Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
lord_casek

Glacier alarm 'regrettable error': UN climate head

Recommended Posts

Stop burning fossil fuels?

 

Really?

 

Check this out...

 

 

That's only the trailer, you can easily find the torrent online. Because he is way more educated than me on matters such as the environment. He will explain why most of those things that you just mentioned are not possible. They sound really nice. I thought so before too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

Dude im an architect and if you understand anything about architecture in the modern age, it should be that it's a humanitarian job. We're environmental designers so all this shit I already know. We as a global economy need to end our oil dependency as well as start preserving other natural resources. All that shit he's talking about in that trailer is everything Im talking about. I dont see how the two contradict.

 

I'll watch the movie right now and explain everything after I see it.

 

 

edit:

 

Ok i found the video and im watching it now but i want to reiterate something first:

 

From the first 3 minutes i've watched thus far there's a lot of petty imagery showing riots which im going to pretend I didnt see because i think it's distracting from the monologue narration. He's talking about "revolution." while you're talking about the hazards of a "political agenda." If you're demanding for the whitehouse to scrap it's policies and infrastructure all-together you're being unrealistic. Politics move slowly, so for obama to even hire a man like Van Jones and begin international affordable green housing competitions, national green jobs initiatives, invest tens of billions of dollars into a green infrastructure, that's as close to a revolution as you're going to see from the whitehouse and if you pay attention to those things like I do, you'll see that it's already created new solar factories all over the nation. Entire communities are joining together to get their cities off the "dirty" grid and all of this goes a long way to end our oil dependence.

 

And I'll be the first to say that current implemented aeroturbine technology isnt up to spec for what we need, but the technology that we do need has already been invented. It's just going to take a while to get the infrastructure up to the level needed to begin implementing those designs. It's going to happen, and the reality is our air quality, arable land and natural resources are going to suffer far more than our economy is if we don't start these changes. So while you may think a green "political agenda" is chasing a pipedream, that's not true. It's just taking a lot more time than it would if more politicians (who listen to communities *hint* *hint*) were more motivated to help our poor communities since they're the first to be affected by anything.

 

If you're really worried about this shit, take initiative. Dont go canvassing your community with this doom and gloom bullshit because that's not gonna fly.People get told what not to do all the time. You have to tell them about something they can do and tie it into something that helps them. Tell them about greening initiatives. My house just got canvassed the other day by a guy who just wanted to reduce my community's electric bill and passed out a URL to a "green the grid" blog. That kind of shit needs to happen more often by people who are passionate and informed enough to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's only the trailer, you can easily find the torrent online. Because he is way more educated than me on matters such as the environment.

 

This from the guy trying to dispute scientific consensus...remember that the entire scientific community is more educated than you on these matters.

 

I've posted this before, but try this "Collapse" instead:

 

Collapse.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not disputing the movie. The apocalyptic motif is ridiculous but most of the monologue is right (outdated but at the time was right) except for some small things he probably shouldn't've said like:

 

- "There is no thing or things in any combination that can replace oil"

Orange oil, oil from orange peels, can be used to make vulcanized rubber, plastic, resins, paint etc, and not only is it possible, it's already in production. For instance, yokohama has a tire which replaces 80% of its petroleum based products with orange oil.

 

- "Wind and solar are the only things that can really replace coal and oil power plants, but nobody is taking into consideration the cost of transporting electricity from windfarms to the rest of the nation."

He's looking at a current powergrid where all of our powerlines are at least 60 years old. We lose 25% of our electricity just from that and theres people in Obama's environmental advisory comittee trying to figure out an efficient way to replace them. Also, while we're trying to update the grid we can still be building aeroturbines and solar panels locally, installing them locally, and using them locally. Also dont forget the ancient korean method of solar water heating by running the water pipes from the rooftops, through the floorboards to heat the house, then into the shower. It's brilliant. And of course, on top of all this, we need more energy efficient houses, so we need every house weatherized.

 

 

-The whole bit about all the ways oil is required for modern farming

There is nothing that shows the modern way of farming is necessary to the survival of humans, or is there anything showing that everyone needs to pay Wholefoods prices. There are a vast number of ways america's agracultural industry is going green, and a vast number of ways that the definition of "going green" gets better and better. Small, family ran farms making products without the use any petroleum products are still thriving in today's economy and more will pop up in time. It's really just that old overused phrase, "Act locally, think globally."

 

 

and then the movie goes onto other things which i dont really want to discuss in this thread because it'll derail this discussion onto the concept of fiat currencies banking, debt etc. There's plenty of other threads for that so I'll reserve my thoughts on that.

 

Finally the ending:

 

A lot of his ideas are good. I dont really care for his wording because it makes it sound pretentious and apocalyptic.

 

Let me go over a couple of the ideas that im rather excited about:

 

Local farming:

Urban areas are the most environmentally friendly and efficent areas PER CAPITA than anywhere on the planet, so this concept of being green and living on the land in bumfuckistan suburbia is a farce. Cities need to think compact, locally, and preserve their green areas as much as possible. Some models to look at are Amsterdam where nobody likes to live in highrises, but they've successfully prevented the growth of suburbia and preserved much of their arable land. Everything Rembrant painted still exists 2 miles from the city center.

 

If you look at china where everybody is moving into cities they need serious help protecting their arable land. One idea from one of the main architects over there is to create residential/commercial areas where you have commercial on the ground level, residential on the 2nd to 4th floor, then all the arable land is on top. (

)

 

Basically what im trying to say is nothing he's saying isnt already of top priority for the president, international city planners, architects, etc. Not ALL city planners and architects, but a lot of them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This from the guy trying to dispute scientific consensus...remember that the entire scientific community is more educated than you on these matters.

 

I've posted this before, but try this "Collapse" instead:

 

Collapse.jpg

 

Diamond is amazing. I read Guns, Germs and Steel and am looking forward to this one. No other author that I know of takes on such mammoth multi-disciplinary projects and succeeds like Diamond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but considering no scientist is payed to agree with any other scientist, the fact that 90% of earth scientists believe there is a climate change and 80% believe it's man made is a substantial worldly concensus which believes man-made global warming is real.

 

Those are some interesting numbers, I wonder how they took that census.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soup, when did you go from scuba diving to being an architect exactly?

 

I worked at a dive shop for 3 months. I've been eating and breathing architecture for over 2 years.

 

And mar there's been many many surveys and studies within the scientific community on this. Im not sure how they go about it but I can guess that all earth scientists are apart the same newsletter.

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no personal gain for a scientist to agree with another scientist about global warming except EVERY SINGLE ONE IN THE WORLD DOES.

 

just from today,

 

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/climate-change-scientific-consensus-cloudy-as-ever/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/07/climate-scepticism-grows-tories

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/01/china-still-not-convinced-climate-change-man.php

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11ae3c78-0c76-11df-a941-00144feabdc0.html

 

Every time a global warming conspiracy tin-foil hat bullshit thread gets thoroughly debunked in crossfire, a new one pops up.

 

the only thing being debunked is man-made global warming, obvious enough from the wikileaks climategate information. the fact that you call everyone tinfoil hat wearers says enough for me to understand your angle on everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This from the guy trying to dispute scientific consensus...remember that the entire scientific community is more educated than you on these matters.

 

I've posted this before, but try this "Collapse" instead:

 

Collapse.jpg

 

I'll check it out.

 

He's not just one man. The information he gets and uses is not created by himself.

 

I don't see where you are going with that. I have also posted several different articles that are similar in nature to his opinion. Which again is based off of information that he collects. He does not conduct experiments or does studies.

 

At least I am not aware that he does. He is an investigative journalist.

 

I also am fully aware that I am not an expert. Nor have I ever claimed to be. So constantly reminding me or bringing this up as some sort of defense, really isn't necessary. I have not received an education on most of these matters besides what you normally would learn through various different science courses you take through out your life.

 

Do you have any such credentials? Because if not than you are sitting pretty much where I am and are just trying to base conclusions off of the information that you receive.

 

I have also constantly reminded you guys of the fact that the "consensus" among scientist's in the 70's was that we were going to be heading into another Ice Age. The Earth was to be covered in Ice.

 

Now we're going to turn the planet into a giant waste land due to over heating. The Glacier's are going to melt, the oceans will rise. Entire specie's are going to be wiped off the mat, disease will spread, famines will occur.

 

I mean all of this stuff sounds just about as crazy to me as Alien's landing on Earth, and using tin foil hat's to stop them from reading your mind.

 

Kind of funny isn't it.

 

Yeah, and those percentages that you(Soup) keep throwing out, do you have any real data to support those claims? Or is that your overall assumption on how things sit. I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks millions and millions of cubic meters of man made co2 hitting the atmosphere every second isn't going to effect the climate is naive at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll check it out.

At least I am not aware that he does. He is an investigative journalist.

 

 

Diamond is a professor of physiology and geography, a scientist in other words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my non scientific global warming theory,

 

Since the vast majority of scientist think man made climate change clearly exists,

but 50% of the public thinks that millions of cubic meters of man made Co2 being released every minute has no effect on the atmosphere.

 

I'm guessing 50% people just believe what they want to believe and are clearly in denial.

