Originally posted by Razorback Rainstar... you need to stop watching Fox news and pick up a book mate... calling Co2 a pollutant is like calling oxygen a pollutant. It is a common chemical compund that exists naturally.
However, we add more oxygen to the atmosphere that doesn't exist in the natural circulation. The fossil fuel we use are from old plants and old already dead animals. These animals and plants has created what we use to drive our cars. The oxygen we add is outside the natural circulation that already exists on our planet; they are outside because they are from another age. The plants and animals shouldn't really exist in our age, but we dig them up anyway.
Oxygen outside the natural circulation is what's dangerous, not the oxygen inside it. I've forgot some parts of it, but that's the main concept, was around a half year since I read about it in school.
Godliest I agree strongly that we as a species live beyond our means.
I argue for 2 reasons...
1. I cant stand hearing supposition being presented as truth and bandied about by people that havent even read a web page on it as fact.
2. The main reasons behind the perpetuation of the unproven theory of Co2 driving the climate are both rather bogus themselves. They are the massive amounts of money already tied to carbon trading and the attempt by western governments to surpress development in the third world.
So when lies are bandied as truth and those lies then used as an excuse to exclude 4/5ths of the worlds population from the same level of development as the other 1/5th then yes.... Im gonna debate it.
Ask yourself this.... if the problem is so immediate and dire.... why havnt western governments done something other than design systems to pass the carbon from one hand to another and attach money to it. Why did Kyoto set a group of targets that not only have not been achived but would have not even countered the emmissions from China alone even if they had been ?
The answer... they know it doesnt matter... Its just the new fear campaign, like the cold war, global terrorism and bird flue... soon there will be a new one.... and then one after that.... its how they manage us.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
This is a beauty... it speaks reams about the pseudo science of "man made climate change" Here is a so called reputable green site and here is a quote : "In short, scientists know rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected. As atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, scientists estimate average global temperatures will continue to rise as a result. By how much and how fast remain uncertain. IPCC projects further global warming of 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) by the year 2100. This range results from uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions, the possible cooling effects of atmospheric particles such as sulfates, and the climate’s response to changes in the atmosphere. The IPCC states that even the low end of this warming projection “would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years, but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability.” Two major points.... 1. The number of variables and assumptions renders the entire math exercise a complete nonsense and it even says so!!
Let me get this straight. Your logic is that:
1) Because we could cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the amount of climate change climate predictions have too much variability.
2) Since climate predictions have too much variability we shouldn’t trust them.
3) Since we shouldn’t trust climate predictions there is no need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Again.... Utter confusion about the topic.... this topic is about Co2 driving the climate... Im a freakin broken record but this is the worst part of the climate change argument, everyone wants to divert the conversation on to dolphins getting thier noses caught in 6 packs holders... thats an entire nother debate. Please get that before one of us dies of old age. And as for the IPCC quotes.... the first line or two is just priceless yet again. ""The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, isvery likelycaused by man," WOW!! Thats like conclusive scientific proof right there. The IPCC said it might be true so thats it ... its true... Gotta love this new definition of science we are using to reach conclusions now.... science has never been easier. I predict that in the near future all Beer will be FREE!! YAY now we can expect free beer... who would have thought it was that easy!!
It seems like you need a refresher on how to perform science.
Scientific theories have various degrees of reliability and one can think of them as being on a scale of certainty. Up near the top end we have our theory of gravitation based on a staggering amount of evidence; down at the bottom we have the theory that the Earth is flat. In the middle we have our theory of the origin of the moons of Uranus. Some scientific theories are nearer the top than others, but none of them ever actually reach it.
“Very likely” by a group thousands of scientists is one of the stronger statements you will ever see. Unless you are adressing a measuable fact, anything stronger is typically hyperbole or an indication the person is making a faith based argument rather then a scientific one.
Humans are a virus, they are chopping away and polluting up the earth as we type on this forum. They must be eliminated. Also, George W really p*sses me off. Do I need a reason.
You're right!
