How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby brainpanhandler » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:28 am

Sounder » Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:15 am wrote:
If we spent more time thinking about the real world and how to fix it, and less time on 'spiritual enlightenment', we might not be in the hole we're currently in. As far as I'm concerned magical thinking is holding humanity back.


But we don't spend time thinking about the 'real' world, rather we spend our time trying to impose our pretenses on the real world.

But I do agree that it is magical thinking that is holding us back, yet magic seems to come in many flavors.


I know, right? Like thinking that some brilliant, as yet unknown inventor, will come up with a way of producing free, limitless energy defying the known laws of physics and rearranging the existing scientific paradigm. (in the meantime while we await said genius to arrive we can continue as usual because we've got a deus ex machina up our sleeves). Or, the ptb have been in possession of advanced technology that would solve the planets woes but have withheld it from the public (insert various reasons from profit motive to alien disclosure) and when things get bad enough they will reveal it and humanity will enter a new golden age. Or, Humanity is but a speck of dust in the vastness of the cosmos. What hubris to think that mere naked apes could fuck up the earth to the extent of altering it's climate. There must be larger cosmic forces at work, like the sun or some as yet unknown natural cycle or process. We'll figure it out and then we can all breath a collective sigh of relief. whew. It wasn't us. Or, if we could just break into the room at the top of the pyramid and nullify the real ptb we can then, with all vertical authority distribution systems eradicated, completely restructure civilization to an horizontal authority distribution system, thereby freeing man from his mental chains. All this could be accomplished, worldwide, in time to stave off the worst effects of AGW.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5114
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby brainpanhandler » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:43 am

DrEvil » Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:45 am wrote:If we spent more time thinking about the real world and how to fix it, and less time on 'spiritual enlightenment', we might not be in the hole we're currently in. As far as I'm concerned magical thinking is holding humanity back.


As a thought experiment, consider how the world would and/or would not change if we somehow magically created or came into possession of the ability to generate free, clean, limitless energy. Further imagine that somehow we were able to bypass the control of this source of energy by the 1%. Would we continue to consume more or less or the same? What sort of world would we have to imagine in order to reasonably expect that future generations would naturally shed the rapacious, greedy, selfish interests of their forebears. Can man be saved not by Jesus but by Star Trek replicators?
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5114
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Monk » Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:32 pm

slimmouse » Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:09 am wrote:Yes Monk, I really want to buy stuff, which is why Im claiming that AGW is BS.

Nothing to do with the data or the facts at all.


Actually, what I say has everything to do with facts, unless one can argue that industrial capitalism is not heavily dependent on oil, or that credit supply has not risen to unimaginable levels.


Just plain old me and 7 billion other selfish humans, who love to fight the war on terror, and the war on drugs and the war on cancer, or the need for austerity,along with all the other faux wars that humanity is apparently currently fighting.



These are not related to the global warming issue.


All such wars where the claims of the official consensus, are just about as far removed from the truth as they possibly can be.



But governments do not operate via such. That's why they have watered-down policies regarding global warming and pay heed to the needs of the financial elite via bailouts.


no global warming now for how long ? When was the last such study to indicate such a pause? 1850? 1645?, 1252?, 309 bc ?


That was explained in my previous posts.
User avatar
Monk
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Monk » Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:39 pm

Ben D » Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:31 am wrote:Monk, you have made such sweeping statements in your post that I can't possibly address them properly. What I suggest is that we work through the substance of the first paragraph and to the extent we can clear away some of the errors of your present understanding about this extremely interesting subject and find a common ground of understanding based on acceptable scientific methodology, logic, and factual background, we can then move on to the matters raised in the subsequent paragraphs. Now don't get me wrong, I don't care if you are passionate in your AGW beliefs, it's just I'm not interested in them, I'm interested in your actual present understanding of the planet's climate.


There are no errors in my arguments, as even conclusions that support them are raised by skeptics themselves. See the BEST study which was funded by the latter.


Now Monk, there seems to be some misconceptions you have about skeptical climate science that first need clearing up. Skeptics don't deny the observed global warming of the late 20th century, nor do they deny that human caused warming may have contributed, what they indeed do deny is that humans are the predominant cause. Iow, skeptics believe that natural climate variations are predominant, not human.



Actually, the science does not refer to humans as the predominant cause. Rather, it refers to the forcing factor of CO2 emissions. See the NAS final report for details.


Secondly you need to know that AGW as a theory, like any scientific theory, can only continue to be considered seriously until it is falsified, and therefore so long as it is not falsified, it stays the accepted science. So how can it be falsified? Well since IPCC AGW science is based on the additional warming caused by human derived atmospheric CO2 GHG emissions, if human CO2 emissions were to grow unabated without a corresponding correlated increase in global temperature, or while there was a relatively steady temperature, or while the temperature actually cooled, after some agreed point in time it will have been falsified. We have had about 17 years of global temperature pause now, during which time human CO2 emissions have been increasing at ever record breaking levels....all that remains is to reach the agreed amount of time....and it is not surprising that many skeptical scientists are already calling it falsified......and for obvious reasons, the AGW team have the inside track and keep raising the bar and saying more time is needed before the falsification alarms go off. As to what length of time of no warming constitutes falsification is on the mind of both sides in this debate....there is a lot at stake!



You missed the fact that there were pauses in the past, and yet the red trend line still moves upward. That's because the level of increase in each pause is higher than previous ones. More details here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Also, take note of the sources of the data, not to mention independent data from a study funded by skeptics:

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings


So there you are Monk...if you feel I am in error in any matter of fact in anything I've posted, or want clarification on any matter that is obscure, please point it out in the spirit of being concise and explicit.


The point isn't that there is a pause. It's that there have been several pauses in the past, and yet the trend line is still upward.
User avatar
Monk
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:10 pm

DrEvil » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:24 pm wrote:Since you insist:
...
Though warming didn't stop completely – global temperatures have risen by an average of about 0.05 per decade since then
...


No wonder you didn't want to respond....there is no source data reference with that media quote so it doesn't pass muster. In any event...even at 0.05°C per decade, at some point AGW science would still be falsified and all IPCC AGW climate models epic failures, so it would still a considered a real pause in the climate science context.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:03 pm

Monk » Fri Aug 29, 2014 2:39 am wrote:There are no errors in my arguments, as even conclusions that support them are raised by skeptics themselves.

Monk...with due respect, I almost gagged reading this.... because I am a skeptic and I find practically nothing but errors in your arguments...what an astonishing claim! And they're really not your arguments...just agw claims from the alarmists. Now I stated clearly in an earlier post that I would not waste time debunking wacko agw claims from the links you were continually posting.....I actually said this...."If otoh you sincerely would be prepared to engage me on these points based on your own personal understanding explicitly....no links or blanket repeating of other's claims....then fine".

So Monk...at this time it is apparent to me that you base your present understanding on the claims you read on those links you post and are unable to engage me as I proposed....that's fine...keep on doing your research and all the best.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Monk » Fri Aug 29, 2014 11:21 am

[quote="[url=http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=550906#p550906]
Monk...with due respect, I almost gagged reading this.... because I am a skeptic and I find practically nothing but errors in your arguments...what an astonishing claim! And they're really not your arguments...just agw claims from the alarmists. Now I stated clearly in an earlier post that I would not waste time debunking wacko agw claims from the links you were continually posting.....I actually said this...."If otoh you sincerely would be prepared to engage me on these points based on your own personal understanding explicitly....no links or blanket repeating of other's claims....then fine".[/quote]

There are no errors in my arguments. You've had your chance to explain them but you have not.

They are not made by alarmists but by leading science organizations, including NAS. More important, the same claims were made in an independent study funded by skeptics. More details in my previous posts.


So Monk...at this time it is apparent to me that you base your present understanding on the claims you read on those links you post and are unable to engage me as I proposed....that's fine...keep on doing your research and all the best.


The links are meant to counter your claims, and they did. Read my previous message for details.

More important, one of the studies that counters your arguments was funded by skeptics. More details in my previous posts.
User avatar
Monk
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:14 pm

Ben D » Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:10 am wrote:
DrEvil » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:24 pm wrote:Since you insist:
...
Though warming didn't stop completely – global temperatures have risen by an average of about 0.05 per decade since then
...


No wonder you didn't want to respond....there is no source data reference with that media quote so it doesn't pass muster. In any event...even at 0.05°C per decade, at some point AGW science would still be falsified and all IPCC AGW climate models epic failures, so it would still a considered a real pause in the climate science context.


