[ShortcutToMoncton]

A comprehensive scientific study of the Arctic climate has confirmed what Canadian Dene and Inuit have been saying for years: the North is melting, and faster all the time.

Released Monday, the four-year study produced by 250 scientists from eight circumpolar countries concludes that global warming is affecting the Arctic more heavily than any other region on earth.

"Earth's climate is changing, with the global temperature now rising at a rate unprecedented in the experience of modern human society," says the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report.

"These climate changes are being experienced particularly intensely in the Arctic."

Global Warming Study Summary

Hmmmmm...I'm not sure I can even talk about this without blowing my top and mentioning the Bush re-election. However, suffice to say that there are some serious climate issues happening around the world, and the Arctic is bearing the brunt both of massive pollution and climate change (most particularly warming). Anyways, in some part I wish this had come up during the election, but at the same time I'm pretty confident it wouldn't've made an iota of difference. Ahhhhhhhhh, short-sighted, stupid, humanity.



greg

[Spliffdaddy]

Are you old enough to remember the 'Global Cooling' myth?

Same thing as the 'Global Warming' myth - only it was cold at the time.

Don't fall for doomsday theories.

[d4nth3m4n]

i had a science teacher in high school who went around the county buying land at 400' of elevation, his thinking was that someday when the icecaps melted his family would own beachfront property.

he smoked a lot of pot. hilarious guy.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Doomsday theories?! Pot?!

Are you guys serious?? This is not a doomsday theory, this is something that is happening. This is an actual, scientific fact.

I suppose YOU'RE not old enough to remember the picture in Time magazine in 1947, right? The one with the chicken and cow and potato and Mommy in a nice little line, singing "DDT is good for me-e-e!" with big happy grins? My, they sure weren't smoking pot or worried about Doomsday theories! After all, they had the Answer!

The "Global Warming" myth. Pffffft. Come on now, try to have a LITTLE knowledge before ya spew.

greg

[nath]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Are you old enough to remember the 'Global Cooling' myth?

Same thing as the 'Global Warming' myth - only it was cold at the time.

Don't fall for doomsday theories.

[TETENAL]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3943727.stm

Russia recently ratified the Kyoto protocol which means it is becoming effective now because 55% of greenhouse emission is now done by nations who ratified Kyoto. I don't know whether Canada did ratify, but if they are worried about global warming they should. Are Inuit allowed to vote in Canada? It's their livelihood (and cultural identity) that is at stake here.

US Americans are not interested in reducing CO₂ emission because it could harm their economy.

[ambush]

Republicans say - there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect.

[Spliffdaddy]

We've only been measuring temperatures for, what, a hundred and fifty years? How old is the Earth? I forgot.

and (coincidentally?) using that miniscule amount of data, we concluded that the Earth is doomed.

um. sure it is.

Mild winter?

global warming caused it.

Hot summer?

global warming, again.

Bitter cold winter with record low temperatures?

global warming rears its ugly head once more.


All this from the very same pseudo-intellectual tree-hugging waanabe-university-attending radical liberal militant "scientists" that brought us the misguided 'ozone hole' theory.

We can't say with any degree of certainty whether it will rain on Friday or not - yet we know what the hell is gonna happen in the year 2205?

For every dim-witted half-baked 'sky is falling' doomsday scenario, you'll find a legion of miserable followers - believers in the notion that humans are evil.

Sell crazy somewhere else.

[chris v]

51% of voting-age Americans don't give a damn, therefore the prolem does not exist.

[C.J. Moof]

Scientists agree that an Ice Age occured. Glaciers came right over the spot of land I'm sitting on.

If humans were observing and noting climate changes at that time, they would have tried to take credit for that change too.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by ambush:
Republicans say - there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect.

No, they say the terrorist Inuit, or possibly Inuits, are melting their ice capes. Bomb the arctic!

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We've only been measuring temperatures for, what, a hundred and fifty years?

Wow, the thermometer is really recent invention.

[deedar]

Just because ya'll say it ain't so, doin't mean it ain't real.

Read if you can.

[MacmanX]

I don't understand all this 'doomsday' talk. We would really have to screw up to wipe ourselves off the earth. However, the greenhouse effect is fact. It's simple physics.

Global warming trends can be inferred from greenhouse and other data. If you decide to disagree with the inferences, that's great! But, do you have another credible theory to put forward? I would like to hear them. What I'm sick of hearing is the reactionary blathering of people with nothing useful to bring to the discussion.

