Slashdot Mirror
More Bad News About Global Warming
IZ Reloaded writes "A UK govt report says that greenhouse gases may have more serious impacts that previously thought. Greenhouse gases it says, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable. From BBC: The European Union has adopted a target of preventing a rise in global average temperature of more than two Celsius. That, according to the report, might be too high, with two degrees being enough to trigger melting of the Greenland ice sheet.... A rise of two Celsius, researchers conclude, will be enough to cause:
* Decreasing crop yields in the developing and developed world
* Tripling of poor harvests in Europe and Russia
* Large-scale displacement of people in north Africa from desertification
* Up to 2.8bn people at risk of water shortage
* 97% loss of coral reefs
* Total loss of summer Arctic sea ice causing extinction of the polar bear and the walrus
* Spread of malaria in Africa and north America"
....bush says in his State of Union address that Niger provided yellow cake to Iraq, so it too must be "democraticized" forcibly. ....another analyst resigns from bush admin and joins Chevron after being identified as a "watering down specialist" who watered down reports related to global warming. ....aw.. forget it. Its Monday evening, and am bootin' for Home.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Give me a break. Start worrying about things humans do control, not the things they wish they controlled. The more you beat your chest about global warming and how humans are causing it, the more silly you sound. Do the science. It's like pissing in the ocean and saying you killed the whales. As much as we wish we were that powerful, we are not and, hopefully, never will be.
People act as though humanity is the only reason species die. Just like the warming and cooling trends of the planet that have gone on for billions of years, so too has the cycle of species dying and new species being "created". That's just how the planet works.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
It seems to me we are basing what is normal on a sample of
Does anyone really think one can determine what is normal in the life of a person, or anything, with little data?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
No, that's not the way things go.
Joking aside, it usually is the USA (and UK) that shoot/destroy the world, and the rest of Europe/world that ends up paying for it either in hard valuta or in suffering.
cfr Africa, South-East Asia, Balkan, Israel/Palestina, the Middle-East in general just to name a few in recent decade(s).
anytime someone farts in your general direction, you have to blow them up (or 'back to the stoneage') along with the country he/she is in, and
in the end, it is Europe that has to pay the bills for your companies that 'rebuild' the country.
frankly, this idea is beginning to form rather harshly in the public opinion of a lot of Europeans.
kind regards
All these left wing wackos say that the aarth is being affected by Global Warming. But you can't prove it. We've only really been monitoring the weather for a good 100 - 200 years. Is it POSSIBLE that MAYBE just MAYBE the earth goes through swings of temperature? Remember the "mini-ice-age"? I don't personally believe in evolution, but for all those of you who do (which are also probably the main ones who are believing in Global Warming) wasn't there an ice-age millions of years ago? Where humans with CFCs and Oil burning cars the ones that made it get "Warmer"? Or does the earth just go through huge cycles?!
What really concerns me is the manipulation of climate science for political ends. When a politician talks about an event 1,000 years away as "shocking", it's time to look at what their intentions are.
Socialism failed. So, the advocates of the command economy adopted environmental science, and are trying to blind the populace. The message has become that individuality is bad, but instead of being because it makes others poor (because that got busted), it is because it is damaging our planet.
This means more nannies in charge of us, because we can't have that free market taking care of you. More regulation of people's activities, more government jobs to centralise activities to save the planet. Lots of unionised jobs for the boys driving park-and-ride buses, more rail and making an extra "green" refuse collection (even though the park-and-ride is less environmentally friendly than the same car use).
50 posts and nobody calls "FUD" on this?
- 600x283.gif it is certainly convincing that there is warming going on. No question. But all of these graphs seem to start in the 1800s. I've seen other graphs showing longer spans in which the current temperatures, while high, are still well within the normal deviation. How is it that we KNOW that *this time* it's going to go higher? All the models I've read about that project this sort of thing are so full of assumptions and broad variables that they are pretty much useless.
Can someone please answer the following questions concisely and clearly?
- If I look at a graph like http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gat2005
A rise of two Celsius, researchers conclude, will be enough to cause: * Decreasing crop yields in the developing and developed world
- Don't plants prefer warmer, higher-CO2 atmosphere? Wasn't it much warmer than +2C at intermittent periods in humanity's past, as well as in more ancient geologic epochs?
* Tripling of poor harvests in Europe and Russia *
- What does this even mean? I presume they mean a tripling of the FREQUENCY of bad harvests? Last time I checked, Europe and Russia were not the major food producers of the world. Wouldn't increased temperatures open up large swaths of North America to cultivation more intensively than before? This shift of 'main agricultural region' northward also sort of neatly solves the issue about soil and water table exhaustion in the Central US too, doesn't it? Also, don't most of the tests of increased-CO2 environments show an increased growth, increased CO2 absorption using LESS moisture? That sounds pretty good to me?
Large-scale displacement of people in north Africa from desertification *
Up to 2.8bn people at risk of water shortage *
- I don't see how global warming is going to affect this? As far as I can see, the 'global warming' crowd is also predicting increased frequency and increased intensity weather events (ie rain?) which will be recharging aquifers faster than usual. Personally, I think there are just way too many people living in way too crummy of areas.
97% loss of coral reefs *
- Please. This one is utterly incredible. Maybe 97% loss of CURRENT coral reefs? But as far as I know there have been coral reefs all the way back to the Cenozoic, in conditions of FAR higher global temperature. Basically, if one area gets warmer, other areas that were previously too cool for reef formation will then be warmed into the reef-friendly climate range. Coral reefs are neither static nor permanent.
Total loss of summer Arctic sea ice causing extinction of the polar bear and the walrus *
Again, FUD: assuming the polar bear and the walrus are entirely unable to adapt to changing conditions. Yes their conditions will change, but with the warming of arctic waters mightn't an increased seal population lead to a BOOM in polar bear populations? I sincerely doubt that polar bears and walrus will vanish.
Spread of malaria in Africa and north America
- Great! Now maybe we can go back to using DDT which was the victim of FUD (Silent Spring) 30 years ago but which has since been proven NOT to cause the terrible results illustrated in that book.
"... when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." -Alston Chase
Personally, every time someone raises a doubt about global warming, the reporter attacks the questioner as a tool of big oil or somesuch. Anyone ever question the motivations of the people proclaiming global warming? Their credulity, their histrionics, and their repeated chicken littling (first it was overpopulation, then we're going to run out of oil about every 15 years, then it was going to be a global ice age, now it's global warming....) all cast HUGE doubts on their credibility with THIS particular disaster.
-Styopa
And Jesus is coming back in the year 2010. Seriously, people don't trust the weather report 5 days from now, and yet they're perfectly willing to impose an economic cost on the USA amounting to trillions of dollars, for what is (in effect) a weather report ONE-FREAKIN'-HUNDRED years out? Where has the skepticism, gone, people?!? This isn't science, it's fear mongering based on the personal moral agenda of those who view humans as a sinful stain on God's pure earth---and the irony is, these people don't even believe in God. Welcome your new puritanical atheist overlords.