# Bears not hibernating



## j d worthington (Nov 16, 2006)

Another interesting sign of changes taking place:

Warm weather wrecks bears' winter slumber - Yahoo! News


----------



## SpaceShip (Nov 16, 2006)

There is a BBC production on TV at the moment called Planet Earth and two weeks ago it showed the plight of the polar bear - the increasingly warm weather (even at the poles) is causing so much melt down that they are finding it increasingly difficult to find food.  We need to look after our planet a lot more than we are doing at the moment - and cause those who treat it with a cavalier disregard to be, at best, taught or trained to respect it for future generations or, at worst, prosecuted to try and deter others.  Any ideas how we can be effective in this regard?


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 16, 2006)

An honest answer? I'm afraid we're far too late to be very effective at this point. However, I'd love to be proven wrong on that.

First and foremost: get rid of the bs with educating people. To hell with the agendas; look at the actual science and go with the best information we have on that. This is quite likely our survival as a species we're talking about here, and the changes with wildlife are indicators, as they are reacting naturally unhampered by rationalizations and industrialization-based decision-making. We, on the other hand, have a tendency to rationalize ourselves right into our graves.

I'm sorry. I'm not at all hopeful of this being turned around in time -- especially as I think the time to have turned it around was nearly a century ago, perhaps more than (and for the doubters: yes, there were plenty of scientists, as well as others, who were already foreseeing a pretty grim outcome if we followed the trends which -- surprise! -- we have continued to follow).

As I said: education -- honest education on the issues without minding if we step on toes concerning people's prejudices. As long as we continue to soften the grimness of the genuine prospects, or pretend that there are solutions that don't require junking huge amounts of the lives we've built for ourselves, nothing will change. That's the only way we've got a chance. Because the sort of draconian measures that would be necessary as far as laws are concerned would, without the people realizing that we're against the wall here (or very soon will be) cause revolutions were governments to try to put them into effect. Either way, we're looking at a lot of carnage before it gets better.

Sorry to not have any bright words on this, but things have been candycoated for long enough.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 18, 2007)

An update on this...

Warm spell in Russia wakes up the bears - Yahoo! News


----------



## Dave (Jan 18, 2007)

I have Fuchsias growing in my garden that normally shed their leaves in November, and the stems need to be cut back to the ground. This Winter they have not died back but are instead continuing to grow.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 18, 2007)

Dave said:


> I have Fuchsias growing in my garden that normally shed their leaves in November, and the stems need to be cut back to the ground. This Winter they have not died back but are instead continuing to grow.


 
Yes... last winter (and the one before that) my mother's rose bushes continued to bloom almost through December, and began again in early February... I've _never_ seen that before, that I can recall, not even here in Texas....


----------



## mosaix (Jan 18, 2007)

Funny thing about plant growth etc.

I have heard and read that plants recognise summer / winter not by temperature but by available light. But, I have to admit there is stuff in my garden that I've never seen at this time of year before.


----------



## Dave (Jan 18, 2007)

mosaix said:


> I have heard and read that plants recognise summer / winter not by temperature but by available light.


I think you are correct, but it's the frost that kills them, and I don't think we've had one yet in London. It's possibly going to snow this weekend though, that's if the wind ever stops. I'm being stereotypically British talking about the weather


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Jan 18, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> An honest answer? I'm afraid we're far too late to be very effective at this point. However, I'd love to be proven wrong on that. First and foremost: get rid of the bs with educating people. To hell with the agendas; look at the actual science and go with the best information we have on that. This is quite likely our survival as a species we're talking about here, and the changes with wildlife are indicators, as they are reacting naturally unhampered by rationalizations and industrialization-based decision-making. We, on the other hand, have a tendency to rationalize ourselves right into our graves. I'm sorry. I'm not at all hopeful of this being turned around in time -- especially as I think the time to have turned it around was nearly a century ago, perhaps more than (and for the doubters: yes, there were plenty of scientists, as well as others, who were already foreseeing a pretty grim outcome if we followed the trends which -- surprise! -- we have continued to follow). As I said: education -- honest education on the issues without minding if we step on toes concerning people's prejudices. As long as we continue to soften the grimness of the genuine prospects, or pretend that there are solutions that don't require junking huge amounts of the lives we've built for ourselves, nothing will change. That's the only way we've got a chance. Because the sort of draconian measures that would be necessary as far as laws are concerned would, without the people realizing that we're against the wall here (or very soon will be) cause revolutions were governments to try to put them into effect. Either way, we're looking at a lot of carnage before it gets better. Sorry to not have any bright words on this, but things have been candycoated for long enough.



I believe you're absolutely correct on this key point. What is desperately needed, now more than ever before, is *real* leadership - not a sub-committee to review the waffling indecisions and inconclusive lack of findings of last month's committee post-poned for two weeks because the chair was vacationing in Aruba with his mistress - sponsored in part by Exxon/Mobil Corporation . . . . But hey, then again, democracy isn't the swiftest nor the most efficient governmental system in the world. Fascism is. And we Americans know a little something about that, now don't we?

It's amazing for me to reflect on how eager America was 5 years ago to reliquish her civil rights to a tyrant, pretender and poltroon based upon false (and racially motivated) fears: the Muslim as boogeyman under the bed; night terrors for over-grown, but intellectually under-developed, children. Now that a true threat has presented itself - like global warming, nuclear anihilation, the Ebola virus or even a catastrophic meteorite/comet strike - everyone cries, "We must deliberate! Committees must be formed. Democracy must be preserved!" 

Already scientists are making names for themselves by naming the new islands revealed as the glaciers of Greenland recede: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/science/earth/16gree.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Let them have their day in the sun - so to speak. _Omnia vanitas . . . .
_
If we fail our species now, our generation will be damned by history forever as most deserving of its ignomious fate. It will be said of us - and with great justice - that mankind was not wiped out by a gaping hole in the ozone, nor mass flooding, nor disease, nor a meteorite or anything else but a lack of priorities and an even more devastating paucity of imagination.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jan 18, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> An update on this...
> 
> Warm spell in Russia wakes up the bears - Yahoo! News



And, on the other hand, they've been having snow in some parts of Los Angeles County that pretty much never get snow.  Three-quarters (at least) of the California citrus crop has been frozen beyond redemption, according to local reports (we have a huge orange and lemon industry here in Fresno County and the surrounding counties).  And for three or four mornings late last week and early this week, the frost persisted on the roofs until past 9 am...that _never_ happens.  And when I went out to the laundry room to do a load of wash at nearly noon yesterday, I had to wash in hot rather than the cold water I really needed for the load because the hoses were still frozen.  Fortunately, none of my clothes were ruined.

It is just insane.  And now, I hear, parts of Europe are trying to blow away.  Are you guys over there all okay?


----------



## mosaix (Jan 19, 2007)

This has really been brought home to me today.

We have had strong gales and sections of a lot of our major roads closed. At 6:00am this morning a man here in Bridgnorth was killed by a falling tree (one of eight people killed by the winds in the UK today). It was only this evening that I learnt that I knew him reasonably well, he was a really nice guy, only 49 and with a family. I had played squash with him in the past a couple of times and usually had a chat in the changing rooms, the last time about ten days ago.

We have had strong winds in the past, but they seem to coming more of the norm. I suppose things like this are going to happen more and more.


----------



## jackokent (Jan 19, 2007)

Mosaix - sorry to hear about your aquaintance, that is really sad.

I know what you mean about all these incidents bringing global warming home to you.  My electricity has only just come on after 27 hours with no power.  Sitting in the dark with no hot water / heating/ not able to cook etc made me realise this is only a taster of how bad things could get.  A couple of huge trees came down beside the house yesterday and luckily missed everyone and everything but coupled with all the unseasonal flowers in the garden and now this news about bears.  It's all very very scarey.


----------



## Spartan27 (Jan 19, 2007)

Curt Chiarelli said:


> I believe you're absolutely correct on this key point. What is desperately needed, now more than ever before, is *real* leadership - not a sub-committee to review the waffling indecisions and inconclusive lack of findings of last month's committee post-poned for two weeks because the chair was vacationing in Aruba with his mistress - sponsored in part by Exxon/Mobil Corporation . . . . But hey, then again, democracy isn't the swiftest nor the most efficient governmental system in the world. Fascism is. And we Americans know a little something about that, now don't we?
> 
> It's amazing for me to reflect on how eager America was 5 years ago to reliquish her civil rights to a tyrant, pretender and poltroon based upon false (and racially motivated) fears: the Muslim as boogeyman under the bed; night terrors for over-grown, but intellectually under-developed, children. Now that a true threat has presented itself - like global warming, nuclear anihilation, the Ebola virus or even a catastrophic meteorite/comet strike - everyone cries, "We must deliberate! Committees must be formed. Democracy must be preserved!"
> 
> ...


 
_______________________________________________________________
Curt: The below statement you made:
"But hey, then again, democracy isn't the swiftest nor the most efficient governmental system in the world. Fascism is. And we Americans know a little something about that, now don't we?"

Is "somewhat" laughable. I doubt that you are American, and I also doubt that you actually believe this statement above. For if that was the case my friend, this very forum and media would not exist, nor would the mechanism (i.e. freedom of speech). I get hammered in these forums for my opinions, but yours is truly stupid. Many Americans died fighting not one but two wars to ensure the "democracy in Europe". Many Brits, and French and Greeks etc. died as well figthing Fascism. I don't think you are as smart as you believe you are.


----------



## Junomidge (Jan 19, 2007)

There have been quite a number of sad reports on polar bears, and the troubles they are facing, here in Canada. 

My Dad is a big Canadian history buff, so this Christmas a bunch of us got together to buy him a trip to Churchill, Manitoba. 

My Dad, my brother and I will be headed to Churchill next October 25th to view the polar bears and explore the fortress.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 19, 2007)

Spartan27 said:


> _______________________________________________________________
> Curt: The below statement you made:
> "But hey, then again, democracy isn't the swiftest nor the most efficient governmental system in the world. Fascism is. And we Americans know a little something about that, now don't we?"
> 
> Is "somewhat" laughable. I doubt that you are American, and I also doubt that you actually believe this statement above. For if that was the case my friend, this very forum and media would not exist, nor would the mechanism (i.e. freedom of speech). I get hammered in these forums for my opinions, but yours is truly stupid. Many Americans died fighting not one but two wars to ensure the "democracy in Europe". Many Brits, and French and Greeks etc. died as well figthing Fascism. I don't think you are as smart as you believe you are.



From what I can see Spartan, you don't get "hammered" at all, it's just that some people hold opposing views to yours and when they state them (politely in my view) you don't like it. Stating an opposing view is just part of a discussion. 

It seems to me that it is _your_ attitude and response to other posters on here that should be brought into question and your post serves to highlight that.

We are a friendly bunch on here and tend not to personalise our posts even when dis-agreeing with each other. May I suggest that you do the same?


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 19, 2007)

I must agree on that. Seems to me that Curt is voicing the conundrum we face: Democracy is definitely preferable to Fascism, yet democracy is (as has been said by many of the great thinkers in American as well as world history) "remarkably inefficient" and prone to dilute and discuss and divagate when immediate action is called for. I think you missed the satirical edge aimed at both forms of government there, and the goad within it to _improve _democracy by improving ourselves so that we may make wiser decisions -- yet an accurate perception that this is unlikely to be done. (Curt, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.)

He addresses a principle, voicing in very terse yet eloquent language the dilemma we face, but he does not attack an individual. Therein lies the difference.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Jan 20, 2007)

Hi J.D. and Mosaix:

Thanks for your supportive comments guys. Mosaix, I am truly sorry to hear of your acquaintence's death. Likewise, the Pacific Northwest of America is being rocked by the same kind of phenomena too. And the real corker is that the people there are considering the option of cutting down most trees to reduce the possibility of property damage! It seems unbelievable to me that they'd be so short-sighted as to not comprehend that they are furthering a key factor that has helped to throw our ecology off balance in the first place: de-forrestation. 

And as for you Spartan27: 

On a superficial level, you may very well consider me a quisling for making those statements, trotting out the tired old "America, love it or leave it" swaggering jingoism so beloved by bullies and autocrats throughout the land, but consider the fact that _democracy and our society's heritage is best served by her critics rather than those who are complacent with her flaws_. 

Unfortunately, your comments exemplify the very same type of critical lapses that have served fascist nations so well over the years. My comments - although impassioned and laced through with a satirical edge - are based upon and wholly qualified by historic and scientific _fact_ . . . . as opposed to yours which are merely an unquestioning regurgitation of state-sanctioned doctrine spoon fed to you by government mouthpieces and their corporate puppetmasters, entities who use _our_ blood to further _their_ own greed, venal agendas and political ambitions.

And as for the rest of your ad hominem attacks: I refuse to offer a rebuttal as I have nothing to prove to you, nor do I wish to squander my valuable time any further.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jan 21, 2007)

And yet I don't see what any of that has to do with bears...


----------



## aarti (Jan 21, 2007)

To go on a completely different tangent, when I read "Bears not hibernating" in the subject heading ... I thought you were referring to the football team the Chicago Bears who will be playing tomorrow against the New Orleans Saints in hopes of making it to the Super Bowl.  And the "not hibernating" part I thought meant you believe that the Bears will win ;-)

Sad, as I don't even really watch football.  But clearly, I've got Bears fever as well!

As for global warming - I also think it will be a case of too little, too late.  After all, we had 60 degree temperatures in Chicago until Christmas.  Though now, of course, we have plunged into the 20s ...


----------



## Azathoth (Jan 21, 2007)

A couple of quick, random comments regarding global warming:  

1) I've noticed that many layman who are "pro-global warming theory" use their own immediate experiences to argue their belief. They say things like, "Oh, it's been really hot here lately. We barely had a winter at all!" There are two problems with comments like this: one, they aren't scientific, and two, seeing as how most of us live in an urban environment, what we're actually experiencing is the urban heat island effect. (And, interestingly enough, climatologists have determined that the urban heat island effect has no greater impact on the environment.) 

2) We cannot predict the weather too far into the future. There are too many variables involved to do so, and so all of our meteorological models are destined to break down after approximately five to six days. Climate, of course, is merely weather on the larger scale; it's the atmosphere's average temperature after any given period (from a month to a year). Now, we know we can't predict the weather - there are too many variables - so why should we think we can predict the climate? Ultimately, in this branch of science, we cannot say, "Ceteris paribus" (all things remaining the same) because, with the climate, *nothing* remains the same. Over the past hundred years, the climate has indeed heated up somewhere between .2 to .8 degrees celcius, but there is no guarentee that it will continue to do so in the future (it may or it may not). 

3) The world is actually warming up after an intense period of cooling; since the 1300's, the Earth has actually been cooling (which partially explains the wars, plagues, push towards industrialization, etc.) and is only now returning to a climate reminiscent of the 1200's. Which is rather interesting, when you think about it - we, with all of our pollution, are only now returning to a pre-Industrialized climate. 

4) I've seen a number of events lately tied to global warming - if there's been a hurricane lately, well, it's global warming. Heard a rumor that bears aren't hibernating? Global warming. A scientist or two are wildly claiming that crocodiles are going to go extinct? Global warming. You're upset that you can't predict the weather, or that it's been raining too much, or whatever? Global warming. The way I see it, global warming has become a pseudoscientific catch-all boogey-man. 

5) Global warming is political. Politicians and scientists have staked their careers on it; certain environmental organizations with powerful ties to Congress are using the theory to push forward their own agendas; and to deny it is to draw boo's and hisses from the masses of people who believe global warming is caused by mankind.  The whole issue stinks of scientific fraud to me, in the same way racial "research" back in the early nineteen hundreds was nothing more than a massively perpetrated fraud (I mean, how many scientists back in those days allowed the politics of the era to cloud their research?  If I were to go with the 1920's "consensus science", I'd probably believe that people of African origin were related to apes!)


----------



## Rosemary (Jan 21, 2007)

Rane Longfox said:


> And yet I don't see what any of that has to do with bears...


I didn't either until I read some of the posts


----------



## mosaix (Jan 21, 2007)

Azathoth said:


> A couple of quick, random comments regarding global warming:
> 
> 1) I've noticed that many layman who are "pro-global warming theory" use their own immediate experiences to argue their belief. They say things like, "Oh, it's been really hot here lately. We barely had a winter at all!" There are two problems with comments like this: one, they aren't scientific, and two, seeing as how most of us live in an urban environment, what we're actually experiencing is the urban heat island effect. (And, interestingly enough, climatologists have determined that the urban heat island effect has no greater impact on the environment.)
> 
> ...



All this may well be true Azathoth, but we'd look pretty stupid if it proved not to be in say, 50 years.

Politicians and scientists have a responsibilty to us all to find the truth and take the appropriate action. What they mustn't do is sit back and say 'Oh it's all natural, nothing to do with us - let's ignore it.'

BTW, in my view we're _all_ related to the apes. But that's _another_ thread.


----------



## Azathoth (Jan 21, 2007)

> All this may well be true Azathoth, but we'd look pretty stupid if it proved not to be in say, 50 years.



But that's just Pascal's Wager...if you believe in Global Warming, and it's true, you can be saved.  If you don't believe in Global Warming, and it's true, you're doomed.  If Global Warming isn't true, then it doesn't matter whether you believed or disbelieved.  Therefore, it is better to believe in Global Warming.   

Science and public policy don't operate that way - concrete proof must be provided before any decisions can be made, or else much in the way of time, money, and effort will be wasted (time, effort, and money which could have been spent on more pressing needs.)



> BTW, in my view we're _all_ related to the apes. But that's _another_ thread.



Of course, we are all related to apes, in the same way that we're related to all living things (did you know that, genetically, we are *almost* identical to pigs - which is one of the reasons why we can use their organs in transplanting procedures - and certain kinds of bacteria?  Fascinating, really.)  What I meant was that 1920's popular science held that people of African origin were *more* ape than man, that they were sub-human.   Which is utter horse ****.


----------



## Dave (Jan 22, 2007)

Azathoth said:


> Science and public policy don't operate that way - concrete proof must be provided before any decisions can be made, or else much in the way of time, money, and effort will be wasted (time, effort, and money which could have been spent on more pressing needs.)


It has already been proved conclusively that the global average temperature is warming up. I wasn't actually saying that my experience in my garden was a result of global warming (though the thread has turned that way) but I can't see why the "urban heat island" should be stronger this year than any other.

You are also correct however that every hurricane, flash flood, bear not hibernating, etc. cannot be blamed on global warming. However, the models of climate change associated with global warming do predict that there will be more energy in the system, leading to more frequent and more powerful hurricanes. They also predict that some areas should be wetter, and strangely that some could get cooler. Sure they are only models and the weather is unpredictable. As I said earlier, if it was predictable what would an Englishman have to talk about anymore?


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jan 22, 2007)

Azathoth said:


> Science and public policy don't operate that way - concrete proof must be provided before any decisions can be made, or else much in the way of time, money, and effort will be wasted (time, effort, and money which could have been spent on more pressing needs.)



There is a problem with this formulation.  Science never, ever absolutely proves anything, and it is not designed to.  Science instead accumulates evidence for or against a particular hypothesis.  When the weight of the data accumulates on one side or the other of a question, as it usually does at some point, the conclusions that evidence supports becomes the prevailing theory on that question.  The possibility always exists, although it is often remote, that some new collection of data could come along and show that the prevailing theory is incorrect.  As more and more evidence collects on one side of an issue, the chance that it could be proved wrong becomes more and more remote... but the chance is still always there.

So, if you are waiting for the final, absolute, and unqualified word on anything from science, you are going to be waiting an awfully long time.  On an issue as important as global warming...which, by the way, really does have by far the preponderance of _objective_ scientific studies saying that it is actually occurring and that the things that humankind is doing is contributing to it...waiting around until there is incontrovertible proof that humans are the largest contributor (because, obviously there are other factors at work as well; it is a complicated problem) is basically to doom life on the planet to, if not extinction, at least to huge die-backs and a poor quality of life for those who remain.

And, on the issue of politics and science...most of the agendas being worked are actually the agendas of a joined conservative movement and big business which keep trying to buy scientific expertise to try to prove that the settled science is wrong and that its just fine for large corporations to keep eating up resources and putting out pollutants and toxic wastes at an ever-increasing rate just so that they can keep their bottom line safe and their shareholders satisfied.  What do they care if a few people...excuse me, a few thousand people...get killed in an accident like that in 1984 in Bhopal, India where 3,000 were killed outright,  if over ten thousand more die in the weeks, months, and years afterward as the result of longer-term effects, and if up to more than 500,000 (perhaps more, depending on who answers the question) were injured when a toxic gas cloud escaped from a Union Carbide plant there?  What do they care that there has been a rise in human skin cancers because of harm to the ozone layer by CFCs before the use of those in aerosols, refrigerators and air conditioners was cut back?  What do they care that there has been a huge rise in asthma cases in the valley where I live due to air pollution from a variety of sources, including the burning of fossil fuels in cars and trucks as well as from agricultural pollution?

But CFCs are a settled issue, despite political attempts in the past to say that it is not.  Acid rain is a settled issue, depsite very strenuous attempts during the Reagan administration to call the evidence for it "junk science".  And, really, global warming is a settled issue, despite all the protestations to the contrary and attempts by politicians and industry to discredit the researchers who have worked on the problem for years.


----------



## Azathoth (Jan 22, 2007)

> Science never, ever absolutely proves anything, and it is not designed to.



I didn't say that science needs to "absolutely" prove anything - I just said that pro-global warming theorists need more evidence to support their position before any policies are developed upon the issue. 



> which, by the way, really does have by far the preponderance of objective scientific studies saying that it is actually occurring and that the things that humankind is doing is contributing to it



Yeah, if by "objective", you mean "biased by popular and financial expectations".



> And, on the issue of politics and science...most of the agendas being worked are actually the agendas of a joined conservative movement and big business which keep trying to buy scientific expertise to try to prove that the settled science is wrong and that its just fine for large corporations to keep eating up resources and putting out pollutants and toxic wastes at an ever-increasing rate just so that they can keep their bottom line safe and their shareholders satisfied. What do they care if a few people...excuse me, a few thousand people...get killed in an accident like that in 1984 in Bhopal, India where 3,000 were killed outright, if over ten thousand more die in the weeks, months, and years afterward as the result of longer-term effects, and if up to more than 500,000 (perhaps more, depending on who answers the question) were injured when a toxic gas cloud escaped from a Union Carbide plant there? What do they care that there has been a rise in human skin cancers because of harm to the ozone layer by CFCs before the use of those in aerosols, refrigerators and air conditioners was cut back? What do they care that there has been a huge rise in asthma cases in the valley where I live due to air pollution from a variety of sources, including the burning of fossil fuels in cars and trucks as well as from agricultural pollution?



Wait a minute, whenever I flip on the television, I hear "Global warming! Oh my God, it's gonna kill us all!" Whenever I browse through AP's articles, I see the global warming panic. Same with all the newspapers. Whenever I hear some politician speak about global warming (such as Pelosi or Gore), it's all about "saving the world from sheer destruction" (or some nonsense). And as for corporations...well, can you direct me to any studies which are linked to the big, evil corporations?  Otherwise, all I see is a conspiracy theory designed to demonize the views of skeptics.   



> And, really, global warming is a settled issue, despite all the protestations to the contrary and attempts by politicians and industry to discredit the researchers who have worked on the problem for years.



No, it is only a "settled issue" where the media and certain organizations are involved.  

And none of my points have been addressed.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jan 22, 2007)

Azathoth said:


> No, it is only a "settled issue" where the media and certain organizations are involved.



Really?  I'm assuming that you never watch the cable news stations, then.  Just this evening earlier I saw Glenn Beck, on CNN Headline News (fairly mainstream media, I suppose) interviewing someone with what seemed to be exactly your point of view on global warming.  In my experience, that was far from a unique event.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 22, 2007)

Calls to act on global warming precede Bush speech - Yahoo! News



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Environmentalists, evangelical Christians and congressional and corporate leaders have called for action on global warming in the days leading up to President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech.
> 
> Interest is particularly keen because of what Bush said in last year's address to Congress and the nation: that "America is addicted to oil" and that this addiction should be broken with technological advances and alternative fuels.
> 
> ...


 
The story is from Reuters, by Deborah Zabarenko, datelined Sunday, Jan. 21, 2007, and titled "Calls to act on global warming precede Bush speech".

There are some points that have been raised earlier that I'd like to address. Is this a political issue? Most assuredly. It has been for a very long time, ever since the idea that we were polluting the environment and destroying our resources was first voiced. And during that time, the evidence has continually mounted that the ones expressing such concerns were correct, and the naysayers were myopic at best. The evidence continues to mount, and it's more than time action was taken. (Frankly, I'm afraid it's far too late, but I'd love to be proven wrong.)

As for the "slant" put on it by environmentalists and environmental scientists... there may indeed be some justice to that claim, but not nearly as much as indicated. I've seen far too many people in far too many fields who study this that have come to be more and more grim about the outlook, and no few of those began on the other side. As the evidence mounts, their opinions change. I'd say it's a bit like bailing a sinking boat with a fork to claim at this point that things are any better than those who've been studying this for decades say they are. The outlook from the one side has been pretty consistent about the general view, while the opposing side has had to backtrack over and over again on their claims that these things weren't connected, or weren't as bad as they seemed. That's not exactly a good track record to gain trust.

As for incidental evidence... taken _in vacuo_, it isn't worth much, but when it matches with other evidence, it becomes another item to consider. That seems to be the case with a lot of things here (though by no means all). They are fitting a trend that has been growing, and need to be considered as "items of supporting evidence", albeit taken with a certain scepticism (a healthy thing no matter which side of the aisle you fall on here).

However, though it dates to 2001, this may be of some interest:

NCDC: Global Warming

While these are more recent:

Instant Expert: Climate Change - climate-change - 01 September 2006 - New Scientist Environment

Western Wildlife and Global Warming - National Wildlife Federation

I'm sorry, but the evidence really does seem to support the idea that things are looking pretty grim....


----------



## Culhwch (Jan 22, 2007)

I can't profess to be being particularly well-read on this subject, so I certainly can't add anything to the scientific or political debate. The thing that strikes me, though, is that why do we need a reason to simplify things to the greater good? Why do we need a reason to treat our habitat - the only one we have - with more respect than ninety percent of us do now? It's all well and good to say that global warming is or isn't a concern. There is still the fact that humans are responsible for pretty much every last bit of pollution in the world. We're responsible for all the rubbish that chokes rivers and dirties oceans and mars woodlands. And we're responsible for every single piece of destruction that has adversely affected the other creatures of the planet, that have led to countless extinctions.

Whether or not they contribute to global warming, emmissions from cars and trucks and factories and God alone knows what else can't be healthy for us or the greater environment. I don't think a lot of people understand that cars are luxury items. We have these things called legs. Try them some time. They work a treat. I don't own a car, have never driven, and surprisingly enough, have never had a problem exisitng. And every day I see people who get in their cars to go a couple hundred metres down the road to the shops. They are dispensible. I understand some people need them for whatever reason, but most of us could do without them at least some of the time. And it only starts there. Recycling, being energy- and water-wise, it's all a lot easier than people think, but they don't seem to want to try it. It just seems we've been spoilt for too long, and now we're too reluctant or too lazy too change.

I'm with JD. I think it's too late, too. I can't see things changing in my lifetime. But it's not going to stop me trying...


----------



## Jackolsman (Jan 22, 2007)

There are two things that I think are most important but have been left unsaid.  

The first is the fact that the world _is_ getting warmer, and it _is obviously _affecting the climate of many parts of the world and also affecting the flora and fauna everywhere.  This _is _happening _regardless_ of what any one here believes it to be caused by.  If you want to waste time arguing about politics and they hows and whatfors of climate change then you are falling into a sideline that sub sets the actual problem.  And that problem is a warming of the globe, which is no boogy man.  

The second thing is that the governments need to take action for it, for what is the government's job if it's not going to protect the people.  We are fighting a very costly war (500 billion USD) because political and religious extremists _may_ attack us (and of course they will, but terrorists have and always will be a problem).  But why not put some of that money to a more humanitarian goal?  

We are best to be prepared for any eventuality in this "Climactic Unrest", for nature will run it's course and has nothing to loose by wiping us out.  You can't reason with a hurricane and you can't move a millions of people on a whim.  It isn't Pascals wager because, with decisive preparation, we win whether or not Global Warming gets out of hand.  Without preparation, we leave it to chance, we leave it to war.  And we will either win or loose, all depending on the weather.


----------



## Dave (Jan 22, 2007)

Azathoth said:


> And none of my points have been addressed.


 I also thought the thread was about Bears, but okay I'll address them:

1) I did already address this. Why should the "urban heat island" effect be greater recently - modern houses are better insulated than ever, the rise in the costs of energy have forced energy-efficency and conservation. If you go back to the 1920's as you described, most heat from coal fires went straight up the chimney.

2)  "Climate, of course, is merely weather on the larger scale." No, it isn't. And a computer model used to predict the weather in five days time is totally different to one that is used to predict climate change from global warming.

3) Yes, they are known colloquially as 'Ice Ages'. I guess we can all relax then, at least we know we aren't in an Ice Age anymore.

4) Maybe you do have a point here, but how do you explain them?

5) In the USA it IS political. In the rest of the world it is consensus. And that is the whole problem in a nutshell. 

I think you've been reading too much Michael Crichton. Most Environmental organisations are charities and have no money to lobby the US government. What "powerful ties" do they have? Contrast that with the oil companies, Enron and other energy corporations who have very well documented associations with politicians and dubious ethics.

If you want real facts read the Stern Review:
Stern Review Report
This report has cross party support in the UK and gives the stark choices we face depending on what we do now.

Now, what were you saying about the bears again?


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jan 22, 2007)

I found this very interesting story while reading the headlines on Yahoo today:



> Chief executives of 10 major corporations urged Congress on Monday to require limits on greenhouse gases this year, contending voluntary efforts to combat climate change are inadequate.
> 
> The call for immediate action came on the eve of President Bush's State of the Union address in which he is expected to reiterate that the industry on its own is making progress in curtailing the growth of heat-trapping emissions without the need of government intervention.
> 
> ...


You can read the whole story here.

Among the corporations whose CEOs sent the letter are Alcoa, BP America, DuPont, Caterpillar, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, Pacific Gas and Electric, and Duke Energy.

I think the very fact that this letter was sent speaks to the fact that pretty much everyone except the Bush administration and its staunchest supporters have now realized that global warming is happening and that without immediate steps to clean up the flow of dangerous gases into the atmosphere we, as a planet, are in for some very hard times to come.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 23, 2007)

Azathoth said:


> Science and public policy don't operate that way



Then it's time they did.


----------



## Azathoth (Jan 23, 2007)

Hey Dave,

Sorry, when I said my points weren't addressed, I wasn't talking about you (I just noticed your post, sorry!)   



> 1) I did already address this. Why should the "urban heat island" effect be greater recently - modern houses are better insulated than ever, the rise in the costs of energy have forced energy-efficency and conservation. If you go back to the 1920's as you described, most heat from coal fires went straight up the chimney.


Well, actually, the urban heat island effect (God, that's really a mouthful; I wish there was an abreviated way to say that) *is* getting worse as cities grow. It has to do with the amount of pavement in an area (as pavement catches heat), not with a home's heating unit. 



> 2) "Climate, of course, is merely weather on the larger scale." No, it isn't. And a computer model used to predict the weather in five days time is totally different to one that is used to predict climate change from global warming.


Uh, according to my geology textbook, dictionary.com, and wikipedia (okay, those last two sources aren't the greatest, heh heh), climate *is* weather on the macroscopic scale. And any model which predicts climate change is assuming that all things remain the same...which simply doesn't hold true where the climate is involved (sorry, but that computer program from "The Day After Tomorrow" is totally sci-fi.)



> 3) Yes, they are known colloquially as 'Ice Ages'. I guess we can all relax then, at least we know we aren't in an Ice Age anymore.


Um, I think you missed my point here. We are just now returning to a climate seen in the 1200's ... tell me, was medieval man polluting so badly that the world's temperature was on par with what we're seeing today?



> 4) Maybe you do have a point here, but how do you explain them?


Easily - the planet is more crowded than ever, so the impact of minor events are magnified, and with an instant access media, we're actually hearing and seeing these things *as they happen*, giving us the illusion that they are increasing in frequency. 



> I think you've been reading too much Michael Crichton.


Er, no.  






Anyways, thanks for all the links, Dave and J.D. I appreciate them (and will definitely go through them) - obviously, I'm not a climatologist, and I'm just expressing my own issues with global warming.  And my views aren't set in stone - I just want actual answers, not, "Well, everyone says it is, so it's gotta be, and anyone who disagrees is an evil corporate pawn," which seems to be a prevailing attitude these days.


----------



## Dave (Feb 8, 2007)

Dave said:


> I have Fuchsias growing in my garden that normally shed their leaves in November, and the stems need to be cut back to the ground. This Winter they have not died back but are instead continuing to grow.


After several morning frosts, and 5cms of snow today, they have died back. Winter has finally arrived!

Out of interest what will happen to the bears if they don't hibernate and the weather gets colder in Russia, which it undoubtably will do?


----------



## Allegra (Feb 8, 2007)

They've gone back to sleep already. World Briefing | Europe: Russia: Warm Bears Doze Off At Last - New York Times


----------



## Dr. Atomic (Feb 8, 2007)

Just did some research for the TV program NOVA scienceNOW, and here's one of the things our own (U.S.) government's environmental agencies have to say on the subject...

It's true, the world goes through regular, cyclical climate changes every 100,000 or so years -- we go from ice ages to warming periods and back again. And right now, we're on an upswing. That's not the problem.

While there are many reasons for these climate changes, and no definitive answer as to why they're happening, one strong theory has to do with CO2 levels. As the earth begins warming due to position relative to the sun, CO2 is released from the permafrost and swamps and wherever. The carbon dioxide rises into the air, traps more heat, and causes temperatures to continue to rise. 

But this is a self-regulating system: Plants continue to feed off the CO2, producing more oxygen. Eventually, a balance is reached between the amount of CO2, the amount of oxygen, and the amount of plants and animals who can survive in such an environment. Then, the earth begins cooling again, the ground freezes over and the plants die, CO2 production drops, and we swing back towards an ice age.

Here's the problem: Right now, atmospheric CO2 levels are three times higher than the highest they're supposed to be based on geological records dating back hundreds of thousands of years (which are gathered from ice core samples). There's no explanation other than industrialization for these levels. Given the strong theories that connect CO2 to global warming, and our own understanding regarding the impact of increased temps on the earth, it seems pretty clear to me that we need to change our behavior in drastic ways if we're ever going to see our race get by...

Anyway, when our own governmental agencies start telling me this -- when I don't even need to go to the environmental groups to get this info -- that's when I start to get really nervous...


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 8, 2007)

has anyone thought that, perhaps, global warming is the earth's ecosystem recovering from the Ice Age?


----------



## Faceless Woman (Feb 8, 2007)

Crocus' in my garden. Sprung up in January. Pretty, but pretty just isn't worth it.

And yes, Admiral, someone has. Bush. 'Nough said.


----------



## BookStop (Feb 8, 2007)

I've heard again and again that the earth just has a natural cycle of cooling and warming, which I can totally believe, but it does seem rather obvious that there is soething to global warming now that is unnatural if the co2 levels are really that much higher than has ever been recorded. Man must be cause, but it seems it can only get worse. The only difference we can make is how fast, right?


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 9, 2007)

Yes, the thought that this is part of the natural cycle has been bruited about quite a bit. The problem is that, when the evidence dating back several cycles indicates a certain amount of time for such cycles, and suddenly there's a dramatic shift forward, then it's usually the new factor in the equation that is throwing things off. In this case, it's humanity. Not only the gases we've pumped into the air, but the fact we've deforested far too much. 500 years ago, the Black Forest was several times the size it is today. The same for the rain forests (or any other large wooded area). We continue to poison the various plant life in the seas, leaving huge gaps in that shield (which is also one of the major producers of the oxygen we breathe, as I recall). And so on....

Again: is it possible something other factor has thrown this cycle off so drastically in comparison with all the others? Yes, it's possible. Is it likely, especially in light of all the evidence that we are responsible? No.

The question isn't really one of whether we're responsible or not, any longer. The question is, what the hell we're going to do about it, and will it be enough?


----------



## Dr. Atomic (Feb 9, 2007)

Clearly, the powers that be have read Gregory Benford's _Timescape_. The problem is, they like the idea of waiting until it gets out of hand and the world is plunged into an ecological hell, and then using quantum physics to just send an S.O.S. back in time, where someone else can deal with the problem.

Of course, that someone else would be... um... us.

So we're still screwed...


----------



## Dr. Atomic (Feb 9, 2007)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> has anyone thought that, perhaps, global warming is the earth's ecosystem recovering from the Ice Age?



Er... Read my post immediately before yours... We do go through a cycle of warming and cooling, and we are in an upswing from the last cool point. The problem is that we're way too deep into that upswing in way too short a time, and CO2 levels -- part of what regulates the earth's temp -- are three times higher than they should be. Since this is the first time we've seen this in something like 700,000 years (based on ice core sampling), and since it coincides with the rise of industrialization, evidence pretty much dictates that it's our fault.

Most scientists, including those within the U.S. government's own geological survey teams, agree on this. The Bush administration, by and large, does not. Of course, the Bush administration also made claims that Iraq absolutely had weapons of mass destruction, and, after years of experts refuting this claim, the President -- finally -- recently said, in a live interview, that we were mistaken in our "intelligence." So the administration's track record when it comes to informed opinions is suspect.


----------



## BookStop (Feb 9, 2007)

What I'm wondering is if anyone has any conclusive evidence that we can reverse the damage done. Yes, the entire planet can try and move toward a greener living, but that will just slow done the inevitable, right? Does anyone know if any drastic measures are being investigated to put things back in balance?


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 9, 2007)

In the long run, a new balance will be found; the Earth has been through warm periods before, and life has adapted. This balance will, I suspect, involve rather fewer homo- sapiens, or those that remain rather more sapiens. This, in the long run, is not nescessarily a bad thing, though it is sad for the other species that might miss the curve. The real problem is the time scale; the ex-inhabited islands in the indian ocean whih are now reefs didn't involve any loss of human life; the submergence came gradually enough that it was barely more than an annoyance. If there is a century in which to adapt, thre should be no insurmountable problems. If it's ten years, that's a whole different question. And if one of the positive feedback, runaway effects beloved of disaster movies takes place, and suddenly it's all happening in a year; well, then mortality figures are going to be stupendous.
But, even if seventy percent of the world's population were to die (don't send me your list; I've got my own) the basic society, and basic living standards could be maintained.
That's just counting temperature/flooding problems, evidently; other forms of environmental destruction should be considered separately.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 9, 2007)

BookStop said:


> I've heard again and again that the earth just has a natural cycle of cooling and warming, which I can totally believe, but it does seem rather obvious that there is soething to global warming now that is unnatural if the co2 levels are really that much higher than has ever been recorded. Man must be cause, but it seems it can only get worse. The only difference we can make is how fast, right?


 
dude, livestock commit more co2 to global warming than cars can

it's flatulence, plain and simple, farts beat cars, thus, it's natural

of course agriculture has a hand in the number of livestock


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 9, 2007)

Dr. Atomic said:


> Just did some research for the TV program NOVA scienceNOW, and here's one of the things our own (U.S.) government's environmental agencies have to say on the subject...
> 
> It's true, the world goes through regular, cyclical climate changes every 100,000 or so years -- we go from ice ages to warming periods and back again. And right now, we're on an upswing. That's not the problem.
> 
> ...


 
what about the time of the dinos, we don't have data on that period of pure global tropicality, neh?

mammals were around then, during a transcontinental period of tropical weather, we survived the ice ages, we're still here

and if this an accelerated warming, then we need to stop cutting down trees instead of working to reduce emmissions, see my previous post for reasons why


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 9, 2007)

Livestock may _generate_ more CO2 than vehicles (though I suspect you'd have to include insect life in that) but it's automatically in balance; if the Earth's vegetation hasn't fixed that much carbon, the animals can't release it, period. 
The thing about fossile fuels is that they have been out of the cycle for millions of years (this also holds for cement, made of limestone) This is new carbon, added to the previous stock, which the system isnot set up to recycle.
If you want to blame animals, concentrate on the section of the carbon which is held in methane, almost entirely produced by bacteria( many of which are indeed in the digestive tracts of bovines, or termites) This is considerably more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but is fortunately relatively short lived.


----------



## BookStop (Feb 9, 2007)

Doesn't the methane danger lie predominantly within the ice? I've not heard of methane being released in large quantities from animals.


----------



## mosaix (Feb 9, 2007)

BookStop said:


> Doesn't the methane danger lie predominantly within the ice? I've not heard of methane being released in large quantities from animals.



Bookstop see this link

US EPA - Methane: Sources and Emissions

This shows the figures for the US sources of methane emissions. Although the figures are only shown up to 2003 it can be seen that 'Enteric Fermentation' (produced in animal guts) is the third highest source of methane. I think this would be higher up the list for non-industrialised countries.


----------



## BookStop (Feb 9, 2007)

Ok, so high quantities of methane do come from animals, with cows being the biggest contributer. Humans, relying on meat and dairy are the main cause for methane emissions being so very high. So what do we do? Not eat red meat or drink milk? Ok, everyone knows red meat = bad, vege diet = good, but the soooo many people love steaks, and burgers....I honestly don't thinnk people will ever cut back on red meat/dairy consumption enough to make a big dent. (just thinking aloud here)

I had read about methane being released from ice in a wikipedia article. 

*Methane release from melting permafrost peat bogs*




Wikinews has news related to: _*Scientists warn thawing Siberia may trigger global meltdown*_


Climate scientists reported in August 2005 that a one million square kilometer region of permafrostpeat bogs in western Siberia is starting to melt for the first time since it was formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. This will release methane, an extremely effective greenhouse gas, possibly as much as 70,000 million tonnes, over the next few decades. An earlier report in May 2005 reported similar melting in eastern Siberia[55].
This positive feedback was not known about in 2001 when the IPCC issued its last major report on climate change. The discovery of permafrost peat bogs melting in 2005 implies that warming is likely to happen faster than was predicted in 2001.

*Methane release from hydrates*

_Main article: Clathrate Gun Hypothesis_
Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, is a form of waterice that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure. Extremely large deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth. The sudden release of large amounts of natural gas from methane clathrate deposits, in a runaway greenhouse effect, has been hypothesized as a cause of past and possibly future climate changes. The release of this trapped methane is a potential major outcome of a rise in temperature; it is thought that this might increase the global temperature by an additional 5° in itself, as methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The theory also predicts this will greatly affect available oxygen content of the atmophere. This theory has been proposed to explain the most severe mass extinction event on earth known as the Permian-Triassic extinction event.


Here is a link to the whole article, which is very intersting and chocked full of info.

Effects of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dr. Atomic (Feb 9, 2007)

To say that animals produce the most CO2 misses the point -- the earth is designed to absorb that much CO2. Add to it the CO2 emissions of industry and you've got overload. SO... you can eliminate the animals. Or you can perhaps regulate industry in such a way that reduces CO2 emissions. Since eliminating all life on earth is what we're trying to avoid, and since the animals were all here before the industry, maybe we should investigate option number two...

Admiral: You're right, I'm not aware of data regarding the time of the dinosaurs. So it is possible that we're cycling back towards the tropicality of that period. Seems unlikely, though, as that long ago, the earth was a very different planet. We've got plants that evolved from those early forms of flora, and they're much better at producing oxygen. So short of a global catastrophe -- in short, de-evolution -- we're unlikely to see that kind of environment again by any natural means. 

In my mind, it comes down to this very simple equation: The earth maintained a regular cycle of heating and cooling and CO2 rise and fall for over 700,000 years -- probably longer. Now, all of a sudden, in a VERY dramatic way, that cycle has broken. The breaking of that cycle coincides EXACTLY with the rise of industrialization. There's nothing too ambiguous about it, and I don't understand why people keep ignoring the clear cut facts. One plus one equals two... And even if we're not 100% certain of the information, we're so close to sure that we might as well act on it -- it certainly can't hurt.


----------



## Dr. Atomic (Feb 9, 2007)

Addendum: *The Keeling Curve* is a chart that follows the natural rise and fall of CO2 emissions from spring to winter -- in the spring, new growth absorbs CO2, and during the winter, when it dies, this growth releases CO2 into the air. 

Keeling charted these amounts and discovered that, between the 1960s and now -- a very short amount of time -- the number of CO2 released increased, while the number off CO2 absorbed decreased. Which is why the Keeling Curve is a curve, and not a straight line.

While Keeling's research doesn't in and of itself point to a reason that the CO2 levels are changing, he combined it with other info and came to the conclusion that it has to do with the way humans are changing the way the climate works. Unfortunately, I don't have this other info, so I can't say one way or the other.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 9, 2007)

And those thundering herds of bison, no longer farting their way over the great plains, were they not bovine? And the other big source of methane, that got it called "marsh gas" (or firedamp, in other situations), all those wetlands, with their pools of of stagnant water, bogs, the things whose disappearence is bemoaned by nature lovers worldwide?
No, methane is not the big problem, as long as that release takes place over several decades. If on the other hand, it were to happen in a couple of years, that would be a precipice event. Another hot summer without the proper freezing winter and the now temporofrost could build its own blanket, causing runaway warming. But metane is lighter than air, and oxidises rapidly, so, as long as the release is slow…


----------



## BookStop (Feb 9, 2007)

I think everyone agrees that humans are responsible for the much of the rise in CO2 levels and greenhouse gases in general (even methane from cows apparently), and that it is leading to a substantial rise in overall temperature for the planet. What is even more frightening is if we continue on this path and major areas of ice melt and release massive methane quantities into the atmosphere quickly, we may not survive after that long enough to fix anything.

What can we do? Cut back on fossil fuel use and limit further industrialization. Get involved in reforestation projects. Limit or cut out consumption of red meat and dairy. What else?


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 9, 2007)

Prepare for rising sea levels, shifting climatic conditions, altering agricultural patterns. Work out what to do with several million bengalis, and inhabitants of low-lying areas (and they're not only the places you think of immediately: Utah might well disappear, much of it being below sea level).
 Prepare for more refugees than this planet has ever seen (well, in humans, at any rate)
Generally, accept that it's going to happen, and prepare for it, rather than waiting for it to happen and reacting to it. After all, lots of the planet will becoming more fertile, the temperature won't go up far enough to make the planet uninhabitable; there's too much water for that. And, while some places are going to desertify, others will get more rain, more fertile. I'm fairly convinced I won't see it happen (I could, of course, be wrong) but I suspect the guy sharing my avatar will, and I would very much like a certain number of forward thinking statesmen to have prepared the ground in advance.


----------



## Dave (Feb 9, 2007)

OR, we work towards an engineering solution to the problem:

'Shadow Squares' like those around Niven's Ringworld in geosynchronous orbit above less populated areas, maybe the oceans. Only these ones could actually be solar cells instead of just reflecting it.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Feb 9, 2007)

Speaking of warm weather, I live in NW USA (Oregon) it is currently 70 degrees in the middle of febuary most of this week with no clouds in the sky. This is not normal in my own experience, although I do not think it is making any warmest day records it is still very odd weather. We usually have rain, rain, rain. Also very interesting is last month we had 2 weeks of snow...it hardly ever snows, it just rains. If it doesn't rain soon, Ill have to move north, because I love the rain.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 9, 2007)

Not in ten,twenty years. Look at the area needed to make an appreciable difference. Less than the surface area of, say, North America, you wouldn't even be able to measure the difference. Even if the mirrors were aluminium foil a couple of atoms thick (and I don't think that would be rigid enough to hold in place) that's megatons of mass in orbit; sending it up from Earth would probably do as much damage as the parasol would eliminate, and in a much shorter interval.
So, the only viable choice is to take it from the moon, which involves building a smelting plant, probably a permanent settlement, a multi-kilometre linear accelerator, the electricity generating system to power all this, then sending the prefabricated sections into Earth orbit, one after the other another thousands of them, to be assembled.
Of course the solar cell version is a _lot_ more complicated, and the microwaves transmitting the power down to Earth's surface could, if accidentally deviated a degree or so from their desert target, cook all the life forms in a city, so safety precautions would have to convince everyone worldwide, and… no, like the space elevator this is a good project, but a long-term project, and I'm far from certain we've got that much time.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 9, 2007)

dustinzgirl said:


> Speaking of warm weather, I live in NW USA (Oregon) it is currently 70 degrees in the middle of febuary most of this week with no clouds in the sky. This is not normal in my own experience, although I do not think it is making any warmest day records it is still very odd weather. We usually have rain, rain, rain. Also very interesting is last month we had 2 weeks of snow...it hardly ever snows, it just rains. If it doesn't rain soon, Ill have to move north, because I love the rain.



I believe you have it backwards . . . . you'll need to go _south_. We here in Northern Califorina are getting your weather! And I'm loving every moment of it!


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 10, 2007)

And, to throw another wrench in the works: Bookstop, there's serious question on the idea of "red meat = bad; veggie = good"; we're descended from omnivores who were more carnivore than herbivore, and we've inherited metabolisms more suited to efficiently processing animal proteins than plant matter. This is why a "vegetarian" diet is so complicated if you really want to have a healthy balance... you're going to have to introduce some form of animal proteins, or you end up with various deficiencies which simply cannot be acquired any other way... supplements aren't absorbed that well in many cases. So cutting back on the supply of meat animals wouldn't make much sense there, either; and, as noted elsewhere, considering that in roughly the last half century the world's population has more than doubled....

I'm afraid that there are an awful lot of factors here that aren't being considered, such as the interrelationships of the two items mentioned above; without cutting back on the world's population, or finding an alternative way of providing food, shelter, and clothing for a growing population while at the same time avoiding the pollutants of increasing industrialization (already we're seeing a greater percentage in many countries having trouble meeting minimum nutritional requirements; and we must remember transportation of foods and other goods is something we cannot stop without causing severe problems we are no longer prepared to address as efficiently as we once were -- the technological interdependence of the modern world makes it impossible to turn back much of anything, we'll have to find viable alternatives rather than drastic reductions, if we want to avoid some horrendous complications to health and safety)... well, we're taking too narrow a view, frankly; it's time we looked at all the pieces of the puzzle and their relationship to each other; and I'm afraid we just don't have the time for that.

In other words, I'm none too sanguine on any of this. We've been aware for at least close to a century that the pollutants we were pouring into our environment were putting us at risk, and we didn't have the will to do a damned thing about it ... now it's time to pay the piper, and we've only ourselves to blame if that price is high. Again -- will we learn from this? Given the overall trend of human history ... I doubt it.

But I'd love to be proven wrong.


----------



## Dr. Atomic (Feb 10, 2007)

I think that it's probably too late to do anything about it, but it is possible to slow the process -- and by doing so, we could buy ourselves time to deal with the repercussions of the change in climate. But this means drastic upheavals in the way that our society operates. Who knows if that can happen -- we need to demonstrate profitability when it comes to preserving the earth. And I can't even BELIEVE that needed saying... *sigh*

We're doomed.


----------

