Dire threats to earth and mankind...

[subgenius88]

New Orleans was destroyed because they built a city in a stupid place to build a city.

First off, the location of New Orleans is highly strategic and necessary. It would be ridiculous not to have a port at the delta of the largest river in N. America smack dab in the middle of the biggest oil production area in the continental US. There is no other location on the coast and on the Mississippi River suitable for a city.

Second, it was not the Hurricane itself which destroyed much of New Orleans, but the failing of a grossly inadequate levy system. There are many other coastal cities around the world below sea level, and it is well within the technological capabilities of man to deal with it. Unfortunately, no one bothered even though the city is obviously an asset well worth protecting.

[Garr]

This is nothing more than a semantics argument. When people say we are destroying the planet, or some such phrase, what they are really saying is that we are destroying "our living environment (and the living environment of all viable life forms on the planet)." Not everyone can be such a gifted lexiphile.

It's not really semantics to me. I think that there is a HUGE difference. Maybe most people, when they say that, mean what you're saying, but I think that some people honestly believe that we will destroy earth. I don't think that people, in general, are simply referring to our status on it. I may be wrong, though, and I hope that I am.

I believe in environmental conservation and green living. I don't practice it because I'm undereducated. I do support the idea though, and if I were presented with reasonable and inexpensive ways to contribute to bettering our environment, I would do them. (I hope).

[bassjones]

New Orleans was destroyed because they built a city in a stupid place to build a city.

First off, the location of New Orleans is highly strategic and necessary. It would be ridiculous not to have a port at the delta of the largest river in N. America smack dab in the middle of the biggest oil production area in the continental US. There is no other location on the coast and on the Mississippi River suitable for a city.

Second, it was not the Hurricane itself which destroyed much of New Orleans, but the failing of a grossly inadequate levy system. There are many other coastal cities around the world below sea level, and it is well within the technological capabilities of man to deal with it. Unfortunately, no one bothered even though the city is obviously an asset well worth protecting.

Very solid point. However, when affixing blame for this problem, it too needs to go to the local leadership of New Orleans. Several times, money was earmarked by the Federal Government to pay to redo the levys, and each time that money was siphoned off to pay for other things.

[WBOB]

New Orleans was destroyed because they built a city in a stupid place to build a city.

First off, the location of New Orleans is highly strategic and necessary. It would be ridiculous not to have a port at the delta of the largest river in N. America smack dab in the middle of the biggest oil production area in the continental US. There is no other location on the coast and on the Mississippi River suitable for a city.

Second, it was not the Hurricane itself which destroyed much of New Orleans, but the failing of a grossly inadequate levy system. There are many other coastal cities around the world below sea level, and it is well within the technological capabilities of man to deal with it. Unfortunately, no one bothered even though the city is obviously an asset well worth protecting.

Ding ding!

Sad part is that their still only rebuilding
the levys to withstand a Cat 3.

[bassjones]

This is long, but worth reading. I've highlighted a couple of interesting points.

Why So Gloomy?


By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International
April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.


A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

[WBOB]

from Whistleblower magazine:

from politicians and scientists to big corporations and the United Nations – benefit from instilling fear into billions of human beings over the unproven theory of man-made global warming. Indeed, just three weeks after the U.N. ratcheted up international fears over global warming, a panel of 18 scientists from 11 countries has now reported to the U.N. that the only thing that can stop catastrophic climate change is a global tax – on greenhouse gas emissions.

Global problems, real or conjured up, require global governmental solutions. Environmentalism is nothing less than the global elitists' replacement ideology for communism/socialism. With communism largely discredited today – after all, 100-150 million people died at the hands of communist "visionaries" during the last century – elitists who desire to rule other people's lives have gravitated to an even more powerful ideology. More powerful because it seems to trump all other considerations, as it claims the very survival of life on earth is dependent on implementing its agenda.

Thus, while scientists and climatologists who dare to question the rigid orthodoxy of man-made catastrophic global warming are openly ridiculed and threatened with decertification, the movement for global governance, complete with global taxation, is moving into the fast lane.

That's right,... just a hysteria scenario to make the U.N. more
relevant. Redistribution of wealth is more of a real goal here.

[Garr]

@bassjones [applause] [MORE APPLAUSE]

[Steel String Bender]

Kudos to bassjones and WBOB for posting the info from Newsweek International, and Whistleblower magazine. Both sources nail down what's really going on with regards to global warming.

We need to be constantly questioning the agendas of all politicians, regardless of their party affiliation. There are good people and bad people on both sides of the political aisle. The bad ones are always looking to sell us down the river.

[bassjones]

Kudos to bassjones and WBOB for posting the info from Newsweek International, and Whistleblower magazine. Both sources nail down what's really going on with regards to global warming.

We need to be constantly questioning the agendas of all politicians, regardless of their party affiliation. There are good people and bad people on both sides of the political aisle. The bad ones are always looking to sell us down the river.

ditto... not surethere are any good ones are on the Democratic side though

I'm just kidding, well, half - well okay 1/4 kidding. I'm not sure how many good ones are left on the Republican side either though. Maybe a few more.

[boxcarbooks]

Tsunamis have nothing to do with the climate. Plate shifting, is what causes tsunamis.

I thought I had been wrong for years because of the above statement. Then it hit me:

No one should be talking about tsunamis. It's hurricanes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricanes

Climate sure as hell affects hurricanes. Again, as far as I know, a tsunami had NOTHING to do with Katrina.

Maybe something is going on, but it had nothing to do with these things.

Unless you look at temperature rates at the million-years-level. You can't have industrialism and expect gases to stay the same.


I dont know why this is even controversial - especially with knowledgable people. Misinformation abounds. The first question is "Why is there misinformation?" (reframed as "Why does there seem to be contention when there isn't?") The second question is, thank you Walter and "I am not the Walrus" Lenin, "Who profits?"

Who profits?

I think that people like Al Gore are in it for the money and fame.

Yeah, take the money that Gore has gained from Earth in the Balance and Inconvenient Truth and compare that with the money that industries (oil, steel, car, lumber, etc) make. What's wrong with spearheading anyways? If Gore didn't, someone else would have to. And I promise that Gore doesn't actually accrue very much money from his book and movie sales. He puts a lot back in to "the cause" - as shown by his global warming training camps.[/u]

[bwohlgemuth]

Otherwise explain how China gets left out of the Kyoto Protocol??? They are the 2nd largest contributor to so-called Greenhouse Gasses in the world, behind us, and they will take over 1st place within 10 years, yet they're not subjected to it????

China is a complete poopie-hole. And there is no way China is going to take over anything in the next 10 years except for living in their own excrement. I honestly think the idea of a "middle class" in China is going to die a quick death since a middle class is going to demand all sorts of things like rights, the ability to travel, etc....

I would love to own an electric car, simply because I think it would be easier to own and more reliable. Since there isn't a good electric car (and hybrids do not count) at a reasonable price, I'm going to stick with my SUV search (either a Honda Pilot or CR-V).

[G Fresh]

I thought global warming was supposed to cause hurricanes...

[poopstains]

I thought global warming was supposed to cause hurricanes...

This is simply to cover their asses in case its another light hurricane season. Last year was supposed to be the worst on record, and...nothing. They've said this year is supposed to be, but now they're having a plan B. Remember, 30 years ago they said we were heading for another ice age.

[bassjones]

Basically, they're saying, "We don't know what the hell we're talking about and nobody can predict future weather patterns with any degree of certainty whatsoever. Anybody who does tell you that is either a liar or a damned fool..." And they would be correct in that assessment.