Czech President Klaus ready to debate Gore on climate change - Page 2 - PhillyBlog

johnnie · #11 (**permalink**) 05-31-2008, 06:43 PM

Humans can regulate the number of icebergs?

That is the funniest joke I have heard in years!

frankdialogue · #12 (**permalink**) 05-31-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezra

Global warming is natural. Same as Global cooling.

The point is not to overtax the ability of the Globe to regulate temperatures. Warming/Cooling is going to happen naturally but do you really want your spawn to be alive during an age without iceburgs or too many of them?

You can question Gore but do you question that the icecaps are melting? Do you question the effects that can have?

No point in debating. Either you work with Nature or you work against it and be willing to face the consequences.

Let me offer an answer to the part of your quote I have highlighted...What effect would arctic melting have?...Consider this: Greenland was once actually GREEN, due to the effect of warmer temperatures...you could grow various crops there, and it could support human life more easily...if the arctic became considerably warmer, due to the natural cycles you mentioned, then 1) It would be much easier and cheaper to extract mineral resources from the region...2) It would make the area more hospitable for human habitation...3) Although some animal species might die off, or have their numbers reduced, this warming would see the influx of other species, both on land and in the oceans adjoining the region...and also note: most of these alarmist models are based on 'computer projections'...any climate change that takes place will be gradual, and animals and fuana will adapt.

Illiniwek · #13 (**permalink**) 05-31-2008, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezra

You maintain a staff and an office like Gore does? Or do you think he personally uses 20x more energy than you do?

Gore buys carbon offsets to make up for his high energy use.

I'm just talking about his home and autos, information about which is public record, not his business.

Ezra · #14 (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 05:17 AM

Youse are being snarky with your lobbying comments but its partly true. If the US had the same emissions standards as Europe ... we'd already be that much better off.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/2008.htm

You think Greenland will become pastureland and that's it? Happy cows, positive result, nothing bad will happen?

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ad...l-warming.html

That's... miop... optimistic...

Quote:

interview with Harvard University zoologist Edward O. Wilson

Q: As you've helped teach us, we're losing biodiversity at a rate that compares with the great mass extinctions of the prehistoric past. If nothing is done over the next century, how is the earth going to be different?

A: If we continue at the current rate of deforestation and destruction of major ecosystems like rainforests and coral reefs, where most of the biodiversity is concentrated, we will surely lose more than half of all the species of plants and animals on earth by the end of the 21st century.

Q: Is that loss going to happen in isolated patches, or will it be worldwide?

A: Most of the destruction will be from what we today recognize as the "hot spots," where there already is lots of diversity and where habitats are being destroyed. These are primarily but not entirely in the tropics.

Q: A hundred years from now, will America look much different?

A: In the United States the trajectory is less threatening, but even here we would see a shrinkage of fauna and flora over most of the country. And especially in our own hot spots, such as Hawaii and California. For example, in Hawaii alone, where species are disappearing at one of the highest rates in the world, there are more than 100 species of trees that consist of 20 individuals or fewer. So in a century, America would still be biologically rich in most places. But without a stronger conservation policy, it would be partly impoverished, and especially locally a lot of individual states would lose species.

The natural-heritage program of the Nature Conservancy estimates that about 1 percent of native American species of plants and animals have become extinct already, and another 30 percent are in some degree of vulnerability. Even in our national parks, a substantial percentage of mammals have gone extinct-even though they're protected-because the parks are too small.

Q: How will the loss of biodiversity affect human life?

A: On a global basis, I have no doubt at all that there would be severe effects on the quality of life-support systems such as watersheds and air quality and rainfall.

For example, in the Amazon rainforest, a large part of the rain that falls comes from evaporation from the forest itself. As the forest is removed, then a major source of rain is also removed, and substantial parts of the whole Amazon basin could be turned into permanent grassland, with effects radiating out into the breadbasket states of southern Brazil. They would be prone to drought if the Amazon basin dried out.

Q: What has made you so personally interested in this issue?

A: I was a naturalist virtually from childhood, from the age of about nine, when I went out exploring the woods and the fields where we lived. Growing up, especially in Alabama, I would go off on my own, exploring nature because it gave me so much pleasure. I did this right up through my college years-at the University of Alabama and Harvard. The same thing happened later, when I began doing research in the tropics. Especially in the tropics, I became aware of how little of the natural environment has survived.

And so, since my main interest has always been biodiversity, I've been keenly aware that a large part of it was going down the drain. At times, it's made me feel alarmed or depressed.

Q: When did you first become alarmed?

A: In the 1950s, when I was a graduate student and going out to do field research in the tropics. I saw the destruction even then. But I didn't become active in the global environment movement until the late '70s. Up to that time I thought that scientists could pretty well stand aside and let the conservation organizations take care of the activism and building of reserves and restoration of lost habitats. But then I came to realize-especially when others in my field were becoming active in conservation, such as Tom Lovejoy, who is now at the World Bank, and Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden-that scientists had to cross over and get involved because the biodiversity was just disappearing too fast. Conservation organizations did not have the scientific know-how they needed to do planning on a systematic and global scale. That's when I got active.

Q: So did the activist groups change for the better as a result?

A: Yes, but I wasn't solely responsible. I did help change the policy of the World Wildlife Fund-U.S. when I became a member of the board of directors. In the early '80s the World Wildlife Fund changed from an emphasis on specific charismatic species-the giant panda, the leopard, whatever it was-as targets for conservation to biodiversity as a whole. The goal became to save the ecosystem. The effect would be not just to protect the charismatic species but all the rest of the habitat that they need to live. Another shift occurring at that time was also very important. The economic and social welfare of the people who live around the protected areas began to be taken into full account. An environmental program today involves what saving the environment can do for the people, how it can be fitted into the local economy and given value that people immediately understand.