Except for the part where the missing heat isn't missing at all. And don't ask for sources. They are already in this thread.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4144
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:20 pm

DrEvil » Sat Aug 30, 2014 2:14 am wrote:Except for the part where the missing heat isn't missing at all. And don't ask for sources. They are already in this thread.

Except that no one actually knows for sure that the missing heat is there....it has not been and can't be measured....it's all just a thought experiment at this stage..."The Ocean ate my global warming"!

Claims made by AGW scientists that can't be proven is not acceptable as scientific truth and Trenberth's paper is inconclusive because the water below 700 metres where the heat has supposed to have gone can't be measured. So show me the proof, not just claims, that the heat that Trenberth says went there is actually there and measured?

This is the same problem as all the climate models predicting significant warming in the 21st century have.....treating computer model projections of future reality as being slam dunk reality....clearly already being falsified in the pause we are witnessing during a period of ever increasing CO2 emissions in the 21st century. Humility should be a factor when it comes to computer models of the future climate and remember.... It ain't over till the fat lady sings

But why are you fixated on pause being due to Treenberth's paper's excuse that the missing AGW heat is hiding in the ocean waiting for the opportune time to come to the surface and resume the global warming, when there are heaps more reasons being claimed for the pause coming from the AGW scientific alarmist community to research? ...some homework for you...

For example...a search for the first one on the list below said by the agw scientists as the cause of the pause is...Low Solar Activity brings up this pdf file paper...Reduced Solar Activity Disguises Global Temperature Rise

Image
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:05 pm

Irreversible Damage Seen From Climate Change in UN Leak
By Alex Morales 2014-08-27T09:10:58Z

Humans risk causing irreversible and widespread damage to the planet unless there’s faster action to limit the fossil fuel emissions blamed for climate change, according to a leaked draft United Nations report.

Global warming already is affecting “all continents and across the oceans,” and further pollution from heat-trapping gases will raise the likelihood of “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems,” according to the document obtained by Bloomberg.

“Without additional mitigation, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally,” the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in the draft.

The study is the most important document produced by the UN about global warming, summarizing hundreds of papers. It’s designed to present the best scientific and economic analysis to government leaders and policymakers worldwide. It feeds into the UN-led effort drawing in more than 190 nations for an agreement on limiting emissions.

The report “will provide policymakers with a scientific foundation to tackle the challenge of climate change,” IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said in a statement from the panel’s office in Geneva. “It would help governments and other stakeholders work together at various levels, including a new international agreement to limit climate change” that countries intend to broker by the end of next year.

Leaked Report

The draft, dated Aug. 25, was obtained by Bloomberg from a person with official access to it who asked not to be further identified because it hasn’t been published yet. It’s subject to line-by-line revision by representatives of governments around the world, and a final report is scheduled to be published on Nov. 2 in Copenhagen.

Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the IPCC, declined to comment on the contents of the report. The draft “is still a work in progress, which will certainly change -- indeed that is the point of the review -- and so it would be premature to discuss its contents at this stage,” Lynn said.

Economic losses for a warming level of 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels may reach 2 percent of global income, according to the panel, which acknowledged existing estimates are “incomplete,” and the calculation has “limitations.”

Rising Temperatures

Temperatures have already warmed by 0.85 of a degree since 1880, it said. That’s quicker than the shift in the climate that brought the end of the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago.

The panel also acknowledged there are costs associated with keeping the temperature rise since industrialization below the 2-degree target. That’s the level endorsed by the nations negotiating on a climate deal. Doing so may lead to losses in global consumption of 1.7 percent in 2030, 3.4 percent in 2050 and 4.8 percent in 2100, according to the paper.

Image
Source: IPCC WGII AR5 Chapter 19

“Risks from mitigation can be substantial, but they do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation action,” the authors wrote.

The 127-page document includes a 32-page summary and is filled with language highlighting the dangers from rising temperatures. Those include damage to crop production, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and more pervasive heatwaves. The report mentions the word “risk” more than 350 times; “vulnerable” or “vulnerability” are written 61 times; and “irreversible” comes up 48 times.

Ice Melting

Possible permanent changes include the melting of the ice sheet covering Greenland. That would boost sea levels by as much as 7 meters (23 feet) and threaten coastal cities from Miami to Bangkok along with island nations such as the Maldives, Kiribati and Tuvalu.

