Take part in the worlds biggest cliamte experiment!

[coolrunn]

Hello, sorry I couldn't see an off topic section on this website so I hope its ok to post non ubuntu stuff here.

The bbc is carrying out the worlds biggest climate change experiment in collaboration with the MET office and it uses a climate model developed by scientists in California (i think). Basically they need as many people as possible to take part, so that the more who join in the more valuable/useful the results obtained will be.

The experiment uses the unused processing power of your computer and you can get rid of it when its finished. Also you can have it as your screensaver so you can see its progress!

heres the link; http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange

thanks.:KS

[Stormy Eyes]

Spamming with your first post?

[coolrunn]

not really the kind of response I was looking for.

Hopefully you are in a minority.

[Bragador]

No he is not, this looks like spam in my opinion too.

But instead I could say there are TONS of other distributed computing projects that are more interesting.

http://distributedcomputing.info/projects.html

[chimera]

just join the ubuntu team at folding@home (see link in my signature)

[nik]

Spam or not, not much point in advertising for a windows only project in a linux forum... :)

[Lord Illidan]

Wait! It is not just for windows, there is a .sh for Linux. I don't think this is spam, btw. http://bbc.cpdn.org/index.php

[coolrunn]

yes I think I saw a but for linux users.

actually what exactly is spam (really showing my ignorance now). I didn't mean mean to upset anyone with this post, its harmless enough for goodness sake its meant to be a valuable and important experiment, so I don't really see why it should be a problem for anyone.:-k

[Stormy Eyes]

Spam is any unsolicited advertisement. You came here, apparently, solely to promote this experiment. If you don't use Ubuntu or intend to use it, then what business do you have here?

[coolrunn]

well this isn't my first post and I didn't come here with the sole intention of advertising and I DO intend to utilise linux. So there we go.:-k

[nik]

Sorry, didn't see the linux part... :oops:

I agree this isn't spamming, after all, this is community chat. I would actually be interested in this, but using only a laptop I don't think it's a good idea...

[Lord Illidan]

Spam is any unsolicited advertisement. You came here, apparently, solely to promote this experiment. If you don't use Ubuntu or intend to use it, then what business do you have here?

Take it easy on him. It is Community Chat after all, and as he said, he is intending to use Linux after all. It isn't like he is advertising his own product.

[Iandefor]

Spam is any unsolicited advertisement. You came here, apparently, solely to promote this experiment. If you don't use Ubuntu or intend to use it, then what business do you have here? You have no idea how offensive you are, do you? Come off it. His first post was spreading the word on a distributed processing project he thought was cool. So what, now we can't endorse a product/project if we like it?

Coolrunn: I saw that. It looks like a pretty cool project.

[coolrunn]

thanks guys. I think it will be a worthwhile experiment and there are some that think global warming isn't either happening or a problem and so maybe this experiment will say once and for all what the most likely future will be of the worlds climate and the reprocussions of that.

Is there any other major forum where this could be posted and people would be interested? (theres not a lot of time left to do this I think)

[coolrunn]

There is a programme all about this on BBC FOUR tonight at 9pm if anyones interested.

[Iandefor]

There is a programme all about this on BBC FOUR tonight at 9pm if anyones interested. I would actually be fascinated by watching the report on it. Unfortunately, I don't have cable, much less the BBC :(.

[WelterPelter]

[-(

[coolrunn]

I suspect the Bbc will broadcast it and shows results and give details of it all on the bbc website Iandefor. (probably in april or may) Or they may show it on Bbc world.

[nickle]

Hey Coolrunn,

You ain't spammin' and it a pity that there are some very narrow minded folk in our community chat section.

This climate experiment is important and if the Ubuntu community can contribute to understand the weather better, then it is the Ubuntu spirit, right...????

If our planet is going on the boil, there will be no more spamming, and no more Ubuntu

[Bragador]

Helping build the new particle accelerator at CERN is also important. And finding a cure to HIV is definitely more important. There are tons of other projects.

Also he was spamming the way he wrote his post. Next time he should start with something like "Have you heard of this new distributed computing project ? I saw in the news that they are trying to blahblahblah" instead.

[nickle]

Helping build the new particle accelerator at CERN is also important. And finding a cure to HIV is definitely more important. There are tons of other projects.

Also he was spamming the way he wrote his post. Next time he should start with something like "Have you heard of this new distributed computing project ? I saw in the news that they are trying to blahblahblah" instead.

There are tons of projects and I think it is of interest to the Ubuntu community and the right of individuals who are part of our community to make us aware of them, particularly if they are relevant to things we do on our computers with our wonderful OS. Remember, this section is called community chat!!!! We all have our personal priorities on what we think is important and you are certainly welcome to yours too. This is what makes the world an interesting place...

Was he spamming or did he make a mistake (in your opinion) on how he addressed the community? If you feel it is the latter, then that's fine, please say so; we all make mistakes and perhaps can learn how to better communicate with each other.

However, to immediately accuse one of our community of spamming (which is a criminal offense in many countries!!!!), when they are genuinely bringing something they feel is important to our attention, is not appropriate. I would like to give members of this community the benefit of the doubt before making such harsh accusations...

[coolrunn]

I would say finding a cure to HIV and finding out the probable future of the world's climate are EQUALLY important! After all some people say that sea levels will rise by many meters which would mean the loss of many island chains, possibly the state of FLORIDA:eek: whilst many continental areas would become more desertified.

On the flip side the continents of antartica and Greenland may become habitable, but that would mean Goodbye to the worlds last wildernesses, but more importantly a quick rate (which seems to occuring) of temperature increase could be devastating to the worlds ecosystems which wouldn't be able to adapt.

I'd say this topic and experiment were EXTREMELY important, especially since the implications affect as ALL, and especially when the worlds richest and most powerful country continues to disregard it. This experiment should hopefully (if enough take part) say once and for all what the future climate will most likely be and then rich and polluting newly industrialised nations would have to listen !!

And i'd post something like this again if I thought it was important enough, regardless if a few thought it was 'spam' but thanks to those who took me seriously and I hope you can get other people who are interested to take part. Cheers coolrunn.

(PS I do plan on getting ubuntu for my new computer which should be arriving soon, although when my ubuntu disc will arrive who knows, shame really as I want to skip installing windows altogether.)

[Iandefor]

Helping build the new particle accelerator at CERN is also important. And finding a cure to HIV is definitely more important. There are tons of other projects.

Building CERN a new particle accelerator is hardly as important as doing climate change modeling so we know what the hell to expect from the very damn earth in the near future. We already have vaccines and treatments for HIV. You wanna go help pay the ~10k they cost?

[Bragador]

Yes it is possible he made a mistake about how he addressed the community. But if fanboys from all projects started to advertise their project while saying they have the right to do so because it is the community chat, the forum would become a mess.

As for climate change I don't care anymore, we will adapt or die. As for right now, no voices from the sky started to cry about our possible demise so our extinction is not important in my opinion. Especially snce our species WILL disapear one day or another. Let's all focus on finding if our existance is useful to the universe instead.

[Iandefor]

As for right now, no voices from the sky started to cry about our possible demise so our extinction is not important in my opinion. So, you're going to wait until some higher authority to tell us when we're in danger to start worrying? I guess Darwin was wrong, then.

Especially snce our species WILL disapear one day or another. Let's all focus on finding if our existance is useful to the universe instead. And it makes no difference to you if that day is in about 10,000 years or today? One hell of a sense of time you have.

[Bragador]

So, you're going to wait until some higher authority to tell us when we're in danger to start worrying? I guess Darwin was wrong, then.

No I'll start doing something when we find out that we truly have a purpose in this universe. Until then it all equals to 0.


And it makes no difference to you if that day is in about 10,000 years or today? One hell of a sense of time you have.

Exactly, if we all disappear today or in 10 000 years, it doesn't matter since there will be no human consciousness left to be aware of that. Thus, time loses its importance.

[coolrunn]

ha, are you serious?

How about this for a purpose in the universe.

a) survival

b) not to f#ck up the planet (or universe if you want to be really deep)


and it would seem that both are interlinked.

You didn't see dinosaurs wrecking the planet, 'God' or mother nature (whatever you want to call it) saw to that. It would pretty silly for us humans, who are apparently clever and sophisticated to destroy ourselves by destroying our own planet, the only place we can live.

[Bragador]

ha, are you serious?

How about this for a purpose in the universe.

a) survival

Smart but predictable move.

1)There is one chance that humans will disappear. Thus, if we look at what happens in an infinite amount of time, we hit that chance and humans will be exterminated.
OR
2)The universe will not stay as it is for an infinite amount of time. Thus, humans will be exterminated at the end. If they find a way to escape the universe, see 1)

b) not to f#ck up the planet (or universe if you want to be really deep)


and it would seem that both are interlinked.

You didn't see dinosaurs wrecking the planet, 'God' or mother nature (whatever you want to call it) saw to that. It would pretty silly for us humans, who are apparently clever and sophisticated to destroy ourselves by destroying our own planet, the only place we can live.
The planet will be destroyed by the sun eventually so what's the big deal ? If humans survive that long, we'll be living elsewhere. The earth is doomed either way.

[coolrunn]

you reply was inadequate.

just because the sun will eventually destroy the earth in billions of years time has absolutely no bearing on this situation. there are many things that threaten the earth; astreoids, disease etc etc. also the fact the earth will one day lose its polarity and therefore its atmosphere, all these things don't stop us from striving for survival NOW because there are moons in the outer planets that have potential for human habitation even when the sun expands, but in the mean time what right do you or I have to ruin things for future generations?

[DeadEnd]

Well I am surpried the way this thread panned out basically.
Someone who obviously wished to spread some info regarding a legitimate project has been subject to such petty critisicm.

Erm is Freedom not a key word in the Ubuntu philosophy, as in they expressed their freedom to post and we express ours in reading or ignoring it.

I am sure the moderators of this fine forum are better placed to determine such matters, and as such it should be left up to those to decide if the post was spam or not.

I hope this minority attitude has not put off anyone else who whishes to share some knowledge.

[Stormy Eyes]

but in the mean time what right do you or I have to ruin things for future generations?

Every right. We exist, and they do not.

[Paulus]

I havn't academically studied ecology, only mathematical engineering, but it seem as though in ancient times, the worlds climate was totally differant to what it is now.... less deserts egypt was rich in vegitation- which shows an open door to la possible pyramids explanation. global warming is actually natural, but we are contributing.

The sun is at it's hottest it's ever been, apparently ozone is replacing it'self quicker than it's depleating... blah blah... I wish the media would be more open minded about global warming, I hope this experiment considers everything, not just saying what we expect, i've heard from fellow degree students that we are not significantly adding to global warming at the moment, but it's all about acceleration of pollution output.... blah blah, sorry i've just realised i'm going off on one!

anyway, lets hope this experiment is nice and fair, should be being the bbc. It'd be nice to see a list of all the global network projects, shame my pc is unusable with 100% cpu usage (thanks to no nvidia xgl drivers). bleh

[Stormy Eyes]

anyway, lets hope this experiment is nice and fair, should be being the bbc. It'd be nice to see a list of all the global network projects, shame my pc is unusable with 100% cpu usage (thanks to no nvidia xgl drivers). bleh

Yeah, but they're using a model developed in California. Being a Brit, you might not know this, but California is populated primarily by nuts and flakes.

[Bragador]

you reply was inadequate.

just because the sun will eventually destroy the earth in billions of years time has absolutely no bearing on this situation. there are many things that threaten the earth; astreoids, disease etc etc. also the fact the earth will one day lose its polarity and therefore its atmosphere, all these things don't stop us from striving for survival NOW because there are moons in the outer planets that have potential for human habitation even when the sun expands, but in the mean time what right do you or I have to ruin things for future generations?

Of course my reply is inadequate if you ommit parts of my answer. I also said the human race will be extinct eventually. So striving fo survival as a goal is a waste of time since we already lost. Find another goal or just let it go already.

[coolrunn]

ha, what a joke.

oh no the sun will destroy the earth in billions of years time so lets detsroy and mess things up now!

And yes presumably this experiment is fair the Bbc is quite trustworthy and the fact that some califormnias made it matters not, as the results are being analysed in Oxford. And it may even turn out that things won't be so bad even though we are polluting the atmosphere very badly.

By the way the absolute deadline for this experiment is January 2007 (i think) so even if they publish results before that you still have til jan. 07 to do the experiment as the people in Oxford will still use the results.

[Stormy Eyes]

oh no the sun will destroy the earth in billions of years time so lets detsroy and mess things up now!

Why should we make sacrifices for a planet that won't appreciate them? Why shouldn't we tame nature instead?

[Bragador]

Why should we make sacrifices for a planet that won't appreciate them? Why shouldn't we tame nature instead?

Very good point. I like the way you think.


oh no the sun will destroy the earth in billions of years time so lets detsroy and mess things up now!

Yay ! It's all or nothing with you uh ? If you said you wanted to keep the earth as it is because you often make trips in the forests and scubadive and would want to keep it that way to continue to appreciate the sceneries, I could understand. Making sacrifices for that is a problem though. You can clean the mess you see where you go to keep it that way but the whole species shouldn't limit its progress just for that. We can always have "glass domes" of some sort in the future to keep a similarly wild environment. If you find that idea horrible, I'm sad to say that someday humans will have to live in space and every wild spaces will be artificially controlled like a biodome. Or maybe we will all live in a virtual world so who knows ?

Also, with better technology, we will be able to terraform the earth and other planets. It comes down to "taming" nature like Stormy Eyes said.

And also please note that whatever happens, someday the whole species will die out and no consciousness will remain to cry for our demise. So unless there is a scientific breakthrough in the field of "afterlife experiments" you should take the whole life experience as a sad joke.

Please, don't take life seriously.

[imagine]

I guess it becomes obvious now why you two (and only you two) called the first posting spam: You simply don't like the purpose of that experiment.

[ember]

Why should we make sacrifices for a planet that won't appreciate them? Why shouldn't we tame nature instead?

Easy answer - because we are too stupid to succeed ;)

[Stormy Eyes]

Very good point. I like the way you think.

Thanks. I get annoyed by environmentalists who tell me that I have to give up comfort after comfort for the sake of the earth, even though the earth is not sentient and could not possibly appreciate the fact that I walk to work instead of driving a car.

Show me somebody who takes the Gaea Hypothesis seriously and I'll show you somebody who still hasn't gotten over seeing Aeris getting stabbed in the back.

[Stormy Eyes]

I guess it becomes obvious now why you two (and only you two) called the first posting spam: You simply don't like the purpose of that experiment.

Actually, I went easy because it was an experiment. If coolrunn had posted to promote a website, I would have suggested that Vlad the Impaler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_Dracula) would have known how to deal with him.

[Stormy Eyes]

Easy answer - because we are too stupid to succeed ;)

You're right. We'd have to be pretty stupid to listen to people who think that nature has some kind of intrinsic value. Nature should only be obeyed so that she can be commanded: you have to understand nature before you can rule it.

[coolrunn]

unfortunately if you don't respect nature it won't respect you.

and about terrorforming planets, not likely. For example the terroforming of Mars is not possible unfortunately.

I'm not a kiljoy or anything, but doing the odd bit or environmentally aware actions hardly impacts on my lifestyle in any way but rather enhances it, for example walking to work may actually do you some good, you should try it.

[Stormy Eyes]

for example walking to work may actually do you some good, you should try it.

I do walk to work, which was why I mentioned it. I do that because I refuse to pay car taxes, gas taxes, or be told that I must carry expensive insurance. If you want to do things to protect the environment, that's your business. I would have no argument with your cause if you kept it voluntary. Instead, however, environmentalists insist on using the machinery of government to force everybody to act as the environmentalists think they should.

I despise environmentalism for the same reason I despise religion, socialism, fascism, and even democracy: it reeks of others who dare to claim authority over me. I do not presume to tell others how they must live; I will not forgive those who dare to think that they have any right to have a say in how I live.

[Audioslave.]

God, I hate to break this to everyone but Government is a neccesary "'evil...."


Neat idea though. I love helping the environment in anyway I can.

Props.

@Stormy Eyes - You do seem to despise quite a bit.... Myself I rather like accepting things, I mean, sure I might dislike them, but I can't say there's anything I despise enough to comment on.....

[Stormy Eyes]

God, I hate to break this to everyone but Government is a neccesary "'evil...."

I don't accept the necessity of evil.

@Stormy Eyes - You do seem to despise quite a bit.... Myself I rather like accepting things, I mean, sure I might dislike them, but I can't say there's anything I despise enough to comment on.....

There's a lot that I love as well (especially my wife, and kittycats, and chocolate, and rock 'n roll). I happen to be passionate by nature. I don't like or dislike, I either love or I hate, or I just don't give a rip. And, if I think something is wrong, I don't "accept it"; I oppose it.

[ember]

Hmm ... sounds like anarchy is your cup of tea. So to speak we all should not care about each other or about the future, because unfortunately the enviromentalist is not lying when he says that men's impact on nature is harmful and will potentially make our children's lives a bit painful.
Furthermore carrying out the idea of anarchy, I consider it very unfavourable when everyone does as he pleases, e.g. my decision to delight in beheading other people would surely place an uncomfortable end to yours.

Additionally you are now allowed to call me an enviromentalist, too - I think I can handle that ;)

[Stormy Eyes]

Hmm ... sounds like anarchy is your cup of tea. So to speak we all should not care about each other or about the future, because unfortunately the enviromentalist is not lying when he says that men's impact on nature is harmful and will potentially make our children's lives a bit painful.

You don't understand anarchism, do you? Each person's life belongs solely to the person living it. My life is my own, and your life is yours. Neither of us has the right to coerce the other in any manner.

I did not say that we should stop caring about each other or about the world. I said that you can care if you like, but don't expect me to do so. If you want to help, I won't stop you. If you want to ask for my help and try to persuade me with facts and logic, I will listen. You might even convince me. However, I will stop you if you try to force me to help.

If you want to encourage benevolence and goodwill among your fellows, then I advise you to learn to say, "Would you please" instead of "You must".

[ember]

You don't understand anarchism, do you? Each person's life belongs solely to the person living it. My life is my own, and your life is yours. Neither of us has the right to coerce the other in any manner

I see inconsequence in this argument. Either you respect my life, then I can expect you not to pollute the enviroment because you indirectly harm me or you do not then I do not see where I fail.

O.k. For reasons of fairness I damit that I have polimised anarchy, but I hope that helps to see my point.

[Stormy Eyes]

Either you respect my life, then I can expect you not to pollute the enviroment because you indirectly harm me or you do not then I do not see where I fail.

Define "polluting the environment", please. Are we talking about littering or dumping toxic waste, or would merely exhaling carbon dioxide (or unleashing a good fart) count?

[ember]

We are talking about the first options. I don't blame you for breathing or eating a good chili.

[Audioslave.]

I don't accept the necessity of evil.

I apologize; I wasn't very clear. Government is not evil.


Back to topic at hand....

A special investigation reveals that a critical rise in world temperatures is now unavoidable

A crucial global warming “tipping point” for the Earth, highlighted only last week by the British Government, has already been passed, with devastating consequences.

Research commissioned by The Independent reveals that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has now crossed a threshold, set down by scientists from around the world at a conference in Britain last year, beyond which really dangerous climate change is likely to be unstoppable.

The implication is that some of global warming’s worst predicted effects, from destruction of ecosystems to increased hunger and water shortages for billions of people, cannot now be avoided, whatever we do. It gives considerable force to the contention by the green guru Professor James Lovelock, put forward last month in The Independent, that climate change is now past the point of no return.

The danger point we are now firmly on course for is a rise in global mean temperatures to 2 degrees above the level before the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century.

At the moment, global mean temperatures have risen to about 0.6 degrees above the pre-industrial era – and worrying signs of climate change, such as the rapid melting of the Arctic ice in summer, are already increasingly evident. But a rise to 2 degrees would be far more serious.

By that point it is likely that the Greenland ice sheet will already have begun irreversible melting, threatening the world with a sea-level rise of several metres. Agricultural yields will have started to fall, not only in Africa but also in Europe, the US and Russia, putting up to 200 million more people at risk from hunger, and up to 2.8 billion additional people at risk of water shortages for both drinking and irrigation. The Government’s conference on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, held at the UK Met Office in Exeter a year ago, highlighted a clear threshold in the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, which should not be surpassed if the 2 degree point was to be avoided with “relatively high certainty”.

This was for the concentration of CO2 and other gases such as methane and nitrous oxide, taken together in their global warming effect, to stay below 400ppm (parts per million) in CO2 terms – or in the jargon, the “equivalent concentration” of CO2 should remain below that level.

The warning was highlighted in the official report of the Exeter conference, published last week. However, an investigation by The Independent has established that the CO2 equivalent concentration, largely unnoticed by the scientific and political communities, has now risen beyond this threshold.

This number is not a familiar one even among climate researchers, and is not readily available. For example, when we put the question to a very senior climate scientist, he said: “I would think it’s definitely over 400 – probably about 420.” So we asked one of the world’s leading experts on the effects of greenhouse gases on climate, Professor Keith Shine, head of the meteorology department at the University of Reading, to calculate it precisely. Using the latest available figures (for 2004), his calculations show the equivalent concentration of C02, taking in the effects of methane and nitrous oxide at 2004 levels, is now 425ppm. This is made up of CO2 itself, at 379ppm; the global warming effect of the methane in the atmosphere, equivalent to another 40ppm of CO2; and the effect of nitrous oxide, equivalent to another 6ppm of CO2.

The tipping point warned about last week by the Government is already behind us.

“The passing of this threshold is of the most enormous significance,” said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on the green issues, now visiting professor at Imperial College London. “It means we have actually entered a new era – the era of dangerous climate change. We have passed the point where we can be confident of staying below the 2 degree rise set as the threshold for danger. What this tells us is that we have already reached the point where our children can no longer count on a safe climate.”

The scientist who chaired the Exeter conference, Dennis Tirpak, head of the climate change unit of the OECD in Paris, was even more direct. He said: “This means we will hit 2 degrees [as a global mean temperature rise].”

Professor Burke added: “We have very little time to act now. Governments must stop talking and start spending. We already have the technology to allow us to meet our growing need for energy while keeping a stable climate. We must deploy it now. Doing so will cost less than the Iraq war so we know we can afford it.”

The 400ppm threshold is based on a paper given at Exeter by Malte Meinhausen of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Dr Meinhausen reviewed a dozen studies of the probability of exceeding the 2 degrees threshold at different CO2 equivalent levels. Taken together they show that only by remaining above 400 is there a very high chance of not doing so.

Some scientists have been reluctant to talk about the overall global warming effect of all the greenhouses gases taken together, because there is another consideration – the fact that the “aerosol”, or band of dust in the atmosphere from industrial pollution, actually reduces the warming.

As Professor Shine stresses, there is enormous uncertainty about the degree to which this is happening, so making calculation of the overall warming effect problematic. However, as James Lovelock points out – and Professor Shine and other scientists accept – in the event of an industrial downturn, the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a matter of weeks, and then the effect of all the greenhouse gases taken together would suddenly be fully felt.

My personal response....
!@#$.

Source (February 10th) = http://gnn.tv/headlines/7523/Global_warming_passing_the_tipping_point

[Stormy Eyes]

We are talking about the first options. I don't blame you for breathing or eating a good chili.

