Climate change 'No 1 threat' says Charles

Discussion in 'ten-forward' started by Primrose, Mar 17, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Primrose

    Primrose Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Posts:
    2,743

    Attached Files:

  2. big ed

    big ed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Posts:
    3,137
    Location:
    Ye Olde New England
    Oh please...Sir Primly,

    I'm going to nominate Mel Brooks to be the next King of England.

    He did a fantastic job when he was King of France!!

    Serfing will make a comeback, Lacky ed
     
  3. solarpowered candle

    solarpowered candle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Posts:
    1,181
    Location:
    new zealand
    read today
    Global Warming Reaches 'tipping point'
    Ozone pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, churned out by factories and vehicles that burn fossil fuels, is a major factor in the dramatic warming of the Arctic zone, NASA scientists report. - Reuters

    Ozone pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, churned out by factories and vehicles that burn fossil fuels, is a major factor in the dramatic warming of the Arctic zone, NASA scientists report.
    Reuters
    16/03/2006
    Deborah Zabarenko
    Human-fueled global warming has reached a "tipping point," according to a new survey of scientific research that found warming would continue even if greenhouse gas emissions halted immediately.

    "It would keep on warming even though we have stopped the cause, which is greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels," David Jhirad of the Washington-based World Resources Institute said on Wednesday.

    The rate of warming would be slower, Jhirad said in a telephone interview, but a kind of thermal inertia would ensure that global temperatures continue their upward trend.

    He referred to a report released by the nonprofit institute this week that analyzed research reports on climate change for 2005.

    "Taken collectively, they suggest that the world may well have moved past a key physical tipping point," the institute wrote.

    Jhirad said there were actually two tipping points. The first is that there is no doubt human activities cause global warming; a more physical tipping point is that the effects of global warming are evident now.

    The report, based on research published in journals including Science and Nature, also found the effects of climate change were so severe they should spur urgent action to prevent more damage and to combat damage that has already occurred.

    "We can't assume this change is so far in the future that we can afford to delay," Jhirad said.

    The World Resources Institute, founded in 1982, is a nonpartisan environmental think tank that works with industry and other ecological groups around the world.

    Carbon Trading

    New policies should encourage companies to make technological and commercial innovations that will cut air pollution, Jhirad said, adding U.S. companies were also clamoring for political leadership.

    Jhirad said he was "underwhelmed" by U.S. political leadership on this issue. In 2001, President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations' main plan to curb global warming. He denounced Kyoto as an economic straitjacket that would cost U.S. jobs and said it wrongly excluded developing nations.

    The Kyoto agreement obliges some 40 industrial nations to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012.

    Jhirad said the United States should adopt a system of carbon trading, like one in place in much of Europe, where companies that emit few greenhouse gases get credits that can be traded with companies that emit a lot.

    "The market has expanded tremendously in terms of the volume of trading and the value of the carbon credits," he said. "That's what we would like to see (in the United States): a market-friendly approach that would set incentives for technological innovation, which is going to be needed."

    Also on Wednesday, the nonprofit, nonpartisan Civil Society Institute released a survey that found 83 percent of Americans wanted more leadership from the federal government to reduce the pollution linked to global warming.

    The survey contacted 1,029 adults in the United States from February 23 through 26 and had an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
     
  4. Primrose

    Primrose Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Posts:
    2,743
    Have some news for you.. :D The US energy companies have been carbon trading between our various states long before Europe even thought of the idea . You might want to research how it it set up between NY and NJ. The Kyoto Protocol was a joke at best that would have taken US tax dollars out of our pockets to to finance and aid many of those other countries which still are the worst polluters who do not have even the desire to clean up their act much less the fund themselves to do so or have a plan in place to begin.. We are not interested in trading those carbon credits with Europe... their level are already skewed... do the math sometime...and here in the US President Bush does not force those 1,029 adults in the United States to buy gas guzzling SUV's so they can be surveyed till the cows come home and they will still be filling their tanks for $85 a pop and rejecting mass public transportant.

    I would love to tell you the science behind the reason why there is more pollution in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere for our big blue marble..but you would have to view it all from Mars and take into account the Sun and the rest of the Solar Sytems to understand it all and what is really happening..and no amount of carbon credits is going to stop that.

    It is interesting that in man's recorded history of the World..he is still struggling to understand the "butterfly effect".
     
  5. beetlejuice

    beetlejuice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2002
    Posts:
    8,523
    Since the beginning of time the earth has undergone climatic changes on a planetary scale. Various periods of heat and cold have been shifting and taking place, most of them long before humans appeared. Species have died out at certain times with others then appearing. And no matter what man does, this pattern will continue. Everytime a volcano erupts, it spews more carbon polutants into the atmosphere than all of mankind ever has, or will.
     
  6. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    SHHHHHHHHHH you might put all of those dooms day pollution scientist's out of work. ;)
     
  7. Primrose

    Primrose Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Posts:
    2,743

    Well we can have lots of fun with this thread :D


    Charles Lectures on Global Warming


    http://www.throneout.com/viewstory.asp?STORY_ID=150

    Prince's plea over climate change

    Environmental campaigner and writer George Monbiot told the BBC that the prince was the second biggest carbon user in the country, after his mother, and he should take action himself.

    He said he would have given Prince Charles more credit if he had pledged to "get rid" of his private plane and helicopter, as well as move into a smaller house "rather than using two homes which use about the same amount of energy as a medium sized town".

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4380658.stm




    First Drive: 2006 Range Rover Sport
    Zoom Raider: It's the fastest Land Rover ever built--seriously The dissonance is understandable, of course. Until now, Land Rover has been content to build vehicles that excel at climbing--whether it be off-road obstacles or the social ladder. But with BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, and even Volkswagen now offering premium high-performance SUVs (see "Flexible Flyers," MT April), the British maker can ill afford to be content ruling the Serengeti Plain. Hence, the new supercharged Sport, an asphalt-optimized SUV fast enough to pin Prince Charles's ears flat against his head.





    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suv/112_0506_2006_range_rover/



    Charles the Charlatan
    http://www.etoile.co.uk/Muse/001109.html

    Royals tour organic farms

    Willie and Millie, two goats from Windrush Farms in Petaluma, brought laughs from the royal couple when they tried to nibble the flowers from Camilla’s bouquet.

    “Charles said ‘goats will eat anything’ and then took rose leaves out of the arrangement and fed the two,” said goat caretaker Paige Green. “Camilla wanted to know the names of the goats and had such a soft, quiet way of speaking.”

    Mimi Luebbermann, owner of the Chileno Valley-based farm that produces wool from organically raised sheep, said she was impressed with the prince’s knowledge of wool and breeds of sheep.



    Lynn and Karen Giacomini, with Point Reyes Farmstead Cheese Co., talked with the prince about their special type of blue cheese and their father’s recent visit to Great Britain.

    “He sampled a little cheese and said it packed a punch,” Lynn Giacomini said. “ Charles was so charming and relaxed, and best of all he was genuinely interested in what we all are doing.”

    After an extended 90-minute visit in the market, the pair crossed the street and disappeared into the Old Western Saloon where they had a couple of glasses of local ale with a small group of residents.

    The smiling couple, shepherded by Secret Service in trademark sunglasses and earpieces, moved down the swelling row of spectators behind the barricades and shook hands. Then moved quickly into a waiting SUV and drove to Warren Weber’s Star Route Farm in Bolinas for lunch and tour of the operation, which is the oldest certified organic farm in the nation.

    http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=67&SubSectionID=616&ArticleID=21022&TM=39397.32
     
  8. Primrose

    Primrose Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Posts:
    2,743
    Or we can get real serious..:cool:

    Warmer winters melt snowpacks

    http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/10774.html



    By Mike Jorgensen (Submitted: 02/23/2005 7:11 pm )
    Yes, that's it Mr. van Dresser, and Ms. Andermann I am not being condescending, just being accurate about science vs. entertainment, nothing wrong with intelligent entertainment (I subscribe to NGM), but it isn't a rigorous scientific periodical, not even they would claim to be.

    Rather than give up on you folks, let me briefly (sorry Stefan) try to explain my logic approach vs. the Scripps group using these examples. The scientific method demands objectivity, rigor, and internal data consistency for any idea to be examined and a conclusion reached. Now, if the Scripps people, who have studied the last 40 years of ocean temperature (one factor out of thousands, but they are an oceanic science agency, not an atmospheric one) which has increased (solid data) and have looked at CO2 data from others, which is increasing over the same period (solid data), and have looked at the basics of the greenhouse effect (solid theory), and combined this with man's industrial activity increases over the last 40 years (again solid data), and voila, combining these we get the theory that man is causing the temperature increases, thus global warming. You all choose to believe this, as do millions of other people who revere scientists, and perhaps who want to believe it for various unspoken reasons.

    As a scientist, I see a lack of objectivity here in this study, they wanted to find this result for many reasons, funding and politics being some of them. But beyond that opinion on my part, they did not look at previous time periods, they thus ignore the other data, solid too, that CO2 has been much higher in the recent past (last few million years) without humans around, that the temperatures have also fluctuated wildly over the last few million years (also solid data) without humans around, and finally, that the Swedish scientists referenced have shown that natural temperature variations occur that are large even without human effects (solid data). So, why would you ignore a large chunk of data, only believe a small temporal set (40 yearso_O), and thus believe the Scripps conclusion vs. mine? I see huge data inconsistency that is not explained by their theory of human CO2 induced global warming. Why do they ignore it and just blow past without regard to explaining or even examining it? That is not the scientific method. They can say all they want about the data they present, but to leap to the theory they have and then say (as you did) that it is beyond a reasonable doubt, is not only ridiculous, but flies in the face of the scientific method to leave all that unexplained data in the trash can. I think maybe you can understand how many thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth in years past, they also ignored scientific data to push a certain agenda. I look at this data inconsistency and see a great deal of work to be done to find all the factors that cause global warming, now and in the past, I can't ignore all that data for convenience and expediency and leave it hanging unexplained, that is scientific logic. However, in politics and religion, belief is enough, data means nothing nor does inconsistency, but not in science, it has to be examined and explained.



    By Mike Jorgensen (Submitted: 02/21/2005 5:25 pm )
    Many excellent point David, and as I pointed out last time these scientific half truths surfaced from AP, they are a biased organization on this subject, so they are not credible.

    But from the science records of paleo-cliamtology, we have the following information:

    Ice Age climate change has been rapid, pervasive and frequent. For instance, during the last 2.6 million years, the duration of the current Ice Age, there have been 104 major fluctuations between global cold and global warmth. Each of the major fluctuations was itself complex, encompassing 'minor' changes of up to 5 degrees centigrade (remember 1 degree F over the last century has caused the current panic) in average annual temperature. As temperature rose and fell, so did global sea level, by up to 130 metres. These changes did not lead to catastrophic global extinctions of the earth's biota.

    Our current interglacial Human development has coincided with one of the relatively infrequent episodes of prolonged climate stability, of a little over 10 000 years since the end of the last glaciation. This episode is the latest of a series of interglacial phases which, in the last half million years, have occurred at intervals of roughly 100 000 years. It has been commonly thought that we are at the tail-end of this warm climate phase, and that feeling sharpened in the late 1990's when new data from Antarctic ice cores showed that the previous three warm phases each lasted between 6000 and 9000 years.

    This year, though, the longest Antarctic ice-core record yet obtained shows that the warm phase before that, a little less than half a million years ago, lasted some 30 000 years. That long interglacial episode is thought to be the best model for our current warm phase, because of the similarity of the earth's alignment vis-¿-vis the sun's rays. On these grounds, therefore, even without human intervention, another 20 000 years of warmth may be expected.

    I rest my case. But if you like, stop all human economic and manufacturing activity, shut down all SUVs, use only wind, sun, and biomass, the temperatures will not change, but it will make the homocentrics feel better and fullfilled.
     
  9. big ed

    big ed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Posts:
    3,137
    Location:
    Ye Olde New England
    Hack...aaak...coff..coff! I agree w/everbody heer...pro and con! Just like I agree w/all those Political Science guys w/their PHD's!

    The only accurate bit here is that goats w/eat anything...kinda like Idi Amin used to!

    So there, Coffin ed
     
  10. Primrose

    Primrose Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Posts:
    2,743
    Right on Big Ed.. :thumb: now I was never quite sure.. did you get passed on the left or the right on the golf course back in the winter of 42..sorry mean 03 ?



    In 2003, William was involved in an odd "road rage" incident. Driving his Volkswagen Golf at a speed perhaps beyond the limit, and of course tailed by Royal Protection Officers in a separate vehicle, William and his guards breezed past an elderly man driving an SUV. The old chap was angered and chased the Prince, tooting his horn and eventually forcing the entourage to pull over.


    http://www.nndb.com/people/652/000030562/


    Royal Visit

    http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/flash/flash.php?id=18
     
  11. big ed

    big ed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Posts:
    3,137
    Location:
    Ye Olde New England

    If I remember correctly...Cochise was aquitted of all charges because they all were driving on the wrong side of the road. He was quoted as saying "It's just one big Royal pain in the a55"! Nursie Salmonella had to give him mouth to mouth for about an hour after the verdict was read. He was able to return to his job at the Soylent Green plant forthwith (means..pretty quick).

    Telling it like it shud bee, Hived ed
     
  12. beetlejuice

    beetlejuice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2002
    Posts:
    8,523
    OOOppppps sorry. I'd hate to see anyone lose their jobs. ;) :D
     
  13. Primrose

    Primrose Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Posts:
    2,743
    Ahh yes..to much stake and kidney stones..:D

    http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/cartoon_4429.html
     

    Attached Files:

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.