NASA Reports 10 Years to Climate "Tipping Point"

[Dry Observer]

*
As noted by ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3223473&page=1), NASA's latest report on global warming says:


Even "moderate additional" greenhouse emissions are likely to push Earth past "critical tipping points" with "dangerous consequences for the planet," according to research conducted by NASA and the Columbia University Earth Institute.

With just 10 more years of "business as usual" emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas, says the NASA/Columbia paper, "it becomes impractical" to avoid "disastrous effects."

Hearing this kind of report from NASA is particularly telling. The study's lead author is James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. And when that agency starts talking this gravely about global warming, despite the considerable hostility towards such discussions evidenced in the present Administration, we have reason to believe it is out of a sense of terrible urgency.

NASA forecasts effects including "increasingly rapid sea-level rise, increased frequency of droughts and floods, and increased stress on wildlife and plants due to rapidly shifting climate zones." But don't break out the champaigne yet, there's a few real problems on the way. And yes, NASA's take on this issue makes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report look carefree and jovial by comparison. They are talking bluntly about "strong amplifying feedbacks" driving Earth past "dangerous tipping points."


Scientists have been warning for several years that such tipping points are the greatest threat from manmade global warming — and what makes it potentially catastrophic for civilization.

As the tipping points pass, "there is an acceleration, potentially uncontrollable, of emissions of vast natural stores of greenhouse gas," according to Hansen, who reviewed the study for ABC News today.

Hansen explains that dangerous feedback loops are being tracked in various regions of the planet.

Many studies have reported feedback loops already observed in thawing tundra, seabeds and drying forests.

The article goes into further issues -- the disappearance of ice and snow that reflect sunlight back into space, the release of carbon from our thawing tundras, etc. And finally...


The study says that "only moderate additional climate forcing (which would mean only moderate additional warming from such emissions) is likely to set in motion the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet" — dubbed WAIS by polar scientists.

Many scientists say a disintegration of WAIS would mean catastrophically rapid sea-level rise.

Normally I would close on some ideas aimed at solving the problem in question. Today, though, I just wanted to get the word out and let others reflect on its urgency. So in closing, good night and good luck.

Soc
Future Imperative

[BnL]

Goddammit.

[the4thpip]

Ah, but Al Gore has a big house, so Global Warming is just a theory. :rolleyes:

[Buzz Dixon]

And then there's this...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1

BTW, a question I has asked repeatedly but no one has ever answered is "Exactly how warm is the planet supposed to be?" Europe was under a mile thick glacier about 100,000 years ago; 65 million years ago the planet was hot enough for dinosaurs and flowering plants north of the arctic circle (and, yes, this is taking continental drift into consideration). Which is the correct temperature?

And if humans are warming up the Earth, explain please why Mars and Jupiter seem to be warming up at a similar rate.

[Charles RB]

When NASA says "business as usual" emissions, is it including current and ongoing plans by nations (including the European Union) to lower national carbon emissions and saying all this will happen despite those plans & measures?

Because if it is - fuck. :(



BTW, a question I has asked repeatedly but no one has ever answered is "Exactly how warm is the planet supposed to be?"

It's a big ball of dirt floating around in space with no sentient mind and a history of mass extinctions - it's not supposed to be anything.

The important question is "exactly how warm is the planet supposed to be for humans to survive". We currently have a big, globally-connected civilisation designed around an ecological status quo; what happens to that when the major port cities, financial centres and centres of government on many nations get flooded out?

Hell, in my own lifetime I've seen major problems caused to Britain & day-to-day life by flooding, and that's just regular flooding. I'd really hate to see what'd happen if it was central London being hit.

[Arawn]

HAHAHAHAHA

First it was HIV, then it was Killer Bees, then West Nile and Y2K, now the temp is gonna kill us...

HAHAHAHAHAHA

RUN!!! The sky is falling!!!

You fear mongers crack me up.

[Corrina]

-----The study's lead author is James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

Ooo.....sounds like a nasty fear monger to me, eh?

Also:
And AIDS is still epidemic in many areas of the world which most of us here are lucky not to be living in. And we're also lucky that transmission is relatively difficult, rather than something like, say, airborne.

Quick climate changes can cause all sorts of problems, not really for the planet, but for the humans living on the planet. It's our survival and adaptation to changes that's the concern, not the planet. The planet will be fine, whatever happens to *us.*

P.S. I bet you wouldn't believe Jor-El, either. :)

[Paragon Kobold]

HAHAHAHAHA

First it was HIV, then it was Killer Bees, then West Nile and Y2K, now the temp is gonna kill us...



Yeah, and nobody ever died from HIV. :confused:

[Reverend Smooth]

HAHAHAHAHA

First it was HIV, then it was Killer Bees, then West Nile and Y2K, now the temp is gonna kill us...

HAHAHAHAHAHA

RUN!!! The sky is falling!!!

You fear mongers crack me up.I'm sure you'd laugh in the faces of Indonesians and Indians whose land is currently underwater because of rising sea levels, too, right?

The fact that they have to put their houses on stilts now isn't due to climate change, it's just fear-mongering!

[Charles RB]

First it was HIV

Which did kill a lot people and continues to kill a lot of people, being a severe epidemic in many developing nations.


Y2K

Which wasn't a problem because it was identified as a potential problem and sorted out beforehand.

Not the best examples you could've used.

[Arawn]

Oh don't forget the Bird Flu Pandemic...riots over penacilin and all that

Mad Cows Disease....No more cows everyone will have to eat horses and goats AHHH

Climate shifts have always happenned,

The graph of scary death behind Al Gore in his fictional movie left out the information about it's 18% margin of error. Strange how nobody wants to point that out.

Or how his promise of a 20 foot rise in sea level if the greenland ice melts is actually only a.... 18-22 INCH rise.

But facts wouldn't scare up grant money.

As for Nasa after Armegedon came out Nasa went on record saying an asteroid could hit Earth and kill everyone, they even had charts and tables and timelines...What happenned? They got more funding, money to watch the sky, money to test possible defenses, money to hire new people to think up new solutions...

Now it is happenning again. And as long as science is funded by poloticians they will continue to jump on the fear wagon because thats where the money is.

[the4thpip]

HAHAHAHAHA

First it was HIV, then it was Killer Bees, then West Nile and Y2K, now the temp is gonna kill us...

HAHAHAHAHAHA

RUN!!! The sky is falling!!!

You fear mongers crack me up.

Please go play in traffic. The planet's survival might be more likely without you around.

Pip

Chairman of his local AIDS charity

[Charles RB]

As for Nasa after Armegedon came out Nasa went on record saying an asteroid could hit Earth and kill everyone

Which it could. And has in the past (and not that far back in it; see the devastation in Tunguska in the early 20th). And in June 2002, one capable of devastating 2000 square kilometres almost did hit the planet and nobody noticed until three days later. (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2444)

On top of which, currently there isn't enough funding or equipment to spot everything capable of hitting Earth.

So again - not a good example to use of making people afraid of a non-issue.

[Buzz Dixon]

A couple of decades ago a volcano erupted in the Philippines which was reported to have pumped more waste heat and pollutants into the atmosphere than all of humanity in it's entire 3+ million year existence.

One volcano, and not a particularly big one, either.

We are pikers compared to Mama Nature herself.

There is strong evidence our planetary temperatures are correlated to solar activity, hence rising temperatures on Mars and Jupiter.

If sea levels rise by 3 feet (i.e., all the polar ice melts), a lot of low lying areas will be submerged. Conversely, areas now under ice and/or locked in permafrost will open up to human agriculture. End result: Net gain in habitable living space, plus more habitats for sea life to flourish in.

In the long run, melting the polar caps and raising the surface temperature to the point where it's as hot as in the days of the dinosaurs might be a good thing: More plants growing and providing more carbon dioxide/oxygen cycling, not to mention more food for humans and animals.

BTW, those freakish killer weather patterns predicted over the last decade or so? Didn't happen; the over all hurricane/typhoon count has actually been down.

It is the height of human hubris to assume we affect the planet's temperature as much as a fly affects the velocity of a speeding semi-truck when it splatters on the windshield.

[Crowley]

HAHAHAHAHA

First it was HIV, then it was Killer Bees, then West Nile and Y2K, now the temp is gonna kill us...

HAHAHAHAHAHA

RUN!!! The sky is falling!!!

You fear mongers crack me up.

AIDS is slowly managing to wipe out an entire continent...

But honestly Arawn, we've all done this dance with you before... you don't have any facts to back up any of your opinions and your debate technique is deeply lacking.

Please read up before you attempt to talk with adults.

[Larime]

BTW, a question I has asked repeatedly but no one has ever answered is "Exactly how warm is the planet supposed to be?" Europe was under a mile thick glacier about 100,000 years ago; 65 million years ago the planet was hot enough for dinosaurs and flowering plants north of the arctic circle (and, yes, this is taking continental drift into consideration). Which is the correct temperature?

