Are Greenies the new fundamentalist nutjobs?

[strocube]

(f0xxee @ Mar. 29 2011,05:31) Strocube, dont mean to piss you off. But I still feel you are missing my point, which is that a Green Platform does not make a rounded polititcian capable of having a vote on important matters other than the environment.

That would depend on the politician and not necessarily the platform.
I know the Greens have at least some kind of presence in various European governments, and I don't see any of them turning into some hellish, eco-feudal, police state, run by pointy headed hippies in bad cardigans and beards.

If your point was that some Australian politicians are not fit to serve in government because they don't know about anything else besides the environment, that is not something I am prepared to comment on because I don't know anything about it.


I do know environmental regulations are extremely necessary and that they can actually create positive results for large numbers of people.

[Bumpa STIKKA]

(strocube @ Mar. 29 2011,03:19)

(Bumpa STIKKA @ Mar. 28 2011,07:31)

(strocube @ Mar. 28 2011,01:04) the fact is, the planet is getting warmer...

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Oh no it isn't...

[strocube]

"This is not an argument, it's contradiction."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[f0xxee]

No it isn't ....

[pacman]

Well something is going on. The polar caps are melting & sea levels are rising at an alarming rate.

Whether it is natural or man's interference doesn't change the fact that the world is going to face unprecedented challenges sometime this century.

IMO the horse has bolted, changing our energy use may buy us some time but it isn't the answer to stopping that which has already started.

What we must rely on is a technological breakthrough to save life on earth as we know it.

Given that necessity is the mother of invention, I am backing the scientists to come up with a solution.

[pacman]

As for putting Greens into Parliament, I think they have caused more trouble than they have helped.

I agree with Strocube when he says that there have been some very good outcomes from sound environmental policies.

The push to remove lead from petrol was a great & necessary change that improved everyone's quality of life.

And I don't disagree that putting the future of some obscure marsupial ahead of sensible development can be absurd.

But when the Greens hold the balance of power & they get to decide on areas such as defense policy & tax reform, it can lead to some silly outcomes.

One new Green senator here in Oz has gone straight from being a member of the Communist Party to taking a seat in the Australian Parliament.

Gee, I wonder how much he intends to support Capitalism? Beware the enemy within.

[Tomcat]

Pacman is correct , the sea level is the  giveaway. Obviously the planet is not a perfect ball and so the sea level will rise more at different points and the effect of gravity and so on but parts on the planet will be under water sometime soon.. 30 years or so... no doubt about it

I agree that the sensible Green movement are a good balance to the other loonies that would chop everything down and plaster the world with concrete. probably a lost cause now i would think as we seem to have another 3 Billion souls to feed and house in the near future

[manarak]

let's not panic over the sea levels, a rise of max. 5 cm, is predicted for this century...

Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century,[1][2] and more recently, during the satellite altimetry era of sea level measurement, at rates in the range of 2.9-3.4 ± 0.4-0.6 mm per year from 1993€“2010.[3][4][5][6][7] A new assessment suggests sea level rise has dropped 2mm/yr from 2005, which is a 60% reduction from the 1993 to 2005 rate.[8] Current sea level rise is suggested to be due significantly to global warming,[9] which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer periods.[10][11] Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of mountain glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets. At the end of the 20th century, thermal expansion and melting of land ice contributed roughly equally to sea level rise, while thermal expansion is expected to contribute more than half of the rise in the upcoming century.[12]

Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of this century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm. Models of glacier mass balance (the difference between melting and accumulation of snow and ice on a glacier) give a theoretical maximum value for sea level rise in the current century of 2 metres (and a "more plausible" one of 0.8 metres), based on limitations on how quickly glaciers can melt.[13]

There has been no acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. [14]

[pacman]

       5 cm? Over the next 100 years?      

I can't comment on the veracity of that figure but this must come as great news for the citizens of Tuvalu.

Because their tiny island nation won't be here in 100 years. They are busy making arrangements to relocate their entire population much sooner than that.

And they are in the vanguard of countries that will suffer major dislocation from the effects of rising sea levels.

5 centimetres (2 inches)...     I must alert the United Nations to tell them the crisis is over...      

[Tomcat]

RE EDIT ( Paccers jumped in ahead of me with his reply )

Well the Earth has been here for 4 Billlion years so even a 100 years is nothing . As i said the Earth is not a perfect ball and so some places will get a larger rise due to the Swell. Maldives will get it pretty bad sooner than others.

This wont effect me thats for sure.

As i said before , its about probablities not 100 being certain. No one can be certain that an Asteroid wont wipe me and you off the face of the earth tomorrow. Around 1/ 100,000 chance

On balance , the information seems to indicate to me that we have fucked the planet up. Its just my opinion , not any truth or fact. There is no ultimate truth in any matter , we personally just stack up the information and facts as we see them at this moment in time

[f0xxee]

OK Just a few pointers about sea levels etc.

The earth is an oblate spheroid last time I checked. flatish top and bottom where the true poles are.

The water levels in the ocean are very rarely even: This is due to effects such as high and low atmospheric pressure, and a host of other factors listed below. (Ever heard of a storm surge when a cyclone gets near the coast? Well it makes sense if you think about it: "Standard" pressure is around 1010 Hpa. If a Cyclone has a central pressure of 940 hpa the sea bulges upward accordingly at this point.)

