lololololol

You can laugh all you want, but scientists have predicted that the North Pole may become seasonally ice-free by 2050 due to arctic shrinkage. The climatic consequences of this will be severe. This is a problem that has to be dealt with, whether it is caused by human activity or not.

Keyword is "seems". The world blames Bush but in reality it is far more than just Bush's fault.



Actually, that title goes to China, who is building coal mines at such a drastic rate that it's downright mortifying.



Hardly, the USA wasn't exactly loved before Bush either.

What do you want everyone to do? Open their windows and run their A/C all summer? You can't magically cool the Earth, and despite Gore's numerous pushes to make us think otherwise, there is very little evidence to suggest that it is solely human activity that has caused "global warming".

I really wish issues of climate change were left to only scientists and not politicians. It became more of a buzzword rather than an undergoing topic of study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

In case someone's confused, what it's saying is that global warming (without quotes) is in fact caused by human activity. Natural variations, which have only had a small effect, have contributed to both warming (pre-1950) and cooling (post 1950) of the earth, so all in all human activity is what has caused and continues to cause global warming. There's not "very little evidence to suggest" this, quite the contrary.

Dunno, in the Clinton era I think you were doing pretty well. He was a popular chap.

First of all, I think the earth's temperature rising by a whopping 1 degree doesn't mean ****. Twenty years ago they though greenhouse gases were going to cause the next ice age. The bottom line is we have no idea what the **** greenhouse gases will actually do, so everyone's got their panties up in a bunch about a phenomenon we don't actually understand.

As far global politics go, there are other things we should be worried about other than appeasing the hippies.

Are you a climatologist?

[url]www.change.gov[/url]

And anyway, regardless of whether man's activities have an effect on global climate change, we should still try to cut our carbon emissions and switch to green energy sources. There's more reasons to do so than just global warming.

Of course, wikipedia fails to mention the fact that no appreciable warming has happened in the last 10 years or so, and in face last year was so cold as to nearly wipe out that nasty 0.5 degrees Celsius temperature rise.

And also, Global Warming is a misnomer. It should be called Global Weather Weirdness.

Yes, they must be in on the GIANT GLOBAL WARMING CONSPIRACY

It's a good thing we have blogs to tell us the truth

I wouldn't call it a misnomer, weather is getting more extreme but the average global temperature is definitely rising.

I have to agree with this... you can't make a such a strong claim without a background in climatology. And it isn't just "the earth's temperature raising by 1 degree." It's far more complicated than that.

But we do understand it. Greenhouse gasses are essential for maintaining the Earth's temperature. Wikipedia is kind of a cop out, but seriously, it's a good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

i actually agree with vin on this one...:omg:

If any of you have ever moved from the countryside to a city, you will appreciate the benefits that will be gained from going green.

The air in London is disgusting.

Sorry to go off topic, I mean ON topic, but I read this article about Obama that really impressed me:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5100064.ece

well, i think i am done bickering over obama. i still dont entirely trust him and i still have a lot of problems with his purposed policies. however at the end of the day he will be our new president and i think he does at least deserve a chance to prove himself.

What he said. I wish people would quit complaining now.

False, socialism is worker ownership over the means of production. India, for example, has (less so than now, so I suppose "had") a relatively planned economy, but it was still based on the capitalist mode of production.





Getting there, it's specifically "proletarian ownership" of the means of production, however.



Yes.



Firstly, Marxian socialism isn't just about being "fair". It's about solving the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production:

The production process under capitalism has been socialized, yet its ownership and distribution are privatized: leading to problems.

And most people just build straw man arguments when talking about what type of equality they are trying to build.



This is very far from the rhetoric Obama used. The redistribution of wealth is necessary to any government type. That would be like saying that the New Deal was socialist, which is just false. The purpose of the New Deal was to preserve the capitalist mode of production. It involved much more government intervention than classical Liberals would have preferred, but the goals were not to place ownership of the economy in the hands of workers (and that is not what happened).

That's relevant because what Obama wants to do is not even close to the New Deal for example.

And the Bailout is far from socialist. I think everyone using the term needs to understand:

Government intervention in the market does not equal socialism by ANY actual definition of socialism.

Well, for example, there is this idea to build a 300 km long dam in the Bering Sea. This would cause more sweet water from the river Yukon to flow to the pole (sweet water freezes more easily than salt water) and it would slow down the currents, which would also help the formation of ice.

http://www.cleverclimate.org/

and how would that effect marine life?

It would create real-life mermaids, thereby fulfilling your wildest dreams.

well, you can start with competely cutting off the migration paths of the Bowhead Whale, and parts of the fin whale population. Also there would almost certainly be devastating effects to all local marine life, including the severely endangered North Pacific Right Whale. just for starters.

Ok the ice caps melting, I can see that but apart from that, what else is wrong with a warmer planet? If Earth rises by 5 deg C in 25y, is it end of the world and it is an uninhabitable wasteland of death or is it an inconvienence for us and we adapt?

Personally, I like the idea of a warmer planet. I hate cold weather.

I'm pretty sure Los Angeles is a shining example of "maybe people should sometimes consider the environmental impacts of things." Literally, there is a cloud of smog that encompasses the city. You could see it. You don't have to be a tree-hugging hippy to realize that maybe more effort to be eco-friendly wouldn't hurt.

I would mention China, but I never visited there.

Phoenix is the same, no where near as bad as LA, but it's definitely very brown. It's nice after a storm, though.

So in 100 years from today, it would be on average 20 degree warmer than now?

The children of the future will be cursing us for being total dicks.