 |
|
Topic started on 2-3-2008 @ 10:24 AM by loam
|
            
'Enjoy life while you
can'
Climate science maverick James Lovelock believes catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam. So what would he
do?
...Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won't make any difference...
"It's just too late for it," he says. "Perhaps if we'd gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don't have time. All
these standard green things, like sustainable development, I think these are just words that mean nothing. I get an awful lot of people coming to me
saying you can't say that, because it gives us nothing to do. I say on the contrary, it gives us an immense amount to do. Just not the kinds of
things you want to do."
...
Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking
underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of
wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to
think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.
More...
I think James Lovelock hits upon something I have felt strongly about for some time...
Where is our strategy for adaptability? It's time that this position find a voice in our political discourse, imo.
[edit on 2-3-2008 by loam]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 10:38 AM by stikkinikki
|
 
I share the same opinion. The global warming is being masked by the global dimming. Earth is not in the balance, or perhaps correctly stated
humanity is not in the balance. We have overpopulated the Earth and put stresses on ecosystems above their carrying capacity. We had a population
boom and eventually we will see a population crash.
They say live simply so that others may simply live.
Now it is live simply so you know how to live.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 10:55 AM by melatonin
|

I tend to think that Lovelock is a bit too pessimistic on this issue. Even if we accept that the future isn't something to be optimistic about, if we
can restrict our impacts this can only be a good thing.
Thus, taking the IPCC predictions, I'd rather keep levels of CO2 at around 560ppm (3ish'C), than 1120ppm (6ish'C). The different impacts of these
two levels of warming would likely be massive.
But adaptation will be just as important as mitigation. The first doubling is virtually certain. But we can act to hold off the second. Like Lovelock,
I'm a big supporter of moving to nuclear power, as well as renewables. It will be expensive, but it will help.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 11:32 AM by loam
|
Originally posted by melatonin
I tend to think that Lovelock is a bit too pessimistic on this issue. Even if we accept that the future isn't something to be optimistic about, if we
can restrict our impacts this can only be a good thing.

Therein lies the crux of the problem-- and perhaps the basis for his view. Widespread compliance with the changes that would be required to make a
meaningful difference in greenhouse emissions seems nearly impossible to achieve in the short term, particularly when one considers the emerging
economies of the third world and the anemic or suspicious political will of the remaining economies.
A solution is not a solution if it can not be achieved.
Originally posted by melatonin
But adaptation will be just as important as mitigation. The first doubling is virtually certain. But we can act to hold off the second. Like Lovelock,
I'm a big supporter of moving to nuclear power, as well as renewables. It will be expensive, but it will help. 
On these points, I fully agree.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 12:09 PM by Spaxz
|
Alot of this stuff is an opinion and not proof. Only time will tell and in the mean time we should still do what we can. Just more fear mongering to
me
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 12:23 PM by loam
|

reply to post by Spaxz
In my view, preparation is not fear mongering.
But to each his own.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 12:33 PM by stikkinikki
|
Wouldn't it be great if we could use the nuclear material in weapons already made for nuclear power?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 12:40 PM by AlabamaCajun
|
I too think the Mr Lovelock is more on the extreme but is on point about the current direction. We really don't know where climate change is going
but we do see that is happening. If a strong El Nino kicks in we see how much it affects a large portion of the US. If climate change affects this
cycle then the arctic air that normally blankets the southern states for about 3 months may stop all together. The would change the region from
temperate to near tropical. Sounds great but sucks for farming and the increase in pests from mosquitoes to termites. This would change an entire
ecosystem. Hurricane cycles would also be affected but we don't know how. Predictions have been off recently so it's a gamble on what might happen.
What I'm sure we will see is more natural disasters as we have seen an increase in damaging tornadoes in the last 2 decades. A change I've observed
over the last 20 years is the shortened Spring and Fall seasons. Spring arrives in early February not March but is interrupted by freezing spells. It
use to be rare to see upper 80s in February but that now occurs every year. 2008 has only been in the upper 70s making it closer to normal. Fall has
not been arriving until the end of October with the temps remaining in the 90s almost to Halloween. Just about the end of November is when the first
real cold weather arives about 3 weeks late then it's in the freezer for a week then back to mild temps until about mid Dec we get hit with an
extreme change. getting warm spells in Nov-Dec for the south is not unusual but the length of time it is warm is what has changed. Drought cycles have
gotten extreme which is just above some of the normal cycles which is it continues may be one of the most notable signs. Reservoirs in Georgia exposed
bottoms that have not been seen since they were flooded with dams back in the 40s-60s. It's one of the big indicators that seasonal shift is
affecting precipitation patterns and a big indicator that climate change is occurring.
We may not see dramatic effects but a slow erosion of quality of life then by the time we take it serious then we will not be prepared.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 01:13 PM by SlyCM (work)
|

Apparently Mr. Lovelock has entirely ignored the Mesozoic when CO2 was for much of the period higher than 1000 PPM, and above 2000 PPM for several
million years, and albedo was very low as even the poles were a temperate, forested area, and also ignoring the fact that CO2 is not the "main"
greenhouse gas but in fact a relatively minor one, and finally, when life flourished to a level only recently exceeded.
I mean really, be a catastrophist if you want but I think people have enough to worry about already... as in, might as well not throw completely
unsupported hypotheses into the mix...
This should clear things up... I posted it a while ago on another thread.
 Some of the errors in Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth
• Gore, aiming to undermine the significance of previous warm periods such as that of the Middle Ages, promoted the 1,000-year “hockey stick”
temperature chart (McIntyre & McKitrick, 2005).
• Gore showed heart-rending pictures of the New Orleans floods and insisted on a link between increased hurricane frequency and global warming that
is not supported by the facts (IPCC, 2001, 2007).
• Gore asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that Arctic temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s were as
warm or warmer (Briffa et al., 2004).
• Gore did not explain that Arctic temperature changes are more closely correlated with changes in solar activity than with changes in atmospheric
CO2 concentrations (Soon, 2005).
• Gore did not explain that the Sun has been hotter, for longer, in the past 50 years than in any similar period in at least the past 11,400 years
(Solanki et al., 2005).
• Gore said the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk of the continent has
been cooling and gaining ice (Doran et al., 2004).
• Gore mentioned the breakup of the Larsen B ice shelf, but did not mention peer-reviewed research which suggests the ice shelf comes and goes
frequently (Pudsey & Evans, 2001, 2006).
• Gore hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing. In fact its thickness has been growing by 2 inches per year for a
decade (Johannesen et al., 2005).
• Gore falsely claimed that global warming is melting Mt. Kilimanjaro’s icecap, actually caused by atmospheric dessication from local
deforestation, and pre-20th-century climate shifts (Cullen et al., 2006).
• Gore said global sea levels would swamp Manhattan, Bangladesh, Shanghai and other coastal cities, and would rise 20ft by 2100, but the UN estimate
is just 8in to 1ft 5in. (IPCC, 2007; Morner, 1995, 2004).
• Gore implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, failing to state that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and
other South American glaciers are advancing (Polissar et al., 2006).
• Gore blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, though NASA scientists had concluded that local water-use and grazing patterns
are probably to blame (Foley & Coe, 2001).
• Gore inaccurately said polar bears are drowning due to melting ice when in fact 11 of the 13 main groups in Canada are thriving, and polar bear
populations have more than doubled since 1940 (Taylor, 2006).
• Gore said the ocean absorbs heat from the Sun, when in fact the ocean takes nearly all of its heat from the atmosphere, without which the ocean
would freeze over (Houghton, 2002).
• Gore said a review of 928 scientific papers had shown none against the “consensus”. In fact only 1% of the papers were explicitly
pro-“consensus”; almost 3 times as many were explicitly against (Peiser, 2006).
• Gore showed a link between changes in temperature and in CO2 concentration in the past 500,000 years, but did not admit that changes in
temperature preceded changes in CO2 concentration (Petit et al., 1999).
Any AGW catastrophists left are just playing the children's game of scaring each other.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 01:13 PM by jimmyx
|
     
buy a piece of property in a northern state, preferably by a sourse of water, have a backhoe crew come out and dig a nice big hole, build a simple,
but large enough underground living area, buy and/or build a functioning windmill and small solar-panels, acquire a survival book put out by the
military (online) and slowly start to gather the small items needed to sustain yourself...small traps for game, filters for water, small electric
motor, seeds, any electrical device that can be hand-cranked to charge up (there are catalogs with essential devices on the web). or... just live your
life the best way you can, and accept what is going to happen in the future.  
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 02:21 PM by Thousand
|

I'm not going to launch into a tirade about the inaccuracies presented by both sides of the global warming debate here, but I felt the need to
point out this little glaring fallacy:
Originally posted by SlyCM (work)
 Some of the errors in Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth
• Gore inaccurately said polar bears are drowning due to melting ice when in fact 11 of the 13 main groups in Canada are thriving, and polar bear
populations have more than doubled since 1940 (Taylor, 2006).

Saying that polar bear populations are thriving does in no way offset the fact that they are now dying by drowning. The two issues belong to
completely different arguments. And they are drowning, and that is a cause for worry.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 04:48 PM by StellarX
|
Originally posted by Thousand
Saying that polar bear populations are thriving does in no way offset the fact that they are now dying by drowning. The two issues belong to
completely different arguments. And they are drowning, and that is a cause for worry. 
In fact as far as i know we only have evidence ( meaning supported with dead bears) for a few drownings , and then normally due to storms, and if you
happened to live in the region you wouldn't mind given how bear attacks ( Canada/US) have risen year on year since hunting buns in the 70's.
 "The polar bear drowning myth is typical of the deceit practiced by many global warming alarmists," he said. "Polar bears are very strong
swimmers and have been documented swimming more than 60 miles without interruption."
In 2004, researchers with the U.S. Minerals Management Service found four dead polar bears floating in the sea after a severe storm off the Alaskan
coastline and attributed their deaths to the storm. These same researchers had observed the bears swimming longer distances in the past few years.
Proponents of global warming, such as Gore, believe polar bears could be jeopardized as ice glaciers break up.
www.cnsnews.com.../Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070222a.html
Either way the article seems to mention both sides of the story so feel free to use the claims as basis for checking how just how many bears have in
fact drowned due to broken sea ice. As i see it any bear that can't find a resting place in a 100 km's worth of swimming is probably lost or far too
ambitious for my liking.
It makes more sense to blame the USN ( Sonar and other nonsense) than it does to invoke global warming or climate change in general.
Stellar
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 05:36 PM by monkey_descendant
|
I've felt like this for a long time. It's the reason I've chosen not to have children.
I conceded to fate ages ago and am going to enjoy life while I can :p
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 06:31 PM by WraothAscendant
|
I say mitigation will only be reached by migration. And there is only really one place we can migrate too. *points up*
Less population on the Earth = less pollution.
Less industry on the Earth = less pollution.
Less raw materials harvested on the Earth = Well, you get the idea.
It won't be easy as a matter of course but humanity seems almost afraid to try. But I think we could do it and quickly if we stopped p****footing
around.
reply to post by StellarX
Perhaps Polar Bears will make the leap back to a fully aquatic speices.
You never know.
reply to post by SlyCM (work)
I think Mr Al "I created the internet" Gore attached himself to a theory and made it into a political movement.
I tend to take anything a politician tries to sell to me with a grain of salt because I think all of them are friggin snakes.
Wait that insults snakes.
Shame on me.
[edit on 2-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 06:39 PM by Infadel
|
reply to post by loam
Star+Flag
This is exactly what i want to hear. i have been saying we've gone "over the edge" for about 2 years now, and tho only thing that will save is is a
complete revamp of our society/technology as we know it.
LOL.....coincidence or not....im listening to a great song to go along with this....rammstien-America..."were all living in America,America,
coca-cola, wonder bras"....
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 06:57 PM by thetruth777
|
Um... in case you aren't aware, global warming is overrated by phony environmentalists as an excuse for carbon tax and the reduction of
transportation. I would be more concerned about where we're heading (world govt.)
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 06:58 PM by WraothAscendant
|
reply to post by thetruth777
Actually we are in the midst of some global changes.
Just we're not sure WHERE the changes are heading.
Or really what is causing them, I personally think its part of a cycle that we may have helped some but not that we are the chief cause.
And we love to bicker and politicise EVERYTHING for some strange reason.
Well partially I do. It's a good way to come to have power if you get a large enough following.
[edit on 2-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 07:02 PM by mrwupy
|

The title of this thread is, "Enjoy life while you can." and I'd just like to say I'm going to do that whether the polar bears are drowning or
not.
I'm going to enjoy life while I can cause even if the poles don't melt or the seas rise, I'm still going to get old and if I get old enough I may
actually die some day. I'm praying I don't but you know how finicky prayer can be.
I'm going to enjoy life while I can because I believe life is a gift and the best way to say thank you for a gift is to enjoy it. (I read that
somewhere though I forget where) Still, I agree with it.
I'm not going to enjoy life because tomorrow might bring disaster, I'm going to enjoy life because it's a pretty darn good thing to be alive.
Love and light my friends,
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 07:42 PM by watch_the_rocks
|
This guy has hit the nail on the head. His views are exactly what I think. We've gone over the edge, and there is nothing we can do about it.
 . . . individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy.
We've got 30, maybe 50 years before things start getting horribly bad. You putting the plastic juice bottle in a different bin isn't going to save
humanity. Have fun while you still can.
 Interviewers often remark upon the discrepancy between Lovelock's predictions of doom, and his good humour. "Well I'm cheerful!" he says,
smiling. "I'm an optimist. It's going to happen."

I like this guy. Thanks, Loam, for that article. It was a great read, and I plan to buy his upcoming book.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 08:20 PM by Dulcimer
|
Anyone interested in this dork should read his interview with Rolling Stone a few months back.
He contradicts nearly everything he says.
I cannot remember the issue, but I still have it. Might have to dig it up.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |