Rising temperatures this season are killing people and animals all over the world. Fish are dying in over heated lakes! Nature usually has a way of dealing with change if it doesnt happen too quickly. Death means it is happening to fast for anything to adjust. And they are saying that the trend for extreme weather is going to continue. Is this the begining of the end. Is it already too late to stop the damage to the Ozone layer? Has mankind finally gone too far? Will we be extinct within the next hundred years? Things are not looking good people.
|
|
|
|
コメント(33)
> 2: abhi_marx
I don't think we have ever been Earth's friend.
What was that cree prophecy?
"Only after the last tree has been cut down
Only after the last river has been poisoned
Only after the last fish has been caught
Only then will you find you cannot eat money"
Govenments know that something needs to be done -Hence the Kyoto Treaty, however major industrial countries like the US are unwilling to join. Bush is too afraid of loosing economic power? I'd be afraid of having to face starving billions in a not too distant future...
Anyway, by the time everyone finishes bikkering 'well, they don't have to, why do I?' like children, we would probably have moved underground by then. Or to another planet we can trash...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Details_of_the_agreement
Just my thought on the subject ^_^
I don't think we have ever been Earth's friend.
What was that cree prophecy?
"Only after the last tree has been cut down
Only after the last river has been poisoned
Only after the last fish has been caught
Only then will you find you cannot eat money"
Govenments know that something needs to be done -Hence the Kyoto Treaty, however major industrial countries like the US are unwilling to join. Bush is too afraid of loosing economic power? I'd be afraid of having to face starving billions in a not too distant future...
Anyway, by the time everyone finishes bikkering 'well, they don't have to, why do I?' like children, we would probably have moved underground by then. Or to another planet we can trash...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Details_of_the_agreement
Just my thought on the subject ^_^
eventually, things will reach a point where not even the most cold-blooded politician can ignore the facts. When the people who have the most power start feeling the effects directly in their wallets (or at their doorstep), then they will start moving their asses and do something. Humans will sacrifice anything, if they feel their very survival is at stake. They will sacrifice their beliefs about God,about Life, about themselves, if it means they can survive.
So what I am saying is that yes, the human species will survive. But we will do it while suffering great consequences. Our political powers don't yeat feel in their skin the environmental disasters that are disturbing poorer nations in the world. When they do act, it will be too late to keep our current lifestyle. We will go through a lot of problems and diseases and disasters and deaths... but I think in the end, we will eventually survive.
So what I am saying is that yes, the human species will survive. But we will do it while suffering great consequences. Our political powers don't yeat feel in their skin the environmental disasters that are disturbing poorer nations in the world. When they do act, it will be too late to keep our current lifestyle. We will go through a lot of problems and diseases and disasters and deaths... but I think in the end, we will eventually survive.
Okay, okay, before we all get too upset about world changes, here are some actual facts for you guys to think about.
Yes, world temperatures are rising, and we humans are responsible for a lot of it...but!
You have to remember that the earth goes through evolutionationary changes just as its inhabitants do.
Many Geographers and geologists will tell you that the earth experiences these same changes in climate every few hundred years or so. In fact, some will tell you that we are actually expecting another ice age.
It is simply because earth's orbit changes slighty every year.
So....while we may be speading up this progress somewhat, it is perfectly natural as well.
Considering that the infamous biblical flood, famines, specie extinction, and other disasters have been documented throughout the centuries in almost every nation, we should be able to see that it is just part of our planet's natural life cycle.
Scientific reports now show that even the holes in the ozone layer have been repairing themselves and are better than they were in the 80's.
Are we all guilty of destruction? Yes...but you have to remember, that even if we lived as our ancestors did thousands of years ago...we would still experience these calamities at some point.
If we raise our children to be aware of these things, if we start make little changes ourselves, and if those evil bloody political dinosaurs finally die...then things will get better.
Perhaps then...all those millions of dollars that are spent on military funding...will be put towards healing the land that they are trying so hard to protect.
Gosh...heavy topic....sorry for going off on a tangent..
Yes, world temperatures are rising, and we humans are responsible for a lot of it...but!
You have to remember that the earth goes through evolutionationary changes just as its inhabitants do.
Many Geographers and geologists will tell you that the earth experiences these same changes in climate every few hundred years or so. In fact, some will tell you that we are actually expecting another ice age.
It is simply because earth's orbit changes slighty every year.
So....while we may be speading up this progress somewhat, it is perfectly natural as well.
Considering that the infamous biblical flood, famines, specie extinction, and other disasters have been documented throughout the centuries in almost every nation, we should be able to see that it is just part of our planet's natural life cycle.
Scientific reports now show that even the holes in the ozone layer have been repairing themselves and are better than they were in the 80's.
Are we all guilty of destruction? Yes...but you have to remember, that even if we lived as our ancestors did thousands of years ago...we would still experience these calamities at some point.
If we raise our children to be aware of these things, if we start make little changes ourselves, and if those evil bloody political dinosaurs finally die...then things will get better.
Perhaps then...all those millions of dollars that are spent on military funding...will be put towards healing the land that they are trying so hard to protect.
Gosh...heavy topic....sorry for going off on a tangent..
haha it's hard to say where I stand in this, but ya I do think we are responsible for most of the changes. However, as Himeko states, the Earth does evolve and change. Could we be seeing an ice age coming up? Sure. Alot of these things are possibilites. Remember the earth is XXXXXXXX millions of years old and its gone through many changes. I guess you can say my stance is almost the same as Himeko. If you want to get more info watch the Discovery channel special on global warming. I'd say give it 10 or 20 more years until we come up with the technology to help our planet. But if you want to be optimistic, "i'll be dead before this world becomes messed up," as some people might think...
Ok another ice age is coming. Seeing that almost nothing survived the last one, that doesn`t make me feel any better.
At least if all the continents sink and new ones rise up we can start all over again :) Thats kinda what that Mel Gibson movie "Water world" was about. No dry land left at all for thousands of years. People evolving, and mutating to develop gills, etc.. But hey, as long as its the natural life cycle of the earth who are we to complain.
At least if all the continents sink and new ones rise up we can start all over again :) Thats kinda what that Mel Gibson movie "Water world" was about. No dry land left at all for thousands of years. People evolving, and mutating to develop gills, etc.. But hey, as long as its the natural life cycle of the earth who are we to complain.
I haven't seen that Al Gore powerpoint presentation/movie/documentary/"can I try for president again?" propaganda thing yet....but I'd be prepared to say that we're not heading in a nice direction just having read the content of it.
Himeko's post was interesting, and I'll add that the most likely end result of global warming is not sunshine, but constant and unending cloud cover from water vapour formations dense enough to block most sunlight = less plants = nature's fucked.
It's a similar result as if a huge asteroid hit earth.
(I think Busta Rhymes made an album about all this, maybe...)
I agree with Bebio that humans will be fine though. We have something the animals don't - the Internet.
And Windows and I-pods etc.
No, just joking, but in the worst case scenario we have the ability to escape the planet. Nowhere to go but....we could do it like BattleStar Galactica and just play it by ear as we go along etc....
One quick thing I'd like to say is, fuck all the eco-warriors. I can't understand what they think they stand for....they say they love nature and say it's the greatest etc, and yet at the same time think it's so fragile they have to protect it, and stop people polluting it. Well, the law of the jungle says "survival of the fittest" and I think if nature can't adapt to human civilization it means we are better/stronger than nature itself. No?
We're beating nature on it's own rules man, so by that token doesn't it mean eco-warriors are anti-nature?....
I'll be a "human-warrior" - bring God on next, and lets fuck him up at his own game...
So just like Busta lets get ready for the E.L.E, and do a Hype Williams video with Janet Jackson before it's all over...
"what's it gonna be?"
Himeko's post was interesting, and I'll add that the most likely end result of global warming is not sunshine, but constant and unending cloud cover from water vapour formations dense enough to block most sunlight = less plants = nature's fucked.
It's a similar result as if a huge asteroid hit earth.
(I think Busta Rhymes made an album about all this, maybe...)
I agree with Bebio that humans will be fine though. We have something the animals don't - the Internet.
And Windows and I-pods etc.
No, just joking, but in the worst case scenario we have the ability to escape the planet. Nowhere to go but....we could do it like BattleStar Galactica and just play it by ear as we go along etc....
One quick thing I'd like to say is, fuck all the eco-warriors. I can't understand what they think they stand for....they say they love nature and say it's the greatest etc, and yet at the same time think it's so fragile they have to protect it, and stop people polluting it. Well, the law of the jungle says "survival of the fittest" and I think if nature can't adapt to human civilization it means we are better/stronger than nature itself. No?
We're beating nature on it's own rules man, so by that token doesn't it mean eco-warriors are anti-nature?....
I'll be a "human-warrior" - bring God on next, and lets fuck him up at his own game...
So just like Busta lets get ready for the E.L.E, and do a Hype Williams video with Janet Jackson before it's all over...
"what's it gonna be?"
Yes. Extraordinary temperature these days is world-wide issue, and we should find most effective measures as soon as possible. So I think we should take some actions like using electric fan insteard of air-conditioner, using public transpotation system instead of cars and so on. These easy and simple actions are very what we should do! But... Such actions IS so difficult. In fact, I take a benefit of air-conditioner in my part-time job office...haha... Oh, ozon layer is recovering now. Expert says ozon layer system will be almost perfect in 30 or 40 years.
Global warming is a plausible theory. However, there is so much we DON'T know about the earth and it's climate. Humans only live 70-80 years on average in the richest of nations which means we tend not to be able to see past our own lifetimes. Of course, there are climate records we can study but these are only a 100 years or so old in most countries anyway. There is just so much we don't know yet.
The world probably isn't going to end in 50 years or so, global-warming induced storms are not going to tear down our cities neither will we be drowned by a biblical flood. Many of the environmental problems we are supposedly experiencing are out and out propagandist exaggerations and in some cases lies. If current trends are anything to go by, we will probably see a gradual increase of 2-3 degrees celsius in about 100 years.
Of course, the environment must be protected, but it's important to put things in perspective and not to make knee-jerk-panic ridden actions to what the media, Hollywood and whacked-out environmentalists tell us.
The world probably isn't going to end in 50 years or so, global-warming induced storms are not going to tear down our cities neither will we be drowned by a biblical flood. Many of the environmental problems we are supposedly experiencing are out and out propagandist exaggerations and in some cases lies. If current trends are anything to go by, we will probably see a gradual increase of 2-3 degrees celsius in about 100 years.
Of course, the environment must be protected, but it's important to put things in perspective and not to make knee-jerk-panic ridden actions to what the media, Hollywood and whacked-out environmentalists tell us.
Nikkiチャン>
there is no proof of that either way...
SEBA>
c'mon man...where did you get that number? Of course its going to be higher than most other countries because of our high GNP. besides, judging from your choice in automobile, your not too concerned about your CO2 footprint! While I agree that the US needs to drastically reduce its CO2 output, Its just a waste to do the whole "blame the USA" tip. This is a huge issue and a lot of people here in the US are aware and doing real work to try and help the situation (i.e. carpooling, driving the speed limit, hybred cars, ect.)
But bottom line....
The earth will right what ever wrong we do to it. weither or not we survive that process is the real question!
there is no proof of that either way...
SEBA>
c'mon man...where did you get that number? Of course its going to be higher than most other countries because of our high GNP. besides, judging from your choice in automobile, your not too concerned about your CO2 footprint! While I agree that the US needs to drastically reduce its CO2 output, Its just a waste to do the whole "blame the USA" tip. This is a huge issue and a lot of people here in the US are aware and doing real work to try and help the situation (i.e. carpooling, driving the speed limit, hybred cars, ect.)
But bottom line....
The earth will right what ever wrong we do to it. weither or not we survive that process is the real question!
i saw the movie, an inconvenient truth. Al Gore explains about the global warming pretty well through the entire movie.
i think everybody knows what global warming is and the consequences are, but most of us are not taking it seriously coz the change is very small every year or two and it's still livable. but according to the movie, due to the rapidly melting ice, many places in the world including Japan, Florida, New York, etc... are gonna be under the water in 50 years(?). (sorry my memory is not very good.) since i saw the movie, i truly felt every single person needs to do something good, (even small thing can be great if everybody does it) for the enviornment to protect the environment for our children. check this movie out=) the book is out, too.
i think everybody knows what global warming is and the consequences are, but most of us are not taking it seriously coz the change is very small every year or two and it's still livable. but according to the movie, due to the rapidly melting ice, many places in the world including Japan, Florida, New York, etc... are gonna be under the water in 50 years(?). (sorry my memory is not very good.) since i saw the movie, i truly felt every single person needs to do something good, (even small thing can be great if everybody does it) for the enviornment to protect the environment for our children. check this movie out=) the book is out, too.
I posted this in another thread, and it is relevant here, so I'll repost it in this thread.
A lot of people don't understand, but the Global Warming trend happening right now is a natural process of the Earth. Every several hundreds of years, the Earth goes through a warming trend. This has been recorded in historical documents, journals, etc. Furthermore, geological evidence shows that this is a regular occurance.
