Find out how climate change will affect you

[ar81]

See
Act on Copenhagen: The impact of a global temperature rise of 4ºC (7 ºF)

It was developed using the latest peer-reviewed science from the Met Office Hadley Centre and other leading impact scientists.

The average land temperature will be 5.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

The impacts on human activity shown on the map are only a selection of those that may occur, and highlight the severe effects on water availability, agricultural productivity, extreme temperatures and drought, the risk of forest fire and sea level rise.

Agricultural yields are expected to decrease for all major cereal crops in all major regions of production. Half of all Himalayan glaciers will be significantly reduced by 2050, leading to 23% of the population of China being deprived of the vital dry season glacial melt water source.

[cylon]

In the spirit of both sides of an argument being represented, I have to add this link:

Not Evil, Just Wrong

Carry on.

[ar81]

If you think Al Gore invented this, you live in the planet USA, where nothing else exists but USA on the planet.
But you should know that most of scientists outside USA agree about this problem.

Indeed Met Office Hadley Centre is a meteorological center located in UK, not USA. They do not give a darn about Al Gore.

I could tell you that in USA there are some corporations that do not want to change their model of business, despite of scientific evidence, so they argue that it is a lie.

Even David Attenborough and BBC director Nicolas Brown used to remain neutral, until they started to dig for evidence among scientists and they were convinced with scientific evidence, not by Al Gore, about the problem.

You do not need to be too clever to know that when the freezer is heating, ice will melt.

[cylon]

Not all scientists agree there is such a thing as man-made global warming, or "climate change" now that it appears the earth might be cooling instead of warming. It keeps changing. Warming or cooling. In any case there's no evidence that mankind has anything to do with it whatsoever.

That movie was not about Al Gore, he's a part of it but it's about the entire hoax of man-made global warming, or "climate change". The film wasn't even made by an American. It examines global warming in the context of Gore's film, but it's nothing but just interviews with scientists, and refuting the faulty conclusions about man-made "climate change" which seems to be a new ice age.

If you're more interested you could actually read the link I provided.

[rei]

cylon, do you have any evidence of scientists who don't believe in climate change - and who are not, nor have every been financially linked to either Bush administration or any petroleum companies?

in my experience all the naysayer scientists have been tied to one or the other.

[cylon]

Look at the link, check out the info, make up your own mind.

[rei]

aww... no offense, but i'm in a lazy mood since it's almost 3am.
i might check out the link tomorrow. non-American scientists can still have interests in fossil fuels.

my whole thing about climate change is that many, if not most, of the suggested ways to limit our carbon footprint seem like good ideas anyway. solar panels, using one's yard for a veggie garden, reusable shopping bags, these are good ideas. why can't we make environmentally conscious choices, even if climate change is a hoax or something?

(notice i did not put recycling in there... according to a Penn and Teller episode, recycling doesn't really do what it's supposed to, or it didn't at the time. so i'm one of those rare liberals who doesn't recycle, but i do buy recycled products when possible.)

[cylon]

Originally Posted by rei

why can't we make environmentally conscious choices, even if climate change is a hoax or something?

Well if it's a hoax, then the fact that it's "environmentally conscious" is meaningless. It would be like putting a snowball in the freezer while there's a blizzard going on outside.

These things sound neat but they can all end up crippling industry. Fortunately there are environmentally friendly ways to to do all sorts of things that wouldn't completely change the way we go about things. Environmentalists can be pretty close-minded to those things though, and will even fabricate evidence if it furthers their fundamentalist agenda. Try telling a fundamentalist Christian about evolution. Good luck on getting through to them. Same thing.

Make your own choices, but keep those choices out of my life, so I can make my own choices.

[rei]

extremism on either end leads to problems. i think we agree on that point.

i also think, regarding your statement of the actions being meaningless, that isn't true. reducing energy use and becoming generally less excessive is a positive thing. but i'm not in a position to force anyone to do anything.

reducing consumption could improve several areas not related to profit, and i'm sure entrepreneurs will quickly devise ways to make money off many of the options. my point is that reducing consumption and excess is a generally beneficial idea whether the weather is changing in some way or it isn't.

[cylon]

If that is your thing then I think it's great for you to do it, if it makes you feel better about the environment. My point is that you can reduce it for yourself, just not me.

[rei]

here's a very hippie response to that... (just warning ya)

you said, in effect, i can do what i want as long as you can do what you want. that creates boundaries, or it reinforces personal boundaries. and i agree with personal boundaries.

but the earth does not draw such lines.

[ar81]

Historically, corporate people do not like to have their models of business changed. Climate change is a threat to their model, and even if there is a way to make money by accepting scientific facts, they are so lazy that they want to keep making money that way.

In an interview with Nicolas Brown, director of BBC documentary, he says that he thinks US government has not done enough to inform Americans. He says that he interviewed the scientific "Maradonnas" (to make the example similar to soccer about the best leading scientist on the planet) and they agree that it is a problem. Notice that Brown was a skeptic before 2006, and he was convinced by the evidence after making the documentary "Are we changing planet Earth?" and "Can we save planet Earth?".

There was so much to tell that it was split in 2 documentaries. Brown is an award winning director.

The documentary originally was going to be about the life of David Attenborough, but the alarming truth not only convinced Brown, but also Attenborough who used to have a very neutral position. I have talked to Brown and I know it first hand.

Here some fragments

YouTube - are we changing planet earth cut

Here some odd situations that show that something wrong is happening NOW.

• 30% of coral reefs of Australia are dead.
• Kilimanjaro ice is almost gone. Glacials around the world are melting, destroying tourism and leaving those who relied on their water waterless. Himalayan ice is melting. Polar ice is melting. When ice melts, the highly reflective white surface turns into a dark surface of water that absorbs heat. The more ice that is gone, the most accelerated the pace of heating becomes.
• Aussie wildfires are increasingly stronger and their patterns and behaviors are changing and firefighters find themselves in retreat many times.
• Desert in China is expanding. Farms in the west of US heartland are getting less water for cattle, they only have a thin layer of soil and under it there is desert sand. Droughts will gradually cause US to have less land for farming.
• 2005 Amazon river got completely dry in a drought
• Venezuelan Amazon forests show evidence of wildfires
• Canadian wood industry is having warmer weather and bugs are migrating and destroying their trees.
• Costa Rican central valley used to have at least 9 months of continuous rain a year. Nowadays a rainy day is quite scarse.
• 2003 European heat wave killed thousands. In one particular night in August, heat killed more people than WWII bombings.
• Permafrost is melting. Infrastructure built there is under risk.
• Russian towns that lived under permanent ice relied on the ice to fish and to transport fish. Thin ice makes fishing harder, and also molten ice turns a road into mud.

Americans use to say "show me evidence of the disaster" and this is why they launched Challenger.
So Challenger explodes, and now they have evidence.
When climate change makes lives of people hard, they will have evidence that they defended a mistake.

In the first moments of the US crisis I was labeled as "socialist" because I was worried about growth unemployment in US in september last year, as I regarded downsizing as a mistake that would shrink internal market. Now who is the socialist? The socialists are the American people now. Why do Americans need to wait until disaster happens?

With Katrina, US forces took off 2 days after Katrina was gone to send aid to New Orleans.
US waited a whole year of recession to announce the recession.
Americans called socialists those who were worried about employment in the early stages of this crisis in September.
It took USA 50 years of not doing anything to enforce human rights while Americans believed they were the police of the world, before CNN released the documentary "Screaming Bloody Murder" (YouTube - 1/14 Scream Bloody Murder CNN Christiane Amanpour Genocide Armenia Jews Rafael Lemkin Elie Wiesel). Anyone who dare to say what CNN said would be a communist or AntiAmerican.

And now climate change. If everyone on the planet see the problem, but americans do not, and Americans are only 5% of world population it means that:

a) Americans live in planet USA that is safe from Earthling problems
b) Americans are blind, like they were blind before other problems.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by rei

here's a very hippie response to that... (just warning ya)

you said, in effect, i can do what i want as long as you can do what you want. that creates boundaries, or it reinforces personal boundaries. and i agree with personal boundaries.

but the earth does not draw such lines.

I'm as much a hippie as you are. But people are talking about oppressive regulations that force other people to make huge sacrifices. That's not hippie, that's "the man".

The earth will be fine.

