global warming

This area has been established to allow you, our visitors and contributors, to get to know one another a bit better, or to discuss subjects of general interest, without feeling obliged to restrict your postings to language-related topics. But we draw the line at floccinaucinihilivilification.

global warming

Post by gdwdwrkr » Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:06 am

Glenn Beck finds that NBC is wholly owned by GE, a company which will profit billion$ through our responses to NBC's crisis-promotion!

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, and 55-year weather-studier, calls global warming a hoax.

Chilling to think that it is a tool for global socialism. A conservationist Boy Scout at heart, I have always lived by "take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints" and the desire to leave Earth better than I found it.

What do you think?
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

global warming

Post by zmjezhd » Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:05 pm

It is a complex subject. Folks who'd like to check it out, can look at two of the articles in Wikipedia (on global warming and the global warming controversy). As with any popular medium, (newspapers, encyclopedias, blogs, etc.), the usual caveats apply. I'd say following up on the cited references is the next step in informing yourself. (Remember, just because somebody says a thing doesn't necessarily make it so.) I admit when I skimmed over these two articles and looked at a subset of the (mostly online) references, I felt overwhelmed. There's a lot of data and interpretations there to digest. I'm also not sure that it's a debate I'd like to engage in on what is basically a non-political, words-related site. But to each his/her own. Good luck figuring it out.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

global warming

Post by dalehileman » Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:02 pm

gd, forgive me, but by "it" did you mean NBC or global warming
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

global warming

Post by JANE DOErell » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:32 pm

From the nytimes.com science section with my emphasis :
For many years, the battle over what to think and do about human-caused climate change and fossil fuels has been waged mostly as a yelling match between the political and environmental left and the right.
.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

global warming

Post by gdwdwrkr » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:38 pm

dh, I mean, chilling to think that "global warming" is a tool for global socialism. I did not make that clear. Thank you for calling for the clarification.
Funny, isn't it Jane, what you can glean just from how things are worded? The left gets to have political and environmental components. The right does not.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

global warming

Post by Erik_Kowal » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:40 pm

Jesus wept.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: -- Looking up a word? Try OneLook's metadictionary (--> definitions) and reverse dictionary (--> terms based on your definitions)8-- Contribute favourite diary entries, quotations and more here8 -- Find new postings easily with Active Topics8-- Want to research a word? Get essential tips from experienced researcher Ken Greenwald

global warming

Post by trolley » Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:26 pm

I'm going to have to start paying more attention. On my first read-through of the New York Times quote, my brain omitted the last "the" and accepted it is being a fair statement. Now, where did I leave my tin-foil hat?
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

global warming

Post by Phil White » Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:41 pm


Originally posted by gdwdwrkrChilling to think that it is a tool for global socialism.
An interesting idea. There are many out there, including myself, who believe that, irrespective of whether the underlying science is sound or not, the issue of global warming has become a tool of the rich, capitalist West to hobble further development of the developing countries. Hardly a tool for global socialism.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

global warming

Post by gdwdwrkr » Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:44 pm

Your belief is based on observation of the tool being used in what way?
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

global warming

Post by Phil White » Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:00 pm

The way that the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also believes that it is being used. See here.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

global warming

Post by gdwdwrkr » Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:15 pm

From " here ":On Tuesday, India's foreign secretary, said the costs for slowing global warming "must be shared fairly," and pointed to figures that indicate India produces just 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

So, the "shared fairly" part for the "slowing [of] global warming" is to be linked to proportions of "greenhouse gas emissions" "irrespective of whether the underlying science is sound or not"?

These beliefs seem to me to be part of a faith-system, especially given, as I have pointed out before, the indulgences in the form of "carbon-offset credits". If not that, they are at least a Marxist attempt for redistribution of wealth based on science which could be sound or not.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

global warming

Post by Phil White » Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:20 pm

Read my comment again. You'll get it. It's not that difficult.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

global warming

Post by gdwdwrkr » Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:42 pm

Gee, I just don't get "it".
"It" is not, I hope, that you can or will not articulate a reasoned response to my question.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

global warming

Post by Ken Greenwald » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:38 pm

Here’s some bedtime reading for John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, and 55-year weather-studier, who calls global warming a hoax:

Time Magazine

A Last Warning on Global Warming - November 17, 2007

The language of science, like that of the United Nations, is by nature cautious and measured. That makes the dire tone of the just-released final report from the fourth assessment of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a network of thousands of international scientists, all the more striking. Global warming is "unequivocal." Climate change will bring "abrupt and irreversible changes." The report, a synthesis for politicians culled from three other IPCC panels convened throughout the year, read like what it is: a final warning to humanity. "Today the world's scientists have spoken clearly, and with one voice," said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, who attended the publication of the report in Valencia, Spain. Climate change "is the defining challenge of our age."

The work of the IPCC, which was co-awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last month with Al Gore, underscores just how momentous that challenge will be. The report predicted that at a warming trend of 3.6 degrees Farenheit — now considered almost unavoidable, due to the greenhouse gases already emitted into the atmosphere — could put up to 30% of species on the planet at risk for extinction. A warming trend of 3 degrees would put millions of human beings at risk from flooding, wetlands would be lost and there would be a massive die-off of sea corals. Sea levels would rise by 28 to 43 cm, and most frightening of all, the report acknowledged the possibility that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which would release enough fresh water to swamp coastal cities, could occur over centuries, rather than millennia. "If you add to this the melting of some of the ice bodies on Earth, this gives a picture of the kinds of issues we are likely to face," said Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC's chairman.

As if the potential consequences of climate change weren't scary enough, the IPCC emphasized just how little time we have left to try to change the future. The panel reported that the world would have to reverse the rapid growth of greenhouse gases by 2015 to avert the worst consequences. The clock was running. "What we will do in the next two, three years will determine our future," said Pachauri. "This is the defining challenge."

That puts the pressure on the world's leaders to finally do something about global warming. They'll have their last, best chance next month, when energy ministers from around the world travel to Bali, Indonesia, for the annual meeting of the U.N.'s Framework on Climate Convention. There policymakers will begin attempting to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. "The breakthrough needed in Bali is for a comprehensive climate deal that all nations can embrace," said Ban.

All the nations in the world will play a role in those negotiations, but their success and failure will come down to two countries: the U.S. and China. If the world's two biggest carbon emitters can agree to cap their greenhouse gas emissions — neither signed on for limits under Kyoto — we may stand a chance of averting the grimmest consequences of climate change. If they fail, then the IPCC has already written our future. We'll find out in Bali.
_________________________

Ken G – November 17, 2007
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

global warming

Post by Tony Farg » Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:49 pm

God help us all.There's no hope then.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Post Reply