Try living in the UK right now with its strange weather over the past few years...its weter
LMAO
It rained all summer.
No one would ever have imagined it raining all the time in Britain. If this keeps up one of our most easily recognised international icons will be a man carrying an umbrella. We will have cultural hero's in TV shoes like John Steed, and armies of umbrella weilding men in bowler hats marching to work as in the decades that came before us.
Horror upon horror, imagine if all the flood plains, flooded! After the rains! We should have to name them "flood plains" and stop building there.
Funny isn't it. This year everyone speaks of how Britain has become wetter due to global warming, and yet they have already forgotten how last year,during the drought, the same people all said it has become drier due to global warming. (No mention that the areas with water shortages also had an extra 2 million people living there since the last hot summer).
If you can't even remember the weather last year how are you ever going to be able to judge if the climate is changing?
Look it up on Google.....Go to the one place where everycrank loon and computer nerd has a voice. The one place where opinion is dominated by people who don't like to spend their free time outside experiencing nature.
Here is my suggestion to you. If you want to learn about the climate. Switch off your computer. Switch off your TV. Do not surf Google, do not watch documentries. Do not provide Razorback with any links, Look past your TV screens to your window. Watch it live.
Go outside.
Stay outside for 10 years. Take up gardening or fishing. Hunting or even golf. A hobby or a job that actually places you in a position to experience the climate. See your enviroment for yourself. Google and TV is not where you learn about the climate. It is where you "don't learn".
Without any basic firsthand experience of nature you are placed in a position where common sense cannot filter the obivous nonsense from possibilities of truth for you. Turn off your computer. You are anti-learning.
yeah,that could be it.let's give it another couple decades and see what happens.
Deal. Glad we all agreed then.
lol,no.
while you folks agree that we should do nothing,the rest of us will be working to fix the problem.
put your feet up dude,you got nothin to worry about
See thats part of the concern. That you will actually try to fix what cannot be fixed. The effort, money it will take to even attempt changing the global climate is unimaginable. Resources that should be spend elsewhere.
See thats part of the concern. That you will actually try to fix what cannot be fixed. The effort, money it will take to even attempt changing the global climate is unimaginable. Resources that should be spend elsewhere.
interesting
where would you spend the money saved not exploring renewable resources?
Personally, I would spend the money on a new computer. Also some cheap clothes and some chocolate.
The cheap clothes would allow the Chinese people making them not to die and the chocolate would allow the African people growing it to live also.
In this way I would be making a direct and sustainable contribution to averting a global disaster that results in the deaths of tens of millions each year.
Investing in expensive renewable energy sources, would raise the cost of my energy. Providing me with less money free after my bills to buy chocolate and clothes. Not just for me, but for all the hundreds of millions of electricity users across the western world. That money that was previously free to spend on luxuries like chocolate would no longer be.
= more poverty, starvation, disease and death in the developing world.
The people claiming to be saving the world, destroying it.
The above poster is right, the problem is not that people wish to believe in Global Warming, it is that they wish to act on it.
Personally, I would spend the money on a new computer. Also some cheap clothes and some chocolate. The cheap clothes would allow the Chinese people making them not to die and the chocolate would allow the African people growing it to live also. In this way I would be making a direct and sustainable contribution to averting a global disaster that results in the deaths of tens of millions each year.
me too.i need an upgrade for warhammer.
if the chinese and african people are dying in the millions,maybe they should revolt or move?
Originally posted by zakk_ if the chinese and african people are dying in the millions,maybe they should revolt or move?
They do. Wars are aplenty there.
African migration is also a big problem for the Mediteranean nations.
I don't mind buying chocolate. In fact I want to. Adopting an African into my own home however is a long way farther than I am willing to go. Perhaps we could all switch to renewable energy sources and they could all move in with you?
See thats part of the concern. That you will actually try to fix what cannot be fixed. The effort, money it will take to even attempt changing the global climate is unimaginable. Resources that should be spend elsewhere.
interesting
where would you spend the money saved not exploring renewable resources?
The importance of new sources of energy cant be discussed. We will need them with or with out the global warming.
But until we have them it will be expensive for nations to cut down on fossil fuel. Why do you think the US wasent in the Kyoto-protocol
We won't be hearing very much from their leaders at all.
Who we will be hearing a lot from is the greens. The university set, city enviromentalists and all the other first time and swing voters. The ones our political parties think will tip the balance of electoral power in their favour.
We won't be hearing very much from African leaders at all. We never do. No one cares about Africa. It's domestic politics that decide policy.
And yet Britain who is also blowing up Iraqi's did sign it (as did Spain and a whole host of other signatories) and is the world leader in green house gas reduction.
Australia and the U.S.'s reasons for not signing has nothing to do with oil. It has to do with domestic industry. The U.S. is the worlds most industrialised country, the world's richest country and also, unsuprisingly, the worlds largest pollutor.
I could also say that Germany and Japan are the only major players that did sign it.
China and India didn't sign it, Russia didn't sign it, and no offence to the Aussies, who are very high up on the list of my favourite peoples in the world, but the AUS isn't a "major player" in anything. To the best of my knowledge I don't own anything produced in Australia.
I didn't talk to actuall scientists then. But yes, it was all over the media. I even remember hearing about it in school. My point was that the current global warming caused by humans stuff is just as much of a knee jerk reaction as the 70s ice age predictions. If the earth heats up or cools down thats fine. It has many times in our history. We humans will find a way to survive.
The anthropogenic global warming is supported by several thousand papers published in the world top science journals.
There were no such papers talking about global cooling in the 70’s and today there virtually no papers going against the consensus opinion that humans are causing global warming.
As for humans surviving, humans survived WWII but that don’t make it insignificant.
You need to read the thread. We've already covered that and still no proof that its caused by Co2.
CO2 Blocks infrared and allows visible light to pass through. Unless you are willing to discard thermodynamics and conservation of energy this fact alone is enough to prove CO2 causes warming.
The only pertinent question is how much warming it causes and every paper that studies the issue has come back with similar results. Not only that these results line up with real world measurements.
We have proof that C02 causes warming and computer simulations that show levels of warming that agrees with measured results. So the ball is really in your court. We have a well documented theory explaining why the world is warming up. If you want to contradict this you need to produce an equally well alternative, but viable alternative theories are non-existent at this point.
Kyoto signatories that participated in the War in Iraq, include Japan, Poland, Britain, Ukraine, The Netherlands, Italy and Spain.
Only two out of the five biggest Industrial producers in the world have signed up for Kyoto. Germany and Japan. The U.S., China and India have not.
Simply put they make too much money from manufacturing/green house gas emitting industry to wish to nerf their industries. The demands of their domestic economies make signing an agreement detrimental to them self-defeating.
A whole host of countries who's primary source of income are not gained through manufacture or have not blinked at signing the Kyoto agreement. One man's wine is another man's poison.
I have no knowledge of the Australian economy. Is it predominantly industrial or agricultural? Is the electricity mostly generated by coal or nuclear? Are the coal plants recently built or up for replacement soon anyway? Is there a booming Aviation industry? Is it a large country with a very dispersed population or is it a a very small place with little transportational needs? Does it have a moderate climate or does it require air condiditoning or central heating for humans to survive there.
There are endless reasons why some countries require more power than others. Learn about Australia, and the answers will present themselves to you.
They do. Wars are aplenty there. African migration is also a big problem for the Mediteranean nations. I don't mind buying chocolate. In fact I want to. Adopting an African into my own home however is a long way farther than I am willing to go. Perhaps we could all switch to renewable energy sources and they could all move in with you?
sorry.missed this point too,my tacos were ready.
no they can't move in with me,the resources >>we<< expend on renewable energy won't allow me to sponsor an african family whilst i continue to waste money on a wow subscription.
if they can't grow vegetables in a desert i don't know what to tell them.or you.
i don't pretend to have an answer for their plight,i do however have an answer for our folly.
Simply put they make too much money from manufacturing/green house gas emitting industry to wish to nerf their industries. The demands of their domestic economies make signing an agreement detrimental to them self-defeating.
I didn't talk to actuall scientists then. But yes, it was all over the media. I even remember hearing about it in school. My point was that the current global warming caused by humans stuff is just as much of a knee jerk reaction as the 70s ice age predictions. If the earth heats up or cools down thats fine. It has many times in our history. We humans will find a way to survive.
The anthropogenic global warming is supported by several thousand papers published in the world top science journals.
There were no such papers talking about global cooling in the 70’s and today there virtually no papers going against the consensus opinion that humans are causing global warming.
As for humans surviving, humans survived WWII but that don’t make it insignificant.
Being supported by journalists adds no weight to your scientific theory. Only evidence does that.
I might also add that having your views published, by a publisher, is not the same as your views supported by a publisher.
My newspaper standardly reports all the views of Osama Bin Laden, that does not in any way equate to support.
A scientific journal publishes scientific papers. That it publishes many scientific papers on any particular subject relates only to the amount ot papers being written on that subject not the accuracy of the theories contained therein.
Scientific journals publish all scientific papers. Not just the ones that turn out to be correct, but all the ones that turn out to be incorrect too.
If history teaches us one lesson about scientific consensus, it is the famous one. The story of Galileo. Consensae are not evidence of correct analysis. They are evidence of fashion within the scientific community.
A lot of people agreeing that 1 + 1 = 3 does not make it so. Counting the number of people in the class who came up with the same answer is not a great method of choosing the correct answer. If the sexy girl at the front says 3, then all the blokes will too.
With 1+1, this method and many other methods are likely to provide the correct answer. After all the problem is easily calculated and we are expecting most people to get the correct answer anyway. This is not the same with complex calculations. Chaos Theory dictates that the more variables we have the less likely we are to be able to successfully predict any outcomes. There are very many variables in any climatical model indeed. We are not actually expecting any of of our climatic models to be accurate.
In the absence of common sense, one would predict the most likely solution to be that which was agreed on by most.
In fact, as the level of difficulty of a problem increases so does the likelyhood of anyone getting the correct answer. For a difficult problem, the mean solution gained from asking a lot of people looses all credability completely. Common sense dictates that the mean derived answer is obviously the most unlikely. Especially when those making the calculations have conferred with each other during their calculations.
If a lot of people are predicting the same answer to a highly complex question., then the probablility is that they have got it wrong. There are very few Geniae. Not very many.
Science is about the gathering of repeatable evidence. "Consensus" democratic or scientific concerns belief, this is covered by the subject of philosophy not science.
There might be no papers going against humans raising the temperature of the planet, but there are an endless amount of them that contest the significance of it. You have exaggerated.
For example, what is likely more significant, "humans" are heating the planet, a tiny tiny biomass on it's solid surface, or the "Sun", a giant sized mass of radiation emitting, nuclear reaction situated very close to the Earth, is.
Comments
yeah,that could be it.let's give it another couple decades and see what happens.
Deal. Glad we all agreed then.
Deal. Glad we all agreed then.
lol,no.while you folks agree that we should do nothing,the rest of us will be working to fix the problem.
put your feet up dude,you got nothin to worry about
LMAO
It rained all summer.
No one would ever have imagined it raining all the time in Britain. If this keeps up one of our most easily recognised international icons will be a man carrying an umbrella. We will have cultural hero's in TV shoes like John Steed, and armies of umbrella weilding men in bowler hats marching to work as in the decades that came before us.
Horror upon horror, imagine if all the flood plains, flooded! After the rains! We should have to name them "flood plains" and stop building there.
Funny isn't it. This year everyone speaks of how Britain has become wetter due to global warming, and yet they have already forgotten how last year, during the drought, the same people all said it has become drier due to global warming. (No mention that the areas with water shortages also had an extra 2 million people living there since the last hot summer).
