An Inconvenient truth?

[poncho]

hi madmix

quote:

"Why should global warming result in food and water
shortages.
Given predictions of rising sea levels and rising temperatures,
it stands to reason that the evaporation from a larger expanse
of water will also increase, therefore leading to an increased
rate of precipitation.
So we have increased precipitation and increased temperature
levels, which should result in increased levels of food production
due to more favorable and widespread growing conditions."

Your absolutely right "with rising sea levels and rising temperatures it stands to reason that the evaporation from a larger expanse of water will also increase, therefore leading to an increased rate of precipitation.So we have increased precipitation and increased temperature levels, (this is the bit i dispute)---> which should result in increased levels of food production due to more favorable and widespread growing conditions."

I don't think you can unequivocally say higher temps and rain are more favorable growing conditions. How many wheat farmers are there is Darwin? Temperate crops such as wheat simply can't survive in a tropical climate. Not all crops are suited to higher temps and higher precipitation. Furthermore though higher temps do mean higher precipitation it usually also means a higher concentration of precipitation in short periods (the wet season in the tropics) which means more floods and more violent whether. Again I'm no expert and in the movie they go into more depth explaining this. I wasn't trying to have a go at people, the original point i was trying to make was go see the movie with an open mind (instead of rubbishing it without seeing it) it addresses a lot of things people have bought up in the post.

Cheers Chris

[PinHead]

Tunaman,

full power to your arm for continuing to discuss the topic in the face of ignoramuses who choose not to confront the reality you may think it is apparent...but not all follow along blindly that is now as well and truly apparent as the nose on their face. As Al Gore has referred to it (climate change) it is an inconvenient truth - because it confronts our current socio - economic paradigm with it's unsustainability. Its not rocket science any cow cocky knows there are only so many head you can put in the bottom paddock before your outstrip its productive capacity and lead to natural resource degradation - its called carrying capacity - most five year olds understand it well enough but modern society - particularly adherents to the growth based economy prefer to believe in the cultural delusion of 'evermoreism' - that is human welfare is dependent on ever-increasing consumption of resources and energy something we know to be a lie (& unsustainable).

Who gives a shit? I do, I have two young kids and the impacts of climate change will definitely be increasingly felt in their lifetimes - we are already seeing the beginning of it.

The 0.7 degrees increase in global temperature rise in the last 100 years is only the beginning - it is accelerating, 0.5 of the increase has occurred post 1950's, and their is an increasing consensus between climatologists and ecologists that 2-3 degrees rise is as much as we could possibly risk before we get run away carbon dynamics and positive feedback mechanisms operating that will take our climate to a place where the survivability of human society is less than assured. People need to realise that the world's atmosphere is a big thing (but not that big that it can absorb impacts forever - the entire biosphere - the bit that contains life - is as thick as condensation on a marble) and that changes to it requires big inputs and set up a lot of inertia - its a big ship to turn around!!

I am a scientist (ecologist) who has had cause to review the scientific literature on climate change as part of my work and it has been personally disturbing for me to see where the science has got to in terms of reaching consensus on the severity of the unfolding impacts and its linkage to human activity - versus the six o'clock news where the world's superpowers are still more interested in securing oil reserves in the middle east - when climate wise we can't even afford to burn the oil we have!!

We can avert global catastrophe associated with climate change and the other ecological crisis we face but it will require nothing short of cultural reform. As a society we need to accept that ecosystems singularly or in their entirety as the global life support system have thresholds as to how much they can be trashed/exploited before ecological values and ecosystem services are lost - we need to get our culture and economy operating within those constraints instead of the blind adherence to the economic mythology of sustained growth forever - its not rocket science, quite simple really - as David Suzuki once said 'growth for the sake of growth is the philosophy of cancer!"

If you look (via aerial photos or satellite imagery) at the patterns that human development make on the natural energetic signatures of ecosystems (diverse mosaics comprised of ’arterial’ river networks, forests and kidney ‘wetlands’ that evoke Gaian sympathies) it is apparent that the growth – cancer analogy goes beyond the metaphoric. The massive undifferentiated cellular pattern of human settlement or agriculture represents a blight on the more complex landscape tissues of nature which draws energetically from the surrounding living system (nutrients and materials) and excretes by-products downstream (wastes, toxins, sediment & nutrient loads) that cause system dysfunction – the cancer analogy is actually quite accurate – and we have the ability to fix this by modelling our society and development more on nature where someone’s shit is someone else’s nutrient and connected cyclical systems deliver homeostasis (dynamic equilibrium) as opposed to growth.

