Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Angus]

Yet more, since I just browsed the news. Has a little to do with biology, but it is nothing we get told with emailing greensiding "scientists", rather with the reality of life. My neighbour, the Inuit folks of Greenland:
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/erlent/2009/12/03/bradnun_dregur_ur_veidum/
Hope the link works.
The bottom line there is that the sea ice is turning into little chunks and mush while quite some areas of land are opening up to the possibility of mining and oil search. Fish is migrating differently, so the catch is a bit screwed up.
This is not something out of a "scientists" mouth, but really from the horse's mouth. Greenland-Iceland-UK (Read GIUK, hehe) region of ocean body is changing and that is quite rapidly. Since I've been in both the fish (land based and at sea) as well as the agriculture,  -and I have been to Greenland, - I can absolutely confirm what those neighbors of ours say. Same goes with Norway. For us who work with nature, GW is not a theory, but rather a part of the job, and we are already making measures to both defend ourselves against the negative sides as well as gaining from the positive sides. No joke!!!!
Planning on rapeseed oil next year.....

[33Vortex]

Deforestation is probably of bigger concern than fossil fuel CO² emissions. However there are some big international corps making huge profits on deforestation so they won't touch that issue. Deforestation is not just about CO² it also releases water bound by the trees. Enough to make the sea level rise? I don't know, but it may have an impact. Every tree hold on average 2000 liters, or 2 m³ of water.

[CAP1]

Sow how many of you all belive that the human terraforming (read deforestation) as well as added components into our atmosphere has no impact at all????????

(FYI, I belive that since co2 has reached enormous amounts in the past, it won't be the end of times with some GW, just VERY uncomfortable when "hell" breaks loose, - much more uncomfortable than the measures being taken, - and even I am a bit sceptic on them)

actually, i believe that deforestation is a much much larger problem than anything else we could do to hurt the climate.

 just like anything.....it's not too bad....in moderation. but as humans, it appears as if we cannot do anything in moderation. we push it.

[CAP1]

Yet more, since I just browsed the news. Has a little to do with biology, but it is nothing we get told with emailing greensiding "scientists", rather with the reality of life. My neighbour, the Inuit folks of Greenland:
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/erlent/2009/12/03/bradnun_dregur_ur_veidum/
Hope the link works.
The bottom line there is that the sea ice is turning into little chunks and mush while quite some areas of land are opening up to the possibility of mining and oil search. Fish is migrating differently, so the catch is a bit screwed up.
This is not something out of a "scientists" mouth, but really from the horse's mouth. Greenland-Iceland-UK (Read GIUK, hehe) region of ocean body is changing and that is quite rapidly. Since I've been in both the fish (land based and at sea) as well as the agriculture,  -and I have been to Greenland, - I can absolutely confirm what those neighbors of ours say. Same goes with Norway. For us who work with nature, GW is not a theory, but rather a part of the job, and we are already making measures to both defend ourselves against the negative sides as well as gaining from the positive sides. No joke!!!!
Planning on rapeseed oil next year.....

correct. those areas ARE indeed warming some.

 the point i keep trying to make(and others too) is that while those areas are warming, other areas are cooling. in time it'll change yet again. it is the natural life cycle of the earth............and again...we cannot stop it, nor can we change it. if one could flip a switch, and every single human being was instantly gone from the planet, along with everything manmade, the planet would continue along just as it is now. it just wouldn't have us fighting over silly stuff.

[CAP1]

Deforestation is probably of bigger concern than fossil fuel CO² emissions. However there are some big international corps making huge profits on deforestation so they won't touch that issue. Deforestation is not just about CO² it also releases water bound by the trees. Enough to make the sea level rise? I don't know, but it may have an impact. Every tree hold on average 2000 liters, or 2 m³ of water.

it's quite notable and funny, that as we developed automotive emissions systems, co2 was good to see in the exhaust. it's a byproduct of the catalytic converter doing its job.

[33Vortex]

Besides, if they want to tax CO² emissions, why not tax the companies supplying these fuels? Why not go straight to the source of the problem? Of course that's not an option, because that'd cut corporate profits. So instead they put the tax burden on the people, already heavily laden with taxes. They just keep pounding the punchbag taxpayer for more money. So how far does this circus have to continue before people wake up and realize just how small our crumbs are while the corporations (banks primarily) take our money?

[bozon]

Deforestation is probably of bigger concern than fossil fuel CO² emissions.
...

it's quite notable and funny, that as we developed automotive emissions systems, co2 was good to see in the exhaust. it's a byproduct of the catalytic converter doing its job.

Vortex hit the real issue with CO2 scare. It sends way too much resources that need to be used to fight the real and much more imminent environmental issues. Deforestation, pollution, etc. As CAP1 says, CO2 is a good by product. It is a natural gas is easily processed in the biological eco system. It is even essential and having a little excess of it is not likely to cause sever damage (according to some scientists). Other pollution is much more dangerous on a much shorter timescales and the bad effects are undisputable. The scientists that I know to work on the atmospheric radiation transfer get into it (they are astrophysicists) because they consider the CO2 bluff to be a danger to the environment by sidetracking the efforts and resources, not to mention discrediting science.

[Kev367th]

I see Al 'baby' has cancelled his trip and talk at Copenhagen, hmmmmmm, wonder why?  

Seriously though.
If a scientist in any OTHER field of research -

a) Destroyed primary data
b) Subverted the peer review process

Would be totally discredited.

For
a) Blocking FOIA requests
b) Deleting data subject to FOIA requests

They would be prosecuted and sacked.

Lets see the results of the CRU investigation, business as normal I bet.

[CAP1]

I see Al 'baby' has cancelled his trip and talk at Copenhagen, hmmmmmm, wonder why? 

HOPEFULLY we(the US) stay away from there too......

[Kev367th]

HOPEFULLY we(the US) stay away from there too......

Obama is going, isn't going to change.

Only thing that will de-rail the whole thing is if the majority of people turn against AGW. As soon as that happens watch the politicians change their minds when there are more votes from being anti AGW.

Lets face it, in reality politicians only do what is good for them, the actual issue is irrelevent.

An example-
Wind and solar energy can never totlly replace our current methods of generating power etc. They just aren't efficient enough.
The only current tech that can is Nuclear power, but thats a no no because of the Green vote.

[CAP1]

Obama is going, isn't going to change.

Only thing that will de-rail the whole thing is if the majority of people turn against AGW. As soon as that happens watch the politicians change their minds when there are more votes from being anti AGW.

Lets face it, in reality politicians only do what is good for them, the actual issue is irrelevent.

An example-
Wind and solar energy can never totlly replace our current methods of generating power etc. They just aren't efficient enough.
The only current tech that can is Nuclear power, but thats a no no because of the Green vote.

yea, i know that about them. it's been that way longer than anyone will admit.
 i believe that even if the majority did turn against it, he'd still sign though. he's a non-caring sob.

[33Vortex]

He will sign it, no doubt about that. There could be a full scale revolution in the streets of the USA and he'd still sign it. The politicians don't need the votes when the system can be rigged, and it can. Not necessarily in terms of vote counts but when it comes to promoting candidates. If you really think that Obama is running the show, think again. He's a major league puppet, the #1 puppet I'd say. Who's pulling the strings then you might wonder, well look in the direction of the banks for the answer to that question. The elite prefer to be anonymous, and they remain in the shadows.

 

[Angus]

Deforestation is probably of bigger concern than fossil fuel CO² emissions. However there are some big international corps making huge profits on deforestation so they won't touch that issue. Deforestation is not just about CO² it also releases water bound by the trees. Enough to make the sea level rise? I don't know, but it may have an impact. Every tree hold on average 2000 liters, or 2 m³ of water.

Absolutely! And it also alters the surface of the earth quite a bit!

[indy007]

The bulk of deforestation comes from the dirt-poor in 3rd world countries, using it as building materials and firewood. The "evil corporation" theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[33Vortex]

So that's what they are using the rain forest for!