Fair enough, but remember there weren't literally billions of people living on the earth 100,000 years ago. Our ability to produce the necessary food is being threatened, not our winter wardrobe. And Mars (and I think, Jupiter) have no real atmosphere. Us warming at their rates means we don't have one so much either.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

This goes way beyond a bunch of uncultured, Pro-Big Business Bubbas making snarky comments about the Weather Channel's, Profit-Driven Fear-Mongering. The science is real, and Greenhouse Gases really DO increase the temperate of air, and we're producing a SHITLOAD--whether or not we're possibly in some human-life-threatening global pattern from antiquity or not. It can be both, but a whole lot of educated people are saying we're producing real detriment to our continued existence, with only some folk on the opposite side waiting for Jesus to come and rescue them, or people who profit from pollution--and those with no scientific knowledge, who blindly believe them. NASA! Theym Daym Fearmongers--lynchin's too good for 'em!!!

All I know is (besides what my PBS and Real Book-poisoned brain has taken in), that Georgia and most of the southeast just lost 90% of it's Peach and Apple crop, because we're in the worst drought in recorded history.

[Corrina]

Also, remember, most of this might be natural but what we add to it isn't two plus two equals four.

This is an exponential equation, not simple addition. Meaning it steamrolls, fast. Well, fast by nature standards, like the ten-year projected figure.

[Charles RB]

there weren't literally billions of people living on the earth 100,000 years ago. Our ability to produce the necessary food is being threatened

The obvious solution here is cannibalism.

[Matt Doc Martin]

The obvious solution here is cannibalism.

I live by the credo that i can eat anything that dies.

Who wants to put on my BBQ sauce? I want you spicy!

[cedardryad]

I would like to avoid topics like this, because since I was 5 global warming, the planet, and animals have been an area that has a big place in my life and heart. I felt that I had to raise awareness about these things. I will refrain from saying what I do feel inside to certain people, well a certain person. It's our home and if you let your house get increasingly dirty and you don't take care of it there will be things that will kill you. I mean in L.A. alone all kids that are born now have lung problems and by the time that they hit their teens they will all have significant respiratory problems thanks to the "Black Cloud of Death" as they call it. In Long Island, NY there is something in the air that is responsible for the increase cancer rate. Basically oncologists say that everyone in L.I. will develop cancer.

So I'm slowly becoming indifferent to this. I will continue to do my part and raise awareness, but if you don't care fine. Die, suffocate on the black cloud of death, and if you don't care about yourself at least care about future generations. Stop being selfish.

Like the great Mr. Smith said: "Humans are a cancer... they destroy everything they touch."

Earth is just cleansing itself of a parasite that has been damaging her. It's about time. I come to terms with the fact that maybe it's our time to go because we are too stubborn to change. If it happens it happens.:D

[Larime]

The obvious solution here is cannibalism.

Cool. As long as all the doubters and naysayers are first in line to become soylent green. :D

[Larime]

I would like to avoid topics like this, because since I was 5 global warming, the planet, and animals have been an area that has a big place in my life and heart. I felt that I had to raise awareness about these things. I will refrain from saying what I do feel inside to certain people, well a certain person. It's our home and if you let your house get increasingly dirty and you don't take care of it there will be things that will kill you. I mean in L.A. alone all kids that are born now have lung problems and by the time that they hit their teens they will all have significant respiratory problems thanks to the "Black Cloud of Death" as they call it. In Long Island, NY there is something in the air that is responsible for the increase cancer rate. Basically oncologists say that everyone in L.I. will develop cancer.

So I'm slowly becoming indifferent to this. I will continue to do my part and raise awareness, but if you don't care fine. Die, suffocate on the black cloud of death, and if you don't care about yourself at least care about future generations. Stop being selfish.

Like the great Mr. Smith said: "Humans are a cancer... they destroy everything they touch."

Earth is just cleansing itself of a parasite that has been damaging her. It's about time. I come to terms with the fact that maybe it's our time to go because we are too stubborn to change. If it happens it happens.:D

And as the great George Carlin said, "The earth isn't going anywhere, folks. We are."

[Night Swordsman]

So...i take it that ten years from now,i will have to tip 25% instead of 20%?:rolleyes:

[Buzz Dixon]

Fair enough, but remember there weren't literally billions of people living on the earth 100,000 years ago. Our ability to produce the necessary food is being threatened, not our winter wardrobe. And Mars (and I think, Jupiter) have no real atmosphere. Us warming at their rates means we don't have one so much either.Yeah, but the bio-mass has remained pretty constant (i.e., the sum total of all living organisms, animal, vegetable, whatever). If there are more humans now than then there are correspondingly fewer of other species occupying our particular nice (i.e., large land based omnivorous mammals).

Mars has an extremely thin atmosphere but Jupiter is nothing but atmosphere seeing as how it's a gas giant. Our nearest neighbor in space, Venus, has a much thicker/hotter atmosphere than ours, but the thickness can be explained by the fact it has no moon (we call our Moon a satellite but in reality we are a double planet system). Our Moon strips away much of our atmosphere, thus preventing the heavy buildup that has made Venus' surface so incredibly hot.

[Buzz Dixon]

It's our home and if you let your house get increasingly dirty and you don't take care of it there will be things that will kill you."The Earth is becoming crowded and polluted, just like a womb before birth."
-- Arthur C. Clarke

[cedardryad]

"The Earth is becoming crowded and polluted, just like a womb before birth."
-- Arthur C. Clarke

And the stuff that comes out after the birth is NASTEEEE. So does this mean we are going to be born soon.:D

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Well people we all gotta go sometime. Look at it this way ...a lot of us will likely perish when that astroid hits Earth in 2029. So how do you all wanna go ? Astroid death or slow hot Earth death ?

[Nick Soapdish]

A couple of decades ago a volcano erupted in the Philippines which was reported to have pumped more waste heat and pollutants into the atmosphere than all of humanity in it's entire 3+ million year existence.

One volcano, and not a particularly big one, either.

We are pikers compared to Mama Nature herself.


Reported by whom?

We emit at least 150x the amount of carbon that volcanoes do. When you track the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, there aren't massive spikes for every Krakatoa. I don't think it's even a blip.

Now, if Krakatoa erupted every year, then yeah, man's effect on nature might not be so impressive.


There is strong evidence our planetary temperatures are correlated to solar activity, hence rising temperatures on Mars and Jupiter.


Strong evidence?

Are you talking about the correlation between sunspots that matches up pretty well for about 150 years, but totally fails at around 1980 (although that didn't stop them from continuing the graph in The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Hadn't heard about Jupiter, but Mars is in fact due its atmosphere and dust storms. Or so the physicists say.

Any particular reason why the rest of the solar system isn't heating up?


If sea levels rise by 3 feet (i.e., all the polar ice melts), a lot of low lying areas will be submerged. Conversely, areas now under ice and/or locked in permafrost will open up to human agriculture. End result: Net gain in habitable living space, plus more habitats for sea life to flourish in.

In the long run, melting the polar caps and raising the surface temperature to the point where it's as hot as in the days of the dinosaurs might be a good thing: More plants growing and providing more carbon dioxide/oxygen cycling, not to mention more food for humans and animals.


It's not like there is an automatic equilibrium on the planet that keeps the same amount of liveable space for humans no matter what the climate is.

If the mountain glaciers retreat, it doesn't suddenly give us arable land to farm up there. It's the top of a mountain. And the glaciers thinning on Antarctica and Greenland just mean that the ice is only a couple miles thick. That's not exactly ideal open land for us to build cities on either.

Currently, the thawing of the permafrost is just costing us millions of dollars because it means that we don't have stable enough land to build on up there.

As to the additional aquatic environment, there are a few problems with that.

First, is the area that the aquatic environment is moving into - wetlands along the ocean. These are very valuable to the environment because tons of animals and plants begin their lives in the brackish waters where they can escape predation (either due to the low salinity or the better cover) and then move out later. So we have laws that make it difficult for people to develop them. So we develop right next to them. And when the sea level rises, they'll be the first to go. But since they don't have anywhere to go, they just disappear.

And those warmer oceans are causing problems for the sea life. Coral has a pretty narrow temperature range that it can survive in and reefs all around the Caribbean are suffering bleaching due to the rise in temperatures. Now, with a gradual rise in temperatures, they can simply migrate north. But it takes hundreds of years for a reef to form so they can't do it fast.

They're also having trouble growing because of the rising acidity of the oceans. The oceans have been absorbing more CO2 from somewhere. This makes it more difficult for organisms that rely on calcified shells (like coral, most mollusks, and crustaceans ... and a lot of plankton). So it stunts their growth and in some cases, stalls it entirely.

Nature will eventually adjust.

There won't be as many salt marshes or other estuarine habitats, but nature will adapt to that and organisms will evolve a way around that. Corals will migrate and eventually rebuild huge reefs.

But until they do, we'll be bereft of the two oases of life in the ocean so we'll be a lot more dependent on what we can grow on earth.

And those expanded farmlands that you talked about?

Most predictions in rising temperatures project that the interior of North America (and most of the world actually) getting a lot drier. And it's not like North America is all that wet in the middle. Early settlers called it the Great American Desert. Once we drilled down to the Ogallalla Aquifer, everything was gravy, but we're taking water from that a lot faster than it's being restored by the snowfall in the Rockies (which is also supposed to go down, but that's irrelevant since we're withdrawing it at hundreds of times what it's restored at). In some parts of the Ogallalla, we're down to about 40 years of usable water. Some spots have well over a hundred years, but we're going to lose our breadbasket anyway.

And that's if it doesn't get drier and hotter.

Now, you can hope that the scientists' predictions are wrong. Like they hoped that predictions of global warming were wrong back in the '90s.



BTW, those freakish killer weather patterns predicted over the last decade or so? Didn't happen; the over all hurricane/typhoon count has actually been down.

It is the height of human hubris to assume we affect the planet's temperature as much as a fly affects the velocity of a speeding semi-truck when it splatters on the windshield.

Um, while we didn't get hit by any last year, we got hit by eight hurricanes in Florida in the two previous years. And I don't think it's due to global warming. We're just in a more active hurricane cycle in the North Atlantic.

But I have to admit that while I read a lot about global warming, I haven't seen much in the way of predictions for freakish climate change for this decade (although there is a MIT statistician that has been claiming that the hurricanes have been due to it).

[Nick Soapdish]

Yeah, but the bio-mass has remained pretty constant (i.e., the sum total of all living organisms, animal, vegetable, whatever). If there are more humans now than then there are correspondingly fewer of other species occupying our particular nice (i.e., large land based omnivorous mammals).


Come again?

So when we were in an ice age and half the planet was covered in ice, there was just as much life on the planet (plant, animal, fungi, and all those microscopic kingdoms) as there is now?

Was the life just that much more concentrated then or were the tops of glaciers more ecologically productive than they are now?

Admittedly, there was more land area for animals to live on, but that also means that there was less aquatic environment.

[Reverend Smooth]

What should be noted is that climate change has resulted in the death of about 99% of all the species that have ever lived. So I really do not see the flippant attitude that some posters have about it when humans have been proven to directly contribute to the problem.

Even if you don't believe that humans are the sole cause of it, what is the logic in helping it along?

Edit: If we do contribute to it, and its track record is mass extinction of species and serious damage to others, how is it not important to at least mitigate what CAN be helped when studies have shown that is actually possible?

If there's a serious drought going on, and some idiot starts a fire, and that fire creeps towards homes, it's worth it to fight it so it doesn't burn those homes up. Is there logic in saying that we should ignore that wildfire because the intense dry conditions contributed to what became an inferno?

[Lester C.]

1. Mass extinctions events in the past were always kicked off by climate change.

2. When George Bush starts going Green, as he has this week, it makes me wonder what they know that we don't.

[Lester C.]

What should be noted is that climate change has resulted in the death of about 99% of all the species that have ever lived. So I really do not see the flippant attitude that some posters have about it when humans have been proven to directly contribute to the problem.

Even if you don't believe that humans are the sole cause of it, what is the logic in helping it along?

Edit: If we do contribute to it, and its track record is mass extinction of species and serious damage to others, how is it not important to at least mitigate what CAN be helped when studies have shown that is actually possible?

If there's a serious drought going on, and some idiot starts a fire, and that fire creeps towards homes, it's worth it to fight it so it doesn't burn those homes up. Is there logic in saying that we should ignore that wildfire because the intense dry conditions contributed to what became an inferno?

This is true, but those climate changes tended to be the result of an asteroid hitting the planet or tetonic plates shifting, both of which have nothing to do with mankind.

[Reverend Smooth]

Lester, whether a fire is manmade or the cause of a lightning strike, does it matter when homes are threatened?

[Lester C.]

Lester, whether a fire is manmade or the cause of a lightning strike, does it matter when homes are threatened?

I was referring what causes a mass extinction event which is rational caused by a significant global climate change. Unless we start dropping nukes we're not going to see the level of change that occures to a planet when an asteroid hits it.

Speaking of mass extinction we're in the fifth or sixth one right now, and it's not being caused by a climate change but rather an individual species. Can you guess which one?

[Lester C.]

Here is the thing about global warming. I hope to hell its bunk, because people are selfish enough that they are going to keep doing what they are doing regardless of what it does to the planet. Most people aren't going to be willing to sacrifice their lifestyle until it's shown that it's too late to save the planet. Then they are going to shit in their pants, blame whoever is president at the time, and kiss their ass goodbye.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

"The Earth is becoming crowded and polluted, just like a womb before birth."
-- Arthur C. Clarke

Buzz, while I consider you a nice guy who is perfectly reasonable on other subjects, the idea that our technology is going to catch up with our need to escape a poisoned planet is as 'pie in the sky' as Jesus coming back in a massive UFO to destroy the naughty, and rescue the nice--and this is coming from a very spiritually-motivated person, who believes Jesus was real. Blind faith in anything is indescribably dangerous, even modern science as the new 'Deus Ex Machina'. Why you would put your faith in some scientists who don't even have the blueprints for that starship, and not others, who have mountains of data that they are drawing reasonable conclusions from, seems at odds, to put it politely. There's a whole lot of wonderful futurist visions out there, but very little engineering to back it up.

Unless global extinction is taken off the table, we're going back to being cavemen, LONG before our greatest scientific minds learn to circumvent the Einsteinian model of space-time (and I DO believe we can--eventually--but not in this lifetime). There are far too many real dangers involved with space travel and inhabitation--the least of all being overcoming solar radiation poisoning and severe logistical issues, such as renewable fuel, air, water and food, and our physical need for gravity in order to maintain the possession of a skeleton and useful musculature. That's besides the disgustingly immature and anal-expulsive thought process/behavior of turning your planet into a shithole, to the point of having to abandon it for outer space--the most inhospitable place anyone can imagine.

[cedardryad]

This reminds me of a guy that called himself an expert and said we shouldn't worry about fertilizers running into our waters because it won't affect us because we don't live in the water. *Sigh* Well he was wrong. Now due to the increase of waste there are more algae blooms, less oxygen in the water and more crown of thorn starfish, which are completely killing off all coral before the coral have a chance to recover. No coral, no fish, no food, no humans.:D So somehow this isn't affecting us since we don't live in the ocean. Sorry Aquaman.

All those crystal clear waters in the Bahamas are actually the equivalent of a desert. There is almost no life in the waters. The greener the water the healthier. Well I'm assuming the darker, I don't think it's always healthy when its green, it could be toxic.:p

So again, we live her we have to keep our place clean, for future generations and for all the living things on this planet. We can do something about this and it is our duty to. If you see a sin being committed and you ignore it or don't do anything to stop it then you are just as guilty for it.

EDIT-

Bush's Go Green plan is late in coming, but better late than never. I like he's saying that the major countries have to take part and Japan was mentioned. I laughed. Japan has been at the forefront. From what I understand Japan is one of the cleanest if not the cleanest country in thee world. Yes Bush, you tell Japan to keep on doing what they have been doing for years and then take credit.

[bfrank]

Please go play in traffic. The planet's survival might be more likely without you around.

Pip

Chairman of his local AIDS charity

You sound like Michael Savage......

[MartinRedmond]

I just caught the flu twice in May because of bad weather and I haven't used a winter coat in 2 years. So I believe in global warming.

[titanfan]

First it was HIV, then it was Killer Bees, then West Nile and Y2K, now the temp is gonna kill us...

Screw you on Y2K. The only reason Y2K *didn't* end the world is because people like me spend thousands of overtime hours fixing Y2K bugs across the globe. (Not to mention the corporations who spent billions of dollars getting their shit together from 1997-1999). The only reason you didn't hear about it was because of all of the time that we spent fixing it--and the fact that we did a great job. (Especially for those who worked in critical industries, such as the airlines and power companies)

If *nothing* would have been done, the techno-world would have nearly ended. Just because nothing happened, doesn't mean that the threat wasn't real.

Ditto for HIV. I mean, have you noticed the billions and billions of dollars that we've all been spending on this thing just to keep it under control? If we had done nothing, millions (if not billions) of people would be dead by now.

While I do think that Hansen's views puts him on the extreme side of things, I don't think we've nearly invested the time and money that we've spent on some of the other global issues into the environment as well. This issue is something both the far left and right seem to agree on, so I hope things start getting done sooner than later.

[Sally Sensational]

Ok, guys, I've read the whole thread and now I have one question:

So what do WE do?

I am a relatively poor (by normal economic standards) single mom who lives in an apartment, drives the car I can afford, and commutes to the job I could get. My town, despite the presence of a cutting-edge scientific research university and millions of dollars in timber money - or perhaps because of the timber money - does not have recycling facilities.

There are millions of people like me who are probably - like me - sick of hearing that we should drive hybrid cars that we can't afford and use solar panels to heat the homes we don't own.

Now, I've replaced the light bulbs in my house with the fluorescent ones, which was a significant investment to begin with. I wash everything in cold water.

But what else can someone like me do? It's time for someone to stop the bickering long enough to come up with some concrete suggestions. I'm not Al Gore or Leonardo Dicaprio. My salary won't handle the increased costs of shopping organic or using "green" products that are significantly more expensive. I have to get to work. I have to drive the car I own, which gets 25 miles to the gallon. I have to shop at stores I can afford.

I agree that something needs to be done. By all of us. But I really am not getting any answers as to what someone like me can do.

[mgs]

I think there is enough evidence out there that the planet is to be doomed in future years, but I would just like someone to start a plan on how to make other planets liveable. not that it's gonna matter in our lifetimes.

[Lester C.]

Ok, guys, I've read the whole thread and now I have one question:

So what do WE do?

I am a relatively poor (by normal economic standards) single mom who lives in an apartment, drives the car I can afford, and commutes to the job I could get. My town, despite the presence of a cutting-edge scientific research university and millions of dollars in timber money - or perhaps because of the timber money - does not have recycling facilities.

There are millions of people like me who are probably - like me - sick of hearing that we should drive hybrid cars that we can't afford and use solar panels to heat the homes we don't own.

Now, I've replaced the light bulbs in my house with the fluorescent ones, which was a significant investment to begin with. I wash everything in cold water.

But what else can someone like me do? It's time for someone to stop the bickering long enough to come up with some concrete suggestions. I'm not Al Gore or Leonardo Dicaprio. My salary won't handle the increased costs of shopping organic or using "green" products that are significantly more expensive. I have to get to work. I have to drive the car I own, which gets 25 miles to the gallon. I have to shop at stores I can afford.

I agree that something needs to be done. By all of us. But I really am not getting any answers as to what someone like me can do.

The answer to your question is to do what you can and you are. Global warming occurs on a global scale so there is only so much that any one person can do one way or the other.

[cedardryad]

For the time being avoid Hybrids. Their battery weighs a lot, plus there is also an engine. They aren't as fuel efficient as a normal Sedan. Toyota in general has nice fuel efficient cars. There are a lot of things you can do. I am poor, I'm the only one working now and I'm supporting my family, plus my animals. There are some organic products you can buy from Stop and Shop. I use biodegradable diapers, because cloth ones use a lot of water. Recycle, take mas transit if you can, walk when you can and plant trees in your yard if you have one. If not small plants can do. There are articles about what you can do if you are low income. If you use energy efficient light bulbs it cuts down on electricity costs, unplug any appliance that you aren't using that can go unplugged. Use a ceiling fan instead of an air conditioner. Simple things, start small. That should save you enough money so you can eventually go on and start doing more.

[titanfan]

But what else can someone like me do? It's time for someone to stop the bickering long enough to come up with some concrete suggestions. I'm not Al Gore or Leonardo Dicaprio. My salary won't handle the increased costs of shopping organic or using "green" products that are significantly more expensive. I have to get to work. I have to drive the car I own, which gets 25 miles to the gallon. I have to shop at stores I can afford.

I agree that something needs to be done. By all of us. But I really am not getting any answers as to what someone like me can do.

Off the top of my head:

- Do you recycle, even at home?
- Make the environment a more important issue when picking who to support on your election ballots?
- Is your car carrying around any excess weight? (Including yourself--heavier people use more gas) Carpool? Ride the bus?

[Arawn]

This goes way beyond a bunch of uncultured, Pro-Big Business Bubbas making snarky comments about the Weather Channel's, Profit-Driven Fear-Mongering. The science is real, and Greenhouse Gases really DO increase the temperate of air, and we're producing a SHITLOAD--whether or not we're possibly in some human-life-threatening global pattern from antiquity or not. It can be both, but a whole lot of educated people are saying we're producing real detriment to our continued existence, with only some folk on the opposite side waiting for Jesus to come and rescue them, or people who profit from pollution--and those with no scientific knowledge, who blindly believe them. NASA! Theym Daym Fearmongers--lynchin's too good for 'em!!!

All I know is (besides what my PBS and Real Book-poisoned brain has taken in), that Georgia and most of the southeast just lost 90% of it's Peach and Apple crop, because we're in the worst drought in recorded history.

According to ice core samples there were more "Green House Gases" in the atmosphere during the last Ice Age than now. That used to be the case at least...but as of about 15 years ago scietists stopped posting the actual measurements. They even took the stats down at the museum in Boston in the mid 90s...

I wonder why they would have done that. Or why the last time we had green house gases measuring as high as they are now, the Earth entered a cooling trend for a few years.

[Arawn]

Please go play in traffic. The planet's survival might be more likely without you around.

Pip

Chairman of his local AIDS charity

Having had HIV for 25 years now...Yes thats a 2 and a 5 right after it. I wouldn't know anything about the disease at all. Nope I wouldn't know anything. John Sullivan they guy who first stopped HIV growth in a test tube. When he was working out of UMASS Worcester. Nope wasn't working with him as a human lab rat to help other people. Cause I wouldn't know anything about that at all.

I didn't spend years working with the MA branch of My One Wish, or The Vineyard Haven Project (A camp for kids with HIV and AIDS) either...So I would never have seen it effect others. Nope not in the slightest.

FUCKERS

Don't ever try to tell me I don't know about HIV, try saying that to my face I guarantee I'll fuck up your entire universe if it's the very last thing I ever fucking do.

[Reverend Smooth]

FUCKERS

Don't ever try to tell me I don't know about HIV, try saying that to my face I guarantee I'll fuck up your entire universe if it's the very last thing I ever fucking do.

Back at you. Global warming is as real as aids, so why are you mocking them and then acting all indignant about your own circumstances?

How about I tell you it's all imaginary doomsday crap and you're not really sick? It's just in your head, some attempt to extort money out of americans when there's no problem at all.

You're such a scare-mongerer. Who needs to be worried about needles or condoms when clearly it's all just made-up stuff to scare people?

If you want to act like a head-in-the-sand, judgemental douche, don't start wangsting about your own problems in your own reality.

And furthermore, your illness is NO EXCUSE to start threatening people. NONE. Do you see Larime, I, Larry Dixon, or any other ill or disabled person here threatening people's lives? If you have a problem with being sick, and dealing with it, go shit on somebody else.

[Arawn]

At the time and since HIV was used to try to scare kids about sex Condoms have been available, they were available before HIV as well. ANd thats something real. With a near 100% possible prevention rate. Yet the same lunatics went around screaming it was the end of humanity when the slightest bit of care and self control would prevent it's transmission.

Not that people did then or do now, but thats there own damn fault.

Now you have something like Global Warming, where any evidence that even shows more research is needed is hidden or ignored...Well that in and of itself should have you asking why.

If in fact we are causing global warming why try to hide the margin of error reports.

Shouldnt these be a primary concern so we can learn just how much we effect the earth?

But if it isn't as big a problem as people have claimed, wouldn't examining these things point that out and cut the funding on such research?

So really why are they hiding it? Why have they taken down any information that contradicts popular belife. why fire any scientist that wants to TRY to disprove it???

Wouldn't encouraging them to try to disprove i, then pointing out their failure do more for the Global Warming movement? The only reason to stop such research is a fear it might be right.

[Reverend Smooth]

Not that people did then or do now, but thats there own damn fault.You do realise that many countries have no real access to birth control and/or have no option to use it, right?

That many cases of aids are transmitted when one committed parter is cheated on by their significant other?

You really are ignorant about your own disease. Good lord.

[Arawn]

Even in countries that do, in America it's estimated that 1 person under 25 is infected every 30 minutes. At least according to the NE Journal of Medicine.

But they probably aren't all that reliable....

oh I like how you list infidelity as an ok reason for both to get HIV, when whoever cheated not using protection was the careless son of a bitch thats at fault... That's ok, but I'm the ignorant one. I also like how you ignored my asking why they hide information about the margines of error in Global Warming research and refuse to put any "evidence" to the test by skeptics...Again I say as long as they refuse to have it examined by someone that wants to refute it, it cant be trusted.

[Reverend Smooth]

According to your own logic, scientific publications are unreliable. So kindly pardon me if I simply dismiss everything you say as alarmist nonsense, since you seem to love doing that any time that you disagree with anything.

Besides, everyone knows that aids isn't caused by the transmission of HIV, a handful of fringe doctors and advocates say so and they MUST be right because the medical establishment dismissed their claims.

Since your logic works like that for global warming, it works the same about aids or anything else.

So you're really not sick at all. Now, quit making stuff up and wasting everyone's time with your fear-mongering sob stories, please.

[Arawn]

According to your own logic, scientific publications are unreliable. So kindly pardon me if I simply dismiss everything you say as alarmist nonsense, since you seem to love doing that any time that you disagree with anything.

Besides, everyone knows that aids isn't caused by the transmission of HIV, a handful of fringe doctors and advocates say so and they MUST be right because the medical establishment dismissed their claims.

Since your logic works like that for global warming, it works the same about aids or anything else.

So you're really not sick at all. Now, quit making stuff up and wasting everyone's time with your fear-mongering sob stories, please.

Actually theres a big difference HIV was tested, retested and then tested again. For years there was a great debate about it's causes, transmission and still an ongoing debate about the origin.

Now as for Global Warming, I keep asking for a debate and people like you keep screaming "IDIOT" rather than actually discussing anything.

Global Warming is still hotly contested.

