Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, March 12, 2007 | Science : Earth Sciences | print version Print | Comments

Document Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

by The Associated Press

Reposted from the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/science/earth/12climate.html?ref=science

WASHINGTON, March 11 (AP) — The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people will not have enough water, top scientists are likely to say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Tropical diseases like malaria will spread, the draft says. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.

For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.

The draft document, the second of a series of four being issued this year, focuses on global warming's effects. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.

But some scientists said the overall message is not likely to change when it is issued in early April in Brussels, where European Union leaders agreed Friday to work to cut greenhouse gas emissions substantially by 2020. Their plan will be presented to President Bush and other world leaders at a summit meeting in June.

The draft report offers some hope if nations slow and then reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but it says what has been happening has not been encouraging.

"Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent," the report says, in marked contrast to a 2001 report by the same international group that said the effects of global warming were coming. But that report mentioned only scattered regional effects.

"Things are happening and happening faster than we expected," said Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., one of the many co-authors of the new report.

The draft document says scientists are highly confident that many current problems — change in species' habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs and increases in allergy-inducing pollen — can be attributed to global warming.

For example, the report says North America "has already experienced substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from recent climate extremes," like hurricanes and wildfires.

But Ms. Romero Lankao said that global warming soon would "affect everyone's life," and added that "it's the poor sectors that will be most affected."

Another co-author, Terry Root of Stanford University, said, "We truly are standing at the edge of mass extinction" of species.

The United Nations-organized network of 2,000 scientists was established in 1988 to give regular assessments of the earth's environment.

The draft report says that hundreds of millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than a billion people in Asia could face water shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people, depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air.

It says that death rates for the world's poor from conditions worsened by the changes global warming brings, like malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. By 2080, 200 million to 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming's effects, it says.

It also says that Europe's small glaciers will disappear, with many of the continent's large glaciers shrinking sharply by 2050. And half of Europe's plant species could be vulnerable, endangered or extinct by 2100.

The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America, Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects.

"In most parts of the world and most segments of populations, lifestyles are likely to change as a result of climate change," the draft report said. "Net valuations of benefits vs. costs will vary, but they are more likely to be negative if climate change is substantial and rapid, rather than if it is moderate and gradual."

Many, though not all, of those effects can be prevented, the report says, if within a generation the world slows down its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. If that is the case, the report says, "most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely to occur."

Comments 1 - 50 of 66 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #25332 by Frederiksen78 on March 12, 2007 at 7:19 am

 avatarI find it puzzling that many conservatives in the US are deeply religious while at the same time find it hard to believe evidence such as this report.

Perhaps it's because it's not as nice. No eternal life or other cool stuff like an invisible friend.

Other Comments by Frederiksen78

2. Comment #25335 by Keinen_Gott on March 12, 2007 at 7:38 am

"There is absolutly nothing to worry about," says the christians. I saw a report yesterday about how we should continue what we are doing and not worry about a thing because God "says" in the Bible that he will keep the world in good shape until the coming of Jesus so I geuss Jesus isn't long from coming now. Should be here any minute.......... any minute now.......... well whatever. Anyway the moral is that we don't have to worry, we can continue destroying wildlife habitats and burning every ounce of natural resources on this planet because God won't let the world go to "hell". At least not until Jesus(he) comes.

Other Comments by Keinen_Gott

3. Comment #25345 by Linda on March 12, 2007 at 10:43 am

I am fed up with hearing about environmental issues without anyone raising the obvious elephant in the room issue and that is overpopulation. This is a small planet and we are depleting natural resources to support a huge human population. It is tragic that thanks to Roman Catholicism, Submission and other sundry fundamentalist ideologies over 2 billion exist in a state of illiteracy and without access to clean water or electricity. If all 6.66 (chortle) billion of us enjoyed a first world lifestyle the environment would be in even worse shape. Personally I believe that every human birth should be planned and all people deserve a reasonable quality of life.

Since none of those raising public awareness about climate change or resource shortage problems are willing to go against the global gag order (Bush Regime) on planning for parenthood and contraception then why bother caring?

Water wars are on the horizon and yet thanks to those who promote a dumbed down population that is essentially a mob existing in a delusional state of religious superstition that haven't caught on that they may be the worst off. Then again without suffering who would go to heaven? Can you say http://www.raptureready.com ?

You can listen to Australian voices on this topic:
"A new report by a British parliamentary group argues that the global gag rule on family planning is undermining the millennium development goals. They say if contraception is not made a priority, the earth's population will reach an unsustainable 10.5 billion people."
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2007/1842958.htm

(The piece starts about 10 minutes into the programme. – maybe Josh will grab the audio)

Population growth plays a key role:-
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.climate.population13feb13,0,6428654.story
"Global warming is "unequivocal," according to the recently released report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The most likely culprits are people - all of us. Yet there never has been much public discussion about the role of human population growth in global warming."

