Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Attenborough calls for climate change action


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

The naturalist believes that world leaders are in denial over the dangers posed by global warming.

With a career spanning over six decades, sir David Attenborough has had more experience than most when it comes to witnessing first hand the effects of climate change on the natural world.

Read More: http://www.unexplain...e-change-action

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relax Attenborough, take a breath, you are just bothering zealotry,man.

In the last 10 millions (or even 2-3 degrees of order less for sure) earth has since drastically weather changes. This is normal, the weather does change, deserts are created, glaciers can cover new areas, this is what is happening here on earth.

So stop the apocalypse predictions and look at the facts.

Schizo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost every conservative Republican I know is in complete denial over climate change and extinction. It's all part of God's plan and the Earth is ours they say. Sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well , the seas of the East Coast of the US is mainly a dead zone almost , so no point making a fuss , its already too late.

Oceanic Dead Zones Continue to Spread

Fertilizer runoff and fossil-fuel use lead to massive areas in the ocean with scant or no oxygen, killing large swaths of sea life and causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage

August 15, 2008 |By David Biello

More bad news for the world's oceans: Dead zones—areas of bottom waters too oxygen depleted to support most ocean life—are spreading, dotting nearly the entire east and south coasts of the U.S. as well as several west coast river outlets.

According to a new study in Science, the rest of the world fares no better—there are now 405 identified dead zones worldwide, up from 49 in the 1960s—and the world's largest dead zone remains the Baltic Sea, whose bottom waters now lack oxygen year-round.

  • Scientific AMerican link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how conservatives still cling to the "relax, it's all fine" attitude. Reminds me of a vet calming an animal as he's administering a lethal injection. They're right about the natural cycle though... it's called extinction.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

God will find a way ?

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God will find a way ?

~

He's gone A.W.O.L and changed his phone number, because He's sick of Humans complaining
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relax Attenborough, take a breath, you are just bothering zealotry,man.

In the last 10 millions (or even 2-3 degrees of order less for sure) earth has since drastically weather changes. This is normal, the weather does change, deserts are created, glaciers can cover new areas, this is what is happening here on earth.

So stop the apocalypse predictions and look at the facts.

Schizo

I did. The last time global mean temps were this high was 4000 years ago when CO2 levels were around 300 ppm. The last time CO2 levels were this high was about 15 million years ago. For comparison, the great ice ages began about 12 million years ago when the Straits of Panama closed, re-routing ocean circulation. And 4000 years ago, the earth's orbital cycles (Milankovic Cycles) were considerably different from today.

Climate cycles are normal, but the extra heat we see now is not part of a cycle. How do we know? Because you model it by simply adding an exponential curve to whatever other model you are using. Cyclical curves repeat. Exponential curves don't.

I work with tree rings and have done some simple regressions using temperatures and CO2 levels. Ring width seems to be more sensitive to CO2 than to temps. But worldwide we have what is called the "convergence problem" - tree rings are becoming less sensitive to drought/rainfall and more sensitive to CO2. The important point is the fact I can model them and increasing temps and CO2 is having a measurable effect. If this were not the case, my models would not show significant correlation.

Doug

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To stop global warming you would have to stop population growth. To stop population growth you would have to formulate an economic system that functions exactly opposite of the economic system we currently have. To do any of the above you would have to have a global government that could implement these changes either through force or complete trust of the people that elect them.

This is NOT going to happen. Global climate change is a certainty. They can spew all the bull**** they want!

The only thing that I can think of that would trump the above is if some wise geneticist that deals in weaponizing viruses were to develop an extremely contagious virus that sterilizes 99% of the human population. Think of the movie 'Children of Men'.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

YAWN. This climate science fiction is beyond tiresome. Fake "models" designed to "prove" the hoax, doctored data, and a cry that "only communism can save the world", only spell one thing, BULLS**T.

You people whining about "Conservative this, and Conservatives that" need to take your intolerance and hatemongering to another site that caters to such ignorance and one-track thinking; HuffPo, or Salon, not here.

I'm not even Conservativw, so keep you hate replies to yourselves. I follow the evidence, and there is no VALID evidence supporting AGW, ZERO. "It true because blah blah said so" is not "proof" either. When you consider that only commie "scientists" (and political science is not real science) are the ones making the claims, that's an instant red flag.

If any of you climate cultists can bear to deal with reality, this will get you started so have a read:

http://junkscience.com/2011/09/08/the-nonsensus-97-to-98-of-climate-scientists-believe-in-global-warming/

http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_global_warming_hoax_of_1874

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe in Climate Change or you do not believe in it , no difference , the future is scary , and there is nothing we can do about it .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

YAWN. This climate science fiction is beyond tiresome. Fake "models" designed to "prove" the hoax, doctored data, and a cry that "only communism can save the world", only spell one thing, BULLS**T.

