http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-9y7CrH_zA
On Nov 25, 10:29 am, fran the man <[email protected]> wrote: > Certainly, Chris, the area of climate change is one where many > scientific so-called experts are playing the tunes of those who pay > for the piping. On all sides. This is what makes the situation > difficult for "laypeople" - including myself. To try to establish a > tentative personal position I look for basic "facts", on which there > is general agreement. > > 1.) Our planet, while vast and extremely complex from many points of > view, is a finite unit; both in terms of resources and in terms of its > capability to absorb the changes resulting from the actions of its > inhabitants without noticable change on a global level. > > 2.) The world population of humans is now at 6.8 billion (up from 1.65 > billion in 1900, 2.5 billion in 1950 and 6 billion in 2000) and is > forecast to rise to around 9 billion by 2050 > (Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population). > > 3.) This population is consuming and will consume a very large amount > of energy in order to survive and thrive (according to another > Wikpedia article, 474 exajoules with 80 to 90 percent derived from > the combustion of fossil fuels in 2008. This is equivalent to an > average power consumption rate of 15 > terawattshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption). > A very large amount of this energy is not used particularly > efficiently, so that a major - unwanted in most cases - by-product is > heat. > > 4.) The fossil fuels mentioned in the previous point are basically the > result of complex chemical processes which have "stored" (to a large > extent originally photosynthesized) solar energy through the chemical > binding of carbon (with, almost always, hydrogen and lots of other > molecules as well). Utilising fossil fuels (burning them) creates > energy by "cracking" these complex (hydrogen-)carbon bindings, > releasing carbon and hydrogen, which then, usually immediately form > much easier, energy-poorer bindings, water and CO2, with a lot of > other, often poisonous, crud in the process. This means that we are > currently releasing and using large amounts of original solar energy, > stored over millions of years through natural processes. > > 5.) All of this means that humanity is currently doing quite a lot to > produce extra heat on the planet, and that it is releasing large > amounts of stored carbon in the form of CO2 into the atmosphere. > > 6.) The major question is whether this extra heat and CO2 is at a > scale which is significantly affecting global temperature development > or not. (In other words, are we clicking a cigarette lighter in a > large, cold church, or are we setting all the pews on fire?) This is > the point on which the experts differ. > > 7.) There seems to me to be many evidentiary indications which, taken > together, suggest that the current situation is more like a pew-fire > than a Zippo. These include: > a.) The rise in mean global temperature in the past hundred years. > b.) Considerable glacial melting, from Antarctica, through the Alps to > Greenland, with a consequent increase in H2O in liquid and gaseous, > rather than solid forms. > c.) Significant, continuous annual shrinkage in the arctic ice-cap. > d.) First evidence of changed weather-patterns. > > All of these indications are the result of complex processes about > which experts can happily argue - at all sorts of levels. Yes, global > climate and weather patterns are very long-range things and we are > examining short periods in this respect. Yes, our planet and the sun > are capable of producing large fluctuations and swings (volcanic > activity, long natural cycles, solar flaring/sunspot activity/etc.), > which can dwarf what humanity has done, is doing and may do in the > future. But there do seem to be a suspicious amount of "warming" > things happening in the timescale since we humans have really started > to turn up the heat and release major amounts of carbon. > > I'm not worried about the earth, or life surviving - there have been > much more cataclysmic events in the past (as the dinosaurs would > testify, if they had survived their own probably meteoritic super- > catastrophe). However, it does seem reasonable to assume that our > current behaviour may be having a significant effect on making the > planet a lot more uncomfortable for us and that it is therefore > rational to modify this behaviour if such modification seems to help > to ameliorate the current trend. > > Particularly given the fact that those who will suffer most from > global-warming and a rise of sea-levels will be, as always in human- > induced macro-stress situations, the poorest and most powerless. I > live about a thousand feet above sea-level, in an area where the > results of local climate change may have as many upsides as downsides. > And we've got the wealth and technology to help us adapt well to > changed situations. On the other hand, even a small rise in sea-levels > will turn all Bangladesh and the Ganges delta into the new Ganges Bay. > And (unlike the Dutch) they don't have the money and technical know- > how to do anything about it. Just one example. > > Francis > > On 25 Nov., 15:36, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The problem with your perspective, Arch, is that you excuse the scientists > > who are manipulating data to suit their world view. Climate change IS a good > > example of this. Even if you buy that it was completely acceptable behaviour > > for the scientists from East Anglia to collude to suppress data, alter it at > > whim to fit their predetermined results, manipulate it to hide evidence of > > cooling, and delete exchanges of emails when requested for them under FOIA > > requests, it's not like that's an isolated incident. Scientists with a > > political cause, and grant money hanging on the outcome of their studies, > > will be quick to alter data, and just as quick to provide "reasonable" > > explanations for their actions when caught. > > >http://www.spokesmanreview.com/pf.asp?date=011702&ID=s1086438&cat=sec... > > > <http://www.spokesmanreview.com/pf.asp?date=011702&ID=s1086438&cat=sec...>It's > > difficult for a layman to know WHAT to believe, and this is problematic when > > the layman is expected to vote on "Science Based" policies which are going > > to cost trillions. Your disdain for the layman does a disservice to rational > > exploration, given the all too human proclivities of the scientists in > > question. > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:20 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Climate change is probably the best example of how a really dumb lay > > > perspective on science flourishes. People scurry around trying to > > > find the 'evidence' that fits their world-view instead of looking for > > > material that may be discomforting and requires the establishment of a > > > new view. Kyoto and Copenhagen demonstrate our leaders have no clue > > > other than in the sense of politics Slip described using Mencken, The > > > promises given are meaningless as the problem may be so severe that > > > the answers lie in stuff like blotting out the Sun. Not far away from > > > the hype the media encourages on this matter, we still seem to be > > > hoping for 'economic recovery' on the old lines that have led to this > > > and other problems. I hold out little faith in education - this needs > > > disestablishment and new aims. > > > > On 25 Nov, 01:03, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > “… Science as a world-view has not caught on.” – archy > > > > > And, as far as I can see, this reality will only grow as education is > > > > routinely dismantled in the west and the average of those in some > > > > Islamic countries continues to decline, being, what, 23 or so now? Of > > > > course, while ‘we’ see all of the hype and ‘advances’ when it comes to > > > > education of females, I hold little hope for this on a large scale. > > > > > On Nov 24, 4:06 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I would point out Francis, that stirring the shit is environmentally > > > > > unsound (all that methane). At the back of this stuff is the madness > > > > > of capitalism based on consumption and routine overbreeding. Science > > > > > as a world-view has not caught on. > > > > > > On 24 Nov, 23:29, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > In fact, I find nothing at all curious about the tactics > > > > > > (resistance) > > > > > > to dealing with things ecological when it comes to China and the US. > > > > > > As far as I can tell, in both cases the real power is to be found in > > > > > > multinational organizations and not provincial local politics. This > > > is > > > > > > yet another example of the results of aspects of capitalism. > > > > > > > And, regardless of cause, the effect of climate change is obvious. > > > > > > Here I have little doubt as to the human component when it comes to > > > > > > major aspects of the cause. As fran points out, even if it is just a > > > > > > little ‘help’, unless one is so very skeptical and stolid as to > > > reject > > > > > > all efforts for change, perhaps even based on a belief in the need > > > > > > to > > > > > > cull the herd, quick and committed action is needed quite soon, like > > > > > > yesterday! > > > > > > > While not literally true, the myth about putting a frog in cold > > > > > > water > > > > > > and slowly bringing it to a boil is instructive. > > > > > > > On Nov 24, 1:17 pm, fran the man <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On December 7 the climate summit in Copenhagen begins. Already, > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > chances of it achieving anything worthwhile seem to be slim. While > > > the > > > > > > > Europeans are pushing for concrete, binding levels of > > > CO2-reduction, a > > > > > > > curious Sino-US alliance (backed by other Asian-Pacific countries) > > > > > > > seem intent on preventing the emergence of anything more than > > > sonorous > > > > > > > platitudes. > > > > > > > > I'm well aware that regular posters here have sharply differing > > > views > > > > > > > on global > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
