Addenda To Recent "global Warming" Debate

[j2k4]

I had tried to find this a short while ago when we were all having such a nice chat over the issue of Global Warming.

Take it for what it's worth, paying special attention to the references to certain studies and organizations heretofore granted immunity from criticism, and further, the implications it carries vis a vis the media and the perceptions of no-nothing "world citizens" like you and me.

I first read it in the Wall Street Journal, which is, I believe, a respectable newspaper?


The Press Gets It Wrong
Our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty.

BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Monday, June 11, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."

As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.

As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger--that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.

Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).

But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.


One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling.
Distinguishing the small recent changes in global mean temperature from the natural variability, which is unknown, is not a trivial task. All attempts so far make the assumption that existing computer climate models simulate natural variability, but I doubt that anyone really believes this assumption.

We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapor, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide.

What we do is know that a doubling of carbon dioxide by itself would produce only a modest temperature increase of one degree Celsius. Larger projected increases depend on "amplification" of the carbon dioxide by more important, but poorly modeled, greenhouse gases, clouds and water vapor.


The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater.
The panel was finally asked to evaluate the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focusing on the Summary for Policymakers, the only part ever read or quoted. The Summary for Policymakers, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.

The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty--far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge--and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.

Mr. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, was a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change.

[leftism]

I think the author has a hidden agenda that is anti-everything. He is part of a conspiracy to turn the world into a huge ashtray where each president is given a 50 mile long cigar and masturbates in the ashes whilst shouting "down with the liberals DOWN with them I say!!!"

Dont bother asking me to prove this or explain it because I'll just shout this at you (even though its unrelated to your questions about the imaginary conspiracy).


Originally posted by j2k4

AHA!

And what if I demand you prove every shred of what you claim; all this frothing about climactic fluctuations and such!

Your post is idiotic and contemptuous of known fact; where do you come up with such bollocks, and how do you excuse your lack of studies (preferably by private concerns)?

Huh? HUH??!!?

If you don't have studies and links and googles and stuff, your post is invalid!!!

You are wrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrong.........


"If its good enough for you its good enough for me.."
Dodgy - Good Enough

:lol: :lol: :lol:

For those who missed the 'comedy' references.....

J2k4s last 'performace' on this topic (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=91578&st=45)

[hobbes]

Well written piece for a beakerboy. I enjoyed the effort of the author made to acknowledge both sides of the "global warming " issue and the complete absence of emotive phraseology.


See, there really is no issue with "copy and pasting",(see "Long Posts" thread) it is usually the quality of the "pasted" material. You can probably find an article defending ANY position you want out there on the web.

When these agenda, not truth, driven, emotive articles get dropped here for our consideration, we react to the smell of bullshit, not so much that is a "copy and paste" effort.

I would prefer to see articles which give consideration to both sides of an issue. From this point we can then venture into a discussion.

Would have preferred if the article had been entirely in bold, though.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism+24 January 2004 - 18:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 24 January 2004 - 18:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think the author has a hidden agenda that is anti-everything. He is part of a conspiracy to turn the world into a huge ashtray where each president is given a 50 mile long cigar and masturbates in the ashes whilst shouting "down with the liberals DOWN with them I say&#33;&#33;&#33;"

Dont bother asking me to prove this or explain it because I&#39;ll just shout this at you (even though its unrelated to your questions about the imaginary conspiracy).

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

AHA&#33;

And what if I demand you prove every shred of what you claim; all this frothing about climactic fluctuations and such&#33;

Your post is idiotic and contemptuous of known fact; where do you come up with such bollocks, and how do you excuse your lack of studies (preferably by private concerns)?

Huh? HUH??&#33;&#33;?

If you don&#39;t have studies and links and googles and stuff, your post is invalid&#33;&#33;&#33;

You are wrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrong.........


"If its good enough for you its good enough for me.."
Dodgy - Good Enough

:lol: :lol: :lol:

For those who missed the &#39;comedy&#39; references.....

J2k4s last &#39;performace&#39; on this topic (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=91578&st=45)[/b][/quote]
Is yours included likewise, lefty?

I posted the column as Mr. Lindzen positively reeks of credibility on the subject; he is one of the scientists for which your ilk purports to speak when you say things like "all scientists", and "the entire scientific community", and " scientists are in lock-step", and other such foolishness.

This is a new post, mind you.

Why don&#39;t you respond to it, instead of venting on me?

Or do you wish to avoid the topic? :huh:

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4
Why don&#39;t you respond to it, instead of venting on me?

I tried that last time (asked you to explain your "the greens are part of an anti-American conspiracy) and you went absolutely mad. Why on Earth would I want to repeat the same mistake of treating you with respect if thats the result?

Anyway... now you know how it feels like to be treated in the same manner as you treat other people. If you dont like what you see in the mirror, dont blame the mirror :)

[vidcc]

for me the arguements for or against global warming are futile...we polute too much and we really have no excuse of any real worth. I would hold this view even if every scientist in the world proved without question that it didn&#39;t cause global warming.
This is the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land we grow our food on. We need it more than it needs us so lets start treating it with the respect it deserves.

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

Originally posted by vidcc@24 January 2004 - 18:00
for me the arguements for or against global warming are futile...we polute too much and we really have no excuse of any real worth. I would hold this view even if every scientist in the world proved without question that it didn&#39;t cause global warming.
This is the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land we grow our food on. We need it more than it needs us so lets start treating it with the respect it deserves.
Tell it to the Chinese :lol:


Report: Chinese demand for auto to quadruple by 2020...

BEIJING, Jan. 22 (Xinhuanet) -- China&#39;s demand for automobiles in 2020 is expected to reach 20.74 million units, including 20.43 million sedans, and the total number of cars in China by then willtop 156 million, reported Tuesday&#39;s China Automobile News.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-01/...ent_1286778.htm (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-01/22/content_1286778.htm)

[Biggles]

Originally posted by vidcc@24 January 2004 - 23:00
for me the arguements for or against global warming are futile...we polute too much and we really have no excuse of any real worth. I would hold this view even if every scientist in the world proved without question that it didn&#39;t cause global warming.
This is the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land we grow our food on. We need it more than it needs us so lets start treating it with the respect it deserves.
I would tend to agree with this.

I made my views on the current state of knowledge regarding climate fluctuation in the last thread. However, if we can avoid soiling our own nest I would prefer to take that option. Dioxins, chemicals which mimic oestrogen, and pollutants that seem to give ever more children asthma are not something I want to be party too. When I was a kid I can recall one kid in my school that had asthma - now it seems like every class has half a dozen.

Whilst not a paid up member of the open toed sandal brigade, I do want to pass a spoiled world on to my kids.

There has to be balance and those who would make a quick buck at the expense of the environment which belongs to us all need the choke chain put on them.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>+24 January 2004 - 23:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (<TROUBLE^MAKER> @ 24 January 2004 - 23:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@24 January 2004 - 18:00
for me the arguements for or against global warming are futile...we polute too much and we really have no excuse of any real worth. I would hold this view even if every scientist in the world proved without question that it didn&#39;t cause global warming.
This is the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land we grow our food on. We need it more than it needs us so lets start treating it with the respect it deserves.
Tell it to the Chinese :lol:


Report: Chinese demand for auto to quadruple by 2020...

BEIJING, Jan. 22 (Xinhuanet) -- China&#39;s demand for automobiles in 2020 is expected to reach 20.74 million units, including 20.43 million sedans, and the total number of cars in China by then willtop 156 million, reported Tuesday&#39;s China Automobile News.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-01/...ent_1286778.htm (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-01/22/content_1286778.htm) [/b][/quote]
erm when i say we i mean mankind... or did you arogantly assume i just mean the USA?.....you kind of helped my point though.
i could go through a list of the worst poluters who just don&#39;t give a damm and i could go through those that say they want to help but in reality are just talking out their backsides but my point is a global issue about mankind.
i am not pointing a finger at any one nation ( if you want to do that be my guest, as long as you can judge your own nation with the same critical standard )

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Biggles@24 January 2004 - 23:17
Whilst not a paid up member of the open toed sandal brigade, I do want to pass a spoiled world on to my kids.


:lol: :lol: isn&#39;t it funny how those people always look like they could do with a cleaning up ? perhaps they should consider everyone elses noses and filter the smell from their feet :lol:

[Biggles]

:D

Our most celbrated eco-warrior over here is Swampy. Swampy&#39;s heart is in the right place (although not for the want of a few road builders wishing to re-position it). However, I would not like to share a billet with Swampy - so called for his digging in and staying there abilities (we are talking weeks). :D

Still no one can accuse him of being afraid to roll his sleeves up and get his hands (face, body, arms and legs) dirty.

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

Originally posted by vidcc+24 January 2004 - 18:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 24 January 2004 - 18:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>@24 January 2004 - 23:10
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@24 January 2004 - 18:00
for me the arguements for or against global warming are futile...we polute too much and we really have no excuse of any real worth. I would hold this view even if every scientist in the world proved without question that it didn&#39;t cause global warming.
This is the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land we grow our food on. We need it more than it needs us so lets start treating it with the respect it deserves.
Tell it to the Chinese :lol:


Report: Chinese demand for auto to quadruple by 2020...

BEIJING, Jan. 22 (Xinhuanet) -- China&#39;s demand for automobiles in 2020 is expected to reach 20.74 million units, including 20.43 million sedans, and the total number of cars in China by then willtop 156 million, reported Tuesday&#39;s China Automobile News.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-01/...ent_1286778.htm (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-01/22/content_1286778.htm)
erm when i say we i mean mankind... or did you arogantly assume i just mean the USA?.....you kind of helped my point though.
i could go through a list of the worst poluters who just don&#39;t give a damm and i could go through those that say they want to help but in reality are just talking out their backsides but my point is a global issue about mankind.
i am not pointing a finger at any one nation ( if you want to do that be my guest, as long as you can judge your own nation with the same critical standard ) [/b][/quote]
No I just wanted to point out this monstrous figure that was just reported by the Chinese state media outlet XIN HUA. :o

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@25 January 2004 - 00:44
:D

Our most celbrated eco-warrior over here is Swampy. Swampy&#39;s heart is in the right place (although not for the want of a few road builders wishing to re-position it). However, I would not like to share a billet with Swampy - so called for his digging in and staying there abilities (we are talking weeks).&nbsp; :D

Still no one can accuse him of being afraid to roll his sleeves up and get his hands (face, body, arms and legs) dirty.
I appreciate your sentiment.

However I find it difficult to admire someone whose sole talent would appear to be lying in his own shite for a fortnight. I have heard him speak, he is an arse.

[Biggles]

J&#39;Pol

I suspect public speaking is not something he highlights in his resume. His primary strength appears to be his ability to dig himself a hole and jam himself in at a remarkable rate of knots. He is bulldozer stopper rather than an orator. This is good if the road in question is going through ones back garden, bad if one has shares in a road building company. I think it is one of those perspective things. :D

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@25 January 2004 - 03:29
J&#39;Pol

I suspect public speaking is not something he highlights in his resume. His primary strength appears to be his ability to dig himself a hole and jam himself in at a remarkable rate of knots. He is bulldozer stopper rather than an orator. This is good if the road in question is going through ones back garden, bad if one has shares in a road building company. I think it is one of those perspective things.&nbsp; :D
:lol: :lol: :lol:

If said road intends to go through my back garden I will deal with the situation myself.

I have no need to procure the services of some hybrid human / mole to prevent it&#39;s destruction.

[vidcc]

I believe the manifesto behind Mr. Swampy et al is that the government should have been looking at better ways to curb traffic than encourage it through the building of roads on already scarce greenbelt land.
Obviously they failed to prevent the plan taking off so took a more direct approach which also produce a far greater degree of publicity. I amire any person that is willing to stand up for his or her beliefs in a non violent manner, even if i don&#39;t agree with those beliefs.
Don&#39;t misunderstand me i am not an eco warrior and i do drive a sodding great big V8 SUV ( don&#39;t tell any of the other Americans in here but i prefer to drive my minivan (people carrier)) but then petrol is about 70 pence per gallon at the moment :lol: :lol: :lol:. I am not proud of the fact that i only get about the same M.P.G. as an articulated lorry in Europe. So i am just as guilty of poluting the world as the next person.
I am a married man with 3 children and my wife is expecting so a small car along the lines i used to drive when we lived in England isn&#39;t practical and it&#39;s nigh on impossible to find a large size family vehicle that is as effiecient as the European counterpart. :angry:

[FatBastard]

j2, l read that article with interest, and it got me to wondering why you posted it. It does not support your view that global warming, and the consequences some speak of, are a load of bollocks. It does not dismiss the possible dire consequences of our continued polluting either. Nor does it claim that agreements to limit the damage are wrong per se.

We appear to have basically two roads to travel; we can take your advice and do nothing, or we can be cautious, and take the possible consequences seriously.

If you&#39;re proved, with hindsight, to have been wrong, we&#39;re fucked&#33; If the *Greenies* are proved wrong, then what? Will we choke on the clean air?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by FatBastard@25 January 2004 - 05:30
j2, l read that article with interest, and it got me to wondering why you posted it. It does not support your view that global warming, and the consequences some speak of, are a load of bollocks. It does not dismiss the possible dire consequences of our continued polluting either. Nor does it claim that agreements to limit the damage are wrong per se.

We appear to have basically two roads to travel; we can take your advice and do nothing, or we can be cautious, and take the possible consequences seriously.

If you&#39;re proved, with hindsight, to have been wrong, we&#39;re fucked&#33; If the *Greenies* are proved wrong, then what? Will we choke on the clean air?
FB-

I don&#39;t believe I have equated any of these concerns as "a load of bollocks".

Nor do I discount the concern expressed by those who care for the environment; I include myself as among the concerned, though perhaps from the standpoint of informed stewardship.

I am not, however, in favor of oppressive, biased measures like Kyoto (my opinion; am I still entitled?) which are designed to be especially costly to the U.S. (please, no lectures about how we can afford it), when other countries (whom world opinion inveighs against us helping) literally have rivers of shit running through their cities; say what you want about everything else, the "shit" is a more immediate-though less easily dealt with-concern.

Bottom line:

If what is bandied about re: global warming, etc., amounted to PROOF, we would not be debating the point, would we?

PROOF would preclude debate.

As I said:

Stewardship? YES.

Caution? YES.

Oppression? NO.


EDIT: If you believe my opinion to be "bollocks", feel free to say so, please.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by FatBastard@25 January 2004 - 09:30
j2, l read that article with interest, and it got me to wondering why you posted it. It does not support your view that global warming, and the consequences some speak of, are a load of bollocks. It does not dismiss the possible dire consequences of our continued polluting either. Nor does it claim that agreements to limit the damage are wrong per se.

We appear to have basically two roads to travel; we can take your advice and do nothing, or we can be cautious, and take the possible consequences seriously.

If you&#39;re proved, with hindsight, to have been wrong, we&#39;re fucked&#33; If the *Greenies* are proved wrong, then what? Will we choke on the clean air?
I would go further..

The article quite clearly states that man made CO2 emmisions will cause approx a 1C increase in temperature (and remember he&#39;s a conservative).

It also states that water vapour in the air is as harmful, if not more so..

If you increase the temperature by 1C, then the Law of Physics would appear to say there will be a lot more water vapour in the air also, which increases it further (another 1C minimum?)....

With just a 2C increase in temperature, we have rising sea levels..and more water vapour, due to a larger surface area of water...








My head hurts now...

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 January 2004 - 19:13
My head hurts now...
As well it should. ;)

So it&#39;s all or nothing, eh?

Either buy the whole ball of extremist wax or piss off?

No middle ground? :huh:

[FatBastard]

It will cost the US the most cos you pollute the most&#33; As a nation you are extravagent wasters. And why can&#39;t we say you can afford it? Is that not true? You can find trillions for other things, and now all this bullshit talk about Mars and the Moon. If nations like the US do nothing, what is the third world to think? Western nations have to develop better methods of doing things, newer technologies, replacements for fossil fuels, etc., the rest of the world will follow. Do you seriously expect third world countries to pick up the tab, when you yourselves cause such a high percentage of the world&#39;s polution?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by FatBastard@27 January 2004 - 04:24
It will cost the US the most cos you pollute the most&#33;&nbsp; As a nation you are extravagent wasters.&nbsp; And why can&#39;t we say you can afford it?&nbsp; Is that not true?&nbsp; You can find trillions for other things, and now all this bullshit talk about Mars and the Moon.&nbsp; If nations like the US do nothing, what is the third world to think?&nbsp; Western nations have to develop better methods of doing things, newer technologies, replacements for fossil fuels, etc., the rest of the world will follow.&nbsp; Do you seriously expect third world countries to pick up the tab, when you yourselves cause such a high percentage of the world&#39;s polution?
Couple of things, FB:

I think we can (and should) forego the Moon and Mars for a while.

We probably spend more on pollution-control than most country&#39;s GNPs.

Third-world countries not blessed with oil or some other valuable resource will only arise from their third-world status with the advent of some sort of industry.

Nowhere have I heard anything about pollution controls being part of the bargain, and right from the get-go.

No, they are to be granted a pass on that condition due to their status as poverty-stricken.

Why is this?

Other countries of middling development are also given leave to shirk on pollution control.

Why is this?

I think we must all agree that the capability to generate electrical power is a requirement, yes?

Why do the "environmentalists" continually fight nuclear power, when oil, and coal, etc., are so dirty?

Why do they insist on windmills and similarly inefficient rubbish?

Or rather, why do they insist on propeller farms and then cry about birdkill?

One more thing:

The way all you people bitch about anything and everything having to do with the U.S., why would you want to "follow" us anywhere?

U.S. technology still suffers the stigma of being "Made in the U.S.A.", doesn&#39;t it?

How could anyone bring themselves to make use of it under that circumstance?

Of course, if it is dispensed for free, I suppose that alleviates the sting ever-so-slightly.

Can you tell me why the third-worlders shouldn&#39;t finance their own pollution control?

It is, after all, a legitimate business expense, is it not?

Are we to foster "illegitimate" business procedures in poor countries?

Isn&#39;t that what you would accuse us of doing now?


Sorry-

Don&#39;t mean to rant. :)

[vidcc]

Just because other countries polute it doesn&#39;t excuse our polution. We in the US polute disproportionatly to the population levels and we have no excuse for this apart from financial arguements. The technology is here and we don&#39;t use it.
I am a realist, we will never solve the problem completely however we could do better.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@27 January 2004 - 13:43
I am a realist, we will never solve the problem completely however we could do better.
On this, at least, we can agree-

But, as I said earlier, the rhetoric deprives us of reasonable discourse and rational middle-ground in debate or action.

We are stalemated.

So you are in the states, eh?

Wasn&#39;t aware of that. :)

[Alex H]

the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC&#39;s Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.

Does that mean "if it had support what we were planning to do anyway, we&#39;d go along with it, but it doesn&#39;t so it does not provide suitable guidance".

I can&#39;t BELIVE the US (and j2k4 with it) wants to have a debate on this subject&#33; When UN want to have a debate on whether its ok to start a war with a country that supposedly has enough chemical weapons to destroy the plannet the US says "No, we have to start bombing the bastards right NOW&#33;"

When the UN says "We think the world might have the biggest environmental problem we have ever had, we should stop polluting the earth to such an extent NOW just in case", the US wants to sit around and debate about there not being much evidence that the plannet is slowly choking on it&#39;s own filth.

Do you want to wait for the evidence to become apparent? It really is one of the most obvious questions you&#39;ll ever be asked. If you shit in the toilet, the toilet will have shit in it right?

I really don&#39;t care how many scientists say global warming is not an issue. Scientist NEVER agree on everything, it is there job to be objective - even to the point of refuting the irrefutable.

Remember 80 years ago it was generally thought in the scientific community that smoking was good for you. I&#39;m sure there are still scientists who belive that smoking is not harmful - despite the fact that smokers die at a higher rate than non-smokers.

The last ice age was caused by a 9 degree drop in temperature. I&#39;m prepared to accept that such a small change can have drastic effects on the world, so even a 1 degree change is worth worrying about.

j2k4 - If the America continues with their greenhouse gas emmisions, will the US government compensate countries like Micronesia when it sinks below sea level. Will the US look after these countries? Or will it be their own problem?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Alex H@30 January 2004 - 03:31

the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC&#39;s Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.



I can&#39;t BELIVE the US (and j2k4 with it) wants to have a debate on this subject&#33; When UN want to have a debate on whether its ok to start a war with a country that supposedly has enough chemical weapons to destroy the plannet the US says "No, we have to start bombing the bastards right NOW&#33;"

You mean after 12 years. Shame that Saddam could have avoided ALL of this. The ball was always in his court. Damn shame he had to pose, build gold toilets, and let his people die for this his delusions of granduer.

I really don&#39;t care how many scientists say global warming is not an issue. Scientist NEVER agree on everything, it is there job to be objective - even to the point of refuting the irrefutable.

Why would a scientist refute the irrefutable? That would make him a religious zealot (like the flat-Earth society). Science is based on making an assertion and having external investigators reproduce your results. Your statement is nonsensical. <span style='color:red'>Scientists NEVER agree on everything? That statement is almost comical. But it seems that you feel that general scientific community finds global warming to be an issue. </span>

Remember 80 years ago it was generally thought in the scientific community that smoking was good for you. I&#39;m sure there are still scientists who belive that smoking is not harmful - despite the fact that smokers die at a higher rate than non-smokers.

So I guess 80 years from now we will laugh at those scientists who believed in global warming. Since you accept the general community when it suits you and ridicule them when they are wrong, how should we define policy, tarot cards?

The last ice age was caused by a 9 degree drop in temperature. I&#39;m prepared to accept that such a small change can have drastic effects on the world, so even a 1 degree change is worth worrying about.

Even if nobody knows whether the change is man-made or part of the natural temperature cycle.

j2k4 - If the America continues with their greenhouse gas emmisions, will the US government compensate countries like Micronesia when it sinks below sea level. Will the US look after these countries? Or will it be their own problem?

If true, much of the US will be underwater too. Better learn to swim. I had no idea that only the US emitted greenhouse gases. Anyway, we created the greenhouse gases to plug up the hole in the ozone layer ;)


Certainly, I am for treating the environment is a responsible way, but I think the "greenhouse effect" is a case of scientific hysteria. So many unknown variables and so much speculation. It is akin to the Y2K situation which wasted so much money and caused so much concern... and nothing ever happened.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes@29 January 2004 - 23:13

Certainly, I am for treating the environment is a responsible way, but I think the "greenhouse effect" is a case of scientific hysteria. So many unknown variables and so much speculation. It is akin to the Y2K situation which wasted so much money and caused so much concern... and nothing ever happened.
Hobbes, old buddy, you can say that &#39;til you&#39;re blue in the face; if you&#39;re American, any such statements are by default insincere. ;)

You are capitalist swine, even if you have no capital (like me). :P

[FatBastard]

Hobbes, l understand what you&#39;re saying here, the point is, with this issue, we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must err on the side of caution. Once a plant or animal species becomes extinct, that&#39;s it&#33; The Earth is the same, from our point of view that is. If we fuck it up we don&#39;t have another one.

We know something is happening, we know it&#39;s man made, we know it&#39;s harmful. We can argue forever about how harmful it is, or how much damage it may cause, but we mustn&#39;t let that prevent us from trying to fix it.

The Kyoto agreement did not aim to stop the production of harmful greenhouse gasses, it sought to slow down the rate of growth in their production. It allows several years for polution levels to return to the level they were when the agreement was signed. It went nowhere near far enough. One of the reasons for this was in an effort to persuade recalcitrant countries like the US and Australia, the two worst polluters per capita, to come to the table.

This isn&#39;t just about money either, there is enough of that in the world, if we can afford to send crap to Mars at billions a time we can do more for the environment. Just think what could be done with the US defence budget for just one year&#33;

[vidcc]

Once again i state my point.


I don&#39;t give two flying f**Ks if "greenhouse gas" is causing global warming or not...... EVERY COUNTRY NEEDS TO GET THIER ACT TOGETHER AND START SERIOUS CONTROLS ON THE AMOUNT OF MY AIR THEY POLUTE. NOT JUST MY AIR BUT MY CHILDREN&#39;S AS WELL.
it doesn&#39;t matter what country we are talking about and what excuse they use we all know it&#39;s cheaper to polute. So let&#39;s make the poluters worldwide pay to clean up their mess and see how quickly they change policy about poluting in the frst place.