Unfortunately the powers that be (the privileged classes and top order capitalists) benefit from the status quo (it keeps the wheels of industry turning – just look at how the military industry complex has benefited from the current wars in the middle east) and how many so called scientists have profited from all the doom and gloom they have predicted and given the media monopolisation in this country (and globally) we don't get to hear too many alternative views on the matter or have too many debates about how the economy should operate or who it should serve.

We all have come to equate quality of life with our individual level of material and energy consumption - when in fact there are heaps of cultural pursuits that we could pursue to give ourselves a high quality of life without costing the earth – things like (1) nature base recreation (that’s where fishing comes in), LOL..nature based..petrol, plastics, carbob fibre, fibreglass, nylon line etc etc..all purely nature based.(2) spirituality is that as in religion? not going on that one...too many deaths caused in the name of religion for my likings thanks(wherever you find it –besides the almighty $ sign) and (3) the arts (no not Van Goughs on the wall – but creative endeavours that bind community and give them a positive sense of identity & Hope!!).

Viva the revolution - Jim

Jim..please show me one definitve piece of research that can tell me exactly what will the climate be like in 50 years..not some supposition..something absolute..I bet you can't..and no one can cos no one knows. I wonder if the neanderthals were freaking over global freezing before the ice age?? did them a lot of good huh ???

I am sick and tired of all this doom and gloom..it all seems to come down to one thing..scientists looking for bucks to suit their model of the future..more to save some trees...more to create this type of housing..more for this type of food production etc etc etc....if we are so guilty of the burning of fossil fuels...how much carbon etc is released when a volcano erupts...comparable to how many cars running for a certain length of time..any answers?

0.5C in 50 years..and 0.7 in the past 100...but what was the temperature variance in the 100 years prior? We do not know...so once again it is all guesswork.

[Jim_Tait]

Onya Chris for informing re: rainfall patterns and crop production,

there is also another little known or talked about component to 'greenhouse' impacts to the atmosphere and that concerns the carbon dioxide concentrations alone - experimental trials growing both native and crop plants under the sorts of CO2 concerntrations we're expecting to see in ~50 yrs show that many plants will produce increasingly 'sclerophyllous' (fiborous) vegetation and lower nutritive status produce including fruit. Looking at the impact on Australian arboral mammals that feed on Eucalypt leaves (possums, koalas) the concern (backed up by the experimental trials) is that under growing conditions of extra high CO2 concentrations the leafy matter produced will take more energy to digest that the nutritive value that is returned. Thus sertting up a spiralling energy used / consumed deficit.

Another reason to appreciate that humans should not be able to generate run away carbon dynamics in the atmosphere in the pursuit of a growth economy and figure 'she'll be apples' - the apples might end up being prettyy tough (& crap) tucker!!

[Jim_Tait]

Pinhead,

congratulations mate your one of the few that can make me laugh and cry at the same time - get real mate - for your grandchildrens sake if nothing else - I hope you're up to looking them in the eye in a decade or twos time and re-interating your theory about how all this climate change is a nasty old scientist get rich scheme

[PinHead]

Pinhead,

congratulations mate your one of the few that can make me laugh and cry at the same time - get real mate - for your grandchildrens sake if nothing else - I hope you're up to looking them in the eye in a decade or twos time and re-interating your theory about how all this climate change is a nasty old scientist get rich scheme

Maybe you should get real Jim...I will gladly reiterate it..I did not say temps will not change but I do say that man has very little impact on natural cyclical changes of the planet. I will also reiterate that scientists twist things to suit their puppeteer...here is one example..http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901

On a slightly different tact..how is the hole in the ozone layer going? any better now we are not using cfc's?

[Jim_Tait]

[quote author=Jim_Tait link=1159014323/45#59 date=1160969083]Tunaman,

– things like (1) nature based recreation (that’s where fishing comes in), LOL..nature based..petrol, plastics, carbob fibre, fibreglass, nylon line etc etc..all purely nature based.(2) spirituality is that as in religion? not going on that one...too many deaths caused in the name of religion for my likings thanks(wherever you find it –besides the almighty $ sign) and (3) the arts (no not Van Goughs on the wall – but creative endeavours that bind community and give them a positive sense of identity & Hope!!).

Viva the revolution - Jim

Pinhead - I said fishing was an example of nature based recreation - and it is,- how you choose to pursue it is up to your own budget and morality - I certainly have caught my fair share of feeds by sustainable fishing gear including my hands at times!!

I didn't say religion - I said spirituality - the two are quite different one is a feeling most humans have the capacity to experience (it seems) about their origins and sense of place in the cosmos - the other is about institutions trying to garner power over the masses - I agree that there has been too much killing for religous purposes for me to be comfortable with it as well - but spirtuality is something I belive is intrinsict to us all - it can be as simple as watching the sun set over the water after you've just landed a barra you hunted arond the edge of some floodplain lagoon and getting the feeling that this nature stuff is part of you and that you are part of it - works for me!!

