago we had a really big cold record. We could have had a -20 winter this year and I would still think that global warming is a solid idea. Certainly the climate is going crazy.

I am less sure about the fact that humans played a big role but this also seems like a solid idea.

[mad_max2024]

Freezing my b*** off in Porto, Portugal
Very cold winter this year

Not much rain though...

[le_poete_mourant]

Daffadils are up here in Pennsylvania. The flowers are very confused with this weather.

John

Yeah, flowers are blooming here, too.  It's in the 40s in upstate New York, by Lake Ontario. 

We've had maybe four inches of snow all season.  The skiers are hurting themselves. 

It's been a bit fortunate for me, as I was on crutches, that I didn't have to deal with ice and suffer another broken limb.  But still... this is ridiculous. 

I would like perhaps to have a snow day this winter.  We haven't had one in a couple years. 

[term]

Nuremberg, Germany: too warm. Sunshine, wearing a t-shirt is possible but i don't do it in order to protest against these temperatures *g*
I'll keep my jacket on at least until the end of february^^

but true, 21 degrees is wierd 

[mad_max2024]

Is EVERYBODY warm but me?

btw, how do you warm up your fingers in the cold?
Playing with cold fingers is torture...

[jre58591]

same here. its colder than usual here. and btw, global warming is a hoax. its just some scheme out there to make money. penn and teller proved this on their hit show "bullshit" (yes, that is what its called. i kid you not).

[elspeth]

In Yorkshire - wet, foggy, chilly but not freezing. Wet and foggy is normal but it certainly ought to be colder than this. We ought to have snow and ice and temperatures below freezing in January - but no, the only reason I'm cold is my central heating's not very good.

[rc]

I don't really understand those people that are skeptic. I mean on basis of what?
And now we have a few years with strange weather including a winter with spring weather and suddenly they start to wonder. If you are going to base these things on your personal biased everyday experience then you will have problems understanding what is really going on.

I'm skeptical of the doom & gloom forecast of recent news, that the world is ending.  I remember Y2K and the recent string of pandemic scares (tied with WMD for word of the year).  My old man tells me of the global cooling scare from some time in the 70's.  I see there have been times in the past where people were scared over nothing.  So there's a bit of a 'boy who cried wolf' reaction when I see it on the news.

I put more trust in my 'everyday biased' experiences because I can see it for myself rather than words I read.  Words can be skewed, fear can be spread, I don't trust everything I hear.  When the weather is wonky, I can trust that isn't hype.

That is the basis of my skepticism.

[prometheus]

You have to be skeptical about hysteria about the end of the world. That's a common theme through everyday history.

I remember I once did a presentation pre-y2k in school critizising the whole y2k thing. Yes, I am not that old. And they all laughed and thought I was a funny guy. Except for the teacher, for a change.

Climate change is not a scare. Climate kills all species. All species go extinct eventually because of climate change. No species ever went extinct because of y2k.

What do you think? That climate change will really kill everyone next month?

We are basically seeing right now what was predicted in the past. There is no 'scare'. There is just this rather quick climate change that is still super slow compared to a human life time.

We are talking about the children of our children.

Everyday experiences are tons and tons more 'skewed' basically everything else.

[wishful thinker]

An interesting article in to-day's paper on the subject:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=KZINL5MIPZPQZQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/01/08/do0801.xml

"In his Essay on the Principle of Population, published in 1798, Thomas Malthus demonstrated in what appeared to be indisputable mathematical terms that population growth would exceed the limits of food supply by the middle of the 19th century.

While population increased exponentially, he argued, food production increased only arithmetically. Only plague, war or natural disaster would be capable of reducing the numbers of people sufficiently to avert mass starvation within roughly 50 years.

This account of the world's inevitable fate (known as "Malthusian catastrophe") was as much part of received opinion among intellectuals and social theorists of the day as the environmental lobby's warnings are today. (Interestingly, Malthus recommended sexual abstinence for the lower classes to avoid doom: denying pleasure to the poor as a way of averting catastrophe is not without precedent.)

Malthus had made some critical conceptual mistakes. First, his mathematical projections had underestimated the complexity of human behaviour.

Population did not go on increasing at the same rate: it responded to economic and social conditions. But, more important, he had discounted the force of ingenuity in finding ways to increase food supply.

The introduction of intensive-farming methods and the invention of pesticides transformed what he had assumed would be the simple, fixed relation between numbers of people and amount of resource.

He had extrapolated from the contemporary figures what seemed to be a sound prediction without allowing for the possibility that inventiveness and innovation might alter the picture in unimaginable ways.

Warnings of catastrophe come and go: whatever their validity, we cannot and should not ask people to go back to a more restricted and burdened way of life."

[ahinton]

Some good and sensible points have been made here.

The questions of (a) the extent to which "global warming" will affect which parts of the world and when and (b) how such warming will have been caused are obviously serious ones to be addressed first and foremost by those with the appropriate qualifications and expertise to enable them (hopefully) to be relied upon to come up with sensible and trustworthy answers.

There seems little doubt that certain areas of human activity may contribute to this climate change but far more doubt as to what proportion of it is so caused and what proportion due to "natural causes", i.e. those not directly affected by human activity.

The doomsayers and eco-fascists have golden opportunities here to breathe ample alarmist hot air (which they shouldn't, if for no better reason than that such hot breath in not carbon dioxide free) - and, boy, aren't they using them! All too much of this is about exerting dictatorial power and interfering in the lives of others far more than it is about serious consideration of the issues themselves.

It is not all nonsense based, however. The world has depended for far too long on oil-based and other fossil fuels; had sufficient funds been directed instead towards alternative renewable energy sources - especially solar power - and had such research resulted in far more widespread use of such sources to make electricity - the eco-fascist lobbies would have had to quieten down and concentrate instead on other issues such as the much-vaunted and largely suspicious business of recycling of materials, with its grave doubts cost-wise and healthwise. There is no obvious evidence to suggest that the world's fossil fuel resources are likely to run out in the near future, even at exponentially increasing levels of global use, but, as well we know, oil and its by-products is a politically sensitive and increasingly risky matter in an incresing number of oil-producing territories, a fact which alone points to there being ample good reason to try to make other kinds of energy work besides the purely environmental ones persistently trotted out by the eco-warriors.

In the UK, our so-called government appear to love nothing more than to find something else to tax and then tax it; so-called environmental taxation is a cop-out that offers not the slightest shred of a realistic solution to any problems, real or perceived, since the most that it could hope to achieve is to (a) garner yet further revenues from the well-off who can afford to pay the new taxes and continue acting as before, (b) punish the less well-off and (c) invite accountants and lawyers to charge even more for their services in assisting their better-off clients to minimise or avoid such taxes. The same tax-obsessed UK government does far too little to offer decent tax breaks to people who try to use more environmentally-friendly energy sources. I have personally investigated the possibilities of using solar-photovoltaic to generate electricity for my own use but at present the technology is insufficiently far advanced and the installation costs prohibitive - but I'm keeping my eyes open on this.

The US Department of Energy is sponsoring research into alternative sources of power; this makes a great deal more constructive good sense than pursuing the attitude of "if it moves, tax it".

So - as far as fuel use is concerned - we should not be expected to reduce our demands but to direct and use them in more sensible and practical ways. The Daily Telegraph article is not scientifically based but does make some good points nevertheless. If humanity is to progress, the human race should find more effective ways to garner and use the earth's resources rather than allow itself to be bludgeoned by the noisy environmentalist do-gooders into retrating into the dark ages, with all the disease and other risks that such retreat would almost certainly entail.

I am at least as concerned about so-called "democratic" (i.e. elected) governments using any excuse and none for their rampant endeavours to increase their intereference in the lives of their electorates and to exert more and more control over them as I am in the possible effects of global warming.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

In the UK, our so-called government appear to love nothing more than to find something else to tax and then tax it; so-called environmental taxation is a cop-out that offers not the slightest shred of a realistic solution to any problems, real or perceived, since the most that it could hope to achieve is to (a) garner yet further revenues from the well-off who can afford to pay the new taxes and continue acting as before, (b) punish the less well-off and (c) invite accountants and lawyers to charge even more for their services in assisting their better-off clients to minimise or avoid such taxes.

..

I am at least as concerned about so-called "democratic" (i.e. elected) governments using any excuse and none for their rampant endeavours to increase their intereference in the lives of their electorates and to exert more and more control over them as I am in the possible effects of global warming.

Could not agree more. Our goverment has, as per usual, hijacked a serious issue in order to exploit it as a fresh source of tax revenue (to prop up "unforeseen" expenditure like going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and propping up the failing accountancy trick that is PFI.)

Incidentally, facetious as it might sound, one of the prime sources of greenhouse gas production is bovine flatulence (so much so that I'm sure I read somewhere that the New Zealand government, in a move that Gordon Brown would be proud of, were considering a tax on it!).

[ahinton]

Our goverment has, as per usual, hijacked a serious issue in order to exploit it as a fresh source of tax revenue (to prop up "unforeseen" expenditure like going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and propping up the failing accountancy trick that is PFI.)

Absolutely correct. This is a factor that has been raised on numerous occasions by those who deprecate these new taxes, in that there is not the remotest guarantee that the revenue generated by them will be directed at research and development of other power sources, etc.

Incidentally, facetious as it might sound, one of the prime sources of greenhouse gas production is bovine flatulence (so much so that I'm sure I read somewhere that the New Zealand government, in a move that Gordon Brown would be proud of, were considering a tax on it!).

Since it does indeed sound facetious, I cannot resist suggesting that it must also be wrong, in that the hot air and flatulence generated by the UK government alone must surely be far more environmentally damaging.

On another front, I referred in another thread some time ago to the abandonment by General Motors (US) of the EV1 car not long before it would otherwise have been released commercially, on the alleged grounds of its likely commercial unviability due to the inevitable high price-tag. This was a disastrous move that has cost the already financially unstable General Motors an enormous sum of money which it can never recover. Whilst its initial price-tag would indeed have made it a rich person's plaything in the early days, the very same was once said about the personal computer and now look what's happened; in other words, if everyone wants one, the price would crash and both the air pollution and the greenhouse gas emissions would reduce considerably. I seem to remember that I also mentioned that, in an EV12 Mk II, it would have been possible for solar panels to contribute towards the electricity used - and those owners who use or have access to a domestic solar generated electricity supply would be able to recharge their cars from these.

Whilst solar energy is not the only solution (nor would it be practical everywhere in the world), it would appear to have far more wide-reaching beneficial effects than other "alternative" energy sources such as geothermal, wind and sea power.

Can you just imagine how the so-called "dark green" eco-fundamentalist killjoys would react to the prospect of a solar-powered plane?! OK, I admit that this is quite a long way off in all probability, since solar panel efficiency would have to improve vastly for this to become a practical possibility, but let's not forget that airborne planes have pretty good access to sunlight!

You mention Gordon Brown; appalling as much of his record as UK Chancellor of the Exchequer has undoubtedly been, he is not lacking in intelligence, so one wonders all the more why he either can't or won't see - and help to promote and encourage - practical ways forward in these issues.

Best,

Alistair

[rc]

Each year as I pay my taxes, I pay more attention to how the government is spending our money I become more of a supporter of a free market because of how wasteful the goverment can be.  Now when I watch the global warming in the news and the loads of documentaries released, I can't help but wonder who is profitting from this?

[prometheus]

I rather waste my money trying to prevent the destruction of the enviroment, which is a fact and very important issue rather than having my money wasted on arms used to kill innocent people.

The whole question is if money spend on the enviroment is a efficient selfish decision.

Not for me. I don't care about if it will pay off and if it will safe money in the end.

I am amazed by those people that are still afraid their money is 'wasted' on enviromental issue while it actually seems that it is actually in our own interest to do so.

Isn't the money you spend on a piano wasted? I mean, you learn to play piano. And then you die. Wasted money. No?

I don't see why 'wasting money' preventing the destruction of the enviroment is worse than the other ways we waste money.

And them we actually know that money spend on enviromental issues actually have a big chance of saving more money than is spend.