The possible results of global warming are real. However, no one is claiming the END OF THE WORLD is one of them (well, some of the nay-sayers here seem to be saying that, but rational, informed people aren't). Global warming means increased glacial melt, slightly higher sea levels and disturbed climate patterns (rain in the Sahara, but none for the Amazon sort of thing). It could lead to humanitarian crises in a lot of underdeveloped countries. Many people take an interconnected view of themselves and their actions. Others are individualists. I suppose neither view is wrong, but an overall view seems more rational as our actions always affect other people.

Technically, reducing greenhouse gasses is not that hard. The research has already been done and paid for. Proven methods are available. Widespread use would mean a drop in cost for these methods and economic stimulus for so called 'green' industries (companies that make the scrubbers, etc.).

Finally, there is the simple emotional factor. I want to see the great glaciers of the world. I would hate to lose the barrier islands that I have visited all my life. I don't want to see natural wonders destroyed. I realise the only constant on earth is change, but I think we should try hard no to be the tools of destruction.

Really, all I'm asking for is rational thought about the problem. Dogmatism (from either side) helps no one.

Cheers!

[jcadam]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Wow, the thermometer is really recent invention.

Your data do not necessarily prove that us humans are the cause of the climate change we are currently experiencing. From your data, it appears that the avg global temperature has been steadily increasing throughout all of modern history (1500 - persent), and given that fact that 500 years a miniscule length of time (on a geologic scale), I would conclude that this 'global warming' is a naturally occuring phenomenon.

Perhaps we are merely on our way 'up' from the last ice age. The global temperature will peak (from your data it almost appears that we are currently AT the peak), and will then gently and gradually decline into the next ice age.

That's my guess anyway. I'm no climatologist. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night....

All you environmentalists need to take a chill pill. Go enjoy life.

edit: drunkedness introduces spelling and grammatical errors. But the 'insightfulness' factor of my posts increases :hiccup:

edit again: data is plural

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Whoa. I'm SURE I replied in this thread after deedar. Something went wrong.



greg

[DBursey]

The devil is in the terminology. We're talking global climate change, not warming. As Moncton has noted, its effects are already being documented in susceptible habitat the world over.

In response to other members' queries; a) yes, Canadian Innu are accorded full voting rights as Canadian citizens, and b) Yes, Canada is a signatory to the Kyoto protocol on global climate change.

We've only been measuring temperatures for, what, a hundred and fifty years? How old is the Earth? I forgot.

Lakebed sediments, tree growth rings, fossilized organics, sample ice cores from glaciers and ice shelves all provide scientists with a record of global climate data going back hundreds of thousands of years.

You might want to read up on the science and methodology involved in the tracking of climate change. Your dismissive strawman argument belies your lack of knowledge as pertains to the topic at hand.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Are you old enough to remember the 'Global Cooling' myth?

Same thing as the 'Global Warming' myth - only it was cold at the time.

Don't fall for doomsday theories.

Spliff, when you have organizations of the smartest people in the WORLD, I'm inclined to believe them. Not you, not Rush Limbaugh, and absolutely NOT Bush. You Republicans are amazing.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Spliff, when you have organizations of the smartest people in the WORLD, I'm inclined to believe them. Not you, not Rush Limbaugh, and absolutely NOT Bush. You Republicans are amazing.

Yeah I have a hard time understanding why people wouldn't take these people seriously. They are the ones taking the time and effort to study it, we are paying them to do it, and then when they give us their results, we simply say "na, don't buy it." What reason is there to not buy it? Just 'cause you'd rather not hear it?

There is always room for error though. All science is willing to change when new data is presented. That's one reason why science is so great. You have to be willing to listen at each point in time and base decisions on that.

Right now, scientists are telling us to stop putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere. Exactly how will it hurt to try and do that? If it turns out at some point in the future that none of it mattered, what harm did we cause? At least it shows we're trying and we care about the world and it's other inhabitants.

[nredman]

[The Windozer]

Originally posted by Xeo:
Exactly how will it hurt to try and do that? If it turns out at some point in the future that none of it mattered, what harm did we cause? At least it shows we're trying and we care about the world and it's other inhabitants.

It will hurt us economically. Sure, you can say "Oh, that's not so bad if it means saving our precious ecosystem." But some people with lots of money will disagree and they usually shout louder than the rest of us.

Anyway, the temperature on our planet. Natural or man-made, it's going to cause great changes to the ecology in the arctic areas. The longer it goes on, the more change. It will hardly be the first time such a great climatical change takes place on our planet and it won't be the last, but it would be a bit of a bummer if it was to be the first man-made change of that magnitude, so I still think the ideal thing to do would be to cut way back on carbondioxide emission, if only to disprove the theory that the warming is caused by us. If only everyone in the world would listen to me...

[cenutrio]

National Geographic just addressed the issue a couple of months ago. Of course it is a theory, like everything in science, but the evidences are overwhealming. They are indeed, facts.

[the_glassman]

I'm outside burning things and using old school aerosol cans. It's like 20 degrees out, I'm all of global warming! Doesn't seem to be working though.
On a more serious note, this is something that worries me. My wife's dad is a smart guy, I remember him telling me how the ozone layer was really just a myth and it didn't exist! lol

[MacmanX]

This thread is very encouraging. The lack of reactionary views shows that most rational people have accepted the reality of global warming. We may not all agree on the solutions, but both sides of the aisle seem to finally have woken up to the facts.

Now, if we could only get the dinosaurs in Washington to fire their limited neurons on the problem, perhaps we could see some progress. When will we ever rid ourselves of the old and impotent policy makers? I promise, change isn't that bad. It could even be (dare I say it) good.

Remember, don't gamble your future on people who will be dead soon. Because, they don't care about you.

Cheers!

[d4nth3m4n]

it snowed an inch here tonight.

global warming this!

</drunk>

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by cenutrio:
Of course it is a theory, like everything in science, but the evidences are overwhealming.

as if that has ever stopped the jesuslanders.

[Xeo]

I just saw The Day After Tomorrow. We're all doomed.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Xeo:
I just saw The Day After Tomorrow. We're all doomed.

if that's the future of filmmaking, you might have a point.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
if that's the future of filmmaking, you might have a point.

Bwahaha, so true.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Are you old enough to remember the 'Global Cooling' myth?

Same thing as the 'Global Warming' myth - only it was cold at the time.

Don't fall for doomsday theories.

Here's a link to Newsweek's 1975 article that freaked out the world... it's called "The Cooling World".

THe world's most reknown, "expert" scientists rabidly stated that we would be face worldwide famine 20 years later (by 1995) if we didn't take drastic measures like covering the ice caps with soot and stockpiling massive food reserves.

[Randman]

Mankind has been around for about 10,000 years. We've have industrial technology for about 200. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. It's seen far worse than us, asteroids, comets, a collision with another planet (which created the Moon), solar radiation, volcanoes, global floods, Ice Ages, etc.
It's of supreme arrogance to dare think that mankind can harm this planet in the long run. Remember, we've only been around since the end of the last Ice Age. And the Earth will renew itself and cleanse itself once we're gone (and we're not going to leave much of a lasting mark) and it'll be here far longer than we can even imagine.

200 years vs 4,500,000,000 years.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

...Yes, and in that 200 years we've managed to trigger the sixth major extinction event in its history.

That's a ridiculous argument. Again, the point is not that we're going to somehow kill the earth. The point, is that we want to preserve it FOR OUR OWN USE. What good is the earth, to us, if it's a bare moonscape that will repair itself in a couple hundred years?!

greg

[Randman]

Originally posted by ShortcutToMoncton:
...Yes, and in that 200 years we've managed to trigger the sixth major extinction event in its history.
What good is the earth, to us, if it's a bare moonscape that will repair itself in a couple hundred years?!

We triggered an extinction? Please. More than 98% of all life on Earth was extinct before we came along. Dozens of species fade out on a daily basis with or without any influence on us.

Bare moonscape? Have you even been outside?

[Randman]

Originally posted by ShortcutToMoncton:
The point, is that we want to preserve it FOR OUR OWN USE.

At least you admit that it's for selfish purposes.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Randman:
At least you admit that it's for selfish purposes.

errrr...how about "insure the survival and continuation of our species" while preserving the environment. sounds like a plan to me.



/oh, and the world is only 6000 years old. don't you read the bilbe? geez.

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Here's a link to Newsweek's 1975 article that freaked out the world... it's called "The Cooling World".

THe world's most reknown, "expert" scientists rabidly stated that we would be face worldwide famine 20 years later (by 1995) if we didn't take drastic measures like covering the ice caps with soot and stockpiling massive food reserves.

wow, now there is a case of exaggerated proportions.

and for the record, i agree this is looming threat. and i was just saying it was nuts of my teacher to actually go out and buy land. i find it hard to imagine that the timescale for a total polar melt anywhere in the near future. i would like to buy a hybrid and grow my own food and all that jazz, but neither time nor money are working in my favor for that one.

there is an ethanol plant going in in an adjacent county that the corn growers are all excited over, but i plan on boycotting it. link to a dialogue by one of my professors.

[Randman]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
errrr...how about "insure the survival and continuation of our species" while preserving the environment. sounds like a plan to me.



/oh, and the world is only 6000 years old. don't you read the bilbe? geez.

Insure, or ensure? And if the species remains planet-bound, it will become extinct one day and the environment will continue.

