A question about climate change/global warming.

With 2.7 percent of the country's population — 8.2 million of 300 million — the average New York City resident contributes less than a third of the emissions generated by a typical American. This is largely due to the popularity of the city's mass transit system, which cuts down on car emissions, officials said.

Moreover, Adler might have heard that Crichton and two full-fledged scientists recently beat some leading global warming scientists in a debate.

Can someone redirect me to the thread about the Bali climate talks, if it exists?

So the talks yielded an agreement on a framework to work on updating the existing framework on climate change in two years. For the next two years, there will be no binding restraints on carbon emissions in the U.S. and China, among others.

In other words, a complete failure.

The talks were notable for the loud booing and hissing directed at the United States delegates during the last day for its "refusal to agree to language requiring rich countries to provide measurable technical assistance and money to poorer countries that take meaningful steps." (link) Props to the delegate in Papua New Guinea who said “We seek your leadership, but if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please, get out of the way.”

Wow, I forgot about the massive response to the last post I made there.

So, over the past week or so, I've come to the realization that all of these dudes I'm living with this summer all think climate change is a hoax. Or, rather, they acknowledge but the planet is warming, but then they go into the "the world has been going through cycles of cold and warm for the past million years, before humans even existed" argument. Also, these dudes have made fun of me for playing Zelda: Phantom Hourglass on my DS, they said watching Lost was "gay", although under further questioning they revealed that they had never seen it before. This is hell.

Anyway, I'm just going to post on here whenever one of them says something hilarious about global warming. One of them asked me, "So...seriously, do you really think there's going to be some sort of global warming CRISIS? LIke in within the next 100 years?", and then when I mentioned something about receding minimum summer arctic iceshelf levels they countered with news about glaciers in Greenland getting much bigger.

Also, another has had his mouth open like a goat for the past two weeks. I want to go over there and press his jaw up a little so his teeth clack together.

Also, someone directed me to this earlier as evidence:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Apart from the global warming they seem pretty spot on.

lol Z S you might be young and healthy and dating a cutie but you live with MORONS I win

I am old and healthy and dating a cutie and live with a GENIUS

Only two more months. This is only temporary, this is only temporary...

You can make it. Although I think you should kill them.

I feel you dude, I lived in barracks with all manner of jackasses for, like, four months or so

then we got to pick our own roommates and I never dealt with such as you speak of ever again

don't worry ZS, at the end of the movie you get to save their lives and you all become sunshine happy friends together.

and
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

more extensively
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/

Morons are underrated.

It's alright, the sunspots have gone and saved us all!
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html

Uhm I think we should avoid liberal guilt here, or the kind of fear mongering thats been placed on us. People don't want to hear it because they live in a society where market incentives and likewise bullshit as well as 'TURNING OFF A FUCKING LIGHTBULB' etc are used in place of actual long term solutions so they choose to ignore it and submit to an agentic state but I don't think that people are ignorant or apathetic more overwhelmed.
The kind of excesses brought about by capitalism and the state's support of that system are the real culprits. We can't just be promoting lifestylism and individualist action while the real root and cause carries on, anarchism...WOAH-too far?
Anyway my point is; its not really our fault but we should get together, organise etc and tackle the real problem.

major lulz at the sourcewatch link. The first thing I did when they showed me the global warming debunking "report" was go to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine homepage, where the authors of the paper work. I said, "Why is there a link to an article on how to survive a nuclear war on this page?", a question they ignored before redirecting me to a cool graph showing that the world had, astonishingly, seen above-average temperatures in the past.

www.350.org

I should post this here, too:

http://globalmicrowave.orgfree.com/satellites.htm

Grist posted the entire "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" series in a point-by-point response to the denial talking points
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Doesn't cover the "political" argument my last boss had - of course the science will point towards global warming! That's where all the money is! They get paid to say this shit! - I guess trying to draw parallels between the global warming "industry" and big pharma.

Of course he never said who was providing all this money, or why it was in their best interests to prove global warming if combating it is going to be so disasterous for the global economy.

(other that that it is a great resource)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7472532.stm

http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update69.htm
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4081
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/389/2008/acp-8-389-2008.pdf
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e780d216-5fd5-11dc-b0fe-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2043724,00.html
http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted20067_en.pdf
http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Ethanol_fuel_presents_a_cornundrum.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/business/worldbusiness/19palmoil.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14293/oecd.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?hp
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/05/biofuels.food

My grandfather, long retired from Exxon, where he worked his whole career as a research chemist (figuring out ways to make the industry more environmentally friendly, btw), also trots out the "natural long-term cycles of warming & cooling" defense when climate change comes up, though he also hedges his bets by saying that in his opinion, petroleum should never have been used as a fuel anyway, but rather reserved for its useful chemical properties.

first the salmon, now the oysters

Overheard this afternoon from a bagger to a cashier at, of all places to hear this, Whole Foods. This is verbatim as near as I can remember:

"There was a program on the other night that looked at all the temperatures, at least as far back as they can, and the whole carbon footprint and global warming thing, if you look at it scientifically, it's really kind of a hoax."

I so wanted to turn to him and say, "Yeah, I think I saw that program. Was it called 'Things James Inhofe Pulled Out Of His Lying Ass?'" Bagger was at least 60, too.

what is the age at which because it's on the teevee, it's true? or is age not the operative factor?

Grim

Fuck.

pee-drinking manfish, it's your time to shine

http://images.digitalmedianet.com/2006/Week_33/61rboolg/story/waterworld-1.jpg

What is really up for grabs at the moment though is the exact extent of climate change. Some scary-ass scenarios to ponder here.