That's why I'm going to kill as many humans as possible before I myself die, humans are the cause of this world's demise.
We kill other species until the brink of their extinction, then we amass these futile solutions.
People, you need to get in the right mindset, you're all enslaved, it is time to release yourself and others so our planet and all it's grateful inhabitats may live longer and prosper.
Heed my call! Unite with friends and family, pick up handguns, rifles, knives, blunt objects and everything alike that will aid you in the killing of men, women and children.
In many regions people have continued for ages doing so... Big up Africa, Asia, Europe... Uhm, hmm, well, it's here and there.
None is to be spared - All of us are breathing threats to mother nature thus we can no longer nuture her needs so we need to end ourselfs before we end up dead anyways.
1) Because we could cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the amount of climate change climate predictions have too much variability.
2) Since climate predictions have too much variability we shouldn’t trust them.
3) Since we shouldn’t trust climate predictions there is no need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Here's my take
1) Because we could have cut greenhouse gas moe than we have so far, doesn't mean that we either should or shouldn't have. Any change of this nature isn't going to be quick or well recieved.
2) Since climate predictions have too much variability we shouldn't trust them. (I really think this one is a no brainer).
3) Since attempting to lower greenhouse emissions is likely to cause more damage to the world than allowing them to continue to rise we should on no account do so.
Again.... Utter confusion about the topic.... this topic is about Co2 driving the climate... Im a freakin broken record but this is the worst part of the climate change argument, everyone wants to divert the conversation on to dolphins getting thier noses caught in 6 packs holders... thats an entire nother debate. Please get that before one of us dies of old age. And as for the IPCC quotes.... the first line or two is just priceless yet again. ""The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, isvery likelycaused by man," WOW!! Thats like conclusive scientific proof right there. The IPCC said it might be true so thats it ... its true... Gotta love this new definition of science we are using to reach conclusions now.... science has never been easier. I predict that in the near future all Beer will be FREE!! YAY now we can expect free beer... who would have thought it was that easy!!
It seems like you need a refresher on how to perform science.
Scientific theories have various degrees of reliability and one can think of them as being on a scale of certainty. Up near the top end we have our theory of gravitation based on a staggering amount of evidence; down at the bottom we have the theory that the Earth is flat. In the middle we have our theory of the origin of the moons of Uranus. Some scientific theories are nearer the top than others, but none of them ever actually reach it.
“Very likely” by a group thousands of scientists is one of the stronger statements you will ever see. Unless you are adressing a measuable fact, anything stronger is typically hyperbole or an indication the person is making a faith based argument rather then a scientific one.
Scientists are experts in gathering data scientifically.
This is not to be mistaken for experts in the enviroment. They are academics. Bookworms. Their experience of the enviroment is primarily sought in books.
The problem we have with these kinds of scientist, is that they have gone on from their professional capacity of compiling data to make predictions and offer suggestions. Instantly placing them out of their depth and disqualifying their professionalism. They have left science behind and moved into the realms of philosophy.
Scientists and politicans aren't really reknowned for their enviromental expertise. Bandying their names around as if they were is just silly. You are looking to the wrong sources.
Originally posted by Razorback Godliest I agree strongly that we as a species live beyond our means. (No idea what that's supposed to mean, but you agree so I'm happy)
Ask yourself this.... if the problem is so immediate and dire.... why haven't western governments done something other than design systems to pass the carbon from one hand to another and attach money to it. Why did Kyoto set a group of targets that not only have not been achieved but would have not even countered the emissions from China alone even if they had been ?
Why must there always pop up these conspiracy theories? Why is everyone here so paranoid? Oh well.
To answer your question; I think the reason why they didn't put higher goals and haven't tried to do more about the problem is the fact that they got some really big lobby groups working against them. They got the whole oil industry which is a really big business that really turnover lots and lots of cash. These companies that can put a lot of pressure on politics.
Also: Politicians ignores the problem, it's much cheaper to simply ignore the problem rather than doing something. We, all of us, have for many generations been ignoring our problems. We've been doing "End of the pipe solutions" (could be seen as just pushing the problem further into the future) for a long time. We don't want to see the problem we are causing and we don't want to react because it will most likely force us to do something about it.
Humans are lazy by nature, and it's always much easier to push forward a problem to the coming generation rather than fixing the problem yourself. I see this is as one of the reasons why politicians haven't reacted at all nearly.
Politicians don't ignore the problem here (U.K.) Godliest, it is has been right at the front of politics for years.
It's heavily taxed, and each party makes bolder and bolder claims and larger and larger targets in order to woo the green vote. They are swing voters, the elections depend on the greens. They have a political influence here beyond their number, beyond the specific issues they promote.
We are actively attempting to create new green technologies and get ahead of the rest of the world economically. Carbon Trading and Clean power, this country seeks to be at the forefront of the industry. (As it should).
I think it's a bit to conspiritorial to suggest the Kyoto treaty is specifically targeted against emerging economies, but that's not to say we haven't seen a lead and aren't attempting to exploit it. We have, and we are.
I will go as far as to say Treaties like Kyoto are 100% opposed to the intrests of emerging economies like China, and who ever wrote it clearly couldn't care less about them.
1) Because we could cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the amount of climate change climate predictions have too much variability.
2) Since climate predictions have too much variability we shouldn’t trust them.
3) Since we shouldn’t trust climate predictions there is no need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Here's my take
1) Because we could have cut greenhouse gas moe than we have so far, doesn't mean that we either should or shouldn't have. Any change of this nature isn't going to be quick or well recieved.
2) Since climate predictions have too much variability we shouldn't trust them. (I really think this one is a no brainer).
3) Since attempting to lower greenhouse emissions is likely to cause more damage to the world than allowing them to continue to rise we should on no account do so.
Climate predictions have most of their variability based on the level of greenhouse gas emissions. When fed accurate data regarding the level of greenhouse gas emissions even the climate models developed/used in the late 80’s have been highly successful at predicting current temperatures.
The other source of variability is cascade changes. Climate models can suggest that these sudden rapid changes to the status quo will occur but will probably never be able to say exactly when which is why they are not built into the IPCC projections. If we hit one of these we are in deep trouble, so this type of variability doesn’t exactly support your position.
In all likelihood there is also relatively little cost to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is ultimately tied to making more efficient use of raw resources, something that is economically beneficial. Specific industries like the oil companies may suffer, but there is every reason to believe the world’s economy as a whole can benefit.
Certainly the US is better off both economically and politically, because it would be importing vastly less oil which would help reduce it’s massive trade deficit while depriving mid-east terrorists of their financial backing.
Originally posted by baff Politicians don't ignore the problem here (U.K.) Godliest, it is has been right at the front of politics for years.
It's still late. Global Warming has been known for quite some while, it's not the politicians act tho. Why? Because those who voted for them are getting knowledge about the problem and the (most commonly mentioned) cause of it. They demand that something should be done about, and that's why they react.
It's still very late! The problem with global warming has been going on for many years, and we have known about it for many. Yet politicians react very slowly, that was what I was referring too.
Scientists are experts in gathering data scientifically. This is not to be mistaken for experts in the enviroment. They are academics. Bookworms. Their experience of the enviroment is primarily sought in books. The problem we have with these kinds of scientist, is that they have gone on from their professional capacity of compiling data to make predictions and offer suggestions. Instantly placing them out of their depth and disqualifying their professionalism. They have left science behind and moved into the realms of philosophy. Scientists and politicans aren't really reknowned for their enviromental expertise. Bandying their names around as if they were is just silly. You are looking to the wrong sources.
Can you repeat that in English? It sounds like you are trying to argue that climate scientists are academics who don’t deal in real data and therefore need to be ignored whenever it’s convenient to your argument.
The fact is, real climate scientists (not the frauds the denialists like to present) deal with plenty of hard data on a daily basis, data like global temperature data, ocean temperature data, carbon isotope data, O2 isotope data, wind data, ocean circulation data, solar intensity data, C02 emission data, aerosol data, and many other types of data relating to proxy indicators, current conditions and material behavior.
Scientists are experts in gathering data scientifically. This is not to be mistaken for experts in the enviroment. They are academics. Bookworms. Their experience of the enviroment is primarily sought in books. The problem we have with these kinds of scientist, is that they have gone on from their professional capacity of compiling data to make predictions and offer suggestions. Instantly placing them out of their depth and disqualifying their professionalism. They have left science behind and moved into the realms of philosophy. Scientists and politicans aren't really reknowned for their enviromental expertise. Bandying their names around as if they were is just silly. You are looking to the wrong sources.
Can you repeat that in English? It sounds like you are trying to argue that climate scientists are academics who don’t deal in real data and therefore need to be ignored whenever it’s convenient to your argument.
The fact is, real climate scientists (not the frauds the denialists like to present) deal with plenty of hard data on a daily basis, data like global temperature data, ocean temperature data, carbon isotope data, O2 isotope data, wind data, ocean circulation data, solar intensity data, C02 emission data, aerosol data, and many other types of data relating to proxy indicators, current conditions and material behavior.
The fact is scientists aren't very high up on my list of people enviromentally aware.
Compiling so much data isn't much use if you don't know what data to look for. Or where to look for it. Or, more critically, if you don't know what assumptions to reasonably make about the results.
What scientists miss is the common sense factor. They don't have a firm enough grasp of nature and the enviroment to be able to obviously dismiss the ridiculous out of hand.
I'll give you an example. The other day I read that climate change had killed all the bees. The scientists go on to "prove" it and keep refering to it as what's happening (until some other scientist seeks to disprove it and then the whole thing will be "settled" by the peer review of yet other scientists). And yet, anyone with any experience of bee keeping knows this is false out of common sense and first hand experience. The scientists are numpties, but no one talks to bee keepers, and bee keepers didn't go to university and they don't have their own blogs on Myspace.com.
Take that scientists data, and give it to a third generation farmer. Or a third generation bushman or Safari manager. Or an Aluet fisherman. Someone who actually has clue about climate change. (Chances are he will just use it to light a fire).
I don't have faith in the ageing hippies, the city idiots and the university set to have any credable insights into the enviroment at all. They aren't my idea of experts, far from it.
Here's another common sense example.
CO2 emissions and the related Global warming has been going on for sometime now. The industrial age started 200 years ago and since then it's all got worse.
I'm 37 years old. So far, I haven't noticed any climate change where I live. So in the 37 years of historical peak CO2 pollution that I have personally witnessed, not much changed. So by 2044, I can still expect not to be able to see the difference.
Other people expect envriomental disaster, but a common sense approach gives you an idea of which predictions are broadly realistic in outlook and which are just pure nonsense. It really doesn't matter who makes them. You could be Albert Einstein or Mr. Ed the talking horse for all I care. Nonsense is nonsense. Apply the common sense test.
Global warming was taught to me in school 20 years ago. At the time the big upset was CFC's and the Ozone layer. Before that changing sea currents were bringing in the next ice age. Before that they taught us about Nuclear Winter, the clouds were going to blot out the sun. (All these reliably modeled predicitions failed to occour).
Ice age, radiation hell, tidal wave. I have no money, ask someone else.
Ozone depletion began to turn around when CFC emissions were curtailed. I.E. the model was acted on and the problem has been averted (for now). Seems like a good argument to act on global warming if you ask me.
Nuclear winter is predicted to occur if a full blown nuclear war occurs. It is still predicted to occur if a nuclear war occurs. Once again the problem was addressed at the root cause of not having a nuclear war. Score 2 for actually listening to the science.
Your second point is utterly false. You may have been taught that, but it’s never been considered a likely event by any significant number of scientists. A new ice age was considered a possible event at one point, but when it was researched we found the opposite to be more likely.