You people whining about "Conservative this, and Conservatives that" need to take your intolerance and hatemongering to another site that caters to such ignorance and one-track thinking; HuffPo, or Salon, not here.

I'm not even Conservativw, so keep you hate replies to yourselves. I follow the evidence, and there is no VALID evidence supporting AGW, ZERO. "It true because blah blah said so" is not "proof" either. When you consider that only commie "scientists" (and political science is not real science) are the ones making the claims, that's an instant red flag.

If any of you climate cultists can bear to deal with reality, this will get you started so have a read:

http://junkscience.c...global-warming/

http://hoaxes.org/ar...ng_hoax_of_1874

There you show your source of science - politicans and paid think tank advocates. Really that consigns everything you said to the dustbin of irrelivance. Come back when you have some real facts to discuss.

Not even conservative my ****.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

If you believe in Climate Change or you do not believe in it , no difference , the future is scary , and there is nothing we can do about it .

it is scary but there are certainly things we could do, and are doing. Solar is the fastest growing part of thge energy sector - far outstripping fossil fuels in its growth rate. That shows we are actually doing something. Whether its enough is debateable - but the attitude that we can do nothing is playing right into the hands of the fossil fuel advocates.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only one minor thing.

Isn't he a number of years late calling for change? Imagine if we only just begun to take it seriously and study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snip - whatever. not panicking or worrying. life goes on until it doesn't. I live as green or greener than most, so the rest of you just follow me into oblivion singing sinatra songs or whatever.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

Only one minor thing.

Isn't he a number of years late calling for change? Imagine if we only just begun to take it seriously and study.

It should at this stage be among the top 5 priority issues guiding world policy, but it is not. As such it might be said that it is to late and I generally tend towards that perspective.

However, if we take this Nihilstic position it means that we do little or nothing to address the fundamentals and it means failure is inevitable. I don't personally want to admit failure at this stage as I have children who will suffer as a consequence. Its not just me who can allow myself to sink into nihilism, i represent a billions of years of evolution and I represent the thousands of generations of people who could exist after me.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost every conservative Republican I know is in complete denial over climate change and extinction. It's all part of God's plan and the Earth is ours they say. Sure

What a lie. Repeat propaganda much? I doubt you even have conversations about this subject outside of the safe environment of your keyboard. Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

The truth is that the climate has been changing on the planet earth since it came into existence. To believe that action should be taken such as filling the ocean with iron dust, building giant mirrors in space to reflect heat away from us or any of the other cockamamie suggestions I've read in the last few years is stupid. Obviously human activity has some affect on the climate but not near what climate change alarmists are suggesting. If the climate does change to the point that it drastically reduces the number of people or other species on the planet that is just nature correcting a problem and is also natural. To suppose that anything that we can do is outside of nature is in a way preposterous IMO. We are correcting it and drastic action will not be taken planet wide unless you want to use nukes to kill everybody and who doesn't believe that would be bad for the environment?

There are no natural cycles which can account for the rate of warming - we are the primary cause and therefore it is not part of the natural climate change which always goes on. natural climate change is slow and steady with definite identified drivers and occassional lurches as specific geological events take place. Climate science is all about investigating natural cycles so that we can decide how much effect we are actually having. What is happening now is our fault and we are the people who can make decisions which will accellerate or slow what is happening.

The simple problem is that what we have to do is not simple, we have to move away from a growth based model of existence at every level. We have to place value of resouces (such as habitats) which do not naturally figure on economic balance sheets. We have to realise that if there are places in the world which are in abject poverty it will have direct consequences for how we live in our own corner of the world since weather is no respector of national borders. Its tough and there aren't any people in charge who really want to grasp the nettle and make the systemic changes towards sustainability as a natural way of living.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

What a lie. Repeat propaganda much? I doubt you even have conversations about this subject outside of the safe environment of your keyboard.

There is a strong statistically significant correlation between been socially conservative/economiocally liberal and climate change denial.

We examine whether conservative white males are more likely than are other adults in the U.S. general public to endorse climate change denial. We draw theoretical and analytical guidance from the identity-protective cognition thesis explaining the white male effect and from recent political psychology scholarship documenting the heightened system-justification tendencies of political conservatives.

We utilize public opinion data from ten Gallup surveys from 2001 to 2010, focusing specifically on five indicators of climate change denial.We find that conservative white males are significantly more likely than are other Americans to endorse denialist views on all five items, and that these differences are even greater for those conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well.

Furthermore, the results of our multivariate logistic regression models reveal that the conservative white male effect remains significant when controlling for the direct effects of political ideology, race, and gender as well as the effects of nine control variables.

We thus conclude that the unique views of conservative white males contribute significantly to the high level of climate change denial in the United States

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5000/mccright_2011.pdf

The correlation is quite straightforward and obvious to anyone with a cursory speck of honesty. Those people most heavily invested in the current economic and social status quo are most strongly inclined to deny climate change because of its obvious consequences in leading to a need to change the current social and economic order. Now there's a surprise.

Br cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a lie. Repeat propaganda much? I doubt you even have conversations about this subject outside of the safe environment of your keyboard.

I take it you know some conservative Republicans who are not climate change deniers. I have never met one, personally, but I suspect there may be one or two around. Would you mind telling us who they are?

There is a lot to know about climate and how the climate system functions. I am sort of a climatologist (dendrochronologist) and I can't say I'm really up to snuff on the functioning of the climate system. But I do know enough about it to write a professional paper on it (currently in peer review), do a poster presentation on it (March in Knoxville) and address a statewide meeting on it (May in Oklahoma City).

So let me ask: what are you doing to demonstrate that global warming isn't real? Or are you just repeating propaganda?

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To stop global warming you would have to stop population growth. To stop population growth you would have to formulate an economic system that functions exactly opposite of the economic system we currently have. To do any of the above you would have to have a global government that could implement these changes either through force or complete trust of the people that elect them.

This is NOT going to happen. Global climate change is a certainty. They can spew all the bull**** they want!

The only thing that I can think of that would trump the above is if some wise geneticist that deals in weaponizing viruses were to develop an extremely contagious virus that sterilizes 99% of the human population. Think of the movie 'Children of Men'.

Over-population is the core issue. That is gradually coming under control; although, whether it's because of forward-looking people or simply running out of resources is up for debate. Much of Europe has already reached ZPG; the US should get there about 2050 - maybe; and the world as a whole by the end of this century. We have already passed the inflection point - the point at which population growth stops accelerating and starts decelerating. Population should peak out about 2100 at just under ten billion. But that's a problem. We are at seven billion right now and ten billion is almost another 50%. Resources - and the climate system - are already under stress and a 50% population increase will make it worse.

The best defense seems to be women's liberation and education. Given the freedom to decide their family size, most women chose smaller families. So how do we help them do that? Women's health programs, birth control, education - things opposed by conservative Republicans and Islamic jihadists. Maybe we could get one group to shoot a few of the others - something both are trying to do.

If we can make better use of our resources and limit carbon emissions, we might be able to accommodate those extra people. Then, as population goes into a long, slow decline, we can pull the earth out of trouble.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best defense seems to be women's liberation and education. Given the freedom to decide their family size, most women chose smaller families. So how do we help them do that? Women's health programs, birth control, education - things opposed by conservative Republicans and Islamic jihadists. Maybe we could get one group to shoot a few of the others - something both are trying to do.

That's hardly conducive to a constructive dialog.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Encouraging article, but I didn't see any Republicans involved - just a statement that they'd better get with it.

Couple of names here. I knew there had to be some somewhere.

I'm not going to do the others. You have succeeded in demonstrating that there are a couple (at least two) who are looking at climate for real.

Things are happening behind the scenes and big money is involved. You don't build transmission lines across whole states without a few Republicans getting their fingers in the pot. I think America will recover from its lunacy, but we'd have done a lot better if we'd bit the bullet ten years sooner.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's hardly conducive to a constructive dialog.

No it's not. It's just a commentary that conservatives would rather throw away a trillion dollars on a needless war than fund a decent women's health care program - and that means decent health care for everybody.

We spent 1.43 TRILLION dollars on wars in the mid-East since 2003. My town - my state - couldn't spend that much if it tried. That's $391,512,662 dollars a DAY. Osama bin Laden said that he was attacking America's economy. That was his objective. He certainly reached it. And we didn't even define a clear objective. It wasn't the US that won the Iran or Afghanistan wars and there's little reason to think that throwing more money at them will produce a different result.

They say Obamacare has serious problems. I agree. But when Obama tried to make it a single-payer system, it was the House Republicans who opposed it. We can't improve the system when we have to deal with a group whose only agenda is to oppose every attempt at constructive dialogue and improvement.

If I were a conspiracy theorist (any of those on here?), I'd start wondering just how it came to be that the Republicans got control of the House to begin with.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.