It's not caused by humans. It's the Earth herself who is doing this.
We could stop every single factory, automobile, etc. in the world that produces greenhouse gasses, and it would do nothing to stop this trend.
Man doesn't control nature. He can do nothing to stop this. The Earth will stop it when it's good and ready. The earth is several billion years old -- formed from a dust cloud orbiting the sun. The Homo Sapiens Sapiens subspecies (AKA modern man, who is a subspecies of Homo Sapiens, from the Eurakryota Domain, Animalia Kingdom, Chordata phylum, Mammalia class, Primates order, Hominidae family, Homo genus, Homo Sapiens species) is barely 200,000 years old. Just a pen dot on a canvas. A blade of grass in a field. A grain of sand in the desert.
Why homo sapiens sapiens survived is unknown -- they were inferior to the other homo sapiens subspecies that existed at the same time that homo s. sapiens evolved: Homo neanderthalensis, AKA Neanderthal men. In fact, both species lived for more than 200,000 years simultaneously with each other, as evidence has been found that shows that Neanderthal lived as recent as 30,000 years ago in Asia.
Homo s. Sapiens are nothing; we will die out and become extinct. But the Earth will live for another several billion years, until the sun swells into a red giant and consumes the innermost planets.
What I'm saying is that a lot of this Global Warming is just bunk -- panic caused by the media. Humans didn't cause it. And the polar ice caps won't melt in 50 years swallowing Japan and other coastal countries.
A lot of people don't understand, but the Global Warming trend happening right now is a natural process of the Earth. Every several hundreds of years, the Earth goes through a warming trend. This has been recorded in historical documents, journals, etc. Furthermore, geological evidence shows that this is a regular occurance.
It's not caused by humans. It's the Earth herself who is doing this.
We could stop every single factory, automobile, etc. in the world that produces greenhouse gasses, and it would do nothing to stop this trend.
Man doesn't control nature. He can do nothing to stop this. The Earth will stop it when it's good and ready. The earth is several billion years old -- formed from a dust cloud orbiting the sun. The Homo Sapiens Sapiens subspecies (AKA modern man, who is a subspecies of Homo Sapiens, from the Eurakryota Domain, Animalia Kingdom, Chordata phylum, Mammalia class, Primates order, Hominidae family, Homo genus, Homo Sapiens species) is barely 200,000 years old. Just a pen dot on a canvas. A blade of grass in a field. A grain of sand in the desert.
Why homo sapiens sapiens survived is unknown -- they were inferior to the other homo sapiens subspecies that existed at the same time that homo s. sapiens evolved: Homo neanderthalensis, AKA Neanderthal men. In fact, both species lived for more than 200,000 years simultaneously with each other, as evidence has been found that shows that Neanderthal lived as recent as 30,000 years ago in Asia.
Homo s. Sapiens are nothing; we will die out and become extinct. But the Earth will live for another several billion years, until the sun swells into a red giant and consumes the innermost planets.
What I'm saying is that a lot of this Global Warming is just bunk -- panic caused by the media. Humans didn't cause it. And the polar ice caps won't melt in 50 years swallowing Japan and other coastal countries.
>Leeroy
>Toade
Waiting for scientific proofs sounds reasonable
attitude and, most of the cases, I also try to build my
opinions based on scientific facts and proofs.
However, in regards to global warming, things are
different.
In 1992, Al Gore predicted that, besides sea level
rising, severer and bigger hurricanes, which were
caused by warmer sea temperature, would be big threats
to cities like New Orleans.
In 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and his
prediction became the reality except sea level rising
part.
Doing nothing against global warming turned out to be
very effective experiments because the theory seems to
be proven now. However, an inconvenient part is that
guinea pigs of such experiments are Americans and
American society.
>Toade
Waiting for scientific proofs sounds reasonable
attitude and, most of the cases, I also try to build my
opinions based on scientific facts and proofs.
However, in regards to global warming, things are
different.
In 1992, Al Gore predicted that, besides sea level
rising, severer and bigger hurricanes, which were
caused by warmer sea temperature, would be big threats
to cities like New Orleans.
In 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and his
prediction became the reality except sea level rising
part.
Doing nothing against global warming turned out to be
very effective experiments because the theory seems to
be proven now. However, an inconvenient part is that
guinea pigs of such experiments are Americans and
American society.
> Furthermore, geological evidence shows that this is a regular > occurance.
But the current rate of change is *not* a regular occurance. The amount of carbon stored as fossil fuels has been laid down over hundreds of thousands of years - and we've burnt through over half of it in the last 150 and thrown it into the atmosphere. That is also *not* a regular occurance.
> Why homo sapiens sapiens survived is unknown -- they were
>inferior to the other homo sapiens subspecies that existed at
>the same time that homo s.
inferior ? how exactly ? So its unknown why hsapiens survived but its *known* that they were inferior ? interesting. Do you have any references to back that up ?
But the current rate of change is *not* a regular occurance. The amount of carbon stored as fossil fuels has been laid down over hundreds of thousands of years - and we've burnt through over half of it in the last 150 and thrown it into the atmosphere. That is also *not* a regular occurance.
> Why homo sapiens sapiens survived is unknown -- they were
>inferior to the other homo sapiens subspecies that existed at
>the same time that homo s.
inferior ? how exactly ? So its unknown why hsapiens survived but its *known* that they were inferior ? interesting. Do you have any references to back that up ?
鈴木すずきち -->
> In 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and his
prediction became the reality except sea level rising
part.
Thank you, Mr. Iron Tree.
That doesn't mean anything. Anyone can predict a big storm, and it will happen. Big storms happen. Huge hurricanes happen -- that's inevitable. Al Gore didn't predict shit. And of course he said cities like New Orleans -- because they're coastal cities. Of course coastal cities are at risk, BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THE COAST!
That's like predicting that there will be a big earthquake in California or Japan. Of course there will be! Big earthquakes happen! That's inevitable!
Here -- let me predict something.........
I predict that there will be a thunder storm!! With thunder! And lightning! And rain!
I predict that there will be a hot sunny day! I predict that in the spring, the temperature will rise, and snow will melt causing lawns to get all muddy!
I predict that there will be a cloudy day! And the sky will be grey! And then it will rain and people will get wet!
I predict that leaves will turn colors and fall to the ground and get all crunchy!
I predict that there will be a blizzard! And it will be cold!
I predict that the ice in my glass of water will melt, and the water level will rise!
Do you see how ludicrous that is? Anyone can predict a vague, general event, and it will happen. Al Gore isn't a visionary; he's not a prophet or a psychic. He didn't predict shit. He just said something THAT'S COMMON SENSE.
> However, an inconvenient part is that
guinea pigs of such experiments are Americans and
American society.
Ummm... that's an extremely conceited and ethnocentric remark. It's not just the US -- the whole world is involved. China, Taiwan and Korea are far worst polluters that the US. They have NO emission standards. NONE.
When I was in Guilin, the air was brown, and the pollution was so bad that it was like a fog. I live in a very smoggy area in California - smog gets trapped between mountain ranges and can't escape very well. But even on the worst days, it was nothing like the pollution I experienced in Beijing, or Shanghai, or Xi'an, or Guilin. Or Hong Kong. I could hardly breathe in some of those places. Tokyo is bad, too. Very bad.
So saying that it's just Americans is wrong.
Disco -->
> But the current rate of change is *not* a regular occurance.
Umm... since the last warming period from 1000 AD to 1400 AD, the temperature of the earth has risen .5 degrees C. One half degree celsius. That's hardly anything to be concerned about.
In the early part of the 19th century, there was a miniature ice age. It got very cold. So... of course there will be a considerable temperature change in the last 150 years -- BECAUSE WE JUST CAME OUT OF AN ICE AGE.
Besides, if you examine meteorological trends over the past 8,000 years, the earth is COLDER than it was 8,000 years ago. COLDER. NOT WARMER.
> we've burnt through over half of it in the last 150 and thrown it into the atmosphere.
How do you know we've burnt over 1/2 of it? Do you know exactly how much fossil fuels is in the earth? If so, you must be an amazing prophet!
NOBODY knows how much fossil fuel the Earth contains -- because there are inumerable untapped sources. So -- whomever claims that more than half of it is gone is full of shit, and is just using scare tactics to put the public in a panic.
> inferior ? how exactly ?
Homo sapiens Sapiens has a much smaller brain size and capacity than Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Futhermore, it has been proven that Homo s. Neanderthalensis was fairly advanced when Homo s. Sapiens appeared on the scene. They made and used tools. They buried their dead in ritualistic graves, which is a fairly major cultural advance. Their bodies were much stronger and muscular than Homo s. Sapiens. Futhermore, evidence has been found that shows that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis cared for their sick, were extremely skilled hunters and craftsmen, and had a primitive symbology which suggests that they used language.
Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens are almost identical to each other. Some scientists theorize that they're the same species; others theorize that they're different species. This is due to anomalies in the comparison of mtDNA. Some studies show no evidence of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis mtDNA in modern humans. Other studies show that there is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis mtDNA in modern humans. Who's correct? That may or may not be answered right away, because our understanding of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is far from complete, and new discoveries are constantly being made.
It was also thought that the two species -- or subspecies -- never interbreeded with each other. However, recent discoveries of hybrids have disproved that theory.
I got the information from the Smithsonian, Michigan State University, ecotao, and Wikipedia. However, the latter I tend to take with a grain of salt, because Wiki can be inaccurate sometimes, depending on who wrote it and where they got the information from.
> In 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and his
prediction became the reality except sea level rising
part.
Thank you, Mr. Iron Tree.
That doesn't mean anything. Anyone can predict a big storm, and it will happen. Big storms happen. Huge hurricanes happen -- that's inevitable. Al Gore didn't predict shit. And of course he said cities like New Orleans -- because they're coastal cities. Of course coastal cities are at risk, BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THE COAST!
That's like predicting that there will be a big earthquake in California or Japan. Of course there will be! Big earthquakes happen! That's inevitable!
Here -- let me predict something.........
I predict that there will be a thunder storm!! With thunder! And lightning! And rain!
I predict that there will be a hot sunny day! I predict that in the spring, the temperature will rise, and snow will melt causing lawns to get all muddy!
I predict that there will be a cloudy day! And the sky will be grey! And then it will rain and people will get wet!
I predict that leaves will turn colors and fall to the ground and get all crunchy!
I predict that there will be a blizzard! And it will be cold!
I predict that the ice in my glass of water will melt, and the water level will rise!
Do you see how ludicrous that is? Anyone can predict a vague, general event, and it will happen. Al Gore isn't a visionary; he's not a prophet or a psychic. He didn't predict shit. He just said something THAT'S COMMON SENSE.
> However, an inconvenient part is that
guinea pigs of such experiments are Americans and
American society.
Ummm... that's an extremely conceited and ethnocentric remark. It's not just the US -- the whole world is involved. China, Taiwan and Korea are far worst polluters that the US. They have NO emission standards. NONE.
When I was in Guilin, the air was brown, and the pollution was so bad that it was like a fog. I live in a very smoggy area in California - smog gets trapped between mountain ranges and can't escape very well. But even on the worst days, it was nothing like the pollution I experienced in Beijing, or Shanghai, or Xi'an, or Guilin. Or Hong Kong. I could hardly breathe in some of those places. Tokyo is bad, too. Very bad.
So saying that it's just Americans is wrong.
Disco -->
> But the current rate of change is *not* a regular occurance.
Umm... since the last warming period from 1000 AD to 1400 AD, the temperature of the earth has risen .5 degrees C. One half degree celsius. That's hardly anything to be concerned about.
In the early part of the 19th century, there was a miniature ice age. It got very cold. So... of course there will be a considerable temperature change in the last 150 years -- BECAUSE WE JUST CAME OUT OF AN ICE AGE.
Besides, if you examine meteorological trends over the past 8,000 years, the earth is COLDER than it was 8,000 years ago. COLDER. NOT WARMER.
> we've burnt through over half of it in the last 150 and thrown it into the atmosphere.
How do you know we've burnt over 1/2 of it? Do you know exactly how much fossil fuels is in the earth? If so, you must be an amazing prophet!
NOBODY knows how much fossil fuel the Earth contains -- because there are inumerable untapped sources. So -- whomever claims that more than half of it is gone is full of shit, and is just using scare tactics to put the public in a panic.
> inferior ? how exactly ?
Homo sapiens Sapiens has a much smaller brain size and capacity than Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Futhermore, it has been proven that Homo s. Neanderthalensis was fairly advanced when Homo s. Sapiens appeared on the scene. They made and used tools. They buried their dead in ritualistic graves, which is a fairly major cultural advance. Their bodies were much stronger and muscular than Homo s. Sapiens. Futhermore, evidence has been found that shows that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis cared for their sick, were extremely skilled hunters and craftsmen, and had a primitive symbology which suggests that they used language.
Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens are almost identical to each other. Some scientists theorize that they're the same species; others theorize that they're different species. This is due to anomalies in the comparison of mtDNA. Some studies show no evidence of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis mtDNA in modern humans. Other studies show that there is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis mtDNA in modern humans. Who's correct? That may or may not be answered right away, because our understanding of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is far from complete, and new discoveries are constantly being made.