Here's another common sense example. CO2 emissions and the related Global warming has been going on for sometime now. The industrial age started 200 years ago and since then it's all got worse. I'm 37 years old. So far, I haven't noticed any climate change where I live. So in the 37 years of historical peak CO2 pollution that I have personally witnessed, not much changed. So by 2044, I can still expect not to be able to see the difference. Other people expect envriomental disaster, but a common sense approach gives you an idea of which predictions are broadly realistic in outlook and which are just pure nonsense. It really doesn't matter who makes them. You could be Albert Einstein or Mr. Ed the talking horse for all I care. Nonsense is nonsense. Apply the common sense test. Scientists are notoriously weak on common sense.
The common sense factor once told us the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and that disease was caused by odors in the air. Science is about taking such presumptions and *testing* them.
You may not be noticing a difference but testing has revealed that there is one. Other people, like that Aleutian fisherman you mention certainly have noticed a difference. But then it’s pretty hard to miss that sea ice extents in the artic has been cut in half over the last 30 years and you can now sale to places that have been locked in ice for a very long time.
The hole in the ozone layer hasn't stopped getting larger.......and we're all still alive.
(Although we've all thrown away all our perfectly functional fridges and switched to more expensive de-odorants).
Where I live my second point is utterly true.
It might not be true where you live.
This is an example of how important it is to understand the enviroment before you make any predictions. Just because this isn't true for most scientists worldwide, doesn't mean it isn't true for all scientists living here.
The common sense factor once told us the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and that disease was caused by odors in the air. Science is about taking such presumptions and *testing* them.
You may not be noticing a difference but testing has revealed that there is one. Other people, like that Aleutian fisherman you mention certainly have noticed a difference. But then it’s pretty hard to miss that sea ice extents in the artic has been cut in half over the last 30 years and you can now sale to places that have been locked in ice for a very long time.
The common sense factor may have told scientists and academics that the earth was flat, but did you think to ask a sailor?
That's right I haven't noticed a difference and I am also of the opinion that Aluets have. So how about we stop talking about Global warming and start discussing Aleutian warming instead?
It clearly isn't going to be an issue to any but those living in the most extreme conditions. How about we just concentrate on the places that actually need a solution to it, and try not to ruin things for the rest of the planet.
The common sense factor may have told scientists and academics that the earth was flat, but did you think to ask a sailor?
The scientific method hadn’t been adopted yet and the University system wasn’t in place yet, so who were these scientists and academics you refer to? Sailors in typically believed the earth was flat and often refused to sail to far from home in case they fell off the edge. It was common sense after all…
The common sense factor once told us the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and that disease was caused by odors in the air. Science is about taking such presumptions and *testing* them.
You may not be noticing a difference but testing has revealed that there is one. Other people, like that Aleutian fisherman you mention certainly have noticed a difference. But then it’s pretty hard to miss that sea ice extents in the artic has been cut in half over the last 30 years and you can now sale to places that have been locked in ice for a very long time.
The common sense factor may have told scientists and academics that the earth was flat, but did you think to ask a sailor?
That's right I haven't noticed a difference and I am also of the opinion that Aluets have. So how about we stop talking about Global warming and start discussing Aleutian warming instead?
It clearly isn't going to be an issue to any but those living in the most extreme conditions. How about we just concentrate on the places that actually need a solution to it, and try not to ruin things for the rest of the planet.
We already ruined the planet by dumping so much mercury into the ocean and polluting the air and cutting down forests. You might wanna go ask China about the mercury poison problem their having with their seafood. You also might wanna ask about the honey bee problem or the bird problem this year. I would also suggest driving to a city and smelling the air then driving to the country 100 miles from the city and smelling the air.
I would say to stop talking about global warming is a mistake. People who stop talking about something tend to forget it. We helped cause this, the biggest group of scientist have said it many times that they believe we helped cause it. We should not forget we helped cause such a disaster, if we do we are bound to repeat it.
Be cool to people, and try and stay cool that way you never have to regret making someone feel bad. Don't take what ya got granted because some people never get to feel happy. We get to play these great MMOs and surf a good site. Be thankful for what ya got and next time ya feel down imagine a fat sea otter waddling with a pillow and a night cap. Bam! smiles!