[rei]

Originally Posted by cylon

I'm as much a hippie as you are. But people are talking about oppressive regulations that force other people to make huge sacrifices. That's not hippie, that's "the man".

The earth will be fine.

it doesn't have to be seen as a sacrifice. if they were willing to cut back on things that pollute not only the planet but also the lungs of all animals including humans, then there would be no need for forceful regulations. just like, if people did not rear end your car and then drive off, we'd have no need to make it a felony.

whether or not that pollution is causing climate change, it is harmful to life forms - plenty of scientists have proven that. that alone should be enough to change the way things are done.

besides, people do a lot of things for their biological mothers. earth is our greatest mother and she deserves respect.

[cylon]

We're a part of the earth though. And I don't think the planet (it's a planet, not a woman) is being disrespected if man is not contributing to "climate change".

Seems like you're saying we should be fine with shutting down the economies of the world just so a handful of people can feel better about themselves, even though they have no real evidence that their worries are even real. I'm not willing to do that.

If you want to drive an electric car or use a bicycle or something, that is a cool thing to do. I don't disparage people that do that. But you can't demand I follow suit.

[rei]

switching to more eco-friendly options will not shut down the economies of the world. that is a hyperbolic argument. those groups that make oodles of money from environmentally harmful options can invest in the new ones.

it's not like they have no options whatsoever. that simply isn't true.

i feel the consciousness of the earth, it is feminine.

natural things are a part of the earth. i don't think the synthetic things are really 'part' of it in the same way. they are part of humanity, but humanity has lost touch, to an extent, with our connection to the earth. that is why humans have created things that are not entirely harmless. communities that are more connected with the earth typically don't create warheads or other such things.

[cylon]

Guess I'm just more of a libertarian myself. I don't like government intrusion into the private sector, which is what you're advocating.

That Gaia stuff gives me the willies.

[rei]

i am advocating a more conscious way of existing while we are here. maybe you are too, and we just have drastically different views of what that is.

to me, change is needed. to me, the current methods that are so focused on cutting corners to maximize profits are not very conscious. i imagine you view that differently. again, if the private sector was already making choices most aligned with integrity, with what is for the greatest benefit for the greatest number, then there would be no reason for regulations.

does it give you the willies because you don't like the idea of thinking right now that you are sitting on a female energy? or is it just that whole spiritual piece you don't resonate with?

[cylon]

Just sounds like more man-bashing to me, disguised as spirituality. I don't think YOU are man-bashing, but I think that's where it originated from.

I think environmentalism is anti-capitalist totalitarianism masked as concern for "mother earth". The foot soldiers probably buy it but I think it's a Trojan Horse. Shut down the free market, redistribute the wealth, take us back to the dark ages, have a "caring" eco-friendly government start dictating to us how we can live our lives. Those movements always start out "for the greater good".

Seeing as I believe that way, no, I don't believe these enviro-advocates are being "conscious". I think they are trying to forcefully assert their choices onto humanity, under cover of "mother earth is God", much the way as some Muslims use God as their excuse to crash airplanes into buildings.

And I also do not think they feel connected to the earth. Humans are OF the earth, we are not some parasite ON it.

[rei]

wow... ok...

not all environmentalists are extremists, and it's not always about some conspiracy-like agenda. and no, i actually haven't drunk the koolaid ("drank" the koolaid?).

have you never heard of mother earth and father sky? that perspective does not simply push masculinity out of the equation completely. how in the world, so to speak, is it man bashing to say the earth is feminine? that makes no sense to me.

you seem a bit paranoid dude. that is just an observation, or a personal opinion meant to be more of an observation than an attempt to offend.

i DO feel connected to the earth. humans are not parasites, or not all of them. the idea is to simply act more like we are grateful for having a space to be while we're here, instead of acting like we could care less.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by rei

you seem a bit paranoid dude. that is just an observation, or a personal opinion meant to be more of an observation than an attempt to offend.

It's actually worse when you explain it away. "Paranoid on this issue" would have been a nicer way to put it, because that way it would be about my views, and not my personality.

[rei]

ok, well with regard to this issue you seem a bit paranoid. of course i don't mean you are paranoid in general because i don't know all sides of you.

[cylon]

I think I gave you too easy of an "out", since you didn't actually say it the way I said in the first place. I'll take you at your word that you really only meant it regarding this topic.

But, that's the way I feel about things. I'm used to people saying what I think is a bunch of garbage, they just aren't as willing to accept that their views can be perceived the same way.

Life is weird that way.

[rei]

yes i agree, we are quick to dismiss another's perspective, more quick than we are to dismiss our own. i just saw quite a bit of exaggeration in your argument, and it seemed to intensify as we continued.

if someone can show me unbiased proof that these changes would cause world-wide economic collapse, that's one thing. but i think it is mostly speculation and conjecture without that proof - and any of us are hard pressed to find ANY completely unbiased sources.

saying that you don't want government interfering in your life is one thing (funny how people rarely complain about the existence of a federal system for receiving correspondence though), but i have trouble taking seriously any arguments that have a doom and gloom flavor. blame it on being in the bible belt if you like.

but yeah, of course i don't think you, as a person, are paranoid. i can't make that assessment. and i am not one who resorts to name-calling when i don't think i'm winning a debate because that turns it into something else. saying you seem a bit paranoid is not saying your perspective is garbage, only that it seems a bit exaggerated and more about personal opinions than any rational proof... not that i'm really claiming i have rational proof for my perspective either.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by rei

but i have trouble taking seriously any arguments that have a doom and gloom flavor.

But that's exactly the reason environmentalists are using---change your ways or we are all going to die.

[rei]

that is not my argument. i am saying make these changes because it is the right thing to do, it will be the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. and it is nice to respect the planet.

it's not like everyone would die, but i do think if we don't make these changes now, then we will at some future point be forced into making more rapid changes and that type of situation is even more generally stressful than slow change or change we are able to prepare for (all change is uncomfortable, it ultimately reminds people that they eventually leave this planet and they don't know where they go so they get a little freaked out about that). it's not even so much that everyone would die, but some may end up accepting a very different quality of life.

you might need to consider that not every environmentalist is the same, they aren't all suggesting change for the same reasons. just as not every anti-environmental change person has the same reasons for being against it.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by rei

you might need to consider that not every environmentalist is the same, they aren't all suggesting change for the same reasons. just as not every anti-environmental change person has the same reasons for being against it.

I said earlier a lot of people probably believe what they are saying. But that doesn't mean everyone is the same and that environmentalism hasn't been "co-opted" to mask a different agenda. I'm suspicious of any large organization who's goal is to dictate, to me, how I'm supposed to live my life. That's my fundamental life philosophy, hopefully I've expressed it well enough.

I don't know, environmentalism just seems very "against" consciousness to me, we have to STOP something, we are the problem. Seems to me that there must be an "allowing" perspective that doesn't presuppose the earth is in danger.

In my opinion, that would be my perspective.

[cylon]

Abraham--Earth vs. Our Chemical Wastes

You may find this interesting.

[rei]

yes that is interesting, and it is fun for me energetically to listen to transmissions of higher vibrating communication.

to me, my focus or the way i frame this, it is not coming from against. it is coming from choice, from which choices we make. i do not make my choices from a perspective of lack, i make my choices from a perspective of integrity - in my view it is good to respect this planet whether something is happening to her/it or not. that is my vibrational alignment, to respect the planet.

so no, i will not listen to that message and decide that means it doesn't make sense to be conscious of the environment (if that was your goal, sorry to disappoint). it feels right, in my heart, to hold that position. and i hold that position because it feels like the right thing to do, not out of some chicken little rhetoric.

when i was in seventh grade, long before i heard those arguments, when i was bored in class i'd draw. the thing i drew the most was a globe with a big gash in it, covered over with a band aid. from one perspective, of course all is right in existence, all unfolds as it is meant to... and i add to that a perspective that it is right, in my heart, to respect the world. Abraham speaks about focusing on what is right, and that is what i am doing.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by rei

so no, i will not listen to that message and decide that means it doesn't make sense to be conscious of the environment (if that was your goal, sorry to disappoint). it feels right, in my heart, to hold that position. and i hold that position because it feels like the right thing to do, not out of some chicken little rhetoric.

The point of the video was to show that you can have an allowing energy and still hold my perspective.

Telling someone else, that they should live their lives, according to your rules, is not allowing to me.