I agree that we need a total remake of the economic system.

I could be that at this point it may be necessary to think in terms of disaster mangement and adaptation to new climate conditions.

This would require a world government that is committed to collective well-being of human communities as well as our plants and animals.  Preservation of natural ecologies must also be a priority but it may come down to choices, of choosing the lesser of the evils.

There's a lot of things that don't get discussed at this and similar conferences because, as Michael M'Gonigle points out, dethroning capitalism is not part of the discussion.

If economic and cultural change takes place, it may be because it will be forced on human communities.

 Marzo... yes. at the moment climate change (it's very clearly a real phenomenon and it's very clearly either largely or wholly (that's the scientific debate) the result of human activity. At the moment, the problem is making the future of the planet something that will produce profits for the very people and systems that have already profitted from vreating the mess in the first place: this is seen as necessary because these people and systems hold the bulk of global wealth and power. 

I'm thinking the economic system needs to change first otherwise, anything else we do are fairly useless or, at best, bandaid solutions.

Well yes MO5 I am supicious when there is such "unanimity".  I am especially suspicious when they talk about the "protests"  and "protestors" at Copenhagen.  These groups are mostly present to urge the governmental organizations meeting there to do exactly what by all indications they intend to do anyway.  I would have thought the term "cheerleaders" would have been more appropriate than "protestors".  I note that when some were removed from the scene yesterday for being a little too strenuous or enthusiastic they were detained but none were charged.  No heads are being broken and no charges being laid.  It's not serious ... the cheerleaders are just a little giddy.  We'll be seeing the institution of some sort of cap and trade (which should revive the fortunes of the financial houses that are still cleaning egg off their faces from the debt crisis and need something new to sell).  New technologies that supplant oil (not so much for coal) will be developed at a cost which society is unwilling to pay in order to deprive the middle east and the Muslim world of its power and wealth (but which first world populations will tolerate if they are told they must do so to save mother earth.  Once they have shaped the world economy around "carbon credits" though, it will be very important to make sure nobody comes forward with proof that global warming has a cause (or causes) other than the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or else our whole economic system will collapse.  The comments above show that the latter process is well underway.

By the way, how does our present CO2 centric climate warming theory explain the "little ice age" or the "middle ages warming period"?  (I'll give you a hint ... It doesn't and if it were any good, it ought to.)  But when you consider the bigger picture did it really matter all that much for all the hundreds of years after Ptolemy (and before Copernicus) that the sun did not to orbit the earth as Ptolemy postulated?  What is more important, having the right facts or using the facts (or misconceptions) you have to put money in your pocket and keep the status quo in place (ie.: maintain your position of power)? 

Inherently, we can't do one job first and then another.  The world can't work that way.  It makes our trials and struggles necessary and frustrating, because its always easier to start from scratch.  But I think the tug and pull of environment/social justice/economy is what will bring change.  It builds awareness and the frustration to make change happen... albeit slowly....

imho, the climate change debate comes down to this... we can spend some money now to alleviate the problem now, or we can spend A WHOLE LOT of money later on, when it becomes a crisis.  its our choice.

for me, i'd rather make the change to sustainable energy and a sustainable lifestyle now, rather than have to struggle in a few decades when it becomes a survival IMPERITIVE.

if dudes like harper want to yap about how we simply CAN'T do any more because of the cost, they can do so at their own peril.  because from what i have heard, by about 2020 it will become a crisis, and when it is staring us full on in the face, the cost to deal with it will be far more than he can imagine at this point.

However, sighs, no matter what we do as individuals, as long as market forces are calling the shots (and they are) and as long as industry is by far the biggest contributor to CO2 and pollution of our air, water and land, we will have the crisis being predicted and again, it will be resolved by those with money and power, in their interests.

As people, we can demand that the markets stop driving our every waking decision by refusing to elect any parties that have the welfare of the markets as paramount in their platforms (the trickle-down theory of economics was debunked a long time ago and yet, it's still seems influential when people are voting).

