Blair on global warming

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   
"Poverty and environmental degradation, if unchecked, spell catastrophe for our world "

Tony Blair

Seems tony has got upset about global warming & poverty but is it too late? It appears that he is going to try & bring the issue to world leaders over the next year & try to get people like US to sign onto the Kyoto treaty on climate change & also get more basic sanitation to people living in poverty by 2015.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I reacon if his getting worked up about this now then its probably to late.




posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Poverty is indeed a global problem... but, based on the evidence, I don't believe that global warming is real. For example, in the U.S. we've just had one of the coldest winters ever followed by the coolest summer ever... and the predictions are for another cold, icy winter (perhaps another with record-breaking cold temperatures).



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 03:03 AM
link   

I don't believe that global warming is real


what?

1999


2000


2001


Its effects are being seen all over the world, our weather patterns in Sydney have been out of wack for around 4-5 years, you dont believe in global warming? You just had THREE freak hurricanes down near Florida.




posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 03:12 AM
link   
When westen powers say "poverty is a problem" they really mean "poor people are a problem" 'coz they keep claiming these "rights" and won't let us take all of their resources for free.

Oh and the environment... well as long as big business doesn't have to foot the cleaning bill its considered a great idea. So let the government hand out some taxpayers money to help big business clean up their act.



[edit on 15/9/2004 by Corinthas]



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Poverty is perhaps the biggest threat to the environment we face. While one might think its cool to keep Africans in starvation and without electricity to preserve their culture, those that do usually tend to voice those opinions while sipping a latte at their local climate controlled coffee house. Many people who see global warming as the largest threat are being fed information from a computer model to which current hard data measurements do not corrospond. The Earth's climate is and always has been ever changing. I know the surface is warming but scientifically, its called deglaciation as we are still technically in an ice age on this planet. You must understand that geologically, the period we can study is but a tick of the clock. Ice is not a normal state of the Earth's climate and it will attempt to return to that state before the ice age hit. The largest part of the warming that has taken place over the last 300 years actually preceeded any rise in CO2. Therefore we can conclude that a rise in CO2 levels was an effect and not the cause of global climate changes. More than ever, global warming is being accepted as something that has been and will most likely continue to happen until something stops and reverses it. The theory of global warming attributed to the human race is pretty much only and political weapon and one that is losing ground each day.


The real environmental threats must not be ignored. The blight of poverty is evident in the environment around it. Look at my area, East KY/Western WVA. The trash heaps along streams and roads is just plain ugly in poor areas. The more wealthy areas are clean and pristene. Why? Because when people have their basic needs met, they turn to other causes but its tough for anyone to care about the environment with a hungry stomach, or aches and pains because they have no medical insurance. If we allow treaties like Kyoto to plunge the US into regression in the economy, we risk a widespread threat to the environment. You know, you environmentalist always spout, act locally, think globally. Well, if the care of environment really starts in our own backyards, lets make sure we can all still afford to have one.

A responsible environment begins with cleaning up straight piped sewers, garbage dumps, chemical dumps, and controlling livestock pasture run-off into streams. These are the areas we must concentrate on fixing. While we spend so much time and effort trying to stop the natural processes of the Earth's climate, many of these curable problems are ignored. We may have to deal with the effects of melting Ice caps or thye whole process could reverse taking a cooling trend. Hard to tell since we have no idea just how many factors affect the change. It would be nice to have the answer and be able to point to the opposing political group and dump it all on their shoulders and thats what some espouse to do anyway but its not realistic. Science and politics should never mix.



posted on Sep, 15 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Wise words. I do think that what we are doing is damaging the planet however it is true that it is possible for ice ages to set in in a matter of decades. It happened in the middle ages I believe. The earth's temperature is ever changing, but we are a contributing factor at this point in history. We are smart enough as a race to invent clean energy and to solve starvation throughout the world...but the people who control what is required to do this. . . .



posted on Sep, 16 2004 @ 02:35 PM
link   
sure its happening but in a practical sense, is there anyting we can do? Are all of you willing to boyott your cars (those with them that is) from tomorrow and use public transport and bicycles etc from now on? Even in rain and sleet and snow?
Basically in any trip where you are carrying less than what can safely be carried on the bus/train or on a bike with the use of a rack at the back and/or a big rusksack?
Half of all the carbon monoxide come from the pollution from cars i think and pollution does cause 140,000 premature deaths a year, with an exculating figure. That means by the time you complete your lifetime of driving, you would have contributed to at least one premature death.
We can all slam G W for not joining the kyoto protocols, but we are the cause of half the damage... boycott the car!