Clinging to the smallest bits of evidence they can find that the obvious isn't a reality.

 

 

Giving up massive overconsumption in the west is like asking a junkie to stop shooting smack, first step is denial.

God forbid the day they cant just get up from the lazy boy and walk 30 steps into the garage,

then drive everywhere else and bitch if the parking lot is full and their fat lazy ass has to walk 60 seconds.

Everywhere needs a drive through.

 

Over the last century our entire infrastructure has been based on a resource that will become unavailable within a generation or two.

Live it up now because our laziness and love of convenience will destroy all the work the people who put us on top have done.

Our days on top are numbered, we will not avert our downfall or adapt, denial till the bitter end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, BUT the scope of all this isnt just limited oil and Co2. The entire Keynesian theology that governs the world's economy doesnt take into consideration finite resources of ANY KIND. There is little to nothing that regulates infinite growth in the private sector. In the public, luckily, there is a crapload of beurocracy and regulation so you dont have electric companies infinitely producing more powerplants to sell more and more electricity with no thought to natural resources or the environment. That's not how they turn profits or gains for their shareholders.

 

Everything, from our economics, the way we build buildings and cities, the way we run our businesses, how we live, drive, eat, get around, EVERYTHING needs to be overhauled and the way you do that is you start with human behavior. Everything we do is with respect to the short term. We as a people, community, civilization, species have zero long-term strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is my non scientific global warming theory,

 

Since the vast majority of scientist think man made climate change clearly exists,

but 50% of the public thinks that millions of cubic meters of man made Co2 being released every minute has no effect on the atmosphere.

 

I'm guessing 50% people just believe what they want to believe and are clearly in denial.

Clinging to the smallest bits of evidence they can find that the obvious isn't a reality.

 

 

Giving up massive overconsumption in the west is like asking a junkie to stop shooting smack, first step is denial.

God forbid the day they cant just get up from the lazy boy and walk 30 steps into the garage,

then drive everywhere else and bitch if the parking lot is full and their fat lazy ass has to walk 60 seconds.

Everywhere needs a drive through.

 

Over the last century our entire infrastructure has been based on a resource that will become unavailable within a generation or two.

Live it up now because our laziness and love of convenience will destroy all the work the people who put us on top have done.

Our days on top are numbered, we will not avert our downfall or adapt, denial till the bitter end.

 

Volcano's put out more than we do. We gonna ban volcano's?

 

"I'm sorry, under mandate from the IPCC you can no longer erupt"

"FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We cant control that factor and has nothing to do with the point I'm making about us upsetting the natural balance.

So I'm assuming you think we as modern humans don't have a cumulative effect on the atmosphere from that statement.

 

A little more extreme but I'm sure you agree with the laws against murder right?

By that line of thinking more people die from natural disasters and disease than murder.

Should we condone and encourage murder then, we cant pass laws against diseases, old age, and natural disaster can we.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We cant control that factor and has nothing to do with the point I'm making about us upsetting the natural balance.

So I'm assuming you think we as modern humans don't have a cumulative effect on the atmosphere from that statement.

 

A little more extreme but I'm sure you agree with the laws against murder right?

By that line of thinking more people die from natural disasters and disease than murder.

Should we condone and encourage murder then, we cant pass laws against diseases, old age, and natural disaster can we.

 

 

I think that the earth has cycles. I think that humans can and have affected the planet, but it's small in scale as compared to what is naturally always occurring.

 

So yeah, I'm not all Princess Moonbeam and her dreadlocked husband Wavy Dave on this shit.

 

I also think a lot of intelligent people have been mislead by what a lot of these "green movements" are propagandizing. We shouldn't be so quick to jump on a bandwagon.

 

As for clean tech: All for it. I don't like the noise pollution caused by wind, but solar and nuclear I'm for. Also like the ideas floating around about next generation automobiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We cant control that factor and has nothing to do with the point I'm making about us upsetting the natural balance.

So I'm assuming you think we as modern humans don't have a cumulative effect on the atmosphere from that statement.

 

A little more extreme but I'm sure you agree with the laws against murder right?

By that line of thinking more people die from natural disasters and disease than murder.

Should we condone and encourage murder then, we cant pass laws against diseases, old age, and natural disaster can we.

 

 

Something else came to mind. The other day I read an article about top scientists suggesting setting off volcanic eruptions (by inducing them with high explosives) to

put more shit in the atmosphere and block out the sun.

 

The U.S. govt is also experimenting with lacing the atmosphere with substances. Nano

particles of metals and minerals. Already some talk about using it to block out some of the sun.

 

And not to get all "conspiracy theory" on you, but we can now manipulate the weather

http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/04/bmd970429d.htm

 

Yes, that's proof.

 

Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy

Sam Nunn Policy Forum

April 28, 1997 University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i'm actually half and half on this, i don't disbelieve that our climate is changing for the worse and that there are real environmental issues that we need to become aware of and make progression towards fixing, but at the same time i also understand that the solutions being posed seem to be more about money and social control rather than actually solving any real problems.

 

but then to say that EVERY scientist is in a consensus on global warming is also false. there is so much information about climate change coming from different angles, there isn't really a consensus on anything other then our planet's climate is changing at an accelerated rate and it could endanger us. whether it is man-made, the sun causing this, etc. is debatable.

 

Something else came to mind. The other day I read an article about top scientists suggesting setting off volcanic eruptions (by inducing them with high explosives) to

put more shit in the atmosphere and block out the sun.

 

The U.S. govt is also experimenting with lacing the atmosphere with substances. Nano

particles of metals and minerals. Already some talk about using it to block out some of the sun.

 

And not to get all "conspiracy theory" on you, but we can now manipulate the weather

http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/04/bmd970429d.htm

 

Yes, that's proof.

 

Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy

Sam Nunn Policy Forum

April 28, 1997 University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

 

then you have the same governments posing solutions involved in activities that could be instigating the problems to an extent that isn't capable of someone like me or you in our house with fluorescent light bulbs and air conditioners, yet they want to tax us for the air we breathe so it's kind of ludicrous and hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,200 Scientists Dispute Global Warming

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming

 

But all of them agree that Soup should keep his day job.

 

PIPE DOWN MIDGET. They're disputing details about global warming, not global warming itself. READ THE ARTICLE.

And my whole stance isnt that global warming is man made or not, bceause the end result is the exact fucking same: Natural recourses are being exhausted, air pollution is skyrocketing, arable land is being depleted, top soil is being depleted, open space is being depleted, water is becoming scarce and too expensive to pump around, food is becoming too diseased/loaded up with antibiotics, average lifespan is declining, the future is everyone living in cities and no city is built for that, the economy is reliant on infinite use of finite materials and we need to change our infrastructure/behaviors accordingly. Got it? Cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll check it out.

 

He's not just one man. The information he gets and uses is not created by himself.

 

I don't see where you are going with that. I have also posted several different articles that are similar in nature to his opinion. Which again is based off of information that he collects. He does not conduct experiments or does studies.

 

At least I am not aware that he does. He is an investigative journalist.

 

Jared Diamond is a geography professor at UCLA and an accomplished author. He is not an investigative journalist. The book Collapse contains historical examples of societies that have failed directly due to poor ecological management. It's very well researched and it doesn't really have any political agenda; it's an impressive synthesis of information from several related fields. It also shows very convincingly the level of impact human societies can have on our ecosystem.

 

I also am fully aware that I am not an expert. Nor have I ever claimed to be. So constantly reminding me or bringing this up as some sort of defense, really isn't necessary. I have not received an education on most of these matters besides what you normally would learn through various different science courses you take through out your life.

 

I'm merely pointing out that it's absurd and rather stupid to have a strong opinion on something of this nature without any personal expertise. It's fine to question the information you get from mass media, which tends toward fear-mongering and politicizing the subject, however this does not change the research that is being done across the world. Doing your own internet research is VERY misleading, for reasons that should be obvious to you.

 

Do you have any such credentials? Because if not than you are sitting pretty much where I am and are just trying to base conclusions off of the information that you receive.

 

Well I have a B.S. in Physics/Environmental Studies so I suppose I am more qualified than you to speak on this subject. I wouldn't consider myself an 'expert', but I grew up around scientists and regularly talk to people who are doing research related to climate change. Everyone draws some kind of conclusion based on "information that you receive" however I understand that some people (i.e. experts) receive greater volumes of better information. In the scientific community there are certainly dissenters (as there always are and should be) and some aspects of climate change are uncertain, but overall the science is considered very very good.

 

I have also constantly reminded you guys of the fact that the "consensus" among scientist's in the 70's was that we were going to be heading into another Ice Age. The Earth was to be covered in Ice.

 

Now we're going to turn the planet into a giant waste land due to over heating. The Glacier's are going to melt, the oceans will rise. Entire specie's are going to be wiped off the mat, disease will spread, famines will occur.

 

I have yet to see anything suggesting this '70s Ice Age scare' is actually comparable to what's going on today with global warming. Doomsday scenarios aren't really what this is all about anyway. The point is that as global population burgeons humankind needs to become more in tune with our impact on the ecosystem. Things are changing and it is vital to come up with sustainable energy alternatives and manage our resources much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...