Er, I think we're in trouble.

[Galbally]

Jester;1137064 wrote: Being prepare dis essential, but I dont see the need to that great of an extent at any global proportions, reginally say after a great tsunami yes, I agree, lets prepare for the worst with stowable food supplies and deployement plans to get that food round the world in an emergent situation. But I can tye t get my head wrapped around the wide spread famine claims.


Jester, there are nearly seven billion people living on the planet, if they don't get food every day, eventually they will starve. We already have billions living at a subsistence level on probably one staple crop, rice. Any significant global climate change is going to disrupt agriculture completely, and result in hundreds of millions of people starving to death through famine.

That's probably not going to be an issue in the States or Europe initially, but certainly in Africa and parts of Asia it will be. I can't see there being any ability to sustain those population levels once climate change really kicks in. Your not talking about a week long emergency situation, or even a month. It will be permanent, there are places right now where hundreds of millions of people live, that won't be able to sustain them any more.

Last year, there were serious food riots across the third world, just because there was an increase in the price of rice due to bad harvets, and the diversion of staple food crops into ethanol, as well as significant commodity speculation because of the stupid credit crunch. Think about what would happen if their was a meter-rise in sea level. Most of bangladesh and the entire bay of bengal would be underwater, permanently. Thats hundreds of millions, and thats just one area of the world.

[Bryn Mawr]

Jester;1137087 wrote: Al Gore is an idiot- get a more credible spokesperson- rethink that.

Kyoto wont work, it's vestly expensive and foolhardy to waste so many resources on one idea.

And if the planet doesnt go forward with the US then you can forget it- Ideals (like freedom/Liberty) are far more important in some cases than life itself. There has to be a way to achive both and thats what Im counting on. Some things are deal enders. Any idea that ends basic Freedom and Liberty I wont support.

I also wont go forward on junk science- the scientific community needs proof, not best guesses and 'mays' and 'may nots'- but proof.

Im not gonna make global decions on WAGS and NSA's.


I've never claimed Al Gore at a spokesman - he's a prat. It's the obsession shown to his words by the deniers that I object to - proving that Al Gore is a prat does not prove that Global Warming does not exist, show me that the real science is wrong and I might take an interest.

Then show me some figures to prove that Kyoto, with an active US participation, will not work - easy to claim but it was only political expediency that kept you out.

If you don't like junk science then produce some of you own to prove that Global Warming does not exist - backed up by some credible subject matter experts.

There is far more real science showing that Global Warming is a real phenomenon than attested real science suggesting that it's not.

[Galbally]

Kyoto is dead, forget about it.

We need far, far more radical change than that.

At the moment we are still arguing about carbon trading caps, and reductions in "increases" in emissions. Meanwhile we actually plow on regardless, paying little heed to the melting arctic, or the increasingly erratic weather.

But everyone is still just playing politics, thinking this is just another one of those problems that come along, and that they can sort of prevaricate on and avoid until the last minute and then sort out with some treaty or other.

That's nowhere near enough of a response.

Even if we were to stop all CO2 emissions tomorrow, that still wouldn't stop the problem we face now, as the carbon cycle works over 50 or 60 years, so we are already locked in.

There has to be a political realization that this is actually deadly, deadly serious, and that leaders will have to start being frank with their populations about the real consequences.

The more denial there is now, the worse the panic is going to be when it's unavoidably clear what's happening. A phased program of outlining what is really happening is required, and thereby allowing people to grasp the scale of this, absorb it, and then deal with it somehow is the only way forward.

We probably need a little bit of time to cope with the economic problems we have, so maybe not this year, but certainly over the next couple of years, the leaders need to start being a lot more honest about the situation.

[Bryn Mawr]

Galbally;1137109 wrote: Kyoto is dead, forget about it.

We need far, far more radical change than that.

At the moment we are still arguing about carbon trading caps, and reductions in "increases" in emissions. Meanwhile we actually plow on regardless, paying little heed to the melting arctic, or the increasingly erratic weather.

But everyone is still just playing politics, thinking this is just another one of those problems that come along, and that they can sort of prevaricate on and avoid until the last minute and then sort out with some treaty or other.

That's nowhere near enough of a response.

Even if we were to stop all CO2 emissions tomorrow, that still wouldn't stop the problem we face now, as the carbon cycle works over 50 or 60 years, so we are already locked in.

There has to be a political realization that this is actually deadly, deadly serious, and that leaders will have to start being frank with their populations about the real consequences.

The more denial there is now, the worse the panic is going to be when it's unavoidably clear what's happening. A phased program of outlining what is really happening is required, and thereby allowing people to grasp the scale of this, absorb it, and then deal with it somehow is the only way forward.

We probably need a little bit of time to cope with the economic problems we have, so maybe not this year, but certainly over the next couple of years, the leaders need to start being a lot more honest about the situation.


Thanks Gal - I really do get too locked into arguing against what is said.

Sometimes I need a kicking to remind me of where we're at.

[Bryn Mawr]

[quote=Jester;1137123]

Granted but please do us deniers and your global climate change buddies a favor and get rid of him, he does not make your case at all. Get the GEICO lizard or the Taco Bell chihuawa- at least those are likeable spokespersons. Consider it a gesture of good will to us deniers.





JunkScience.com -- Kyoto Count Up!





I disagree, spend a month reading the site above and then come back and chat with me.


I've spent many a month reading such junk - you come back with serious articles disproving Global Warming and let's talk.

I've posted many peer reviewed articles showing the seriousness of the situation - Galbally's down the same, and you dismiss them (I don't believe - Al Gore's a jerk) without a serious rebuttal.

The site you've just posted is emotive - it provides no science, just selected factoids that are so out of context that they show nothing.

Spend a month researching the subject and then come back and show me your findings - then I'll chat with you.

[Clodhopper]

I think one of the big problems, even for those of us who accept that the climate is changing, is the magnitude of what we're dealing with.

This is SO MUCH bigger than anything we've had to deal with before that we simply can't cope with the scale of it. Concepts such as the idea that none of the common birds we see every day are likely to be here in 50 years time. They'll have moved north or gone extinct.

It is difficult to conceive of change on this scale.

[Galbally]

Clodhopper;1138951 wrote: I think one of the big problems, even for those of us who accept that the climate is changing, is the magnitude of what we're dealing with.

This is SO MUCH bigger than anything we've had to deal with before that we simply can't cope with the scale of it. Concepts such as the idea that none of the common birds we see every day are likely to be here in 50 years time. They'll have moved north or gone extinct.

It is difficult to conceive of change on this scale.


I think there are a couple of issues that can be broached in terms of trying to get a handle on it. Like you say, the scale of the changes are very large, and the responses require a level of common purpose and sacrafice that will be very hard to obtain.

We do have resources such as technology, people, and organization that can be brought to bear. At the moment its very hard to do that, as its hard to get the message across about the reality of the changes coming down the line, and their magnitude.

At present we don't have a clearly defined problem or emergency that is generally understood in ordinary people's minds, or a clearly defined goal of where we want to get to, what we need to achieve, so its hard to define a common purpose we need to adopt, and how we do that.

That will change as things become more serious, its probably the case that until someone very dramatic and undeniably related to climate change occurs will it be possible to harness all the parts of our collective societies to try and do something meaningful in response.

The issue is will we have the time and resources at that stage to do anything, at present I don't know, because I can't say for certain what's going to happen, so we are at the mercy of events for the present.

[Oscar Namechange]

Galbally;1139843 wrote: I think there are a couple of issues that can be broached in terms of trying to get a handle on it. Like you say, the scale of the changes are very large, and the responses require a level of common purpose and sacrafice that will be very hard to obtain.

We do have resources such as technology, people, and organization that can be brought to bear. At the moment its very hard to do that, as its hard to get the message across about the reality of the changes coming down the line, and their magnitude.

At present we don't have a clearly defined problem or emergency that is generally understood in ordinary people's minds, or a clearly defined goal of where we want to get to, what we need to achieve, so its hard to define a common purpose we need to adopt, and how we do that.

That will change as things become more serious, its probably the case that until someone very dramatic and undeniably related to climate change occurs will it be possible to harness all the parts of our collective societies to try and do something meaningful in response.

The issue is will we have the time and resources at that stage to do anything, at present I don't know, because I can't say for certain what's going to happen, so we are at the mercy of events for the present.


Just get down the bookies and get your money on 'Kauto Star' for the Cheltenham Gold Cup and you'll be alright. ;)

[Clodhopper]

Had a visitor for a couple of days, so haven't been paying attention.

My loose way of thinking about it to say the Tropics are probably already mostly dead, and while we dither and deny increasingly large bits of the Subtropics are dying. It's the Temperate Zone (us) next.