[ian jones]

since my road is still covered in snow and it is forcast 24hrs of snow starting at midnight tonight, i will not be attending monday nights rolling of the (d)ice session.

*unless everybody stops recycling and it goes back to global warming in time.

bottom line- if the ground is white or if i'm not there by 7pm , i'm at home hugging the fire/ playing wii sports with the kids.

[dead]

Its only sensible that if the weather is so bad its dangerous that you dont come.  Ill make sure I have board games with me tommorow in case the numbers are low.

Can anyone else who is coming try and bring boardgames as well just in case.

Ian

[paz]

I should be there with the usual selection of board games.

[Teflon Billy]

4th Ed Dnd on. Ian is coming tonight.

[ian jones]

Turns out that recycling was at a new low for this week due to the snow closing recycling centres.
This has caused icebergs to continue melting and sealevels to rise once more as the global warming continues.
Upshot is that no snow came down to inconvienience me, hense I was at the club.
I know many of you stayed away, especially because you thought I would not be attending and I can only take pride in tricking you all.

[Tess]

siiiigh.
I know most of your are sensible/intelligent enough to know the difference, but this is a bit of a bug-bear of mine so onto a mini rant...

Global warming does not mean Britain warming. Totally different things. Just cos we're cold it doesn't mean no damage is done. Please keep as green as you can otherwise our weather will be the same as the other countries at the same latitude as us because of the gulf stream shifting.
And stop reading tabloids.

[ian jones]

sorry Tess. I stand corrected. Although I do take the tabloids with a pinch of salt.
I was just with the belief that the green thang was all a political/tax option.
My theory is that the weather has only been recorded for the last 200 years, whereas the weather has been around the same age as Earth (which is a bit longer) I decided when I found out that the beautiful lake district was formed when the ice melted that maybe ice has been melting for a while.
Maybe. and again its just my silly theory. nature is far more powerful than man.
Whilst I agree that energy saving and using greener resources (especially the sun) make sence. I also think that like everything else "green" is used far too much to either make us pay more for things, use a specific brand or hide a different agenda.
Last thought is how many supermarket carrier bags does it take to make an oversized high dense plastic box used for storing a (handheld) videogame. My guess is maybe 100?

Hope you take this reply as a friendly debate and not in offence.

[paz]

[Tess]

[ian jones]

[Jimmy]

I'm just waiting to see what people do when the earth's magnetic axis flips over again, that is going to be great fun  

[ian jones]

i'm not impressed!
whats the point in creating an arguement if nobody continues it?
just to make people aware, i do not have strong views about the issues here, in fact i was originally just trying to be funny and then on the second reply sarcastic.

[paz]

[ian jones]

always good reason to argue!

[Shaphron]

I'll join in! (Have patcience for a long post...)

While I know that millions of years ago (think pre-historic, include dinosaurs) the carbon dioxide level was far in excess of our own, and the temperature was correspondingly higher, I'm pretty certain this was due to the more active geology of our planet at the time - most importantly volcanoes. And yes, there have been ice ages, and interesting dates (possibly disagreements on how people define "ice age" - whether it's simply low temerature, or on ice coverage of the globe), so that the fluctuation of the Earth's temperature could be seen as "normal", and certainly it's such a vast thing that it's hard to get your head around how humans could possibly influence it.

However, consider these points.
> Through geological evidence, of tree rings, fossils, and checking the earth under large sheets of ice, we have a verifiable link between carbon dioxide levels and temperature. When one goes up, the other does too.
> From the afore-mentioned records, we can see that changes in the Earths ambient temperature of even a couple of degrees can have a large-scale effect on water levels, which can affect both ice mass and coast lines - thus having an effect on whther we get covered in ice, or the sea levels rise.
> We have modern records showing that since the industrial revolution carbon dioxide levels have significantly increased. I don't think anyone is denying that burning large amounts of coal, oil, and using chemicals such as CFCs means that the amount of those chemicals in the atmosphere goes up (as opposed to being stored in the coal and oil they came from, out of the atmosphere).
> Those modern records also show a small increase in temperature (avarage over the whole globe) at the same time as the carbon dioxide levels have increased. This has led to some ice melting at the polar caps, and a small increase in sea levels.
> Leading scientists have gathered vast amounts of data from all over, and have postulated that if the Earth's temeprature continues to increase at this level (a couple of degrees a decade - very fast for the earth) then it will hit a significant level, after which the majority of the ice caps will melt and sea levels will significantly rise. We have one, possibly two, degrees to go before we hit this level.
> In Britain, we are sheltered from the usual weather of our latitude. Look at a globe, then follow accross at the level of Britian until you get to other continents. Noth Russia, and Canada. What do those places have in common? Very cold. The reason Britian is warmer than those places is because of the Gulf Stream - this is a "river" in th sea which flows up from the south and hits our west coast, providing warmth with it (as the water south of here is warmer). If the temerature shifts those two degrees, due to the different water levels and flows, the Gulf Stream is going to change course, and not come as far north as Britian. We will therefore lose it warming effect. In Global Warming, Britain actually gets colder.
> Plastic bags, disposable nappies, all sorts of waste (household and industrial) is dumped. In landfil sites (which give of methane - another "warming" gas) and in the sea. Even if we ignore any environmental effect this may have (such as on habitats of animals/fish which could be harmed by the rubbish, or how it could effect our water supplies from rain run-off into rivers and reseviours) we simply don't have the land space to keep dumping at the rate we do now. And if we continue to dump into the sea how long will it remain life-supporting?
> My final point. All of these chemicals, rubbish etc is actually poisonus to us, humans. Even if you don't give a damn, or believe in, Global Warmng, do you really think it's a good idea to keep sending poison out into the atmosphere we breath and the land we live off? I don't.