Anything we do until then will not amount to much, if anything. Look at the example of compact florescents -- great idea, they use less energy, last longer, etc. However, the material from which they are made is toxic, they aren't recyclable and therefore, go into landfills, etc. But, they were strongly marketed as green and have government legislation behind them, despite those major problems as well as the unresolved issues surrounding the EMFs (electro-magnetic fields) some of them emit. Not really an answer, at least at this point.

geez, we recycle compact florescent lights here, MO5... you just take them to home depot or RONA.  

they also recycle batteries there.  the bins are ALWAYS full whenever i drop mine off...

as far as the whole 'lobby the government' stuff, i would suggest that is not something everyone can do.  i simply cannot drop everything and go to a protest, or campaign on behalf of the green candidates in my riding.  i can vote, and thats the best i can do on that front.

i think that there ARE people who can do that... i have friends who are GREAT at lobbying, calling, campaigning, etc.  but i can't.

what i CAN do is what i've outlined above. 

personally, i think that everyone needs to do that.  you have to do what you CAN.  to fret and wring your hands over the government leaves you with a feeling of hopelessness and anger.  as a human being, i can tell you that is a CRAPPY way to live... and honestly, what good is working hard to save humanity if you don't ENJOY the world that you are living in??

Mo5

I, like you, am really struggling with this issue.  Contrary to MikePaterson's comment that climate change (aka global warming) is wholly a result of human activity I do not believe that science has proven this to be true. 

In fact I am unsure that science has even proven that global warming has occurred.  My limited understanding is that the global warming proponents are arguing that the climate has increased in temperature by less than 1 or 2 degrees.   If you visit surfacestations.org  you will find a website where people have canvased a large proportion (80%) of the weather stations in the U.S. being used to collect temperature data and have found that the margin of error for the warming that these stations show is huge.  They are finding these weather stations in the middle of parking lots, beside burning barrels, air conditioning vents, BBQs, small shelters with lightbulbs inside of them, etc.  One picture at a different site even has the tail end of jet airplane visible beside the temperature sensor. 

However, even if you say that the climate actually has warmed by the point or two is it C02 related?  Is it human related?  Or is it related to other factors such as sunspots.  Who knows?

I don't know the answers to all of the above but before we destroy the developed worlds economy based upon the supposition that global warming is occuring and it is caused by C02 released by humans I think we need further analysis.

I believe that disproving of the "hockey stick" graph and the emails from "Climategate" all point towards the fact that the science is not settled.

Anonymous, while I am cautious around jumping on the Copenhagen bandwagon, I have no doubt whatsoever that we are mistreating our planet and, with through causing climate change or poisoning wildlife and ourselves, that just can't continue. We are already moving into the position of running out of fish stocks, a crucial component of the majority of people in the world.

I could go on to list many other issues however, I do think we do need to work together to stop the complete misuse of the earth's resources and gifts for growth and profit. This does not benefit the vast majority of life on the planet and something does need to change. The world's economy is built on abuse of the planet, fauna and flora and certainly of most of the world's human inhabitants.

If one is atheist, it would be prudent to consider that life will not be able to be sustained the way we are using the world's resources and, in the lead-up to that time, more and more of the world will be controlled by less and less of the people. More and more gated communities will become the norm and electronic surveillance of the general population will become (is becoming) standard -- so much for democracy when money, not the citizenry, calls more and more of the shots.

If one believes in God, it's hard to believe that the Creator would be happy about the way we have treated the gifts of the earth and the earth itself. We have been given everything we need and yet, many of us want more. That "more" comes at the cost of these gifts and the abundance we have been given. There is nothing beyond that -- and, we have been given the abilities, knowledge and heart to be able to find a way to work together, one big community, so that all have enough and so that our home can continue to sustain us.

I don't believe that the emails that were stolen tell the story that naysayers are putting forth, that being that climate change is not happening and they are manipulating data. I have read about that and, because I work in an area where I know information can be and is distorted, I recognize that those emails, especially taken out of context, do not support that version of events.

well, i think you need to perhaps do some more reading or something, then...

first of all, 'global warming' is not the correct term.  it is more correctly referred to as global climate shift, or climate change.   and it is happening... a friend of mine is a scientist with carleton university, and every year he takes excursions to the poles.  the permafrost is dissappearing at an alarming rate - in fact, by 2016 the arctic will shift to a huge CO2 producer as all the organics that have been frozen in the permafrost will start to decompose and give off their CO2.  this will probably be the point where we will no longer have any control over the CO2 in the atmosphere... it will simply be out of control.  