The common sense factor may have told scientists and academics that the earth was flat, but did you think to ask a sailor?
The scientific method hadn’t been adopted yet and the University system wasn’t in place yet, so who were these scientists and academics you refer to? Sailors in typically believed the earth was flat and often refused to sail to far from home in case they fell off the edge. It was common sense after all…
The academics were church men and royal coutiers.
I don't think I've read anywhere any accounts by sailors from that time. As far as I know there aren't any.
This is a beauty... it speaks reams about the pseudo science of "man made climate change" Here is a so called reputable green site and here is a quote : "In short, scientists know rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected. As atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, scientists estimate average global temperatures will continue to rise as a result. By how much and how fast remain uncertain. IPCC projects further global warming of 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) by the year 2100. This range results from uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions, the possible cooling effects of atmospheric particles such as sulfates, and the climate’s response to changes in the atmosphere. The IPCC states that even the low end of this warming projection “would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years, but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability.” Two major points.... 1. The number of variables and assumptions renders the entire math exercise a complete nonsense and it even says so!!
Let me get this straight. Your logic is that:
1) Because we could cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the amount of climate change climate predictions have too much variability.
2) Since climate predictions have too much variability we shouldn’t trust them.
3) Since we shouldn’t trust climate predictions there is no need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Point 1 makes no sense... just read it yourself... I cant even work out what your saying.... however as for 2 and 3...
Wow.. you do actually get it...
Congratulations
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Comments
However, we add more oxygen to the atmosphere that doesn't exist in the natural circulation. The fossil fuel we use are from old plants and old already dead animals. These animals and plants has created what we use to drive our cars. The oxygen we add is outside the natural circulation that already exists on our planet; they are outside because they are from another age. The plants and animals shouldn't really exist in our age, but we dig them up anyway.
Oxygen outside the natural circulation is what's dangerous, not the oxygen inside it. I've forgot some parts of it, but that's the main concept, was around a half year since I read about it in school.
Godliest I agree strongly that we as a species live beyond our means.
I argue for 2 reasons...
1. I cant stand hearing supposition being presented as truth and bandied about by people that havent even read a web page on it as fact.
2. The main reasons behind the perpetuation of the unproven theory of Co2 driving the climate are both rather bogus themselves. They are the massive amounts of money already tied to carbon trading and the attempt by western governments to surpress development in the third world.
So when lies are bandied as truth and those lies then used as an excuse to exclude 4/5ths of the worlds population from the same level of development as the other 1/5th then yes.... Im gonna debate it.
Ask yourself this.... if the problem is so immediate and dire.... why havnt western governments done something other than design systems to pass the carbon from one hand to another and attach money to it. Why did Kyoto set a group of targets that not only have not been achived but would have not even countered the emmissions from China alone even if they had been ?
The answer... they know it doesnt matter... Its just the new fear campaign, like the cold war, global terrorism and bird flue... soon there will be a new one.... and then one after that.... its how they manage us.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
That's why I'm going to kill as many humans as possible before I myself die, humans are the cause of this world's demise.
We kill other species until the brink of their extinction, then we amass these futile solutions.
People, you need to get in the right mindset, you're all enslaved, it is time to release yourself and others so our planet and all it's grateful inhabitats may live longer and prosper.
Heed my call! Unite with friends and family, pick up handguns, rifles, knives, blunt objects and everything alike that will aid you in the killing of men, women and children.
In many regions people have continued for ages doing so... Big up Africa, Asia, Europe... Uhm, hmm, well, it's here and there.
None is to be spared - All of us are breathing threats to mother nature thus we can no longer nuture her needs so we need to end ourselfs before we end up dead anyways.
I CREATED MYSELF!
"<Claus|Dev> i r pk"
SW:TOR|War40K:DMO|GW2
Here's my take
1) Because we could have cut greenhouse gas moe than we have so far, doesn't mean that we either should or shouldn't have. Any change of this nature isn't going to be quick or well recieved.
2) Since climate predictions have too much variability we shouldn't trust them. (I really think this one is a no brainer).
3) Since attempting to lower greenhouse emissions is likely to cause more damage to the world than allowing them to continue to rise we should on no account do so.
Scientists are experts in gathering data scientifically.
This is not to be mistaken for experts in the enviroment. They are academics. Bookworms. Their experience of the enviroment is primarily sought in books.
The problem we have with these kinds of scientist, is that they have gone on from their professional capacity of compiling data to make predictions and offer suggestions. Instantly placing them out of their depth and disqualifying their professionalism. They have left science behind and moved into the realms of philosophy.
Scientists and politicans aren't really reknowned for their enviromental expertise. Bandying their names around as if they were is just silly. You are looking to the wrong sources.
Why must there always pop up these conspiracy theories? Why is everyone here so paranoid? Oh well.
To answer your question; I think the reason why they didn't put higher goals and haven't tried to do more about the problem is the fact that they got some really big lobby groups working against them. They got the whole oil industry which is a really big business that really turnover lots and lots of cash. These companies that can put a lot of pressure on politics.
Also: Politicians ignores the problem, it's much cheaper to simply ignore the problem rather than doing something. We, all of us, have for many generations been ignoring our problems. We've been doing "End of the pipe solutions" (could be seen as just pushing the problem further into the future) for a long time. We don't want to see the problem we are causing and we don't want to react because it will most likely force us to do something about it.
Humans are lazy by nature, and it's always much easier to push forward a problem to the coming generation rather than fixing the problem yourself. I see this is as one of the reasons why politicians haven't reacted at all nearly.
Politicians don't ignore the problem here (U.K.) Godliest, it is has been right at the front of politics for years.
It's heavily taxed, and each party makes bolder and bolder claims and larger and larger targets in order to woo the green vote. They are swing voters, the elections depend on the greens. They have a political influence here beyond their number, beyond the specific issues they promote.
We are actively attempting to create new green technologies and get ahead of the rest of the world economically. Carbon Trading and Clean power, this country seeks to be at the forefront of the industry. (As it should).
I think it's a bit to conspiritorial to suggest the Kyoto treaty is specifically targeted against emerging economies, but that's not to say we haven't seen a lead and aren't attempting to exploit it. We have, and we are.
I will go as far as to say Treaties like Kyoto are 100% opposed to the intrests of emerging economies like China, and who ever wrote it clearly couldn't care less about them.
The only thing that pisses me off about him is that he isnt running for president.
Here's my take
1) Because we could have cut greenhouse gas moe than we have so far, doesn't mean that we either should or shouldn't have. Any change of this nature isn't going to be quick or well recieved.
2) Since climate predictions have too much variability we shouldn't trust them. (I really think this one is a no brainer).
3) Since attempting to lower greenhouse emissions is likely to cause more damage to the world than allowing them to continue to rise we should on no account do so.
It's still very late! The problem with global warming has been going on for many years, and we have known about it for many. Yet politicians react very slowly, that was what I was referring too.
Global warming was taught to me in school 20 years ago.
At the time the big upset was CFC's and the Ozone layer.
Before that changing sea currents were bringing in the next ice age.
Before that they taught us about Nuclear Winter, the clouds were going to blot out the sun.
(All these reliably modeled predicitions failed to occour).
Ice age, radiation hell, tidal wave. I have no money, ask someone else.
The fact is scientists aren't very high up on my list of people enviromentally aware.
Compiling so much data isn't much use if you don't know what data to look for. Or where to look for it. Or, more critically, if you don't know what assumptions to reasonably make about the results.
What scientists miss is the common sense factor. They don't have a firm enough grasp of nature and the enviroment to be able to obviously dismiss the ridiculous out of hand.
I'll give you an example. The other day I read that climate change had killed all the bees. The scientists go on to "prove" it and keep refering to it as what's happening (until some other scientist seeks to disprove it and then the whole thing will be "settled" by the peer review of yet other scientists). And yet, anyone with any experience of bee keeping knows this is false out of common sense and first hand experience. The scientists are numpties, but no one talks to bee keepers, and bee keepers didn't go to university and they don't have their own blogs on Myspace.com.