It was also thought that the two species -- or subspecies -- never interbreeded with each other. However, recent discoveries of hybrids have disproved that theory.
I got the information from the Smithsonian, Michigan State University, ecotao, and Wikipedia. However, the latter I tend to take with a grain of salt, because Wiki can be inaccurate sometimes, depending on who wrote it and where they got the information from.
Toadesan.
Well, you predict something, but it is not prediction.
> Here -- let me predict something.........
I predict that there will be a thunder storm!! With thunder! And lightning! And rain!
I predict that there will be a hot sunny day! I predict that in the spring, the temperature will rise, and snow will melt causing lawns to get all muddy!
I predict that there will be a cloudy day! And the sky will be grey! And then it will rain and people will get wet!
I predict that leaves will turn colors and fall to the ground and get all crunchy!
I predict that there will be a blizzard! And it will be cold!
I predict that the ice in my glass of water will melt, a> nd the water level will rise!
Because you don't have any background reasoning why New Orleans will be the big threats against Hurricane like what 鈴木すずきち san mention. Why and where? These reasoning is trustful, but it will happen something in somewhere is not a good reasoning.
> In 1992, Al Gore predicted that, besides sea level
rising, severer and bigger hurricanes, which were
caused by WARMER SEA TEMPERATURE, WOULD BE BIG THREATS TO CITIES LIKE NEW ORLEANS.
> In 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and his
prediction became the reality except sea level rising
part.
Please give us more detail oriented example, where flooding or hurricane will occur? Could you give us your
prediction like Al Gore predicted?
1860s, it is already started technological advance, and it cause more CO2 and CH4 (methane)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860s
Ex) The First Transcontinental Railroad in the USA is built in the six year period between 1863 and 1869.
Of course, you are smart guy, so you know that methane cause 23 times as much as the same mass of CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
Methane is a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential over 100 years of 23 (IPCC Third Assessment Report) i.e. when averaged over 100 years each kg of CH4 warms the earth 23 times as much as the same mass of CO2.
My point is global warming might have natural process impact, but also human induced too. Now, we are facing the global warming such a rapid rates in the latter parts I mention! This is most probably human induced global warming.
Average global temperature 1880- 2005
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006Temp_data.htm
Please check from 1980s to 2005, it is quite rapid pace of rising the temperature.
March 28, 2006
2005 Hottest Year on Record
Joseph Florence *
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006.htm
In fact, the six hottest years on record have all occurred in the last eight years. After 2005, 1998 was the second warmest, with an average global temperature of 14.71 degrees Celsius.
Well, you predict something, but it is not prediction.
> Here -- let me predict something.........
I predict that there will be a thunder storm!! With thunder! And lightning! And rain!
I predict that there will be a hot sunny day! I predict that in the spring, the temperature will rise, and snow will melt causing lawns to get all muddy!
I predict that there will be a cloudy day! And the sky will be grey! And then it will rain and people will get wet!
I predict that leaves will turn colors and fall to the ground and get all crunchy!
I predict that there will be a blizzard! And it will be cold!
I predict that the ice in my glass of water will melt, a> nd the water level will rise!
Because you don't have any background reasoning why New Orleans will be the big threats against Hurricane like what 鈴木すずきち san mention. Why and where? These reasoning is trustful, but it will happen something in somewhere is not a good reasoning.
> In 1992, Al Gore predicted that, besides sea level
rising, severer and bigger hurricanes, which were
caused by WARMER SEA TEMPERATURE, WOULD BE BIG THREATS TO CITIES LIKE NEW ORLEANS.
> In 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and his
prediction became the reality except sea level rising
part.
Please give us more detail oriented example, where flooding or hurricane will occur? Could you give us your
prediction like Al Gore predicted?
1860s, it is already started technological advance, and it cause more CO2 and CH4 (methane)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860s
Ex) The First Transcontinental Railroad in the USA is built in the six year period between 1863 and 1869.
Of course, you are smart guy, so you know that methane cause 23 times as much as the same mass of CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
Methane is a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential over 100 years of 23 (IPCC Third Assessment Report) i.e. when averaged over 100 years each kg of CH4 warms the earth 23 times as much as the same mass of CO2.
My point is global warming might have natural process impact, but also human induced too. Now, we are facing the global warming such a rapid rates in the latter parts I mention! This is most probably human induced global warming.
Average global temperature 1880- 2005
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006Temp_data.htm
Please check from 1980s to 2005, it is quite rapid pace of rising the temperature.
March 28, 2006
2005 Hottest Year on Record
Joseph Florence *
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006.htm
In fact, the six hottest years on record have all occurred in the last eight years. After 2005, 1998 was the second warmest, with an average global temperature of 14.71 degrees Celsius.
"the six hottest years on record have all occurred in the last eight years. After 2005, 1998 was the second warmest, with an average global temperature of 14.71 degrees Celsius."
Again, our recorded climate records are not very old. Even if you were to find temperature records from 200 years ago, it's still not very old. We have only been around on this earth for a mere blip. Our current standards of technology and ability to record climate and temperature have only been around a century or so in "developed" countries.
Quotes like the above aren't much to go by because we basically have nothing to compare the data against. Sure we can get some evidence from carbon dating etc, but we don't have any daily records of temperature dating back into the thousands of years.
This is the same as the argument about Hurricane Katrina. There could of been dozens of storms bigger than that in the past and we would be none the wiser because we don't have any records of them. That area, like much of the US, has only been heavily populated a couple of hundred years or so. I'll bet that the local native Americans from the Louisiana area don't have any detailed weather records either.
I don't dispell greenhouse effect theories entirely but what I do genuinely dislike are the mountains of doomsayers and armchair environmentalists who see a one-sided documentary or film and start quoting dubious facts and suppositions from it in order to proclaim the iminent end of the world in a few decades from now.
Again, our recorded climate records are not very old. Even if you were to find temperature records from 200 years ago, it's still not very old. We have only been around on this earth for a mere blip. Our current standards of technology and ability to record climate and temperature have only been around a century or so in "developed" countries.
Quotes like the above aren't much to go by because we basically have nothing to compare the data against. Sure we can get some evidence from carbon dating etc, but we don't have any daily records of temperature dating back into the thousands of years.
This is the same as the argument about Hurricane Katrina. There could of been dozens of storms bigger than that in the past and we would be none the wiser because we don't have any records of them. That area, like much of the US, has only been heavily populated a couple of hundred years or so. I'll bet that the local native Americans from the Louisiana area don't have any detailed weather records either.
I don't dispell greenhouse effect theories entirely but what I do genuinely dislike are the mountains of doomsayers and armchair environmentalists who see a one-sided documentary or film and start quoting dubious facts and suppositions from it in order to proclaim the iminent end of the world in a few decades from now.
>Toade
I do not have a copy of “Earth in the Balance” with me so
I cannot show you an exact quote. However, the theory at the
point of 1992 goes like this.
Global warming warms up sea temperature.
Sea temperature is almost single factor that determines the intensity
of hurricane and the temperature gets higher, the hurricane gets bigger.
Therefore global warming will cause severer and bigger hurricanes.
Below sea level cities like New Orleans are particularly vulnerable
to such hurricanes, which causes flood.
For your information, National Geographic magazine also predicted disastrous
hurricane damages of New Orleans in 2004.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/
As you say, anybody can predict that a storm is coming.
However, it is also true that anybody who has certain level of awareness
about global warming could predict specific hurricane disaster in New Orleans.
>So saying that it's just Americans is wrong.
Quite frankly, yes. I am definitely trying to say American government
and the congress are totally wrong about global warming because they
have already done enough “experiments” to make sure global warming
is not only happening but also harmful to us. The “experiments” such as
four hurricanes hit Florida in 2004, Katrina and her fellow hurricanes
in 2005, over 100F degrees in New York and 115F degrees plus more than
100 deaths caused by heat wave in California (on going).
Don’t you think it’s time for Americans to stop being guinea pigs of
“scientific truth” of global warming?
>China, Taiwan and Korea are far worst polluters that the US.
This is actually wrong.
US is the 10th of the worst polluter of per capita CO2 emissions.
Much worse than China, or Korea. Taiwan, which is not a nation technically,
but its government has decent programs against CO2 emissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
In addition, United States is not even participating Kyoto Protocol
against CO2 emissions, which even North Korea is participating.
So, I hope now you can understand that something wrong is going on
in the US about global warming policy.
I do not have a copy of “Earth in the Balance” with me so
I cannot show you an exact quote. However, the theory at the
point of 1992 goes like this.
Global warming warms up sea temperature.
Sea temperature is almost single factor that determines the intensity
of hurricane and the temperature gets higher, the hurricane gets bigger.
Therefore global warming will cause severer and bigger hurricanes.
Below sea level cities like New Orleans are particularly vulnerable
to such hurricanes, which causes flood.
For your information, National Geographic magazine also predicted disastrous
hurricane damages of New Orleans in 2004.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/
As you say, anybody can predict that a storm is coming.
However, it is also true that anybody who has certain level of awareness
about global warming could predict specific hurricane disaster in New Orleans.
>So saying that it's just Americans is wrong.
Quite frankly, yes. I am definitely trying to say American government
and the congress are totally wrong about global warming because they
have already done enough “experiments” to make sure global warming
is not only happening but also harmful to us. The “experiments” such as
four hurricanes hit Florida in 2004, Katrina and her fellow hurricanes
in 2005, over 100F degrees in New York and 115F degrees plus more than
100 deaths caused by heat wave in California (on going).
Don’t you think it’s time for Americans to stop being guinea pigs of
“scientific truth” of global warming?
>China, Taiwan and Korea are far worst polluters that the US.
This is actually wrong.
US is the 10th of the worst polluter of per capita CO2 emissions.
Much worse than China, or Korea. Taiwan, which is not a nation technically,
but its government has decent programs against CO2 emissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
In addition, United States is not even participating Kyoto Protocol
against CO2 emissions, which even North Korea is participating.
So, I hope now you can understand that something wrong is going on
in the US about global warming policy.
23>
>>we've burnt through over half of it in the last 150 and
>>thrown it into the atmosphere.
> How do you know we've burnt over 1/2 of it? Do you know
>exactly how much fossil fuels is in the earth? If so, you
> must be an amazing prophet!
nope, not a prophet - this the opinion of many geologists - including many in the oil industry. see :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak
which talks about oil specifically - but the principal can be extralpolated to fossil fuels in general with an expanded timeline.
wikipedia of course has the caveats you mentioned but it can be a good starting point.
> NOBODY knows how much fossil fuel the Earth contains
this is true - in that nobody knows *exactly*. But we do know for example that there is no more oil to be found in the continental United States or Europe. Its also known in what kinds of rock formations oil/coal etc can be found - and many of them have already been surveyed. This does leave many remote areas still to be surveyed.
> -- because there are inumerable untapped sources.
This however is not. We know for certain that there is a *finite* amount of fossil fuel deposits. The disagreements come about as to exactly how much is left.
the detail of Hubberts theory *are* disputed but what we do know for sure :
- almost all current fields are declining in production levels
- former swing producers like Saudi Arabia are now in full production meaning they don't have any slack. With the lack of transparency into the Saudi processes this could also be a result of insufficent investment in infrastructure.
- there have been very few substantial new discoveries in the last 20 years and some of those ( like Canada's oils sands ) require a significant amount of energy to extract.
- the US continues to increase the amount of oil it uses each year. The rise of hybrid cars notwithstanding, the US has seen an overall decrease in energy efficiency since the oil shocks of the 70s.
- China and India are rapidly coming online as oil consuming nations - likely to come close to US levels of use in the next 30 years or so.
so we have an increasing level of consumption without sufficent new discoveries to support it. This is one of the reasons for oil imperialism policies like the current misadventure in Iraq. Nations that depend on oil want to be sure they can guarentee a chunk of whats left.
I'll grant you its not inconceivable that huge new deposits will be found. However they need to be found pretty soon for the world to be able to sustain its current consumption growth rates.
>>we've burnt through over half of it in the last 150 and
>>thrown it into the atmosphere.
> How do you know we've burnt over 1/2 of it? Do you know
>exactly how much fossil fuels is in the earth? If so, you
> must be an amazing prophet!
nope, not a prophet - this the opinion of many geologists - including many in the oil industry. see :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak
which talks about oil specifically - but the principal can be extralpolated to fossil fuels in general with an expanded timeline.
wikipedia of course has the caveats you mentioned but it can be a good starting point.
> NOBODY knows how much fossil fuel the Earth contains
this is true - in that nobody knows *exactly*. But we do know for example that there is no more oil to be found in the continental United States or Europe. Its also known in what kinds of rock formations oil/coal etc can be found - and many of them have already been surveyed. This does leave many remote areas still to be surveyed.
> -- because there are inumerable untapped sources.
This however is not. We know for certain that there is a *finite* amount of fossil fuel deposits. The disagreements come about as to exactly how much is left.
the detail of Hubberts theory *are* disputed but what we do know for sure :
- almost all current fields are declining in production levels
- former swing producers like Saudi Arabia are now in full production meaning they don't have any slack. With the lack of transparency into the Saudi processes this could also be a result of insufficent investment in infrastructure.
- there have been very few substantial new discoveries in the last 20 years and some of those ( like Canada's oils sands ) require a significant amount of energy to extract.
- the US continues to increase the amount of oil it uses each year. The rise of hybrid cars notwithstanding, the US has seen an overall decrease in energy efficiency since the oil shocks of the 70s.
- China and India are rapidly coming online as oil consuming nations - likely to come close to US levels of use in the next 30 years or so.
so we have an increasing level of consumption without sufficent new discoveries to support it. This is one of the reasons for oil imperialism policies like the current misadventure in Iraq. Nations that depend on oil want to be sure they can guarentee a chunk of whats left.
I'll grant you its not inconceivable that huge new deposits will be found. However they need to be found pretty soon for the world to be able to sustain its current consumption growth rates.
>Leeroy
I agree that doomsayers’ statements are usually unfair and nonsense
because they are simply taking advantage of the fact that nobody can
foresee the future accurately.
That is the reason I am talking about the past here.
Specific predictions done in 1992 as well as 2004 related New Orleans
hurricane disaster under the perspective of global warming became
the reality in 2005.
I can discuss these past events because global warming is already happening.
Global warming is not a one-sided film or a boring lecture by Gore.
It is your everyday experience already.
I respect the scientific data just like you but ignoring what's happening
is just as nonsense as doomsayers.
I agree that doomsayers’ statements are usually unfair and nonsense
because they are simply taking advantage of the fact that nobody can
foresee the future accurately.
That is the reason I am talking about the past here.
Specific predictions done in 1992 as well as 2004 related New Orleans
hurricane disaster under the perspective of global warming became
the reality in 2005.
I can discuss these past events because global warming is already happening.
Global warming is not a one-sided film or a boring lecture by Gore.
It is your everyday experience already.
I respect the scientific data just like you but ignoring what's happening
is just as nonsense as doomsayers.
鈴木すずきち
I'm not ignoring it by any means. I'm just saying that there is a lot of data one needs to make accurate assumptions about the earth's climate change. Going on trends over the last decade or so simply is not enough data to make make the assumption that we've had the hottest years in the history of the world. Nor is it enough to conclude out of control global warming.
I'm not ignoring it by any means. I'm just saying that there is a lot of data one needs to make accurate assumptions about the earth's climate change. Going on trends over the last decade or so simply is not enough data to make make the assumption that we've had the hottest years in the history of the world. Nor is it enough to conclude out of control global warming.
鈴木すずきち
Sorry, but I think I would need more than that. 1000 years is still not a long enough time to make accurate assumptions about lasting climate change. We need accurate data that spans thousands and thousands of years. The earth has been around far longer than us after all.
Also, the data is tabulated on mere reconstructions and estimates. There are many in the scientific community who doubt it's accuracy. It says so itself on that page.
Again, if you're looking for proof that we have larger storms than before, a temperature record alone isn't going to shed any light on that.
Finally, the data is for the Northern Hemisphere only. Half the world's data is missing.
Sorry, but I think I would need more than that. 1000 years is still not a long enough time to make accurate assumptions about lasting climate change. We need accurate data that spans thousands and thousands of years. The earth has been around far longer than us after all.
Also, the data is tabulated on mere reconstructions and estimates. There are many in the scientific community who doubt it's accuracy. It says so itself on that page.
Again, if you're looking for proof that we have larger storms than before, a temperature record alone isn't going to shed any light on that.
Finally, the data is for the Northern Hemisphere only. Half the world's data is missing.
>I think I would need more than that. 1000 years is still not
a long enough time
>to make accurate assumptions about lasting climate change.
OK, it’s true and this is actually very smart attitude of yours.
If the humanity would not do anything and wait for another 1000 years
to accumulate “enough” data, you will be convinced, not with
accurate scientific assumptions, but with actual consequences such as
severer hurricanes, frequent typhoons and sea level rise, which is
currently projected 6ft. in 2050.
If the humanity do something effective to avoid sea level rise soon enough,
projected 6ft. sea level rise in 2050 can be delayed or prevented.
In this case, your zeal for scientific accuracy will be proven right because,
ironically, no-sea-level-rise will also justify your current skepticism.
("See? nothing happens!")
Congratulations! You will be the winner in either way. Again it is very smart strategy of yours to be ever-lasting skeptic so that you will be the winner of
not-losing-message-board-debate competition.
Commons sense guy like me is a loser in such competition but
one thing I don’t know is this.
Which intellectual attitude do you prefer:
pathetic smartness endorsed by ever-lasting skepticism to
constructive commons sense without super-accurate assumptions?
a long enough time
>to make accurate assumptions about lasting climate change.
OK, it’s true and this is actually very smart attitude of yours.
If the humanity would not do anything and wait for another 1000 years
to accumulate “enough” data, you will be convinced, not with
accurate scientific assumptions, but with actual consequences such as
severer hurricanes, frequent typhoons and sea level rise, which is
currently projected 6ft. in 2050.
If the humanity do something effective to avoid sea level rise soon enough,
projected 6ft. sea level rise in 2050 can be delayed or prevented.
In this case, your zeal for scientific accuracy will be proven right because,
ironically, no-sea-level-rise will also justify your current skepticism.
("See? nothing happens!")
Congratulations! You will be the winner in either way. Again it is very smart strategy of yours to be ever-lasting skeptic so that you will be the winner of
not-losing-message-board-debate competition.
Commons sense guy like me is a loser in such competition but
one thing I don’t know is this.
Which intellectual attitude do you prefer:
pathetic smartness endorsed by ever-lasting skepticism to
constructive commons sense without super-accurate assumptions?
Well, we are not competing anything. We are discussing about the global warming. I think that we are still lucky compared to future generation. We still have opportunity to discuss whether global warming is big threat or not. Global warming itself already started as everybody mention. We are not sure how much badly it would affect us.
Actually, we can take advantage of this global warming to generate money!!! Now, in the world, we have many project such as reforestation, water preservation project,
change the energy resource to solar energy, wind energy, etc.
This is solar energy project:
> MSK CEO Dr. Tadao Kasahara will remain in his current role for at least four years
Based on the "2006 Photovoltaic System Market Future Outlook Report, Japan", Japan is the most important market for solar energy in terms of both total installation and production of solar cells and modules with 53% of world production
http://www.solarserver.de/index-e.html
This is Rainforest project by US company project:
Oregon Power Companies Offset Carbon Through Investment in Ecuador's Rainforest
Conservation Organizations Help Companies Combat Global Warming Through Reforestation
http://www.conservation.org/xp/news/press_releases/2002/111302.xml
Oh, by the way, US is one of the worst countries in terms of producing CO2, CH4 (Methane), critical gas pollution.
However, Some of US companies and NGOs are leading the
pro- environment in the world!!
I worked for EcoLogic Development Fund (Boston) for their CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) project in Honduras. This project is that EcoLogic provide the environmental traning such as reforestation, agroforestry, project proposal writing etc for the local NGO (FUPNAPIB- Pico Bonito National Park Foundation). Through World Bank Bio carbon fund, EcoLogic and FUPNAPIB received fund for reforestation project. Through reforestation, we can generate income for the local and conserve the forest too!
Honduras Pico Bonito Forest Restoration
http://carbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=BioCF&FID=9708&ItemID=9708&ft=Projects&ProjID=9637&stp=Yes
Many US company fund the project for environment. Why
US company and NGO spend so much money on environment?
Because this is opportunity and money involved!!
We can make money to face directly with global warming!
We can make more economic incentives to company, if they know that environment is money! We do good thing for enviornment and for our future. And everybody happy!
now, we can do that. But if we miss this opportunity, what will we face at the year 2050?
I made one scenario for this.
The year 2050, we would probably be around 60 - 80 years old.
One day, our child ask me, papa, why we don't have food?
I will say that because we don't have enough place to plant and cultivate the land.
Our child will ask me that papa, why we don't have enough place?
I will say, because many of land was gone.
Papa, why many land have gone?
I will say that because suddenly whole glacier melt down at 2025, and Tokyo was gone! Papa, what is TOKYO!?
TOKYO was our ex-capital. I am sorry, I couldn't do anything for you. You never seen plain land.
Papa, You are not bad!!
Because you didn't know that glacier would gone, right?
I am sorry that we knew what global warming makes us disaster, but we weren't sure. We much care about economic
development. We care about our money.
Papa, but now we don't have anything, why?
Humm,,,because flood brought whole of my asset to sea.
I worked very hard at one of the biggest company in Japan. But my company also gone, because of flood. I had
so much money, but money couldn't do anything global warming at that time.
So, We have to move to Mountain.
Papa, you knew what would happen!?
Yes, my dear. We knew that.
....
Papa, I see that water is coming up everyday. I am scare.
My son. This is our destiny. Now, we don't have winter. Everyday, it is hot. still ice is melting, so water is increasing. This is "irreversible". I can't do anything.
Papa, you are smart, why you didn't do anything?
Huummm
Papa, can I do anything now?
My son, we can't do anything. When we were at 2006, we could do something, but we missed the time.
We weren't really sure.
NOW! WE CAN DO SOMETHING! AND WE CAN MAKE MONEY FROM THIS!
One of the typical myth about global Warming:
To work for Global Warming is enermy for economy!!!
But absolutely this is not true! We can make money
directly deal with this!
Let's face it! And make money and give our future generation hope!
Actually, we can take advantage of this global warming to generate money!!! Now, in the world, we have many project such as reforestation, water preservation project,
change the energy resource to solar energy, wind energy, etc.
This is solar energy project:
> MSK CEO Dr. Tadao Kasahara will remain in his current role for at least four years
Based on the "2006 Photovoltaic System Market Future Outlook Report, Japan", Japan is the most important market for solar energy in terms of both total installation and production of solar cells and modules with 53% of world production
http://www.solarserver.de/index-e.html
This is Rainforest project by US company project:
Oregon Power Companies Offset Carbon Through Investment in Ecuador's Rainforest
Conservation Organizations Help Companies Combat Global Warming Through Reforestation
http://www.conservation.org/xp/news/press_releases/2002/111302.xml
Oh, by the way, US is one of the worst countries in terms of producing CO2, CH4 (Methane), critical gas pollution.
However, Some of US companies and NGOs are leading the
pro- environment in the world!!
I worked for EcoLogic Development Fund (Boston) for their CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) project in Honduras. This project is that EcoLogic provide the environmental traning such as reforestation, agroforestry, project proposal writing etc for the local NGO (FUPNAPIB- Pico Bonito National Park Foundation). Through World Bank Bio carbon fund, EcoLogic and FUPNAPIB received fund for reforestation project. Through reforestation, we can generate income for the local and conserve the forest too!
Honduras Pico Bonito Forest Restoration
http://carbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=BioCF&FID=9708&ItemID=9708&ft=Projects&ProjID=9637&stp=Yes
Many US company fund the project for environment. Why
US company and NGO spend so much money on environment?
Because this is opportunity and money involved!!
We can make money to face directly with global warming!
We can make more economic incentives to company, if they know that environment is money! We do good thing for enviornment and for our future. And everybody happy!
now, we can do that. But if we miss this opportunity, what will we face at the year 2050?
I made one scenario for this.
The year 2050, we would probably be around 60 - 80 years old.
One day, our child ask me, papa, why we don't have food?
I will say that because we don't have enough place to plant and cultivate the land.
Our child will ask me that papa, why we don't have enough place?
I will say, because many of land was gone.
Papa, why many land have gone?
I will say that because suddenly whole glacier melt down at 2025, and Tokyo was gone! Papa, what is TOKYO!?
TOKYO was our ex-capital. I am sorry, I couldn't do anything for you. You never seen plain land.
Papa, You are not bad!!
Because you didn't know that glacier would gone, right?
I am sorry that we knew what global warming makes us disaster, but we weren't sure. We much care about economic
development. We care about our money.
Papa, but now we don't have anything, why?
Humm,,,because flood brought whole of my asset to sea.
I worked very hard at one of the biggest company in Japan. But my company also gone, because of flood. I had
so much money, but money couldn't do anything global warming at that time.
So, We have to move to Mountain.
Papa, you knew what would happen!?
Yes, my dear. We knew that.
....
Papa, I see that water is coming up everyday. I am scare.
My son. This is our destiny. Now, we don't have winter. Everyday, it is hot. still ice is melting, so water is increasing. This is "irreversible". I can't do anything.
Papa, you are smart, why you didn't do anything?
Huummm
Papa, can I do anything now?
My son, we can't do anything. When we were at 2006, we could do something, but we missed the time.
We weren't really sure.
NOW! WE CAN DO SOMETHING! AND WE CAN MAKE MONEY FROM THIS!
One of the typical myth about global Warming:
To work for Global Warming is enermy for economy!!!
But absolutely this is not true! We can make money
directly deal with this!
Let's face it! And make money and give our future generation hope!
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
