Global Warming Risk Management

People can continue to keep saying things but it won’t change anything unless they won’t do something. But i fear nothing will be done unless most of disaster already started.
All living elements on this planet produce carbon emissions btw, that is a proven fact since beginning previous century. 90% is just a personal wild guess, it could be even more.
The only difference between cars and trees is that trees produce air instead during the day (and consume carbon oxide during the day).

What are you good at? Making music. So make music to spread the word, open minds, resist conformity. That’s where you’re most efficient: you’re not a social leader, power cog or system builder. Make music the best you can, don’t under estimate the power of it as a cultural force: you’re both an instigator and a conduit.

However, outside of being a ‘producer’ of cultural content (songs, art, web-media, etc), you can certainly make small firm changes in your life to being a better ‘consumer’. Buy less. Buy local. Buy fair trade. Buy for long term use. Don’t buy ethically unsuitable products or brands. Re-use. Recycle. Grow your own. Mend. Car pool. Use public transport. Eat vegetarian. Don’t produce children. Don’t buy ethanol fuel. Don’t participate in cultural rituals that require you to buy something. Don’t hold an unethical job if you can help it. Think about making not taking. The list goes on…

http://www.youtube.com/v/F0FvG9GO8Qs

I just can’t understand why when people see something to do with global warming, they just ignore it… it’s like it’s some sort of niche environmental issue or something… like either people don’t believe in it, or they think it will just go away if they ignore it… or perhaps it’s the “we should focus on terrorism instead… because what good is having an earth if the world has bad people in it?”

The problem is that many stories are being told and people forget to inspect the source of information wether it tells the whole story and not just part of it so that it can be explained in a way it can be interpreted wrong in a very obvious sense.
This guy also has a good set of stories and statements but what if he still forgot some options or worse:forgot some facts?
Across what period of time the models are based?

Here’s another interesting hypothese:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Groan, rolls eyes, same topic, same retards typing naked with socks like that emperor. Cut & paste of myself from topic # 12428 with the updated 16 new scientists that have some doubts.

More than 10,000 reputable, peer-reviewed scientists believe the evidence that shows rapid shifts in global temperature are caused by human activity. At last check 40 – that’s 40 – doubt it.

In terms of scientific opinion, the only thing that has greater consensus from the scientific community, other than global warming, is gravity. (that’s right! 40 out of 10,040 scientists agree, gravity doesn’t exist!)

The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. (Gee, I wonder why an american petrol lobby group would think that?)

Maybe some of us agree with 40 reputable scientists and 10,000 fat asses in front of their computer posting crap in forums, but most of us will probably opt towards the 10,000 scientists point of view.

Being a hypocrite does not make you wrong, it makes you a hypocrite. That’s fine.

The time for changeis now. Yes, everyone is half ass and a liar, but the issue of the environment is the next shift in our global collective consciousness.

As humans, we have an increasing urgency to reconsider the relationship between ourselves and our surroundings.

We are experiencing shift in perspective that takes the environment, and not human demands on the environment, as the starting point for reflection.

I say, it’s about f****ing time.

Finally,

  • Plant oxygen production decreases as carbon dioxide concentration increases.
  • If a person is in a confined space with enough plants to survive (=~ 400 plants per person per hour), the CO2 concentration will rise due to the person’s expiration. This will inhibit the plant’s photosynthetic rate.
  • That ozone surrounding our planet? That’s called “a confined space”.
  • That whole “carbon neutral” thing you keep hearing about…

Wake up.

PS: Plants do more than produce oxygen, many species filter airborne chemicals, mold, and pollutants. Also, plants convert much more carbon dioxide in photosynthesis than they give off in respiration. Finally, I believe several species (Snake Plant? which produces O2 at night) produce oxygen all the time.

But all those figures and facts supplied by them are based upon an analysed time-scale of 200 years.
If you match that little picture on a larger graphic scale of a few million years there are actually no differences noticable.

I don’t doubt climate change is coming. But none of these reports give any true proof that humans are the biggest Co2 producers in the world. That fact is what i want to know.

Here’s the report of the most respected worldwide organisation:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/a…ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Summarized facts:
Sealevel is rising
Temperature is rising
Co2 is rising
Co2 produced by humans is rising
But there is no evidence that all these are truely connected and that humans are responsible for the largest Co2 emission.
The closest conclusion that comes near to it is this sentence:

Confidence <> evidence.

Also speaking about the measured facts:

So if these are only covered emissions by the UNFCCC… what data did they used?

This data:
http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/ghg_d…/items/3816.php

Just pick a few reports and look what those country governmental organisations measured and where…
All this data is collected since 1990 or later and they based all their computermodels upon that data?!?
I can understand they don’t have more because they didn’t started earlier but you can’t consider using a base of ten years of data and then estimate whatever was before that would you? (I don’t read anything about measurements upon open sea and similar human-deserted locations like that)
yet the IPCC is the largest intergovernmental panel on climate change.

Ofcourse the AAPG speaks only for its own advance, but regardless of them i find it just too damn easy to take the measurements in your whole wide country (as a UNFCCC member), bind the conclusions with those of the rest of the IPCC members and notice they are all similar and then link it to Co2 (and whatever other gasform) production mainly produced by humans in an area usually only humans are; Yet ignoring archeology analists results containing of over millions of years of data, gathered using different analysing methods.

It looks a bit the same discussion about the western doctor who uses 200 years of scientific medicine study to accuse the asian doctor of being a charlatan when practicing his profession, using knowledge that is over thousands of years old.

Which doctor would you trust more?

Interesting and insightful. However…

By the time we have evidence, it’s probably too late. No harm in trying to make things better, all that does is make things better. If it turns out we’re f****ed and there’s nothing we can do, well, things got better! How is that bad?

Edit: This isn’t religious faith, it’s very well analyzed and scrutinized opinion based on facts. High confidence by the all of the world’s scientists (except =~ 40, all with various degrees of skepticism, some having barely any) is “pretty good”, it’s up there with all the other theories that aren’t conclusive yet still observable, of which there are many (quantum physics comes to mind).

Go to Asia, I’ve been there. I can assure you that there are doctors who practice modern medicine. It’s not a matter of trust. It’s a matter of balance. And thousands of years of knowledge isn’t always the best benchmark.

Now at least this conversation is going somewhere interesting ;)
Let’s go a little on about what this science teacher said and make fun of that:

So if we all stop farting, this might resolve into a very large positive change for all human kind.
(like a similar expression that once caught my ear: if all chinese would jump at the same moment they would cause a shockwave that would cause the Atlantic Ocean to flood the whole of the US)

And there are 40 respected people that got the chance to speak against.
But there are probably a lot of other respected scientists that would love to speak against as well but didn’t got the chance. They may have been preselected for this gathering based upon an interview form they had to fill in before all these scientists got their invitation. If this gathering was organised by governments i suspect this type of thing happened and then the actual conclusion was already formed before that congres was ever held since governments desire a certain uniform answer they can use against their own civilians to perform actions.
Edit:In fact some where not invited and some scientists that were invited were quoted wrongly:
http://the1phantom.blogspot.com/2007/04/ip…wn-science.html

In the end none of all scientists in the world would ever agree upon anything together.

The only thing i can do to make the change they desire i am already doing.
But merely because the solution saves me money as well.

No VV…
They are not basing their data on only 10 years…

They are not that naive…

BUMP

Is everyone aware of Climategate?

Yes, and I hope the delegates in Copenhagen brought some warm clothing. Have you seen the weather forecast :o

http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand…e%20in%20Europe

This is all about the hacked climate change emails:

those are 2 oft-quoted email. there’s much more than that.

Those are the only two I’ve seen that have anything close to incriminating in them… if you’ve got citations for more, by all means link up.

:panic: :panic: :panic:

http://torrentz.com/search?q=climategate

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/cr…ysis/print.html

note the links in the footer… so much… stuff:blink:

I don’t understand what’s so hard to believe about climate change when there’s overwhelming evidence of it.

If it’s so overwhelming - why lace it with propaganda and cheap tricks and forcing people into “one of two camps”? Fuck that. Gimme something to READ - not videos with John Travolta in it LOL.

You won’t watch the videos because there’s an image of john travolta in one of them? How lame is that. With that line of reasoning, I might as well not take anything you say seriously because you’ve got odd ascii characters in your signature.

But if you want to read, here you go:

Here’s a very brief breakdown of the science behind every argument regarding climate change… you can research the phenomena mentioned yourself, as it shouldn’t be my responsibility to educate you: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

And here’s an article showing the findings of every large scientific organization on the planet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op…_climate_change

//With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.//

Well, do that, and see if I care :lol: