Climate Change - OzChess

**Firegoat7** · 01-29-2009, 12:36 AM

Hi,

As a species, we are all totally dependent on the earth. An obvious biological fact we share with all other living creatures. Evolution proves that life adapts to environmental change. That is the nature of life, it adapts and changes, both individually and as a species.

Conservation, on the other hand, is a politically loaded term. And like all politically contested language, it is extremely important to deconstruct the 'who' that is labelling, when making an attempt to reach an informed decision. Are we really certain that greenies are 'radical'? or that neo-classical economists are 'conservative'? And how much of this political labelling is blinkered by cultural bias?

The reason I mention this is because 'climate change', like it or not, is a political issue. Probably the biggest political issue of the new millenium. Where should we start to search for the truth? This looks like one of the more rationally enlightened places to begin our quest.

timeline : Nature Reports Climate Change

cheers,

**Just2Good** · 01-29-2009, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

The reason I mention this is because 'climate change', like it or not, is a political issue.

It is a political issue for many world governments, but it is also undeniable that it is occurring, and very probably that mankind is the reason it is occurring. Accordingly, it is only proper that the governments of the world - especially Western governments - take action to meet this challenge.

**Calvin** · 01-29-2009, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

It is a political issue for many world governments, but it is also undeniable that it is occurring, and very probably that mankind is the reason it is occurring. Accordingly, it is only proper that the governments of the world - especially Western governments - take action to meet this challenge.

People need incentives to do things. Saving the planet isn't really an incentive because its intangible.

**Axiom** · 01-29-2009, 07:48 PM

What happened to the climate consensus?

PAUL SCHNEIDEREIT
The Halifax Herald
January 20, 2009

Can we all agree – yet – that the issue is settled?

Scientists DON’T all agree the planet is warming precipitously, or that humans are responsible for that supposed warming. In fact, more and more experts in a number of fields have been speaking up to challenge the supposed scientific “consensus” on climate change.

As the headlines scream out the latest sensational warning – a NASA scientist now predicts U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has just four years to save the planet – let’s not forget that last month, more than 650 international scientists went on record as dissenting from the man-made global warming findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Who are these scientists?

The list, which grew by a substantial 250 new names from a similar statement in late 2007, includes prominent names in fields ranging from geology, atmospheric science and solar physics to meteorology, oceanography and paleoclimatology. According to the U.S. Senate’s environment and public works committee minority report, released Dec. 10, the skeptics also include many current and former IPCC scientists.

Read article What happened to the climate consensus?

**cume** · 01-29-2009, 11:58 PM

There was a recent poll taken in a major newspaper and I saw the results the other day about 60% think that Global Warming is not true. I'm one of those 60%. I really hate being grouped with people who deny the moon landing and go along with conspiracy theories, there is plenty of proof that the warming process is not caused by C02, but alot of people seem to be running all guns blazing without considering the counter evidence. That's something even Global Warming skeptics do such as myself.

Can you believe that a few centuries ago there was alot of furtile farming land in Iceland back in the days when there were no cars? There was less ice back then compared to now. There's just so many unanswered questions.

**Axiom** · 01-30-2009, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by cume

There was a recent poll taken in a major newspaper and I saw the results the other day about 60% think that Global Warming is not true. I'm one of those 60%. I really hate being grouped with people who deny the moon landing and go along with conspiracy theories, there is plenty of proof that the warming process is not caused by C02, but alot of people seem to be running all guns blazing without considering the counter evidence. That's something even Global Warming skeptics do such as myself.

Can you believe that a few centuries ago there was alot of furtile farming land in Iceland back in the days when there were no cars? There was less ice back then compared to now. There's just so many unanswered questions.

I'm right with you Cume.

**AzzX** · 01-30-2009, 12:46 AM

I would place population density and lack of resources as a reason why Conservation of the planet is damn near impossible.

The current climate change crisis is a direct result on our expansive populous yet the underlining political nature of these climate change policies do not address this issue at all.

We cannot expand in a fixed environment.

**Firegoat7** · 01-30-2009, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by Axiom

What happened to the climate consensus?

PAUL SCHNEIDEREIT
The Halifax Herald
January 20, 2009

Who is this guy telling this story?

Originally Posted by Axiom

Scientists DON’T all agree the planet is warming precipitously, or that humans are responsible for that supposed warming.

And they most likely will NEVER all agree. However, it is important to argue these disagreements. As a side note, we know that humans are culturally responsible for many environmental problems i.e acid rain, nuclear waste, overfishing, rainforrest destruction etc. So our cultural practices need to change to more eco friendly innovative approches. The old industrial modernists ways of business have proven to be objective failures in that regard. It is clear humans are respondible for most environmental problems on this planet. What is not clear is whether this really matters!

Originally Posted by Axiom

In fact, more and more experts in a number of fields have been speaking up to challenge the supposed scientific “consensus” on climate change.

Again not a bad thing, but are they a majority view or a minority view? And furthermore, Is their a qualitative difference between scientists?

Originally Posted by Axiom

The list, which grew by a substantial 250 new names from a similar statement in late 2007, includes prominent names in fields ranging from geology, atmospheric science and solar physics to meteorology, oceanography and paleoclimatology. According to the U.S. Senate’s environment and public works committee minority report, released Dec. 10, the skeptics also include many current and former IPCC scientists.

Please qualify this list. I, as a layman want to compare experts. To put it another way, Kasparovs opinion on opening lines is a little more important then Schillers or Keanes.

cheers,

**Firegoat7** · 01-30-2009, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by AzzX

I would place population density and lack of resources as a reason why Conservation of the planet is damn near impossible.

I cannot stand this Malthusian view. I think it is simply wrong

Originally Posted by AzzX

The current climate change crisis is a direct result on our expansive populous yet the underlining political nature of these climate change policies do not address this issue at all.

I disagree. Whilst I am simply unqualified to judge what exactly causes climate change, I do know one thing. Human population is not the most likely cause of climate change. The most likely cause is probably connected more with modernist inductrial consumption. That is it is a cultural problem, not biological.

cheers,

**AzzX** · 01-30-2009, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

I cannot stand this Malthusian view. I think it is simply wrong

It's not a view - merely an observation of this affect in nature in general.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

I disagree. Whilst I am simply unqualified to judge what exactly causes climate change, I do know one thing. Human population is not the most likely cause of climate change. The most likely cause is probably connected more with modernist industrial consumption. That is it is a cultural problem, not biological.
cheers,

Its actually both and one problem stems from the other. A greater population creates greater "modernist industrial consumption"

**Just2Good** · 01-30-2009, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by cume

There was a recent poll taken in a major newspaper and I saw the results the other day about 60% think that Global Warming is not true. I'm one of those 60%.

Try watching the documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The evidence seems undeniable - our planet is changing.

I really hate being grouped with people who deny the moon landing and go along with conspiracy theories, there is plenty of proof that the warming process is not caused by C02,

Many conspiracists believe in malicious lizard people that are planning to take over the world. I am glad I am not lumped in with them. The most plausible reason that CO2 is responsibile for climate change is the fact that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than at any other previous time in mankind's history. Even if it is not the trigger of climate change, it is still a catalast, and also a toxin which poisons our air and environment.

So even if climate change is not primarily caused by CO2 emissions, there is still an incentive to do something to reduce such emissions.

**Firegoat7** · 01-30-2009, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by AzzX

It's not a view - merely an observation of this affect in nature in general.

Like I said before I cannot stand this viewpoint on population. Previously you wrote..."The current climate change crisis is a direct result on our expansive populous"

Previously, I disagreed with your claim and suggested that this was a Malthusian viewpoint. You now claim this is an 'observation'. Ok...so we are back at square one. I don't agree with you and we now also disagree about the nature of your comments, it appears. Anyway, if you are interested in the subject, (which I believe is an interesting), lets get the ball rolling here...

Thomas Malthus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History teaches us good lessons!

Originally Posted by AzzX

Its actually both and one problem stems from the other. A greater population creates greater "modernist industrial consumption"

No and No. Well I will admit one point there is a connection between the two, but the main causal factor for most environmental problems is not population, or over population as some people claim.

My view on the argument goes like this. 1 Billion peasants living a rural subsistence existence will create much less environmental problems then 1 Billion people living a high consumption lifestyle. And that is a well documented fact that has been talked about by environmentalists for years.

The challenges that face future generations over environmental issues are complicated. The rest of the world is "modernising'. Like it or not people are not just going to watch Western people enjoy a better lifestyle and not expect at least the same opportunities. At the same time, within Western countries there are very intelligentand rational people who are saying "..we have to find more efficient ways of mass consuming which will have much less evironmental impact on the earth ie, develop new green friendly technologies letting rationality overide market consideration.

And at the same time there are gatekeepers who hold power in the old modernist industrial economy not budging an inch because it affects profit! i.e we still as a species produce disposable light globes that are designed to break, so that we will consume, despite knowing as a species how to produce light globes that will last 100+years. Power over rationality, or as they say competing rationalities.

In a very real way, environmental arguments are about the rationality of this species of animal.....Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And its historical inabilty to resolve power struggles between individuals and groups utilising collective, historical, and rational thought.

cheers,

**Firegoat7** · 01-30-2009, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

So even if climate change is not primarily caused by CO2 emissions, there is still an incentive to do something to reduce such emissions.

Exactly, and to deal with other pressing environmental problems. Because lets face it, the problems are not going to just disappear if we don't try to solve them. Furthermore, if we don't solve some of these environmental problems we may disappear as a species in some cases i.e Nuclear war.

**Axiom** · 01-30-2009, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

and also a toxin which poisons our air and environment.

no, its the gas that plants 'breathe' in , and humans exhale !

water vapour is a far greater contributer to warming than co2

**Just2Good** · 01-30-2009, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom

no, its the gas that plants 'breathe' in , and humans exhale! water vapour is a far greater contributer to warming than co2

Water vapour? Can you provide evidence of this?

01-29-2009, 12:36 AM	#1 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 1,924 ICC Handle: guest	Climate Change Hi, As a species, we are all totally dependent on the earth. An obvious biological fact we share with all other living creatures. Evolution proves that life adapts to environmental change. That is the nature of life, it adapts and changes, both individually and as a species. Conservation, on the other hand, is a politically loaded term. And like all politically contested language, it is extremely important to deconstruct the 'who' that is labelling, when making an attempt to reach an informed decision. Are we really certain that greenies are 'radical'? or that neo-classical economists are 'conservative'? And how much of this political labelling is blinkered by cultural bias? The reason I mention this is because 'climate change', like it or not, is a political issue. Probably the biggest political issue of the new millenium. Where should we start to search for the truth? This looks like one of the more rationally enlightened places to begin our quest. timeline : Nature Reports Climate Change cheers, __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

01-29-2009, 01:58 PM	#2 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,055 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 The reason I mention this is because 'climate change', like it or not, is a political issue. It is a political issue for many world governments, but it is also undeniable that it is occurring, and very probably that mankind is the reason it is occurring. Accordingly, it is only proper that the governments of the world - especially Western governments - take action to meet this challenge. __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

01-29-2009, 06:53 PM	#3 (permalink)
Calvin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 259	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One It is a political issue for many world governments, but it is also undeniable that it is occurring, and very probably that mankind is the reason it is occurring. Accordingly, it is only proper that the governments of the world - especially Western governments - take action to meet this challenge. People need incentives to do things. Saving the planet isn't really an incentive because its intangible.

01-30-2009, 12:21 AM	#6 (permalink)
Axiom Reality Analyst Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 3,498	Originally Posted by cume There was a recent poll taken in a major newspaper and I saw the results the other day about 60% think that Global Warming is not true. I'm one of those 60%. I really hate being grouped with people who deny the moon landing and go along with conspiracy theories, there is plenty of proof that the warming process is not caused by C02, but alot of people seem to be running all guns blazing without considering the counter evidence. That's something even Global Warming skeptics do such as myself. Can you believe that a few centuries ago there was alot of furtile farming land in Iceland back in the days when there were no cars? There was less ice back then compared to now. There's just so many unanswered questions. I'm right with you Cume.

01-30-2009, 12:46 AM	#7 (permalink)
AzzX Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 109	I would place population density and lack of resources as a reason why Conservation of the planet is damn near impossible. The current climate change crisis is a direct result on our expansive populous yet the underlining political nature of these climate change policies do not address this issue at all. We cannot expand in a fixed environment. __________________ azzx.org ozsource

01-29-2009, 07:48 PM	#4 (permalink)
Axiom Reality Analyst Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 3,498	What happened to the climate consensus? PAUL SCHNEIDEREIT The Halifax Herald January 20, 2009 Can we all agree – yet – that the issue is settled? Scientists DON’T all agree the planet is warming precipitously, or that humans are responsible for that supposed warming. In fact, more and more experts in a number of fields have been speaking up to challenge the supposed scientific “consensus” on climate change. As the headlines scream out the latest sensational warning – a NASA scientist now predicts U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has just four years to save the planet – let’s not forget that last month, more than 650 international scientists went on record as dissenting from the man-made global warming findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Who are these scientists? The list, which grew by a substantial 250 new names from a similar statement in late 2007, includes prominent names in fields ranging from geology, atmospheric science and solar physics to meteorology, oceanography and paleoclimatology. According to the U.S. Senate’s environment and public works committee minority report, released Dec. 10, the skeptics also include many current and former IPCC scientists. Read article What happened to the climate consensus?

01-29-2009, 11:58 PM	#5 (permalink)
cume Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: New South Wales Posts: 94	There was a recent poll taken in a major newspaper and I saw the results the other day about 60% think that Global Warming is not true. I'm one of those 60%. I really hate being grouped with people who deny the moon landing and go along with conspiracy theories, there is plenty of proof that the warming process is not caused by C02, but alot of people seem to be running all guns blazing without considering the counter evidence. That's something even Global Warming skeptics do such as myself. Can you believe that a few centuries ago there was alot of furtile farming land in Iceland back in the days when there were no cars? There was less ice back then compared to now. There's just so many unanswered questions.

01-30-2009, 12:48 AM	#8 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 1,924 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by Axiom What happened to the climate consensus? PAUL SCHNEIDEREIT The Halifax Herald January 20, 2009 Who is this guy telling this story? Originally Posted by Axiom Scientists DON’T all agree the planet is warming precipitously, or that humans are responsible for that supposed warming. And they most likely will NEVER all agree. However, it is important to argue these disagreements. As a side note, we know that humans are culturally responsible for many environmental problems i.e acid rain, nuclear waste, overfishing, rainforrest destruction etc. So our cultural practices need to change to more eco friendly innovative approches. The old industrial modernists ways of business have proven to be objective failures in that regard. It is clear humans are respondible for most environmental problems on this planet. What is not clear is whether this really matters! Originally Posted by Axiom In fact, more and more experts in a number of fields have been speaking up to challenge the supposed scientific “consensus” on climate change. Again not a bad thing, but are they a majority view or a minority view? And furthermore, Is their a qualitative difference between scientists? Originally Posted by Axiom The list, which grew by a substantial 250 new names from a similar statement in late 2007, includes prominent names in fields ranging from geology, atmospheric science and solar physics to meteorology, oceanography and paleoclimatology. According to the U.S. Senate’s environment and public works committee minority report, released Dec. 10, the skeptics also include many current and former IPCC scientists. Please qualify this list. I, as a layman want to compare experts. To put it another way, Kasparovs opinion on opening lines is a little more important then Schillers or Keanes. cheers, __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

01-30-2009, 12:55 AM	#9 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 1,924 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by AzzX I would place population density and lack of resources as a reason why Conservation of the planet is damn near impossible. I cannot stand this Malthusian view. I think it is simply wrong Originally Posted by AzzX The current climate change crisis is a direct result on our expansive populous yet the underlining political nature of these climate change policies do not address this issue at all. I disagree. Whilst I am simply unqualified to judge what exactly causes climate change, I do know one thing. Human population is not the most likely cause of climate change. The most likely cause is probably connected more with modernist inductrial consumption. That is it is a cultural problem, not biological. cheers, __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

01-30-2009, 01:13 PM	#10 (permalink)
AzzX Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 109	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 I cannot stand this Malthusian view. I think it is simply wrong It's not a view - merely an observation of this affect in nature in general. Originally Posted by Firegoat7 I disagree. Whilst I am simply unqualified to judge what exactly causes climate change, I do know one thing. Human population is not the most likely cause of climate change. The most likely cause is probably connected more with modernist industrial consumption. That is it is a cultural problem, not biological. cheers, Its actually both and one problem stems from the other. A greater population creates greater "modernist industrial consumption" __________________ azzx.org ozsource

01-30-2009, 04:36 PM	#11 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,055 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by cume There was a recent poll taken in a major newspaper and I saw the results the other day about 60% think that Global Warming is not true. I'm one of those 60%. Try watching the documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The evidence seems undeniable - our planet is changing. I really hate being grouped with people who deny the moon landing and go along with conspiracy theories, there is plenty of proof that the warming process is not caused by C02, Many conspiracists believe in malicious lizard people that are planning to take over the world. I am glad I am not lumped in with them. The most plausible reason that CO2 is responsibile for climate change is the fact that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than at any other previous time in mankind's history. Even if it is not the trigger of climate change, it is still a catalast, and also a toxin which poisons our air and environment. So even if climate change is not primarily caused by CO2 emissions, there is still an incentive to do something to reduce such emissions. __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

01-30-2009, 05:00 PM	#12 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 1,924 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by AzzX It's not a view - merely an observation of this affect in nature in general. Like I said before I cannot stand this viewpoint on population. Previously you wrote..."The current climate change crisis is a direct result on our expansive populous" Previously, I disagreed with your claim and suggested that this was a Malthusian viewpoint. You now claim this is an 'observation'. Ok...so we are back at square one. I don't agree with you and we now also disagree about the nature of your comments, it appears. Anyway, if you are interested in the subject, (which I believe is an interesting), lets get the ball rolling here... Thomas Malthus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia History teaches us good lessons! Originally Posted by AzzX Its actually both and one problem stems from the other. A greater population creates greater "modernist industrial consumption" No and No. Well I will admit one point there is a connection between the two, but the main causal factor for most environmental problems is not population, or over population as some people claim. My view on the argument goes like this. 1 Billion peasants living a rural subsistence existence will create much less environmental problems then 1 Billion people living a high consumption lifestyle. And that is a well documented fact that has been talked about by environmentalists for years. The challenges that face future generations over environmental issues are complicated. The rest of the world is "modernising'. Like it or not people are not just going to watch Western people enjoy a better lifestyle and not expect at least the same opportunities. At the same time, within Western countries there are very intelligentand rational people who are saying "..we have to find more efficient ways of mass consuming which will have much less evironmental impact on the earth ie, develop new green friendly technologies letting rationality overide market consideration. And at the same time there are gatekeepers who hold power in the old modernist industrial economy not budging an inch because it affects profit! i.e we still as a species produce disposable light globes that are designed to break, so that we will consume, despite knowing as a species how to produce light globes that will last 100+years. Power over rationality, or as they say competing rationalities. In a very real way, environmental arguments are about the rationality of this species of animal.....Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And its historical inabilty to resolve power struggles between individuals and groups utilising collective, historical, and rational thought. cheers, __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

01-30-2009, 05:18 PM	#13 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 1,924 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One So even if climate change is not primarily caused by CO2 emissions, there is still an incentive to do something to reduce such emissions. Exactly, and to deal with other pressing environmental problems. Because lets face it, the problems are not going to just disappear if we don't try to solve them. Furthermore, if we don't solve some of these environmental problems we may disappear as a species in some cases i.e Nuclear war. __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

01-30-2009, 07:07 PM	#14 (permalink)
Axiom Reality Analyst Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 3,498	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One and also a toxin which poisons our air and environment. no, its the gas that plants 'breathe' in , and humans exhale ! water vapour is a far greater contributer to warming than co2

01-30-2009, 07:37 PM	#15 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,055 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Axiom no, its the gas that plants 'breathe' in , and humans exhale! water vapour is a far greater contributer to warming than co2 Water vapour? Can you provide evidence of this? __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: