Climategate: What They Aren't Telling You!

[otakar]

Dune, I agree action is unlikely to materialize at a meaningful level, because everyone likes to point fingers at others and nobody wants to bear the financial burden. This is on both the national and individual level. Rather, I hope that technology will get us out of this path towards environmental destruction. That's where R&D funding comes in, and I hope our 'leaders' are smart enough to recognize that. Renewable energy IS the future. Plastics are terrible polluters, with a very long half-life. Recycling IS imperative. There is a host of other issues, water quality is a big one. There are solutions for many of these issues, often times they are not quite mature yet, however. Immediate cost is not always a barrier. It would be cheaper to continue heating a house with wood and coal, yet industrialized nations have mostly graduated from that practice.

Someone mentioned the Brazilian rainforest. Please have a look at maps comparing the size of the forested area over time. Then think again whether the forest is 'still there' and how much of it will remain in a couple of decades. Good animation: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/landsat/news/40th-top10-amazon.html If that is not man-made desolation I don't know what is. The loss of biodiversity is proven and irreversible.

[Kadri]

There is no problem with food, water and so on.
...
but keeping parts of the world poor and hungry allows for cheap labor, cheap production and high profits for multinationals.
4% of the water is fresh and suitable for drinking...but it's key to divide those carefully to keep the global financial system going.
...

So there is still a problem Martin. Yes you are right of course.
I just don't wanted to go to that route you mentioned.
Everybody does have his own views and no one changes his view reading some posts easily.
Mostly it ends with mutual blaming etc.

It was about if climate change is real or not.
The surrounding debate around this and how to do anything about it is a problem with capitalism-emperialism itself.
The corporations, the puppets and stooges of them who we see us ruling (!) etc.

If you go this route you will loose many supporters.
Like some of our friends here.
They don't like anything the opposing party-ideology (that aren't much different as they look anyway) says.
The system works so good for profit and production i don't see change in the near future except really great problems who will arise in the end.
They are the system that dictates what to do and how to respond.

If peace , changing global warming etc. would be suddenly more profitable then today
some of you would be surprised how fast your loved senators , governments changed his view.

Global warming itself is all related to that unfortunately.
Probably only the answer if global warming is real or not is only pure science.
And if we go to the route how science works in this system it get's a little more complicated.

[TheBadger]

I do agree with Martin to a large extent. I think that his words have truth to them and could explain why the "green lobby" is so bi polar. But that again proves that you can't really just blame people on the "right". The green lobby is run by the left.

@ Kadri
I understand very well your idea that I should study. But Im not a scientist. Im one person with only so much time on my hands. How can I study all the science and still live my life? I can't! I have to trust scientists. And for the most part I don't anymore.
Science has been corupted just like government, school, religion, heath care,art, culture, everything. Everything is lost in the haze of bullshit. Truth is buried under an ocean of meaningless facts.
So while I do think there will be negative consequences for how we treat the earth, I think the consequences of all the corruption will be far worse... the environment just one small part. And that is the scary part! Because if its as bad as people claim (warming/cooling/whatever) then for everything else to be worse, it would have to be very bad indeed... And I think it will be/is worse.

@ Pablo
I was not speaking directly to you, or only to you. I was speaking to the general idea that people are the source of all problems, and then only certain people; "other" people. And the fact is, that children are thrown away in the world just like garbage. Forced abortion as in china, is something that was on my mind in connection to what people say about population controls.
To a large extent, there is little conversation on this topic that does not bring up the issue of population reduction. Including this thread.
And while Im sure that you feel very blessed, even superior. You should not make the mistake of thinking others see you as you see your self. Don't worry about me.

[Kadri]

...
I understand very well your idea that I should study. But Im not a scientist.
Im one person with only so much time on my hands.
How can I study all the science and still live my life? I can't!
I have to trust scientists. And for the most part I don't anymore...
...

The wording is bad in my post you mention Michael.
What i meant was more on the line that we should more listen what the science circles does say
and not the politicians and the ordinary media in general.

But if you look who are opposing global warming like
"American Association of Petroleum Geologists" shouldn't ring there some bells?
And they are divided in itself too etc...

[TheBadger]

But if you look who are opposing global warming like
"American Association of Petroleum Geologists" shouldn't ring there some bells?

Yes!
But it also troubles me that the groups who promote the idea as fact are all on the left. Shouldn't science be A//political? But its not. Not here anyway. Its as I already said. It does not matter if its true (warming) no one will fix it. So why spend the money? They'll just use the billions to create more control over people, and the ice will still melt.

They cant even fix the schools here. You think they can save the world?

[Kadri]

...
They cant even fix the schools here. You think they can save the world?

You are lucky ours are just trying to destroy what works, and that wasn't much to begin with

[PabloMack]

They'll just use the billions to create more control over people, and the ice will still melt.

I can see them now. They'll send a huge team to the glaciers and take tons of samples. Their stomping around will cause them to melt faster then they'll go to Congress and say "Yep. It's melting faster. 10 Billion Dollars please. We'll take them in small bills. We need you to cut the rainforest down to make more paper so you can print all those inflated dollars up for us."

[Tangled-Universe]

There is no problem with food, water and so on.
...
but keeping parts of the world poor and hungry allows for cheap labor, cheap production and high profits for multinationals.
4% of the water is fresh and suitable for drinking...but it's key to divide those carefully to keep the global financial system going.
...

So there is still a problem Martin. Yes you are right of course.
I just don't wanted to go to that route you mentioned.
Everybody does have his own views and no one changes his view reading some posts easily.
Mostly it ends with mutual blaming etc.