Amazing. Humans are amazing creatures indeed.

[mycrabface]

There's obviously uncontrollable global warming whether you like it or not, and whether you want to change it or not. Man being so selfish. Man deserve to die.

[prometheus]

If there is global warming occuring independent of the actions of mankind then we are making it worse. So we can 'control' it in that sense. So instead of strenthening climate change we maybe should be trying to stop it. Or at least stopping making it worse.

Or even if we shouldn't do anything about the climate itself. We should stop disrupting those parts of nature that will be hit by climate change the worst and that are already greatly damaged and weakened by human's reconstruction of the whole planet.

Because that is what has already happened. Mankind has basically reformed the entire planet. There is not much land on earth that has been untouched by mankind.

Even the places we rarely or never come, like oceans, Antartica, deserts and mountains, have been greatly influenced by man.

[mycrabface]

If there is global warming occuring independent of the actions of mankind then we are making it worse. So we can 'control' it in that sense. So instead of strenthening climate change we maybe should be trying to stop it. Or at least stopping making it worse.

People have tried. Hence my statement on man being selfish. Hey lookie, america refused to sign some industrial agreement right? the what protocol? Man. Typical man.

[prometheus]

No. That's just the American government.

Bush voters thought Bush supported Kyoto.

Bush is a nice guy->We like to have a drink with Bush, he's a cool guy->Bush supports Kyoto->I will vote Bush


Cities and states in the US are now supporting Kyoto independent of their government.

Sadly China refused to sign Kyoto after the US refused to do so.


If it were up to the American people the US would have signed Kyoto for sure. Dispite the propaganda campaign against the scientific concensus.

[ahinton]

If there is global warming occuring independent of the actions of mankind then we are making it worse. So we can 'control' it in that sense. So instead of strenthening climate change we maybe should be trying to stop it. Or at least stopping making it worse.

Or even if we shouldn't do anything about the climate itself. We should stop disrupting those parts of nature that will be hit by climate change the worst and that are already greatly damaged and weakened by human's reconstruction of the whole planet.

Because that is what has already happened. Mankind has basically reformed the entire planet. There is not much land on earth that has been untouched by mankind.

Even the places we rarely or never come, like oceans, Antartica, deserts and mountains, have been greatly influenced by man.

It may indeed be the case that certain human activity is enhancing climate change but, if one is to take such a notion seriously and approach it constructively, one must first ascertain which human activities, where and for how long and then balance their consequences against similar climatic metamorphoses caused other than by human activities before even beginning to figure out what passive and active steps humans could take, i.e. passively by ceasing or reducing any damaging parts of their activities and actively by indulging in other activities that might affect climate change positively.

This is by no means a straightforward issue, any more than its most appropriate solutions can be easily found. Only trustworthy climatologists, geologists, meterologists, physicists, chemists, etc. will be able to tell us the history and current facts as they can best see them. In the meantime, we do know that the earth has undergone a good deal of climate change unprompted by humankind over thousands of millennia, so it is at least certain that not all climate change can be ascribed to human activity.

Of course we should be using our brains in order to figure out whether anything positive can be done and, if so, what, where and when; humans owe it to themselves to do no less. That said, there is little point in trying to adopt semi-arbitrary belt-and-braces "solutions" unless and until the precise nature and degree of seriousness of the problem is ascertained with certainty.

There are also different problems, each of different seriousness to different geographical areas, associated in people's minds with climate change. The melting of the polar ice-caps will clearly raise the general water table and island nations such as the Maldives may disappear completely; to a Maldivian, that is fairly obviously a rather more serious prospect than the worsening of the harmful effects of air pollution over major cities. That said, there appears little if any evidence that steps to overcome one climate change problem are likely to make another one any worse.

The problem with some of the eco-fascists is that they preach that (a) all climate change is bad and caused exclusively by human errors, omissions, misjudgements and selfish greed and that (b) the only ways to combat its adverse consequnces is for humans to use less of the earth's resources and expect less from the earth than they do now. The problem with this attitude is that, if realised universally, its worst consequnces would be far less travel and communication, more starvation and malnutrition and a general worsening in human health and lifespan to the point that the populations of the world's richer countries would be reduced to the kind of poverty already experienced by some of its poorest - and all in order to "save the planet". Such a viewpoint might well make evangelical sense, but it certainly fails to stand up either to the laws of human decency or to scientific scrutiny. If we all travel less, eat less, farm less, manufacture less, etc., we will make no progress at all - rather the reverse, in fact. To say so is not at all to exonerate humankind from blame here, for human scientific progress should already have ensured that we have this problem covered before it becomes a problem - and this is, as we know, not the case.

I know that the fuel and energy issue is by no means the only one under consideration here, but I have written abit about that already and there seems little doubt that the more widespread use of non-fossil fuels for energy production might help to reduce the overall problem to some degree (although I cannot say to what extent); this requires no some kind of abject sacrifice of activity but sound scientific research into the development of such power sources so that they can increasingly be brought into general use.

Of course mankind has "reformed" the planet to some extent - but we must at the same time not forget that the planet has also been "reforming" itself; what mankind should be doing is ensuring that its "reforms" are constructive and sustainable as far as possible.

Best,

Alistair

[assante]

here in Montreal, it's also been amazingly warm.
I talked with a meteorologist from Environment Canada and he told me they have no explanations for this weather.
Yeah, we're going towards a global warming, but this is not the reason for the present temperatures we're ( in my case) enjoying. El Nino is one cause, blocking cold arctic air from coming down on us. Good, stay up there, the North Pole should keep all the cold it can, otherwise no more polar bears .
Meanwhile i went mountain biking up in the mountain here. The trails were just like in October, amazing.
The downer is i can't do any Xcountry skiing which i'm also addicted to .

[pianistimo]

yes.  in pennsylvania the grass has been GREEN all winter.  in fact, our neighbors grass actually needs mowing - and it's january!  it grew in december and early january.  that is really wild. 

i'm just wondering if this kind of weather makes for bigger bugs?  we have  drainage basin kitty corner to the back of our home and i've been making sure it actually drains and doesn't turn into a lake.  we'd have so many mosquitos and bugs from it.  they seem to like to lay eggs on grass that is tall - so keeping it mowed down and the water out of it makes for a much better environment.  here in pa - there are two things to watch out for - lyme disease from white tailed deer who leave ticks on the underbrush that people can rub into - and mosquitos that carry west nile virus sometimes (from infected birds?).  anyways

myhusband and i have taken to cutting down the underbrush that is tangled and thick in places around in the back between the trees and turning under the dead limbs (shredding into wood chips first) and cutting all the tree limbs up to a certain height (actually making the tops of the trees healthier).  anyways - besides that - and making sure that there is no sitting water - hopefully there won't be that many bugs to contend with.

we had some big spiders a couple of years ago in the basement.  i think we left the sliding doors open and they walked in.  being that i lived in lancaster before - i didn't freak out.  just take the phone book and drop it on them.

[term]

It may indeed be the case that certain human activity is enhancing climate change but, if one is to take such a notion seriously and approach it constructively, one must first ascertain which human activities, where and for how long and then balance their consequences against similar climatic metamorphoses caused other than by human activities before even beginning to figure out what passive and active steps humans could take, i.e. passively by ceasing or reducing any damaging parts of their activities and actively by indulging in other activities that might affect climate change positively.

I agree. I just want to correct the "it may indeed be the case"...it is fact.

This is by no means a straightforward issue, any more than its most appropriate solutions can be easily found. Only trustworthy climatologists, geologists, meterologists, physicists, chemists, etc. will be able to tell us the history and current facts as they can best see them. In the meantime, we do know that the earth has undergone a good deal of climate change unprompted by humankind over thousands of millennia, so it is at least certain that not all climate change can be ascribed to human activity.

You ignore the timeframe. Small (!!) parts of mankind are industrialized since about 150 years + - and most damage to the environment has been done within the past 50 years or so.
What is that to earth? nothing. The natural cyclic change of climate takes a looong time. Under no circumstances can the global warming have any natural reason, because within such a small time such a big system like the earth's climate does not change that dramatically.
Check out "An inconvenient truth" for some proven facts, gore adresses exactly this problem.

Of course we should be using our brains in order to figure out whether anything positive can be done and, if so, what, where and when; humans owe it to themselves to do no less. That said, there is little point in trying to adopt semi-arbitrary belt-and-braces "solutions" unless and until the precise nature and degree of seriousness of the problem is ascertained with certainty.

I strongly disagree. I don't think we have time to do this. We had time the past fifty years (that problem is not new at all), even more, but thats over. I'm not a friend of "lets talk, lets analyze, lets look at these statistics blabla".
I think people have talked enough, we know the facts, we know that problem is not new, and we know solutions. Yes we know a lot of things. Are we doing something? No. I say no because what is done until now is not even 1% of what is needed and there is very little time until the whole situation is getting really ugly...

There are also different problems, each of different seriousness to different geographical areas, associated in people's minds with climate change. The melting of the polar ice-caps will clearly raise the general water table and island nations such as the Maldives may disappear completely; to a Maldivian, that is fairly obviously a rather more serious prospect than the worsening of the harmful effects of air pollution over major cities. That said, there appears little if any evidence that steps to overcome one climate change problem are likely to make another one any worse.

Well pollution of air and the melting of the polar ice caps are not symptoms of the same problem, but the melting is caused by pollution.

The problem with some of the eco-fascists is that they preach that (a) all climate change is bad and caused exclusively by human errors, omissions, misjudgements and selfish greed and that (b) the only ways to combat its adverse consequnces is for humans to use less of the earth's resources and expect less from the earth than they do now. The problem with this attitude is that, if realised universally, its worst consequnces would be far less travel and communication, more starvation and malnutrition and a general worsening in human health and lifespan to the point that the populations of the world's richer countries would be reduced to the kind of poverty already experienced by some of its poorest - and all in order to "save the planet". Such a viewpoint might well make evangelical sense, but it certainly fails to stand up either to the laws of human decency or to scientific scrutiny. If we all travel less, eat less, farm less, manufacture less, etc., we will make no progress at all - rather the reverse, in fact. To say so is not at all to exonerate humankind from blame here, for human scientific progress should already have ensured that we have this problem covered before it becomes a problem - and this is, as we know, not the case.

Manufacturing less would not be good. But is extreme mass consumption good?
People (in the western world...) do not realize that the earth has limited resources, they are used to get anything at any quantity. This attitude *has* to be changed. But not only the attitude.

There are more than 6.000.000.000 people on this planet and the number is growing. Earth cannot support so many people, and you have to consider that only a rather small number (the industrialized world) is causing most of these problems. At our current level of development and for the next centuries it will not be possible for mankind to live in balance with earth, not even to a certain degree.

Concerning global warming, i think we have no reason to underestimate this problem. Saving the environment is not a bad thing, i think everybody agrees here. Even if sometimes "experts", or tv, or newspapers etc. exaggerate with the consequences (they're actually just looking farther into the future), sometimes that's necessary to draw peoples attention on this problem - they're not doing anything bad, they are not misinforming anybody. Yes people know about global warming, but they do not care. Shocking them with horror-consequences is obviously necessary in order to wake them up, because they won't like it when the situation becomes so bad that they experience serious consequences in their peaceful little world where - right now - no climate change is visible. (ok air pollution, but who cares, we got used to it).
Global warming is a crucial issue for mankind.

[pianistimo]

term, we agree on this fundamental issue of 'taking care of the environment' and the dire consequences that are already happening for not taking care as much as we possibly could a bit sooner.

of course, unless you are amish, you're probably not going to give up your car.  but, the hybrids are a good idea, i think.  i mean - if you can get a car to run on corn oil for a certain % of it's gas - and not get stuck somewhere's because of it...great!  AND, there's tax incentives in place now for buying hybrids.  i think there's a government site that allows you to deduct a certain percentage of the cost for buying them.  and, i believe also for skylights and things that heat places with solar energy. 

it's really a magnificent time for people with imaginations to start using them to the environment's benefit.  but, as you say - when certain conditions start a 'roll' then it's probably not going to be reversed - but simply slowed down.

i think every day - everyone has a part to play with the environment.  one of the simplest things is to not put too much pesticides everywhere.  birds and animals become exposed to it and it really doesn't promote as much as it inhibits.  as you say - if we are only concerned about the amounts of produce produced - then we can have lots of produce but depleted soil and unhealthy environments for future generations.

after living in pennsylvania awhile - i really see the benefits of organic gardening and how things really taste great and look great and you don't have to eat A LOT of a good thing.  you have a very good piece of corn, for instance - you're not hungry to eat so much of it because what you had is really good.  your body is getting the nutrients from the food.  same with livestock.  i mean - if you have eggs  from chickens that are free range - they taste 100% better.  you may not have as many eggs at first - because the chickens need time to get themselves healthy - but in the end the eggs are much better quality.  same for fast grown meat.  i'm not really into meat market anyways because i think that a diet should be mostly vegetarian to be really healthy.  but, in any case- the hormones that are pumped into beef is just making them grow fast.  not making the beef taste better.  i'd rather have it take longer.  the cows healthier.  and perhaps not even eat beef at all - when it comes right down to it.  also, their milk is probably better w/out hormones. 

i feel the same way about too much vaccination, too much anti-biotics, too much of anything.  it's man's way of saying 'we know better.'  but, do we?  i think we have to look at the natural cycles that are already here and 'go with the flow' better.  realizing how everything is interconnected.  water especially!  to not pollute water if at all possible.  this means using less detergents and things that pollute the water and making them more environmentally sound.  and, DIAPERS!  i think there is a diaper company that recycles newspaper or something.  i read about something and thought - wow - it's about time.  i mean how many diapers do new mom's go through in the first 4 weeks.  8 a day or something?  diaper LINERS are great!  you just throw the liner and keep the diaper.

[ahinton]

You ignore the timeframe. Small (!!) parts of mankind are industrialized since about 150 years + - and most damage to the environment has been done within the past 50 years or so.
What is that to earth? nothing. The natural cyclic change of climate takes a looong time. Under no circumstances can the global warming have any natural reason, because within such a small time such a big system like the earth's climate does not change that dramatically.

I do not "ignore the time frame" at all; I simply recognise that the earth has continued to undergo natural climate and other drastic and not-so-drastic physical changes over many millennia without the intervention of mankind, as well as those more recent ones in which mankind is said to have had a hand. Your indirect reference to the effects of the industrial revolution is, of course, correct and relevant, but just because certain "naturally occurring" changes to the structure, climate, etc. of our planet did indeed, as you rightly say, occur over long periods of time, they did not all do that, so there is no real reason to complain that, just because some of these may now appear to be occurring faster and more frequently, it's necessarily all humankind's fault.

I'm not a friend of "lets talk, lets analyze, lets look at these statistics blabla".
I think people have talked enough, we know the facts, we know that problem is not new, and we know solutions. Yes we know a lot of things. Are we doing something? No. I say no because what is done until now is not even 1% of what is needed and there is very little time until the whole situation is getting really ugly.

I think that what we agree on here is that nothing that we could possibly hope to do now is going to make any significant material difference for unlimited generations to come, for the vast majority of the damage is already done and is continuing to be done at a far faster rate than that at which it could hope to be undone - and, as I have already indicated, not only by human hand.

Well pollution of air and the melting of the polar ice caps are not symptoms of the same problem, but the melting is caused by pollution.Manufacturing less would not be good. But is extreme mass consumption good?

Who should determine what consititues "extreme" in this context? "Mass consumption" will always continue to increase as long as research continues to be done - this applies as much to organic farming as it does to microchip manufacture, at least in principle. We as a race (human, that is) will always work towards things that might have been considered "extremes" to previous generations; that is human nature and the way things work. Music has functioned just like that - not in the sense that one generation of composers undermines earlier ones but in the far more powerful sense that one generation of composers jumps off what the past one has achieved and continues always, always to go farther. As in music, so in every other human activity - and this will continue to be so as long as at least one human still exists. Just think of the "extreme" speeds at which Alkan, for example, wanted some of his music to go; never mind for a moment the problems this may have caused for pianists - what about the psychological effects on listeners? And since his day we have had the idea of several speeds at once, as well as speed conflicts - not just in living composers like Elliott Carter (who has, de temps en temps, been preoccupied with such notions) but in the later symphonies of Sibelius. I have even explored this kind of thing (albeit not at all deliberately or even consciously) in my own Sieben Charakterstücke for piano in which, in places, certain quotations react with and against one another - and with and against non-quoted material - to the point where the music itself might at times seem to be relatively slow yet the interactive melding of quotation and non-quotation at the same time begins to assume concurrent tempi all its own. This kind of thing would have been unheard of in the early days of the industrial revolution but is now far more commonplace, not only in music but elsewhere in life - multi-tasking, multiplicities of concurrent linguistic expression, multiple connotations and the rest might even be seen as paralleling the "faster weather" to which more and more countries are becoming accustomed - i.e. not only "warming" but the dissolution and fragmentation of traditionally accepted climatic "seasons" in favour of situations wherein temperatures, rainfall, wind speeds and the rest change with ever-increasing frequency and violence.

People (in the western world...) do not realize that the earth has limited resources, they are used to get anything at any quantity. This attitude *has* to be changed. But not only the attitude.

No. As I mentioned previously, it is far less a case of limited and potentially inadequate resources per se as one of politically sensitive issues that may (and indeed do) risk potential imposition on the availability of certain resources; in other words, the world as a whole is almost certainly not "short of oil" as such, but may be or become short of immediate, direct and unfettered access to it for numerous reasons in various politically unstable and sensitive oil producing areas.

There are more than 6.000.000.000 people on this planet and the number is growing. Earth cannot support so many people, and you have to consider that only a rather small number (the industrialized world) is causing most of these problems. At our current level of development and for the next centuries it will not be possible for mankind to live in balance with earth, not even to a certain degree.

I used to think that this was true and certainly Malthus promulgated such a notion more than two centuries ago, but I do not believe that he got it all right and am accordingly by no means certain of this argument any longer (see above).

Concerning global warming, i think we have no reason to underestimate this problem. Saving the environment is not a bad thing, i think everybody agrees here. Even if sometimes "experts", or tv, or newspapers etc. exaggerate with the consequences (they're actually just looking farther into the future), sometimes that's necessary to draw peoples attention on this problem - they're not doing anything bad, they are not misinforming anybody. Yes people know about global warming, but they do not care. Shocking them with horror-consequences is obviously necessary in order to wake them up, because they won't like it when the situation becomes so bad that they experience serious consequences in their peaceful little world where - right now - no climate change is visible. (ok air pollution, but who cares, we got used to it).
Global warming is a crucial issue for mankind.

Not everyone has gotten used to air pollution, fortunately. However, your point that global warming is indeed a "crucial issue for mankind" is undeniable, I think - as long as that very humankind does not then respond to it abjectly by saying either that it's all someone else's fault or no-one's fault at all, but instead addresses in practical terms how it should best be approached. As I have said, in my view, that approach should not be to fake some kind of return to the dark ages of pre-industrialism (for this would in any case be impossible - what's done's done - and anyone who stops doing it will always and inevitably be up against the next person who doesn't stop - as Robert Simpson said, we can no longer listen to Bach as people did in Bach's day, as we have ears that have listened to Xenakis), but to consider what we can sensibly and usefully do to address it and ameliorate its possible adverse effects by using human ingenuity in order that humanity can continue to progress and use more and more of everything that is worth using without depleting resources. This is possible. One has only to consider, for example, the development of battery technology (which itself could have been even greater had the oil industry not tried to curtail it over decades) to recognise that personal production and use of electrical supply need not necessarily be a long way off, for all that it would - and hopefully will - serve to compromise certain of the obsessively controlling interests of big governments and international industrial corporations.

It's not a case of "less is more"; it's one of "more is better", provided that it's the right kind of "more" - and that means something not so easily controlled by the big boys...

Best,

Alistair

[rc]

I don't see why 'wasting money' preventing the destruction of the enviroment is worse than the other ways we waste money.

lol, somehow I thought my comments might send you into a tizzy .

Well I think you misunderstand me again.  I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything, all I was referring to is how the government will waste money.  Let me clarify for you...

There are a lot of organizations that capitalize off of moralistic ideals, like giving money to a charity - how much of each dollar is going to starving children, and how much is going to the people working for the charity, the commercials they run, and all the marketing they have?  I'm highly suspicious of some charities, when they start to look more like a for-profit business...  I briefly saw a documentary on TV that told of how millions of dollars in aid for rebuilding Iraq was completely sqandered....   I see a lot of completely useless research findings popping up from time to time "a new study shows that soda pop is unhealthy!", and it occurs to me that there are many scientists out there who have a concern for job security.  I think there are many who would like to keep government grants coming in.

I'm not saying everything is like this, my point is there are shysters out there making waste.

What is important about this money?

What it represents is work, which takes energy.  $1M tax dollars must represent a lot of people driving to and from work each day.  I can only speak for myself, but of course I must make selfish decisions, I need to make money to survive in this world.  What it means to me when money is wasted is those are tax dollars I didn't have to pay, and when at the end of the year I owe $3000, what that means to me is about a month of driving to and from work every day...  We'll estimate that to 2 tanks of gas.

Extrapolate that by a couple hundred million people and you'll see we're actually on the same page.  Waste is waste, I happen to measure it in dollars.  Effeciency is what we want, and that's where economy and ecology are in agreement.  If I can reduce my power consumption, it's less emissions for the environment and I also save money when the bills come in (meaning perhaps a few days work worth, where instead of driving across the city I can perhaps practice piano).

So I'm tired of hearing the same thing over and over.  Mr.Hinton makes a good point that it could have to do with natural phenomena, and that there's really no way we could get the industrialized world to give up their way of life (short of catastrohpe perhaps, which will happen if the doomsayers are right). 

Despite all the controversy over the issue, I'm not seeing many solutions.  On one documentary I've learned that having electronics on standby still consumes a lot of power, so I unplug some of them when not in use.  I do what I can to reduce my personal consumption, not only for environmental reasons but also (mostly) to save myself days at work.

When I look at the general excessive consumption of the western world what I see is spiritual deprivation, the hole in our culture is the backasswardsness of values.  I'm not saying necessarily religion or any such, but I find that pretty much any spiritual teaching fills the hole nicely, one could call it philosophy if that's preferred.  What I mean is the overall emptyness and misery of pop culture, which big business likes to encourage so they can sell people crap they don't need.  I can't help but think that if more people could prioritize their lives better they could achieve more happiness, materialism would not be a concern and a lot of waste.  But I also know it's useless to preach unless I practice, so I worry about myself first.

From my latest exporation, taoism:

46. MODERATING DESIRE AND AMBITION
When the way of nature is observed,
all things serve their function;
horses drawing carts, and pulling at the plough.
But when the natural way is not observed,
horses are bred for battle and for war.
Desire and wanting cause discontent,
whilst he who knows sufficiency
more easily has what he requires.

[pianistimo]

that's a biblical concept, too, btw.  something about Godliness with contentment is great gain.  and, the idea that if you give you will get back with the same generosity.  it is said that He fills our cup 'overflowing.'  seems to me that you can't outgive God.  especially if you are truly concerned for others welfare.  He always makes sure your needs are met. 

wants are different.  they all depend on many factors.  one is preparing yourself for life (by getting an education) and  another is on how smart you work.  you can waste time and not make as much money by doing things in a less efficient manner.  i've noticed that really smart people tend to go straight for the jugler vein of employment.  what makes the money.  then, at tax time - same thing - what saves you the money.  obviously, it's all the things that you are allowed to deduct. 

another thing i've noticed is that things are changing at a faster pace than they used to - so comparative analysis is best done twice a year instead of once a year now.  insurance, banks, credit cards, fuel efficiency of cars, etc. etc.  sometimes the extra effort is worth the work in the end.  it's a lot of paperwork sometimes - but the efforts show the companies that you are on top of your finances and don't just let them 'take over' your accounts without you knowing what is going on. 

one little thing that i think is nice is birdfeeders.  i mean, it might be a small things to us - but have you ever seen a little bird party after you fill the birdfeeder.  they start saying 'thank you' while you're filling it - and then chirp away so happily until it's all gone again.  if nothing else - it staves off the environmental sadness of seeing dead animals along roads and highways.  i mean - if i didn't have children- i'd try to be out there rescuing them off the roads.  they shouldn't be run over 1000 times.  if they were human - they'd be rescued right away.

[mycrabface]

No. That's just the American government.

Bush voters thought Bush supported Kyoto.

Bush is a nice guy->We like to have a drink with Bush, he's a cool guy->Bush supports Kyoto->I will vote Bush


Cities and states in the US are now supporting Kyoto independent of their government.

Sadly China refused to sign Kyoto after the US refused to do so.


If it were up to the American people the US would have signed Kyoto for sure. Dispite the propaganda campaign against the scientific concensus.

Did you do that on purpose? I'm not from China!

[cmg]

Just yesterday, and as reported in The New York Times today, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration finally reported that the current warming-trend in the US is linked to "human activity" and for the first time mentioned that the link is human creation of "greenhouse gases."

This is a landmark announcement over here since this agency has actually been suppressing climate-study information for years now -- to support those opposed to expensive environmental protection laws.  But 2006 has been the warmest year on record for the US and atmospheric studies conclusively prove greenhouse gases are one of the causes.  The agency has been forced to admit to the existence of this data.

[term]

Uh...difficult for me to understand this concerning the language but i'll try  ^^

I do not "ignore the time frame" at all; I simply recognise that the earth has continued to undergo natural climate and other drastic and not-so-drastic physical changes over many millennia without the intervention of mankind, as well os those more recent ones in which mankind is said to have had a hand. Your indirect reference to the effects of the industrial revolution is, of course, correct and relevant, but just because certain "naturally occurring" changes to the structure, climate, etc. of our planet did indeed, as you rightly say, occur over long periods of time, they did not all do that, so there is no real reason to complain that, just because some of these may now appear to be occurring faster and more frequently, it's necessarily all humankind's fault.

Well do you have facts/arguments/sources for this? (I refer to "but just because certain "naturally occurring" changes to the structure, climate, etc. of our planet did indeed, as you rightly say, occur over long periods of time, they did not all do that")
I never heard of this and from a logical point of view this does not make sense to me.
Asteroids etc don't count, of course.
Could you also explain what reasons/sources you have to believe that such a "fast climate change" is happening right now? And how do you differentiate it from the effects of the industrialization, how much of this is actually caused by nature, etc...
This sounds extremely vague to me, you just say it is not necessarily the fault of humans but no arguments here. This is just an assumption. And, most importantly, this is simply too much of a coincidence that such a period of fast climate change happens to be in the same time when humans started to industrialize (which only was 150 years which is, as we know, nothing to earth). 
Concerning this coincidence, it would be necessary to have *facts* about these fast climate changes and to know how often they occured in the past and what caused them, if you want to eliminate the possibility of a coincidence.
There's also another aspect: When did that start? Did it start before industrialization? Why did mankind then not experience increasing temperatures already...a century ago? Or did it start after industrial revolution?
...

Who should determine what consititues "extreme" in this context? "Mass consumption" will always continue to increase as long as research continues to be done - this applies as much to organic farming as it does to microchip manufacture, at least in principle. We as a race (human, that is) will always work towards things that might have been considered "extremes" to previous generations; that is human nature and the way things work.

I'm not talking about that. I don't know how to explain better (also language difficulties...)...i mean the attitude of the western world, to consume even if it is not needed, to buy more than you need (eating more, changing mobile phones often, buying more clothes than needed, etc etc etc). Our system today works with that. Advertising is only made to make people want all these products and to buy them, because selling more = making more money (and that's what it's all about  ) - whether people need it or not is completely irrelevant to industry.
Undoubtedly this is extreme and *needs* to be reduced to a normal level. It does cause significantly more damage to the environment. (Just an example: 10.000 l of water is needed to produce 1 mobile phone...)

No. As I mentioned previously, it is far less a case of limited and potentially inadequate resources per se as one of politically sensitive issues that may (and indeed do) risk potential imposition on the bility of certain resources; in other words, the world as a whole is almost certainly not "short of oil" as such, but may be or become short of immediate, direct and unfettered access to it for numerous reasons in various politically unstable and sensitive oil producing areas.

Concerning the oil, I've heard different arguments but I'm not 100% sure on this...i will look it up for some facts. I don't believe there are only political reasons for oil shortage (certainly that is also an issue), the world does consume huge amounts of oil and people are constantly looking for new oil fields (=> Southpole, Alaska) as old ones run short. But as i said, i'll read something about this...

I used to think that this was true and certainly Malthus promulgated such a notion more than two centuries ago, but I do not believe that he got it all right and am accordingly by no means certain of this argument any longer (see above).

Unfortunately, our posts are pretty long anyway so i think we should skip that issue^^

Not everyone has gotten used to air pollution, fortunately.

What i meant is that we accept it. ^^

However, your point that global warming is indeed a "crucial issue for mankind" is undeniable, I think - as long as that very humankind does not then respond to it abjectly by saying either that it's all someone else's fault or no-one's fault at all, but instead addresses in practical terms how it should best be approached. As I have said, in my view, that approach should not be to fake some kind of return to the dark ages of pre-industrialism (for this would in any case be impossible - what's done's done - and anyone who stops doing it will always and inevitably be up against the next person who doesn't stop - as Robert Simpson said, we can't any longer listen to Bach without the ears tha have listened to Xenakis), but to consider what we can sensibly and usefully do to address it and ameliorate its possible adverse effects by using human ingenuity in order that humanity can continue to progress and use more and more of everything that is worth using without depleting resources. This is possible. One has only to consider, for example, the development of battery technology (which itself could have been even greater had the oil industry not tried to curtail it over decades) to recognise that personal production and use of electrical supply need not necessarily be a long way off, for all that it would - and hopefully will - serve to compromise certain of the obsessibely controlling interests of big governments and international industrial corporations.

Yes, I agree on this and do not doubt it. There is no way back - progress in science caused global warming, more progress is the only way to overcome the problem.

[cmg]

it is said that He fills our cup 'overflowing.'  seems to me that you can't outgive God.  especially if you are truly concerned for others welfare.  He always makes sure your needs are met. 

AGNOSTIC and ATHEIST PARENTAL ADVISORY!!!!

This thread contains gratuitous mentionings of the Deity which may affend some readers.  Parents are strongly cautioned.

[prometheus]

Did you do that on purpose? I'm not from China!

Many people put the blame on China, the second biggest polluter.

[ahinton]

Well do you have facts/arguments/sources for this? (I refer to "but just because certain "naturally occurring" changes to the structure, climate, etc. of our planet did indeed, as you rightly say, occur over long periods of time, they did not all do that")
I never heard of this and from a logical point of view this does not make sense to me.
Asteroids etc don't count, of course.
Could you also explain what reasons/sources you have to believe that such a "fast climate change" is happening right now? And how do you differentiate it from the effects of the industrialization, how much of this is actually caused by nature, etc...
This sounds extremely vague to me, you just say it is not necessarily the fault of humans but no arguments here. This is just an assumption.

As I do not have to hand precise evidence for the causes of all the changes in climatic conditions on earth since it first formed millions of years ago, I accept that what I have written is of necessity somewhat generalised and not obviously supported by specific detailed data; all I was observing, however, was that we do know that substantial climate changes and land mass movements have occurred on earth over millennia and that most of these have not been caused by human intervention. I think that it is generally accepted that those who ascribe such human intervention to climate change are referring only to climate change since the industrial revolution, since most such folk blame rampant industrialisation and capitalism for many of the world's ills, not least climate change.

And, most importantly, this is simply too much of a coincidence that such a period of fast climate change happens to be in the same time when humans started to industrialize (which only was 150 years which is, as we know, nothing to earth). 
Concerning this coincidence, it would be necessary to have *facts* about these fast climate changes and to know how often they occured in the past and what caused them, if you want to eliminate the possibility of a coincidence.
There's also another aspect: When did that start? Did it start before industrialization? Why did mankind then not experience increasing temperatures already...a century ago? Or did it start after industrial revolution?

The faster rates of climate change may indeed be more than a coincidence and I am not saying that human activity can necessarily be wholly exonerated from any responsibility for some of the changes that we are now witnessing, but in the light of all the past changes to the earth's surface and climate, it would seem somewhat absurd suddenly to blame mankind for it all.

i mean the attitude of the western world, to consume even if it is not needed, to buy more than you need (eating more, changing mobile phones often, buying more clothes than needed, etc etc etc). Our system today works with that. Advertising is only made to make people want all these products and to buy them, because selling more = making more money (and that's what it's all about  ) - whether people need it or not is completely irrelevant to industry.
Undoubtedly this is extreme and *needs* to be reduced to a normal level. It does cause significantly more damage to the environment. (Just an example: 10.000 l of water is needed to produce 1 mobile phone...)

I don't deny what you say here - but who should determine - and how - what a "normal" level is? It simply can't be done credibly, because that "norm" is changing all the time and at a rate far faster than our climate! One man's waste is another man's dire necessity. Your water example, however, simply doesn't hold water; not only do we not have an impending oil shortage but we also most certainly do not have a water shortage!

Concerning the oil, I've heard different arguments but I'm not 100% sure on this...i will look it up for some facts. I don't believe there are only political reasons for oil shortage (certainly that is also an issue), the world does consume huge amounts of oil and people are constantly looking for new oil fields (=> Southpole, Alaska) as old ones run short. But as i said, i'll read something about this...

I did not suggest that there are already more than sufficient oil supplies without exploring and opening up new oilfields; my argument is that the earth has ample oil resources for decades to come, even at present and greater rates of use, but that various political situations are reducing and look set to continue to reduce the availability of oil. Do by all means read about this - but when you do, make a point of considering the reserves near Norway, in Kazakhstan, in South America, in Russia and in the Middle and Far East and then ask yourself which of those areas is capable of sustaining or likely to sustain long-term political stability to the point that its oil-producing nations might not restrict exports if they so choose, for purely political reasons.

There is no way back - progress in science caused global warming, more progress is the only way to overcome the problem.

Progress in science may have had a hand in some climate change but, as I have observed, some of that scientific progress has not been in the best interests of mankind; certain scientific expertise has not, for example, been directed at developing other energy sources and, if it had, no one today would be in any position to talk in the backward-looking way that some of them do about drastically reducing our needs in order to "save the planet".

Best,

Alistair

[term]

As I do not have to hand precise evidence for the causes of all the changes in climatic conditions on earth since it first formed millions of years ago, I accept that what I have written is of necessity somewhat generalised and not obviously supported by specific detailed data; all I was observing, however, was that we do know that substantial climate changes and land mass movements have occurred on earth over millennia and that most of these have not been caused by human intervention. I think that it is generally accepted that those who ascribe such human intervention to climate change are referring only to climate change since the industrial revolution, since most such folk blame rampant industrialisation and capitalism for many of the world's ills, not least climate change.

I mean of course, climate changes did happen on earth and it is an absolutely normal thing. If the climate change we experience today was natural, I wouldn't complain, if it happens it happens. The point is, it is not natural because its so fast.

The faster rates of climate change may indeed be more than a coincidence and I am not saying that human activity can necessarily be wholly exonerated from any responsibility for some of the changes that we are now witnessing, but in the light of all the past changes to the earth's surface and climate, it would seem somewhat absurd suddenly to blame mankind for it all.

Well again: mankind is to blame for this simply because it is so fast. It really is that simple. I think you are ignoring a lot of facts here, I'm not making this up, i learned about it and this is proven. Unfortunately there are lots of people who still ignore simple facts and think they know better even if insufficiently informed. If my explanations are not enough i can't do anything about it, if you want, inform yourself about it or keep your opinion.

I don't deny what you say here - but who should determine - and how - what a "normal" level is? It simply can't be done credibly, because that "norm" is changing all the time and at a rate far faster than our climate!

True. I just wanted to point out this problem, it's clear that consumption needs to be reduced, to what extent is another thing of course. But that is a problem of our whole society and a very difficult issue...

Your water example, however, simply doesn't hold water; not only do we not have an impending oil shortage but we also most certainly do not have a water shortage!

Well *we* don't, our water comes out of the faucet.
The world does have a water shortage.
Seas (huge seas) disappearing or shrinking (=> Aral sea, but there are others), big areas in Asia and Africa do not have fresh water not only because of political problems and problems with infrastructure, but because rivers which used to have water during the rainy seasons have less or no water at all. Ground water levels all over the world are sinking (Europe, America also). The water in the rivers comes (as far as i know at least partly, there may be other factors) from glaciers, but these are shrinking and disappearing.
Industry uses lots of fresh water for production because it is taken from ground water or rivers. Everybodys toilet uses fresh water, the shower, .... And there are problems with cleaning dirty water because of shower gel and all that, a lot of water can't be re-used because of that.

I did not suggest that there are already more than sufficient oil supplies without exploring and opening up new oilfields; my argument is that the earth has ample oil resources for decades to come, even at present and greater rates of use, but that various political situations are reducing and look set to continue to reduce the availability of oil. Do by all means read about this - but when you do, make a point of considering the reserves near Norway, in Kazakhstan, in South America, in Russia and in the Middle and Far East and then ask yourself which of those areas is capable of sustaining or likely to sustain long-term political stability to the point that its oil-producing nations might not restrict exports if they so choose, for purely political reasons.

Well, what i know is that there may be lots of oil, most of it is not accessible because it's to deep.
On the rest...i'll read about it.
I just want to add that, even if there is enough oil, who cares, mankind must get away from it anyway ...

Progress in science may have had a hand in some climate change but, as I have observed, some of that scientific progress has not been in the best interests of mankind; certain scientific expertise has not, for example, been directed at developing other energy sources and, if it had, no one today would be in any position to talk in the backward-looking way that some of them do about drastically reducing our needs in order to "save the planet".

What i meant with progress in science was actually industrialization, factories, watts steam engine etc. So science is fully responsible for that whole climate problem. (of course only if you accept my point with the climate change having no natural reason, but since you don't... there's no point in discussing this over and over again *g*)

[ahinton]

I mean of course, climate changes did happen on earth and it is an absolutely normal thing. If the climate change we experience today was natural, I wouldn't complain, if it happens it happens. The point is, it is not natural because its so fast.

So are you now saying that just because of the increase in speed of change, the natural causes of thousands of millennia have somehow suddenly given way entirely to the human activity causes? If so, I'd like to see some evidence from you as to why the naturally occurring changes have been forced to give up occurring on the basis that human-activated changes are somehow "better". Why do you believe that "natural" and "fast" are somehow permanently and irrevocably exclusive?

Well again: mankind is to blame for this simply because it is so fast. It really is that simple. I think you are ignoring a lot of facts here, I'm not making this up, i learned about it and this is proven. Unfortunately there are lots of people who still ignore simple facts and think they know better even if insufficiently informed. If my explanations are not enough i can't do anything about it, if you want, inform yourself about it or keep your opinion.True. I just wanted to point out this problem, it's clear that consumption needs to be reduced, to what extent is another thing of course. But that is a problem of our whole society and a very difficult issue.

You seem to ignore not only the fact that I claim that no such reduction in human consumption is necessary to solve this problem but also the reasons why I say so; I have pointed out that, if viable alternative energy supplies had been researched, developed and implemented, no such reductions would be necessary at all. I do agree that it is humanity's fault that this work has not yet been undertaken at anything like fast enough speeds and to anything like sufficient extent.

Well *we* don't, our water comes out of the faucet.
The world does have a water shortage.
Seas (huge seas) disappearing or shrinking (=> Aral sea, but there are others), big areas in Asia and Africa do not have fresh water not only because of political problems and problems with infrastructure, but because rivers which used to have water during the rainy seasons have less or no water at all. Ground water levels all over the world are sinking (Europe, America also). The water in the rivers comes (as far as i know at least partly, there may be other factors) from glaciers, but these are shrinking and disappearing.

You can't have it both ways. Whilst you are, of course, correct about the political problems that you mention here, the disappearing and shrinking of seas cuts little ice (sorry!) with those island nations whose very existence is threatened by rising sea levels. The shrinking of glaciers and the melting of polar ice increases, not decreases, the water table. I do agree that there remains a most serious issue with regard to the availability and distribution of clean desalinated water to humans that need it - and that is a problem that human scientific ingenuity must address urgently - but that is a very different matter from the notion of a global water "shortage", whether or not caused by "global warming", whoever may be responsible for that...

Industry uses lots of fresh water for production because it is taken from ground water or rivers. Everybodys toilet uses fresh water, the shower, .... And there are problems with cleaning dirty water because of shower gel and all that, a lot of water can't be re-used because of that.

Of course this is true. We just have to figure out ways of dealing with waste - not only of the kind that you quite rightly mention here but many others. It's high time that human scientific ingenuity addressed this.

Well, what i know is that there may be lots of oil, most of it is not accessible because it's to deep.
On the rest...i'll read about it.

None of it was accessible until the first explorers bored holes into the earth's surface to tap into the resources; all current and future oil exploration depends upon this kind of activity. Do you believe that, even though the earth has these resources, they should not be tapped into by humans as a matter of principle?

I just want to add that, even if there is enough oil, who cares, mankind must get away from it anyway ...

I agree with you entirely - as I have surely made clear already in my remarks various on the importance of researching, developing and implementing alternative energy sources.

What i meant with progress in science was actually industrialization, factories, watts steam engine etc. So science is fully responsible for that whole climate problem.

If you really believe that, you must surely believe that industrialistion has somehow contrived to override thousands of millennia of naturally occurring climate and land mass change just because it can achieve these things more effectively; that, to me, seems hopelessly illogical and unsupportable.

(of course only if you accept my point with the climate change having no natural reason, but since you don't... there's no point in discussing this over and over again *g*).

No, indeed I do not accept that point. As you have nevertheless made it, I do feel obliged to assume, however, that your position is one of outright denial of all historical scientific evidence of any global climate change, land mass movements, etc. that are said to have occurred before the industrial revolution. I find difficulty in believing that you really think this, since you have made various intelligent and important points but, if you really do believe it, there is nothing more to be said beyond asking you how you think it is that a handful of enterprising 18th and 19th century industrialists managed to wrench control of the natural activity of the earth in a matter of just a few years and assume full responsibility for it therafter...

You are, as I have observed previously, right in claiming that humanity has affected and influenced many aspects of the earth's surface and operation (where we differ is in both the extent to which this is supposed to be the case and the fact that I do not accept that this is in any sense indicative of humanity having superceded the earth's natural processes of change); it is really up to humanity to take much better advantage of the resources available to it than it has so far done - on this much I think that we still manage to agree.

Best,

Alistair

[term]

So are you now saying that just because of the increase in speed of change, the natural causes of thousands of millennia have somehow suddenly given way entirely to the human activity causes? If so, I'd like to see some evidence from you as to why the naturally occurring changes have been forced to give up occurring on the basis that human-activated changes are somehow "better". Why do you believe that "natural" and "fast" are somehow permanently and irrevocably exclusive?

Well i've said that already. As you said, climate changes happened often in earth's history. My claim is, that none of these raised temperature like we experience today *within 200 years*.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

The time scale below is the important part (=> millions of years).
Also important:

The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" [1].

The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect

(from wikpedia, global warming)
That's why i ask *you* to give facts and reasons why you do not accept the "prevailing scientific opinion" and what expertise you have on that issue to claim that.

In my opinion it is absolutely logical that such a big system like the earth's ecosystem can *not* change so much within such a short time. It's like between ants and humans: a second for a human is a much longer time for an ant (i know this is not very scientific, i hope you get my point).
There are so many factors, sunlight, greenhouse gases, wind, water...without intervention from outside (asteroids etc) these are things that change slowly, and if they change (they actually change constantly) it also takes long until there are measurable effects. Edit: Additionally, the effects are also pretty small.

You seem to ignore not only the fact that I claim that no such reduction in human consumption is necessary to solve this problem but also the reasons why I say so; I have pointed out that, if viable alternative energy supplies had been researched, developed and implemented, no such reductions would be necessary at all. I do agree that it is humanity's fault that this work has not yet been undertaken at anything like fast enough speeds and to anything like sufficient extent.

You're right concerning energy. As i think about it, i realise that forcing the western world to reduce consumption takes even longer than doing the necessary research 
I still think reducing consumption is necessary because of social and personal reasons. I don't like that unnessecary and exaggerated consumption and i think it has negative effects on people. It is a way to distract people from important issues and problems.
...ok i know not good explained, you know...the language^^ i hope you get what i mean.

You can't have it both ways. Whilst you are, of course, correct about the political problems that you mention here, the disappearing and shrinking of seas cuts little ice (sorry!) with those island nations whose very existence is threatened by rising sea levels. The shrinking of glaciers and the melting of polar ice increases, not decreases, the water table. I do agree that there remains a most serious issue with regard to the availability and distribution of clean desalinated water to humans that need it - and that is a problem that human scientific ingenuity must address urgently - but that is a very different matter from the notion of a global water "shortage", whether or not caused by "global warming", whoever may be responsible for that...

I'm talking about fresh water, not about the water that maybe one day will come over all Bangladesh...concerning fresh water, yes there are problems, lots of people do not have it because their region das not have fresh water any more...etc etc. I call this water shortage. It will become worse in the future. Some cities in Europe already forbade using too much water (for gardens especially) in some hot summers. What does that tell us?

None of it was accessible until the first explorers bored holes into the earth's surface to tap into the resources; all current and future oil exploration depends upon this kind of activity. Do you believe that, even though the earth has these resources, they should not be tapped into by humans as a matter of principle?

Yes, because oil is bad for the environment and as i said, imo mankind should get away from it.
Digging very deep also means high costs, after a certain depth it is not profitable anymore, there's also the issue with the heat in great depths.

If you really believe that, you must surely believe that industrialistion has somehow contrived to override thousands of millennia of naturally occurring climate and land mass change just because it can achieve these things more effectively; that, to me, seems hopelessly illogical and unsupportable.

It's the greenhouse gases that do this. Yes, i do think mankind has managed to do this in just 200 years. remarkable, isn't it? 
That just shows how much impact mankind has on earth. Consider there are 6 billion people on this planet, how many billion cars are there, how many factories, how many tons of CO2 over how many years? Compare this with the impact volcanos can have on the temperature (temporarily) and how many volcanos must explode to produce the same mass of CO2 in a given time.

No, indeed I do not accept that point. As you have nevertheless made it, I do feel obliged to assume, however, that your position is one of outright denial of all historical scientific evidence of any global climate change, land mass movements, etc. that are said to have occurred before the industrial revolution. I find difficulty in believing that you really think this, since you have made various intelligent and important points but, if you really do believe it, there is nothing more to be said beyond asking you how you think it is that a handful of enterprising 18th and 19th century industrialists managed to wrench control of the natural activity of the earth in a matter of just a few years and assume full responsibility for it therafter...

Industrialization is fully responsible. I also think that the formulation used in the quote from wikipedia above ("most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" [1].") is very deliberate since there are still many people out there who deny any human involvement at all, but if you inform yourself carefully about the subject you come to the conclusion (at least i do, but others also) that this actually means 95% of the glolbal warming is caused by humans. I think thats scientifically justifiable.(=>statistics) The sceptics deny everything of course, often these are the same people who are part of an industry that is rather ecologically harmful, earn their money with it etc.
To the question of how i think this is possible...with quantity. As i said, so many cars, so many factories, so many energy consumed, so many people. Ironically (for you) this is absolutely logical to me

(where we differ is in both the extent to which this is supposed to be the case and the fact that I do not accept that this is in any sense indicative of humanity having superceded the earth's natural processes of change); it is really up to humanity to take much better advantage of the resources available to it than it has so far done - on this much I think that we still manage to agree.

Yes absolutely

[ahinton]

Well i've said that already. As you said, climate changes happened often in earth's history. My claim is, that none of these raised temperature like we experience today *within 200 years*.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

The time scale below is the important part (=> millions of years).
Also important: (from wikpedia, global warming)
That's why i ask *you* to give facts and reasons why you do not accept the "prevailing scientific opinion" and what expertise you have on that issue to claim that.

As I have already made quite clear, I do not profess to have the scientific expertise to support every detail of what I conclude - either in those aspect of the subject I do agree with you or in those where I don't, but, while keeping as open a mind as I can on the issue, what I will say in the interim is that I do not accept that anything is unequivocally the "prevailing scientific opinion" just becase it says so in Wikipedia. If all the world's bona fide, trustworthy and independently unbiased scientists agreed on this subject, that would be a rather different matter, Wikipedia or no Wikipedia - but it appears that there is no such global consensus within the scientific community.

In my opinion it is absolutely logical that such a big system like the earth's ecosystem can *not* change so much within such a short time. It's like between ants and humans: a second for a human is a much longer time for an ant (i know this is not very scientific, i hope you get my point).

Yes, I do get your point.

There are so many factors, sunlight, greenhouse gases, wind, water...without intervention from outside (asteroids etc) these are things that change slowly, and if they change (they actually change constantly) it also takes long until there are measurable effects. Edit: Additionally, the effects are also pretty small.

Whilst your argument about time-frames may well hold water to some extent, I cannot accept that "the effects are also pretty small"; look at the extent to which land mass and ocean patterns have changed over the millennia and you will surely not think such changes "small", any more than the climate changes either side of an ice age were "small".

You're right concerning energy. As i think about it, i realise that forcing the western world to reduce consumption takes even longer than doing the necessary research 
I still think reducing consumption is necessary because of social and personal reasons. I don't like that unnessecary and exaggerated consumption and i think it has negative effects on people. It is a way to distract people from important issues and problems.
...ok i know not good explained, you know...the language^^ i hope you get what i mean.

I do get what you mean but I do not accept that ambulance drivers should have to give up driving just because some inconsiderate SUV drivers have over-used their gas-guzzling cars. Now I know that this is a ridiculous scenario, but the point of it is that reduction in car use to "practical minimum levels" simply cannot be achieved because there are, as I said before, no norms against which such vehicale use can sensibly be measured the world over. As to other consumption, the problem is not in how much of any given thing is manufactured and consumed but in how all levels of consumptuion of all goods and servies can be policed with a view to creating some kind of maximum use. This is a political non-starter and would still be so even if there was just one world government, because corporate and personal circumstances in different parts of the world vary greatly, just as do the degrees of wealth and poverty in the various countries.

I'm talking about fresh water, not about the water that maybe one day will come over all Bangladesh...concerning fresh water, yes there are problems, lots of people do not have it because their region das not have fresh water any more...etc etc. I call this water shortage. It will become worse in the future. Some cities in Europe already forbade using too much water (for gardens especially) in some hot summers. What does that tell us?

I know exactly what you're talking about. What I'm talking about is that research and development needs to be undertaken to create and distribute clean water supplies for human use; there are indeed serious shortages of fresh water for human consumtion in various places, but my point was that there is no overall shortage of water on the planet (indeed, global warming warns us that there'll soon be much more of the stuff), so it's up to humanity to figure out how to put as much of it as possible to good use. Again, water metering is strongly advocated these days; what this means is that wealthier people will use ever increasingly higher proportions of the water made available by water supply corporations.

Yes, because oil is bad for the environment and as i said, imo mankind should get away from it.
Digging very deep also means high costs, after a certain depth it is not profitable anymore, there's also the issue with the heat in great depths.

Leaving the practical economics of oil exploration to those that are involved in it, I have already made my position clear on this subject; the fact that one of the world's largest motor manufacturers recently abandoned the completion of a project to bring us the first version of the EV1 - almost certainly likely to have been the fastest, most efficient and practical all-electrically-powered personal motor vehicle that would ever have reached commercial production stage - is surely as large an indictment as you'd want. We should be on the third or fourth generation of these kinds of thing by now - and, if we were, no one would any longer be able to bleat about reducing car use. The all-electric plane is still a long way off; it shouldn't be.

It's the greenhouse gases that do this. Yes, i do think mankind has managed to do this in just 200 years. remarkable, isn't it? 
That just shows how much impact mankind has on earth. Consider there are 6 billion people on this planet, how many billion cars are there, how many factories, how many tons of CO2 over how many years?

And just how much less greenhouse gas production do you suppose there would be on earth if even 25% of all cars, homes, factories, etc. depended upon non-fossil fuels for their energy consumption? An awful lot, surely? Just how much and how rapidly such a scenario would reverse any climate change remains open to argument, but it is academic in any case, since the research and development required to bring about such a situation is in its comparative infancy and is being carried out only sporadically.

What about those 6 billion + people, all breathing out carbon dioxide 24/7, then?

Industrialization is fully responsible.

No - too much bad industrialisation and not enough good ditto may be partially responsible.

I also think that the formulation used in the quote from wikipedia above ("most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" [1].") is very deliberate since there are still many people out there who deny any human involvement at all

As you know, Ii am not one of the people who does this.

if you inform yourself carefully about the subject you come to the conclusion (at least i do, but others also) that this actually means 95% of the glolbal warming is caused by humans. I think thats scientifically justifiable.(=>statistics).

Leaving aside the old cliché that tells us that there are "lies, damned lies and statistics", there is not, as I have already observed, general agreement in the independent scientific community as to the extent either of climate change itself or of the extent to which human activity is responsible for it; that is not at all to say that human activity has played no part - merely to point out that the extent of that part has not been determined to anything remotely approaching the unanimous agreement of the scientific community. Again, however, just because this agreement has not been reached should not be an excuse not to try to undertake the appropriate R&D.

The sceptics deny everything of course, often these are the same people who are part of an industry that is rather ecologically harmful, earn their money with it etc.

Yes, well there will, of course, always be vested interests, as you say; this is indeed the very kind of thing that has kept the oil industry so buoyant at the expense of other fuel research for so many years.

To the question of how i think this is possible...with quantity. As i said, so many cars, so many factories, so many energy consumed, so many people.

So do you advocate the compulsory reduction of all of these categories? Population growth is indeed a problem if there are not the goods and services, food, energy, etc. to support enough people to live decent lives, but then we are not actually short of resources - we are short of the kind of work that can enable the right sort of resources to be used for the general benefit of humankind.

But what are governments doing about this? Telling us that we're going to have to pay more "green" taxes, that's what! And where will that money go? Well, we certainly do need more money to send more armed service personnel to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran (all oil producers, coincidentally!)...

Best,

Alistair

[term]

As I have already made quite clear, I do not profess to have the scientific expertise to support every detail of what I conclude - either in those aspect of the subject I do agree with you or in those where I don't, but, while keeping as open a mind as I can on the issue, what I will say in the interim is that I do not accept that anything is unequivocally the "prevailing scientific opinion" just becase it says so in Wikipedia. If all the world's bona fide, trustworthy and independently unbiased scientists agreed on this subject, that would be a rather different matter, Wikipedia or no Wikipedia - but it appears that there is no such global consensus within the scientific community.

come on this is no argument.
First, you say wikipedia is bad... (it is common sense what they say there. It *is* the prevailing scientific opinion). I think it's your turn to get some sources or facts you trust and read this.
Secondly, you challenge every argument but do not give trustworthy sources or facts that support your view. That's no basis for a discussion.
Thirdly, it is very easy to say what you said about consensus withing the scientific community. This is a perfect argument because there is never consensus, perfect but false. There is never consesus because science is not indepentend. But it works somehow democratic: What the (in this case vast) majority says is true. But this is not some difficult physical theory we're talking about, there is enough compelling evidence, everything you want and because this topic is so easy, everybody can do some research here.

Whilst your argument about time-frames may well hold water to some extent, I cannot accept that "the effects are also pretty small"; look at the extent to which land mass and ocean patterns have changed over the millennia and you will surely not think such changes "small", any more than the climate changes either side of an ice age were "small".

Africa moves 1 cm per year towards europe. The himalaya grows 1mm or so every year.
Constant small effects over long time, what's the result?

I do get what you mean but I do not accept that ambulance drivers should have to give up driving just because some inconsiderate SUV drivers have over-used their gas-guzzling cars. Now I know that this is a ridiculous scenario, but the point of it is that reduction in car use to "practical minimum levels" simply cannot be achieved because there are, as I said before, no norms against which such vehicale use can sensibly be measured the world over.

I understand what you're talking about but that's not what i'm talking about^^
It was a very general comment just by the way and my personal opinion about the way of life in the western world. I accept every other opinion here, this is a personal thing of preference i guess. I just made the link between mass consumption and damage to the environment.

I know exactly what you're talking about. What I'm talking about is that research and development needs to be undertaken to create and distribute clean water supplies for human use; there are indeed serious shortages of fresh water for human consumtion in various places, but my point was that there is no overall shortage of water on the planet (indeed, global warming warns us that there'll soon be much more of the stuff), so it's up to humanity to figure out how to put as much of it as possible to good use. Again, water metering is strongly advocated these days; what this means is that wealthier people will use ever increasingly higher proportions of the water made available by water supply corporations.

hahaha
well if you take the oceans into consideration no, theres no water shortage. *g*

Ok you're right, of course there still is enough water. Shortage is the wrong word. (this does not apply to one continent, africa, where there really is shortage). But i see big problems for the future.

And just how much less greenhouse gas production do you suppose there would be on earth if even 25% of all cars, homes, factories, etc. depended upon non-fossil fuels for their energy consumption? An awful lot, surely?

Well, a lot but by far not enough. global warming would continue with 75% speed which is still too much.

What about those 6 billion + people, all breathing out carbon dioxide 24/7, then?

You forgot the plants. Also the fact that most of what we breath out is oxygen again.

No - too much bad industrialisation and not enough good ditto may be partially responsible.

Well come on, it was obvious what i was refering to. I don't agree on the partially though.

As you know, Ii am not one of the people who does this.

Yes. 

Leaving aside the old cliché that tells us that there are "lies, damned lies and statistics", there is not, as I have already observed, general agreement in the independent scientific community as to the extent either of climate change itself or of the extent to which human activity is responsible for it;

rather the latter...otherwise, true.

that is not at all to say that human activity has played no part - merely to point out that the extent of that part has not been determined to anything remotely approaching the unanimous agreement of the scientific community. Again, however, just because this agreement has not been reached should not be an excuse not to try to undertake the appropriate R&D.

R&D?

So do you advocate the compulsory reduction of all of these categories? Population growth is indeed a problem if there are not the goods and services, food, energy, etc. to support enough people to live decent lives, but then we are not actually short of resources - we are short of the kind of work that can enable the right sort of resources to be used for the general benefit of humankind.

I was just saying that it's the quantity that does it. I don't say people in china are not allowed to have cars (though i'm afraid of all of them having cars  )

Actually our discussion reduces to my main point i was trying to make in the first post, that global warming is not a natural phenomenon and that mankind is responsible for the whole thing.
I am *not* saying that there are no fluctuations between two years, decades or centuries. I differentiate between global warming as a phenomenon and maybe a slight warming which has natural reasons but is of no importance for that whole issue.
There's nothing else left to say for me, besides that i agree with you that science should have done more but that's clear anyway.

[ahinton]

come on this is no argument.
First, you say wikipedia is bad

Where precisely did I say that in so many words? My observation about Wikipedia was meant to convey no more (or less) than that just because someone has contributed some material there which alleges that there is a general consensus among scientists about this issue does not at all make it true.

It *is* the prevailing scientific opinion). I think it's your turn to get some sources or facts you trust and read this.

Let us for one moment assume that you - and Wikipedia - are correct in that there really is an established and demonstrable consensus among the world's scientific community on this issue; why do you suppose that almost nothing is being done about it if all the world's scientists are confirming that all this is down to human activity and warning us all that the consequences of inaction will be dire? For the record, I am not at all supporting the lack of positive and constructive activity in dealing with this - I am just wondering why it might be that all the world's scientists are being so studiously and consistently ignored and sidelined by all the world's governments...

Secondly, you challenge every argument but do not give trustworthy sources or facts that support your view. That's no basis for a discussion.

No, I do not challenge every argument at all. If you have read my posts carefully, you should (unless I have expressed myself very badly) have concluded that I believe that certain actiopns should have been taken years ago; I admit that I have not sought to address all the aspects of this problem, preferring instead to concentrate largely on those relating to energy production, but since that issue is closely connected with the "greenhouse gas emmission" aspect of the problem, I think that what I have written about nevertheless covers quite a large part of the subject as a whole.

Thirdly, it is very easy to say what you said about consensus withing the scientific community. This is a perfect argument because there is never consensus, perfect but false. There is never consesus because science is not indepentend. But it works somehow democratic: What the (in this case vast) majority says is true. But this is not some difficult physical theory we're talking about, there is enough compelling evidence, everything you want and because this topic is so easy, everybody can do some research here.

You are of course quite correct in implying that not all scientists can or will give an entirely independent and unbiased view - but then I indicated my awareness of this fact already when I specifically referred to bona fide, trustworthy independent and unbiased scientists rather than the scientific community as a whole; there is still not yet overall agreement between these scientists about this issue.

Africa moves 1 cm per year towards europe. The himalaya grows 1mm or so every year.
Constant small effects over long time, what's the result?

Politically, it's probably moving much faster than this! But to return to addressing what you are writing about here - 1cm/year; that's around mile in every 161,031 years. Fast? AS to the 1mm. annual growth in the height of the Himalays, it would be absurd to assume (not that I am suggesting that you are doing so) that its every individual mountain rises, precisely and evenly across the range, by this amount above sea level every year - especially if sea level rise by more than this...

well if you take the oceans into consideration no, theres no water shortage. *g*
Ok you're right, of course there still is enough water. Shortage is the wrong word. (this does not apply to one continent, africa, where there really is shortage). But i see big problems for the future.

Yes - so now you understand what i meant - and also, hopefully, that I also agree with you that there is far too little available clean potable water for human use in far too many places, despite there being no actual water shortage overall.

You forgot the plants. Also the fact that most of what we breath out is oxygen again.Well come on, it was obvious what i was refering to.

I did not "forget" something must beause neither you(to whom I was responding) nor I had happened to mention it. Of course climate change affects almost all life forms. Ask anyone in the wine industry and in certain other areas of the agricultural industry and they may tell you that, whoever is causing global warming, it's now even all necessarily by definition a bad thing!

R&D?

Research and development (it's a standard abbreviation).

I was just saying that it's the quantity that does it. I don't say people in china are not allowed to have cars (though i'm afraid of all of them having cars  )

And I am saying otherwise. What would be your view on the car issue had the EV1 and/or similar projects come to fruition and the majority of people were going around driving electrically-powered cars (provided, of course, that there were also sufficient non-fossil-fuel generated sources of mains electricity for them to be recharged whenever necessary)?

Actually our discussion reduces to my main point i was trying to make in the first post, that global warming is not a natural phenomenon and that mankind is responsible for the whole thing.
I am *not* saying that there are no fluctuations between two years, decades or centuries. I differentiate between global warming as a phenomenon and maybe a slight warming which has natural reasons but is of no importance for that whole issue.
There's nothing else left to say for me, besides that i agree with you that science should have done more but that's clear anyway.

There is - it seems to me - at least one more thing to say - and it is this; if mankind has truly done what some say is many thousands of years' worth of global damage in a mere two centuries or so, what hope do you suppose there may be that a world with a current population in excess of 6 billion can actually do anything significant to put this damage right in the very few years that those same people tell us remains available to us before catastrophe strikes?

Best,

Alistair

[term]

Where precisely did I say that in so many words? My observation about Wikipedia was meant to convey no more (or less) than that just because someone has contributed some material there which alleges that there is a general consensus among scientists about this issue does not at all make it true.

It would be nice if you tried to understand what i'm saying rather than correcting me for every single word. I understood what you meant. You see that on the second sentence (on which you didnt respond)

Let us for one moment assume that you - and Wikipedia - are correct in that there really is an established and demonstrable consensus among the world's scientific community on this issue; why do you suppose that almost nothing is being done about it if all the world's scientists are confirming that all this is down to human activity and warning us all that the consequences of inaction will be dire? For the record, I am not at all supporting the lack of positive and constructive activity in dealing with this - I am just wondering why it might be that all the world's scientists are being so studiously and consistently ignored and sidelined by all the world's governments...

That's very easily possible: money is the reason. And the simple fact that mankind never was foresightet in history. Also, problems of this dimension are completely new and unique.
I'm sorry, as I said i don't think there's a point in discussing this further, since - in my opinion - there is no way i can convince you that there is a consesus in that topic in the scientific community. And since my own arguments and facts i gave you (the picture) don't convince you either and you're not moving even an inch from your position...(reminds me of this guy: "Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise"  just kidding )
By the way, i never said "all scientist in the world" and as i have said, this is never possible. You don't have to assume that. There are good scientist and stupid "scientists" anyway. I have the impression that this is the only way you would accept the argument. If that is the case, i wonder how you can have an opinion on any scientific subject since there is never consensus on anything.

No, I do not challenge every argument at all. If you have read my posts carefully, you should (unless I have expressed myself very badly) have concluded that I believe that certain actiopns should have been taken years ago; I admit that I have not sought to address all the aspects of this problem, preferring instead to concentrate largely on those relating to energy production, but since that issue is closely connected with the "greenhouse gas emmission" aspect of the problem, I think that what I have written about nevertheless covers quite a large part of the subject as a whole.

Again, we cannot have a discussion without arguments (= precise explanations - important), facts and sources (optional if  arguments are good and self-evident) from your side. That is fact 

You are of course quite correct in implying that not all scientists can or will give an entirely independent and unbiased view - but then I indicated my awareness of this fact already when I specifically referred to bona fide, trustworthy independent and unbiased scientists rather than the scientific community as a whole; there is still not yet overall agreement between these scientists about this issue.

There is consensus that mankind is responsible for the global warming. There is also consensus that there can be short term fluctuations in temperature. And there is consensus that this does not come into consideration because they're to small anyway and temperature increased very much already.
Summarised, these are my claims. You can verify this. If you don't want, don't do it.

Politically, it's probably moving much faster than this! But to return to addressing what you are writing about here - 1cm/year; that's around mile in every 161,031 years. Fast? AS to the 1mm. annual growth in the height of the Himalays, it would be absurd to assume (not that I am suggesting that you are doing so) that its every individual mountain rises, precisely and evenly across the range, by this amount above sea level every year - especially if sea level rise by more than this...

Um...yes. Well did you get my point? This was directed to an argument of yours.

And I am saying otherwise. What would be your view on the car issue had the EV1 and/or similar projects come to fruition and the majority of people were going around driving electrically-powered cars (provided, of course, that there were also sufficient non-fossil-fuel generated sources of mains electricity for them to be recharged whenever necessary)?

Obviously, my view is that it would be great.
Edit: my point was that thing with the quantity. I don't understand what your statement has to do with it though...

There is - it seems to me - at least one more thing to say - and it is this; if mankind has truly done what some say is many thousands of years' worth of global damage in a mere two centuries or so, what hope do you suppose there may be that a world with a current population in excess of 6 billion can actually do anything significant to put this damage right in the very few years that those same people tell us remains available to us before catastrophe strikes?

None. Not surprising isn't it. It's too late, the only thing we can do is limit the negative effects and turn around 180° as fast as possible. I mean where is it written that this whole thing has to have a happy ending?
Just btw, we're talking about more than thousands of years. Did you have a look at the link i posted?

[ahinton]

It would be nice if you tried to understand what i'm saying rather than correcting me for every single word.

I do not try to correct every word that you write. From here on, rather than quote you verbatim, I think that it would be more practical to summarise our agreements and disagreements.

There is a conflict of scientific opinion about the issue you have discussed. The scientists to whom I have referred are exclusively those who are not tied to financial considerations and contracted duties that might otherwise influence the views that they promulgate, rather than the scientific community as a whole.

Your arguments are by no means so out of order that I dismiss them outright; I feel only that you may have the proportion and perspectives wrong.

Yor view - if I interpret you correctly - is that mankind is at least 95% responsible for climate change on our planet and that all such change is necessarily and by definition bad (for the human race, other creatures, plant life and the planet in general). You believe that your view as described is supported by a "consensus that mankind is responsible for the global warming" and your expression here appears not to take on board any possibility that any such climate change can be other than harmful to all those categories as described above. Whilst mine happens to be open to the possibilty of a different balance between the naturally occurring and the human-influenced effects, it does not alter the fact that, like you, I do believe that humanity has an obligation to make efforts to deal with the circumstnaces, howsoever caused.

I am far more interested in developing those things on which we agree rather than those on which we do not. You wrote
"my point was that thing with the quantity. I don't understand what your statement has to do with it though...None. Not surprising isn't it. It's too late, the only thing we can do is limit the negative effects and turn around 180° as fast as possible. I mean where is it written that this whole thing has to have a happy ending?"
I never suggested that anything under discussion here would or could possibly have any kind of "happy ending" (very much the reverse, in fact) and, once again, it does seem that we are largely in agreement on this, too. What my statement about "quantity" (as you describe it) may have to do with this issue in general is nothing more complex than the fact of my belief that it is not a part of the issue or its solution unless people make it so because they cannot or will not countenance any solution other than one which might involve such questions. For the umpteenth time. the largely universal use of non-fossil-fuelled sources of generated electricity would - if only it could - make a large dent in all that the accusers rant about, in that such electricity production and its consequential benefits would no longer be the target of their accusations; the present problem here is that such sources of electricity production are simply not present for most people to use - and that is where I agree with you that the potentially available sources are simply not yet being researched, developed and distributed other than on a pathetically small scale.

We need to address this issue and we have - and/or can develop - the expertise to make so much of this problem disappear, if only the oil dependency business is cast asunder in favour of other sources of energy production. I'm all in favour of nuclear fusion as a power source, but it's absoutely no use thinking about this in the short term because it simply has no short-term viability - it'll be some 40 years in R&D and application, so other sources will need to be looked at in the here and now.

I really think that our only principal area of disagreement is in that you see a solution in reduced consumption, agricultural activity, population, etc. whereas I see one in proper husbandry of the vast available resources.

As a composer, I am well aware that I am a particular "social enemy" in that everything that I do plunders - or potentially plunders - valuable resources - brain energy, paper, ink, the flying of musicians around the globe and all those other manifold anti-environmental issues. "So what?", say I; should we all curtail our efforts in the so-called "interests" of humanity and our planet's future by ceasing to do what we do? I don't think so...

You also did not reply to my remark about 6bn+ people breathing out carbon dioxide 24/7; you do not have to do so, of course, but I am just curious both as to your view on this and to your preferred solution to this problem.

Best,

Alistair

[term]

I really think that our only principal area of disagreement is in that you see a solution in reduced consumption, agricultural activity, population, etc. whereas I see one in proper husbandry of the vast available resources.

No, actually i agree with you here. As i said, i think it would be ridicoulous to say mankind should make a step backwards. I just wanted to point out what the reasons are (population, consumption, & quantity in general), because we surely wouldn't have the same problem if there were "only" like 1 billion people on the planet.

As a composer, I am well aware that I am a particular "social enemy" in that everything that I do plunders - or potentially plunders - valuable resources - brain energy, paper, ink, the flying of musicians around the globe and all those other manifold anti-environmental issues. "So what?", say I; should we all curtail our efforts in the so-called "interests" of humanity and our planet's future by ceasing to do what we do? I don't think so...

I agree here too.
The irony is that we are part of the system responsible for this (i know, you partly disagree concerning the responsibility).

