kjohnnytarr

https://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...rss_topstories

My problem with this:

They say global warming is something we can't change, something we'll just "have to live with."

Isn't it a bit pessimistic and hypocritical to say we can have a negative effect, but not a positive one, on the climate? And furthermore, if global warming will continue with or without our input, how do we know it's our fault, and not just a climate shift that would have happened anyway?

Climate is a complex issue. I don't presume to be so arrogant to say that I could understand it, and I wonder, can anyone?

Nightshade

No, I don't think we'll "have to live with it" forever. There will be a time that will
encompass a growing awareness of the problem, then working on the problem,
finally measuring the results all of which will take years. BUT it is a one shot
deal to get it right......

Roody

The point is that we canot undo the atmospheric damage that has already been done. It will take the planet hundreds of years to be right again. But of course we must do everything we can to prevent further damage. Eventually (and fairly quickly), we must reduce GHG emissions to near zero.

kjohnnytarr

I'm all for protecting the environment, including the atmosphere, but I think that it's foolish to believe that we can understand and manipulate something as complex as climate, and downright arrogant to think that we could "destroy the planet."

timmhaan

depends on what your definition of destroy the planet is? we've already caused the extinction of countless species, destroyed entire eco-systems, and paved over huge plots of natural land. in many cases we can no longer swim or drink in many natural bodies of water (too polluted). this has happened in a very short time period.

we may not destroy the planet as in a huge fireball explosion, but we can degrade it to a point that makes it very difficult for life to exist. and consider the huge economic stress that'll happen when storms get stronger and land is no longer useful forcing mass migrations of people.

there are already many people who consider fresh water more valuable then gold.

gerv 

I noticed this report was covered near the top of the New York Times web site. I think most papers today thought it was a pretty significant story. But when I was watching CBS News tonight, not a mention of it. Instead they covered security for the SuperBowl Game. I thought it was pretty strange until I noticed that a large segment on the turf (yes... they did a segment on the company that grew the grass) for the Superbowl was sponsored by... you guessed it!.... ExxonMobil.

zippered

hi, i've never posted in this forum before, but i just did a search for this topic. i'm actually watching the Canadian Broadcast Corporation's news right now, and i'm surprised at how strong the report is in terms of taking "action". this has recently become a key issue in the news lately. they even showed an american environment minister saying that he recognized climate change in no uncertain terms. very interesting!

gerv 

I've also watched Canadian television and I can tell you that they have been covering the Kyoto agreement when it rarely gets mentioned in the US prime-time media.

To learn about Kyoto in the US, you would actually have to visit some print medium. I will say that recently there has been more tv coverage of this issue, which has lead some politicians on both sides of the aisle to admit that something needs to be done. Right now, they all seem to agree that something should be done, as long as it doesn't impact the US economy. What that seems to means at the current moment is that the oil companies can push an agenda that supports watering down gasoline with corn-based ethanol. Or, like the amusing ExxonMobil advertisement I saw this evening, an introduction of cleaner-burning diesel fuels (less sulphur!). So the objective is to stay the course by obfuscating the issue.

!!Comatoa$ted

I agree with you on this. The issue is far to complex.

Global warming has been going on for a long time, since the ice age has ended. It is for this reason that I think global warming cannot be stopped. That being said I do believe we have had a hand in it as well with all the carbon we have liberated into the atmosphere at a much faster rate than if humans did not have the want to burn so much fossil fuels. Global warming also seems like a media event, most of the information that we have on it comes from the media, and in many cases I know that the media slants things one way or another in order to make themselves money.

!!Comatoa$ted

I think the reason that kyoto is getting so much press here is because the government recently canned its environment minister, and it is using the failed kyoto accord as a political issue against the liberal party to make itself look good. As well, Alberta is undergoing a huge oil boom and they feel kyoto would undermine this drastically. Kyoto is more of an election issue here, and that is why it is getting so much press. Two minority governments in a row have led to lots of interesting politics, and have spread the power to many previously powerless parties, like the NDP and the Green, who stand to gain if the electorate is constantly bombarded with environmental issues that show the major parties screwing up constantly.

GGDub

I'm all for reducing CO2 emissions, but Kyoto won't do anything. It was created by european countries wanting to feel good about themselves. The EU negotiated that they enter the agreement as a whole, hence cold countries who produce more CO2 get averaged in with warmer countries using less energy. Not to mention, big Oil producing states like Norway, get to average there emissions with countries with next to no oil and gas business. As well, companies like BP-Amoco and Royal Dutch Shell now produce a helluva lot of oil and gas from countries not bound by the treaty. Meaning, the euro's still get to make their money but don't have to worry about the emmissions.

And of course, you all know that China, India, south America, the middle east and africa are not bound by this at all. Russia pretends like they care, but they don't at all, and they are the world's number 1 oil exporter. To top it all off, all the treaty aims to do is bring emissions down to 1990 levels, which will do 4/5's of fack all for slowing the rate of warming.

Most people out here are all for reducing emissions. What they aren't for, is being forced to reduce emissions while heavy industry in Ontario and Quebec get exempted. Which is what will happen, because that's where the votes are. Don't believe me? Read up on the National Energy Program to see how the vote buying works.

zippered

but from what i gathered, this new report goes above and beyond kyoto: more like an attempt to scientifically prove that humans are accelerating global warming and to "serve as a dire warning" to all citizens of the world...

!!Comatoa$ted

I think it is a big screw up. Like you say in the end it is Ontario and Quebec that count, the rest of the country does not really have a say. I believe you when you talk about Ontario and Quebec. I have always thought that it is screwed up that the Quebec and Ontario electorate know what is best for the country, and I have lived in Quebec and Ontario for most of my life. I don't think anyone could touch Quebec with a 10 foot pole, and most would not want to because of their huge energy generating capacity, which is about to get a whole lot bigger.

The above makes me want to be a separatist, but I believe that Canada is much to big to have Ontario and Quebec decide the fate of the country, especially since one of the strongest provinces is doing it's best to leave the confederation, and it is making the decisions for the rest of the country. If it were up to me I would split the country into many pieces, and then we here in Quebec and Ontario would not have to suck the rest of the country dry. Then when I go on my cross Canada tour I could visit a whole bunch of other countries.

kjohnnytarr

In other words: this report whines about the problem, doesn't suggest a solution. That is something I have a problem with.

gwd

So, to summarize the thread with respect to car free living:
Either
1) Car free living can be part of a solution to a golbal warming problem by reducing carbon emmissions

or

2) global warming is too far advanced for wholesale car free living to make a difference

or

3) global warming isn't really a problem, and we can look forward to coconut palms growing on
the white house lawn and shedding our winter gear.

A few years ago the US position was that global warming isn't occuring or if it was people had no effect on it but now with this report that fourth possibility can't be taken seriously.

Is that a good summary?

timmhaan

people have been suggesting lowering GH emissions for years.

gerv 

I'm confused. I thought the whole of idea of the report was to unequivocally state, "yes or no... do we have a problem?". A similar report in 2001 was not as definitive. Apparently, there are some who would dispute this (particularly in the US...). Their objective was to be clear and consise about the problem.

I don't think their mandate was to come up with specific solutions. That will probably take the next 25 years to iron out.

zippered

um, assuming you're not just trolling, i'll take the bait...

i thought the point is that there are a multitude of solutions? if the problem is that there is too much pollution, then we need to do what it takes to reduce it/counter its effects!

i can't really address the claim that it is "whining" because i haven't read the report, only watched the news. i just tried to look up a version of the report on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's website (www.ipcc.ch) but it was restricted.

here's a link to a CBC article though: https://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cl...port-2007.html
"On Feb. 2, 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report — backed by 2,000 climate scientists from 113 countries — that attempts to put aside lingering doubts about the human role in the phenomenon."

kjohnnytarr

I just think that this report is a bit of a waste of time.

We already know that reducing pollution, making ourselves less dependent on fossil fuels, reducing energy consumption, and stopping urban sprawl are all good ideas. We've know that for decades, and the best reasons to fix these problems have nothing to do with global warming.

So then, why is it that global warming gets all the attention? It's certainly an ambiguous theory -- we're only just now getting around to "proving it" and there could be any number of "solutions." As gerv said, this will take decades to figure out. In the mean time, with everyone's focus on global warming, the average person will forget about more basic issues, issues they can directly impact today, while they hang on the edge of their seats for the next report.

What a waste of time, resources, and scientific minds.

priu

A waste of scientific minds? You obviously have no clue about the history of global warming research... I suggest you start with this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...013101808.html

If you want to argue about what's "wasting time," why don't you start with 'non-scientific' behaviors.

Roody

Actually the report won't even come out until later this year. And it will contain many suggestions for action. So at least wait a bit--and maybe even read the damn thing--before you condemn it.

Roody

Then I hope you're an old man like me. If you're young, you'll certainly find out what it means to destroy the environment. You won't like it.

Roody

There are a great many non-media sources of information about global warming. Let me link you to two:

1. The web site of the international panel of scientists and governments that will soon issue a report concluding that it is more than 90 % certain that human activity is causing global warming, and that this will seriously impact life on earth in the next 100 years.
2. The weblog for a group of climate scientists. This blog summarizes the thousands of studies that form the body of scientific evidence about global warming.

Gojohnnygo.

Climate change is real its time to deal with it.

Intresting report I found. This type of crap has been going on for years.


(Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.)

A link to the full story https://www.energybulletin.net/25597.html

makeinu

Meteorologists would get a lot more than $10,000 each if they could accurately predict the weather for the next month, but so far they haven't seemed up to the task. To think that they could predict the weather for the next 100 years is simply laughable.

My humble opinion is that there are plenty of reasons to reduce emissions that are much less dubious and much more obvious than global warming. How about the simple fact that breathing them in can't be good for the body? Or the fact that we simply don't know what the effect is and, thus, whole sale air pollution is an extremely big risk? Or that cars simply smell bad and the streets would be much more pleasant if there weren't any cars around to stink them up? How about economic freedom from oil holders?

If you ask me, the only way we will see real scientific progress in this field is if/when the economic incentive becomes great enough. When the average joe is willing to throw down part of his savings to enjoy a clean natural environment then there will be big bucks on the line to serve as incentive for the brightest minds and the best facilities to try to tackle the problem. Until then, there's no way of knowing how significant the environmental impact is or whether or not said impact could even be reversed with the right technology. Society just doesn't care enough about it to spend the economic resources necessary to figure it out.