Even within the community of scientists and environmentalists that support the Global Warming movement. There is no firm and unified belief about how much mankind contributes to it, how to stop it, or even if it can be stopped or if it is already too late.

Oh and stop trying to make this about being ill, I took offense at a jackass claiming I had no knowledge of a disease I have. Don't make this about me being sick or you being sick. I was illustrating a point. You have come back to me being ill in every post since then. Not me. So if anyone is trying to make it a sob story it wasn't I.

[Reverend Smooth]

Actually theres a big difference HIV was tested, retested and then tested again. For years there was a great debate about it's causes, transmission and still an ongoing debate about the origin. There are ways to test how hot and cold temperatures were going back millions of years, you know. Also the makeup of the atosphere, etc. That's pretty basic knowledge, why are you ignoring it?


Now as for Global Warming, I keep asking for a debate and people like you keep screaming "IDIOT" rather than actually discussing anything. One-- you came in mocking others. DOn't bitch when people call you a moron when you are more than happy to diss others.

Two: Are you incapable of educating yourself? Do we have to hold your hand or something? You seem vaguely rational, can't you read? You are willfully unknowlegeable and spout wingnut conspiracy-theorist nonsense.


Global Warming is still hotly contested.No. It's not. The only people contesting it are fringe loonies, and you are applying double standards.

The person who brought up their own illness was you. And since aids is another topic full of conspiracy nonsense, it's a very good example. Of course, now you're trying to avoid dealing with that because it's a good parallel, as usual, and putting on the poor me victim act.

You have no problem making fun of, dismissing, slagging, and demeaning other people, you make threats, you criticise others for not being educated, and you defer to scientific publications, all the while bitching about others.

What kind of debate is possible with someone like you? You just shit it up and then put on a victim act.

Oh, wait. Are you gonna fuck up my universe now, too? You're so mean and aggro and tough and you know everything, after all, we're all clueless next to the amazing Arawn. And if he doesn't get his way in a debate, he starts promising to fuck people up in real life.

And THEN tries to claim the moral high ground in a debate.

Ugh. It's people like you who are the reason this planet's fucked up.

Now, watch you start crying about how mean I'm being to you.

[Arawn]

There are ways to test how hot and cold temperatures were going back millions of years, you know. Also the makeup of the atosphere, etc. That's pretty basic knowledge, why are you ignoring it?

One-- you came in mocking others. DOn't bitch when people call you a moron when you are more than happy to diss others.

Two: Are you incapable of educating yourself? Do we have to hold your hand or something? You seem vaguely rational, can't you read? You are willfully unknowlegeable and spout wingnut conspiracy-theorist nonsense.

No. It's not. The only people contesting it are fringe loonies, and you are applying double standards.

The person who brought up their own illness was you. And since aids is another topic full of conspiracy nonsense, it's a very good example. Of course, now you're trying to avoid dealing with that because it's a good parallel, as usual, and putting on the poor me victim act.

You have no problem making fun of, dismissing, slagging, and demeaning other people, you make threats, you criticise others for not being educated, and you defer to scientific publications, all the while bitching about others.

What kind of debate is possible with someone like you? You just shit it up and then put on a victim act.

Oh, wait. Are you gonna fuck up my universe now, too? You're so mean and aggro and tough and you know everything, after all, we're all clueless next to the amazing Arawn. And if he doesn't get his way in a debate, he starts promising to fuck people up in real life.

And THEN tries to claim the moral high ground in a debate.

Ugh. It's people like you who are the reason this planet's fucked up.

I already mentioned the ice core samples which are the key t the whole climate issue. Thank you for proving that you don't actually read or respond to what I say but rather what you think I might have said.

According to the same ice core samples that show the earth is warming, carbon dioxide levels were much higher during cooling trends than they are now. These same core samples show that after every major carbon dioxide spike that occurred naturally, the planet entered a cooling period.

So I asked then s I do once again, why is this not being studied? Why is this not something to ask why? (Yes I realize you are going to ignore it again)

Again you make claims to me suffering, all I remember saying was infected. I didn't post about suffering anywhere in here.

So why are you saying I did?

Where did I say poor me?

Why do you continue to talk about me being sick when I keep asking you to move on? Is this some obsession of yours, my health or lack there of?

How can you claim there is no devide or debate about Global Warming when someone like Al Gore stated w only had 10 years left (3 1/2 years ago btw) and only now NASA says we are at a 10 year marker?

How is this not a differing set of opinions?

How is any of this a victim act? Where is it a victim act? I have asked multiple times now about the above mentioned Ice Core Samples, I have asked about the differing views within the Global Warming Community, Why are you so afraid to address these questions?

Why do you feel the need to make it about me, and not my questions? If I am really so stupid, If I am really so wrong, Why can't you answer them?

Oh and if I am the lone bad guy here, why can't you keep it civil? I mean you are saying I am going off 1/2 cocked and totally unprovoked. If thats true and I am so evil and horrible, why can you not set a better example by answering my questions?

[Reverend Smooth]

Why do you feel the need to make it about me,You are the one who came into the topic and started insulting people. Now you're spewing bullshit in order to try to claim the high ground.

You are a hypocritical, over-defensive ass who threatens to fuck people up in real life if they disagree with you.

Can the sanctimonious act. You are beneath contempt.

[Arawn]

You are the one who came into the topic and started insulting people. Now you're spewing bullshit in order to try to claim the high ground.

You are a hypocritical, over-defensive ass who threatens to fuck people up in real life if they disagree with you.

Can the sanctimonious act. You are beneath contempt.

You are still refusing to answer my global warming questions, instead you have once more tried to insult me. You are still trying to make me fight you. I lost my temper once here I wont do it again. But you can keep trying to goad me into it.

Just remember every time you ignore my legitimate questions about global warming to insult me, you prove yourself to be everything you claim I am.

But then "I" can never have a civilized debate or conversation with anyone can I?

Thats what you said, but rather than prove it by answering my questions, you throw more insults.

Have a nice day.

I'll be back later to check the non-answers and new insults you have hurled in my direction.

And no the have a nice day isn't sarcastic. I truly do not wish you any ill, I just wish you could answer my questions.

Questions posted again incase you missed them...

Where did I say poor me?

Why do you continue to talk about me being sick when I keep asking you to move on? Is this some obsession of yours, my health or lack there of?

How can you claim there is no devide or debate about Global Warming when someone like Al Gore stated w only had 10 years left (3 1/2 years ago btw) and only now NASA says we are at a 10 year marker?

How is this not a differing set of opinions?

How is any of this a victim act? Where is it a victim act? I have asked multiple times now about the above mentioned Ice Core Samples, I have asked about the differing views within the Global Warming Community, Why are you so afraid to address these questions?

Why do you feel the need to make it about me, and not my questions? If I am really so stupid, If I am really so wrong, Why can't you answer them?

Oh and if I am the lone bad guy here, why can't you keep it civil? I mean you are saying I am going off 1/2 cocked and totally unprovoked. If thats true and I am so evil and horrible, why can you not set a better example by answering my questions?

According to the same ice core samples that show the earth is warming, carbon dioxide levels were much higher during cooling trends than they are now. These same core samples show that after every major carbon dioxide spike that occurred naturally, the planet entered a cooling period.

So I asked then as I do once again, why is this not being studied? Why is this not something to ask why?

[Charles RB]

I didn't spend years working with the MA branch of My One Wish, or The Vineyard Haven Project (A camp for kids with HIV and AIDS) either...So I would never have seen it effect others. Nope not in the slightest.

You said earlier that about HIV "HAHAHAHAHA first it was HIV... you fear mongers crack me up". It didn't sound like you'd seen it effect others or that you knew it was effecting millions across the Third World. I mean, it is a serious threat across most of the world; why refer to it with "HAHAHA fear mongers"?



Not that people did then or do now, but thats there own damn fault.

It also gets spread by blood, unsterile needles/medical equipment, rape, and simply being born/breastfeeding as an infant from someone who has it, last I knew. None of that would be someone's own damn fault.

[Reverend Smooth]

Oh and if I am the lone bad guy here, why can't you keep it civil? Says the guy who threatens people offline with harm.

You want answers? RESEARCH. Do I look like google to you? Why should I sit here and bother typing out pages of info for you when you dismiss it as 'unproven' even when it is proven?

Because you're a wanker who likes to make people do your work for you? Talk about intellectual laziness. It's not my job to give you remedial science when I know you're going to ignore it (after bitching about others ignoring you).

All you came in here to do was diss people. Now you whine when your own shit gets thrown back in your face.

Poor victim. Never gets answers. If you an ostensibly educate yourself about AIDS, you can do so about global warming. The fact that you ask these questions means that you have not wasted your time.

You don't want to debate. You want to wander in, insult people, and THEN debate on your terms.

No. I'm not discussing anything with you according to your comfort level, you schoolyard bully. What're you gonna do, fuck up my universe, too? Keep repeating bullshit when anyone can go back a page and see your foaming, frothing meltdown? :)

You don't deserve my civility. You deserve to live in a flooded village in indonesia while your livelihood and land get washed away, or to live in a town in africa and see your crops wither and your land blow away, while some pissant, overprivileged, deliberately uninformed wingnut punk spouts about how it's all an imaginary crisis.

That's all you deserve, you ignorant ass.

[Arawn]

A pregnant woman on antivirals now gives birth to a healthy infant 87% of the time. One of the AIDS vacines in phase 2 testing right now supposedly is at a 100% protection rate for preventing further infection of others.

And as to the fear monger thing, if you remember the early t mid 80s people claimed that HIV would completely wipe out all of humanity by the start of the new millenium. That without immeadiate and desperate research we would not finda cure in time to prevent our demise within the next 30 years.

By my count we have 6-8 years left if thats the case. Historically people have always taken the worst possible and promised it is the most likely, even when evidence does not support that.

I have never tried to say that nothing should be done, just that everyone is over reacting yet again.

[Reverend Smooth]

And as to the fear monger thing, if you remember the early t mid 80s people claimed that HIV would completely wipe out all of humanity by the start of the new millenium.
Because there was practically no knowledge about AIDS back then, while there is at least three decades of solid research that just keeps getting confirmed about global warming?

Bad analogy, Arawn. I was learning detailed info about global warming back when I was EIGHT. Just because wingnuts like you refused to pay attention doesn't mean that it's a new field of research.

It should be noted that many countries have aids rates so high, and do not have access to the meds you seem to take for granted, that entire generations are dying off? It may not be the end of the world, but it is devastating the economies of these countries and it's only projected to worsen.

But I guess it's their fault, like you said, right? I mean, if your husband beats you to death for refusing to fuck him without a condom (africa) or you're a homeless kid who prostitutes themselves to eke out a living (several asian countries), you're still being irresponsible.

[Charles RB]

A pregnant woman on antivirals now gives birth to a healthy infant 87% of the time. One of the AIDS vacines in phase 2 testing right now supposedly is at a 100% protection rate for preventing further infection of others.

Good. Now how widespread are those drugs in developing nations, and how much social, physical and economic damage has been done by AIDS epidemics in those nations already?


And as to the fear monger thing, if you remember the early t mid 80s

Not physically possible for me, I'm afraid.


people claimed that HIV would completely wipe out all of humanity by the start of the new millenium.

Which people? Serious, qualified scientists who'd done research? Or other types of people?


Historically people have always taken the worst possible and promised it is the most likely

When you're dealing with incurable and easy-to-pass-on diseases, threat of warfare, potentially massive changes in climate that would effect our entire way of life & economy or anything where the worst possible outcome could fuck us up considerably... Well, taking the worst possible view sounds quite sensible. It means you might go and do something about it, as opposed to taking the best possible view i.e. "oh this won't happen at all", which means you do nothing.

When we're talking climate change, which could cause major changes to our civilisation, it's best to err on the side of caution. There's a reason the European Union (big rich capitalist nations with many big business interests, let's remember) are pledged to lower their carbon emissions by a specific percentage and are bringing in 'green' policies (Britain alone has county councils giving everyone a recycling bin and the national government wanting to bring in nuclear power plants over fossil-fuel ones).


just that everyone is over reacting yet again.

Australia had a major drought recently. Said drought led to heavily restricted water use (and I mean heavily), several small remote towns being evacuated, and quite a lot of farmers worried they might lose their entire businesses. The third point is a big one - Australia's agriculture almost got devastated for years to come (current crops would dry up and it'd hard to grow next year's), which would've severely bumraped their economy.

Suddenly, the Australian government is starting to make noises about how climate change is a problem.

If such droughts would be a common occurence and possibly get worse due to climate change (and a lot of people seem to think it would), how can you possibly overreact if you're Australia? Your agriculture, economy and ability to drink water are at risk! Or when it's mentioned sea levels would rise - think how many economically & governmentally important cities are on the coast. What happens when they get flooded? (They don't even have to be flooded that much to cause chaos)

[Reverend Smooth]

It should be noted that many scientists have stated that relatively inexpensive changes would avert a lot of damage AND save more money than if people did nothing at all-- and these changes would not significantly affect the countries' economies.

That is not alarmist.

[bfrank]

Back at you. Global warming is as real as aids, so why are you mocking them and then acting all indignant about your own circumstances?



Because pip wished death on him.....

[bfrank]

There are ways to test how hot and cold temperatures were going back millions of years, you know. Also the makeup of the atosphere, etc. That's pretty basic knowledge, why are you ignoring it?

One-- you came in mocking others. DOn't bitch when people call you a moron when you are more than happy to diss others.

Two: Are you incapable of educating yourself? Do we have to hold your hand or something? You seem vaguely rational, can't you read? You are willfully unknowlegeable and spout wingnut conspiracy-theorist nonsense.

No. It's not. The only people contesting it are fringe loonies, and you are applying double standards.

The person who brought up their own illness was you. And since aids is another topic full of conspiracy nonsense, it's a very good example. Of course, now you're trying to avoid dealing with that because it's a good parallel, as usual, and putting on the poor me victim act.

You have no problem making fun of, dismissing, slagging, and demeaning other people, you make threats, you criticise others for not being educated, and you defer to scientific publications, all the while bitching about others.

What kind of debate is possible with someone like you? You just shit it up and then put on a victim act.

Oh, wait. Are you gonna fuck up my universe now, too? You're so mean and aggro and tough and you know everything, after all, we're all clueless next to the amazing Arawn. And if he doesn't get his way in a debate, he starts promising to fuck people up in real life.

And THEN tries to claim the moral high ground in a debate.

Ugh. It's people like you who are the reason this planet's fucked up.

Now, watch you start crying about how mean I'm being to you.
Read this thread and grow up......

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=176452

[Reverend Smooth]

Read this thread and grow up.........Says the guy who only sticks up for the person who started slinging insults from the get go. Mighty selective thar!

Point to that thread when you're more interested in getting along than picking sides.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Rev, that is nonsense. As Arawn has clearly proven with his superior knowledge about cause and effect, knowing the dangers of a potential crisis beforehand cannot possibly alter the outcome--in other words, any warning is complete 'alarmist' nonsense, because the negative event never comes to pass. Even though I read just about everything about AIDS in the 'Eighties, because most every heterosexual on the planet was paranoid as shit about it, and I didn't ever see an article that mentioned the end of all human life by the year 2001. Sounds like a Rush Limbaugh factoid. Doesn't matter that these are conservative (in the original non-brainwashed meaning of the word) estimates on global warming.

Signed, Facetiousman.

Arawn,
For a large segment of the scientific community to agree on anything, the data has to be overwhelmingly in favor of that viewpoint. They are staunchly oriented towards something called 'The Scientific Method', sometimes to the point of overkill--where nothing can be proven. This ain't some alarmist crackpot being quoted by some irresponsible journalist. This is real. I don't know where you are that you can ignore the weather, but May is usually our rainiest month, here in Georgia, and we didn't get a drop, while the West Coast and Midwest have been deluged. Changing weather patterns is part of what they're talking about.

Is it alway sunny and mild in Shangri-La?

[Reverend Smooth]

Signed, Facetiousman.XD

Is it alway sunny and mild in Shangri-La?
I'd love to live in that universe. Arawn seems to think that the reality-based community wants the world to suck. :rolleyes:

Then again, republicans ignored the aids thing, too, which led to a lot of dead people before they started to accept that it wasn't just god punishing those icky homos.

[Buzz Dixon]

I understood the remark re HIV/fearmongers to be the assumption made early in the first recognized outbreak of the disease that it was going to jump to the heterosexual community and spread like wildfire.

It didn't.

HIV does not spread easily through normal heterosexual intercourse. There are a variety of reasons for this, including the fact that a vagina is more accommodating to a penis than an anus is, hence after the hymen is broken and healed there is relatively little chance of vaginal tissue tearing or fissuring the way rectal tissue more readily can under similar conditions. (It can and does happen, but at nowhere near the same frequency and rate as with anal intercourse.)

Since HIV transmits from body fluid to body fluid, a lack of openings to the bloodstream significantly drops the chance of infection. Most -- not all, but most -- persons infected by HIV from normal heterosexual intercourse have a secondary veneral infection (herpes, syphilis, whatever) that produces lesions which make the transmission of the virus easier.

It is not impossible to transmit HIV through normal heterosexual intercourse between two otherwise healthy individuals, but it is a far less likely occurance than between between two individuals engaged in anal intercourse, or two individuals engaged in normal sexual intercourse where the uninfected person has a genital or vaginal lesion.

Male-to-female HIV transmission through normal sexual intercourse between two otherwise healthy individuals is also more likely than female-to-male transmission.

There is a significantly larger number of HIV and AIDS cases in Africa among heterosexuals for a variety of reasons. First, more Africans are vulnerable to other endemic diseases that produce lesions that permit HIV transmission. Second, many Africans -- particularly those in lower economic conditions -- use anal intercourse as a way of avoid pregnancy.

Finally -- and this is the third rail people don't like to discuss -- there is no clear picture of how many Africans are actually infected with HIV. In the West, AIDS is defined as having HIV plus two of six or seven other symptoms. In Africa, however, many locales lack the funds and resources to test for HIV; as a result if a patient complains of two or more of the symptoms related with HIV/AIDS, it is assumed they have AIDS.

The problem is that there are a great many diseases endemic to Africa that produce symptoms similar to those associated with HIV/AIDS. That a great many Africans are suffering from HIV/AIDS is indisputable; as to anything approaching an accurate projection of those numbers, well, the jury is still out.

Even if HIV had not been identified and drug regimes created to curb its progression, AIDS would not have killed "billions" of people -- and least not within a couple of decades. The behaviors associated with HIV/AIDS were identified quite early in the epidemic, and had ways of blocking the transmission (condoms, etc.) or curbing the virus' progression not been discovered, sane and rational people with self-control would have avoided those behaviors, thus cutting the spread of the disease considerably.

[Flamebird]

I understood the remark re HIV/fearmongers to be the assumption made early in the first recognized outbreak of the disease that it was going to jump to the heterosexual community and spread like wildfire.

It didn't.

HIV does not spread easily through normal heterosexual intercourse. There are a variety of reasons for this, including the fact that a vagina is more accommodating to a penis than an anus is, hence after the hymen is broken and healed there is relatively little chance of vaginal tissue tearing or fissuring the way rectal tissue more readily can under similar conditions. (It can and does happen, but at nowhere near the same frequency and rate as with anal intercourse.)

Since HIV transmits from body fluid to body fluid, a lack of openings to the bloodstream significantly drops the chance of infection. Most -- not all, but most -- persons infected by HIV from normal heterosexual intercourse have a secondary veneral infection (herpes, syphilis, whatever) that produces lesions which make the transmission of the virus easier.

It is not impossible to transmit HIV through normal heterosexual intercourse between two otherwise healthy individuals, but it is a far less likely occurance than between between two individuals engaged in anal intercourse, or two individuals engaged in normal sexual intercourse where the uninfected person has a genital or vaginal lesion.

Male-to-female HIV transmission through normal sexual intercourse between two otherwise healthy individuals is also more likely than female-to-male transmission.

There is a significantly larger number of HIV and AIDS cases in Africa among heterosexuals for a variety of reasons. First, more Africans are vulnerable to other endemic diseases that produce lesions that permit HIV transmission. Second, many Africans -- particularly those in lower economic conditions -- use anal intercourse as a way of avoid pregnancy.

Finally -- and this is the third rail people don't like to discuss -- there is no clear picture of how many Africans are actually infected with HIV. In the West, AIDS is defined as having HIV plus two of six or seven other symptoms. In Africa, however, many locales lack the funds and resources to test for HIV; as a result if a patient complains of two or more of the symptoms related with HIV/AIDS, it is assumed they have AIDS.

The problem is that there are a great many diseases endemic to Africa that produce symptoms similar to those associated with HIV/AIDS. That a great many Africans are suffering from HIV/AIDS is indisputable; as to anything approaching an accurate projection of those numbers, well, the jury is still out.

Even if HIV had not been identified and drug regimes created to curb its progression, AIDS would not have killed "billions" of people -- and least not within a couple of decades. The behaviors associated with HIV/AIDS were identified quite early in the epidemic, and had ways of blocking the transmission (condoms, etc.) or curbing the virus' progression not been discovered, sane and rational people with self-control would have avoided those behaviors, thus cutting the spread of the disease considerably.

Can I borrow those rose tinted glasses, sometime?

[Charles RB]

I understood the remark re HIV/fearmongers to be the assumption made early in the first recognized outbreak of the disease that it was going to jump to the heterosexual community and spread like wildfire.

It didn't.

Sure looks like it did from where I'm standing.

[cedardryad]

They are finally test the lions in Africa, because cats also get AIDS, but for the most part tend to live longer lives, sometimes a normal lifespan. There are also some parts in Africa where it seems that the prostitutes are practically immune to contracting HIV, they are also testing them to see if there is something in their system that is preventing them from contracting the virus.

I still think my class mate back in high school had the best idea for a cure. Give all the white blood cells cancer. This way they will start over producing and fight off the virus, unfortunately then you get stuck with someone with cancer afterwards. And there is a chance that the cancer alone will aggravate everything.

[Flamebird]

They are finally test the lions in Africa, because cats also get AIDS, but for the most part tend to live longer lives, sometimes a normal lifespan. There are also some parts in Africa where it seems that the prostitutes are practically immune to contracting HIV, they are also testing them to see if there is something in their system that is preventing them from contracting the virus.

I still think my class mate back in high school had the best idea for a cure. Give all the white blood cells cancer. This way they will start over producing and fight off the virus, unfortunately then you get stuck with someone with cancer afterwards. And there is a chance that the cancer alone will aggravate everything.

Wouldn't it be easier to just line us all up and shoot us?

More humane, too.

[Buzz Dixon]

I understood the remark re HIV/fearmongers to be the assumption made early in the first recognized outbreak of the disease that it was going to jump to the heterosexual community and spread like wildfire.

It didn't.

Sure looks like it did from where I'm standing.
Not in the Western world. Most persons otherwise uninfected with a veneral disease who have contracted HIV by means other than anal intercourse have done so through repeated exposure to an HIV infected partner, or through sharing a needle or otherwise exchanging blood/bodily fluids, or through medical use of blood related products that have not been thoroughly screened.

There are exceptions and unusual occurances; two teen sisters in Florida (IIRC) who spread the infection between by sharing the same sex toy, for instance. But for the most part is has not jumped to the heterosexual community and spread like wildfire, and the proof of this can be seen by observing the rates of infection among two groups of sexually active heterosexuals: Porn performers and swingers.

Condom use among people in these two groups was not common, bordering on rare, prior to the discovery of the means of HIV transmission. Even after the first outbreaks of AIDS and the linking of it to the homosexual community (when it was originally referred to as GRIDS: Gay Related Immunity Deficiency Syndrome), porn performers and swingers rarely used condoms. And while condom use has gone up in these two groups and is highly encouraged, it is far from universal.

Both groups -- porn performers and swingers -- engage in a wide variety of non-monogamous sexual activities with other individuals who are also engaged in such pursuits; hence the chain of sexual contact stretches quite far among both groups. While not common place, bisexual males were and are present in both groups. Further, the porn performers have a higher than average rate of drug users/abusers.

Further, many swingers tend to belong to highly organized groups that permit large numbers of individuals and couples to interact, and they are known to be willing to travel great distances to meet and interact with like minded people (the travel being conducive to hiding their activities from neighbors and family).

Yet neither group saw a wide outbreak of HIV. IIRC, there have been two relatively minor outbreaks of HIV in the porn industry, both of which were quickly detected and stopped by testing and quarantine (i.e., the infected performers permanently banned from the industry). And among the swingers (again, IIRC) only one small outbreak traced to a specific group in Minnesota or Michigan.

If HIV was going to break out in the heterosexual population and spread as rapidly as it did among the homosexual and bisexual population, surely it would have done so among porn performers and swingers first. More common veneral diseases such as syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia -- not to mention herpes, genital warts, and HPV -- were frequently reported among homosexuals, porn performers, and swingers; why did the HIV virus flourish only among one of those groups?

Answer: A specific behavior more commonly found in that group (though not unheard of in the other two).

Bottom line: Excepting areas such as Africa and Haiti where other endemic diseases contribute to the spread of the virus, HIV is not a major threat to humanity as a whole. Common sense avoidance of certain specific behavior will do far more to curb the disease than all the medicine and research we can provide.

That being said, obviously research on better, less expensive drug treatments for those already infected should be a continuing on-going concern.

[Nick Soapdish]

Actually theres a big difference HIV was tested, retested and then tested again. For years there was a great debate about it's causes, transmission and still an ongoing debate about the origin.

Now as for Global Warming, I keep asking for a debate and people like you keep screaming "IDIOT" rather than actually discussing anything.



Answers (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462)



Global Warming is still hotly contested.

Even within the community of scientists and environmentalists that support the Global Warming movement. There is no firm and unified belief about how much mankind contributes to it, how to stop it, or even if it can be stopped or if it is already too late.


Yes, by the non-scientific community.

90% of scientists, and even more of those in fields like climatology are firm believers. There is dissension about how much global warming there will be and how much of it is man-made. (I've heard that up to 30% is natural in a Duke study.) I think that only illustrates that they aren't all drinking the same Kool-Aid.

The scientific community isn't one to jump feet-first into something. When there was the big fuss about cold fusion, it was the popular press. Most of the scientists were skeptical and wanted to see how it could be reproduced. When there was the big fuss about the next Ice Age, it was mainly due to an article in Newsweek. I only know of two scientists that were suggesting it seriously. One is an ecologist (Ehrlich) that has been a bit prone to doomsday scenarios otherwise. The other, Nigel Calder, is one of the chief skeptics of global warming right now. A mid-70s scientific panel did say that if there was another ice age that it would be very bad, but they also said that they didn't know that if it was happening.

[cedardryad]

I believe that there is a bigger population of straight people coming down with AIDS, mainly because they believe they can't get it through normal means. Just like some people believe you can't get pregnant from anal. Sorry there is a very small chance you can. Also, a girl can get pregnant from "dry humping" her partner while naked.

Anywho, I think the reason a lot of straight people wouldn't have it is because straight people don't get tested as much. Younger people are more likely to get it because they don't want to get tested and they are too gullible. I will have to agree with Arawn that most people that get it now are to blame.

Besides a woman can get lacerations from vaginal sex with her partner. They are small and don't hurt so they go unnoticed. We finally have a population controller, why should we prevent it? Maybe this is all tied in with the planet. Maybe Earth has sought out revenge and this is the only way to get rid of the problem. Besides, the rain forests that people are destroying might just have the cure we are looking for.

So I leave with this statement:

GET BACK ON TOPIC AND AGREE TO DISAGREE!:mad:

[Citizen V]

I think something is being done about global warming..but if this does not happen..and the USA continues to ignore the climate,its expected that a decent amount of the coastline will be submerged..so there will be some final justice..in that sence.

[Lester C.]

I think something is being done about global warming..but if this does not happen..and the USA continues to ignore the climate,its expected that a decent amount of the coastline will be submerged..so there will be some final justice..in that sence.

And here is another problem. In order to truly fight global warming we'd have to invade China and everyone else who are going to be producing more pollution than us in the near future.

[Crowley]

Having had HIV for 25 years now...Yes thats a 2 and a 5 right after it. I wouldn't know anything about the disease at all. Nope I wouldn't know anything. John Sullivan they guy who first stopped HIV growth in a test tube. When he was working out of UMASS Worcester. Nope wasn't working with him as a human lab rat to help other people. Cause I wouldn't know anything about that at all.

I didn't spend years working with the MA branch of My One Wish, or The Vineyard Haven Project (A camp for kids with HIV and AIDS) either...So I would never have seen it effect others. Nope not in the slightest.

FUCKERS

Don't ever try to tell me I don't know about HIV, try saying that to my face I guarantee I'll fuck up your entire universe if it's the very last thing I ever fucking do.

you're saying you've had HIV for 25 years...
your profile age lists you as 27. So you contracted it at age 2?

Can we get some clarification here?

[Nick Soapdish]

And here is another problem. In order to truly fight global warming we'd have to invade China and everyone else who are going to be producing more pollution than us in the near future.

That'd be China and ... um, maybe not even China.

China's trying to take steps about carbon emissions already (even though they have lousy pollution controls in other areas). Most of the cars made in Detroit can't be sold in China because they don't meet their standards. Not that Detroit needs to worry since it's such a small market. ;)

Currently, they're behind us in carbon emissions per capita, but they have a huge lead in capita and are gaining in the per part. :D So they have a pretty good chance of surpassing us.

[Nick Soapdish]

I think something is being done about global warming..but if this does not happen..and the USA continues to ignore the climate,its expected that a decent amount of the coastline will be submerged..so there will be some final justice..in that sence.

Except that there's a lot of coastline that isn't along the US and other carbon-intensive countries.

[Arawn]

you're saying you've had HIV for 25 years...
your profile age lists you as 27. So you contracted it at age 2?

Can we get some clarification here?

I was born with severe hemophillia which is a blood disorder. It requires infusions of a blood product (I take Hemophil M factor VIII dirivitive) to heal. My body does not make this particular blood factor on it's own, so I can't clot or heal properly.

My parents noticed the night sweats and other symptoms starting june 10 1982 and took very detailed records, more so than hospitals were taking at the time. From the very first test in 85 I have always tested HIV positive. Dr Doreen Bretler of of Worcester Memorial Hemophillia Center determined the initial infection was indeed in June 82. This went on record in 2002 when my dissability status went retroactive to my 18th birthday.

The exact date of my Hep C infection was never determined. I am still A Symptomatic for both diseases (I have never suffered from the normal aids/hep illnesses tho I do have the damage they leave). And it is belived both came from contaminated blood products.

All in all I consider myself quite fortunate that my health isn't any worse and that I'm still here. I did not intend my story to be one of "pity or a victim" but merely to illustrate I was intimately aware of the myths and reality. I hope that answers any questions you have, but if it doesn't feel free to ask.

I hadn't been posting here because I am reading up on the link that was left for me. A lot of it I hadn't heard or read yet.

Ben

[Crowley]

I was born with severe hemophillia which is a blood disorder. It requires infusions of a blood product (I take Hemophil M factor VIII dirivitive) to heal. My body does not make this particular blood factor on it's own, so I can't clot or heal properly.

My parents noticed the night sweats and other symptoms starting june 10 1982 and took very detailed records, more so than hospitals were taking at the time. From the very first test in 85 I have always tested HIV positive. Dr Doreen Bretler of of Worcester Memorial Hemophillia Center determined the initial infection was indeed in June 82. This went on record in 2002 when my dissability status went retroactive to my 18th birthday.

The exact date of my Hep C infection was never determined. I am still A Symptomatic for both diseases (I have never suffered from the normal aids/hep illnesses tho I do have the damage they leave). And it is belived both came from contaminated blood products.

All in all I consider myself quite fortunate that my health isn't any worse and that I'm still here. I did not intend my story to be one of "pity or a victim" but merely to illustrate I was intimately aware of the myths and reality. I hope that answers any questions you have, but if it doesn't feel free to ask.

I hadn't been posting here because I am reading up on the link that was left for me. A lot of it I hadn't heard or read yet.

Ben

I only question it because your flippant response with "First it was HIV" as though HIV is not a enormous threat to humanity, especially Africa.

Most of the HIV infected people I've known are able to rattle off facts about the HIV and AIDS like it's written on the back of their palm.

Also... if you're 27, where does the "25 years" come from... I'm assuming that you're transfusions started pretty early.

[Crowley]

My apologies... I caught up.

The hysteria of the 80's early 90's was overblown... but on the flipside an entire continent will likely be dead within the next 50 years soo... yeah.

[Arawn]

I only question it because your flippant response with "First it was HIV" as though HIV is not a enormous threat to humanity, especially Africa.

Most of the HIV infected people I've known are able to rattle off facts about the HIV and AIDS like it's written on the back of their palm.

Also... if you're 27, where does the "25 years" come from... I'm assuming that you're transfusions started pretty early.

I was not born HIV infected, but infected in 1982, the year 2007 happens to be 25 years later. So I have officially been infected for 25 years as of this Sunday.

Also although HIV is a major concern people really did think it would wipe out everyone in 30 years. Media fueled hysteria by only showing worst case scenarios. If you had HIV or AIDS you were just as evil and hated then as anyone that at all questions the extremist views of global warming now. Told to shut up, go away, you must be retarded, I hope you die...all of that for having HIV, all of that for doubting that Humanity is totally to blame for global warming and will be dead in a few years.

People seem to be just as afraid of the very possibility that the earth might, at least in part, be warming naturally, as they were of HIV. This is in no way rational, and even if they don't want to admit it they know.

Also after reading through the links I was left, I have to agree we are more responsible than I originally belived, yet I don't see proof we are going to be extinct any time soon. Nor do I see proof this is 100% our fault. (Not saying we can ignore whats happening either so please don't try to go there)

[Reverend Smooth]

It's killed everyone I've known who's had it, including a hemophiliac friend and his twin brother. Nowadays, some people manage ok; some people don't. I have terminal-stage addison's; I should be dead now, and I'm somehow not. Shit happens.

Just like with aids, global warming now has several decades of science to work with, which you seem to have so far ignored. Consistent science, too. Why do you take inconsistent stands on these issues? Established science is ok for aids but not global warming because you disagree with it?

And I don't think anyone here's said that global warming is entirely man-made, just that it's possible to mitigate the effects of our own pollution and possible to do so in an economically-viable way. You're putting up another straw man and arguing that, Arawn, and it's completely unnecessary.

[Nick Soapdish]

People seem to be just as afraid of the very possibility that the earth might, at least in part, be warming naturally, as they were of HIV. This is in no way rational, and even if they don't want to admit it they know.

Also after reading through the links I was left, I have to agree we are more responsible than I originally belived, yet I don't see proof we are going to be extinct any time soon. Nor do I see proof this is 100% our fault. (Not saying we can ignore whats happening either so please don't try to go there)

I'm not aware of anyone that contends that man is entirely to blame for global warming. (I'm sure they exist though.) All the material that I've read from people that support the theory (probably the wrong word) of anthropogenic global warming concede that some of it is probably natural. But a significant proportion isn't.

There are third ramifications of global warming that are new to this event.

First, since we're contributing, it'll be happening faster than by nature. By itself, this doesn't really mean anything. We might have had faster climate change in the past that was entirely natural.

Second, human modifications to the environment have made it less flexible. Natural habitat is seriously shrunken in some areas, especially along the coast where significant change is likely to occur. Nature will adapt, but it'll take longer as a result.

Third, we care. In the past, climate change has resulted in mass extinctions and hardship for the remaining species. We aren't going to be one of the species that goes extinct, but we aren't going to be happy about the hardship part.

[cedardryad]

Whether its HIV/AIDS or global warming or something else, people only seem to respond to scare tactics. Its like the majority of people are crazy and irrational.