Human overpopulation threatens Earth's future:
http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/02/09/Commentary/Human.Overpopulation.Threatens.Earths.Future-2709597.shtml

" Insufficient food, poor nutrition, poor eating habits, substance abuse, lack of
clean drinking water and lack of exercise weaken body and mind and perpetuate the
spectacular growth of our global disease-illness misery systems."

Within Islam there must be almost a billion unplanned, unwanted, illiterate young
males under the age of 25. The scary part is that these people have nothing to live
for and are fired up on Wahhabism funded by Saudi Arabia.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article2248747.ece

The water war issue highlights the immorality, misogyny and cruelty of religion.
Personally until I hear politicians, journalists and environmental activists addressing the issue of human overpopulation I am not willing to change my habits.

Other Comments by Linda

4. Comment #25346 by tattie on March 12, 2007 at 10:46 am

is this politics or science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPKUVmLW8Nk

Other Comments by tattie

5. Comment #25350 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 12, 2007 at 12:19 pm

 avatarHere is another slightly off topic, but very amusing clip for my fellow atheists:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe-er9FqhYA

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

6. Comment #25351 by Logicel on March 12, 2007 at 12:46 pm

 avatarbriancoughlanworldcitizen, thanks for that link to a great vid, just too funny, as are the usual comments about such satire being blasphemous.

Other Comments by Logicel

7. Comment #25352 by Seti on March 12, 2007 at 12:56 pm

 avatar#25346. I watched that programme on C4, Tattie, and it seemed to present quite a compelling arguement. But since then it's begun to unravel.
1) They claimed they weren't in the pay of the energy companies, but three have been. And one has now said he was duped into taking part.
2) Several of the scientific "evidence" has been refuted or was misleading. They stopped the graph on solar impact at 1980, there is a good explanation for the 1940s cooling period, the medieval warm period is questionable and was not world-wide, better calibration has shown the temperature of the troposphere is more in line with the expectations of the CO2 explanation...

I was also sceptical about the concern for the developing countries which was expressed - sounds much like the crocodile tears of the genetic-modification lobby. And also, there seemed to be a "Don't worry, go on driving your Humvee" agenda behind it all - when we know that even if the CO2 theory is incorrect, pollution is damaging in other ways, and our dependence on oil is causing the kind of world-wide political problems which could make us all wish global warming was all we had to worry about!

Other Comments by Seti

8. Comment #25353 by docter on March 12, 2007 at 1:10 pm

I agree with Linda wholeheartedly.
All religions need to back-off their no contraception stands. The millions of starving are going to be largely in the missionary areas of the world or in the islamic male dominated countries.
Scientists must take a stand against religions of all kinds that refuse to take a responsible attitude toward population control.
The more humans there are the more pollution we make.

Other Comments by docter

9. Comment #25355 by DavidJGrossman on March 12, 2007 at 1:17 pm

 avatar"I am fed up with hearing about environmental issues without anyone raising the obvious elephant in the room issue and that is overpopulation."

Don't worry. I'm sure that the effects of climate change will take care of the overpopulation issue. Problem solved!

- Dave

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

10. Comment #25357 by Seti on March 12, 2007 at 1:29 pm

 avatarBesides, it isn't the size of the population which counts, it's the resources they use.

Other Comments by Seti

11. Comment #25359 by BigJohn on March 12, 2007 at 1:55 pm

 avatar"it still must be edited by government officials."

What!!??!!

Is this science or politics?

Sorry, that was a very silly question.

Other Comments by BigJohn

12. Comment #25361 by Mikado on March 12, 2007 at 2:34 pm

"Is this science or politics?"

Sounds more like religion to me.

Other Comments by Mikado

13. Comment #25370 by Veronique on March 12, 2007 at 5:51 pm

 avatarTattie - I have watched four segments of this doco on youtube. I wish I could find the next four but they haven't been uploaded yet.

Seti - This doco is not that old is it? I'm in Australia and Tattie's link is the first I had heard of it. How did you learn of the 'unravelling'?

I am now very interested. I can go back and make a list of the names of the people taking part and check their creds out but I could use a bit of help if you care to direct me to sites I could access.

I understand it was shown 8th March - that's only 5 days ago. What sort of furore came from the programme?

Many thanks to both of you.

Linda - I agree with you. It doesn't really matter what the outcome of this debate finally is, there are far too many of us on this tiny planet and we are destroying our own habitat at a fast rate of knots. The destruction of our co-existing species is an appalling legacy to leave when we KNOW it's our fault.

I cannot understand why we seem not to care. I know most of us are ignorant and it suits the powers that be to keep us ignorant and feed us BS. Those of us who try to sort it out are the few. And I certainly can't keep on top of it all throughout the world. Thank you, all of you who disseminate info on these threads. I, for one, am grateful.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

14. Comment #25398 by kniggit on March 12, 2007 at 10:56 pm

 avatarFor people that refuse to accept God or religion without empirical evidence and scorn followers for their departure from the scientific method, its so amusing that people such as educated atheists take this whole global warming issue on such face value without considering all the facts.
Facts like the global temp. increase last century was just 0.6 of a degree celsius or that most of the warming of last century occured before 1940 or that Temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased or that Sea levels have been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters per hundred years for the past 6,000 years. etc etc etc. Human induced global warming and its associated fear mongering is indeed just another religion...

Other Comments by kniggit

15. Comment #25400 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 12, 2007 at 11:46 pm

 avatarkniggit, I can't speak for the others, but I'm sufficiently well informed to be confident that the science on this issue is sound.

a) The scientific consensus, while not on a par with that on evolution, is nonetheless overwhelming and consistent.

b) The consensus that oil is running out is almost universal, with some minor disagreement on the timing, disagreements that amount to mere decades.

c) What is the downside of developing economically sound renewable sources of energy? Even in the event of 95% of the scientific community being so wrong, that we plunge into an ice age, we'll need even more energy!!

Sounds to me that you are the one on the lunatic fringe in this discussion. Simply muddling along as we have, is the worst possible option, even if we accept whatever pseudo-scientific nonsense you're peddling at face value.

Wake up and smell the coffee, and at least get out of the way if you're not going to help. Prick.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

16. Comment #25409 by Mikado on March 13, 2007 at 1:26 am

Could those of you who are worried about the size of the human population please explain why both France and Time magazine was very happy to report recently that the birth rate in France was rising again. I live in a country that pay women to have more babies and at the same time are worried about the world population.

Please help me, I am to stupid to understand this on my own.

Other Comments by Mikado

17. Comment #25414 by Veronique on March 13, 2007 at 2:23 am

 avatarMikado - where do you live?

I live in Australia and we have a Federal Treasurer who has said publicly that our young women need to have two children per family to replace each parent and one extra for the country and has offered (I think) $4,000 as a one-off payment to mothers per child.

Now my country is one of the most dry in the world. We all live huddled on the coastal fringe. Water is a problem and we are all on restricted water usage. I don't understand why Costello (the Treasurer - who is an xtian) has offered this money; possibly because he wants to stem immigration by having so many Australians that we can no longer afford to take in refugees and other immigrants. It is wrong headed.

Our country is probably over populated by 2 to 3M people. Our resources are stretched to the limit. Our farmers commit suicide in our extended drought. Our topsoil is diminishing and we are depleting our artesian water supplies that are thousands of years in the making. It cannot be sustained.

I can't answer your question, but I can say it has nothing to do with an understanding of global population impact and global resource use. I used to think that people in power had some understanding of the global environment in which we and they lived. I no longer think this.

Others on this thread will give you their opinions. Good luck to you if you can ever come to terms with the idiocy that says go out and multiply. It is no longer appropriate. Any happiness about population growth by either France or Time Magazine or anyone else comes from a short sightedness that desires to shore up its own population numbers against intrusion by others, namely refugees and immigrants.

The low lying Pacific islands are, now, being relocated to Indonesia, because their islands are becoming awash and submerging as the seas start to rise and salinity becomes a problem that affects their ability to live on their home islands and forge a meagre living.

While ever we have nationalism as a driving force, none of our politicians will ever see the world as a closed system that can only accommodate x number of people.

I think one has to have a pathological personality to enter into the corridors of political power. Even if you start with an admirable desire to do good in the political sphere (unfortunately this applies to the police forces as well), it is more likely that you will be corrupted and look out only for your self interest (being re-elected, of course).

Your question is both easy and complicated to answer. I hope others on this thread can give you more acceptable answers. I don't think I can. I just get sad at what is happening.

Our global population sits currently at about 6.66 billion and the number is rising exponentially. It is patently unsustainable but the twits in power don't seem to see it. Why? I don't know. Everyone on this thread would tell you (presumptuous of me!!) that we can't afford this increase in population.

Then - imagine where we would be if we didn't have 2,400 children dying every day from hunger, thirst and disease - and that's only Africa. Imagine where we would be if we didn't kill people in wars and genocide. Imagine where we would be if people weren't killed in natural disasters. We would have reached unsustainable numbers long before this. All that has happened is that we have delayed the inevitable by horrendous and intolerable means.

I have to go - I just want to cry at the appalling mess we have made and continue to make.

Mikado, I truly think we are the cleverest and most destructive of species this poor planet has ever known. We cannot last and we will take all our co-existing species with us. How tragic is that.

V

Other Comments by Veronique

18. Comment #25420 by Thad on March 13, 2007 at 2:58 am

It is environmentalism which has become a type of religion.

Because of our knowledge and greed we fell from the grace of the Eden of sustainability and communion with Nature. Unless we repent of our sins the hot hot apocolypse will follow.


Narrator: Chicken Little was in the woods one day when an acorn fell on her head. It scared her so much she trembled all over. She shook so hard, half her feathers fell out.

Chicken Little: "Help! Help! The sky is falling! I have to go tell the king!"

Narrator: So she ran in great fright to tell the king. Along the way she met Henny Penny.

Henny Penny: "Where are you going, Chicken Little?"

Chicken Little: "Oh, help! The sky is falling!"

Henny Penny: "How do you know?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Henny Penny: "This is terrible, just terrible! We'd better hurry up."

Narrator: So they both ran away as fast as they could. Soon they met Ducky Lucky.

Ducky Lucky: "Where are you going, Chicken Little and Henny Penny?"

Chicken Little & Henny Penny: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! We're going to tell the king!"

Ducky Lucky: "How do you know?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head."

Ducky Lucky: "Oh dear, oh dear! We'd better run!"

Narrator: So they all ran down the road as fast as they could. Soon they met Goosey Loosey walking down the roadside.

Goosey Loosey "Hello there. Where are you all going in such a hurry?"

Chicken Little: "We're running for our lives!"

Henny Penny: "The sky is falling!"

Ducky Lucky: "And we're running to tell the king!"

Goosey Loosey: "How do you know the sky is falling?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Goosey Loosey: "Goodness! Then I'd better run with you."

Narrator: And they all ran in great fright across a field. Before long they met Turkey Lurkey strutting back and forth..

Turkey Lurkey: "Hello there, Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, and Goosey Loosey. Where are you all going in such a hurry?"

Chicken Little: "Help! Help!"

Henny Penny: "We're running for our lives!"

Ducky Lucky: "The sky is falling!"

Goosey Loosey: "And we're running to tell the king!"

Turkey Lurkey: "How do you know the sky is falling?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Turkey Lurkey: "Oh dear! I always suspected the sky would fall someday. I'd better run with you."

Narrator: So they ran with all their might, until they met Foxy Loxy.

Foxy Loxy: "Well, well. Where are you rushing on such a fine day?"

Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey (together) "Help! Help!" It's not a fine day at all. The sky is falling, and we're running to tell the king!"

Foxy Loxy: "How do you know the sky is falling?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Foxy Loxy: "I see. Well then, follow me, and I'll show you the way to the king."

Narrator: So Foxy Loxy led Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey across a field and through the woods. He led them straight to his den, and they never saw the king to tell him that the sky is falling.

Other Comments by Thad

19. Comment #25424 by Aussie on March 13, 2007 at 3:28 am

Total impact = PopulationSize x AverageIndividualConsumptionRate

Hardly rocket science but it is not politically correct.

Other Comments by Aussie

20. Comment #25426 by Aussie on March 13, 2007 at 3:47 am

Isn't it ironic that those whom you might expect to be the most conscientious stewards of Gods' creation are those who seem to care the least.

On Judgement Day these people will wonder why it is they who are the ones that have been Left Behind.

Other Comments by Aussie

21. Comment #25427 by epeeist on March 13, 2007 at 3:47 am

 avatarComment #25424 by Aussie

Total impact = PopulationSize x AverageIndividualConsumptionRate

And both are important.

The former has been covered. The latter is driven by capitalism and its need for unending economic growth.

Unless we tackle both of these then we are doomed.

Other Comments by epeeist

22. Comment #25434 by tylersoap on March 13, 2007 at 5:05 am

 avataras long as religion exists humans are doomed.

we'd all be better off on cocine and jack daniels.

Other Comments by tylersoap

23. Comment #25440 by Linda on March 13, 2007 at 6:25 am

Here there and everywhere Submission spreads ignorance by instilling in constituents the notion that females are brood sows this of course results in overpopulation. What a tragedy that Submission was forced on the people there upstaging original nature based superstitions. Then again the Indonesians if they were not infected with Submission would have got it up the rear from Roman Church imperialism/colonization.

Veronique - I live in the sanctuary that is Canada. We have abundant fresh water however that and other resources are siphoned off by our nuclear-armed, greedy neighbours to the south. Personally my preference is to live surrounded by trees and fresh water. It seems to me that Canada is overpopulated too.

Superstition - sing it Stevie Wonder!

Other Comments by Linda

24. Comment #25447 by tomjlawson on March 13, 2007 at 7:04 am

 avatarSolar panels and windmills will do you no good on calm, cloudy days in 2050...

It's seems ironic that our new power solutions should rely on nature when nature is causing us to change. We don't know what the weather will be like in fifty days, let alone fifty years, so why assume that windmills and solar panels are going to be of much use? What if the clouds block the sun for a hundred years? What if we lose the wind for months at a time?

There are better solutions out there, but we're being pushed off the cliff by Kyoto to "change our ways before it's too late."

A religious person's biggest argument to an atheist is, "What if you're wrong?"

What if we're wrong? Let's assume that by 2050 we've corrected our mistakes (burning fossil fuels) and the planet just stays the same or gets worse. A terrible scenario, but a possible one. What then?

By that time we're neck-deep in failing technologies that we hastily invented to correct the mistakes that could have sustained us while we perfected the right technologies.

The jury is still out as to whether CO2 is even linked to global warming, so why is that still the argument for change? And why do we have to change "as soon as possible?"

People may wonder that if we're not causing it, and there's nothing we can do to reverse GW, then why change our ways? That's like a Christian asking an atheist, "If there's no purpose for life then why should we go on living?"

If we're going to change our lifestyles we need to do it for the right reasons, and not before we're ready...

I don't know about you, but I've always liked the idea of cleaner air to breathe and fresher water to drink, even before global warming.

Other Comments by tomjlawson

25. Comment #25457 by Keinen_Gott on March 13, 2007 at 8:10 am

Global Warming has been a naturally occuring phenomenon forever in Earths history, but now that an animal with mild intelligence(us) has evolved on this Earth it has been sped up and I for one think that the issue is not addressed enough. I think that the world should follow China's example and limit 1 child per family, it may be a little rash, but i think that the population should be controlled. But, as long as the religions dominate this planet they will continue to follow their "holy" book and turn women into baby making machines until they cant make anymore. I myself am very optomistic of the "religious" future and think after a little time and more science education in schools the most popular "yo mama" joke will be that your mama is so old she still believes in God. As for the futures environment I just hope it wont be to late to make a drastic change of direction. I hope the paradigm happens soon.

Other Comments by Keinen_Gott

26. Comment #25466 by Seti on March 13, 2007 at 12:41 pm

 avatarVeronique, the programme was only a few days ago. After watching it, I posted on the Ethical Atheist website about it, hoping someone on there would have some info for me. I then went and logged onto some other sites which were discussing it, I think mostly linked from the Channel 4 website, and also googled. That was when, for me, the evidence presented in the programme began to unravel, and I posted about this further on EA.

I'm sorry I can't link you directly to the other sites I searched, but if you take this link you will see what I posted.

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4399

Other Comments by Seti

27. Comment #25468 by misterpost on March 13, 2007 at 1:15 pm

tomjlawson said: It's seems ironic that our new power solutions should rely on nature when nature is causing us to change. We don't know what the weather will be like in fifty days, let alone fifty years, so why assume that windmills and solar panels are going to be of much use? What if the clouds block the sun for a hundred years? What if we lose the wind for months at a time?

I would think if these were valid arguments, then some climatologist would have pointed them out by now.
Imagine it: Unending cloud cover over the entire surface of the earth? The winds stopping completely? On a planet that's getting hotter?

These processes are driven by solar heat, so if global warming really does occur, what we'll have on balance is more of this energy to tap, at least somewhere on the planet.

It's possible that some places will become cloudier, and some lose all their wind (I think the latter is less likely). But others will get more wind, and some places might receive more sunlight than ever. And electrical power is easy to export- you string some high voltage lines & you're go for a hundred miles. Surely there's wind within a hundred miles of anywhere.

What were the other "better solutions" we have out there? As far as I am aware, the next best thing for energy supply is nuclear, which not everyone thinks is "better" than carbon fuels (I do). Or was the "better solution" you had in mind reducing our per-capita consumption?

I think this (reduction) is a really terrific idea, but there will continue to be a lot of political resistance to that until something unimaginably bad happens to change people's (mostly USAians') minds about their energy use.

Other Comments by misterpost

28. Comment #25491 by tomjlawson on March 13, 2007 at 5:28 pm

 avatarReplying to: misterpost

Sorry I said too much. I'm not saying solar and wind are not good options, but they are hardly the best technologies we can come up with, and if we're pressured to accept them and set up an infrastructure, then we may bankrupt ourselves and miss out on the technology that trumps them...

Other Comments by tomjlawson

29. Comment #25506 by Veronique on March 13, 2007 at 10:14 pm

 avatarSeti - Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you. Thank you very much; I took the link to Ethical Atheists, read your post and the ones following. The balance is beginning to emerge.

I also found an article in the Independent dated 11th March by its environmental editor. Good article:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

I took the liberty of sending your link to my brother in WA; I hope you don't mind. I am very interested in the fall out that is happening. I have requested our ABC to find a copy and screen it here in Australia.

I wish I knew more about everything; an impossibility I know. My father always said, 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. Unfortunately a 'little' is all I can ever realistically know about so many disciplines that abound.

Once again thank you so much.

V

Other Comments by Veronique

30. Comment #25513 by kniggit on March 14, 2007 at 12:36 am

 avatarRe: Comment #25400 by briancoughlanworldcitizen
Sounds to me that you are the one on the lunatic fringe in this discussion. Simply muddling along as we have, is the worst possible option, even if we accept whatever pseudo-scientific nonsense you're peddling at face value.

Wake up and smell the coffee, and at least get out of the way if you're not going to help. Prick.


Whoa there cowboy, where do you get off calling me a prick? I sourced my info from reputable establishments (www.bom.gov.au), its hardly top secret and definately not "psuedo science", just cold hard facts and where did I question the need for alternate fuel sources? Mate Ive seen people go off on tangents before but you take first prize (stay on the line and we will organise a plunger to get sent out to you so you can pull your head out of your arse), my post was simply to highlight the fact that human induced global warming is still far from a proven and hardly overwhelming with an equally, if not more, credible consensus that this is simply a natural climatic shift in which case there is not a whole lot humans can do about it.

So can I respectfully suggest you smell your own coffee and check they havent put dusted bullshit instead of chocolate on your frothy milk...

Other Comments by kniggit

31. Comment #25633 by Seti on March 14, 2007 at 11:59 am

 avatarThanks for the link to the Independent, Veronique. I clicked another link on that page:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

I think we need to look very carefully at both sides of the debate, but when you find out that people are deliberately misleading you on some things you are justified in being dubious about the other things they are saying.

This kind of programme is riding a wave of "Oh I'm sick of this global warming guff" and people being worried about it - or trying to avert it - having a drastically negative impact on their life style. Also - as seems to be happening on here - as soon as something becomes "established fact" you inevitably have those who like to see themselves as "free thinkers" immediately start to rebel against it. That's fine, so long as they remember the "thinker" part as well as the "free" part, and really try to examine all the evidence presented by both sides.

Other Comments by Seti

32. Comment #25762 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 4:00 am

 avatarSo can I respectfully suggest you smell your own coffee and check they havent put dusted bullshit instead of chocolate on your frothy milk...

LOL .... touch a nerve did I? You are a prick of course, a disingenous prick at that, given that the clear implication of sitting doing nothing because some oil industry shills are not "convinced", means a reduction of funding for renewables and other alternatives.

The case for global warming, evolution and the heliocentric universe has been made kniggit. We now need take action, and retrograde assholes like yourself need to be countered with verbal savagery, as your "confusion" and "honest questioning" represents a danger to anyone under the age of 60. So yeah, you are a prick, and you should be ashamed of yourself to boot for promoting this crap.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

33. Comment #25811 by kniggit on March 15, 2007 at 9:16 am

 avatarKeep flying off on those tangents cowboy, now I'm a creationist as well as a disingenous prick. Seriously though, what does evolution and all the other verbal diarrhea you are spouting got to do with an ongoing debate about the validity of claims about human induced global warming? I'll give you the answer so you dont hurt your head: Five Fifths of fuck all. Just because you are on this site, you dont have to go 'running home to mama" and bring evolution into it so as to convey some sort of air of intellectual superiority. Mate, seems like you do to much reading and not enough thinking, so here read this:

"Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist," says Dr. Timothy Ball. He has Ph.D. in climatology, having earned his degree from the University of London, England, and taught for many years at the University of Winnipeg. A Google search of his name turns up a plethora of posts attacking him, always a sure sign that the Greens feel threatened by an outspoken scientist. The quote below explains why:

"Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science."

Dr. Ball is hardly alone in his views. Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, as well as a member of the National Academy of Science, has said of Global Warming that, "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun."

Increasingly, not just climate scientists, but people in leadership positions around the world have joined in rebuking the Global Warming hoax. Czech President Vaclav Klaus is only the most recent, joining Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, in 2006, received a letter from sixty prominent scientists expressing opposition to the theory of Global Warming. The list is growing as other scientists in France, Denmark and around the world speak up.


Seems like there is quite a few pricks out there eh? I think I'd much rather be in their company than "please tell me what to think" dickheads like you.

Other Comments by kniggit

34. Comment #25831 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 11:06 am

 avatarWell kniggit you certainly are a persistent asshole, lets give you that:-)

I'm sceptical because everytime someone provides an actual name, an actual scientist in the relevant field, I look it up in source watch and they are a shill, or a 4th rate nonentity, and frequently both. So you'll forgive my annoyed tone. Dr. Ball ?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

Look the rest of them up yourself, I may be your intellectual superior, but I have zero interest in being your mentor you lazy fuck:-)

Have a nice day.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

35. Comment #25836 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 15, 2007 at 11:37 am

Quick question for the "brighty brights"….


If we (humans) are a product of nature and our actions are one of the main contributing factors in "global warming"…. wouldn't it be logical to conclude that nature has selected us (humans) as the vehicle to bring about climate change?


Furthermore…. why is "global warming" considered a bad….. Oh sure, maybe it will bring about the end all life as we know it but, life will continue…. (maybe) as nature has selected.


I just don't understand the so called "moral responsibility" being shoved down our gullets by the global warming alarmist….. I don't believe in their "moral code of conduct" and have yet to hear any of them (the alarmist) successfully convince me that their basis of "morality" is true.

Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster

36. Comment #25838 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 11:48 am

 avatarNature is not a God you idiot, and doing something is (in my mind anyway) based on enlightened self interest, plus I have a kid.

You don't need any more morality than that.

You're having trouble understanding it, because you're trying to find meaning where none exists, except the meaning you assign.

This is the biggest hurdle for theists to get over, life is pointless, the universe really doesn't give a shit. It's up to you to muddle through yourself. Scary huh?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

37. Comment #25842 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 15, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Comment #25838 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 11:48 am



Scary…..?

It's not scary to me….

And why should I care if you have a kid?

I didn't mean to imply that nature was a "God". Listen, no doubt you are aware (and probably quite knowledgeable) of evolution through natural selection…… I'm simply saying that we (humans) are a product of nature (slimed out of the primordial soup) and have become what we are today through natural selection…… right? So of course it is reasonable to conclude that, through natural selection, we (humans) are doing our part to bring about climate change.

Listen, you are correct that life is pointless. Oddly enough I have a few atheist friends who beg to differ…… I keep telling them that all I ask is; that they are intellectually honest with themselves and acknowledge that life is completely absurd.

So you see we agree…. I will also act in my own enlightened self interest; just don't expect that I have yours or others interest in mind. As for global warming….. I could care less…. Just don't try to sell me on the idea that we have some sort of "responsibility" to take preventative action. Hey, you wanna do something about it…. Great! Just keep the absurdity in perspective and don't think that your "action" is any better than my "non-action".

Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster

38. Comment #25843 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 12:23 pm

 avatarbrian coughlan and kniggit whats with the knives at each others throats, chill out!

But kniggit 0.6 degrees in one century is a lot. Enough to make make things uncomfortable for a lot of species in not many centuries if it continued at that rate. What do you make of the significant acceleration in the melting of arctic ice. The effects of which are already worryingly noticeable such as when the Gulf Stream stopped in 2004:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1932761,00.html

I don't know what you're advocating kniggit? do you really think our current actions will cause no problems for the future of the human race?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

39. Comment #25845 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 15, 2007 at 12:32 pm

I don't know what you're advocating kniggit? do you really think our current actions will cause no problems for the future of the human race?
Comment #25843 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 12:23 pm


Well, I can't speak for kniggit...... But if our current actions do cause these so called "problems" for future humans...... I say; who fucking cares... wait, I mean if you do care that's cool..... but I don't.

Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster

40. Comment #25846 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 12:36 pm

 avatarSpaghetti Monster so if someone told you life will go extinct in 100 years but by acting now you could prevent it (not the case I'm speaking hypothetically) you wouldn't be bothered to do anything?

well . . .i suppose that's fair enough . . .

Other Comments by BaronOchs

41. Comment #25847 by Riley on March 15, 2007 at 12:44 pm

 avatarRead:
"The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"
Science, 3 December 2004.
A consensus 2+ years old, and growing.

p.s. I respect The Spaghetti Monster's 'loner' ideological life-style choice and suggest that we remove his computer from the Internet and his home from the electircal power grid in order that he might live it in earnest.

--

Other Comments by Riley

42. Comment #25848 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 12:47 pm

 avatarAlso:

wouldn't it be logical to conclude that nature has selected us (humans) as the vehicle to bring about climate change?


Don't forget evolution has no foresight, so when it "selected us" it didn't know we'd start the industrial revolution. You could equally argue we're selecting ourselves out of existence if we don't look after our future.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

43. Comment #25849 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 12:47 pm

 avatarwouldn't it be logical to conclude that nature has selected us (humans) as the vehicle to bring about climate change?

There is nothing logical about what you are saying here, you are clearly attributing intent and design to nature, as well as expecting that we should somehow accept the "will" of nature and go with the flow. Overt theistic language and of course utter bullshit. We are not in any sense obliged to enslave ourselves to nature, or the criminals of the Bible and Koran.

Reacting to climate change is just a more dramatic variation of co-operating to build a shelter, dam a river or erect massive dykes to push back the sea. Similarly it's a modest effort in comparison to rerouting a killer asteroid, shielding the earth from supernova fallout and protecting the solar system from black holes. It's what humans DO. We co-operate when it's in our interest, and other than a few million rich assholes, this is in our interest. So lets get on with it.

It's not scary to me…. We come, we go and the only meaning there is, is what we fashion ourselves. Either you're a liar or not terribly bright if that isn't generating an emotion at least partially laced with fear.

And why should I care if you have a kid? I don't expect you to care, but I care. I'm genetically predisposed to care, it's a motivation you fuckwit. I obviously want my daughter to live in a stable world, where she can have some modicum of happiness and material comfort. A climate gone mad doesn't strike me as facilitating those modest goals. Are you always this dense, or just being obtuse?

... and acknowledge that life is completely absurd.

Thats a bit rich coming from a godbot!!! Besides, it's only absurd if you are crazy enough to have a sense of proportion about your place in the universe. Raising kids, being good to your wife, work, sex, youtube and bittorrent deliver plenty of meaning and challenge to keep us occupied, until we ... you know ... die.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

44. Comment #25851 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 12:56 pm

 avatar38. Comment #25843 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 12:23 pm

brian coughlan and kniggit whats with the knives at each others throats, chill out!


He deserves everything he gets. Quoting known shills when the overwhelming consensus is that urgent action is required.

I'm sick of having to have the same damn conversation with these idiots, and really, the ones that claim to be rational have no excuse whatever. Unless they plan to revisit every paper and every claim, the rational response is to stay in the loop, accept the consensus position, and act on it. Anything else is just shitting in the pool to sound clever. Well guess what, no one likes a turd. So sue me, it's a free planet:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

45. Comment #25852 by steveroot on March 15, 2007 at 1:14 pm

 avatar#25849 Brian,
Don't bring peoples' weight or sexual orientation into the argument please! ;-)

"...massive dykes to push back the sea."
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

46. Comment #25855 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 1:23 pm

 avatarDon't bring peoples' weight or sexual orientation into the argument please! ;-)

I apologise unreservedly to fat lesbians the world over, around the globe as it where. I meant no offense:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

47. Comment #25856 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 15, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Comment #25849 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 12:47 pm



"you are clearly attributing intent and design"…..?

How the fuck did you draw that conclusion?

Listen, I'll try to dumb it down for ya. I agree with you that we are not obliged to enslave ourselves to nature…. or whatever. In fact we are not obligated period. Furthermore I'm not saying that "global warming" shouldn't cause a "reaction"…. what else can we do but "react"….? I mean if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice…. right? (copyright rush)

Listen stupid shit…. You seem to be having trouble with our conversation when really, as it appears to me; we share the same "general" thoughts regarding our existence. The main difference, as far as I can tell, is that you seem to be a bit "emotional" and as a result; you confuse your "feelings" with reality. Yeah… it's all good that you're "genetically predisposed to care"…. I'm happy for ya….. I must be lacking the "care" gene.

Oh and BTW don't confuse the pleasure you derive from "raising kids, being good to your wife (although being bad to your wife can sometimes bring pleasure as well) work, sex, youtube, bittorrent and ummmmm, I'll take a wild guess and throw in a healthy dose of internet porn….." with - as you say "meaning". Get it? Pleasure / meaning (not the same). So I guess if the prospect of living a life void of any true meaning is "scary" to you…… well, that must mean your exceptionally bright.

Kudos to you my bright friend.

Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster

48. Comment #25862 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 1:41 pm

 avatar"what else can we do but "react"….?"

Spaghetti Monster react that is in a way conducive to the continued existence and/or continued existence with the highest possible quality of life for the most people possible.

Your reaction to this is simply "I don't give a fuck" unless I've misread you. I respect your right to not give a fuck and am pleased that most people I think would agree it's reprehensible.

So you don't care, why are you here telling us?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

49. Comment #25864 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 1:46 pm

 avatarHow the fuck did you draw that conclusion?

... wouldn't it be logical to conclude that nature has selected us (humans) as the vehicle to bring about climate change?

... as nature has selected.


I mean what else could one conclude? You think nature "selects" and chooses "vehicles", you think that nature wants to "bring about" climate change. Do you actually speak English, as a native tounge? I mean you might be writing in Latvian and running your "prose" through a shitty online translator or something. That would get you off the hook by the way, but really, the only one not seeing this is you.

Jesus!! You wrote this tripe, not me!!! Do you generally have no idea what you're saying, or is it just this evening?

I don't know about your care gene, but "nature" certainly seems have short changed you a pair of frontal lobes. What a bitch, after all your loyal worship!!!

Heres the deal. If we don't get this climate thing in check, there are good odds (not amazing odds, but certainly space shuttle odds) that things could get very squiffy in our actual lifetimes. So if you don't give a shit about anyone else, at least try and summon up the morsel of sense required to care about yourself.

As to your comments on meaning, I'd be interested to hear your views on what you consider "true" meaning. I'm sure we could all use a good laugh:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

50. Comment #25868 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 1:58 pm

 avatar

Quick question for the "brighty brights"….

Kudos to you my bright friend.


Why do you use "Bright" in a flippant manner? Some answers suggest themselves but I'll avoid the necessary assumptions for now.

Other Comments by BaronOchs
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: