| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/20/2006 03:34:43 AM · #1 |
I just watched this dvd about the state of our planet and it was an eyeopening experience to say the very least. Rather frightening to see our earth and the changes its endured and the changes it no longer endures.
I was thinking a challenge based on ways we already are or can improve our environment / for the planet might be a great way to start off the new year... Taking care of the Earth shouldnt be inconvenient it should be priority.. and given the world wide community on this site it would be interesting to see how people view their environment and the different things they are doing to preserve it..
If you havent seen this documentary.. I'd highly recommend it.An Inconvenient Truth
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 05:10:49. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 05:10:24 AM · #2 |
The film is absolutely amazing, frightening and sobering
Everyone should make an effort to see it
Steve |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 05:16:48 AM · #3 |
| I watched the original version |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 05:59:59 AM · #4 |
It's very scary, to see the glaciers receding, and the levels of CO2 rising, with temperatures rising. This causes all sorts of natural disasters across the world, like Katrina, and now the drought and fires in our own Victoria, Australia.
I think man has wrecked the planet big time............what are we leaving behind for our children? |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 06:04:52 AM · #5 |
I love to see a challenge re "Saving our Planet" or "Saving our Earth", similar to what you have suggested here, but think the "An Inconvenient Truth", maybe a little hard for some ,embers to grasp. I really would love to see what would come out of this tre the images entered, if there was a challlenge like this.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 06:12:01 AM · #6 |
Not to downplay or minimize the sort of effect we are having on the planet, not at all, but nevertheless it's important to have perspective here; changes far larger than what is being speculated have happened many, many times in the history of the earth. Think ice ages, think of the tropical world of the huge inland seas (there's a high sea level right there...) and so forth.
Even when it comes to global warming, that actually started when men began cultivating on a large scale, a long time ago. It has been argued convincingly that were it not for man's impact on the climate the earth would have entered an ice age quite a while ago; geologically speaking we are overdue for one.
But, in general, it is fallacious to think of some sort of "status quo" of the environment as being the "natural" state of things. Nothing could be further from the truth; what is natural is change, huge change, cyclic change. Species come and go, microclimates come and go, nothing ever stays the same for very long from the geological perspective.
What's actually happening here is we're making things less satisfactory for ourselves and many (but not all) of our neighbor-species on the planet. But the planet will survive, even prosper, life will go, if not necessarily human life.
For what that's worth...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 06:24:14 AM · #7 |
Mother is a temperate soul.
The sun is her heart, the wind her breath, the rivers and oceans her life blood, the earth her skin.
My tribe teaches that she revolves, and evolves. Mother is dynamic, never just sitting around watching Opra.
She is changing before out eyes. It is scary to see mother change. I don't want to see my mother change. But, who are we but just shepards. No, we are not sheep. Mother doesn't take care of us. We take care of mother.
All we can do is make sure that mother is healthy during the change. We can make sure not to pollute the way we do. We can make sure to respect more for our mother, and less for the big dollar.
But, in reality, money speaks while mother weeps.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 06:33:00 AM · #8 |
Bear, I have one example for you: When you were born, the polar bear was thriving, as it had for many thousands of years.
But due to loss of habitat (sea ice) the species will become extinct in a very short time, possibly before you do.
To me, such a drastic change in less than 100 years is far different from normal cyclical fluctuation. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 07:28:53 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by genghis:
Bear, I have one example for you: When you were born, the polar bear was thriving, as it had for many thousands of years.
But due to loss of habitat (sea ice) the species will become extinct in a very short time, possibly before you do.
To me, such a drastic change in less than 100 years is far different from normal cyclical fluctuation. |
There have been quick extinctions and slow ones so which one is normal? Do we really care what happens to the polar bear or do we just care if it affects our survival? Reason why I ask is we actively kill viruses all the time to point of extinction yet nobody cries about that. What makes the polar bear different from the virus?
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 07:30:00. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 07:46:52 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by genghis:
Bear, I have one example for you: When you were born, the polar bear was thriving, as it had for many thousands of years.
But due to loss of habitat (sea ice) the species will become extinct in a very short time, possibly before you do.
To me, such a drastic change in less than 100 years is far different from normal cyclical fluctuation. |
What do you call a very short time? I mean bear isnt a spring chicken and estimated reports are that in 35-50 years might be the earliest if trends continue and they are actually correct in the studies.
Link to reference
Also they have been downgraded from endangered to vulnerable. So they must be making a comeback of sorts to get such an upgrade.
MattO
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 07:49:21.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 07:53:29 AM · #11 |
I like to look at both sides of the argument/propaganda. I hope you have an open mind to look at both sides of the story.
Also, if there is global warming, is it bad or good? As a total optomist, I believe God has a plan, and we are in it.
If you are not open to both sides of the story don't click
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 08:20:06 AM · #12 |
I believe it was just 30 years ago there was a report that we were going through global cooling, I googled it. I agree that we are in a warming trend but how much is do to us, or how much does it have to do with the cycle of the earth. Also not all the glazers are retrieving so have grown up to 60% in volume. See artificial here.
With that said yes I do see a problem but can we really do anything about it? If we could, would people do it? Do you really want the government to impose another you can / cannot do policy?
The earth is alive and believe me she could shake us off like flea's if she wanted. Many species have went extent but the earth is like a Timex watch; she takes a licking and keeps on ticking.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 08:51:32 AM · #13 |
How many of you live in a houshold with more than one car - try carpooling? How many of you drive SUV's or other vehicles with high fuel consumption - try a smaller more efficient vehicle? How many of you not only by organic (buying organic beef from New Zealand does more damage to our earth and bodies then buying grain fed beef from the Hudson Valley if you live in say NY/PA/NJ) but try to buy local food and groceries? How many of you use compact fluorescent bulbs instead of regular incandescent bulbs? How many of you limit your water consumption by taking fewer shorter showers and baths or waiting longer to do laundry? How many of you with children use cloth diapering rather than disposable?
I could go on and on with the small things we could all do to break our petroleum addiction which IMO is a major factor behind global warming. Nothing will change overnight, but small changes over time add up.
Yes there are warming and cooling cycles that have been taking place for thousands of years, however they have found evidence of things humanity has done to speed up these cycles unaturally. Why keep doing them? These cycles are getting shorter and shorter. The other day it was snowing in TX and 70 degrees in NJ!! That isn't normal, but you are seeing it more and more.
Unfortunately Global Warming is a gradual process. If we all started raidly burning up, you better believe you would see more initiative. You would see more money being pumped into alternative fuel sources. You would see more conservation and recycling efforts. As a whole, this society needs instant gratification as quickly and effortlessly as possible. If there isn't a direct and immediate benefit, what's the point?
If you have a pot of boiling water and a frog jumped in, the frog would immediately sense the danger and jump out. If you put the frog in the water and slowly heat it up, the frog wont go anywhere and will eventually die. That is where we sit today - in a pot of slowly heating water. We are unable or unwilling to sense the danger, therefore we do nothing. It is a shame. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 09:00:04 AM · #14 |
//releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=77195
Testimony of a scientist in a US senate hearing. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 09:14:53 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Sinky:
It's very scary, to see the glaciers receding, and the levels of CO2 rising, with temperatures rising. This causes all sorts of natural disasters across the world, like Katrina, and now the drought and fires in our own Victoria, Australia.
I think man has wrecked the planet big time............what are we leaving behind for our children? |
I was in Glacier Bay Alaska in August and learned a lot about glaciers. They have a great map that shows all the glaciers and where they have moved over the years. I couldn't find it on line in a quick search. True, several glaciers are retreating. What's also true is that several glaciers are advancing! Also, the glaciers that are retreating have been retreating since 1750! The retreating glaciers are what is left of “the little ice age” that reached its peak in 1750.
More here: //www.nps.gov/glba/naturescience/glaciers.htm
Don’t believe everything you see in a propaganda movie. They tell you only the facts that support their agenda and inconveniently leave out some truths that do not support their aganeda.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 09:21:28 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by genghis:
Bear, I have one example for you: When you were born, the polar bear was thriving, as it had for many thousands of years.
But due to loss of habitat (sea ice) the species will become extinct in a very short time, possibly before you do.
To me, such a drastic change in less than 100 years is far different from normal cyclical fluctuation. |
I would disagree with this; in any cyclical climate change such as we are discussing, onset will usually take a long time, but there will come a trigger point at which equilibrium is shattered and then change will be very rapid.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 09:48:58 AM · #17 |
-
Message edited by author 2007-05-03 07:01:58. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:06:42 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by persimon:
How many of you limit your water consumption by taking fewer shorter showers and baths or waiting longer to do laundry? |
Who really wants to live in such a stinky world anyway? |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:24:02 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by SkyNevada:
I read two books by Jared Diamond that sound very similar. They are Guns, Germs & Steel & Collapse. They had a profound effect on me - they caused me some serious depression. In one way I think they should be 'required' reading by everyone living on this planet at this moment. On the other hand, I think they should be banned from everybodies eyes - that's how depressed they made me about the state of affairs in our world: ecologically. I'm pretty sure both books are covered by PBS. I felt as an individual, I could do nothing. I really believe, if the facts stated are true, that big business and government agencies are the only entities that can 'save' us from irreversible damages. That reminds me, I need to go to the store and stock up on canned goods and more ammo. And some of those 'strike anywhere' matches. Oh, and water purification tablets, a solar power battery charger, coffee, vitamin C tablets, and ski goggles. Plus, some more ammo and a claymore mine if I can find a few. I should probably buy some thick plastic jugs, cement, iron rebar, and a better shovel. Really, those books freaked me out! |
This actually is a good thing. Becoming depressed after reading these kinds of things shows that you have compassion and a need to want to help. It is very frustrating if you feel that you can't do anything but by posting your feelings and pain help others to be aware of what's going on out there which in turn starts the ball rolling in the right direction. I have never been very religous per se but have a very deep belief in God (or Spirit/Energy - whatever name that makes you comfortable) which holds me up during these times of deep depression. Praying/meditating/discussing this stuff on these forums all create a ripple of change in the pool of illusion (is this really reality?). There is much much more.. but little doses are easier to swallow when it's this deep!
love |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:26:35 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Sinky:
It's very scary, to see the glaciers receding, and the levels of CO2 rising, with temperatures rising. This causes all sorts of natural disasters across the world, like Katrina, and now the drought and fires in our own Victoria, Australia.
I think man has wrecked the planet big time............what are we leaving behind for our children? |
I was in Glacier Bay Alaska in August and learned a lot about glaciers. They have a great map that shows all the glaciers and where they have moved over the years. I couldn't find it on line in a quick search. True, several glaciers are retreating. What's also true is that several glaciers are advancing! Also, the glaciers that are retreating have been retreating since 1750! The retreating glaciers are what is left of “the little ice age” that reached its peak in 1750.
More here: //www.nps.gov/glba/naturescience/glaciers.htm
Don’t believe everything you see in a propaganda movie. They tell you only the facts that support their agenda and inconveniently leave out some truths that do not support their aganeda. |
Note that global warming is posited to result in changed weather conditions - not universal warming. A consequence of global warming may be that it gets colder in some locations.
An example is the UK: London is 11 degrees further north than New York, but does not see snow. The country is warmed artificially by the "gulf stream" - undercurrents in the sea moving heat out of the mediterranean towards our shores. There is a risk that one side effect of global warming will be the slowdown or stoppage of this warming flow, and as a consequence we will be able to have ice fairs on the Thames again - only the Thames will be a couple of feet higher and will flood large parts of the city!
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:34:34 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
and then change will be very rapid.
|
Correct, historical data shows that the change from a warm climate to an ice age can occur in as little as a few decades time.
That being said, it is pretty much universally accepted that there is a strong correlation between carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere and temperature.
Antarctic ice core data going back 650,000 years shows that the highest level of CO2 at about 300 ppmv.
Today that level is over 375 ppmv, 25% higher than it has been in the last 650,000 years.
Incidentally, this uptick coincides with the dawn of the industrial revolution.
graph
This rise is fact.
The correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is fact.
Whether this means that we will see temp change that the world has never known before is open to debate.
What should not be open to debate is that we our experiencing climate change and that it is our moral responsibility to do something to mitigate what we know and what we can control.
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 10:41:27. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:42:41 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
and then change will be very rapid.
|
Correct, historical data shows that the change from a warm climate to an ice age can occur in as little as a few decades time.
That being said, it is pretty much universally accepted that there is a strong correlation between carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere and temperature.
Antarctic ice core data going back 650,000 years shows that the highest level of CO2 at about 300 ppmv.
Today that level is over 375 ppmv, 25% higher than it has been in the last 650,000 years.
Incidentally, this uptick has coincides with the dawn of the industrial revolution.
graph
This rise is fact.
The correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is fact.
Whether this means that we will see temp change that the world has never known before is open to debate.
What should not be open to debate is we our experiencing climate change and that we should be doing something to mitigate what we know and can control. |
But another thing that has to addressed is CO2 when a human exhales. Ok the CO2 level is about 75% greater now than 650,000 years ago. But how may more people live on the earth now vs. 650,000 years ago. Over 6,000,000,000 people will produce a lot of CO2 and combine that with urban development (plan and tree reduction) there are bound to be greater CO2 levels ppmv.
ETA: with the average human producing 900 grams of CO2 per day that mean that the world population produces 5400000000000 (5400 trillion grams) of CO2 per day on average.
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 10:54:27. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:53:10 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
But another thing that has to addressed is CO2 when a human exhales. Ok the CO2 level is about 75% greater now than 650,000 years ago. But how may more people live on the earth now vs. 650,000 years ago. Over 6,000,000,000 people will produce a lot of CO2 and combine that with urban development (plan and tree reduction) there are bound to be greater CO2 levels ppmv. |
Quite a stretch.
Burning fossil fuels produces way more CO2 than a human exhaling.
Show me some data where the rise in the human population contributes a significant amount to the atmospheric CO2 levels.
I would be shocked to see that. Shouldn't be hard, x-number of people x's average CO2 per exhalation x's ave exhalations in a lifetime.
Also of important note is the vast amount of forest that no longer processes CO2. This deforestation also coincides with the Industrial Revolution.
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 10:53:59. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:56:10 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
But another thing that has to addressed is CO2 when a human exhales. Ok the CO2 level is about 75% greater now than 650,000 years ago. But how may more people live on the earth now vs. 650,000 years ago. Over 6,000,000,000 people will produce a lot of CO2 and combine that with urban development (plan and tree reduction) there are bound to be greater CO2 levels ppmv. |
Quite a stretch.
Burning fossil fuels produces way more CO2 than a human exhaling.
Show me some data where the rise in the human population contributes a significant amount to the atmospheric CO2 levels.
I would be shocked to see that. Shouldn't be hard, x-number of people x's average CO2 per exhalation x's ave exhalations in a lifetime.
Also of important note is the vast amount of forest that no longer processes CO2. This deforestation also coincides with the Industrial Revolution. |
with the average human producing 900 grams of CO2 per day that mean that the world population produces 5400000000000 (5400 trillion grams) of CO2 per day on average.
It may not be the defining factor but it is a big factor.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 11:13:12 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
with the average human producing 900 grams of CO2 per day that mean that the world population produces 5400000000000 (5400 trillion grams) of CO2 per day on average.
It may not be the defining factor but it is a big factor. |
I'm sure it does contribute but if it were significant I'd expect for it to be involved in the debate and your's is the first mention I've heard on this topic.
Still, interesting.
thanks |
|