It was about if climate change is real or not.
etc.

I think you're absolutely right Kadri by saying that we we should try to stick to the original question.

The reason I'm saying this is because I think you can't answer this question without knowing what the driving force is behind the global warming question.

To me(!) it is without question that the information on this question is very, very...very(!) coloured.
There's big money involved with the global warming issue. Either industries who see opportunities to make money and industries who may loose money.

We need to put faith in scientists, but because of money they are more restricted than ever to publish their objective findings.
Research is either funded by the industry which is pro- or anti-global warming or by a government which is also under the influence of those same industries because of lobbies. Even then, although some here try to look away from it, there's definitely politics involved as well.
There are clearly political parties pro- or anti-global warming.

Long story short; it's very hard to be completely objective as a scientist as they are being paid to deliver an already chosen conclusion.
The volume of this kind is much larger than the volume of true objective scientific research.

We will never know the truth and another simlpe reason for that is that we don't have a second or even more earths to really scientifically compare how the climate would evolve without our interference.

I believe the climate is changing, to some extent, but even that conclusion is already pretty subjective. How long is the human race profound with science? On a geological time-scale we're just studying this for a mere second or minute at most.
To then even say that there's climate change AND that it is induced by humans is quite bold.
Of course there are correlations, but these definitely do not mean a causal relation between the two.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kjh2110/the-10-most-bizarre-correlations

We know very very little and we extrapolate all of that to a conclusion which serves our needs or the needs of the paying party.

[Tangled-Universe]

Personally I think it's very hard to imagine that climate change is NOT because of us and that is what I personally believe myself too, but there are also things to consider to make you believe otherwise edit: or at least make you think twice on some things you read in some places:

- the atmosphere volume of our planet is insane, do we really pump that much CO2 into it that it really changes?
- the Amazon is NOT the lungs of our planet, the russian taiga/woods and canadian forests convert a multitude of CO2 compared to the Amazon.
- plankton/krill converts the most CO2
- the volume of the sea is also insane, can we really change the composition of all that water? Non-degradable chemicals are an issue though.

And like I said in my previous post; how can we proof that all these changes are truly man-induced?

I think the strongest evidence of global warming is the ozone vs CFK relation and the CO2 levels vs. history of industrial revolution/development.

These are quite strong cases.

[Kadri]

I have not much to add Martin.
I know how science works only from an theoretic standpoint  -to an extend at least- 
that it isn't an island in itself and how much more complicated it is like you wrote for example.
But you know it much better from a theoretic and practical standpoint -if i remember right- .

Only years later will we know better probably-hopefully if at all.

I think about the environment where i live and how it changed in the past 40 years in the worst way.
Thus i think nearly as you wrote and choose the safest approach about this subject :
"Personally I think it's very hard to imagine that climate change is NOT because of us,"

Actually global warming isn't the worst i fear.
For example genetic research in this or that form could bring an end to us and global warming much faster maybe.

[PabloMack]

- the atmosphere volume of our planet is insane, do we really pump that much CO2 into it that it really changes?

You do understand that the atmosphere is made up of gas, not solids nor liquids. Our atmosphere has a mass that is equivalent to 33 ft. (10 meters) of water. That is why the pressure doubles when SCUBA divers dive to that depth. And CO2 is only 1/30th of one percent of the atmosphere. That means that, if you condensed all of the CO2 in the atmosphere it would settle at a depth of only 3.33 mm...That is slightly over three millimeters. Now scientists tell us that doubling that would have profound effects on global warming. So you should re-think what you were thinking when you wrote what you wrote.

- the Amazon is NOT the lungs of our planet, the russian taiga/woods and canadian forests convert a multitude of CO2 compared to the Amazon.

Lungs consume O2 and produce CO2 so not a good expresssion. The gross amount that is converted doesn't matter. It is the net difference in production to consumption that matters. If plankton fix most of the carbon in CO2 then are soon eaten by fish and turned back into atmospheric CO2 then there is no net change through time. But oil that is burned is not returning carbon back to the atmosphere that was recently removed. This causes a net increase in atmospheric CO2.

[Tangled-Universe]

- the atmosphere volume of our planet is insane, do we really pump that much CO2 into it that it really changes?

You do understand that the atmosphere is made up of gas, not solids nor liquids.

*sigh*

Why, dude?

Yes we're snorkling, actually. But we think it is air, because we're all crazy.
When there's something in your noise and you want to pick it out, it's actually the atmosphere you're nose picking

- the Amazon is NOT the lungs of our planet, the russian taiga/woods and canadian forests convert a multitude of CO2 compared to the Amazon.

Lungs consume O2 and produce CO2 so not a good expresssion.

*sigh*

Why again, dude?

It is an analogy the vast majority of people know and understand. They also know that we breath O2 and that plants use CO2 to produce energy and produce O2 (also).
It's fine if you disagree, I don't mind and I will just ignore it, but it's making this discussion needlessly complicated and above all....very annoying and frustrating if you behave like this!

What's your problem, really!???

[PabloMack]

very annoying and frustrating if you behave like this!

What's your problem, really!???

You seem to have the most easily bruised ego of anyone on this forum. All I did was to state facts and you chose to take offense.

[TheBadger]

  Welcome back Martin! No place like home.

[Oshyan]

Keep it civil guys. It's pretty good to make it to page 3 before this kind of thread starts getting personal, but if it continues down this road we'll have to lock the topic.

Thanks,

Oshyan