Enjoy your argument!

Shell

[Gileh]

My personal perspective is that the first step to prevent climtae change is to remove the crises of human poverty. Devloping nations can't a nd won't stop producing grenhouse gasses while they are at an industrial and social (in terms of morbidity and mortality) disadvantage. Why isn't the affluent west providing free power to less wealthy nations?
Well one perspective is provided by Chomsky: http://www.cisd.soas.ac.uk/index....-E-cisd-annual-lectures--86509341
States, Particularly the United States, sustain themselves by self interest and therefore engineer the control and distribution of energy (for example oil) to best benefit themselves. All other moral and ethical concerns are secondary to this and non-applicable if they contradict the first directive.
Science, Debate, Welfare, Diplomacy, Military Action and any other resource will be bent to that goal. If 5000 scientists think that global warming is real and a threat and 15 say other wise, they'll go with the 15. If a corrupt dictatorship will sell more oil to the bigger state than a fair democracy would, they'll back the dictator. And they have, for decades.

[paz]

The USA, along with other Western nations, bent over backwards to commit to genuine changes (to their short-term economic detriment) at the Copenhagen summit, but the talks were sabotaged by China. If you want to blame anyone, look east.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environ...enhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

[Gileh]

Obama's government and others have, in the last ten years, taken serious steps to address climate change. However for most of the twentieth century it was a very different story, especially for America. The article linked suggests that china sabotaged the accords to protect it's coal-based economic growth. It needs this growth, as does India to move from a position of relative poverty. If there were other means to move from that position would they have disarmed the Copenhagen climate talks?

[Shaphron]

Good points Gileh, but we're talking about *now*, not the past, and what *we* can do, both nationally, and personally. I'm not looking for anyone to *blame* - blaming someone is effectively saying "well, it's your fault, and no matter what I do, nothings going to change because of what you did, so I wont bother". Blaming is a waste of time. I'm talking about what we can do now to help the situation.

As far as I'm aware, the problem of developing nations energy requirements (including China and India) has been raised, and we're in a diplomatic dance to try to help developing nations develop greener sources of power instead of burning oil/coal/gas etc. It is a real problem, and one which is being addressed (however slowly). On a practical measure, the most *we* can do about this is to write to our MPs and say that we want it prioritised, and possibly join some groups who lobbey for it. Otherwise, *we* can't affect that (unless you have a revolutonary idea which would speed up resolution and reduce diplomatic friction, in which case get in touch with your MP now!)

We can recycle. We can reduce energy use in our homes - both by turning things off and by insulating better, as heating our hoes is what uses the most energy. We can specifically choose to patronise the companies who have good green records, who get their own energu from green sources, etc. We can choose to buy food with less packaging, and which has less air miles. Preferably, we can choose to buy from local farmers and markets over shopping centres. I wil ladmit now I don't do all of this, and plead not enough money to do it, but I do try. While I do shop from aldi and iceland, I also shop at the local market for meat and veg.

We can also believe that climate change is happening, or at the very least we can believe that recycling is good, burning coil and oil is bad, and that we should try to reduce personal energy use if only to save money. Even having debates like this are good, as they help to share opinions, ideas on what people can do, and simply raise the awareness of recycling and energy.

Personal effects don't add up to much - industry uses far in excess of what personal use adds up to, but by changing our personal habbits we help to influence what industries do. By choosing who to shop from and invest in we can effect directly what industries choose to do. And by joing environmental groups (if we are so inclined) or by giving to charities to help developing nations or the environment, we can help effectthat too. We are far from powerless in this, and saying that it all depends on whether a developing nation can afford to cut emissions is far from the truth. Yes, they have a very important role in reducing carbon emmisions, but so do we. Directly, you oculd try to find a charity or other organisation which is directly trying to solve this problem, and donate money to them, or support them in some other way. That way, you are personally helping change something you feel has the greatest impact. But I personally believe that it#s people's opinions and what they believe about climate change - here and everywhere else - which is what will have the greatest effect on climate change, and by both changing our own habbits and helping / encouraging others to change theirs, we'll biuld a more sustainable future gradually and simply as the movement spreads.

[Gileh]

While I absolutely agree that blaming is a waste of time, the fact that the industrial west grew richer using fossil fuel with abandon to or a century and are now trying to prevent developing countries from doing the same because of a problem (in all likelihood) caused by that earlier use is patently unjust, however necessary. And we as societies are obligated to meet a social need for justice.

Industry is the great problem, we can modify our own practices pretty easily (use a separate bin for separate waste is hardly a revolution). What I think is needed is creativity- dedicating creative resources like engineering skills and problem solving to changing industry practice. IF a plant produces petro-chemical waste redesign and its processes it until it doesn't. Don't stop redesigning until it doesn't. Don't have any more than a skeleton crew doing other tasks until that first one has been solved. Industry minimises waste to maximise profits. But making less waste is not the same problem as making no waste. That's where people need to set their sights.

I have tremendous faith in the human capacity for creativity. Human creativity defies logic and defies boundaries.

[Shaphron]