posted on Sep, 16 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I am all for alternate fuels and better fuel economy, cleaner running cars and more effective pollution control. The Kyoto protocol was, however written, by some of the worst polluters who had no intention of honoring it in effort to reduce the competition by severely hindering the US economy. This blow would add to the ever increasing problem of poverty to which we have already attributed most environmental threats. There has to be a more gradual and cost effective approach. Number one being stopping Bush, Saudi Arabia and those in league with them from preventing new technology from coming to light. They do this because the so-called 400 mpg engine would pose a huge threat to their ill-concieved fortunes. While the US could not sign into the flawed Kyoto treaty, that doesn't mean I support those who are keeping us dependant on high petroleum consumption. Sometimes things aren't as cut and dried as a the "good guy/bad guy" scenario.

AC



posted on Sep, 16 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   
There is no such thing as global warming. Just another term the government are using to control us using fear.



posted on Sep, 16 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   
There is no such thing as global warming. Just another term the government are using to control us using fear.

We already know, if there was an alternate fuel, the oil companies would go out of business which is exactly what the government don't want. War makes money, oil makes money, these are things which they can and will not allow to be replaced.



posted on Sep, 16 2004 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by electric squid carpet

I don't believe that global warming is real


what?

2001


Its effects are being seen all over the world, our weather patterns in Sydney have been out of wack for around 4-5 years, you dont believe in global warming? You just had THREE freak hurricanes down near Florida.


When the 'hole in the ozone layer' was discovered over Antarctica, some scientists assumed it was due to human causes. Other scientists, on the other hand, think that this 'hole' has been there since the last geological period began, and that it has its own cycle of growth and reduction in size.

Regional, much less global, weather patterns don't occur in 4-5 year cycles. More like 4-5 decades, or 4-5 centuries. What you're observing in Australia is likely part of a bigger cycle. As for the hurricanes that have hit the U.S. this year... sure, it's been a busy hurricane season, but what makes these 'freak' hurricanes? The U.S. has had busy hurricanes before, and will again in the future. Ivan, the worst so far this year, didn't break any records for wind speeds or physical size (it might for flooding though!)...

There is evidence that points to global warming, but there's even more evidence that points to global cooling (and another ice age coming). Even more, all the computer models of global climate assume a static Earth -- but we know that's not true. Nature is self-correcting, and will always seek out a balance.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm a hard-core recycler -- paper, plastic, metal -- and I hate urban sprawl.
I just don't believe in global warming.


Originally posted by Joey Crow
There is no such thing as global warming. Just another term the government are using to control us using fear.

We already know, if there was an alternate fuel, the oil companies would go out of business which is exactly what the government don't want. War makes money, oil makes money, these are things which they can and will not allow to be replaced.


Well, what I find interesting is that the oil companies have known that an end to cheap oil was coming for some time, and they were smart enough to prepare for it. They've all invested billions into alternative energy sources -- especially hydrogen fuel cells, which are about 10-20 years from being ready as consumer products. Sure, they're riding out the cheap oil until it's gone -- which does suck
-- but, when that time comes, those same companies will switch over to the new energy sources, since they'll already own them. Thus, what we now call "the oil companies" will in the future just be referred to as "the energy companies"...


[edit on 9/17/2004 by ThunderCloud]



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 01:12 AM
link   


Well, what I find interesting is that the oil companies have known that an end to cheap oil was coming for some time, and they were smart enough to prepare for it. They've all invested billions into alternative energy sources -- especially hydrogen fuel cells, which are about 10-20 years from being ready as consumer products. Sure, they're riding out the cheap oil until it's gone -- which does suck
-- but, when that time comes, those same companies will switch over to the new energy sources, since they'll already own them. Thus, what we now call "the oil companies" will in the future just be referred to as "the energy companies"...



dude def knows his stuff! Your right, i rememeber reading that, esp in michael moore's stupid white men, and yeah, its blatantly so they will own the next generation of fuel as well. providing for their children who will be future presidents etc,, but at least you cant go to war over hydrogen or water (fueled cars), sugar cane, gas (?) etc.

and i remember michael moore saying that the whole in the ozone layer above Antarctica is about the size of europe now! And also that there has already been whole huge icebergs that have dissapeared as in melted.



here is no such thing as global warming. Just another term the government are using to control us using fear.


hey, there is still pollution out there and it is worrying, asthmatic illnesses and symptoms in cities are on the rise (although maybe some of the people are psychosomatic since i just stopped taking my inhaler one day and have had no further attacks), and trust me, you try cycling around or even jogging in the city, it stinks! And are we not killing off animals and also affecting marine life by dumping in the oceans?



