Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

http://www.voteearth2009.org/home/

On March 28 you can VOTE EARTH by switching off your lights for one hour.

Or you can vote global warming by leaving your lights on.

The results of the election are being presented at the Global Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen 2009. We want one billion votes for Earth, to tell world leaders that we have to take action against global warming.

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Educate about what ?

For every report for one side there is a report for the other, Your belief is your belief and others are others, That isn't denial thats just people believing what they believe ;)

Flexi

Posted

Obviously I think what we should do what we can to stop fucking up this world, but there's part of me that kind of thinks that if there was a big disaster (Like mentioned in the above article... (90% of people whiped out) that it maybe wouldn't be such a bad thing. We are screwing up badly and the world cannot support the amount of people and we're still expanding. We've expanded too much and raped the world.. The world (climate, etc) whipes us out.... somthing will survive whther it be people or other organisms and the cycle starts again... I think this has happened many times already on this planet (dinosaurs, etc.).. The truth of the matter is that as a race, we do not relaly deserve the world that we live on.

I think I'd be Ok though.. i live on a farm on a hill, we're already pretty much self sufficient with veg... I could quite happily life in a field in a yurt with a smallholding to keep me alive.... that and the shotgun    :o  (hmnn, nio insane grin type smiley.... Twiny-X, please can we have some more emotions, 10 isn't enough!)

Posted

For every report for one side there is a report for the other,...

ehm, no there isn't.... ;)

at least if you count reports from people who know what they're talking about (i mean i can blather on all day about chevy truck transmission boxes, only i know next to nothing about them)... it's mostly that the deniers get bigger press coverage which leads to this skewed perception.... i recommend reading www.realclimate.org

Posted

I think that regardless of your stance on global warming, and/or human influence upon it, or upon the inaction of governments and each individual on the planet in response to this 20+ year old issue, and/or there being any chance in convincing anyone by taking part in this, and/or there being any benefit in doing it because it may be too late and that may not be such a bad thing after all...

It's good to take a long look at ways we can improve our actions, and being more efficient is probably a good call, whichever way you think about the above matters.... So turning the lights off for an hour is a pretty easy shot at it. It won't hurt.

Personally this won't make any difference at my house, I always have the lights off...... Hint; take a leak and grab a drink and get your remote control/mouse/whatever handy before you turn off the lights.

Posted

ehm, no there isn't.... ;)

at least if you count reports from people who know what they're talking about (i mean i can blather on all day about chevy truck transmission boxes, only i know next to nothing about them)... it's mostly that the deniers get bigger press coverage which leads to this skewed perception.... i recommend reading www.realclimate.org

I quite like this quote from http://lostconservative.blogspot.com/2008/06/truth-about-realclimateorg.html

Quoting RealClimate.org as a reliable source of information on climate science is like quoting Disneyland.com for reliable information on mouse behavior.

I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong but there are certainly strong arguments from BOTH camps !

EDIT: This is another interesting paper: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/solomon_essays.pdf

Phil

Posted

**One of my favourite little analogies.**

A car is driving at 100km/h toward a cliff 1000 meters high. If the car goes over the cliff, the car will certainly be destroyed and the probability of survival for the driver is nil.

  • If you try to stop the car starting 10 km from the cliff, the driver can't see the cliff but a warning sign reading "DANGER - cliff ahead" is a low cost solution to prevent disaster to the car and the driver.
  • If you try to stop the car starting 1km away from the cliff, the driver may still not be able to see the cliff but a warning sign reading "DANGER - cliff ahead" is a low cost solution to prevent disaster to the car and the driver.
  • If you try to stop the car 200 meters away from the cliff, the driver might be able to see the cliff but depending on the conditions (for example, road surface/weather/visibility/distraction/condition of brakes and tyres), a small number of cars+drivers will drive over the cliff but most of the time, mere application of brakes will be sufficient to stop disaster.
  • If you try to stop the car 100 meters away from the cliff, the majority of cars and drivers will drive over the cliff. In this case, mere application of brakes is not sufficient, as the stopping distance is greater than the available distance. The driver must take other affirmative action to prevent driving over the cliff.
  • If you try to stop the car 30 meters away from the cliff, most cars and drivers will drive over the cliff. Brakes won't be sufficient, steering most likely won't be sufficient. It would take something like deliberately driving into a tree or wall to stop cars from going over the cliff, and these will have there own consequences. Car and driver are likely to suffer substantial injuries.
  • If you try to stop the car 3 meters away from the cliff, its just too damn late.

On February 7th this year, the temperature in Melbourne (latitude 37deg 44sec, average maximum for Feb is around 34 degrees) got to 46.4 degrees - the hottest temperature ever recorded in an Australian capital. Bearing in mind that Melbourne is the second-farthest Australian capital from the equator, and that one Australian capital lies north of the tropic of Capricorn. This temperature was hotter than has been recorded even in some of our harshest deserts. Even down in Tasmania, the coldest part of the country, there was a new record set at 42.4 degrees.

All this happened in a part of the world which has experienced far-below-average rainfall for the last 15 years. The result was firestorms of unprecedented fury, which were measured as outputting in excess of 20kW per square meter, and travelling around 70km/h in places. Substantial loss of life and property ensued.

You can chose to be skeptical. It's a healthy viewpoint to an extent. But if you want to see proof, come and visit. You can deny climate change all you want, we're already living in it.

Posted

Today i was thinking: the fear for increased sea levels.. isn t the north pole just floating on water? Isn t ice just solid water? What will happen if ice melts?

Nothing, am I mistaken or what?

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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...