And, if you do believe the Bible, then God will handle the planet according to His wisdom (from the deity who brought you Noah's flood). No commandment, according the New or Old Testament or Quran says: Thou shall recycle. If God made the heavens and earth in six days, He should be able to tidy it up in a solid afternoon of work.

[badidea]

[badidea]

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Randman:
Mankind has been around for about 10,000 years. We've have industrial technology for about 200. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. It's seen far worse than us, asteroids, comets, a collision with another planet (which created the Moon), solar radiation, volcanoes, global floods, Ice Ages, etc.
It's of supreme arrogance to dare think that mankind can harm this planet in the long run. Remember, we've only been around since the end of the last Ice Age. And the Earth will renew itself and cleanse itself once we're gone (and we're not going to leave much of a lasting mark) and it'll be here far longer than we can even imagine.

200 years vs 4,500,000,000 years.

Your first statement made me think you were going the other way with this post. I think it's important to think about how our industrialism is much different and far quicker acting than anything in nature. Why is it so off-base to think it could have adverse effects that could cause us and other species problems in the long run?

[Randman]

Originally posted by Xeo:
I think it's important to think about how our industrialism is much different and far quicker acting than anything in nature.

Uhh, being struck by a comet or asteroid or massive earthquakes and volcanoes are pretty quick.

Originally posted by Xeo:
Why is it so off-base to think it could have adverse effects that could cause us and other species problems in the long run?

Exactly! It could cause US problems, not the planet. The planet is fine, we're f-ed.

Don't get me wrong. I believe in some of the merits of recycling and not destroying nature and needlessly killing animals. But I just find it laughable when people say they want to save the planet. They don't want to save the planet, they want things nice for themselves and their kids. And that's fine, just don't be in denial about your true motives.

If just half of the people who cry foul and panic over temperature fluctuations over the North and South poles just went around their city and neighborhoods and cleaned trash up, things would be nicer.
The planet is fine. But if people want to change, they should change the things immediately arund them and the things they can actually have an impact over.

[badidea]

Originally posted by Randman:
...
Don't get me wrong. I believe in some of the merits of recycling and not destroying nature and needlessly killing animals. But I just find it laughable when people say they want to save the planet. They don't want to save the planet, they want things nice for themselves and their kids. And that's fine, just don't be in denial about your true motives.

"Saving the planet" always meant to save nature and the environment or do you really think that global warming will make earth explode in 50-200 years??

If just half of the people who cry foul and panic over temperature fluctuations over the North and South poles just went around their city and neighborhoods and cleaned trash up, things would be nicer.
The planet is fine. But if people want to change, they should change the things immediately arund them and the things they can actually have an impact over.

What makes you think that those people who do care about nature on earth don't already do that? And by the way, recycling and cleaning up your neighborhood doesn't have any impact on global warming - that's a different problem of our industrialized way of life!

[undotwa]

How much humans are contributing to Global Warming is very debatable. Global warming to me is somewhat fact (as we are leaving a mini-ice age) but I think to say that the industrial revolution and human development are contributing significantly to the warming of the planet is a bit farfetched considering how little data we have.

I find many of these predictions of what the weather shall be in 50 years quite unbelievable considering that 70% of the time the weather man can't tell me what the weather is going to be like next week.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Randman:
And if the species remains planet-bound, it will become extinct one day and the environment will continue.

yes, the environment will continue without human beings, but (to me at least) it is quite evident that each and every spiecies strives towards survival.

where do you draw the line then? hay, - lets just use kindergardens as toxic waste dumps since we "will become extinct one day and the environment will continue."

[Spliffdaddy]

Turn off those power-hungry G5s and stop posting doomsday drivel - and you might save the planet.

[ambush]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
/oh, and the world is only 6000 years old. don't you read the bilbe? geez.

LOL

pwndt.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Turn off those power-hungry G5s and stop posting doomsday drivel - and you might save the planet.

Well Quebec is running on Hydroelectricity... I don't see why I should do that.

OTOH, you guys have coal & oil power.. sounds nasty.

[Spliffdaddy]

Damming up rivers and flooding the countryside sounds worse.

[DBursey]

As devil's advocate, I should point out that many hydroelectric projects facilitate a massive release of stored carbon into the atmosphere. The James Bay project, for example, flooded vast areas of forests and marshlands, which act as natural repositories of atmospheric carbon. As the flooded vegetation decays, it slowly releases all that stored carbon.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Turn off those power-hungry G5s...

and yeah, maybe we can replace them with one of the monstrosities you've built, billy bob?

all we'd have to do is install a power plant next to each and every house so we can run those things for about 20 minutes a day.

comparing widespread industrialized destruction of the environment and atmosphere with using a g5? - *duh*!