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   
The real environmental crises we're having on Earth right now are water & soil pollution, fresh water supplies running out, and soil depletion. We're not running out of 'natural' land or covering it all over in concrete, or overpopulating the planet.

As a good college buddy of mine, who has a B.S. in Geology likes to say, "Mother Nature can shake us off like a bad cold."
This is not to say that humans don't effect the immediate environments that they live in (as in cities, farms, etc.) -- but the planet as a whole is much more resilient and powerful than many people give it credit for. Compare the pollution a volcano spews into the air to that of human sources. Compare the destruction to the natural environment caused by earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes, to that of human sources (which actually terraform more than destroy)...


[edit on 9/17/2004 by ThunderCloud]



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 02:28 AM
link   
by freshwater supplies does that include the evian water i drink?? and waht about the water cycle? isnt that meant to continually recycle water suplies? By soil depletion u mean us using up all the goodness in the soil? does crop rotation help ofset that at all in the long run?

also i thought in other thread some ppl proposed that some of the tornadoes and hurricanes that are occuring recently could be occuring because of climate change that we have helped bring about? besides, the natural disasters have been aorund for hundreds of thousands of years whereas as we have caused drastic change just within the last millenium really



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Yep it's all about profit. If the government could get away with using oil they could, and they have got more from Iraq for at least the next fifty years. But the alternative fuels will have to be invested one day by those companies. I have heard from my good friend Steve who knows someone who ran his house using his own energy and was independent on his own resources. Of course the powers that be stepped in. The government can't afford to not have energy costs. I suppose they will be requiring the energy companies to charge us double the amount for solar panels.



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Well, considering that they have found that one out of every eight children in our smog-filled cities are developing with reduced lung capacity:

www.personalmd.com...

well, maybe we should be doing something....outside of easing up the pollution restrictions like bush has been doing for the last four years.

And, there is alot that the average individual person could be doing, but isn't.

If we considered the "hidden" cost of the gas that we buy...the subisdies the gov't gives to the oil companies, the cost of keeping the middle east and other third world nations in a semi-stable state so we can have that gas, ect. well I believe that if the true cost of that gas was known to the american public, they would demanding the car companies to redesign their vehicles, they would be reducing their usage.....we'd be buying a horse probably, but that's beside the point. But, the point is, I think if the government hadn't hidden the actual cost from us to begin with, we probably would have been forced to face this problem years ago and wouldn't be having it. But, we do.

And, I can clearly see where americans could reduce the usage. What, how many pairs of shoes do you have in your closet? How many cars are in your driveway? How many TV's? Computers? ect. ect. ect...look around your house and notice just how much crap has been bought that just isn't really necessary. Fuel was burned to make it. If it is something made from plastic, well, someone had to make it. That someone, by making that product has exposed himself to something like a 200% increase in the risk of liver cancer. (that second hand smoke that some americans are trying to remove from their presence only has a 30% increased risk of producing lung cancer in waitresses who are exposed to it on a daily basis! And, more than likely, all the other crap also involved workers increasing their risks of getting a myriad of diseased and illnesses.
Maybe we could reduce the consumption of the unnecessary crap in our lives...that would reduce production of the crap....which would reduce the amount of energy required to produce the crap? Which would lay off people, who we should then put to work rebuilding our intrastructure in a more environmentally friendly world....with workers living closer to their workplaces, and publie transit systems across the county. ect....what, the money we have sunk into rebuilding Iraq probably would have done alot in this respect. and, it ain't like our intrastructure doesn't need the help.

But, anywho.....considering that they have found the smog in our cities at least equally damaging to our children as second hand smoke....which was deemed worthy of action....
and, considering the hassle it is to keep these countries stable enough to get the oil.
and, considering the possible (I believe real) effects it is having on our environment.....
well, would anyone support some sort of gas rationing? could we maybe tighten the laws so that running to countries with no pollution controls isn't rewarded by our gov't?
anyone willing to reduce the amount of crap that they just have to buy, bring home, and then wonder why the heck they bought it?



posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by el_illumbrato


and i remember michael moore saying that the whole in the ozone layer above Antarctica is about the size of europe now! And also that there has already been whole huge icebergs that have dissapeared as in melted.

[quote


Well, I wouldn't take everything Mr. Moore says as absolute fact. He is known to embellish to compensate for his emotional, political agenda. He's not the only one either. To be fair, there are people on both sides who have trouble accepting the facts because it would mean a compromise politically.

During this period of deglaciation, you'll likely see more and more glaciers calve off into bergs and receed. Thus the definition. It has very little to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which only makles up about 4% of the atmosphere but is vital in maintaining life on earth so before knocking it, please educate yourself on what it does. Living on earth during deglaciation beats the hell out of the alternative..just ask the Vikings, who had settled Greenland just a little ahead of the last "Little Ice Age" during the midevil period. Their civilization died out. The warm up over the last 300 years or so is actually recovery from that and is still happening. I know it doesn't mesh well with emotional, political, agendas but as a scientist, I have to place things in proper context.

I agree with Thunder Cloud. We have more immediate, localized environmental concerns to deal with which are being placed on the back burner nationally because they aren't cool. Thats the environmental problem. straight piped sewers, garbage and chemical dumps, and loss of grasslands to filter water. Seems everywhere there is a grassland, some activist wanst to plant trees and start a forest. What they don't realize is that tress block sunlight and cause benificial grasses to die out. This leads to erosion problems as well. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of cutting down existing forest for grasslands, just that we must recognize that most grasslands have been settled by humans so the minimal amount which are left are vital to the water system. The amount of CO2 given off by the mower to cut your lawn is minimal next to the filtering benefits that lawn provides to Earth's water. I know its been hip to criticize people for having large lawns but I think thats been a paramount mistake.



posted on Sep, 22 2004 @ 01:13 AM
link   
im not from usa so i dont know if usatoday is a good paper or a tabloid or what, but heres an article:
www.usatoday.com...

stating: "The region of ozone-depleted air peaked in size over the South Pole on Sept. 11, when it covered 10.9 million square miles, an area larger than North America." which seems pretty large to me.

"
During this period of deglaciation, you'll likely see more and more glaciers calve off into bergs and receed. Thus the definition. It has very little to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which only makles up about 4% of the atmosphere but is vital in maintaining life on earth so before knocking it, please educate yourself on what it does" by astrocreep..

i never knocked c02 and reread my posts to check so hopefully that was aimed at someone else. I only knocked CO aka carbon MONOxide.

Its good to know though that the melting of icebergs is unrelated to humans but then why do people keep harping on about the rising sea levels and forecasting future damage? dont these scientists know about deglaciation?

One ting astrocreep, for all my googling, im having a bit of trouble finding out about the watercycle and grasslands so can you explain how they are used in the water system apart from been used to filter water? And what did you mean by the erosion thing? trees cause erosion or loss of grasslands or a mixture of both? Do you know of any good ecology websites which teach about this sort of stuff including not just types of terrain but also about life cycles of ice ages and deglaciations etc.

by the way, the article i linked says that the ozone layer varies in size, does that mean that its a natural occurance which was trumped up for political purposes?

dawnstar, i get what you mean about how much useless rubbish we collect.

but i never reakky considered the risks that others had to endure for making plastic!
i thought i was doing my bit to help others by not buying my nike etc anymore but i guess my platic gadgets are tainted too.
Also, i have noticed how, say in my house, the theres always like 2 or 3 tvs running even though no-one is watching. I know i burn lots of electricity leaving my LAPTOP (i heard it uses up to 50% less electricity) running 24/7, but its always downloading etc, i dont see why leave the tv on alll the time even when your out if it serves no purpose. I read even leaving domestic appliances etc plugged it when not in use, including tvs, draws a significant amound of electricty when you consider that most hoiuse have one cell phone per person and if its like mine, we all got our own charger left plugged in all the time even when the phone isnt been charged,2+ tvs are left on standby instead of off (or unplugged), hi fis in ceach room etc, all this must be causing a waste in electricity? or does the plug no draw and electricity if the device is not in use? because, say with the mobile phone charger, it still feels warm even if its not been used for a while but is left plugged into a socket in the wall.



posted on Sep, 22 2004 @ 07:27 AM
link   


Its good to know though that the melting of icebergs is unrelated to humans but then why do people keep harping on about the rising sea levels and forecasting future damage? dont these scientists know about deglaciation?


For the most part, no they don't and most won't hear anything other than what suits their political agenda. I'm not denying there is a pollution problem, just that we cannot tie every natural process to it especially when we see evidence of much greater and extreme climate changes in the past.





One ting astrocreep, for all my googling, im having a bit of trouble finding out about the watercycle and grasslands so can you explain how they are used in the water system apart from been used to filter water? And what did you mean by the erosion thing? trees cause erosion or loss of grasslands or a mixture of both? Do you know of any good ecology websites which teach about this sort of stuff including not just types of terrain but also about life cycles of ice ages and deglaciations etc



Well, if nothing else, filtering contaminants from rainwater run-off is reason enough to keep grasslands in tact. Forest do play a vital role in ecology and I don't mean to say that they don't, just that grasslands provide an equal if not more vital resource for floral and fawna alike. Here are a few links I found when googling "benefits of grasslands".

www.usu.edu...

www.eagle.ca...

www.ducks.org...


I'll give you one local example of how it helps suppot ature that was done done thrugh a well-meaning program and had an accidental effect on the positive side of things. Where I live in East KY, most of the grasslands and cane breaks were settled by pioneers centuries ago. All the natural habitat we had left were mountainous forested lands which we used to grow and produce lumber, one of the most replinishing resources we have.

Then coal became a big crop and soon, with the invention of modern mining machines, came strip mining. In his procss, enire mounan tops were removed.

Since the federal govt. has required reclaimation, most of the bald knobs have been sowed in grass to reduce erosion and slow fast moving water as well as filter out any contaminants and its worked pretty well.

The plus side we didn't expect was that since the once-non-existent grassland has came back due to the numerous acres of reclaimed land, our native Elk have been re-introduced and are thriving at three times the rate to which was expected. Other wildlife and fowel which depended on grasslands are now returning too.

While it was a blight on the landscape during mining, I will admit, it is now numerous acres of beautiful flowing grass housing one of the most diverse populations of animals in the world and providing cleaner water resources as well.

www.ahc.caf.wvu.edu...



posted on Sep, 22 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
regardless of what you think the cause of climate change is, it's getting kind of hard to deny that it is happening.

Antarctic Glaciers Melting Faster -Study


channels.netscape.com...

""The Larsen area can be looked at as a miniature experiment, showing how warming can dramatically change the ice sheets, and how fast it can happen," Scambos said in a statement. "At every step in the process, things have occurred more rapidly than we expected."


But not all the melting in the Antarctic can be seen as a "miniature experiment."


The Ross ice shelf, for example, is the main outlet for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, with several large glaciers that could, if they melted completely, raise sea levels by 16 feet. "

By what I hear, I think we can forget about florida's citrus crop, as well as california's wine industry. Our home insurance will probably be skyrocketing, not just the result of the hurricane damage done in florida, but the effects that we felt all along the east coast. Sorry, I don't remember ever seeing like it and there's still three hurricanes/tropical storms out there running around.

The pentagon has warned about global warning, Blair's science advisor has warned about global warning, NASA has warned about global warning, gee, just how many warnings does this administration need before it will take it seriously? Considering that one in eight kids in our smog filled cities are developing with reduced lung compacity from our pollution, the hassle of keeping our oil interests stable, the weakened position the US has because of our dependance on these countries that provide us with oil. Considering the whole picture, maybe gas rationing would be an appropriate measure, or maybe stashing away a little money for when those rainy days floods out 10 or so blocks of Richmond as well as other cities up and down the east coast. Maybe there should be some sort of legislation passes that discourages companies from moving production overseas, often to places with little or no pollution control standards. And, maybe instead of relaxing our standards we whould be tightening them a little. Maybe the gov't should stop trying to hide the true cost of things like our oil and gas by subsidizing the oil industry with our tax dollar, and let us face the full price of that gas at the gas pump. Ya know it's been said that if we knew the true cost of that gas, we would have demanded more efficient cars a long time ago, and have them by now.

But, instead, the standards are lowered, and our attempts to secure the poiiison that we throw into our environment has put us so far into debt as a nation, saving for a rainy day is a laughable joke!!


Why not take the smoking bans as equally laughable?
Same scientific methods were used to come to the conclusions that were reached.




new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join