Ableton Forum

well put chrysalis!

My problem with the IPCC is that it is appointed by governments, which means it's political. A portion of the panel aren't even scientists. Is there corroborating evidence outside of this political panel? Another question. What caused the warming events previous to man's existence? Those warming periods were far more severe in nature.

The way I see it is at least now our government can take part in the new UN summit that will be held next week in Bali. This is where new targets will be set as Kyoto expires in 2012.

If we weren't on board with Kyoto then they wouldn't let Australia in to the summit in Bali. it's a good start.

forge wrote:

noisetonepause wrote: PS: Congrats on getting rid of John Coward (the hunt), though!

that's the main thing I'm celebrating

and whateer the ins and outs of Kyoto, the point is that it was the FIRST thing Rudd did in office - and before that the first thing he did after the election was give all his ministers homework to go to 2 homeless shelters and 2 schools in their electorate to get the first hand take on what is needed...yes, yes I know cue cynicism etc blah blah but I'll take that over Howard any day

the ONLY thing the Howard govt ever talked about was money and economy - they probably did a good job at that, but they were like Thatcherite bulls in a china shop with it and I'm glad the new mob are taking more of an interest in other things with more social intentions

anyway, I know it's all really shit and no one is really any good and we're all doomed etc etc etc, but let me enjoy this little moment of hope, they dont come along that often

and having this dude as environment minister is never a bad thing in my books:

i read the news from home nowdays and am excited.

the prime minister giving homework. awesome.

forge wrote:well put chrysalis!

+1

forge wrote:

noisetonepause wrote: PS: Congrats on getting rid of John Coward (the hunt), though!

that's the main thing I'm celebrating

and whateer the ins and outs of Kyoto, the point is that it was the FIRST thing Rudd did in office - and before that the first thing he did after the election was give all his ministers homework to go to 2 homeless shelters and 2 schools in their electorate to get the first hand take on what is needed...yes, yes I know cue cynicism etc blah blah but I'll take that over Howard any day

the ONLY thing the Howard govt ever talked about was money and economy - they probably did a good job at that, but they were like Thatcherite bulls in a china shop with it and I'm glad the new mob are taking more of an interest in other things with more social intentions

anyway, I know it's all really shit and no one is really any good and we're all doomed etc etc etc, but let me enjoy this little moment of hope, they dont come along that often

and having this dude as environment minister is never a bad thing in my books:

I hear today on the CBC that he was appointed Evironment Misiter which is cool... Strangest brush with a celebirty was when I was in Coolangata and rode in the elevator with Peter Garett and his daughter and only realized it was him after they got off... First thing I thought was "Fuck that dude is tall" and then "Hey that was Peter Garett of Midnight Oil...Wow"

Now if only Stephen Harper here in Canada would get with the program...

cosmosuave wrote: Now if only Stephen Harper here in Canada would get with the program...

...No chance of that Brian. Luckily for Canada, Harper is a man of principles rather than a man who goes with whatever the pollsters tell him is the fickle public's issue du jour.

Harper opposes Kyoto for economic reasons, and nothing is going to change that. In my opinion, he's doing the right thing. I don't agree with his reasons for doing so, but opposing Kyoto and killing the carbon trading market is vital to the well being of Canada.

It's pretty easy to be pro-kyoto when you're from Toronto and in an information economy. For people outside metro TO and the Fraser Valley in BC, it's not a very attractive option. Again, they're motivated by economic reasons, but the positive effect on limiting the spread of carbon markets is nonetheless positive.

cosmosuave wrote: Now if only Stephen Harper here in Canada would get with the program...

...No chance of that Brian. Luckily for Canada, Harper is a man of principles rather than a man who goes with whatever the pollsters tell him is the fickle public's issue du jour.

Harper opposes Kyoto for economic reasons, and nothing is going to change that. In my opinion, he's doing the right thing. I don't agree with his reasons for doing so, but opposing Kyoto and killing the carbon trading market is vital to the well being of Canada.

It's pretty easy to be pro-kyoto when you're from Toronto and in an information economy. For people outside metro TO and the Fraser Valley in BC, it's not a very attractive option. Again, they're motivated by economic rather than altruistic reasons, but the positive effect on limiting the spread of carbon markets is nonetheless positive.

I'll take the positive thing for the selfish reason over the destructive thing for the well-intentioned reason when it comes to the environment...

udp wrote:My problem with the IPCC is that it is appointed by governments, which means it's political. A portion of the panel aren't even scientists. Is there corroborating evidence outside of this political panel? Another question. What caused the warming events previous to man's existence? Those warming periods were far more severe in nature.

You can find tons of info on the web starting @:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

www.climatechange.net

The degree of tilt of the earth on its axis is one of the major factors in raising or lowering its temperature - triggering ice ages and such. Not really convinced about your claim that previous warming periods were 'far more severe', unless you mean when the earth was cooling from being a molten gob of lava? An ice age represents an average global temperature about 6° centigrade cooler than today - that doesn't seem like much, but it's enough to trigger sheets of ice from Wyoming to the North Pole, and about that much change, in the other (hotter) direction, is in the extremes of temperature projections due to human caused global climate change over the next century and a half. Think about that - if 6° down is enough to trigger ice over half the planet, what do you imagine 6° up will do?

A key thing to understand when talking about climate change on the history of the planet - ice ages and interglacial periods happen on a time scale of tens of thousands of years. This is vital, because it gives all of the systems of the planet, biological and otherwise, time to adapt. The temperature swing we are provoking now, although similar in magnitude to what has occurred in the past, is happening at absolutely breakneck speed, and is entirely unprecedented.

As far as your concerns that the climate studies are funded by the world's governments - who else do you think will fund these studies? Exxon? You will never get rid of politics in human affairs - politics IS human affairs. Everyone on this planet has a stake in the future of the climate system- even Canadians! We should all cross our fingers, but I hope we'll do a bit more as well.

any system for emision controlls has to take into account every possible source or sink for greenhouse gasses. The kyoto treaty falls down badly in this area. Deforestation and draining of peat bogs in indonesia are causing massive damage to the environment but these are not factored into the equation at all. This manifests itself in such absurdities as "Bio Fuel", which causes higher greenhous gas emisions than burning fosil fuels.

On the other hand the very fact that a treaty exists shows that environmentalists are starting to influence the politicians, even if the politics does distort the purpose of the treaty, it all helps to raise peoples awareness of the problem.

Ok while we're linking to climate change sites, here's another:
http://www.globalwarming.org/primer/scienceFAQs

The climate has risen .6 C in the last century. I take issue with any "scientist" who makes his money creating a state of fear. Al Gore has created a company that allows people to " trade carbon offsets to become carbon neutral. " This is an absolute scam.
The Medieval warming period was warmer than now. I think we'll all agree that it wasn't cause by human industrialization. That fact of the matter is that the cart is before the horse on this issue and the scientific method has not been followed. Computer models should not constitute science. Just look at how computer models do with predicting next week's temperatures.

udp wrote:...Computer models should not constitute science. Just look at how computer models do with predicting next week's temperatures.

Two completely different types of computer modelling, macro and something else, I'd look it up if I could be arsed. Similar - fallacious - argument is used pointing out that the 1970s models suggested we were in for an ice age soon, and therefore all this computer model mumbo-jumbo can never be trusted.

Personally, I refuse to listen to anyone who's stupid enough to buy an Oxygen-8. Oh, wait...

substance_g wrote:

udp wrote:...Computer models should not constitute science. Just look at how computer models do with predicting next week's temperatures.

Two completely different types of computer modelling, macro and something else, I'd look it up if I could be arsed. Similar - fallacious - argument is used pointing out that the 1970s models suggested we were in for an ice age soon, and therefore all this computer model mumbo-jumbo can never be trusted.

Personally, I refuse to listen to anyone who's stupid enough to buy an Oxygen-8. Oh, wait...

It doesn't really matter the type of modeling used, it's not shown to be accurate. It is my belief that our resources would be better spent focusing on adapting to climate change rather than trying to avoid climate change. Whether the Earth warms or cools, we need to be adaptive. If seas are going to rise ( I don't have any fear of significant sea rise, but for argument's sake), then we need to focus our technology to adapting to that change. It's like if we had said, ok we're now going to try to stop earthquakes and research how we can do that, instead of engineering buildings that withstand earthquakes better.

PS. I like my Oxygen 8, so far it's served me well. I bought it in 2002 or something like that. I doesn't owe me anything.

I see global warming and cooling every day.

When the sun comes up, the earth gets warmer. When the sun goes down the earth gets cooler.

I wonder if the suns output has any effect on the world's climate?

30 years ago we were being told of an impending ice age.

The earth goes through cooling and warming cycles. Get over it, there's nothing you can do about it.

The SUN has the greatest effect on climate.

Kyoto is irrelevant, even if it were followed, it won't do any good.

Did you know the temperature on Mars is going up too? Maybe they should start walking over there instead of burning fossil fuels too.

Sometimes some truth needs to be injected into these passionate, yet misinformed, discussions.

basetwo wrote:I see global warming and cooling every day.

When the sun comes up, the earth gets warmer. When the sun goes down the earth gets cooler.

That has to be the most retarded thing I have ever read.