If I disposed of waste (toxic or otherwise) in a manner that damaged others' property, the owners have the right to demand restitution, would they not? In a system without central authority, it would be necessary for everybody involved in the disagreement to agree upon a neutral party to hear all sides and pass judgment. Of course, you could always just blacken my reputation, so that I cannot do business with others until I've set matters right.

Think of it this way, for millennia, disputes were settled through vendetta and blood feud. After a while, people organized governments and settled disputes through codified laws. The argument since then has always been over who should have the right to make the laws and the responsibility of enforcing them. Perhaps we are reaching a point where law is no longer a useful tool. Perhaps it is time to find a better way.

[Stormy Eyes]

I apologize; I wasn't very clear. Government is not evil.

By my standards, it is. You don't have to agree with me.

Source (February 10th) = http://gnn.tv/headlines/7523/Global_..._tipping_point

I like the appeals to cheap emotionalism in this article, especially Tom Burke's "Our children can no longer count on a safe climate!" Big fecking deal. My children, if I ever have any, can't even count on living in a free country. Quite frankly, all of these "it's time for the government to stop talking and start spending" so-called scientists, especially that charlatan James Lovelock, can go feed themselves to the polar bears.

[Iandefor]

Every right. We exist, and they do not. Are you really so shortsighted that you believe simply because "the future generation" has yet to be conceived, it means you have every right to ruin the planet they will have to inhabit? You mean to say you don't give a rat's **** about your descendants? That they can just go get buggered because they don't exist at the same time as you?


Why should we make sacrifices for a planet that won't appreciate them? Umm... because this is our home? This is where we have to live for the forseeable future. Because, if we don't take steps to take care of it, it'll be uninhabitable in a couple or three generations. Because there are other forms of life on this earth that also have a right to live, who's right to live will be trampled upon if we **** up the climate any more than we already have.

Why shouldn't we tame nature instead? Oh, poor baby. Is nature too scary for you? Should we take out it's fangs so it won't be so scary?
Why should we tame nature? Why would you want it tamed? Seriously, I'm baffled here.

[Stormy Eyes]

That they can just go get buggered because they don't exist at the same time as you?

Want a cigar? You earned it.

[Iandefor]

Want a cigar? You earned it. No thanks. I don't smoke :).

[BLTicklemonster]

Looks like the cliamte is just fine, if you ask me.

Play with the years, see how close we are to 1998. It only goes back as far as 79, though.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=14&fy=2007&sm=07&sd=14&sy=2008

So, ah, what are those poor polar bears going to do, freeze?

[BLTicklemonster]

unfortunately if you don't respect nature it won't respect you.

What, nature suddenly has the ability to rationalize it's actions? It acts on things? It makes conscious decisions? So let's say there were 100 people on the coast of Louisiana when Katrina hit who respected nature, and there were 100 people standing next to them who didn't, nature would only disrespect those latter 100?

Huh. Suddenly I understand how mankind is ruining the planet. It all makes perfect sense to me now.

and about terrorforming planets, not likely. For example the terroforming of Mars is not possible unfortunately.

... NEWS FLASH: STOP SCIENCE!!!

I'm not a kiljoy or anything, but doing the odd bit or environmentally aware actions hardly impacts on my lifestyle in any way but rather enhances it, for example walking to work may actually do you some good, you should try it.

But you trod on nature! Nature may consider this disrespectful!


(Sorry, but my sarcasm gene ran into overdrive) (yes, it has its own little conscience and everything)

[eragon100]

Looks like the cliamte is just fine, if you ask me.

Play with the years, see how close we are to 1998. It only goes back as far as 79, though.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=14&fy=2007&sm=07&sd=14&sy=2008

So, ah, what are those poor polar bears going to do, freeze?

According to that pic, there is a lower sea ice concentration last year than this year...

[BLTicklemonster]

Over a larger area, too. But that brings up the question, is it how thick or how much?