...Disasters are likely to grow in severity from now until 2012.
As they do, most people on Earth will die well before 2012, just like victims of tsunami and other recent earthquakes. When volcanoes begin to erupt and explode, most people on Earth are likely to die from poisonous gasses, just like dinosaurs did a long time ago...
When Antarctic and Greenland glaciers begin to slide down to oceans (not necessarily molten) - we will experience global tsunamis, followed by a permanent rise in the sea level. If all Antarctic and Greenland ice finds its way down to oceans, the sea level will be 80m higher than it is today...
Sounds to me as if we are well past the point of no return and all hope is gone
We have at least two more years left to arrest pollution and do everything to avoid catastrophe. Why I'm saying two years? It's because We need to be able to have the industry intact and able to produce cars that run on hydrogen, if we lose our capability to produce hydrogen engines in the heat of the forecoming disasters then our chances of survival may decrease considerably.
Sorry to be so pessimistic but if we only have two years then we really are doomed. Just look at how the majority of people behave towards the planet, look at the politicians doing as little as possible, look at how big business tramples all over the environment. Two years is actually a very short period of time. Bush will still be in power in two years time.We have at least two more years left to arrest pollution and do everything to avoid catastrophe.
Very few people actually care; how hard is it to sort your rubbish? How hard is it to re-use your shopping bags? How hard is it to replace your light bulbs with energy saving ones. People choose their cars not on fuel consumption but on how fast it goes, how big it is and how good it looks.
Nobody things twice about jumping on an aeroplace and flying away for two weeks holidays. Budget airlines are on the increase. Airlines are immune from Kyoto.
I could go on and on. Can you really see any of this changing in two short years?
I think it will be clear in two-three years time if we are doomed or not. Notice that if the industry willl stop because of natural disasters, then the amount of pollution produced will considerably decrease too.
Maybe Goverments are keeping the true extent of climate change under wraps because we are already past the point of no return. Can you imagine how peoples attitudes would change if they knew we were doomed and there was nothing we could do? Would you go to work tomorrow? Can you imaging the anarchy?
What point of no return? If you are quoting the book here, then tell me what is it and how is it going to happen? Pollution? How? So far there is only one man who has given and keeps on giving an understandable explanation for "the point of no return" riddle of the book. I'm talking about Tom Chalko here. So, from the space of all available possibilities (All the endless maybe...1, maybe...2 or maybe...3 etc.) if to consider what Tom says to be true (Tom being false means that we are ok), then I understand that it's not that easy to bang a planet. I mean necessary conditions should be met. Tom explains these "necessary conditions" in his understanding and knowledge, what I understand from Tom's explanation is what I said before: "I don't think that all hope is gone. If we aim to meet the climax of global warming at 2012 with a polluted planet, by then many would die. As I understand, at 2012 the irreversible process will start due to the unstoppable chain reactions that will happen in the core, which most likely will finally detonate our planet into another asteroid belt in our solar system."
These deductions are no way dependent on whatever our bad bad leaders do or say, so given that I have my own understanding, the two possibilities that:
1- "Maybe Goverments are keeping the true extent of climate change under wraps because we are already past the point of no return."
2- "I don't think that all hope is gone. If we aim to meet the climax of global warming at 2012 with a polluted planet, by then many would die. As I understand, at 2012 the irreversible process will start due to the unstoppable chain reactions that will happen in the core, which most likely will finally detonate our planet into another asteroid belt in our solar system."
...can not be true at the same time. I have my argument based on all that I understand from Tom's scientific efforts. In contrast, your argument seems to be based on personal speculation and fear more than anything else.
I'm just saying that in the worst case situation we will still have our last chance to set things right. Will we take our chances or not that's our choice. I personally am all in if we decide to make a collective effort to promote Hydrogen technology over everything else.
There is never any reason to panic, not even if you are looking in the face of death. Imagine the chances of staying alive while facing a swarm of ants, each two times bigger than your size. If you are to stand, won't it be more reasonable to stand and at least try to buy a few seconds more time so that others could run into safety? I don't think that making this stand in panic would be a good choice. Imagine that in the same situation you are to run to safety, you will decrease your chance of getting to safety if you are mindlessly running in panic. I think the same is with us, given what we are given in this moment. We are to focus, otherwise we may fail to see our own chances of survival just because we are in panic.
Friday, January 27, 2006
DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer wrote:The former vice president came to town for the premiere of "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary chronicling what has become his crusade since losing the 2000 presidential election: Educating the masses that global warming is about to toast our ecology and our way of life.
Gore has been saying it for decades, since a college class in the 1960s convinced him that greenhouse gases from oil, coal and other carbon emissions were trapping the sun's heat in the atmosphere, resulting in a glacial meltdown that could flood much of the planet.
Americans have been hearing it for decades, wavering between belief and skepticism that it all may just be a natural part of Earth's cyclical warming and cooling phases.
And politicians and corporations have been ignoring it for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said.
He sees the situation as "a true planetary emergency."
"If you accept the truth of that, then nothing else really matters that much," Gore said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We have to organize quickly to come up with a coherent and really strong response, and that's what I'm devoting myself to."
"An Inconvenient Truth" takes its title from the notion that consumers, politicians and corporations hooked on energy-inefficient vehicles and emission-heavy power sources may not want to hear the facts, Gore said.
Surely the worst case situation is that our last chance to set things right has long passed. i.e. we are past the point of no return.I'm just saying that in the worst case situation we will still have our last chance to set things right.
I am not just talking about the planet going bang. There are plenty of other scenerios that could cause the destruction of the human race.
Fear? maybe, but I am just being realistic rather than idealistic (as you seem to be).In contrast, your argument seems to be based on personal speculation and fear more than anything else.
Not enough people are making the correct decisions. If everyone bought the most fuel efficient vehicle for their needs then we would have a much smaller problem. We don't need new technology (hydrogen or otherwise), we just need people to make better decisions.
But not enough people care. So we are doomed.
This is simply not the most probable worst case situation. It's just an illusion of your own mind, it's nothing more than an imagination which you have made for yourself to justify and support your willingness to ignore more probable situations based on observed facts and studies of sincere and serious people on this regard.Njones wrote:Surely the worst case situation is that our last chance to set things right has long passed.
If you are not just talking about the planet going bang. Then why don't you say exactly what are you talking about?Njones wrote:I am not just talking about the planet going bang. There are plenty of other scenerios that could cause the destruction of the human race.
Why "there must be a point of no return"? Even in the worst holocaust, every single survivor is "a point of return". If you have missed to notice it yet, I repeat:
A "point of no return" for a planet, can be when the planet would enter in an unstoppable process that would inevitably end in the total destruction of the planet itself.
For a human being the point of no return is the 72 hour of clinical death.
So if you are so realistic, then tell me; What is\was the point of no return for the "plenty of other scenarios that could cause the destruction of the human race"?
Have you been reading the Thiaoouba Prophecy book? Are you familiar with the green gas emission cut that is required by the Kyoto protocol to stop the process of global warming?NJones wrote:Not enough people are making the correct decisions. If everyone bought the most fuel efficient vehicle for their needs then we would have a much smaller problem. We don't need new technology (hydrogen or otherwise), we just need people to make better decisions.
At least 70% of the pollution must be cleared in order to stop global warming, and this can be done only through the industrialization of cars with the hydrogen engine.
A 30% cut in pollution won't help anyone! and surely won't make the global warming issue a smaller problem. Why do people start to "play dice" when they are told it's dangerous to face the climax of a natural event of such scale, like we are?
The most fuel efficient vehicle for the needs of people are Fuel Cell vehicles, they're cost cheap, they use a renewable energy source, have no emissions... Why are we deprieved of such comfort? Deciding to have such cars is not "correct decision"?
I think I can contribute on this one,
I have thought a lot about the end of the world for the last 15 years, and in about 1996 when I really started to go into TP I noted that they made a big point about this coming disaster and recently as no doubt you have all noted, tom has pretty well spelled out the planet is going to explode, even Michel said in one of his lectures that we are going to get our self into trouble in the future, some kind of trouble,
Over the last ten years a like to listen to the radio with all sorts of science programs in Australia, on ABC radio, like star stuff ect, I find these programs interesting, and once upon a time people used to actually debate about what was going to happen to the planet, they would get 2 or more people and actually debate whether there was any really damage being done to the planet and whether it was going to affect our climate, these discussions used to really upset me because, they really lead no were, it’s like we have become mastering of TALKING and the world rolls on.
Anyway so in my day job now I get to hear a lot of radio and now what I am hearing is, There is no question, the planet is hearting up, and all the scientists and politicians who listen to them are saying, yep, it’s getting warmer, what are we going to do?,
I see politicians like Mr. John Howard claiming you can serve the economy and look after the planet, and you know this is like saying, you can smoke and be healthy, and the economy is based on exploitation of this planet…You can’t serve both…
I really don’t hate many things, but I hate saying this, I think, we are going to come chronically unglued as a civilization and I think that there is nothing that we can do to stop this machine apart from prepare for the worst, when I have taken the time to look at the operations of multi national companies which run the planet and the building and solidification of the world bank and it’s foreign policy towards countries, which is a very depressing endeavor, I see the most ruthless behavior which makes clear that the only guide that these companies and governments serve is the that of money, (profit at all costs)
So many have investments in the way this world works and so many more like China for example want to live like Australian and America, 1.3 billion Chinese who want a house, power, a car, a TV, a air conditioner, a life…
What do you say to them…
No you cannot build 400 new power stations that run on Coal, so your people don’t frizz in winter…because it is bad for the planet???
And no you can’t drive a SUV even though you can afford one because it’s bad for the planet, go back to riding a pushbike or fitting 4 people on a scooter.
I preapologies if I have offended any one, but if I am going to be honest, this is what I see happening, I base this on living 27 years in this world, and what I know is most people at least in Australia are asleep, this information is the last thing in there mind, which means there ability to stop it and respond to it is ZERO and you know most of them, don’t even care, there just trying to earn a living and be happy and make there way through the world.
The monetary system is the only problem, because without the financial interests of fuel companies, we would already be driving hydrogen cars.
No problem. Those people won't care driving a clean motor, if it is fast enough.shezmear wrote:what I know is most people at least in Australia are asleep, this information is the last thing in there mind, which means there ability to stop it and respond to it is ZERO and you know most of them, don’t even care, there just trying to earn a living and be happy and make there way through the world.