In the Sth Pacific the sea level is often different from the west (Aussie ) shore line to the East (Chilean) shoreline.  Again it makes sense: the earth is rotating and the water banks up slightly to the Aussie Coasts. Wind such as the roaring 40's have their effect too, as do tidal nodes, etc etc etc. Then there is a difference in levels from from the equator to north and south poles too, as the centrifical force of rotation is greatest at the equator and decreases (slightly) towards the poles....

Having said all that in a life long, long ago I used to do 4WD tours along the beach from Noosa in QLD (Aus) to Fraser Island. So everyday was a beach day. this was 1981. I went back not so long ago... maybe 5 years? And was truly blown away by how far the surf had cut into the frontal dunes in 25 odd years. So yes, I agree with Pac and the TC that sea levels are rising.

But why?

IN the early 19th Century Joseph Banks read reports of rapid melting of the Greenland Glaciers and pondered what the cause might be. (Sorry, I have looked through the book where I read this and cannot find the exact date, but around 1820 give or take a few years). The same few years were particularly and noteably warm.

Now coal powered steam had only really been a functioning factor of Europe for maybe 50 years at that time. So what caused the sudden increase in temperature? No one knows. But it was recorded. Solar flares perhaps?

My argument is not that global warming isn't happening, nor is it that the massive industrialization of the last 150 years has not played a part. Its only reasonable, given that the population of the earth has increased from 1.6 Billion in 1900 AD to arround 8 billion now, all wanting to charge thier cell phones.

My argument all along has been that fundamentalists have stolen rational debate on the subject.

In fact I have seem more rational debate on this thread (ok never mind the Monty Moment) than I see in most press. So hats off to the readership of this forum.

Simply:

People in the 3rd world dont want to stay in the 3rd World.
People in the 1st world sure as fuck dont want to return to the 3rd world.
It takes a lot of energy to live in the 1st world.

Solar and wind may power a house just fine, but cannot supply power for transport infrstructure, mass transport, communication etc. And without massive power generation we are sitting in a dark cave (forget paint, forget concrete, forget glass) on animal skin (if allowed by the green gods) and going to work by horse and communicating by smoke signals.

I like to be comfortable. So bring on the Nuclear Power Monty Burns!!!!!!!!!

[Torurot]

From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...oes_hollywood/

The comments are also good /pro/con

Nuclear energy remains an incredible scientific breakthrough for humanity, one of the greatest, and it can be used to blow ourselves up, or provide huge benefits, taking billions out of discomfort and need. No Gods are needed to be invoked or implied here.

Implicit in the media coverage of nuclear risks is the idea that anything mankind does harms nature's "equilibrium". As Adam Curtis explains in his new series, this is a false notion - ecosystems aren't in balance, but constantly renewing themselves. The idea that nature is in some kind of "harmony", and would go about its business if only it wasn't for those pesky humans is a medieval, superstitious view of the world that was popular at a time when Pagans had a monopoly on sky magic, and life expectancy was 40. After the tsunami surrounded Fukushima, News TV stopped short of sacrificing a goat €“ or a child €“ on our behalf, but perhaps it's only a matter of time.

[manarak]

(Torurot @ Mar. 30 2011,18:04) From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...oes_hollywood/

The comments are also good /pro/con

Nuclear energy remains an incredible scientific breakthrough for humanity, one of the greatest, and it can be used to blow ourselves up, or provide huge benefits, taking billions out of discomfort and need. No Gods are needed to be invoked or implied here.

Implicit in the media coverage of nuclear risks is the idea that anything mankind does harms nature's "equilibrium". As Adam Curtis explains in his new series, this is a false notion - ecosystems aren't in balance, but constantly renewing themselves. The idea that nature is in some kind of "harmony", and would go about its business if only it wasn't for those pesky humans is a medieval, superstitious view of the world that was popular at a time when Pagans had a monopoly on sky magic, and life expectancy was 40. After the tsunami surrounded Fukushima, News TV stopped short of sacrificing a goat €“ or a child €“ on our behalf, but perhaps it's only a matter of time.

well put - this superstition is at the basis of many green votes, sadly.

[f0xxee]

(Torurot @ Mar. 30 2011,18:04) Implicit in the media coverage of nuclear risks is the idea that anything mankind does harms nature's "equilibrium". As Adam Curtis explains in his new series, this is a false notion - ecosystems aren't in balance, but constantly renewing themselves. The idea that nature is in some kind of "harmony", and would go about its business if only it wasn't for those pesky humans is a medieval, superstitious view of the world that was popular at a time when Pagans had a monopoly on sky magic, and life expectancy was 40. After the tsunami surrounded Fukushima, News TV stopped short of sacrificing a goat €“ or a child €“ on our behalf, but perhaps it's only a matter of time.

Well said sir.

[Torurot]

 Just to be clear I didn't say it.  It was a quote from the linked article.

Theregister has run a series of them, mostly authored by Lewis Page.

Praying for meltdown: The media and the nukes
Science and the public lose out with TV's Hollywood disaster film obsession
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...oes_hollywood/
By Andrew Orlowski €¢ Posted in Environment, 29th March 2011 12:22 GMT 

Still it was good smack in the chops for those of the nuclear hysteria brigade who are pronouncing on Fukishima, knowing Fckall about the place.  Mean while no one is reporting on the rest of the Japan Tsunami disaster where some FROZE to death in minus 15c.  Mean while Idiots 10,000km away are hysterically scoffing down Iodine tablets.    Remember the plastic sheeting and Gaffa tape crisis of a few years back.