www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/29/koch-fund...humans-are-to-blame/
Here is the key paragraph:
I was just going to type, that's not any proof of causation, that's merely a correlation with is utterly meaningless in the context of something as complex and multi-faceted as the climate. However, the person who changed his mind due to this study, or more likely is now being funded by someone else, saved me the trouble.
They call this 'science'. We looked at one load of figures, and then another load of figures, and they both went up at roughly the same time, so we've decided that one causes the other. Fucking brilliant. Have all the funding you require.

The really startling thing that hit me about it all is that global sea levels are predicted to rise 1 foot over the next century.

Over the past century the sea levels also rose 1 foot. No-one noticed...

Hasn't it been shown that increases in CO2 levels follow increases in global mean temperatures?

climate change is happening the only alternative is mother nature going on strike ,
if climate change isnt possible is the ice age ? a really bad winter out of character

dubmeup wrote: www.terradaily.com/reports/Rise_in_tempe...mate_change_999.html

From Mushy's link:

"Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

Could it just be that the earth has always gone through various changes?



Climate change is obviously inevitable.
Trying to attribute it to man is very bogus, and totally unproven.

i think. climate change is a fluctuation
i do think industrial production methods and buring fossil fuels on the scale humanity has been doing has to have contributed something
if not explain smog or toxic clouds of chemicals after chem plant fuckups
wouldnt a chemtrail attack be a climate change
event on a small scale ?

maybe some climate changing events caused or enhanced by mans hands are morw acceptable than others .

mushy wrote:
Industrial endeavors do have an impact on climates. The 'experts' are looking at with blinders though. They equate it all to the little guy and his/her car. I would personally put more emphasis on carbon monoxide and chlorofluorocarbons (what Dupont dubed 'freon'). By far one of the biggest, apart from the Sun and other celestial influences, in my opinion is deforestation. Forests are natural carbon sponges, even if they produce some themselves. They process that carbon to harness solar energy with photosynthesis. The excrete oxygen as a waste product when all is said and done. Not only are they carbon sponges, they also hold in vast amounts of humidity and water with their root systems, which creates stabilized weather systems (The rain forests are good examples). It's been proven that deforestation causes drought, and was the likely culprit to the collapse of the Mayan empire. It's also been shown to have an effect on coral reefs, as the lack of carbon absorption causes imbalances in oceanic acidic PH levels. Not only that, but the lack of root systems to hold in soil causes increased amounts of sedimentation. More sediment in the water = less light reaching the corals. This is part of the cause of the dead zone in the gulf of mexico where the Mississippi river delta meets the sea. The other part is the phosphate chemical fertilizer runoff from the farm lands (Thanks Monsanto and Dupont...).

So yeah, as a species we are having an impact. The media just doesn't cover the full scope of it. It's a series of interlinking environmental neglect that's amplifying natural cycles. Their 'solution' is a tax on average Joe/Jane, which makes absolutely no sense. A tax isn't going to solve any of the real issues. All they're trying to do is soften the economic blow to wealthy elite who have made vast fortunes on natural resources. It's also a tax that could in theory never end, as carbon emissions are an inevitability when 99% of life as we know it is heavily reliant on the carbon cycle. Two things need to change, or this problem will just keep perpetuating itself. We as a species need to ditch the current fractional reserve banking systems, and economics based around planned obsolescence. Until then, they'll just keep raping the ecosystems and producing throw-away items that end up in a landfill in 6 months. Even the current 'green' tech is based around these models. Because of that, they aren't really green. They're still made to break, and made with toxic components. If they were truly green, they'd be built to last and kept as natural as possible. We'd also stop logging, and start growing weed trees (poplar trees for example) and hemp for our paper and lumber needs. It's not happening, because none of the bigwigs want to give up their billion dollar industries. As a result, they're looking to the little guy distracted with mindless entertainment to foot the bill and place the blame.

Post of the day in my head indy

Mrindigo wrote: Couldn't possibly agree with this more. Another point to add would be that rainforest was absolutely decimated, very heavily deforested, and rainforest is thought to be a big regulator of the climate, but you never saw Al Gore saying anything about this publicly because corporations made money. Even if climate change could be proven 100% to be solely caused by carbon dioxide, which is absolutely impossible because we're not even close to understanding the climate, and never will understand it fully, if corporations couldn't make money out of cutting emissions, and it couldn't be used as a form of social control to impose neo-feudalism, then the UN would actually fund scientists to produce material saying that it wasn't happening. As it is, powerful, wealthy people benefit, so they do the opposite, they set up the heavily politicised IPCC and fund scientists to produce material that states carbon dioxide is the sole or primary cause of climate change, no matter how execrable the material is.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
You're right, WUB. The rain forests have been heavily deforested. They are indeed very large regulators of climate as well. The Mayans found out how important it was the hard way. They took too much lumber which caused massive droughts. They didn't have their usual agricultural reserves, so their civilization collapsed.

You're completely right about Gore. If he ever did touch on rain forest preservation, it wasn't very heavily. If there isn't a profit to be made, the corporate controlled media will omit certain bits of information like we're discussing. Gore is a frontman for all of that.

Agreed, as it stands we still know more about distant celestial bodies than we do our own planet. There is still much to be learned about it, let alone the interactions and impacts on the biological side of it. That's exactly what this is, neo-feudalism. They put the brunt of the workload on the serf class, most of which are all to ready to accept that they've been bad boys and girls, and thus shell out money thinking they're making a difference with ecological restoration. Granted there have been some impressive restoration projects, but they don't hold up to the amount taken by corporate interests.