Q: This brings up the question of what individuals can do. Do you think individuals can make choices that matter in the big picture?

A: That's something everybody should do. I would not eat swordfish, for example. It's one of the species driven to commercial rarity. But more important, I think we should be more alert about not buying or using products from species that are protected by cites [the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species]. Also, there are a lot of personal habits that, if moderated only in this country, could contribute significantly to saving endangered species.

Q: Like what?

A: Eating imported beef. Before we realized what was happening, the importation of beef from Costa Rica was a significant factor in removing most of its rainforest. Costa Rica has been essentially stripped of its forest in the past 50 years.

Another good example is coffee-shade-grown versus open-field. Shade-grown coffee is planted among the trees of the natural forest and not in cleared fields. Most aficionados agree that it tastes better. I don't drink coffee, so I'm just quoting. When people ask for shade-grown coffee, they're protecting the forests of Latin America, where a large part of the biodiversity continues to be preserved. If you leave enough of the canopy of the forest and enough of the leaf litter, it's not the same as the original rainforest, but it still has a lot of the biodiversity in it.

Q: Do you think the public has grasped the value of whole ecosystems?

A: Apparently only a minority understand this. The last survey that I know of shows that roughly 20 percent of Americans understand what biodiversity is.

Q: Still, you've said you have hope?

A: I believe that the fate of the world's flora and fauna depends on a combination of science, education, and ethics. We have to get a much better scientific understanding of where biodiversity is and what's happening to it and its value for humanity. And we have to get an understanding of biodiversity into the mainstream of public consciousness so it becomes a principal factor in economic and social policy.

Will this happen? I believe it can, and it must happen soon. The world environment is changing so fast that there is a window of opportunity that will close in as little time as the next two or three decades. I've always thought that we would lose a lot of biodiversity, but how much is hard to say. It could be something like 10 percent of species. But that is far better than the 50 percent or more we will certainly lose if we let things continue as they are today.

http://audubonmagazine.org/biodiversity.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankdialogue

Let me offer an answer to the part of your quote I have highlighted...What effect would arctic melting have?...Consider this: Greenland was once actually GREEN, due to the effect of warmer temperatures...you could grow various crops there, and it could support human life more easily...if the arctic became considerably warmer, due to the natural cycles you mentioned, then 1) It would be much easier and cheaper to extract mineral resources from the region...2) It would make the area more hospitable for human habitation...3) Although some animal species might die off, or have their numbers reduced, this warming would see the influx of other species, both on land and in the oceans adjoining the region...and also note: most of these alarmist models are based on 'computer projections'...any climate change that takes place will be gradual, and animals and fuana will adapt.

ChiefSalsa · #15 (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 10:51 AM

Ezra,

E. O. Wilson is the voice of Enviro-philosophy. His essays are very interesting. In the end, he is still an eco-nut looking to tell all of us what to do---with no HARD evidence that it is truly necessary.

I do not understand your angle on this. You know if we turned over control of our lives to these whack jobs that they would reign more terribly then any GOPers has(in your mind).

Would you really feel better if the guys in dark suits and sunglasses were enviromentalists?

Ezra · #16 (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 11:15 AM

Salsa,

I'm not saying we should turn control of our lives over to anyone. Left or Right. All I'm saying is that we as a Nation should level out those graphs I posted. Mitigate the American-human impact on Nature. I know without a doubt that it's a pipedream but we could actually work with Nature and not against. I also know the Jesus Freaks expect to be Raptured at any moment so we should use the Earth up while we're still on this plane of existance but... that's another story.

The only reason I think legistators should get involved is because much better ways of doing business exist and major manufactures ought to be forced to do the right thing if they don't do it voluntarily.

Anyway... it would just be nice if the philosophy towards Nature wasn't one of rape / pillage. If all the polar bears died tomorrow would it effect my life? Not really. But it would suck none-the-less. If Greenland became a pasture and Florida turned into a ski-resort... would it matter to me personally? No. Do I think these things happen cyclically? Yes. But at a rate of speed that the flora and fauna can survive in a balanced fashion.

How many people in 3rd world countries die annually because of drought? Millions? Sure... their fault for being born there. But if the forests weren't being decimated, if the potable water wasn't being drained for making sodapop and drilling oil and poisoned by factories... things would be different.

Whatever, I'm not keen to go off on a bleeding heart rant... I'm not interested in a debate on this topic. Either you think we are having a negative impact and you act accordingly or you don't and you keep on keeping on.

ChiefSalsa · #17 (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezra

Either you think we are having a negative impact and you act accordingly or you don't and you keep on keeping on.

Put me in the Pass the Nachos column.

Having eco-nuts drive countries to their means will not save one unfortunate life.

And if the Earth is getting hotter, does that not give us a chance to farm more?

Sam Kinison said we should not send starving people in Africa food. He said we should send them moving trucks.

To sum up, Global Warming is the 2nd biggest fraud ever brought to humanity. We have wasted so much time on this poorly wrote disaster movie plot, that it has taken time, money, and logical discourse away from the real problems facing humans in their relationship to the enviroment. Namely: Clean air, drinkable water, and urban sprawl.

raider.adam · #18 (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezra

You maintain a staff and an office like Gore does? Or do you think he personally uses 20x more energy than you do?

Gore buys carbon offsets to make up for his high energy use.

I love the carbon offset plan - "Letting people with money feel good about the environment".

Ezra · #19 (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 02:47 PM

True. Buying offsets sounds gay to me.

raider.adam · #20 (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezra

You maintain a staff and an office like Gore does? Or do you think he personally uses 20x more energy than you do?

Gore buys carbon offsets to make up for his high energy use.

I love the carbon offset plan - "Letting people with money feel good about the environment".