Mo5

I also have no doubt that we are "mistreating our planet" in many ways.  However, many of those ways have nothing to do with human caused increase in C02.  I am not arguing that we should be doing a better job on pollution, fishery management etc.  I am not yet convinced that a) C02 increases are causing climate change and b) all fluctuations in C02 are human related. 

I agree with you on the need for a community approach to many things.  However, I am not sure that C02 issues are the most important thereof until we know for sure that C02 is the culprit.

As for the "stolen emails", and many signs point to an inside whistleblower rather than a hacker, to my knowledge none of the parties involved have stipulated that the emails are in fact false.  My limited understanding of the emails show that the writers of those emails were performing a lot of smoothing of data etc that places their results under question. 

Sigh

When the alarm bells were first rung by the science community it was referred to as "global warming".  Now it is climate change.  I don't really care what we call it but the key arguement by some is that we need to reduce C02 to stop the climate from changing (stop it from warming to my way of understanding).  I won't argue about the ice as I have no knowledge of that.  My question is what is causing that?  Is it C02?  We do not seem to have proof of that and have even less proof now that the leaked emails are showing shennanigans within many of the key writers of the IPCC reports.

Overall I guess my question is

If the human race was putting as much effort and dollars into identifiable and unargueable pollution and other issues would we be better off than having all this effort and energy going into C02 issues?

I didn't mean for my earlier post to imply that my mind is made up.  Rather, I am curious as I find it hard to believe even 1/2 of what I hear from both sides.

One researcher has found that the climate of Mars is also warming in a parallel manner to that of earth.  Because SUV's have never caught on with the Martians the way they have caught on here and because Mars has, essentially, no atmosphere scientists are at a loss to explain exactly how this CO2 caused phenomenon is taking place there.

Regardless of anything else said on this thread, starting it was worth it just for this line!

Here is another interesting article regarding the inaccuracy of the temperature data sets being used to support the "climate change crisis"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022474/climategate-goes-american-noaa-giss-and-the-mystery-of-the-vanishing-weather-stations/ 

 I am glad to hear some people somehow associated with the United Church who are at least skeptical of the whole global warming bandwagon.

As it was mentioned earlier, when the campaign began, the language was very clear: Global Warming.  When it became apparent, that our dear Earth is not warming, does not fit the model proposed by the funding seeking scientists, the language was changed to Climate Change - which is about as redundant as "The Blue Sky Phenomenon" or "The Wet Water Effect."

There's a thread going on somewhere else about the role of ministers taking political stands on things.  Makes me wonder what the United Church is doing sending the Moderator to Copenhagen.  She certainly doesn't represent my views on the subject - but just going there on my dime!

I know it isn't nice to say bad things about people, but Al Gore is a liar.  Anytime someone tells you "the science is settled..." it should set very large and loud alarms bells off in your head.  And anytime someone owns the means by which his proposed solution to a global problem is solved (Gore, and of all people Maurice Strong are owners of the CCX - the Chicago Carbon Exchange - where all these carbon credits are going to be swapped) -- should send larger and louder alarms off.

Al said the emails recently leaked or hacked ("Climagegate") were all ten years old --- that is simply not true!  Some of them go back that far, but many were from this year.

Wake up people!  Revenue neutral taxation?  Does anyone actually believe our governments are capable of such a thing?  Our governments, here in Canada -- think about e-health scandals, gun registry, and do you really think a whole new level and type of taxation isn't going to rip into your pockets?

Danny Glover was on the news the other day blaming global warming for the earthquake in Haiti --- I really think the issue is making people lose their minds!

 sighsnooties --- ask your friend at Carleton what one of his or her colleagues, Tim Patterson has to say on the subject ---- and also what happened to him when he started disagreeing with the UN's panel on climate/global/shift/warming/change.

 This story isn't likely to grab as much attention to Al Gore's film, although it should.

http://tinyurl.com/yk6r8t3

More and more the science behind all of the hysteria is being exposed for what it is: fraud.

We just experienced the hottest decade in history. Even before that we had been having record and near record temperatures year after year and yet some idiots still want to say that's just a coincidence, it's all made up, and you grasp onto the flimsiest straws you can find. The science IS settled and has been for some time. EVERY piece of new evidence and new data either confirms our current understanding of this or suggests that it could be WORSE that is currently accepted. People who pay attention to reality know this regardless of the illiterati (Granton, anonymous, etc.) would rather con people into thinking.

 Hi jon71,

I am not going to say one way or the other about temperatures rising.  What I am trying to point out is that the debate around what impacts the temperature (up or down) is still a long way from being understood.  Now, in no way is that an argument for not taking care of our planet, not reducing pollution, or not exploring and endorsing clean energy sources.  

What I will also say, is that we are seeing a number of the claims of the Al Gore types, falling by the wayside as their claims are held to rigorous scrutiny.  For example, the melting of the Himalayan glaciers.  That claim scared a lot of people - has been used time and again to promote certain action.  Well, I think people need to know that claim is a lie.  And the UN has now apologized for saying the glaciers are melting:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/20/glacier.himalayas.ipcc.error...

I'm not sure I am the one trying to con people - I don't think you are either --- I do think if we are going to try and "re-jig" our whole global economy we better have more accurate information about why.  What's wrong with that?  (and that's not the same as saying giant oil companies are great guys - okay?)

What's wrong with that is that it's based on a lie, the premise that there's doubt on the science of global climate change. The fact that it is happening has been proven repeatedly and is an absolute certainty. The only point of doubt is the exact pace that we're cooking ourselves. An old Sunday school teacher used to use an analogy. You can put a frog in a pot of water on the stove. If you very slowly turn up the temperature you can cook the frog alive. All it has to do to get out is one simple hop and he's free. The thing is if the temp. increase is gradual enough he won't realize that he's in trouble and will just stay put. Myself and other "reactionaries" are saying "hey it's getting really hot, let's jump" and deniers like you are saying "it's not so bad, let's stay put". On the issue of global climate change inaction brings us that much closer to death.

Btw. I have no idea if the "frog trick" would actually work on a real frog, I've never tried and it works as an analogy regardless.

There was an interview of the CEO of GE in a business magazine that I read in a doctor's office recently.  The CEO commented that his team of specialists, and GE would have some of the best, decided climate warming is a fact and human activity contributing to global warming is a fact.  The challenge is finding the best way of responding.

I don't believe in cap and trade -- it creates employment for a variety of bureaucrats and opportunities for speculation to the same people responsible for our financial instability.  I have long advocated an escalating carbon fee which would go to a pool of environmental funds that would be redeemed for fuels (natural gas, oil, etc) that are converted into durable goods, subsidies for the purchase of energy conserving devices and materials, research, and development.  I want the money separated from general revenues (taxes), because I don't want the spending of these funds to be subject to the whims of partisan governments.  The same kind of fee would apply to other kinds of pollution and would partly go to compensate those injured by pollution, health care, and remediation efforts.

 "What's wrong with that is that it's based on a lie"

- I just can't go along with that sentiment.  That doesn't mean good eco-stewardship isn't important to me.  How about re-forestation everyone?

Granton, that really is the point is it not?

There is no doubt that the global environment is changing - the proof is irrefutable and can easily be found by looking at satellite photos, comparisons of temperatures meticulously recorded for many decades and the shrinking biodiversity of plant and animal life.

Is there a singular cause - probably not.  The world does not exist on singular cause and effect.  It is an interdependent environment where multiple factors collide to sustain or destroy life.

The focus should not be whether man is totally responsible for climate change.  The focus should be what ingredients do we bring to the stew pot of life.   Is it really too much to ask of us to remove the fouling aspects of our participation on this planet?

There are no one off solutions.  Reforestation, while helpful, is not the only answer, neither is just eradicating fossil fuel dependency.  The combination of the two however will make a difference; to the air we breathe and to the life forms that exist in that atmosphere.

The focus needs to expand to see the whole picture....

 I think there is a certain arrogance on "our" part - and by "our" I mean more "developed" countries:  that for the better part of this century, economies and countries have thrived by pillaging natural resources.  I won't get into the fossil fuel issue, but certainly see things like clear cutting forests as a badge of shame to all of us.  So now we get these agreements, Kyoto in particular, telling now developing countries to keep environmental stewardship at the fore - when in reality - we are dependent on their ability to make cheap consumer goods - and can only do so when they aren't required to care for the environment.  Although it is more than curious, or perhaps flawed, that Russia and China were given a pass on Kyoto.

Reforestation isn't as popular because it is a more difficult solution that doesn't as easily lend itself to global taxation like cap and trade.

Of course the climate changes, it changes everyday.  I don't think anyone is denying that.  Starting to sound like a broken record here, but it is the extent to which humans are absolutely controlling or impacting that, that is still the question.

What concerns me the most is that it seems that the 'consensus' isn't like that wonderful elephant up there but, rather, focussed on just one part of the elephant, the one that seems to say "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF WE DON'T STOP THIS!"

And what we end up getting is shunning and politics interfering with the scientific investigations.  The data says what the data says, no matter how uncomforable one feels aboot it.

When I hear 'DENIER!', I cringe and chuckle.  It's just another word for 'Sinner!'

It reminds me a bit of Fascism.  Just a bit (I try not to take that literally, of course).

The good things aboot the reactions;  I felt like, at the Copenhagen Conference, that looky here, all these different people can come together and potentially come together on something.

I think there are better things we can spend our money on.  Like getting rid of poverty.  Clean drinking water for all.  Malaria eradication in Africa.  Uplifting everyone economically so that no one has to struggle to survive.  Getting solar power.

I think the fear is a...distraction from the real things that we can (and are, slowly) changing.  The less-sexy things.

I have great hopes for us.  We've done a good job of surviving ourselves so far :3

Just a Self-writing poem,

InannaWhimsey

Is Carleton University considered fringe?

Did you read the stuff I posted about the Glaciers not melting - and those who said they were admitting they made a mistake and had to apologize?

Posting something doesn't make it true. The glaciers are melting as is the ice cap on antarctica and the most recent data shows it's going at a FASTER pace than originally believed. These are facts, deal with it.

 I agree - posting something doesn't make it true.  It doesn't make it false either.  That's why I think we all owe it to ourselves to look very closely at what is being said.  

I'm just asking what your thoughts are on the item I posted.

What does it say to you when the IPCC says they have based conclusions on "poor application of IPCC procedures..." and that the Fourth Assessment Report was "poorly substantiated" adding that "well-established standards of evidence were not applied properly."  That's got to mean something to you --- those are the words from the IPCC reported on CNN.  I ask, is that fringe?

Sure, they go on to try and control the damage by adding that, just because we messed up in this one area doesn't mean we wrong on everything.  But anyone can see that for what it is: an attempt at spin control.  With so much at stake in this debate, global cap and trade and taxation, international currency implementation etc... it seems to me we had better get ALL the facts in on this.

No, it's another word for fool.

 Me thinks you doth protest too much.

Why are all of these people laughing???

Granton, two lines of a speech are not an arguement.  Having had better things to do than watch the SotU last night I have no idea why they are laughing.

ANyway, Here is a story that seems relevant to this thread

Beshpin you clearly don't care about the truth. "show me the proof" is a lame excuse. Have you once opened up a newspaper or watched a news report in the last 20 years.  For that matter what about in the last few weeks. The past ten years was the hottest decade in history. Was that a coincidence? What about all the record and near record temperatures recorded in the decade before that? How many consecutive years of record and near record temperatures have to occur before you start to realize something is going on? This is settled science and has been for a long time. You either accept that or you accept that you will have no credibility. That is your choice but I will not pretend to take you seriously when you are completely unworthy of being taken seriously.  Look at you, you're trying to make what's supposedly happening on other planets an argument about Earth. Who cares? I am concerned about our climate change, not what might be happening somewhere THAT DOES NOT HAVE A CLIMATE. The fact that you have to stretch that far to find an argument to the contrary is a concession on your part. If anyone should need to be convinced about man made global climate change I'd recommend they look at how desperately the deniers have to grasp at straws in order to make a "case" for what they believe.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100129/ap_on_bi_ge/davos_forum

I read this and instantly remember how one of the deniers tried to con people into thinking a TYPO somehow completely discredited the science behind climate change. Also there was an attempt to use the pettiness used by the scientists whose emails were stolen to convince people that becasue they could be snarky that their research had to be bad. This illustrates the desperation of the deniers and how completely bereft of truth they are.

In my lifetime I have seen the disappearance of two species from our area - both as a result of man's interference with nature.

The Luna Moth

As a child I would see at least one of these beautiful creatures every summer.  I haven't seen one in decades and they are on the endangered list.

This little nondescript fellow is a whip-poor-will.  Again this bird was a part of my youth and the distinctive call in the night a regular feature.  He too is on the endangered list and rumours of his call are viewed as urban legend in Muskoka.

Both these creatures did not survive the chemical and biological weapons used to try to eradicate black files and mosquitoes that posed no threat to humans other than potentially driving them mad.  The black fly and mosquito remain, the moth and whip-poor-will are gone.

The Northern Loon a mascot of Muskoka, found on tourist cups and company logos, was equally threatened.  During the 80s their call was silenced in the area.  However the damage was not as severe and the resulting outcry at the impending loss was finally loud enough to ban pesticides, phosphorus soaps and improve human waste disposal systems into the watersheds.  The loon numbers increased, the siting of mother loons with multiple babies returned and the call was heard again.

However their numbers are declining again and the decline can be partially attributed to the rise of the wake board boat and larger wake producing watercraft that causes soil erosion and destroys the loon's water nests.  It begins again.

In my youth I heard the arguments supporting pesticide use, the claims that improving septic and sewers were too costly, that the damage caused to the natural life forms not as severe as those "tree huggers" were claiming.  I've heard it all before.

It took the very real silencing of summer to wake people up.  It took tourists breaking out in skin rashes from swimming in our lakes.  Dead fish fouling public beaches.  It took death to provoke change.

My question, as it was then, remains:  Why do we wait until the last loon's call echos across a lifeless lake.

LB

The ultimate test of man's conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard.         Gaylord Nelson

 No one denies the climate changes, it is the degree to which human activity is having an impact that is in dispute... of course, if you've got Osama on your side... perhaps I will rethink it!

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/20101277383676587.html

Thank you for returning some relevance to this thread. We are losing species at an alarming rate. In addition to the inherent tragedy of each of those losses it all has a domino effect. Every species eats other plants and/or animals and most are eaten in return. That means with each extinction either locally or globally, the effect spreads throughout the food chain. This will always affect us in ways big and small.

I read a while ago about engineering students being tested. They would build bridges with a certain number of supports. The prof.s would randomly knock out those supports. The best build bridge was the one that was still standing with the most supports gone. Earth is like that bridge. Yes, GOD built it extremely well, but there is a point where we will have destroyed one pillar too many. I want to stop the destruction before it is too late. The deniers are saying "we aren't dead yet, let's continue the destruction". I can't think of a bigger example of a fool than this. It's also a violation of GOD's commandment in Genesis to be good stewards of the Earth. The Bible clearly states that the Earth belongs to GOD and we are held responsible for it during our time on Earth, but it does not belong to us. We have been abysmally bad stewards. I hope more of us wake up and sharply change course before it's too late (hoping it's not too late already).

jon71,

Alright.  Say you are with 5 other people.

Person number one says that Global Warming isn't happening at all.

Person number two says that Global Warming is a result of us having a limited time perception, that climate fluxuates so much that we are in a fluxuation right now.

Person number three says that Global Warming isn't proven to be caused by humans.

Person number four says that Global Warming is happening, but that its effects cannot be predicted, so we should go carefully creating whatever mechanisms we think up of to 'deal with it'.

Person number five says that Global Warming is happening, but that its effects will not be bad.

So, calling someone a Denier, why I think it is the same thing as calling someone a 'Sinner', is that it takes something complex...and makes it simple.

If I call someone a Denier, I don't have to worry aboot thinking aboot what that person says or thinks anymore, because they ARE a Denier.  They are in the Outgroup of my Tribe -- they are outcast, unclean, and deserve derision and shunning.

That is why I do not call people Deniers.  That is why I try not to call people 'Bi*****' or 'Bas*****'.

It makes the complex quite simple and requires no thought at all.

jon71 and Beshpin. No matter how much you are right, if you cause the other person's communications barriers to rise up, communications stops; for that communication to happen again, the barriers have to come down.  Which means a waste of time and energy that could have been better spent in the original communication.  Good luck with that :3

LBmuskoka,

I always enjoy your posts.  They are quite visual and poetic (they have a rhythm to them).  I, too, have witnessed the lowering in the # of animals where I used to live.  I used to live right by a pretty big bog.  It is a wonderful place to wander into, so much life.  There used to be these little millipedes, they were mostly dark brown/black with yellow spots along their sides and if I picked one up and smelled my fingers, they would smell of nutmeg.  The local stream, which was really a drainage ditch that was maintained by the city was beautiful.  There used to be beavers there and they'd, of course, do what beavers do and dam up the stream, causing the service trail to become a little lake.  In another local city, I remember during my elementary trips seeing those wonderful 'Bananna slugs', aboot a foot long and in such colours as green and yellow and black...

But I stopped seeing those, anymore.  The beavers I assumed to have 'moved away', because whenever they made their dams, the city came in and broke them up.  They needed the service trail clear.

But I heard from my brother that beaver signs are coming back to that area :3

Now, I try separate my own views on this (I miss the slugs and the millipedes) from 'what is actually happening in the world.'

I think I have to get away from the romantic notion of an Earth without humans being beautiful or a paradise.  That is a particular BS that is still popular.  I think I also have to get away from the notion of humans not having any impact on an area is GOOD :3  I think humans should have an impact.

I realize that, ferinstance, scientists themselves have trouble saying what a species actually *is*.  There are multiple models.  I also think it is fair to say that species are dying all the time and that, yes, there are groups who want to promote their BS -- it seems to follow a spectrum from 'no species should die out' to 'humans are supreme and it doesn't matter at all if species die out'.  Both are extreme -- and what I call 'pop ecology' follows the first extreme.

Aboot humans having an impact.  The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould came up with this wonderful, subtle idea aboot necessity and contingency.  It is from his fine book Wonderful Life:  The Burgess Shale and The Nature of History.  That, essentially, there are things that must happen (necessity) and there are things that may happen (contingency).  So contingency is "a conjunction of events that occur without design" and necessity is "constraining circumstances compelling a certain course of action."  Ferinstance, necessity allowed the scientists to predict that Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was going to hit Jupiter when and where, but contingency said that they could never know the results of this impact.  The same thing goes for things like history -- we could never have predicted the fall of the Soviet empire because it was contingent on so many things*.  I think the same thing can be said aboot our impact on the planet, there are so many different contingencies, that we can never ever predict what is actually going to happen.

If so, then this is another good idea why everyone should adopt something like Buddhism, some way of 'defragging' one's anxiety :3

In related news, I just read "Sooty footprint shrinks" by Eric Reguly from Feb 2010 issue of Report on Business (The Globe and Mail).  I found it fascinating.  Here is the link http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/sooty-foo...

Just a Self-writing poem,

InannaWhimsey

* I find this idea very similar to my feelings on the Buddhist idea of karma, that nothing happens by itself

jon: Will you chill out man?  None of the 'deniers' on this thread are suggesting we continue the destruction, or at least not the kind LBMuskoka's talking about.  Wasn't Granton advocating reforestation?
(BTW, Granton, reforestation would probably require some increase of taxes in order for someone to pay for it.  Almost no effective policies would NOT involve taxation, except maybe cutting subsidies to oil and other polluting industries.  On the other hand, some of them have 'tax' in their names and are actually quite fiscally sound.  Have you heard of a eco-Tobin tax, like Germany is considering?  It would be a 'microtax', so tiny almost nobody would notice it, on all international transactions, which are so common nowadays anyway that it would still make loads of revenue.  Most countries are considering using this to create some sort of backup money supply in case of future recessions, whereas Germany thinks it would be better spent on an environmental plan.  

If not, it is still possible to make a tax revenue neutral.  Either way, the science and not the cost should be the issue here.)  

Also jon, science can never have absolute certainty.  Scientists don't even believe in absolute space or time, for God's sake.  We can't even say for absolute certain that the Earth is even round.  It's just nobody in the Flat Earth Society has actually disproved that consensus yet.

When you hear people talking in 'absolute certainty', that's called religion.

 Thanks for the comments ShamanWolf --- a couple of points though:

- why is the first move always "new tax?", why not take all of the spending that was commited to global warming, and re-direct it?

- revenue neutral tax?  is that like jobless recovery?  I know you didn't bring it up, but the two phrases are really non-statements.  And the jobless recovery one is really burning my tightie-whities!  Jobless recovery?  Tell that to the laid off auto-worker.  "Don't worry, the economy is in recovery, it just doesn't include any jobs..."

--- Earth not round?  Okay, I'll bite:  What do you mean the Earth might not be round?  Spherical?

For what it's worth, the Earth is slightly oval.

 So now that the world's top global warming scientist, Phil Jones admits there has been no measurable warming in the last 15 years, anyone want to comment?

(sound of crickets...)

(wind howling...)

(rustling leaves....)

Got a link on that?

It's kind of a catch-22. If a person makes a claim that absurd then by definition they can't be a "top scientist", only a fool.

I'll let Phil Jones speak for himself....

Professor Jones denies manipulating data, and said that claims of collusion were "absolute rubbish".

"We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest," he said. He questioned the timing of the leak, just two weeks before the climate change conference to be held in Copenhagen, saying it could be a "concerted attempt" to undermine the science behind global warming in the lead up to the summit.
           Timesonline Climate-change scientist Phil Jones steps down in e-mail row inquiry,  December 2, 2009

"The science still holds up" though, he adds.

          NatureNews, Climategate' scientist speaks out, February 15, 2010

and from another climatalogist on this side of the pond....

Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who writes on the Weather Underground blog, said that the recent snows do not, by themselves, demonstrate anything about the long-term trajectory of the planet. Climate is, by definition, a measure of decades and centuries, not months or years.

But Dr. Masters also said that government and academic studies had consistently predicted an increasing frequency of just these kinds of record-setting storms, because warmer air carries more moisture.
          New York Times, Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze February 10, 2010

and one more quoted comment

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
           Science, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, December 2004

 Except Jon71, he's your fool.  He was one of the top IPCC dudes, head of the facility in England that was promoting all of the global warming.  He was the "go to guy" on global warming.

No, you aren't going to read about it Time or Newsweek, they are too embarrassed to have gotten so wrong for so long.  But yes, let's let Jones speak for himself - from this past weekend, not months ago before he was caught misrepresenting the data and science -- if you can hear him above his back peddling:

From the BBC (good enough source for everyone?)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Q & A:

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

JONES: Yes

Sorry deniers, it just doesn't get any more plane than that.

Humility.... does that mean you should be open to people who ask questions, read both sides of an argument or hypothesis, keep an open mind?  Or does that mean putting people who ask question in jail, as David Suzuki suggests, you know, kind of like they did to Galileo?

In climate change terms does 15 years amount to much?  Serious question.  Given that climate change is a big-picture, long term thing (and therefore not notable for one warm winter or sudden cold snap) how much of a time-line is needed to show a trend?

 Yes that is a good question --- and just a couple of months ago, all of the global warmers were saying that is a huge deal that since 1990 it has been the warmest years on record --- so I guess you could ask them --- except that the guru who told them that - has no retracted it --- so - uhm - well --- you can ask them.

Of course the medieval warming period might confuse them (you know, when they were farming on Greenland *true*), that would include years as part of the big-picture long term thing --- which is that the climate changes all of the time, it gets warmer, it gets cooler, and your carbon footprint has nothing to do with it.