If you can't even remember the weather last year how are you ever going to be able to judge if the climate is changing?
Look it up on Google.....Go to the one place where everycrank loon and computer nerd has a voice. The one place where opinion is dominated by people who don't like to spend their free time outside experiencing nature.
Here is my suggestion to you. If you want to learn about the climate. Switch off your computer. Switch off your TV. Do not surf Google, do not watch documentries. Do not provide Razorback with any links, Look past your TV screens to your window. Watch it live.
Go outside.
Stay outside for 10 years. Take up gardening or fishing. Hunting or even golf. A hobby or a job that actually places you in a position to experience the climate. See your enviroment for yourself. Google and TV is not where you learn about the climate. It is where you "don't learn".
Without any basic firsthand experience of nature you are placed in a position where common sense cannot filter the obivous nonsense from possibilities of truth for you. Turn off your computer. You are anti-learning.
Deal. Glad we all agreed then.
lol,no.while you folks agree that we should do nothing,the rest of us will be working to fix the problem.
put your feet up dude,you got nothin to worry about
See thats part of the concern. That you will actually try to fix what cannot be fixed. The effort, money it will take to even attempt changing the global climate is unimaginable. Resources that should be spend elsewhere.where would you spend the money saved not exploring renewable resources?
Personally, I would spend the money on a new computer. Also some cheap clothes and some chocolate.
The cheap clothes would allow the Chinese people making them not to die and the chocolate would allow the African people growing it to live also.
In this way I would be making a direct and sustainable contribution to averting a global disaster that results in the deaths of tens of millions each year.
Investing in expensive renewable energy sources, would raise the cost of my energy. Providing me with less money free after my bills to buy chocolate and clothes. Not just for me, but for all the hundreds of millions of electricity users across the western world. That money that was previously free to spend on luxuries like chocolate would no longer be.
= more poverty, starvation, disease and death in the developing world.
The people claiming to be saving the world, destroying it.
The above poster is right, the problem is not that people wish to believe in Global Warming, it is that they wish to act on it.
Actions have consequences.
if the chinese and african people are dying in the millions,maybe they should revolt or move?
They do. Wars are aplenty there.
African migration is also a big problem for the Mediteranean nations.
I don't mind buying chocolate. In fact I want to. Adopting an African into my own home however is a long way farther than I am willing to go. Perhaps we could all switch to renewable energy sources and they could all move in with you?
where would you spend the money saved not exploring renewable resources?
The importance of new sources of energy cant be discussed. We will need them with or with out the global warming.But until we have them it will be expensive for nations to cut down on fossil fuel. Why do you think the US wasent in the Kyoto-protocol
They do. Wars are aplenty there.
African migration is also a big problem for the Mediteranean nations.
i'm sure we'll be hearing from their new leaders asap,about time too..wtf..is this "who can edit quickest" or a real conversation?
We won't be hearing very much from their leaders at all.
Who we will be hearing a lot from is the greens. The university set, city enviromentalists and all the other first time and swing voters. The ones our political parties think will tip the balance of electoral power in their favour.
We won't be hearing very much from African leaders at all. We never do. No one cares about Africa. It's domestic politics that decide policy.
we have resources invested in blowing up iraqi's,we can acces lots of fossil fuels by killing off a few hundred thousand a'rabs
hey they try to blow us up at airports so they deserve it right?
And yet Britain who is also blowing up Iraqi's did sign it (as did Spain and a whole host of other signatories) and is the world leader in green house gas reduction.
Australia and the U.S.'s reasons for not signing has nothing to do with oil. It has to do with domestic industry. The U.S. is the worlds most industrialised country, the world's richest country and also, unsuprisingly, the worlds largest pollutor.
War with Iraq has nothing to do with Kyoto.
the us and aust are the only major players who didn't sign it..
I could also say that Germany and Japan are the only major players that did sign it.
China and India didn't sign it, Russia didn't sign it, and no offence to the Aussies, who are very high up on the list of my favourite peoples in the world, but the AUS isn't a "major player" in anything. To the best of my knowledge I don't own anything produced in Australia.
no offence taken.australia are high on the list of technological advances needed to move >us< forward.
euro's and americans are busying themselves in other areas
how is this so?
Kyoto signatories that participated in the War in Iraq, include Japan, Poland, Britain, Ukraine, The Netherlands, Italy and Spain.
Only two out of the five biggest Industrial producers in the world have signed up for Kyoto. Germany and Japan. The U.S., China and India have not.
Simply put they make too much money from manufacturing/green house gas emitting industry to wish to nerf their industries. The demands of their domestic economies make signing an agreement detrimental to them self-defeating.
A whole host of countries who's primary source of income are not gained through manufacture or have not blinked at signing the Kyoto agreement. One man's wine is another man's poison.
I have no knowledge of the Australian economy. Is it predominantly industrial or agricultural? Is the electricity mostly generated by coal or nuclear? Are the coal plants recently built or up for replacement soon anyway? Is there a booming Aviation industry? Is it a large country with a very dispersed population or is it a a very small place with little transportational needs? Does it have a moderate climate or does it require air condiditoning or central heating for humans to survive there.
There are endless reasons why some countries require more power than others. Learn about Australia, and the answers will present themselves to you.
no they can't move in with me,the resources >>we<< expend on renewable energy won't allow me to sponsor an african family whilst i continue to waste money on a wow subscription.
if they can't grow vegetables in a desert i don't know what to tell them.or you.
i don't pretend to have an answer for their plight,i do however have an answer for our folly.
China and India signed the Kyoto accord and both ratified it in 2002
what was your point again?
Being supported by journalists adds no weight to your scientific theory. Only evidence does that.
I might also add that having your views published, by a publisher, is not the same as your views supported by a publisher.
My newspaper standardly reports all the views of Osama Bin Laden, that does not in any way equate to support.
A scientific journal publishes scientific papers. That it publishes many scientific papers on any particular subject relates only to the amount ot papers being written on that subject not the accuracy of the theories contained therein.
Scientific journals publish all scientific papers. Not just the ones that turn out to be correct, but all the ones that turn out to be incorrect too.
If history teaches us one lesson about scientific consensus, it is the famous one. The story of Galileo. Consensae are not evidence of correct analysis. They are evidence of fashion within the scientific community.
A lot of people agreeing that 1 + 1 = 3 does not make it so. Counting the number of people in the class who came up with the same answer is not a great method of choosing the correct answer. If the sexy girl at the front says 3, then all the blokes will too.
With 1+1, this method and many other methods are likely to provide the correct answer. After all the problem is easily calculated and we are expecting most people to get the correct answer anyway. This is not the same with complex calculations. Chaos Theory dictates that the more variables we have the less likely we are to be able to successfully predict any outcomes. There are very many variables in any climatical model indeed. We are not actually expecting any of of our climatic models to be accurate.
In the absence of common sense, one would predict the most likely solution to be that which was agreed on by most.
In fact, as the level of difficulty of a problem increases so does the likelyhood of anyone getting the correct answer. For a difficult problem, the mean solution gained from asking a lot of people looses all credability completely. Common sense dictates that the mean derived answer is obviously the most unlikely. Especially when those making the calculations have conferred with each other during their calculations.
If a lot of people are predicting the same answer to a highly complex question., then the probablility is that they have got it wrong. There are very few Geniae. Not very many.
Science is about the gathering of repeatable evidence. "Consensus" democratic or scientific concerns belief, this is covered by the subject of philosophy not science.
There might be no papers going against humans raising the temperature of the planet, but there are an endless amount of them that contest the significance of it. You have exaggerated.
For example, what is likely more significant, "humans" are heating the planet, a tiny tiny biomass on it's solid surface, or the "Sun", a giant sized mass of radiation emitting, nuclear reaction situated very close to the Earth, is.