Selfsufficientish.com

... so why am I not surprised at all?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090930/ts ... 1ccfa.html

Mike

And, from the same source, we find the culprits ...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090930/ts ... 1ccfa.html

Exactly how criminally sad can you get?

Hello there ,

why be suprised ?It is nature , does man think they can stop climate changes ?
For the past Zillion years the temperature has been going up and down , and now as a coincidience the
politicians try and convert it into global warming due to industrialization.?

To convert it into a way of collecting taxes , I think it's a load of bull .
Have we not had warnings plenty ,and or examples , of what happens when we put our trust
in the politicians.Are they to be trusted ? Like hell are they .

The same politicians who dont want us all to have small wind turbines .

Climate change is a natural process , like what taxes are the politicians going to introduce to prevent the
sun going out in a few billion years , is that to be prevented by a breathing tax ?

Yes before you all come to the conclusion that I dont like politicians , yes I admit , I dont .


regards ,

Paul

Whilst it would be lovely to blame the US for all the problems, I think all of us need to share in the blame. Sadly, the last sentence of the article says it all. The problem isn't going to peak for another 300-1000 years. Few people alive now will care about that.

Cheers
Zoe

Although climate change occours naturally, it has never occoured as quickly as it is now. Non political scientists confirm that we are the cause of this fast increase in temparatures due to the amount of cardon dioxide we are emitting.

Thomzo wrote:Whilst it would be lovely to blame the US for all the problems, I think all of us need to share in the blame. Sadly, the last sentence of the article says it all. The problem isn't going to peak for another 300-1000 years. Few people alive now will care about that.

Cheers
Zoe

I can see where that came from, Zoe - but I wasn't trying to get at the US

I was trying to put the blame on the general attitude displayed in the article - a sort of "all this helping the world and making it a better place is OK, but what about my money" kind of thing. I just stand back in amazement when anyone can object to third-world countries asking for help on the grounds that profit comes first. And, of course, it's vested commercial interests which have held back the cause of trying to reverse some of the damage we've done to the world.

Mike

Thomzo wrote:Whilst it would be lovely to blame the US for all the problems, I think all of us need to share in the blame. Sadly, the last sentence of the article says it all. The problem isn't going to peak for another 300-1000 years. Few people alive now will care about that.

Cheers
Zoe

You've hit the nail on the head Zoe. People see that one line and it negates the rest of the article in their minds ( and to other articles, that point to a way on how we may be able to at least slow the rate of this phenomenon). People nowadays, just don't take the time to envision life in long terms, or have a sense of legacy which would spur them on to do better.

It's disheartening

Martina

When I was a little boy the scientists where predicting a new ice age!!!

Now you're giving your age away, Honk

Yes, in the 1960s (Sorry, but that's when it was ) the scientists were thinking along those line because they only looked at the few extra cold years of the mid twentieth century and hadn't, at that stage, factored in the effect of volcanic activity.

MW

Don't be too disappointed, Honk - it could still happen

Ironically, a rise in average temperature is what is needed to kick off an ice age. Extra warmth increases evaporation from the sea and that, in turn, leads to an increase in precipitation over the very areas where glaciers (used to) form. Therefore more glacier, therefore more glacial advance, therefore ice age.

Now if only we can prevent the total melt of the Arctic ice sheet (and pigs might fly), there may yet be permament icicles over Edinburgh.

Mike

The 60's were a little 'colder' because the pollution was so bad it was cutting out the sun. Most winters we got a week off school because the smog in London was so bad that everything stopped. For a whole week you couldn't see the other side of the road and by the end of the week it was so thick and yellow you couldn't see more than a few feet.

We will get an 'ice age' in Britiain if the gulf stream stops flowing, which it is likely to do quite soon as temperature rises.

It is not politicians that are the problem, the problem is capatalism. Capitalism cannot stand still, capital has to make profits and keep making profits against its competitors. To do this it keeps on having to make and sell things, irrespective of whether they are in the long term interest of people and the planet, it just has to produce and produce, the more expendable, the more 'throw away' the better.

Not only are all the major resources and means of production owned and controlled by a relatively small number of people but so is the land. In Britain the vast majority are squeezed into a tiny faction of the available land and are thus forced to buy their food and work for others. Yet there is sufficient land for every family to have 3 acres of agricultural land on which to be self-sufficent, to produce their own food, timber for heating and still be able to work for 3 or 4 days/week. The country would then be virtually self-sufficent in food, whereas under current farming we have to import 50% of our food.

If only it were as simple as saying the ice age is coming, or that that the earth is going to heat up by x amount of degrees. Sadly the very unpredictable nature of climate change is what makes it so dangerous. Eco-systems cannot plan to avoid disaster if climate doesn't follow set patterns; unpredictability in growing seasons leads to harvest failures and the evolution of plants and animals is disrupted as they can not acclimatise themselves to changes.

MKG wrote:... so why am I not surprised at all?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090930/ts ... 1ccfa.html

Mike

Sorry! We couldn't find the page you requested.

Thomzo/Zoe wrote:The problem isn't going to peak for another 300-1000 years.

Not having been able to read the article, I assume with "the problem" they are referring to climate change.

If that is the case (and also in response to paul123456's "Climate change is a natural process"), this here problem is probably not due to natural changes, but due to man made changes. You cannot expect that burning so much fossil fuel will not have an effect on the atmosphere.
(Check out 'Crude - the incredible journey of oil', a television documentary by filmmaker Dr Richard Smith, or read the summary of it here: http://www.turtugablanku.com/news.php#Crude ).

There are holes in the poles and it seems like this melting trend is going to continue. That means that at some point you are out of cold water. As grahamhobbs also pointed out, cold water -and warm- is needed to keep oceanic currents going and those determine to a great degree the climate (think of monsoons!). No cold water anymore? No more ocean currents resulting in drastic changes in the earth's climate. This is something that could happen very quickly when some critical threshold point is reached.