Concerning the breathing out of CO2 24/7 i thought i replied to this. I just said that all the trees and plants on earth reduce this effect by transforming CO2 into oxygen again and i said that the CO2 we breath out actually isn't that much because most what we breath out is oxygen. (of course with 6 billion people it is still a huge amount). My *assumption* would be, that until a century ago the production of oxygen on earth was always more than mankind and all the animals on earth could exhaust. (There was also much more untouched nature and still huge rain forests. And generally, the oxygen level increased constantly over billions of years). This changed with the growing population and the fact that industry (also cars, etc) consumes large amounts of oxygen for burning fossil fuel. However I don't know anything about whether the oxygen level on earth decreased or not, but would be interesting to know  whether some research has been done on this issue.

I think our basic disagreement is to what extent mankind is responsible for global warming. You say:

Whilst mine happens to be open to the possibilty of a different balance between the naturally occurring and the human-influenced effects

.
Ok you say you are open to the possibility and thats absolutely fine. I'm not saying you can't be right and never said this, that's why i repeatedly asked you just to give explanations why exactly you think that. I understand that you keep an open mind etc but if you don't have any scientific facts/views or sources that support your view your argument stands in the air imo. You say there are scientists who have arguments and facts that prove wrong what wikipedia calls the "prevailing scientific opinion". I'm not asking for a scientific approach on this from your side or anything too extensive, and i accept wikipedia or any other source on the internet as an argument we can then discuss. So if you find any (reasonably) trustworthy website, article or whatever that explains why mankind is not almost fully responsible for global warming that would be a very good start. That's all im asking for.
Otherwise I can't move from my position (i am willing to do so if you give me some compelling evidence) because i believe that i have the prevailing scientific opinion behind me. You disagree here, so one way to prove me wrong would be to find something that says otherwise and presents the arguments from scientists who don't agree.
Other than you, i'm very interested in discussing where we do not agree since ultimately, the purpose of a discussion is to learn something.

[ahinton]

i think it would be ridicoulous to say mankind should make a step backwards.

OK - that's good!

I just wanted to point out what the reasons are (population, consumption, & quantity in general), because we surely wouldn't have the same problem if there were "only" like 1 billion people on the planet.

Fair comment; the only remaining problem here seems therefore to be whether one regards the world as being grossly over-populated or populated by people who consume far too much. It is clear that, even with the best efforts of a certain deceased Premier followed by those of a certain non-deceased President, the dwindling population of Iraq is far too small to bring about adequate global population reduction to overcome this problem, so either natural disasters or global wars look set to be the only likely solution that could reduce the world's population by just over five-sixths. Whilst I know that you are not necessarily advocating a specificy five-sixths reduction either in global population or global consumption in order to hope to overcome the problem you are discussing, is it remotely practical to expect the latter if the former does not happen? I'm not suggesting that you think it is so; I am suggesting that I think it is not so.

The irony is that we are part of the system responsible for this

Yes - to the extent that humans are responsible, although some may be more so than others, few are not responsible at all.

Concerning the breathing out of CO2 24/7 i thought i replied to this. I just said that all the trees and plants on earth reduce this effect by transforming CO2 into oxygen again and i said that the CO2 we breath out actually isn't that much because most what we breath out is oxygen. (of course with 6 billion people it is still a huge amount).

You are, of course, correct about the balancing effect of trees and plants but, whilst there is certainly some planting going one with the specific aim of reducing the extent of the problem, the speed at which trees are being cut down and not replaced - and not just in the traditional rain-forest areas - is, of course, far greater - and one part of this is to feed the needs of musicians who write and/or print music on paper so that they can travel the world in environmentally unfriendly planes and cars and play on instruments made wholly or partly from wood.

until a century ago the production of oxygen on earth was always more than mankind and all the animals on earth could exhaust. (There was also much more untouched nature and still huge rain forests. And generally, the oxygen level increased constantly over billions of years). This changed with the growing population and the fact that industry (also cars, etc) consumes large amounts of oxygen for burning fossil fuel. However I don't know anything about whether the oxygen level on earth decreased or not, but would be interesting to know whether some research has been done on this issue.

I have not read any research on this so do not know for sure either. That said, if the earth's oxygen levels have become insufficient, ways must be found to overcome this and one of those ways would have been to encourage R&D into the provision and use of non-fossil fuels for energy production. There is no doubt that some such research has indeed been carried out, but the EV1 demise is one sadly classic case of that research ending up in its own grave.

if you don't have any scientific facts/views or sources that support your view your argument stands in the air imo. You say there are scientists who have arguments and facts that prove wrong what wikipedia calls the "prevailing scientific opinion". I'm not asking for a scientific approach on this from your side or anything too extensive, and i accept wikipedia or any other source on the internet as an argument we can then discuss. So if you find any (reasonably) trustworthy website, article or whatever that explains why mankind is not almost fully responsible for global warming that would be a very good start. That's all im asking for.

I'll have to spend some time (when I can find some!) in doing just as you ask. I do not even say that Wikipedia is wrong to refer to a "prevailing scientific opinion"; I merely say that it is misleading for it to claim such an opinion without backing it up with facts.

I live next door to a distinguished geologist who believes that most of the climate changes occurring today are natural rather than man-made; I don't say that he is necessarily correct - merely that he has said it and quite vociferously and has at least two university degrees in a related subject.

I have no more time than you do for those who stick their heads in the sand and say that mankind has no responsibility whatsoever for this problem and, as I have observed, the possibility of substantial reduction in fossil fuel use ought in any case to appeal to many people regardless of their specific stance on the climate change responsibility issue because of the attraction of sustainability and, ultimately, lower costs of alternative fuel sources.

i'm very interested in discussing where we do not agree since ultimately, the purpose of a discussion is to learn something.

It is indeed - although I happen also to be interested in the fact that we do agree wholeheartedly on quite a few aspects of this important subject.

Best,

Alistair

[term]

Fair comment; the only remaining problem here seems therefore to be whether one regards the world as being grossly over-populated or populated by people who consume far too much. It is clear that, even with the best efforts of a certain deceased Premier followed by those of a certain non-deceased President, the dwindling population of Iraq is far too small to bring about adequate global population reduction to overcome this problem, so either natural disasters or global wars look set to be the only likely solution that could reduce the world's population by just over five-sixths. Whilst I know that you are not necessarily advocating a specificy five-sixths reduction either in global population or global consumption in order to hope to overcome the problem you are discussing, is it remotely practical to expect the latter if the former does not happen? I'm not suggesting that you think it is so; I am suggesting that I think it is not so.

I don't think it's possible. But this is very theorethical. I hope consumption can be reduced with a change of our western way of life (i'm not suggesting to turn our whole system upside down). But isn't this what already happens and what is heard even from officials (minister for environment for example, at least where i live) to reduce use of water, not to use the car for a 100 m way etc? Of course this is just one part of the problem but at least it's something. I guess it depends how optimistic (/pessimistic) one thinks. Me as an optimist *believes* (not knows) that this could be possible for the western societies. I exclude the developing world here since most of these people are not even near the western standard and deserve more wealth/higher living standards. But since the distribution of wealth will change anyway in the future, i think in practice it will not be possible to reduce overall global consumption without reducing the population. The latter is not an option of course.

You are, of course, correct about the balancing effect of trees and plants but, whilst there is certainly some planting going one with the specific aim of reducing the extent of the problem, the speed at which trees are being cut down and not replaced - and not just in the traditional rain-forest areas - is, of course, far greater - and one part of this is to feed the needs of musicians who write and/or print music on paper so that they can travel the world in environmentally unfriendly planes and cars and play on instruments made wholly or partly from wood.

Right. That's why i think it would be interesting to know whether there is at least a very small decrease of the oxygen level during the last, let's say 100 years. I could imagine. But i think it's also difficult to measure.

I have not read any research on this so do not know for sure either. That said, if the earth's oxygen levels have become insufficient, ways must be found to overcome this and one of those ways would have been to encourage R&D into the provision and use of non-fossil fuels for energy production.

Another way would be to electrolyse the oceans 

I'll have to spend some time (when I can find some!) in doing just as you ask. I do not even say that Wikipedia is wrong to refer to a "prevailing scientific opinion"; I merely say that it is misleading for it to claim such an opinion without backing it up with facts.

In the english wikipedia the article about global warming is rated excellent and is semi-protected. Excellent means (afaik) that the article cites it's sources.
However...yes would be great to read some contra arguments then.

I live next door to a distinguished geologist who believes that most of the climate changes occurring today are natural rather than man-made; I don't say that he is necessarily correct - merely that he has said it and quite vociferously and has at least two university degrees in a related subject.

Would be interesting to hear his arguments too.

I have no more time than you do for those who stick their heads in the sand and say that mankind has no responsibility whatsoever for this problem and, as I have observed, the possibility of substantial reduction in fossil fuel use ought in any case to appeal to many people regardless of their specific stance on the climate change responsibility issue because of the attraction of sustainability and, ultimately, lower costs of alternative fuel sources.

I agree here also ^^. This is actually the most important thing, regardless of responsibility we have to do something. Unfortunately it's the people with the power to change things who stick the head in the sand. (not all, but most). This problem is related to the consumption problem, since money is the reason why almost nothing has been done so far to counteract global warming. Oil Companies would love to see people driving big SUVs with 20 litres per 100km fuel consumption... 

[ahinton]

I hope consumption can be reduced with a change of our western way of life (i'm not suggesting to turn our whole system upside down).

As I have indicated, I hope that it can be maintained or increased but by drastically reducing the adverse kinds of consumption and replacing them with non-adverse forms thereof.

But isn't this what already happens and what is heard even from officials (minister for environment for example, at least where i live) to reduce use of water, not to use the car for a 100 m way etc?

"Ministers" say whatever it suits them to say at any given time in the cause of self-serving and, when they say this kind of thing, what they usually mean is "if I can make you do that, I can be even more pround of mysef and it won't affect me because I can and will continue to do just as I like"; this is not a universal stance among such folk, of course, but it is pretty common - and at least as commonly expected.

I exclude the developing world here since most of these people are not even near the western standard and deserve more wealth/higher living standards.

In other words, the very kind of western wealth that you imply is at the heart of the problem!

But since the distribution of wealth will change anyway in the future, i think in practice it will not be possible to reduce overall global consumption without reducing the population.

I'm not so sure that it will change as drastically as all that. China is likely to become much more wealthy, undoubtedly, but the rest will probably carry on much as usual, because that is what business interests invariably determine; some of the effects of this may continue to rub off on poorer countries in which richer ones invest, but other than that and the Chinese westernisation I don;t anticipate much more global economic change (mind you, since China has some one-sixth of the world' population, that;s still quite significant, i guess)...

i think it would be interesting to know whether there is at least a very small decrease of the oxygen level during the last, let's say 100 years. I could imagine. But i think it's also difficult to measure.Another way would be to electrolyse the oceans

Any serious research on this subject is bound to involve the oceans in some significant way if it is to be taken seriously; we have already discussed the question of provision and distribution of desalinated and purified water where it is most needed - and, indeed to everywhere where syuch water in needed. Whether "electrolysing the oceans" may ever become a practical and productive possibility, I cannot possibly guess.

regardless of responsibility we have to do something.

Indeed so - or at the very least we "should" do something.

Unfortunately it's the people with the power to change things who stick the head in the sand. (not all, but most).

Yes - although they are not the only ones who do this!

This problem is related to the consumption problem, since money is the reason why almost nothing has been done so far to counteract global warming.

No, no, a thousand times no! It is LACK of money - or rather lack of money being made available - that is the reason why so little has been done and, as I have said, it is not consumption per se that is at fault but unthinking and inappropriate consumption.

Oil Companies would love to see people driving big SUVs with 20 litres per 100km fuel consumption... 

Of course they would - and do - and it is they and their bankers and investors that have put up so much resistance to alternative means of power for so long. That said, I do not believe that any oil company that diversified into, say, solar power and then made thumping great profits out of it would any longer be resistant. Oil companies aren't as interested in oil per se as they are in the making of enormous global profits from consumers. The only problem for them with the solar idea is that there may be a perceived - and perhaps quite genuine - fear that sufficient successful research into this area might end up enabling small companies and private individuals to make their own electricity and become more self-sufficient in energy supplies rather than having constantly to buy more of their energy products.

Best,

Alistair