Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

truth about globle warming

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by rude-boy, Mar 21, 2010.

  1. rude-boy

    rude-boyExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    432

    0

    0

    Mar 12, 2010
     
    hi i dont have much time ti post this so im cutting right to it.

    my girl freidn and other were sayign ohh globle warming is a sham and there is not proof and its not real...i had no proof to back anythign i had to say up. i was disagreeing with them. so what do you guys think? its all shit or we are truly fucked and maybe you know of some proof or anythign to back it up?

    not just ohh its hot or liek ohh there is less snow so there that means its warming.
     

  2. johnnybandmember

    johnnybandmemberNew Member New Member


    2

    0

    0

    Mar 21, 2010
     
    Wikipedia has a good article on Global Warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
    Not all of it is going to match what you may have heard from various media representatives of the Big Oil Companies and the GOP.
     
  3. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    6

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male, 43 years old
    Long Beach CA United States
    Global warming is mostly a theory. it is NOT proven fact.
     
  4. Vegetarian Barbarian

    Vegetarian BarbarianExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    719

    1

    0

    Oct 19, 2009
     
    Theres a difference between global warming (which is whats argued if its real or not) and MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE, which is whats gunna fuck us over. I say good riddance, fuck the humans.

    P.S. Im sure your g/f and her friends had nothing to back them up either and crediting Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh is not credible.
     
  5. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,338

    70

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    global warming IS a proven fact by millions of scientists. What some peoples refuse to believe is that man is responsible of it, mostly due because of a shitty reactionary disinformation documentary called "the great global warming swindle"

    see here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

    This is stupid, millions of very serious scientists proven that the climate changes are due to men activity, only capitalists who have interests to defend in the big pollution industries are pretending the opposite.

    There are millions of documentaries about climate change, but i suggest you watch the one called "An inconvenent truth". This is a documentary on climate changes by Al Gore, and for those that didn't know this guy was supposed to be the president of the United States instead of Georges W Bush. Because like we all know (or not?) georges bush cheated the elections, he shouldn't have win. There was a BIG scandal around the elections in florida 2001 if you don't believe me then please google about it. Also there is the documentary called "hacking democracy" that shows obvious proof of an electoral scandal, they tryed to remove all the proofs and even threaten the journalists.... So Al Gore was supposed to be president but Georges W Bush won because he cheated, Al Gore wanted to sign Kyoto Protocol but not W Bush and guess what happenned only because the americans didn't sign ? All other countries didn't sign the protocol because it's not worth it if the number 1 most polluing country doesn't sign it

    Anyway, climate changes are real and a proven fact, pretending the opposite isn't serious.
     
  6. Vegetarian Barbarian

    Vegetarian BarbarianExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    719

    1

    0

    Oct 19, 2009
     
    Well i can agree with man made climate change, but i saw an inconvienent truth and there are a lot of things he talked about on there that can be proven wrong (the whole theory of "being the hottest in recorded history. Recorded history only started 50 to 70 years ago, it was hot as hell on this planet millions of years ago too, for one) by hundreds of other scientists. There are scientists who agree with global warming... and some that dont. I agree with climate change and that man has something to do with it.

    But fuck al gore, who cares if bush cheated the elections, democrat or republican, we would probably still be in the same situation today. Heres a guy who thinks hes doing so much to fight "global warming" when he uses more energy to light his house in one night than ill use in a lifetime.
     
  7. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    187

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    All you have to do is search within your mind for the truth...are we fucking our home up, or are we not? I say we very much are, and our ancestors are going to pay dearly. But if you think we are doing great, keep on keeping on.
     
  8. New Face In Hell

    New Face In HellExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    229

    0

    0

    Jan 22, 2010
     
    There are also a lot of conspiracy theorists who used to push the climate change theory back in the '70s and '80s, but now go against because it's a mainstream-accepted theory. Because, you know, any theory accepted by the mainstream is obviously a lie of the Illuminati! :lmao:
     
  9. Alex Distro-y

    Alex Distro-yActive Member Forum Member


    40

    0

    1

    Sep 1, 2009
     
    Global Warming and climate change are different things. Global Warming is a warming of the planet. Climate Change is the changing of the climates upon the Earth pretty self explaining by the actual names given to both.
    Climate Change is a re-occurance that has been happening throughout the history of the planet it comes in kind of waves in which the planet warms up and then cools down due to manny varying factors solar conditions, Carbon Dixoide levels on the atmosphere etc... At the moment in a warming period a cold period would be like the ice ages which the planet through. It can been seen in even the history of mankind such as the rise of the Romans, the Dark ages are thought to have been a casue of a cool period also known as the little Ice Age.
    Climate Change is something that is definetly happening and can be seen in weather patterns which are gradually getting more extreme and lasting for longer periods of time. Storms being more violent. Just look at the North Atlantic Hurricane Season of 2007 compared with previous years going back. This was the hurricane Season in which Hurricane Katrania hit New Orleans. There is a trend leading up until now of worsening Hurricane season.
     
  10. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    It's almost proven - there is a CLEAR similarity in in CO2 and climate, as we can see trough Ice Core ressearch.

    A lot of Oil Lobbyist try to make it seem like it isn't a problem, but it is most likely CO2.

    Yes, it can not be proven, and there are some theories against, but most of them are having huge flaws.
    That the planet changes climate once in a while in history is true, but it has never happened as fast as it does at this moment.

    Apart from that... I can't help but think it would be good to free us self of Oil, Coal and all that anyway. People who don't think that finding more climate friendly ways, often don't see, that pollution is other than CO2, and we are running out of ressources.
     
  11. DrunkSquid

    DrunkSquidExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    167

    0

    0

    Oct 11, 2009
     
    people are just morons because they think the planet is only 5000 years old and people raised velociraptors as livestock
    they fail to realize that specific geological eras consisted of millions of years and any data that suggests even a small annual rise in temperatures indicates that there is global warming and no i'm not gonna fucking use some other term simply because the term has been coined so repeatedly, who cares. it is what it is if they can accurately measure these temperatures and it is verifiable fact, that it is indeed a trend and not random. thanks.

    lol also, has anyone seen that new series on tv called "life" it looks cool
     
  12. back2front

    back2frontExperienced Member Experienced member


    95

    0

    0

    Nov 26, 2009
     
    B A D A T M O S P H E R E T h e B u r n in g Q u e s t io n o f G lo b a l W a rm in g
    (from back2front zine #4 - diagrams not included here- if you want a copy let me know)

    The 21st century has b rought with it
    the greatest potentia l threat to our
    survival in history. This very alarming
    statement, and others like it, is the
    subject of ongoing controversy
    between those w ho accept the reality
    of climate change and those w ho do
    not. To complicate matters there are
    those who accept the phenomenon of
    global warming but consider it a result
    of natural causes indicating that
    periods of warming have occurred
    throughout history without human
    interference. The problem with this
    thinking is that it paints humanity out
    of the picture as if our collective
    endeavor has no global impact. It also
    creates an uncomfortable
    complacency, for even if this is true it
    does not m ean that the scare is over
    and we can get on with our lives like
    the good little sheep we are.

    I am alarmed by some opinions I’ve
    heard, often from those w ho d ismiss
    “climate scaremongering”, content to
    follow the o pinions of others for the
    sake of kudos. This essay intends to
    look at ava ilab le data and no matter
    what your opinion on the subject it is
    hoped you m ight agree that scientific
    investigation of this sort is the only
    way to arrive at an opinion that is
    worth consideration.

    Firstly it is important to differentiate
    our term inology. The term ‘global
    warming’ for example refers to the
    recent period of warming (since 1950)
    and its projected effect and
    establishes human involvement. The
    UN uses the term ‘climate change’ to
    represent change directly attributable
    to human activity w hile the term
    ‘climate variability’ considers warming
    as a result of natural phenomena. I
    will use these descriptions for the
    sake of clarity.

    It is understandable that some may
    accept climate variability as the sole
    cause of global warming given the
    resulting greenwashing by
    transnational corporations and their
    explo itation of the situation. This
    blatant cashing in on fear in the
    shadow of disaster is the true face of
    modern capita lism but to cynically
    dismiss c limate change solely
    because of this displays a
    fundamental lack of consideration for
    the bigger picture. I’ll return to this
    later but for I’d like to look at Earth’s
    climate; how it actually works and the
    recent developments that have led to
    an unprecedented rate of global
    warming.

    The Acid Rain Phenomenon

    In 1852 the Scottish chemist Robert
    Angus Smith discovered a connection
    between pH change in rainwater and
    atmospheric pollution. (Potential
    hydrogen or ‘pH’ is a scale used to
    measure the acidity or alkalinity of a
    substance). Smith noted that
    increases in sulphur d ioxide and
    nitrogen oxides since the industrial
    revo lution due to the mass burning of
    coal had led to an acidifying of rain
    especially in highly industrialised
    areas. It would take m ore than a
    century however before scientists
    began to look at the phenomena
    seriously w ith the term ‘acid rain ’
    being coined in 1972. Readings taken
    from fog and rainwater have shown a
    reading of as little as pH2.4 (the same
    acidity as vinegar) and the connection
    with such readings and coa l burning
    facilities are well-established. It was
    thought the use of tall smoke stacks
    would reduce localised pollution but
    this actually led to a regional
    atmospheric circulation which literally
    pushed the pollution elsewhere, often
    into m ountainous regions where the
    acid rain caused considerable
    defoliation and woodland death. I
    have personally w itnessed this in
    Sweden in 1986.

    The cause of acid rain was initially
    disputed because natural deposits of
    an acid ic nature had been d iscovered
    in glacial ice dating back millennia.
    Some scientists held that c limate
    variability was the cause of acid rain
    citing volcanic emissions and other
    natural phenomena. While this is
    certainly true there w as a problem of
    scale and continuity. Volcanic activity
    for example is erratic.

    The principle cause of atmospheric pH
    change is compounds of sulphur and
    nitrogen in high concentration over a
    steady period of time caused by the
    burning of sulphur-containing coal and
    other fossil fuels for electricity
    generation, as well as factory fumes
    and those given off by cars. The acid
    rain phenomenon is now an
    established example of climate
    change. Acid rain has had an adverse
    effect on local ecology particularly
    across Scandinavia, C hina, Canada
    and parts of the United States. The
    Sulphur Emissions Reduction Protocol
    was approved in 1985.

    The example of acid rain clearly
    shows how human activity can affect
    the climate but one of the main
    difficulties in understanding human
    implication in global warming is the
    matter of scale. We can understand
    how our activity causes localised
    pollution but in order to appreciate
    how our activity causes climate
    change it is necessary to consider
    how Earth’s atmosphere actually
    works, how our activity m ight alter its
    composition and what effects might
    this cause.

    What’s Up There?

    Earth’s atmosphere consists of a layer
    of assorted gases which surround the
    planet, maintained by atmospheric
    pressure as a result of surface gravity.
    The atmosphere of earth is directly
    related to the by-products of the flora
    and fauna it sustains and other natural
    phenomena. Earth’s atmosphere
    consists of 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95%
    oxygen, 1% water vapour, 0.93%
    argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and
    traces of hydrogen, helium, neon,
    methane, krypton, oxides of nitrogen,
    xenon and of volatile pollutants. It is
    this balance that allows life to exist on
    the planet.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see
    that long term and concentrated
    changes to the balance of gases in
    the atmosphere could be detrimental
    to life on earth. The example of acid
    rain, now an undisputed scientific fact,
    serves to show what happens when
    excesses of sulphur dioxide and
    nitrogen oxides are pumped into the
    atmosphere by human acitivity. But
    what effect is generated when we
    change the balance of gasses that are
    involved in climate temperature and
    what are the implications?

    The Greenhouse Effect

    The ‘greenhouse effect’ was
    discovered by the French scientist
    Joseph Baptiste Fourier in 1824.
    Fourier outlined the relationship
    between atmosphere and the
    temperature of the planet. H is work
    was taken further by the Swedish
    chemist Svante Arrhenius who in 1896
    speculated that changes in the levels
    of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere
    could substantially affect surface
    temperature. The Greenhouse effect
    as it became known is not disputed
    but accepted as fact but how does it
    actually work?

    Earth receives energy from the sun in
    the form of radiation. The p lanet
    reflects 30% of this radiation while the
    remaining 70% is absorbed causing
    warming of land m asses, oceans and
    atm osphere. In order to m aintain
    stability of temperature absorbed
    radiation must be balanced by the
    energy reflected backwards. This
    avoids extreme increase and
    decrease in temperature w hich would
    otherwise have considerable impact
    upon the climate. This is known as the
    ‘steady state’.

    It is the radiation reflected from earth
    in the form of long infra-red waves that
    warm s the atmosphere. This radiation
    is easily absorbed by greenhouse
    gases such as carbon dioxide, water
    vapour, m ethane and ozone because
    these gases can absorb such longer
    wavelengths as infra-red. Our
    atmosphere is also warmed by the
    latent heat of the planet. The
    atmosphere radiates longwave
    radiation both upward to space and
    downward to the surface. The
    downward part of this longwave
    radiation emitted by the atmosphere is
    the greenhouse effect as shown in the
    diagram on the next page.

    Therefore an increase in greenhouse
    gases creates the potential for
    increased absorption of long wave
    infra-red radiation which in turn
    creates a rise in temperature. The
    greenhouse effect is a widely accepted
    phenomenon. What is now
    in dispute is whether the global
    warming we are now undergoing is
    caused by c limate change or by
    climate variability.

    The Heated Debate

    In 1988 the U.N. established the
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change to investigate this d ispute.
    The IPCC concluded that “most o f the
    observed increase in globally
    averaged temperatures since the midtwentieth
    century is very likely due to
    the observed increase in
    anthrapogenic (man-made)
    greenhouse gas concentrations”. This
    carefully worded observation uses the
    word ‘most’ acknowledging the role of
    climate variabilty but avoids full
    culpability by the term ‘very likely’.
    One suspects that pressure from
    certain quarters was brought to bear
    here. Later the IPCC reported that by
    ‘very likely’ they meant 90% or greater
    probability.

    The m ain thrust of the IPCC report
    was that climate variability due to
    fluctuations in the natural solar cycle,
    volcanic activity o r ocean c limate
    variabily for example had been
    responsible for a period of minor
    warming since pre-industrial times
    until around 1950 but since then
    global warming has been largely manmade.

    All the m ajor national
    academies of science in the
    developed West endorsed the report
    and were soon followed by the vast
    majority of scientists around the world
    (http://en.w ikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_
    opinion_on_climate_change).

    However there was not consensus.

    The reasons for this are several but it
    should be considered that w hile some
    scientists may have disagreed w ith
    the minutae of the IPCC report this did
    not necessarily make them skeptics
    as such. There IS consensus that
    global warming is a reality but the
    dispute is whether or not it is manmade.

    The problem with who or what
    is causing g lobal warming often
    detracts from the fact it is still
    happening and it has the potential to
    eradicate m uch of what we know as
    civilisation. A diminshing number of
    climate skeptics continue to argue that
    the period of global warming we are
    undergoing is a natural occurance that
    will eventually subside, just as it has
    done in the past.

    Climate change skeptics argue that
    periods of heating are often followed
    by periods of cooling in natural cycles
    such as the climate variability of preindustrial
    times which led to a period
    of warming and then cooling in the
    1950’s, suggesting the situation will
    self-resolve. It is a dangerous position
    to take. Others skeptics cry that
    scientists have not investigated ALL
    potential c limate variabilities o r that
    the ice-caps have been melting since
    before the current phase of global
    warming (and thererfore cannot be
    attributable to it) but these arguments
    do little beyond detracting from the
    extreme seriousness of the situation.
    It is also of interest to note the role of
    transnational corporations in a ll of this.
    According to a report from the U nion
    of Concerned Scientists
    (www.ucsusa.org) and others Exxon-
    Mobil gave some $16million to various
    organisations such as the
    International Policy Network to ‘create
    confusion over global warming’ and to
    make the ‘body of climate change
    skeptics bigger than it actually was’.
    Exxon-Mobil have also been noted for
    recommending key personel in the
    Bush administration and a US
    congress famous for its rejection of
    the Kyoto Protocol.

    The Kyoto Protocol was brought into
    force in 2005 following the IPCC
    revelation of climate change and initia l
    international negotiations in 1997. The
    protocol has the objective of reducing
    greenhouse gases especially CO2 in
    order to curb further anthropogenic
    climate change and has since been
    endorsed by 181 countries.

    Unfortunately this only covers 60% of
    greenhouse gas emissions. The US,
    the biggest polluter, has signed but
    not ratified the agreement. Both the
    US and Australia rejected Kyoto on
    economic grounds citing
    unemployment as a major factor.

    Central to Kyoto is the ‘cap and trade’
    system were CO2 emissions are
    capped at certain levels and excess
    can be traded in the form of carbon
    credits thus creating a global carbon
    economy. The Washington
    Declaration of 2007 was an attempt to
    create a successor to Kyoto.

    But how are human activities
    implicated as the major source of
    greenhouse gases? Why do the vast
    majority of governments and scientists
    now accept climate change as a
    reality?

    Human Implications

    I have already established the
    concentration of gases in Earth’s
    atmosphere and looked at what
    happens when this ‘steady state’ is
    altered w ith the example of acid rain. I
    have also shown how the greenhouse
    effect is created when there is an
    increase in greenhouse gases. The
    problematic greenhouse gases are
    carbon d ioxide, methane, nitrous
    oxide, chloroflouocarbons (CFCs) and
    hydroflurocarbons.

    To digress slightly CFCs are enitrely
    man-made as is nitrous oxide and
    these gases are implicated in
    depletion of the ozone layer. The
    ozone layer is reposible for absorbing
    some of the m ore harmful radiaition
    from the sun but CFC pollution at one
    point created holes in the ozone layer
    covering 5% of total area. An
    international ban on CFCs and related
    products known as the Montréal
    Protocol saw a slowing down of this
    depletion. O nce again we see
    evidence of what happens w ith an
    imbalance of greenhouse gases and
    yet despite ‘fixing’ the problem it w ill
    be several lifetimes before the ozone
    layer is expected to be fully restored.

    The chart on the next page shows the
    various g reenhouses gases and their
    origins. Note the bottom three are
    entire ly attributable to human o rig in
    while the upper two, and the ones
    causing the most damage, are
    attributable to both human activity and
    natural phenomena. But our activity is
    also capable of exacerbating natural
    phenomena for example in mass
    scale m onoculture (nitrous oxide) and
    intensive-farming of animals
    (methane). Volcanic activity is
    responsible for a mere 1% of modern
    carbon em issions.

    Studies of ice-core deposits reveal the
    variations in greenhouse gases and
    temperature over the last 800,000
    years. Data reveals high periods of
    carbon d ioxide concentration at
    certain times but it is thought the
    spread of plants, which absorb CO2,
    helped to create a negative feedback
    system to counter the imbalances and
    create climate stability – hence the
    importance of rainforests and peat
    bogs for example.

    We know that the fluctuations in
    atmospheric carbon during these
    periods were the result of climate
    variability. W hile climate variability
    creates carbon em issions 20 times
    greater than climate change does
    these a re thought to be carefully
    balanced over time by natural sinks
    such as weathering of continental
    rocks and photosynthesis of carbon
    compounds by plants and m arine
    plankton. The balance achieved
    meant that CO2 remained between
    240-250 ppm (parts per m illion) since
    the last ice age and the beginnings of
    industrialisation. Currently CO2 levels
    stand at 380 ppm.

    The continued corporate abuse of the
    environment for resources has m eant
    a steady decline in carbon sinks which
    means that climate variability is then
    affected directly by this activity. What
    transpires is increased global warming
    by c limate variabilty which has been
    affected by human activity. This is
    then compounded by industrial
    pollution, land mismanagement and
    the other central sources of climate
    change. The current model of global
    warming m ay then be a combination
    of climate change and climate
    variability but our influence is central
    to both. A special report by the IPCC
    estimates CO2 growth patte rns
    ranging from 541-970 ppm within the
    next 100 years!

    We know that an increase in
    greenhouse gases, especially CO2,
    leads to a rise in temperature. This in
    turn leads to further evaporation of
    water. W ater vapour is a greenhouse
    gas so this in turn leads to a further
    Ice C aps A re Retreating Rapid ly
    rise in temperature and a greater
    overall g reenhouse effect. This effect
    can only be reversed by depletion of
    atmospheric CO2.

    Poles Apart

    When global temperature increases
    ice a t the poles m elts. W ith the retreat
    of the ice landwater takes its place but
    landwater is less relflective than ice
    and thus absorbs more solar radiation
    increasing temperature again. The
    influx of cold meltwater into the
    oceans is thought to have a n adverse
    affect on the G ulf S tream and North
    Atlantic D rift responsible for
    influencing E uropean c limate. In
    Pacific waters the El Niño
    phenomenon is strongly influenced by
    fluctuations in ocean temperature. El
    Niño is responsible for floods,
    droughts, famine and other
    disturbances particuarly affecting
    developing nations. Because El Niño
    drives warm currents of water it is a lso
    connected to increased thunderstorm
    activity but the overall mechanism isn’t
    fully understood. The effects of global
    warming are now thought to be an
    influence however.

    The effect of global warming on
    melting ice-caps and glacial retreat is
    better-undertood. The pace of glacial
    retreat is now occurring at a far
    greater rate than initially anticipated
    leading to subsequent rises in sea
    water levels. In 2004, the Natural
    Resources Defence Council declared
    ‘’the polar ice cap as a whole is
    shrinking. Images from NASA
    satellites show that the area of
    permanent ice cover is contracting at
    a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this
    trend continues, summers in the Arctic
    could become ice-free by the end of
    the century.”

    Another result of this continued
    acceleration w ill be increased water
    evaporation causing potentially drastic
    changes in precipitation, leading to
    flooding for some and drought for
    others. Again this w ill have a knock on 5
    effect with increase in ferocity and
    frequency of extreme weather events.
    As well as all of this there are great
    reserves of methane gas trapped in
    the ice which are being released as
    the caps m elt, contributing to further
    temperature rises. Sattelite images
    from NASA and Google Earth show
    the ice cap retreat; shocking but clear
    and irrefutable evidence of the true
    state of the situation.

    Rising sea levels are already taking
    their toll. Levels a round the UK a re
    now 10cm higher than they were 100
    years ago but it is thought they could
    increase by upwards of 90cm by 2080
    according to the Environment Agency.
    Rising tides will also cause the
    salination of estuaries and aquifers
    resulting in d iminished fresh wate r
    supplies.

    Global Meltdown

    An Independent columnist reported
    the disappearance of the inhabited
    island of Lohachara off the Indian
    subcontinent in 2006. Uninhabited
    islands and atolls in the Pacific had
    already become submerged and
    disappeared by 1998 during what had
    been the warmest year on record.
    Locachara, which once had a
    population of 10,000 w ho were forced
    to flee, is startling evidence of what is
    now actually happening. The
    disappearance of the remote island
    was only noticed by satellite. Other
    islands off Papua New G uinnea and
    elsewhere face the same fate. In 2005
    the Inuit peoples filed a legal petition
    against the USA saying its climate
    policy violates their human rights.
    They c laim to be facing extinction
    because of m elting ice casued by
    greenhouse gas emissions.

    Other coastlines w ill be drastically
    altered if this process is allowed to
    continue. There is now irrevocable
    evidence that the m ean temperature
    of the earth is c limbing. The 10
    warm est years on record have all
    been recorded since 1998. In 2003
    almost 20,000 people are thought to
    have d ied across Europe as a result of
    a heatwave which smashed
    temperature records. G laciers m elted
    across the Alps casuing flash flooding
    in Switzerland. Important crops such
    as wheat were hit extremely hard with
    ¾ of crop loss reported in Ukraine and
    Moldova alone with its own
    implications for global economy.

    Weathering the Storm

    Rising temperatures can also lead to
    extreme weather events. Increased
    temperatures can cause collapse of
    volcanic islands and landslides which
    in turn c reate tsunamis (waves that
    race across the ocean floor). In 2004
    a megatsunami was caused by an
    undersea earthquake in the Indian
    ocean killing a lmost a quarter of a
    million people across 11 countries but
    there is no clear evidence to link one
    of the greatest d isasters in history to
    clmate change (or indeed to new toys
    being employed by the Pentagon).
    Only m onths later in 2005, the
    warmest year on record to date,
    Hurricane Katrina destroyed m ost of
    New Orleans although g lobal warming
    is not required for hurricanes of such
    ferocity as the hurricanes of 1935 and
    1969 suggest. Again there is no clear
    evidence to connect the event to
    climate change but what is accepted
    is that hurricanes draw strength from
    heat in ocean surface waters and we
    know that surface temperatures have
    risen over 1°F in the last 100 years
    therefore g lobal warming did increase
    the probability of such an event
    occurring and increased its
    magnitude. The journal Nature
    recently produced a study showing
    that the lifetime and intensity of storms
    has increased over the last 30 years
    due to rising m ean temperatures.

    We can now see that although we
    might not be able to directly link these
    natural disasters conclusively we can
    appreciate that their scale and
    regularity removes them from the
    ‘freak of nature’ category. We also
    know that fossil fuel corporations are
    very concerned about the possible fall
    in profits if further CO2 capping is
    enforced by international law and
    evidence is m ounting of their lobbying
    to prevent such a situation by
    distorting the facts around c limate
    change. In other words they are
    risking our future for their own gain,
    perhaps unable to realise that they
    won’t have anything to spend their
    profits on if these trends continue.
    They continue to speculate for o il and
    gas reserves in areas once covered
    by ice sending conspiracy theorists
    wild.

    Climate change is not a conspiracy
    theory however. The mounting
    evidence from numerous quarters in
    the scientific world has led to a
    gradual acceptance of the
    phenomenon across the planet. The
    debate is now beginning to change
    from the causes as to how we m ight
    deal w ith it; how we m ight reduce the
    levels of greenhouse gases directly
    attributable to rising temperatures.
    Political feet-dragging has left many
    enviromentalists concerned that the
    government is not doing enough and
    not acting with the necessary haste,
    as if that m ight com e as a surprise.
    The situation is a consequence of the
    corporate lobbying of Western states
    determined to put their own inte rests
    above all else irrespective of the
    consequences.

    There’s No Government Like
    No Government

    The UK government has advised us to
    turn down our thermostats and
    change our lightbulbs while
    simultaneously considering new coal
    and nuclear power stations. While
    nuclear power may be carbon free it
    carries incredible risk potential by
    maintaining the technology that
    resulted in the bombs at Nagasaki and
    Hiroshima or the risk of deadly
    accidents such as Chernobyl, not to
    mention the implications of radiation
    leakage or the disposing of extremely
    hazardous toxic waste. The reason
    this is even being considered, and it
    includes support from
    environmentalist David Bellamy, Gaia
    hypothesis author James Lovelock
    and others you might not expect, is
    thought to be an indication of the
    seriousness of the situation.

    Governments are basing their
    strategies on c limate models, that is
    complex software programs capable
    of predicting the state of the climate
    over a period of time. There are
    thought to be 15 such models in
    operation today across the world but
    they have slight variances in
    parameters and will probably never
    agree. The am ount of variations in
    such models offers the same
    problems for weather-forecasters w ho
    often get it wrong espec ially in long
    term forecasts. There are just too
    many variables for accuracy. However
    all the m odels do come to the same
    conclusion – climate change.

    Predictions include the rising of
    temperature at night, during the w inter
    months and at the Poles. Models are
    predicting a rise of between 3° and 9°
    within the next century w ith numerous
    consequences, some of which have
    been discussed above.

    But as Western governments are
    generally seen as the admin
    departments for corporate
    globalisation there is a tendency to
    brush the dirt under the political carpet
    if that d irt threatens corporate profit. In
    this instance tokenism and short-term
    ‘solutions’ (e.g. nuclear power) are
    often the order of the day. In fact there
    is an overa ll tendency to suggest that
    we can somehow continue the
    resource drain to supply demand (and
    demand supplying) and m aintain the
    current economic system w hen
    conversely it is that very system that
    led us here in the first place.

    According to Greenpeace, under Tony
    Bliar the UK began construction of
    coal plants in developing nations and
    because the energy supplied was not
    in British territory then B rita in m ight be
    seen to be upholding Kyoto. Indeed
    there is little sign that government is
    doing anything to encourage energyefficient
    vehic les, renewable energy,
    lighting and building techniques
    beyond tokenism.

    Despite vows and promises CO2
    levels actually rose a further 3%
    between 2006-2007 according to the
    LA Times resulting in several
    scientists admitting the certa inty of
    worst-case scenarios. The report a lso
    places C hina as the biggest CO2
    producer. B ut because China, and
    India too, are considered developing
    nations they are not bound by K yoto.
    In A ugust 2008 tw o scientists from the
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography
    and UC San D iego published research
    showing that even if humans stopped
    generating g reenhouse gases
    immediately, the world's average
    temperature would "most likely"
    increase by 4.3°F by the end of this
    century.

    Of course there is a catch 22 situation
    between avoiding total panic by an
    admission of the true state of affairs
    and doing what needs to be done. The
    central system of a Carbon Econom y
    offers potentia l but it is also open to
    abuse. Taxes on carbon excesses
    must be far m ore than a slap on the
    wrist and an easily-paid fine!

    Towards A Carbon-Free
    Future

    So far the onus has been largely placed on
    ind ividual househo lds to reduce the ir
    ‘carbon footprint’, the brand nam e
    given to tackling climate change.
    Tackling climate change principally
    involves the reduc tion of carbon and
    other greenhouse gases as well as
    the encouragem ent of carbon sinks.
    New technology, w hich attempts to
    capture and store carbon rather than
    releasing it into the atmosphere,
    unimplemented at the time of writing,
    is a further attempt to mainta in the
    corporate status quo. The seeding of
    ocean beds with iron to fertilize phytoplankton
    as suggested by
    oceanographer John Martin is one of
    many short term solutions with longterm
    consequences.

    A personal carbon quota allocated to
    each household, on the other hand,
    allows a new form of currency where
    excess m ay be traded for o ther goods.
    But fundamentally at the heart of the
    matter is that the society w e live in,
    the society that transports goods to
    and from all co rners of the w orld to
    satisfy need, real or imagined is
    unsustainable and c limate change is
    only one manifestation of its utter
    failure. Who w ill have the bravery to
    admit that capitalism has failed? Not
    unelected P rime Minister G ordon
    Brown who insists that c limate change
    must be addressed hand in hand with
    the economy, and certainly not the O il
    Cartel running the US.

    Zero-Carbon-Britain is a report
    produced by the Centre of Alternative
    Technology that attempts to address
    the urgency of action required to
    tackle g lobal warming but also
    incorporates the economic agenda
    realizing that the scale of this problem
    must involve all of us for any one
    nation or corporation cannot save
    itself from clim ate change.

    Zero Carbon Britain offers a
    contraction and convergence global
    framework. Countries start, it
    suggests, w ith widely differing per
    capita emissions entitlement.
    However, a convergence
    date is agreed, by which time all
    countries’ per capita em issions will
    have converged on equity. Thus, ‘high
    carbon’ nations m ust reduce their
    emission more dramatically than those
    starting from a lower level.

    To aid the process, countries whose
    emissions in any given year fall below
    their allocation can sell entitlement
    to countries that cannot reduce their
    emissions quickly enough. In this way,
    poorer countries are able to fund their
    development onto a low-carbon
    pathway, while richer nations can buy
    themselves time to achieve the
    necessary reductions.

    An overview of total energy use would
    reveal what the report refers to as
    ‘energy obesity’, going on to suggest
    the scaling down of power-use so that
    within 20 years the UK would be using
    approximately half the energy it is
    using now. This would require
    fundamental changes in society, in
    industry, building and transport as well
    as in the home with sustainability and
    recycling central to operations.
    The use of private vehicles needs to
    be addressed. Public transport needs
    to represent a cheaper and more
    effective system than private vehicles
    otherwise it has failed. C ycling could
    become commonplace as people
    realise they can travel distances with
    their own m uscle power and keep
    themselves fit at the same time.
    Land-use must undergo a literal
    revolution. Locally grown organic
    systems require m inimal if any
    transport and would drastically cut
    ‘food miles’, improve soil structure,
    ecology and the general health of the
    population. This would most certainly
    be underpinned by a shift towards
    more a vegetable-based diet. The
    Transition Towns movement is a
    grass roots network dedicated to
    building towards sustainability and
    self-reliance.

    New ideas for hybrid vehicles,
    methods of building, farming
    techniques and other ideas with
    minimal environmental impact have
    long been available and proven to
    work. According to Greenpeace
    150,000 people are dying annually
    because of climate change and one
    third of all land-based species face
    extinction within 50 years. But what is
    the government doing? It has recently
    emerged that the UK will fail to meet
    its own self-imposed target to reduce
    greenhouse emissions by 20% by
    2010. A com bination of government
    cowardice and corporate lobbying is
    failing us all.

    Climate Activism

    As individuals we can m inimise our
    impact on the environment by refusing
    to purchase any product that cannot
    be recyc led or reused. W e can avoid
    any product that may be detrimental to
    the environment. We have that power.
    There is an urgent need to adapt to a
    new way of living however, rather than
    trying to m aintain the unsustainable
    capitalist outlook that currently
    dominates society. If government will
    not listen then people should stand in
    local constituencies on this issue;
    establish sustainable collectivisation
    or transition systems and organise.
    If government won’t listen we m ust
    adopt what Arundhati Roy calls ‘a
    biodiversity of struggle’ in o rder to
    force them and their corporate lackeys
    into immediate and concentrated
    action before it is too late. Climate-
    Change activism is gathering
    momentum across the world but it is
    greeted by riot police and a legal
    system seen again and again to
    protect capitalism before its people.
    Climate Change activists such as the
    Camp for C limate Action in the UK are
    taking protests to the frontline –
    Heathrow Airport, Drax Power Station
    and recently Kingsnorth Power Station
    where several Greenpeace activists
    were arrested. Their subsequent
    defence when tried for criminal
    damage was that they had 'lawful
    excuse' - because they were acting to
    protect property around the world "in
    immediate need of protection" from
    the impacts of climate change, caused
    in part by burning coal at Kingsnorth.
    Defence w itnesses included Jim
    Hansen, w idely regarded as the
    leading expert in climate change and
    an Inuit leader, Aqqaluk Lynge, w ho
    told of his people’s first hand
    experiences with c limate change. The
    six were found not guilty setting an
    important legal precedent.

    The Jurors supported the right of people to take
    direct action to protect the planet from
    climate change. This is a major victory
    and the legal cornerstone on which
    future actions will be based.

    Final Thoughts

    Writing this essay was a m ethod of
    augmenting m y own personal
    experiences. Living largely in rural
    environments over the last few
    decades I have witnessed variations
    in natural cycles - flowers and insects
    out of season, birds arriving early and
    migrating late, recurring freak weather
    patterns which show m e first hand
    experience of global warming. I don’t
    need a lecture by an ‘expert’ on the
    payroll of the fossil fuel cartel telling
    me to ‘look at the statistics’. T ime is
    running out and it is likely we will see
    more and m ore natural d isasters on
    greater and greater scales over the
    coming years.

    For the first time in history it is now
    possib le to c ircumnavigate the Arctic
    with both the North East and North
    West passages now open. S ince 2005
    Norway is offering blocks in the
    Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea
    for oil and gas prospecting. The drive
    to continue the global econom y
    continues unabated in the face of
    potential catastrophe.

    Where do we stand in a ll of this? How
    seriously should we take it? From my
    own research we have less than a
    decade to avoid an irreversible tipping
    point. In order to avoid this tipping
    point, from which there is no going
    back, we must cease all activity which
    causes greenhouse gas emissions
    within the shortest possible timeframe.

    W e must simultaneously
    increase and protect existing carbon
    sinks. In order to do this we must
    change our dependency on the State
    and we m ust learn to live without
    many of the gadgets we now take for
    granted. It begins with the individual in
    the home but it m ust also take to the
    streets and fields across the world.
    This is everyone’s fight now. If
    government w ill not radically
    accelerate, improve and consolidate
    its current policy then the alternative
    may be too terrible to consider. W e
    have time on our hands but too little of
    it…

    Resources
    www.risingtide.co.uk
    www.wombles.org.uk
    www.zerocarbonbritain.com
    www.earthfirst.org.uk
    www.manicore.com
    www.carboncounter.info/links.html
    www.zfacts.com/p/222.html
    www.islandsfirst.org/
    www.earth-policy.org/
    www.greenpeace.org/international/pre
    ss/reports/energyrevolutionreport

    Since this article was written a few years ago the Climate summit at Copenhagan once again bowed before coporate interests and profit. I might add that this article was thoroughly researched using available date and I invite anyone with any doubts to do the same. I must admit I am concerned that 'carbon quota' is simply another form of capitalism using greed as a motivating factor so I'd rather end with this:

    "When you consider that climate change is
    caused by the over-consumption
    of foss il fuels by the rich, often
    extracted at the expense of the
    poor; that the first people to feel
    the effects of climate change are
    the poor because only the rich
    can pay for expensive
    adaptation measures; that the
    process which is designed to
    prevent climate change is
    dominated by the rich, who
    com e up with solutions that
    displace the poor but m ake
    money for the rich; then you stop
    seeing climate change as a
    problem of atm osphere and
    gases and start s eeing it as a
    problem of clas s w ar."
     
  13. hvonpain

    hvonpainNew Member New Member


    3

    0

    1

    Mar 2, 2010
     
    From What i`ve read from differing views,it seems to me that the earth is possibly self changing,you have to go back to the start,and humans have only been here for a blip ,we know how much the earth`s climate etc has changed for millions of years,so for me the planet warming is a natural(albeit accelerated by polltion) occurence.i believe in re cycling being decent to the planet,but some of the scaremongers do my head in,they`re like a global warming gestapo,only their opinion are correct.
     
  14. xOutspokenx

    xOutspokenxActive Member Forum Member


    36

    0

    0

    Mar 7, 2010
     
    You know that scientific theory is only valid when supported by evidence and facts, right? It's either a theory or it's not a proven fact, it can't be both.

    And anyway, as said, there is an overwhelming wealth of data, evidence and scientific research that supports the claim that the sharp increase in the Earth's temperature is caused by an increase of greenhouse gasses produced at an accelerated and unsustainable level by ma from the Industrial Revolution onwards.
     
  15. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    6

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male, 43 years old
    Long Beach CA United States
    sorry but i see the whole global warming scare as nothing more then the media trying to create a frenzy... and being pretty successful too. Climate and temperature changes are common. Did scientists cry Global Cooling back before the ice age?
     
  16. rude-boy

    rude-boyExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    432

    0

    0

    Mar 12, 2010
     
    who knows it killed them all
     
  17. back2front

    back2frontExperienced Member Experienced member


    95

    0

    0

    Nov 26, 2009
     
    I'd like to know what you've been reading - the article I included (sorry it's so long) above was based on available scientific data (rather than my 'take' on it or my 'feelings' on the subject) which has been verified by about 98% of climate scientists - as to the other 2%, quite a few of them have been exposed on the payroll for corporate fossil fuel interests. As I say please check the data for yourself - have a look at the google earth and nasa images of the ice-caps over the last few years. Did you read the article?

    Even if you disagree with 98% of the world's top climate scientists you need to say how rather than offer vague statements. Sure big business is capitalising on the green scare - they capitalise on anything after all but does that mean that the world's scientists are all being paid off to tell lies about the climate for corporate interest? Are they the global warming gestapo??? Please explain how.
     
  18. xOutspokenx

    xOutspokenxActive Member Forum Member


    36

    0

    0

    Mar 7, 2010
     
    But no one, not even the scientists, denies that global warming and greenhouse gasses are naturally occuring.

    What scientists are trying to point out is that the rate of temperature increase and the greenhouse gasses increase seen in the past 150/200 years is not natural. And you can hardly go around and say it's a media scare when the majority of the scientific community makes statements to the effect that there is a positive correlation between human activity and accelerated global warming, especially if these same scientists are basing their claims on scientific studies and investigations (hardly make-believe, unless you want to doubt the scientific method altogether).

    If you really believe it is just a media scare and that there is some sort of global conspiracy, please point out to the studies and data that refute the claims made by scientists about global warming.
     
  19. Alex Distro-y

    Alex Distro-yActive Member Forum Member


    40

    0

    1

    Sep 1, 2009
     
    I do believe there is alot of scare mongering at times but at the same point I really cant see this as a bad thing, if anything it is a good thing overall in the idea of renewable energy sources such as Hydro and Wind. Recycling of many different things. Cutting down on emissions on CO2 and in the process and alot more harmful gases to the environment and ourselves like Sulphur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide and many others. There is some people who are going to get very rich from the whole Global Warming protection.

    But their opinions are backed up by alot of heavy weighted evidence.
    Look at the Larsen B Ice Shelf in the space of just over month between end of January and beginning of March 2002 the amount of melt that took place is ridiculous. This is just one small example. and this is just one of thousands of different examples around the world.

    Yes they are common but there is a big difference between the natural planet and its climate change and the increase of temperature and climate change due to man's great ability to consume. The 35% increase in CO2 since around 1750 due to human emissions has raised CO2 levels to their highest levels in 650,000 years for definite and possibly as much as 3 million years. This is a problem that man has created not the planet, solar or any such natural disaster has been mainly behind.
     
  20. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    6

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male, 43 years old
    Long Beach CA United States
    how can that be definite? who kept track of things like this 650,000 years ago?
     
Loading...