[Jim_Tait]

[quote author=Jim_Tait link=1159014323/60#63 date=1160975213]Pinhead,

Maybe you should get real Jim...I will gladly reiterate it..I did not say temps will not change but I do say that man has very little impact on natural cyclical changes of the planet. I will also reiterate that scientists twist things to suit their puppeteer...here is one example..http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901

On a slightly different tact..how is the hole in the ozone layer going? any better now we are not using cfc's?[/quote]


If the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is cyclical - then how come the increasing concentration we are experiencing now initiated during the industrial revolution and has increased in concert with global patterns of fossil fuel use??

How is the ozone hole going - crap - its bigger than ever this year - for a couple of reasons - globally we haven't stopped using CFC's (although there has been a major reduction due to the implemnentation of the Montreal agreement), those that ae in the atmosphere stay there a long time and also because there is an interaction between climate change and the behaviour of the upper stratosphere which has resulted in an exceptionally cold (stratospherically) antartic winter that has dispersed the ozone layer more than usual - the other way its going crap is in the biological cost of increased ultra violet penetration reaching earth and causing melanomas and other physiological impacts on wildlife and humans - does that answer it for you?

[Jim_Tait]

Pinhead,

the following information is in the 'about us' section of the cooler heads coalition a sub group of the 'National Cosumer Coalition'.

Personally I prefer to get my science from scientist organisations not those espousing the merits of unbridled 'economic rationalism' the very force I asset has got us into the shit we're in. Also note that the scientist feeling upset about unsubstantiated claims about increased cyclonoic activity being associated with the greenhouse effect - does not dispute anthropogenetic (human caused) global warming.

INFORMATION ON THE COOLER HEADS COALITION (and what they believe - buy it if you desire - that's what consumerism is about isn't it??)

This web site is a project of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a sub-group of the National Consumer Coalition.

The Cooler Heads Coalition formed May 6, 1997 to dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis. Coalition members will also follow the progress of the international Global Climate Change Treaty negotiations.

This website is paid for and maintained by Consumer Alert.

More information about the Cooler Heads Coalition.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the National Consumer Coalition

The National Consumer Coalition was formed by Consumer Alert in late 1996 as an on-going coalition of market-oriented national and state-level policy and activist groups, which focus on consumer issues in the policy arena. Jointly representing over 2,000,000 individuals, the NCC currently includes 24 member groups. The NCC is coordinated by Fran Smith, Consumer Alert's executive director, and the NCC's issue work is done by its sub-groups of which three have already formed. Each sub-group focuses on a specific issue, such as internet privacy, global climate change, and health care, and includes experts from the member organizations who study that issue.

Since many NCC members are non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) organizations, NCC does not engage in lobbying. NCC promotes broad educational activities, and members have submitted comments to federal agencies and testified on behalf of consumers. The NCC's agenda is determined by the member groups.

The Proclamation of the National Consumer Coalition

The members of the National Consumer Coalition (NCC) do hereby endorse the following principles for a society of free and responsible consumers:


A market economy benefits consumers by expanding consumer choice and competition and fostering innovation, which lowers costs and improves consumer health and safety.


Individual consumers have different values and varying needs in the marketplace and shop for goods and services based on those, such as quality level, price, service, and convenience.


Informed consumers are better off making their own decisions in the marketplace and holding responsibility for those decisions.


Consumers exert clout in the marketplace by their decisions to buy or not to buy and to choose where to spend their money.


Government policies that restrict consumer choice and stifle competition harm consumers by substituting policymakers’ values for individual values and raising the costs of goods and services to consumers.

[PinHead]

Jim...a CFC as such is harmless to the ozone layer..it is when the chlorine atom breaks off that the so called damage is done...still wondering how it gets up there seeing as it is heavier than air.

But wait..scientists told us that CFC's like R12 were damaging the ozone layer..okay...they now say we have this wonderful new product called R134A..all this from scientists remember..no damage to the ozone..yippee..all is good.

But wait..there is more...it won't damage the ozone layer yet it will be a problem in the so called greenhouse gases system..and..given certain exposure ..it will cause testicular cancer...wonderful??? All given to us by scientists...all a bunch of wankers in that respect.

Aid in one so called problem and do damage in another so called problem...wow, that sure is conclusive science. Once again...they did not know...as no scientists in these fields know.

If it is obvious as the nose on your face, Jim, then you are in the wrong filed..you should be over in the States convincing their EPA that it is all cut and dried because they admit ithere is one hell of a lot of uncertainties...http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...rtainties.html

No one is denying that things are changing..BUT..who can prove conclusively that it is mad made or just a natural cycle...records have not been kept for long enough to prove anything...the planet has been going for millions of years..man's records..a hundred or maybe 2...not much to make assumptions of what the planet is really doing is it.

Anyway..has been a good debate and neither side will ever be convinced to the other's point of view.

Bring on more heat...keeps me busy...LOL

[Jackinthebox]

I should have also started a poll with this thread to see how many of you have actually gone & seen the movie?

So has anyone else seen the film yet besides a few of us?

I don't see why people want to fight this so hard. As one reviewer put it, “why roll the dice on the only planet we've got.” Even if NASA found another planet for us to live on, we’d probably stuff that up in record time too!

I'm not advocating a “back to third world country” existence. We have created all the amazing innovations, technology, etc in the world through the genius of the human mind and if the desire is there, we can use this same genius to solve many of the biggest problems facing us without abandoning our way of life. Problem is, too many people are making big $$$$$ by keeping things going the way they are.

HYBRID CARS: Here’s a really basic example, the Toyota Hybrid Petrol/electric car costs about $37,000 for a new one and gets close to 1000 kilometres on a single tank of fuel. The average new Falcon or Commodore for a similar price will use more than twice the fuel. Not surprisingly, the waiting list for a Toyota Prius is very long now.

FULL ELECTRIC CARS: Critics said that the purely electric cars built by GM (USA) in the 90’s were canned because you could only drive 100 miles (160 km)at a time before a recharge and people "did not want to have to adjust their lifestyle to fit the car"

Now ask yourself this, how many days of the year do you actually need to drive more than 160 kilometres in one go? I asked myself, and the last time I could think of was 12 months ago when we went to Stanage Bay. The time before that, Dunno? Average distance travelled per day by the average person is about 25 – 50 kilometres - not much lifestyle adjusting to do there is there?

So what about the old “ electric cars are gutless” argument, well did anyone see the show on tv recently with the guys in the US that convert their cars over to electric at home. One of them races his old Datsun electric ute at the drags and does a 12 second quarter mile, not bad for a gutless electric hey?

Getting off the electric car for a sec, how about Hydrogen. Many people don’t know that the Hydrogen fuel cell was invented over a hundred years ago! Would have been good if they put these into the first cars…. very simple, hardly any parts to break down, no toxic exhaust(only water), etc, etc. No someone had a better idea, “lets use this oil stuff” and put a nice heavy, complicated metal engine in these cars with tons of things that can break down and requiring lots of maintenance. Fast forward to the current day and we’ve got a world that’s addicted to oil and running out, cities choked with toxic gases and a worldwide threat of terrorism caused by one thing …OIL!
On the other hand, Hydrogen is simple to make, is the most abundant element on earth and doesn’t require pissing off half of the world to secure supplies of it.

Who said that green business had to be bad business, there are tons of examples of companies out there that have thought outside the "I’M NOT GONNA CHANGE" square and managed to easily implement measures that have reduced pollution or electricity or water etc by massive amounts. This has saved these companies lots and lots of money, as well as being good for the environment and the people that live near them.

[PinHead]

Jack..hydrogen is a marvellous idea..but it will not help in the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases..the most cost effective way of producing hydrogen..electrolysis in water..pass an electric current through the water...and a damn lot of electricity at that..and what do we do to get the electricity..burn fossil fuels.

[poncho]

Burning fossil fuels isn't the only way to make electricity.

[PinHead]

Burning fossil fuels isn't the only way to make electricity.

I agree..go the Nukes

[Jim_Tait]

But wait..scientists told us that CFC's like R12 were damaging the ozone layer..okay...they now say we have this wonderful new product called R134A..all this from scientists remember..no damage to the ozone..yippee..all is good.

But wait..there is more...it won't damage the ozone layer yet it will be a problem in the so called greenhouse gases system..and..given certain exposure ..it will cause testicular cancer...wonderful??? All given to us by scientists...all a bunch of wankers in that respect.

Pinhead,
you can bet that R134A was bought to us not by scientist but capitalist wankers - who believe in the right of consumer access to what ever (including toxic shit if the profit margins are good enough). The scientist would have been in the employ of these wankers and would have been working to a narrow brief set by legal wankers who would have hamstrung their ability to communicate anything other than what they were contracted to do - find an 'ozone friendly' alternative to CFC's for use in refrigerants - which they did.

By the way their are alternatives to R134A which are hydrocarbon (propane) based 'green kool' or something like that - although still greenhouse gasses they deliver about 1/1000 the damage of R12 in the atmosphere.

[mowerman]

I agree with pinhead.

Nuke it.

Global Warming..Too many "learned" people making too much money out of something that should be stuffed back in the box and the lid screwed shut.


If it happens it happens..and we can do jack shit about it.