Pictures of Global Warming

[zubin]

community based economy as good as they appear they still wont workk for a huge population

the best example of community based economics is the kibbutz system and even that still couldnot match the output and efficency of the free market capitalisom

another reason community based economy wont work is because the world has been globlized mass communication. I mean we are no longer citizen of a country but i think world.

also one more important thing natural human aspiration creats divercityt and that divercity will not let community based economics grow.
the only reason i think it worked in the kibbuts was becuase the perople were united towrds one goal and that was to build a country and more important to survive. Because of shadow of anihalation they worked together and they sacrificed individual wants to better the community.
also this is the only example that i have come acroos were it worked if yyou know anyother please share especialy if counter this.


the best system i think is japanes
free market capitalisom but motive is not profitering for the sake of just makking money but profitiering for community and rules or morals

people say japan is the only succesfll communist country

and i think its true

also for todays times these ideas are no longer aplicaple
for example we are at a point were it is better to use fertilizers hormons and other sythentic things that harm the enviorment rather than echo friendly stuff becuase if you do use it you need more land for farming which will be land that is currently being used by forasts and its more of a harm to deforest than to be ecofirendly in farming

also as much i hate globalization i still have to bow down to the fact globlazition has better socioty and the world

today less people than ever before live in poverty
to day more people than ever before can afford and consume things that it was only imposible

also globalization really does benefit everyone
the only thing is how to distrubute that benefit and keep the created wealth that the avrage person makes not to only be enjoyed by the "owner" rather a fair system of disturbution

the sad thing about this is that it wont bring you happyne
that is why many time my grandparetns used to say even thogh we didnt have anything we were still much happier

Mike, these are not reactive and reformative local-based frameworks. They are totally different from what I'm talking about, but thanks for sharing. If you take notice, more local control of economy is inevitable and gaining favor. It is the minimally decent thing to do. The free market system is attractive within this framework. I'm not going against a sane version of free market that comes after individual needs. It's an issue of sequence and prioritizing where free markets come after individual needs are met, not an ideological rivalry against free market. Eventually, the idea is that there will be maximum free market. But the idea is that it should come after care of human beings and environment is settled. It's the only humane thing to do.

[mike435]

Eventually, the idea is that there will be maximum free market. But the idea is that it should come after care of human beings and environment is settled. It's the only humane thing to do.

yes and that is japan

but look local control takes cost up taking cost up will stager growth and creation of wealth

[zubin]

yes and that is japan

but look local control takes cost up taking cost up will stager growth and creation of wealth

well the global system should be follow the reformative needs based approach and that would give everyone equal footing. Slowing down the competitive market can only make a society more advanced and beautiful by allowing the people to think before they "advance".

[mike435]

well the global system should be follow the reformative needs based approach and that would give everyone equal footing. Slowing down the competitive market can only make a society more advanced and beautiful by allowing the people to think before they "advance".

cometetive market is the only thing that can advance peole because as i said again people are diverese they want diffrent things
because of that they will do diffrent things

that is why free market competetive capitilasim is the best it is objective and encourages divercity which is a natural thing to drive advancment

look as soon as being eco efficent is better or cheaper people will switch and its growth will be faster than any government control or big body control

you know the only way local market capitalisom, will work is if you condition people into being on the same page and ask theme not to go after there own needs

in my ideal socioty i would condition everyone to be a radical islamist like osama binladed type that way it will sting individual growthm it wont let people fallowe thier own free will and that you can have unity among peopple to do what is best. becuase they are no longer going ater theire own want but a want of everyone.

[zubin]

cometetive market is the only thing that can advance peole because as i said again people are diverese they want diffrent things
because of that they will do diffrent things

who said your statement is true? Human beings are fundamentally the same everywhere you go. This is a fundamental flaw of the pluralism ideology and a very clear one at that.

that is why free market competetive capitilasim is the best it is objective and encourages divercity which is a natural thing to drive advancment

I personally can't think of anything more unnatural. You're making assumptions about human psychology again without bringing evidence.

[mike435]

listen man my asuumtion are based on a broad exposer to diffent things things that influence my view points especialy are

marx
adam smith
rawls
some stuff from plato acctualy everything came becuase of him
general economic both lower division and upper division
frued also
some judeo-christion philosophy slash teaching

also i have to tell you this to
i read the economist magazin and that has a lot of prejudic towrdes the free market capitalist economy.

but you want evidance
ok
people ave free willl
naturaly everyone wants the right to life i think that is unilatiraly true across the glob

i want to say liberty and freedom and right to property but that is not true

but i guess we can agree every one wants to better their life so it prolongs it for rhem selfs and kids but even than is shady their are alot of people who heavily belive in the afterlife and can care less about this life.

so letsay everyone is after a truth or reality what ever it may be see.
everyone is after a diffrent truth diffrent reality so how can you say everyone is the same.

islam is after one truth
jews another
goldiger another
indians another
aathiest another
mother another
dad
etc...........
hindues
metirialist
see man people get satisfied in diffrent ways

i got to go now but i am really glad you threw this at me i am gonne go for walk and gonne think about this i really like how i have categorized it even thogh i can articilate it to you i have a better understanding

[zubin]

Look man, people are not "selfish" and teaching that to people is very unhuman and deceptive; also people are fundamentally similar and- though may differ in some points- are ultimately looking for the same thing: happiness.

It doesn't matter how many philosophers have influenced you. Most of those philosophers are bs anyway. The point is to think about reality, politics and human nature accurately with evidence and your own common sense. You're honestly going to tell me that people are selfish and that's it? That's an outdated argument because its so clear people are not intrinsically selfish. They naturally care about themselves and others. Capitalism is very clearly false.

And you're honestly going to tell me that people are fundamentally different? Common man... everyone is made of the same fundamental makeup and everyone is searching for positive experiences, goodness and happiness.

We don't need to use exotic references for this. It's obvious.

[mike435]

jubin it is not selfishness that i am referring

its the fact that naturaly people gonne go after diffrent ways of achiving happines

look are you telling me the guy who thinks happiness is getting high having sex and eating

is the same as the guy
who abstains from all meterial plesures for the after life

true both are the same in that they have achived happines
but achiving ithrogh diffrent means will creat a diffrance among theme and they will naturaly be inconflict

or another case when one person is sociopath and the other is a passifast they both achived happiness(one he is happy because he is a passifast the other becuse he got his way) but you are going to tell me that they wont be inconflict

your are right people do want happiness

but to diffrent people happiness is diffrent

for my mother the greatest happiness is seeing her kids go to school and no amountof schooling will ever be enogh

now for another mom the greatest happiness is seeing their kid i dono man become a rabbi

yet another somthig else becoming the best thief or anything eslse

see how everyone wants happines but achives it in a diffrent way

look when an israeli lives throgh a suicide attack he thinks he is the luckiest guy on earth

when the a hamas opretive lives throgh a failed suicide attack he thinks hes extremly unlucky that couldnt go to allah

do you see the diffrance how the same result for the same human being who are made up of the smae stuff means totaly diffrent things
exact opposits

p.s.
i was going to use the word terrorist and terrrorist attack instead of hamas opreative and suicide attack
but didnt on pourpose to show you how it is not to call theme a terrorist. you see how you are wrong

[zubin]

you're not differentiating between happiness and pleasure in your examples. sex, drugs and even enjoying evil acts are pleasure, while the other things are more happiness. If you look at the examples of happiness, they each involve positive and successful social environmental interaction which binds them together and makes them fundamentally similar.

The proper test for similarity/difference is to factor out different childhoods and different situations and look at people's behavior.


If you want some of the most enjoyable philosophical reading, read this:

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html

Even until today, this is considered the best philosophical discussion on this topic. It is enjoyable because Aristotle has a good style as well. I hope you enjoy.

[golgol85]

Immense ice shelf breaks off in Canadian Arctic: researchers by Guillaume Lavallee

Fri Dec 29, 3:40 PM ET

MONTREAL (AFP) - An enormous ice shelf broke away from Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic last year, researchers said, warning it could be another symptom of global warming.

The 66-square-kilometer (25.5-square-mile) ice island tore away from Ellesmere, a huge strip of land in the Canadian Arctic close to Greenland.

The break occurred in August 2005 and was so violent that it caused tremors that were detected by Canadian seismographs 250 kilometers (155 miles) away, but at the time no one was able to pinpoint what had happened.

The Canadian Ice Service contacted geographer Luke Copland of the University of Ottawa, who reconstructed the chain of events by piecing together data from the seismic readings and satellite images provided by Canada and the United States.

"This loss is the biggest in 25 years, but it continues the loss that occurred within the last century," Copland told AFP, saying 90 percent of the the ice cover had been lost since the area was discovered in 1906.

"What is important and interesting is that it is sudden, quite large even," he said.

"In the past, we looked to climate change (and) thought perhaps ice shelves ... would just melt apart by losing a little piece day by day, but it now seems that when you reach some kind of threshold, when you reach that level, the whole thing just breaks apart."

Following the discovery, biologist Warwick Vincent of Laval University in Quebec, visited the icy waters of the Arctic to view the "new island."

Vincent said he had seen nothing like it in the past decade. "It really is incredible," Vincent was quoted as saying by the newspaper National Post.

"People talk of endangered animals -- well, these are endangered landscape features, and we are losing them," he said.

Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet, a Canadian Artic research network, said the massive breakoff signaled a rise in Arctic warming.

"This Ellesmere ice shelf was sheltering unique ecosystems on the planet; there are freshwater lakes which were forming above and under the ice shelf," Fortier told AFP.

"The breakup of the ice cover on Ellesmere Island has been going on for 12,000 years, but it seems to have accelerated in recent years which is another indicator, among many others, of warming of the entire Arctic cryosphere," he said, referring to low-temperature elements of weather such as ice and snow.

Canada conducts land, sea and aerial observations of the Arctic ice surface, but often these studies target certain areas and ignore vast, uninhabited areas, the environment ministry says, making satellite images crucial.

The sudden formation of a "new island" in the Arctic "is a symptom among a cluster of symptoms of global warming, the most important evidently being the spectacular redcution in the extent and thickness of the Arctic ice field," Fortier said.

In an article published in December, Canadian and US researchers predicted that by 2040 Arctic Ocean ice will nearly disappear in the summer off the north coast of Greenland and Canada, opening a maritime corridor that would reduce shipping time between Europe and Asia.

[golgol85]

In order to be objective, we need to realize that many different aspects can and probably have contributed to global warming. The most influential of them is caused by humans. There may be cycles, but what is going on scientifically can be shown to be the direct result of human activites. We are to blame for what is happening to the world, and if we dont do something then there wont be any nature for our children. You can sit here and argue what is the culprit that caused this to happen, it might be nice to take some responsibility for what we have done, but more importantly we should be looking for ways to solve and lessen the effects of that which we have done.

It may be impossible to redo or undo what we have done in the past, but we can help prevent it from getting worse. Look to yourself individually: are there short distances that you drive and coupld use your two legs instead? Could you use paper bags instead of plastic bags? there are so many little things that if we each tried changing the little things, we could make a large difference.

[zubin]

Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer
By SETH BORENSTEIN, Associated Press Writer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change;_ylt=AnRjeEFalcQkYvMUpwLqQBVvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Dozens of scientists and bureaucrats are editing the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in closed-door meetings in Paris. Their report, which must be unanimously approved, is to be released Friday and is considered an authoritative document that could influence government and industrial policy worldwide.

Three participants said the group approved the term "very likely" in Thursday's sessions. That means they agree that there is a 90 percent chance that global warming is caused by humans.

"That is a big move. I hope it is a powerful statement," said Jan Pretel, head of the department of climate change at the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute.

The last report, in 2001, said global warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to change the wording this time to "virtually certain," which means a 99 percent chance.

The U.S. government delegation was not one of the more vocal groups in the debate over the "very likely" statement for man-made warming, said other countries' officials. However, several officials credited the head of the panel session, Susan Solomon, a top U.S. government climate scientist, with pushing through the agreement in just 90 minutes.

The Chinese delegation was resistant to strong wording on global warming, said Barbados delegate Leonard Fields and Zimbabwe delegate Washington Zhakata.

China has increasingly turned to fossil fuels, which emit the greenhouse gases blamed for boosting Earth's temperature, to feed its huge and growing energy needs.

The report will also say that global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those on the Atlantic Ocean such as 2005's Katrina, according to Fields and other delegates.

They said the panel approved language saying an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 "more likely than not" can be attributed to man-made global warming.

The panel did note that the increase in stronger storms differs in various parts of the globe, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.

In 2001, the same panel had said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion.

This week's report will also mark departure from a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC. The meteorological organization, after contentious debate, said it could not link past stronger storms to global warming.

Fields — of Barbados, a country in the path of many hurricanes — said the new wording was "very important. ... Insurance companies watch the language too."

The delegates, staring at a countdown clock showing how little time they have left before Friday's deadline, went into Thursday's talks well behind schedule and planned a late-night session.

A draft of the report predicts a temperature increase of between 2.5 to 10.4 degrees by the year 2100, although that could be adjusted.

Another contentious issue is predictions of sea level rise. Scientists are trying to incorporate concerns that their early drafts underestimate how much the sea level will rise by 2100 because they cannot predict how much ice will melt from Greenland and Antarctica.

In early drafts, scientists predicted a sea level rise of no more than 23 inches by 2100, but that does not include the ice sheet melts.

The report is being edited in English, then must be translated into five other languages. It will be a 12-15 page summary for policymakers in most of the world's countries.

As the delegates hold their evening session, the Eiffel Tower, other Paris monuments and concerned citizens in several European countries were expected to switch off their lights for five minutes to call attention to energy conservation, heeding a call by French environmental campaigners.

Some experts said that while well-intentioned, turning the lights out could actually consume more energy than it would conserve by requiring a power spike when the lights turn back on — possibly causing brownouts or even blackouts.

[golgol85]

The global warming issue has become something of great debate. I feel those who dont know about global warming are missing out on knowing about something that can and will directly affect their life. With lifespans increasing, we will be seeing and dealing with a lot of more of the problems that generations before us were responsible for.

As the article above mentions, if we dont try to fix the damage we have done, we are in trouble. Its one thing to not do any more damage than has already been done, but we need to realize there is a problem and then tackle the problem. Countries like the US and China and other industrialized countries will lose out on profits if they cut back on industrialization, but since they are mostly the cause of problems, they need to think of all countries affected and cut back on their industrializiation.

[mike435]

check out cnn.com they have alot on the report

both video format and artical.

really amazingthogh 11-23 incs increase in ocean

[mike435]

now that we know globalwarming IS HUMAN MADE

Now the we are perty certine global warmin is human made we must do somthing about it

obviously the best is to stop concerving and fined better ways of living

but i think equaly as important we should start to adapt to our new reality
and instead of beating ourselfs over it which we should but more importantly we must adjust and take advantage of it

probably with global warming it means
places were it was cold it will now be warmmer

maybe we can use that to out advantage maybe more warm places we can use for farming

were do you guys think we are heading

i think the nex 100- 200 hundred years we will see a huge change in the world population and shift

more places will be come dry