Well, we're screwed.

[GepperRankins]

Tipping point may have been passed but I am uneasy with the concept because if it hasn't been passed then those who have no desire to clean up their act will use it as an excuse along the lines of - "we are screwed anyway so what difference does it make". In fact this may already be Whitehouse policy

Oh, ffs, Les.

"We're screwed" is the default policy for the entire world, courtesy of Mother Nature.

One half-assed volcanic eruption has more effect on global warming than has the entire Industrial Age.

We're just along for the ride, and it has never been otherwise.

you should get bbc4

[cpt_azad]

Tipping point may have been passed but I am uneasy with the concept because if it hasn't been passed then those who have no desire to clean up their act will use it as an excuse along the lines of - "we are screwed anyway so what difference does it make". In fact this may already be Whitehouse policy

Oh, ffs, Les.

"We're screwed" is the default policy for the entire world, courtesy of Mother Nature.

One half-assed volcanic eruption has more effect on global warming than has the entire Industrial Age.

We're just along for the ride, and it has never been otherwise.

So are you saying that we humans have not contributed to this "natural" phenomenon by at least speeding it up?

[GepperRankins]

Oh, ffs, Les.

"We're screwed" is the default policy for the entire world, courtesy of Mother Nature.

One half-assed volcanic eruption has more effect on global warming than has the entire Industrial Age.

We're just along for the ride, and it has never been otherwise.

So are you saying that we humans have not contributed to this "natural" phenomenon by at least speeding it up?

no point arguing. he says what he's told

[cpt_azad]

I see, but I thought J2 was smarter than the average american? No sarcasm intended, that guy has a lot intelligence.

[GepperRankins]

he likes to act like it. he's never really taken the time to actually research anything about global warming. unless you count the stuff he reads on conservative blogs. this stuff originating from oil company reps whose interest it is stop people worrying about the negative effects of oil.

[j2k4]

I see, but I thought J2 was smarter than the average american? No sarcasm intended, that guy has a lot intelligence.

I am smarter than the average American.

You don't have to be smart at all to arrive at the correct conclusion, however.

I acknowledge global warming occurs (and I'll bet the fact of that has missed needle-dick Dave, because it doesn't suit his opinion of me to remember it); I do not acknowledge mankind has had more than an iota of effect on the overall bearing factors, for precisely the reason I alluded to in my previous post.

If mankind (meaning America, because as I'm sure Dave will tell you, only America pollutes, or only American pollution affects the ozone layer) were to utterly cease any sort of industrial processing, stick corks in the cows asses, and do all the other useless horseshit dictated by such as the Kyoto Treaty, it could never be determined this had even the slightest effect on global warming (and therein lies the "cover" for Dave's idiotic reasoning).

All this, and the next volcanic eruption undoes any positive effect we "might" have had, and by a factor of millions, to boot.

Dave wants to buy it, and he's welcome to it; I'll have none of it.

He is a typical utopian, believing man can overcome nature with his puny efforts; he makes, half-jokingly (but only half), statements to the effect Bush is to blame for an active hurricane season...did Bush cause the Indonesian tsunami?

On second thought, strike that; Dave will be along shortly to make a case for it, and probably blame him for volcanoes as well.

[Snee]

Oh come on, while I seriously doubt that what we've done thus so far has had such a profound effect on our climate as some would have it, the opinion that we have had, are having, and probably will be having a hand in this most recent 'bout of global warming if we do continue to pollute as we currently do, is shared by a majority of all climatologists, as far as I know.

To dismiss their consensus (altho' the research is not yet finished, I'll grant you that) is a bit much.

Man can certainly affect nature, when it comes to our climate, given what the scientists now believe.

And as for the Kyoto treaty, I reckon it's a bit arrogant to dismiss something a large part of the world has agreed on as something that dictates "useless horseshit", not to mention that's it's downright insulting that the USA rejected it, especially so since America does stand for something like a third of all pollution emissions.

[j2k4]

Oh come on, while I seriously doubt that what we've done thus so far has had such a profound effect on our climate as some would have it, the opinion that we have had, are having, and probably will be having a hand in this most recent 'bout of global warming if we do continue to pollute as we currently do, is shared by a majority of all climatologists, as far as I know.

To dismiss their consensus (altho' the research is not yet finished, I'll grant you that) is a bit much.

Man can certainly affect nature, when it comes to our climate, given what the scientists now believe.

And as for the Kyoto treaty, I reckon it's a bit arrogant to dismiss something a large part of the world has agreed on as something that dictates "useless horseshit", not to mention that's it's downright insulting that the USA rejected it, especially so since America does stand for something like a third of all pollution emissions.

Peruse the signatory roster and get back to me, SnnY.

I dismiss the consensus, research deficit or not, and will continue to do so.

It would require an awfully profound effect indeed to have the impact required to drive temperatures beyond any cyclical range we can discern historically (that is to say, well beyond that which we can currently determine, and to any degree we might reasonably postulate as "possible"), and, as I have said, if our absolute best efforts will be well undone by the next tectonic fart, I see nothing to convince me any effect we might have could be defined as anything but miniscule, and therefore of negligible benefit.

There is a little book called State of Fear authored by Michael Crichton you might enjoy; it describes the "horse shit" on both sides of the debate while expounding a sober appraisal of the reality, backed up by real data.

Think twice before you read it, though; it'll be detrimental to your ignorance.

[cpt_azad]

Nice post J2, but this is kind of off topic, but hell I'll ask anyway:

How many more years do you think oil will last? As far as I know we crossed the peak a long time ago, and OPEC is just optimistic, nothing else. There really isn't as much oil on/in (the) Earth (at least the oil that we can "obtain") as OPEC or other scientists claim there to be.

So, since fossil fuels (which I kinda classify as oil, don't ask) is what, a HUGE chunk of what causes emmisions (spelling!), when we run out, what do you think will happen?

As you put it J2, the pollution caused by mankind (no not just America, I'm not narrowminded thank you very much) is miniscule and at best ignorable to the grand scheme of things (nature), so when we run out of fossil fuels life will just go on? Climate change will still take place regardless of the fact that fossil fuels will cease to burn?

That's one future I don't look forward to, because:

1) When (not if) fossil fuels diminish and the weather/climate continues to deteriorate (spelling!), people are gonna be scratching their heads going "WTF? I thought we took care of this problem by switching to alternative power sources".

2) Once again mankind's inability to plan ahead will bring about yet more famine, death, and what not.

My 2 cents on that subject (1/2 of which is based on this thread, the other half being on fossil fuels running out).

I'm interested in what you have to say J2, in fact, I'm interested in what all of you have to say.

[Skillian]

Peruse the signatory roster and get back to me, SnnY.

I dismiss the consensus, research deficit or not, and will continue to do so.

It would require an awfully profound effect indeed to have the impact required to drive temperatures beyond any cyclical range we can discern historically (that is to say, well beyond that which we can currently determine, and to any degree we might reasonably postulate as "possible"), and, as I have said, if our absolute best efforts will be well undone by the next tectonic fart, I see nothing to convince me any effect we might have could be defined as anything but miniscule, and therefore of negligible benefit.

There is a little book called State of Fear authored by Michael Crichton you might enjoy; it describes the "horse shit" on both sides of the debate while expounding a sober appraisal of the reality, backed up by real data.

Think twice before you read it, though; it'll be detrimental to your ignorance.

Did you just dismiss the scientific community and endorse a fiction writer in the same post? Is this a thread about global warming or the art of compelling narrative?