The scientists said they have “medium confidence” that warming of less than 4 degrees Celsius would be enough to trigger such a melt, which would take at least a millennium.

Other effects the report flags include reduced food security as production of crops such as wheat, rice and maize in the tropics is damaged, melting of Arctic sea ice, and acidification of the oceans.

The report also shows the scale of the challenge in limiting global warming. To stand a two-thirds chance of meeting the temperature goal, cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide since 1870 must be limited to about 2,900 gigatons, according to the study. Two thirds of that carbon already has been released into the atmosphere, they said.

Temperature Range

The surface air temperature is projected to rise under all scenarios examined by the IPCC. It expects a gain of 0.3 degrees to 4.8 degrees for this century, depending on what policies governments pursue. That range would lead to a sea-level increase of 26 centimeters (10 inches) to 82 centimeters in addition to the 19 centimeters already recorded.

“Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases cease,” the researchers said. “The risk of abrupt and irreversible change increases as the magnitude of the warming increases.”

Image
Total annual anthropogenic GHG emissions (GtCO2eq/yr) by groups of gases 1970-2010: CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes; CO2 from Forestry and Other Land Use (FOLU); methane (CH4); nitrous oxide (N2O); fluorinated gases8 covered under the Kyoto Protocol (F-gases). At the right side of the figure GHG emissions in 2010 are shown again broken down into these components with the associated uncertainties (90% confidence interval) indicated by the error bars. Total anthropogenic GHG emissions uncertainties are derived from the individual gas estimates as described in Chapter 5 [5.2.3.6]. Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion are known within 8% uncertainty (90% confidence interval). CO2 emissions from FOLU have very large uncertainties attached in the order of ±50%. Uncertainty for global emissions of CH4, N2O and the Fgases has been estimated as 20%, 60% and 20%, respectively. 2010 was the most recent year for which emission statistics on all gases. Source: IPCC

While the measures exist that may keep temperature gains below the 2-degree threshold, there are “substantial technological, economic, social, and institutional challenges,” according to the study.

Cost of Delay

Delaying action will only increase the risks and costs, it said. Putting off work on the issue until 2030 may raise costs by 44 percent through 2050, it said.

Ruling out certain technological solutions would also add to the costs of fighting climate change, according to the paper.

Without equipment to capture emissions from factories and power plants and store them underground, known as carbon capture and storage, the cost of the most stringent CO2 reductions could more than double, according to the paper. Eliminating nuclear power would raise costs by 7 percent and limiting wind and solar farms would do so by 6 percent.

In a nod to skeptics who argue temperatures haven’t significantly warmed since 1998, the researchers said that climate models aren’t so good at explaining short-term fluctuations in the temperature and that “natural variability” may be part of what’s being observed.

Warming Slowdown

The pace of temperature increases slowed to about 0.05 of a degree per decade from 1998 through 2012 from 0.12 degrees per decade for the longer period spanning from 1951 to 2012. The IPCC said 111 out of 114 climate models predicted a greater warming trend than was observed from 1998 to 2012. And for the period from 1984 to 1998, most models showed less warming than was finally recorded, they said.

Over longer periods, the climate models seem to be more accurate. From 1951 to 2012, “simulated surface warming trends are consistent with the observed trend,” the IPCC researchers said.

The UN panel since September has published three separate reports into the physical science of global warming, its impacts, and ways to fight it. The study leaked yesterday, called the “Synthesis Report” intends to pick out the most important findings and present them in a way that lawmakers can easily understand.

In all, more than 800 scientists from around the world have helped write the four reports, an exercise the UN last completed in 2007. It also uses inputs from earlier studies by the IPCC into renewable energy and extreme events and disasters.
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:24 pm

Good grief...if I'm hearing this correctly....Kerry claims he has a responsibility to God to save the middle east muslim nations from AGW? Apart from his blatant abuse of scripture for political purposes, I wonder if he feels the same responsibility to carry out God's commandments not to murder, etc..

There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby coffin_dodger » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:27 pm

^^You American guys send that guy to represent your country around the world? LOL! :rofl2

But then, a blunt instrument foreign policy is best delivered by a blunt instrument, I guess.

P.S. Our's is no better.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:47 pm

Greenhouse gas emissions rise at fastest rate for 30 years

Rise in CO2 concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere causes meteorologists to warn ‘world out of time’

Tuesday 9 September 2014

Image
View of the Earth’s atmosphere from the International Space Station. Photograph: ISS/Nasa

Surging carbon dioxide levels have pushed greenhouse gases to record highs in the atmosphere, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) has said.

Concentrations of carbon dioxide, the major cause of global warming, increased at their fastest rate for 30 years in 2013, despite warnings from the world’s scientists of the need to cut emissions to halt temperature rises.

Experts warned that the world was “running out of time” to reverse rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) to tackle climate change.

Data show levels of the gas increased more between 2012 and 2013 than during any other year since 1984, possibly due to less uptake of carbon dioxide by ecosystems such as forests, as well as rising CO2 emissions.

The annual greenhouse gas bulletin from the WMO showed that in 2013 concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were 142% of what they were before the Industrial Revolution.

Other potent greenhouse gases have also risen significantly, with concentrations of methane now 253% and nitrous oxide 121% of pre-industrial levels.

Between 1990 and 2013 the warming effect on the planet known as “radiative forcing” due to greenhouse gases such as CO2 rose by more than a third (34%).

The bulletin reveals concentrations of gases in the atmosphere, not emissions – around quarter of which are absorbed by the oceans and a further quarter by ecosystems.

Oceans cushion the increases in carbon dioxide that would otherwise be seen in the atmosphere – but at a cost, with the world’s seas becoming more acidic at a rate not seen for at least 300m years, the WMO said.

WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud said: “We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

“The greenhouse gas bulletin shows that, far from falling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually increased last year at the fastest rate for nearly 30 years.

“We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board. We are running out of time.

“Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for many hundreds of years and in the ocean for even longer. Past, present and future CO2 emissions will have a cumulative impact on both global warming and ocean acidification. The laws of physics are non-negotiable.”

Carbon dioxide is responsible for four-fifths of the increase in warming by greenhouse gases, with concentrations in the atmosphere averaging 396 parts per million (ppm) in 2013.

Last year levels increased by 2.9ppm – the largest annual increase seen from 1984 to 2013.

At current rates, annual concentrations will pass the symbolic 400ppm in 2015 or 2016, the WMO said, although that level has already been reached over shorter periods than a year as CO2 levels fluctuate seasonally and regionally.

For the first time, the WMO bulletin includes a section on ocean acidification, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide into the seas, which can harm the ability of wildlife such as corals, molluscs and some plankton to form shells.

It could also reduce survival, hit development and growth rates and effect physiological functions in wildlife.

Prof Joanna Haigh, co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and Environment, Imperial College London, said: “Far from a slowdown, the concentration is rising faster than ever – with an inevitable impact on future global temperatures... steps need to be taken now to reduce CO2 emissions.”

Prof Dave Reay, chair in carbon management at the University of Edinburgh, said: “This is the litmus test when it comes to our efforts to reduce emissions and on this evidence we are failing. Of particular concern is the indication that carbon storage in the world’s forests and oceans may be faltering.

“So far these ‘carbon sinks’ have been locking away almost half of all the carbon dioxide we emit. If they begin to fail in the face of further warming then our chances of avoiding dangerous climate change become very slim indeed.”
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby NeonLX » Wed Sep 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Oh, what EVER. As long as I can still drive to the gym and run on that electrically powered treadmill, everything is good. 'sides, we have a really good air conditioning system at the office.

I've done my part by buying a brand new Prius. I love being seen in it.
America is a fucked society because there is no room for essential human dignity. Its all about what you have, not who you are.--Joe Hillshoist
User avatar
NeonLX
 
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Enemy Occupied Territory
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Wed Sep 10, 2014 4:21 pm

…Radicalism is not extremism, it is analysis of root causes rather than symptoms. Radicalism dares to resist enmeshed systems of oppression and presents a threat to corporate governments who then in turn try to brand environmental activists and social unrest as terrorism.

There is a big difference between Terrorism and Resistance. Strikes against material infrastructure and/or sabotage of property have played a part in every successful resistance of the past: Women's Suffrage, Indian Independence, Irish Liberation, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and the anti-Apartheid movement. And those is power would wish us not to know this history.…

https://www.facebook.com/deepgreenresistance

The liberal climate agenda is doomed to failure
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 180 guests