December 06, 2005

• more info on the Climate Convergence Center to be found at climatejustice.blogspot.com
• Out with the obligatory reply: I am getting so hot, I wanna take my clothes off Carry on. (Man, that's a blast from the past)
• OK, I feel guilty for the cheap derail. Seriously, I found this article interesting. All the importance issues are discussed with closed doors. Few minutes ago, for example, I was denied access to the negotiations where the most relevant details of the incentives for developing countries and reforestation were going to be discussed. Similarly, another bunch were denied access to the meeting where commitments were about to be discussed. The secrecy does not sound good.
• Brief for president Bush (PDF)
• Fossil Awards You know Shrubya don't beleive those scientimists! Rush Dumbaugh himself says it's all a hoax!
• ok ok sorry but I have to say it - think globally act locally - how many have purchased smaller cars/electric hybrids recently - how many live without the electricity eating air conditioning etc? Also it disturbs me to see the Hurricanes co-opted as evidence of climate change. I remember sitting through cyclones as a child - and for Australians- Cyclone Tracy anyone??
• Feel free to forward this far and wide monkeys. I'm not sure about other countries, but most people I've talked to in the US had no idea the UN was even meeting.
• Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite who can afford to spend the rest of his life drugged up on narcotics, breathing filtered air, purified water in an air conditioned bunker. But he wouldn't be able to do that were it not for the thousands of idiots who CAN'T get away with those things but like lemmings racing towards a cliff, don't care. You just had to say his name. /GRRRRR.
• "Environmentalists" never seem to say anything of importance. They simply join the mob and accept that something is "bad." Environmentalists, on the other hand, who do know things, never seem to go to rallies. Global warming will occur. It is unnatural to stop it. Just remember that stopping or slowing global warming is as much against the natural climate change of the environment as speeding up the process that is now occurring. Pretty soon -- if there are any humans left -- when we go back into the global cooling phase people will be screaming, "No steam! Steam causes global cooling! Stop steam now!" But it won't be called steam, it'll be called Glacial Emissions. All animals make greenhouse gases. It's true that the industrialization of the world has affected the rate of global warming. But what is more important? Enforcing more limitations on developing nations (as if there aren't enough) or suffering a little in the first world? Let's not pretend that we're trying to save the environment and realize we're just trying to control the thermostat in order to save ourselves. If people were honest about it and actually said something about what they stand for I might join the cause. All I hear are the meaningless chants and constant bullshit about how something is "unnatural." Until someone tells me the hard facts about how this greenwashing of the first world will actually benefit the third world, I'll continue to treat them like any other hypocrate.
• InsolentChimp: can you give us some reputable links to support what are apparently your opinions in the first 3 paragraphs? But, the last paragraph hit me upside the head. Yes, I think many of us are trying to control the thermostat for ourselves. Well, maybe not those with a broader world view, but still...
• Unnatural to stop it? If it is an unnatural change in the first place, what would be wrong with removing the same amount of CO2 we added throughout industrialization? Very few people are seriously proposing changing the albedo of the earth to cause cooling. The people "who know something" mostly want to stop accelerating it by shifting us away from fossil fuels. I agree, it is definitely a first-world case of do as I say, not as I do. Until we start sacrificing here it is abject hypocrisy to expect the third world to do any of the same. We should be building nuclear plants for ourselves AND them before we make any demands on their consumption of coal and oil. I have nothing but compact fluorescents and have weatherstripped my house. And as little sacrifice as that was for me, an apartment dweller who's hands are tied by his landlord, I'll bet its more than half of the people in the U.S. have done.
• Did I mention that in my assessment, I expect that nothing that I've done will have any impact on my life whatsoever, that essentially the environment for me is going to be what its going to be regardless? After dumping 200 years worth of CO2 into the air, even if we went completely green, the environment is going to continue to change long after I'm dead and buried. So no, I'm not environmental for my own sake. We're going to have hurricanes, rising sea levels, permafrost melting no matter what we do now. In fact, in a zero sum way, I should probably try to buy up as much energy now as I can and live it up while its comparatively cheap.
• Cheers to you Mord for your efforts. Aside from the accelerated climate change issue that our over-consumption of fossil fuels has created, there is also the problem of fossil fuels eventually running out. I know it's not something that will happen overnight, but eventually, it will. It would be much easier for humanity in general to be eased into new forms of energy such as bio-diesl and solar and wind power, instead of a scramble. Money is also an issue. Granted the start up costs of such alternatives are high, sometimes prohibitively so, but the savings in the long run make up for it.
• *that would be bio-diesel, sorry
• Wasn't looking for approbation, I certainly have not done much at all, I'm just hard pressed to find other ways that I can affordably reduce my impact given my living situation. If I could afford a house, I could probably get energy conserving appliances, tankless water heater. Not an option in an apartment.
• I know you weren't looking for it, but just doing SOMETHING is wonderful. Imagine if everyone just took baby steps together, instead of some people taking giant leaps alone.
• Whatever our political/environmental views - that stick figure guy does look eerily like the real GWB.
• I remember reading an article in Scientific American a couple of years ago. It was about the economic expansion in China, and how China was by far the fastest growing market for automobiles in the world. Millions of cars are being sent to the Chinese marketplace from the Big 3 US manufacturers along with Japanese, Korean, and European makes. The cars destined for China, however, are all built differently than those for domestic sales They have no emissions controls.
• "natural" or "unnatural" is kind of beside the point, I think. If the climate is changing to become inhospitable to human life, we should probably try to stop it. You could argue that medicine is "unnatural" and we should just let people who are sick die, but its not a very good argument. Also, gettin-jiggy-with-the-environment.net is a great site too.
• I understand that your aren't doing it for your own sake, Mord, but foe the sake of human habitation. But what I was getting at was the frenied reactionary responss to extinctions and human impact on climate are to be taken with a grain of salt. Sometimes, stupidly, we listen to people and make the mistake of recycling certain things such as paper or biodegradable plastics, which cause pollution and greenhouse gasses through the recycling process, rather than landfilling them and using the landfill gasses as energy sources. It seems to me that they are money, time and energy wasted. Garbage seems to have more value to humans than recycling in more than just immediate municipal returns. path, I wish I could find a site on the environment which does not abuse statistics and rhetoric. That is, a site supporting industry or the environment. The only info I have comes from conversations with geologists and interpretations of the data on these skewed view sites. So, yes, it's all hypothetical conjecture. drjimmy11, most environmental activists are concerned with a balanced biosphere and tend to ignore the greater balance of long-term climate change. That is the reason I mention it. To cut through the rhetoric. My position is based on the lack of alternates to the deceitful manipulations of industrialists. I do what I can, but I don't waste too much of my time on either side of the fence.
• So what you're saying, InsolentChimp, is that you're just stating your opinion. A friendly suggestion: Moving forward, you might think about doing so in ways that aren't so dismissive of others' (often more-supported-by-facts/links) opinions.
• A friendly suggestion: Moving forward, you might think about doing so in ways that aren't so dismissive of others' (often more-supported-by-facts/links) opinions. I just don't have the time to analyze and post the data from the questionable links due the overwhelming work I have to do for finals right now. I didn't say there weren't things I could post. And please realize that it's hypothetical conjecture on the other sides as well - correlations of data in statistics cannot show causation. If you want, I could take the time to do this in about two weeks. Please refer to the huge number of appeal fallacies used by environmental activists in the meantime. And thanks for the advice, HawthorneWingo, I'm not trying to be dismissive of it.