Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Well first of all, this year's temperature data, is hardly indicative of warming/climate change patterns in the long run, and no one claims that they are.

Second, I fail to be relieved by the fact that average temperatures in Western Europe (say) appear to be up by 1-2 degrees Celsius since 1980. If one could project this rise linearly (and one can't) in all such areas, one would discover that, for example, in 20 years time vast areas of fertile land will be uncultivatable and tropical diseases will have moved significantly northwards.

Third, the statement "Arctic ice is floating on the ocean" is false. Greenland alone, were the ice sheet to melt would cause a rise in sea levels of up to seven meters.

Finally, the relevant facts, the facts that scientists are discussing, are to be found in the IPCC's latest report, whose Summary for Policy Makers, is quite accessible and much more explicit about what is happening than this year's record temperatures...

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake

by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Wed Feb 14th, 2007 at 09:36:55 AM EST
I think perhaps this diary is supposed to be a bit tongue-in-cheek?
With the last line: "Overall? Only a third of the apocalypse promised so rejoice and celebrate!"
That's the way I read it, at least.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Wed Feb 14th, 2007 at 09:54:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what I want to believe, but this diarist has made some nasty remarks about environmentalists before.  I think it is "kidding on the square": saying what you really think with some snark thrown in to CYA.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
by p------- on Wed Feb 14th, 2007 at 09:57:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's possible to consider environmentalists a stain upon the Earth and still be worried about global warming.

It's exactly like hating market economists yet still being worried about a market failure they're predicting. There's not a whiff of contradiction in disconnecting something objectively real from the people who distort it to push their own agenda.

So how about it, why don't you stop cheering on the end of human civilization and possibly humanity and try to think of solutions to the problem? Because up to now, environmentalists have been part of the problem (anti-nuclear activism) more than the solution.

For the record, I'm not too worried about global warming since peak oil and the collapse of the American empire should greatly ameliorate the situation. And once the marketistas are permanently out of power, progress should be swift.

by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Wed Feb 14th, 2007 at 10:47:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When you are capable of nuggets like this, Richard, I confess I find it difficult to understand why you see the need for gratuitously provocative statements re polar bears and panda's.

FWIW I think a market solution is necessary, but not necessarily markets as we know them, based upon conventional Debt and Equity

As for anti-nuclear activism, I prefer to address the marketistas on the own ground and examine the economics of nuclear vs the rest if we use different financial tools.

I think a long cool look at the total cost over time is overdue using realistic assumptions in respect of likely uranium supply and demand and the costs of decommissioning.

In view of the fact that the "fuel" of tidal, solar and wind energy is free, then in the medium and long term an "asset-based" financing model (ie returning investment capital in energy and thus receiving an interest-free loan in return for the sale of a proportion of future energy production) will come out ahead of nuclear.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Feb 14th, 2007 at 02:16:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
3 parts condescension, 5 parts egotism, 2 parts nether eye.

I've yet to see "wanting humans to die" as a common thread among the hard core greens.  And I don't think I'd come close to fitting into that group.

The conclusions presented are also classic hand waving.  Pretty hopeful assertion that having the northern icecap melt away will have no effect anywhere else.  Or that one year's data mean anything.  But hey, why let a rational analysis derail an agenda..

by HiD on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 12:24:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems you haven't bothered to look at the IPCC report summary. The total sealevel increase that can be expected from the arctic icecaps melting (only most of which are floating) is 0.45 meters. That's the same as the increase from all glaciers everywhere melting. And it pales in comparison from Greenland melting.

You know HiD, rational analysis usually depends on some set of facts. As opposed to fears.

by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Sat Feb 17th, 2007 at 06:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, yes... If so my sarcasm detector is fantastically slow and malfunctioning today... But then, this is exactly the sort of story I read on various fora all over the web and have developed a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to them.

Anyway... apologies...


The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake

by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Wed Feb 14th, 2007 at 09:58:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
check the hidden comments list.  It was virtually empty for months until this cretin came along.
by HiD on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 12:26:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series