Take that scientists data, and give it to a third generation farmer. Or a third generation bushman or Safari manager. Or an Aluet fisherman. Someone who actually has clue about climate change. (Chances are he will just use it to light a fire).
I don't have faith in the ageing hippies, the city idiots and the university set to have any credable insights into the enviroment at all. They aren't my idea of experts, far from it.
Here's another common sense example.
CO2 emissions and the related Global warming has been going on for sometime now. The industrial age started 200 years ago and since then it's all got worse.
I'm 37 years old. So far, I haven't noticed any climate change where I live. So in the 37 years of historical peak CO2 pollution that I have personally witnessed, not much changed. So by 2044, I can still expect not to be able to see the difference.
Other people expect envriomental disaster, but a common sense approach gives you an idea of which predictions are broadly realistic in outlook and which are just pure nonsense. It really doesn't matter who makes them. You could be Albert Einstein or Mr. Ed the talking horse for all I care. Nonsense is nonsense. Apply the common sense test.
Scientists are notoriously weak on common sense.
Here's the thing, nuclear war hasn't occoured.
The hole in the ozone layer hasn't stopped getting larger.......and we're all still alive.
(Although we've all thrown away all our perfectly functional fridges and switched to more expensive de-odorants).
Where I live my second point is utterly true.
It might not be true where you live.
This is an example of how important it is to understand the enviroment before you make any predictions. Just because this isn't true for most scientists worldwide, doesn't mean it isn't true for all scientists living here.
The common sense factor may have told scientists and academics that the earth was flat, but did you think to ask a sailor?
That's right I haven't noticed a difference and I am also of the opinion that Aluets have. So how about we stop talking about Global warming and start discussing Aleutian warming instead?
It clearly isn't going to be an issue to any but those living in the most extreme conditions. How about we just concentrate on the places that actually need a solution to it, and try not to ruin things for the rest of the planet.
The common sense factor may have told scientists and academics that the earth was flat, but did you think to ask a sailor?
That's right I haven't noticed a difference and I am also of the opinion that Aluets have. So how about we stop talking about Global warming and start discussing Aleutian warming instead?
It clearly isn't going to be an issue to any but those living in the most extreme conditions. How about we just concentrate on the places that actually need a solution to it, and try not to ruin things for the rest of the planet.
We already ruined the planet by dumping so much mercury into the ocean and polluting the air and cutting down forests. You might wanna go ask China about the mercury poison problem their having with their seafood. You also might wanna ask about the honey bee problem or the bird problem this year. I would also suggest driving to a city and smelling the air then driving to the country 100 miles from the city and smelling the air.I would say to stop talking about global warming is a mistake. People who stop talking about something tend to forget it. We helped cause this, the biggest group of scientist have said it many times that they believe we helped cause it. We should not forget we helped cause such a disaster, if we do we are bound to repeat it.
Be cool to people, and try and stay cool that way you never have to regret making someone feel bad. Don't take what ya got granted because some people never get to feel happy. We get to play these great MMOs and surf a good site. Be thankful for what ya got and next time ya feel down imagine a fat sea otter waddling with a pillow and a night cap. Bam! smiles!
Did everyone watch that?
I agree with Madace, I am humbled by this man and I consider myself pretty damn brigth.
Notice that this man never asks or even argue about wether or not we are responsible.
That video has a neat way of looking at GCC.
I think Gore is a bit of an extremist. But then again GCC can not be explained very well by Science yet.
I choose ticket A in the video.
The academics were church men and royal coutiers.
I don't think I've read anywhere any accounts by sailors from that time. As far as I know there aren't any.
No need mate. I am a bee keeper.
This year there are more bees about than at anytime in the last 5 years. They all got decimated by parasites a while ago. Now they are back.
I keep birds too.
Point 1 makes no sense... just read it yourself... I cant even work out what your saying.... however as for 2 and 3...
Wow.. you do actually get it...
Congratulations
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon