Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!

This site is now closed permanently to new posts.
We recommend you use the new Townsy Cafe!

Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!

Results 1 to 10 of 10

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    JuliaB's Avatar
    JuliaB
     

    We Have A Real Emergency

    WE HAVE A REAL EMERGENCY
    By Mikhail Gorbachev
    New York Times
    December 9, 2009

    https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/o...gorbachev.html

    As the climate change summit meeting moves forward in Copenhagen, it is
    increasingly clear that more than just the environment is at stake. The
    global environmental crisis is at the heart of practically all the problems
    now confronting us, including the need to create a global economic model
    grounded in the public good.

    It is directly linked to security issues and to increasingly dangerous
    ethnic and international conflicts; to mass migrations and displacements of
    people, which are already destabilizing politics and economics; to growing
    poverty and social inequality; to the water crisis and energy and food
    shortages.

    Excuses and pretexts for not taking action on the environment, and
    assertions that there are more important problems, are simply no longer
    credible. If we fail on this problem, weıll fail on all the others.

    Saving our planet should be a task shared by governments, the business and
    scientific communities, and civil society. Each stakeholder in this noble
    cause has a role to play. The main burden of responsibility, however, lies
    with governments and their institutions.

    Governments can set firm standards and norms that are indispensable to
    fighting climate change. Only the state is capable of mobilizing the
    resources and incentives to implement cutting-edge technologies. Only the
    state can help those who are the most vulnerable to climate change.

    Representatives of governments are meeting in Copenhagen to open a new stage
    in international cooperation on climate change. Whether it will be a strong
    and convincing start or a weak, disappointing one is up to them.

    The latest scientific research on climate change is extremely disturbing. We
    have a real emergency. Yet the gap between science and policy keeps
    widening, as does the gap between the negotiations and the urgency of the
    issue.

    Science indicates that the global temperature increase should be limited to
    1 or 2 degrees Celsius. World leaders endorsed this view at the G-8 meeting
    in Italy in July. Even with that limit, major destruction, including the
    disappearance of most of the worldıs coral reefs, is likely.

    Yet policy compromises agreed to by negotiators involved in the Copenhagen
    talks virtually guarantee a temperature increase of around 4 degrees Celsius
    -- well into the catastrophic risk range.

    Why is this happening? For several reasons, including the inertia of the
    existing economic model, one based on hyperprofits and excessive
    consumption; political and business leadersı failure to think long term; and
    concern that reducing carbon emissions will undercut economic growth. Those
    who donıt want any change are exploiting that concern.

    As the global financial crisis has made abundantly clear, efforts to make
    the world sustainable for present and future generations do not undermine
    the economy. The culprit is something quite different: reckless pursuit of
    profit at any price, blind faith in the ³invisible hand of the market,² and
    government inaction.

    Whatıs needed is a search for new engines of growth and incentives to
    economic development. Transitioning to a low-carbon, low-waste economy will
    create qualitatively new, green industries, technologies and jobs.

    A low-carbon economy is just part of a new economic model, one the world
    needs as badly as the air we breathe.

    Overnight changes to the economic model that has prevailed for a half
    century are not realistic. The transition to a new model requires a shift in
    values.

    The global economy must be reoriented toward the public good. It must
    emphasize issues like a sustainable environment, healthcare, education,
    culture, equal opportunities and social cohesion -- including reducing the
    glaring gaps between wealth and poverty.

    Society needs this, and not just as a moral imperative. The economic
    efficiency of emphasizing the public good is enormous, even though
    economists have not yet learned how to measure it. We need an intellectual
    breakthrough if we are to build a new economic model.

    We also need a moral realignment of the business community. Companies and
    their C.E.O.s tend to define their positions on environmental issues
    according to the short-term or at best medium-term bottom line. Socially and
    environmentally responsible business is still the exception rather than the
    rule. Change is needed in the entire system of taxes, subsidies and
    incentives.

    Civil society must also play a larger role. It must become not just a
    stakeholder but a full participant in making decisions that will shape the
    environment and the economy for decades to come.

    In Copenhagen, we will closely watch the political leaders. More than 60
    heads of state will take a personal leadership test there. We have seen how
    easy it would be to fail. The weeks and months ahead offer them a chance to
    show that they can truly lead.

    ............

    Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of the Soviet Union, is founding
    president of Green Cross International and head of the Climate Change Task
    Force (CCTF).
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. TopTop #2

    Re: We Have A Real Emergency

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by JuliaB: View Post
    ............

    Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of the Soviet Union, is founding
    president of Green Cross International and head of the Climate Change Task
    Force (CCTF).
    Great! Just what we need! Unfettered Climate COMMUNISM!!!!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  3. TopTop #3
    David8's Avatar
    David8
     

    Re: We Have A Real Emergency

    Have you folks done ANY comparative fact checking on Climate Change? I really wanted to believe it - it's so seductively seeming to be aligned with environmentalism. And seeing the likes of Glenn Beck frothing do nothing for the credibility of opposing viewpoints.

    Don't just believe the hype. Carbon taxes and credits will bakrupt the third world, and line the pockets of the bankers behind the current economic coup. The medieaval warm period was a time of abundance far warmer than where we're headed. Warming is largely driven by the sun, not Co2. Cutting pollution would be great, but this is not the answer. Inconvenient Truth is now banned from British public schools by their courts based on MANY factual errors. This IS deliberate deception. Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (link below), and check your sources.

    I care about the truth, and I'm not particularly credulous of mainstream sources, so I've been researching the opposing information for months, with no preconceptions. I have done this primarily because the political implications make it so plausible that the same thieves that just stole trillions of dollars of public money stand to gain so enormously in money and most dangerously power from the proposed solutions to this problem. Is this a Hegelian dynamic? (manufactured problem to ram through "solutions" with hidden agendas)

    I heartily recommend that you do the same. Don't believe me or anyone else. Take a deep breath and use a few hours to research the sources yourself, and for God's sake do so with a good measure of critical skepticism as to the motivations that are involved on all sides. I think you'll be surprised at what you find.

    By the way, Lord Monckton is a wacky character with a lot of extreme opinions, but his politics and showmanship are less interesting and relevant than the science he demonstrates - he may be a wierdo, but he's a brilliant one. Just check his facts and ignore his flamboyant eccentricities. Same with Alex Jones. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

    Here's a few interesting sources:

    (I don't endorse the complete content of any of these videos, I just found them really worth viewing by anyone genuinely interested in knowing the truth here.)

    https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647&ei=3dwqS_bqBoH8qAO51ZCHBQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

    Peace, Love, & Truth
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. TopTop #4
    Jupiter13
    Guest

    Re: We Have A Real Emergency

    [QUOTE=David8;103458]Have you folks done ANY comparative fact checking on Climate Change? I really wanted to believe it - it's so seductively seeming to be aligned with environmentalism. And seeing the likes of Glenn Beck frothing do nothing for the credibility of opposing viewpoints.



    Geez, David, how many times are you going to post this?

    If you want to hear from the people experiencing climate change firsthand now and looking the the total destruction of their countries under the deal cut by industrialized countries, I recommend that you go to Democracy Now and watch the coverage of the Copenhagen talks. Excellent interviews by Amy Goodman and others.

    A daily TV/radio news program, hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, airing on over 800 stations, pioneering the largest community media collaboration in the U.S.

    In your search for truth, it may offer you an alternative viewpoint that is a world away (literally) from Lord Monckton. No climate justice activist or world leader (from developing countries) that I heard interviewed is in favor of cap and trade or cap and dividend. They know it's another rip off from the Wall Street thieves. As with many issues, indigenous and the most affected (poorest) people know what the problem is and possible solutions, but their voices are not heard.

    But throwing out all the science and direct experience that global warming is happening will obstruct other innovative solutions from emerging. That would be too bad for all of us - the baby is definitely going to drown.

    Good luck
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  5. TopTop #5
    Thad's Avatar
    Thad
     

    Re: We Have A Real Emergency

    When is it that someone else will finally acknowledge that the rats have procreated beyond their food supply and are now eating their babies. Its a terrible thing to hear, but its time for massive depopulation. And if nature does it that's much better than someone having to call that shot. It happens we are not that different than lemmings. Oversimplification but what is one to do. We are competing for food supply's. You can get very inventive and try to produce at extraordinary levels to keep everyone breeding, but there's competition for food supply now at increasing levels... lets just hope that it's nature that supplies the solution and no individual has to be responsible for that decision...

    consume less and draw your people closer...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. TopTop #6

    Re: We Have A Real Emergency

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Jupiter13: View Post

    If you want to hear from the people experiencing climate change firsthand now and looking the the total destruction of their countries under the deal cut by industrialized countries, I recommend that you go to Democracy Now and watch the coverage of the Copenhagen talks. Excellent interviews by Amy Goodman and others.

    A daily TV/radio news program, hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, airing on over 800 stations, pioneering the largest community media collaboration in the U.S.

    In your search for truth, it may offer you an alternative viewpoint that is a world away (literally) from Lord Monckton. No climate justice activist or world leader (from developing countries) that I heard interviewed is in favor of cap and trade or cap and dividend. They know it's another rip off from the Wall Street thieves. As with many issues, indigenous and the most affected (poorest) people know what the problem is and possible solutions, but their voices are not heard.
    I have been listening a lot to Amy Goodman's Democracy Now program these past few days and I have heard some of the testimonials about Climate Change and its sighted effects. For example, Vandana Shiva, she was talking about her first hand experiences with Climate Instability as she calls it. She talks of melting ice in the Himalayas where the water is washing away houses and crops. Well, yes that is terrible, it is different weather than the people of the Himalayas are used to, but climates change naturally. Yes it is true. And climates will always change. Nothing is ever stagnant. The question is weather or not Al Gore is right and is people are causing this change through CO2 emissions. Vandana Shiva is convinced that it is, but the actual science does not agree with her. And when the head of Greenpeace says something like Global Warming can be hot, cold, wet or dry, well then of course someone's going to notice something different in their environment/climate that falls into that all inclusive Global Warming definition. There will always be a hurricane, volcano, wetter seasons, dryer seasons, etc......

    You know, I have a lot of respect of Vandana Shiva for her work against Monsanto, and GMO farming throughout the world, and I have respect for Amy Goodman too. I think she is very thoughtful and right on about most things. These people are good people! And it's great that they are not in support of cap and trade, but I still completely disagree with them about Global Warming. Now that doesn't mean that I like pollution or fossil fuels or the auto industry. I eat organic, I plan on building my own Cob house (whenever I can gain some money to buy land), I want to be a sustainable farmer (although I dont have the means at the moment), etc... If you saw me you'd think I was a hippy! I hate pollution, and I hate the way that coorporations run by AL Gore's buddies are allowed to rape our earth day by day. But this bunk scientific theory of Man Made Global Warming and its policies that will come with it are atrocious, and nothing more than a massive scaled swindle on the world.

    Dont we all realize that AL Gore is making billions off of this swindle!!! Who devotes their life to saving the planet and all of its inhabitants while at the same time profiting massively from it?!!!!!! Come on people! His film was found by a court in the UK to have 9 major factual errors!!!! One of them was that the oceans were going to rise 20ft. and wipe out SF, NY, etc... Truth is that the sea might rise 2 inches. He also claimed that the polar bears are dying because of glacier melting. In reality Polar Bears have doubled at least over the years. Lord Monckton took this film to court because AL Gore wanted it shown in schools as a factual film, but LM proved it is not factualin a court of law and saved lots of kids from outright propaganda pushing. Just because propaganda is liberal propaganda does not make it okay.... In addition, LM only had time to present the court with the 9 lies, and not the extra 35 that he claims to have found.


    Here is Vandana Shiva on Democracy Now:
    Indian Environmentalist Vandana Shiva: ?It Is Time for the US to Stop Seeing Itself as a Donor and Recognizing Itself as a Polluter, a Polluter who Must Pay?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  7. TopTop #7
    David8's Avatar
    David8
     

    Re: We Have A Real Emergency

    Jupiter13 wrote:

    Geez, David, how many times are you going to post this?

    I think it's very dangerous that so many environmental and social activists are sold on this hook line and sinker, so I posted to all the Climate threads. I'm stirring conversation.

    If you want to hear from the people experiencing climate change firsthand now and looking the the total destruction of their countries under the deal cut by industrialized countries, I recommend that you go to Democracy Now and watch the coverage of the Copenhagen talks. Excellent interviews by Amy Goodman and others.

    That's what is so sad. "All the right people" seem convinced of these wrong views. That's just how it was planned. Climate does and will fluctuate, and there are always those it hurts and those it helps. This is true at all historical periods, whether the change is warming or cooling. When people are hurt, and they are given an explanation and told it could be stopped, it is natural that they will go TV saying they were wronged and justice must be done. This does not mean that Co2 drives climate, it means those who stand to gain from the "solutions" are succeeding in their strategy.

    In your search for truth, it may offer you an alternative viewpoint that is a world away (literally) from Lord Monckton. No climate justice activist or world leader (from developing countries) that I heard interviewed is in favor of cap and trade or cap and dividend. They know it's another rip off from the Wall Street thieves. As with many issues, indigenous and the most affected (poorest) people know what the problem is and possible solutions, but their voices are not heard.

    Of course they don't publicly say they favor the thievery. But just you watch, in the end, it will be rammed through, with all the interests caving in to "we had to get something - this was the best we could do". For the thieves it's another perfect coup.

    Somehow I doubt that the poorest indigenous are the best versed on the science, they are likely following the lead of their environmentalist allies.

    As to Monckton, I don't know what his motives really are, and I would be surprised if there are none which are hidden - but he is one (strong) voice among many with nothing to hide or gain by saying this. All opposition without his means is being very effectively suppressed at present. Fundamentally, this is not about personalities - it is about science. The science remains the only way out of the labyrinth of opinions, emotion, and interests. Of course "all good people" are inclined to believe "environmentalists" and "oppressed and injured people". This is exactly their calculation. Please watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" to see other voices less provocatively attired and tempermented than Monckton. Just give it a hearing before you decide.

    I have so far seen no credible rebuttal to these points:
    (not an inclusive list)

    • The data shows the temperature curve is leading the Co2 curve.
    • The data shows the temperature is more closely related to the solar changes.
    • The natural sources of Co2 are much much larger than the man made sources.
    • The mediaeval warm period was much warmer, and did not cause catastrophe of the sort they are predicting.
    • The warming does not match the periods of greatest industrial activity.
    • The IPCC's manipulation and ommissions from their report. (in 911 commission fashion)
    • The IPCC's inclusion of scientists with opposing viewpoints in their author lists and list of world scientists backing their conclusions.
    • The proposed "solutions" will oppress and not liberate the third world financially. (not to mention us as well)

    I am convinced about this now - but my mind is never closed. Show me good answers and I will look.


    I am not insensitive to the the Earth or her people. Quite the contrary. That's why I see this as so tragic.


    But throwing out all the science and direct experience that global warming is happening will obstruct other innovative solutions from emerging. That would be too bad for all of us - the baby is definitely going to drown.

    Good luck[/quote]
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. TopTop #8
    zenekar's Avatar
    zenekar
     

    Re: We Have A Real Emergency

    "There is enough for everybody's need, but not enough for anybody's greed" - Mohandas Gandhi

    This was true when Gandhi said it and it is relevant today. Although world population has almost tripled since that statement was made, resources are still plentiful. The problem IS greed. A relatively small percentage of the world's population plunders and pollutes the planet in order to have control of the resources and to profit from its distribution.

    Attila
    ...


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Thad: View Post
    When is it that someone else will finally acknowledge that the rats have procreated beyond their food supply and are now eating their babies. Its a terrible thing to hear, but its time for massive depopulation. And if nature does it that's much better than someone having to call that shot. It happens we are not that different than lemmings. Oversimplification but what is one to do. We are competing for food supply's. You can get very inventive and try to produce at extraordinary levels to keep everyone breeding, but there's competition for food supply now at increasing levels... lets just hope that it's nature that supplies the solution and no individual has to be responsible for that decision...

    consume less and draw your people closer...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  9. TopTop #9
    Zeno Swijtink's Avatar
    Zeno Swijtink
     

    Re: We Have A Real Emergency

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by David8: View Post
    I have so far seen no credible rebuttal to these points:
    (not an inclusive list)


    • The data shows the temperature curve is leading the Co2 curve.
    • The data shows the temperature is more closely related to the solar changes.
    • The natural sources of Co2 are much much larger than the man made sources.
    • The mediaeval warm period was much warmer, and did not cause catastrophe of the sort they are predicting.
    • The warming does not match the periods of greatest industrial activity.
    • The IPCC's manipulation and ommissions from their report. (in 911 commission fashion)
    • The IPCC's inclusion of scientists with opposing viewpoints in their author lists and list of world scientists backing their conclusions.
    • The proposed "solutions" will oppress and not liberate the third world financially. (not to mention us as well)

    I am convinced about this now - but my mind is never closed. Show me good answers and I will look.


    I am not insensitive to the the Earth or her people. Quite the contrary. That's why I see this as so tragic.
    I am happy you see yourself as still having an open mind.

    As to the first point, "the data shows the temperature curve is leading the CO2 curve," I think that is true for many climate shifts in the past, when solar shifts rose atmospheric temperature and warmed the oceans which let to outgassing of CO2 from the ocean water.

    But that does not mean we can model these past shifts without taking into account the heat trapping nature of greenhouse gasses such as CO2.

    You find a discussion of this at:

    CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

    As to you other points: "The natural sources of CO2 are much much larger than the man made sources." I agree with that but why is that a problem for the IPCC analysis? Please explain.

    The "Mediaeval warm period." The IPCC now holds that this was not a global warm period. Even if it was we cannot derive much comfort from it, I think.


    Northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions for the past 2,000 years
    Source: Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    I am curious to hear from you how you express your sensitivity to the Earth or her people. Could you tl us some more about this.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. TopTop #10
    David8's Avatar
    David8
     

    Re: We Have A Real Emergency

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink: View Post
    I am happy you see yourself as still having an open mind.

    I don't just see myself that way - you can count on me to behave that way. I'm a critical thinker, and I promote this at every opportunity.

    As to the first point, "the data shows the temperature curve is leading the CO2 curve," I think that is true for many climate shifts in the past, when solar shifts rose atmospheric temperature and warmed the oceans which let to outgassing of CO2 from the ocean water.

    But that does not mean we can model these past shifts without taking into account the heat trapping nature of greenhouse gasses such as CO2.

    You find a discussion of this at:

    CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

    Thanks for a response in kind. I'm genuinely looking to compare sources, and have intelligent conversation, not pick a fight with "true believers" on any side. I'll look this over in detail and reply.

    Have you viewed
    "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and Monckton's presentation? I'm curious what you and others think. (about the science, not the personalities)

    As to your other points: "The natural sources of CO2 are much much larger than the man made sources." I agree with that but why is that a problem for the IPCC analysis? Please explain.

    The point would be that the man made sources are not not driving the warming, quite possibly the natural sources driven by the solar activity are. Either way, I have questions about the extent of the warming, and most especially the dire consequences predicted, which seem to be based mostly on easily manipulated and highly unreliable computer modeling. We are quoted these enormous sounding tonnages of the man made Co2 emissions, but we are talking about the entire atmosphere of the entire Earth. These tonnages are never stated in terms of percentages of the total atmosphere, nor contrasted with the tonnages from natural sources, which when revealed makes them sound miniscule. The key point is "does the science really demonstrate that man made Co2 and not solar changes is most significantly driviing temperature.

    The "Mediaeval warm period." The IPCC now holds that this was not a global warm period. Even if it was we cannot derive much comfort from it, I think.

    Why would you not derive comfort from a historical precedent of warming that did not cause climate catastrophes? I certainly would. This is one of the most hotly debated points - the skeptics call foul and claim that the IPCC broke rank with previously accepted data records and found ways to expunge the Mediaeval warm period from their data sets to advance their agenda. Have you seen anything to refute this?


    Northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions for the past 2,000 years
    Source: Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    My concern is the political analysis. It seems they are trying to classify Carbon (the basis of all life) as a pollutant, and vastly increase control and economic domination through this vehicle. This seems frighteningly plausible to me. We know Monsanto is trying to control the food supply and genome. What do you say to the analysis that the "solutions" to "global warming" will defeat development in the third world and further crush the western middle class through passed along carbon taxing and other schemes. (Have you seen the $$$$ projected? It's vast. Do you trust them to use it all to "reduce pollution" even if they get to classify Co2 as a pollutant?)

    There is clear alarmism and exageration in Inconvenient Truth, in the views of many, as well as numerous factual errors which are not anyone's opinion. The British courts have banned it from public schools for these factual errors.


    I am curious to hear from you how you express your sensitivity to the Earth or her people. Could you tl us some more about this.
    I don't know where you're coming from here. We don't know each other at all, and it seems to me a bit like a character dig. If you're wondering if I am a shill of some sort, I assure you I've lived in Sebastopol for over a decade, and I'm just a regular guy. I'm an artist and entrepreneur, I'm a libertarian leaning moderate who worked for many years in the personal growth and holistic health fields. I've also worked in the Solar field, as an installer and a broker. I care in many ways. I'm not primarily an activist of any sort - and this is not likely to change, or give me reason to think my life choices in need of defending. Peace.

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

Similar Threads

  1. Your emergency information
    By Moon in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-10-2008, 10:49 PM
  2. medical emergency
    By cfitz54 in forum Pets and other Critters
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-10-2008, 05:18 PM
  3. Emergency Situation with Hospice Care in US
    By Braggi in forum WaccoTalk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-05-2007, 10:18 PM

Bookmarks