Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 92
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Quote Originally Posted by purple gelatinous cube o' Doom View Post
    Because there will always be nutjobs out there on both sides of the equation. Just 30 years ago people were freaking out saying that the next ice age was upon us. These very same people are currently the ones with the doomsday predictions of global warming.
    Exactly, which is why those particular groups are not generally worth concerning yourself with. The fact that they exist however does not mean that there is no strong evidence for the human-made climate change and that this may account for why many people are including themselves in this camp. E.g. the very large majority of climatologists and environmental scientists (who are not a group of people known for their wild flights or overdramatic fancy).
    Now, with more people on the planet, the temperature will naturally increase, as it does with the case of more urban areas. My view on the subject is as follows. Can we say that global warming exists? The answer to that is no. Can we say that global cooling exists? The answer to that is also no.
    Can we say though that we are experiencing a period of significant climate change? Yes and you'll have a very hard time finding actual climate scientists who say we're not. The evidence for it is completely overwhelming (temperature recordings, increased hurricane activty, shifting ocean currents, receeding glaciers and melting icecaps, most notably in antarctica, to name a few).

    The thing many people seem to fail to realize is that the temperature of the earth is cyclical. But, while the global cooling experts see the evidence and say that it's only anecdotal, many global warming theorists take it as fact.
    Firstly, cyclical climate change has to have a trigger. Saying change is 'cyclical' is all well and good (and not innaccurate) but it can give a misleading impression that it does this by itself without anything to 'get the ball rolling' as it were. This is simply not the case. As I explained in my last post the only factor that could probably account for the initial trigger is humanity, as there hasn't been any increased output from the sun nor any significant volcanic activity that could account for what we're seeing now.

    Second point, what 'global cooling experts'? Who on earth is proposing this global cooling theory, outside of the non-scientific fringe? It certainly doesn't figure in scientific circles.

    Now why is this? I believe is because many of the global warming people likely have agendas they want to push, while the people on the flip side of the coin seemingly do not.
    Erm, what? So the vast majority of climate scientists are all in on this 'agenda' too? Even the ones who were sceptical of it when it first put forward and who were only subsequently convinced? (and there's a lot of them)
    Even the scientists on 'the flip side of the coin' accept that it's happening, and are simply claiming that human action is not main factor. And they are a minority. If you look outside the scientific community then you are going to find agendas on both sides without any real difficulty.

    Now, with the aforementioned book I'm reading (Cool It), the author states that global warming is indeed happening. For the purpose of reading the book, I am looking at things from that perspective while I read it. Why am I doing this? Because it makes all the suggestions and data in the book work.
    But do you personally think that global warming is occuring? Because it sounds to me very much like you don't. If that is the case, I'm rather curious as to why.
    It also goes to prove that if this guy can amass this information, and see things for what they really are, and what we should be spending billions less on, to do more good, why can't the leaders of the world realize these things too.
    Okay, that's some incredibly loaded language here. 'See things for what they really are'? That's a dangerous statement to use here, as it implies there's some obvious objective truth here that you are presumabley able to see but which the scientific community is somehow unable to.

    As to 'why the leaders of the world can't' bear in mind that Lomborg respresents a small minority opinion amongst climate scientists (the overwhelming consensus amongst whom is that human pollution is a major factor, if not the principle one, in climate change). From a policy-maker's standpoint, particularly if they're concerned that this could have negative consequences, it makes sense to go with the consensus view, particularly as pretty much every scientific advisor you've relied upon for this will be holding it. Even for a non-policy maker it is a still a logical choice to go with the consensus (it's what I and I suspect several other people in this thread did).

    There's also the risk-management issue. If Lomborg's hypothesis is wrong (and bear in mind the significant majority of climate scientists are saying it is) then if left unchecked this could have very major negative effects, possibly even catastrophic in a worst-case scenario. Even outside of one though, unless action is taken quickly any effects to the climate will be irreversible so if something is to be done about it it should be done swiftly.
    Now, it Lomborg is right and the effects are too minor to cause worry then it is not a complete waste. Many of the measures put in place are designed to reduce energy consumption and pollution, both of which will also have enviromental benefits. Furthermore, it's not as if we're stopping cancer research or international aid to pursue this. There may be wastage but that itself it nowhere a collosal downside, particularly when taking into account most of the models of the effects of unchecked climate change (which, once again, have rather more academic weight behind them than Lomborg's hypothesis)

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Precautionary principle.

    Like with the ozone hole- yes, the initial treaty wasn't very helpful as written, but it was a starting point, to set the ball rolling.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Banned
     
    Simanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Quote Originally Posted by purple gelatinous cube o' Doom View Post
    See, you just hit the nail on the head. Capitalism and wealth will go a long ways to curing what Serpentine mentioned. If the world concentrated on things like eradicating Malaria, and getting developing and third world nations' infrastructure up to the rest of the world it will help leaps and bounds. When you actually keep people from dying from communicable diseases that a definitely preventable, you obviously have more healthy people. Why more people living, the wealth of a nation should naturally increase once the money is spent to update the infrastructure. Once you have good infrastructure, you no longer have the need of as many factories, and the like, which in turn decreases pollution a whole heck of a lot.

    @ serpentine, I see that now, but I read it as what impact does/will CO2 have on oceans.

    Oh, a little off tangent from the last point. I'd like to point out that more people(and animals) actually die from cold related deaths than they do heat related deaths by a factor of 5. (I think, I'll check that and change it if it's wrong.)
    It's amazing how people can fit the word Capitalism in anything...

    BTW, is the Ozone layer fixed now? Hmm, I just get this feeling CO2 regulations is a big corporation decoy so they can keep polluting with all the other dangerous (outlawed) stuff they do. While saying that they reduced CO2 emissions they hide their true pollution.
    Last edited by Simanos; 2009-01-18 at 09:11 AM.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Serpentine's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Adrift in a sea of woe.
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Quote Originally Posted by Simanos View Post
    It's amazing how people can fit the word Capitalism in anything...
    Now that I think about it, it sounds pretty defensive, hey? It's not as though anyone's gone "Socialism is the answer!"

    edit: I don't know whether the ozone hole is completely healed, but it's definitely vastly improved. One of the true great victories of environmentalism...
    Last edited by Serpentine; 2009-01-18 at 09:17 AM.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Banned
     
    Simanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Quote Originally Posted by Serpentine View Post
    Now that I think about it, it sounds pretty defensive, hey? It's not as though anyone's gone "Socialism is the answer!"

    edit: I don't know whether the ozone hole is completely healed, but it's definitely vastly improved. One of the true great victories of environmentalism...
    I think it is because people in USA are as brainwashed to believe Capitalism is the "answer" as people in the USSR were* brainwashed to believe Socialism is the "answer", when it's obvious the "answer" is Humanism
    *=obviously now they aren't any more
    (I'm not totally serious about what I just said, feeling humourous a bit.)

    Got any links about the Ozone being "fixed"? I'm asking honestly, not being a smartass.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Moff Chumley's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    mother of all saints

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    I'm not positive, but I think that the argument "Global climate change is insignificant/nonexistent because there are dying people in Africa" is a tad fallacious. I don't think anyone's denying that the world's governments/people should be doing more to help that. However, it doesn't make Climate Change any more insignificant.
    Avatar by Kris on a Stick

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    if anything, it may lead to "significantly more dying people in any marginal area" what with desertification, heat waves (which pose most threat to the poor) disease, etc.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Quote Originally Posted by Simanos View Post
    It's amazing how people can fit the word Capitalism in anything...

    BTW, is the Ozone layer fixed now?
    No, but it's getting there now.

    Hmm, I just get this feeling CO2 regulations is a big corporation decoy so they can keep polluting with all the other dangerous (outlawed) stuff they do. While saying that they reduced CO2 emissions they hide their true pollution.
    I think this might be a bit of a stretch here. Corporations and businesses simply follow the path of most profit. Opposition to enviromental regulations is there because it means they lose money, not because they just love to destroy ecosystems. There was, and to a fair extent still is, an awful lot of cororate opposition to CO2 regulations because this impacted on industrial output.
    However, as public concern for the environment has grown there has been some move on the part of companies due to the negative publicity and consumer ill-will being considered part of the problem creates. Whether it'll be enough to motivate the necessary changes without some kind of other financial enticement remains to be seen though.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    purple gelatinous cube o' Doom's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    on a cosmic wagon train
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Pyrian, The two sides of the coin I refer to are global warming and global cooling. As it doesn't pertain to this discussion I won't go into it, but I can't stand the notion the Big Bad Evil Oil is to blame for everything.

    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Serpentine View Post
    This is an odd thing to say. Can you give me any data that says that this is so, and can account for all the weird climate stuff going on? Furthermore, you state this so dismissively, as though it's just a minor thing if humans are significantly effecting global temperatures through our mere presence, not a big deal and not something we have to worry about or deal with.
    I don't think the fact that CO2 increases the earth's temperature is under debate. That being said, more people in the world means more CO2 in the atmosphere. And I did not say that it was a significant affect on temperature, but it does have some impact, so far it has been seen to be quite small, but it is an impact nevertheless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serpentine View Post
    I think you'll find that climatologists are well aware of the history of the world's climate, and its cycles. I also think you'll find that almost no experts are surprised by events apparently contradictory to the term "global warming" - a term that, I think, is largely defunct nowadays. Earth is getting warmer over all. It is actually perfectly within the models of rapid climate change for some places to cool, rather than heat - something to do with changes in ocean currents, which were predicted and we are already seeing.
    I'm not saying that climatologists aren't aware of it, but I'd be willing to be there a a LOT of ordinary people out there that don't know that information. Now, while there are changes with ocean currents (the most brought up one being the Gulf Stream), some seem to think Greenland will melt so much as to dump so much fresh water into the Northern Atlantic that it will halt the current all together. This is nowhere near true as the most realistic worst case scenario models have the Gulf Stream at a reduction of 50% in the next century if nothing is done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serpentine View Post
    What, I wonder, is your definition of a "global cooling expert" as opposed to a "global warming theorist"? There's some seriously loaded language right there. I'd like to see you give me examples of some "experts" that are more reliable than the "theorists" due solely to the quality of their science and data collection and analysis, rather than the fact that they are attacking a "popular" scientific theory.
    That's actually just me being me. I can't stand using the same word twice in one sentence, it's being redundant and I abhor it, especially when they're so close together.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serpentine View Post
    This is just absurd. What Pyrian said, and furthermore there are innumerable scientists, specifically in climatology and also in others such as marine biology, who are not only using global climate change as a basic fact but who are also gathering ample evidence to support it. Almost all the government reactions have, at least initially, been negative, especially among the oil-reliant nations. Science has had to push to get even as much action as there has been. Exactly what benefit are rapid climate change experts going to get from this?! Another grant for a few more years?
    I am certainly not referring to scientists when talking about agendas. Usually it's more the political arena that this takes place, and as such I really can't comment on it here.

    Tell me, just what are the qualifications and the background of this marvelous author?
    On a previous post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Serpentine View Post
    The only - only - way to save the coral reefs of the world is to reduce CO2, and I have absolutely no doubt that there are numerous other benefits to doing this, quite apart from the (extremely well-documented) global climate change. Never mind, though, it's all just a big conspiracy, pickin' on the poor li'l oil companies, and far too much effort
    [

    I seem to be thinking much bigger picture than you on this. Not to say it isn't important, but there's a lot more to the global warming issue than coral reefs. Most of what I've been saying is to the effect of a global scale.

    As to the qualifications of Lomborg. he has backgrounds is political science, business and environmentalism. He was the former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. He's written several very well received book about the global warming issue. The thing you have to realize about him is that, he comes at the issue at more of an economic point of view. His major points boil down to that by focusing on the social issues that need attention in the world, it will cost far less, and have far greater success in dealing with global warming than anything that we're doing right now. But my advice to you on him is not to just take my word for it. Go get one, or both of his books from you library or bookstore, read them, and see what you think of them for yourself. You seem to be against a lot of the information I've recited that I've read without seeing that information for yourself.


    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Silver View Post
    Can we say though that we are experiencing a period of significant climate change? Yes and you'll have a very hard time finding actual climate scientists who say we're not. The evidence for it is completely overwhelming (temperature recordings, increased hurricane activty, shifting ocean currents, receeding glaciers and melting icecaps, most notably in antarctica, to name a few).
    While the melting of Antarctica will indeed have an impact on ocean levels, it hasn't been proven whether or not the continent has major melting occurring. I believe there's some data that the exact opposite is happening, and that the ice cover in the region is increasing. Along those lines, if all the ice of the polar ice cap were to melt, it would not raise the ocean levels one bit. Why might you ask? Well, the ice up there is not an anchored land mass, it's just a giant hunk of floating ice. And exactly like an ice cube, it displaces the amount of water relative to it's size.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Silver View Post
    Firstly, cyclical climate change has to have a trigger. Saying change is 'cyclical' is all well and good (and not innaccurate) but it can give a misleading impression that it does this by itself without anything to 'get the ball rolling' as it were. This is simply not the case. As I explained in my last post the only factor that could probably account for the initial trigger is humanity, as there hasn't been any increased output from the sun nor any significant volcanic activity that could account for what we're seeing now.

    Second point, what 'global cooling experts'? Who on earth is proposing this global cooling theory, outside of the non-scientific fringe? It certainly doesn't figure in scientific circles.
    How can you say that the cyclical nature of the temperature of the earth is soley due/started to human interaction. As I recall, the last ice age was due to environmental factors (granted that factor was a large meteor hitting the planet but still...) All you have to do is look at tree rings. You'll see sections with thick white rings, thin white rings. thick black rings and thin black rings, that have actually proven the cyclical nature of the Earth's temperature. I personally do not think that humans have any impact on the temperature swings of the planet. Can we affect what the current temperature is yet, but I think that it's more environmental factors that affect the cycles (now I don't currently have anything to back that up, that's just my thoughts). Ok, global cooling is not "fringe science", and is actually a widely accepted theory, just as much so as global warming in many scientific circles. So please don't tell me that it's just a bunch of crackpots that have thought the idea up.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Silver View Post
    Erm, what? So the vast majority of climate scientists are all in on this 'agenda' too? Even the ones who were sceptical of it when it first put forward and who were only subsequently convinced? (and there's a lot of them)
    Even the scientists on 'the flip side of the coin' accept that it's happening, and are simply claiming that human action is not main factor. And they are a minority. If you look outside the scientific community then you are going to find agendas on both sides without any real difficulty.
    Again, I reiterate that it's not the scientists that have agendas, that lies more with the politicians and the special interest groups than anything else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Silver View Post
    But do you personally think that global warming is occuring? Because it sounds to me very much like you don't. If that is the case, I'm rather curious as to why.
    I personally don't think you can say either way whether it is or not. Much of the evidence they've found out for either warming or cooling is anecdotal, and many models have been planned out and run through with many different factors involved. Again, it comes back to the cyclical nature of the Earth's temperature. There will be warmer periods, and colder periods. The thing I have issues with is that there are a select few, who publish stuff with the completely worst case scenarios. These are then the ones that get major worldwide press, and are broadcast on CNN, and many major news outlets all over the world. The fact the people are stupid now comes into play, as many see and/or read this information and take it as complete fact without a second thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Silver View Post
    Okay, that's some incredibly loaded language here. 'See things for what they really are'? That's a dangerous statement to use here, as it implies there's some obvious objective truth here that you are presumabley able to see but which the scientific community is somehow unable to.

    As to 'why the leaders of the world can't' bear in mind that Lomborg respresents a small minority opinion amongst climate scientists (the overwhelming consensus amongst whom is that human pollution is a major factor, if not the principle one, in climate change). From a policy-maker's standpoint, particularly if they're concerned that this could have negative consequences, it makes sense to go with the consensus view, particularly as pretty much every scientific advisor you've relied upon for this will be holding it. Even for a non-policy maker it is a still a logical choice to go with the consensus (it's what I and I suspect several other people in this thread did).

    There's also the risk-management issue. If Lomborg's hypothesis is wrong (and bear in mind the significant majority of climate scientists are saying it is) then if left unchecked this could have very major negative effects, possibly even catastrophic in a worst-case scenario. Even outside of one though, unless action is taken quickly any effects to the climate will be irreversible so if something is to be done about it it should be done swiftly.
    Now, it Lomborg is right and the effects are too minor to cause worry then it is not a complete waste. Many of the measures put in place are designed to reduce energy consumption and pollution, both of which will also have enviromental benefits. Furthermore, it's not as if we're stopping cancer research or international aid to pursue this. There may be wastage but that itself it nowhere a collosal downside, particularly when taking into account most of the models of the effects of unchecked climate change (which, once again, have rather more academic weight behind them than Lomborg's hypothesis)
    Ok, first, if you're going to bash the guy, at least read his stuff and see what you think, I can't stand people who are willing to put something down when the guy has clearly done his research on the subject, especially when he has facts to back up everything he says (out of the 260 pages of the book, only 160 or so is the actual book, the rest of it is all the material citations from his research and notes). One of the most telling things in the book is this. He asked a panel of top world economists to make a global priority list of pressing issues we have globally. He then did the same thing with a wide range of UN ambassadors, and the two lists were almost identical. They categorized the list items from very good opportunities to do much good to very poor. On both lists, climate was at the very bottom. Yet, the Chancellor of Germany, along with many other heads of state keep preaching that Kyoto is the best answer, when this is just not true. And you're telling me that the powers at be do know this stuff, and are listening to it? That's a bunch of hooey and you know it. Example: The data states that for every dollar spent on Kyoto, you get about 30 cents worth of good out of it. Even if it were to work perfectly, that plan would only delay the affects about 5 years (the world currently spends over a trillion dollars on Kyoto each year). Now, if we invest $27 into AIDS prevention, it will save over 28 million lives, or by investing $12 billion into curing malnutrition, it would cut the deaths due to such by over half. Lomborg's whole point is not leaving the climate issue unchecked, it is that by spending that money more wisely, we can help the world with it's problems, and climate at the very same time, much faster, and more economically that what is being done now. In the future, please don't dismiss someone who's actually gone out and done his homework on this issue. That REALLY REALLY ANNOYS ME. Now, you don't have to agree with everything he says, but don't just dismiss it offhand. I for one, don't like that he focuses so much on CO2 emissions, as there's more to the issue than that.
    Grinning Purple Gelatinous Cube avatar courtesy of Lord_Herman
    Attacking Cube courtesy of Sampi
    Current avatar courtesy of Rutskarn

    My GiTP stuff
    Spoiler
    Show
    DM
    Currently none

    Player
    currently none

    Creations:
    Fimbulwight

    I have my own RB thread right here.





    Come and join in the newly minted Fictional Character Contest

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    The Neoclassic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Quote Originally Posted by purple gelatinous cube o' Doom View Post
    Ok, global cooling is not "fringe science", and is actually a widely accepted theory, just as much so as global warming in many scientific circles. So please don't tell me that it's just a bunch of crackpots that have thought the idea up.
    I'm only commenting on the parts here that I really have something to say about, as arguing over things which I am less ideally informed about wastes time. Without further ado:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Global cooling
    This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.
    Since I know wikipedia is not a valid scientific source, below are some articles it cited when making the above assertation which should be up to snuff:


    The first outlines the scientific consensus for global warming rather than global cooling. The second was cited for this quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.
    The third article addresses how the importance of greenhouse gases was underestimated in global cooling reports from the 1970s. But, like Reading Rainbow, don't take my word for it!

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Banned
     
    Player_Zero's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Nottingham, England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    So... Is Rawhide on holiday then? Seems to me this is pretty political.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Moff Chumley's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    mother of all saints

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Under the circumstances, it could be far worse.
    Avatar by Kris on a Stick

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    purple gelatinous cube o' Doom's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    on a cosmic wagon train
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    yeah, I think it would be wise for myself to stop posting in this thread, or something not good will likely happen. I'm willing to entertain any and all discussion in PM's or email.
    Grinning Purple Gelatinous Cube avatar courtesy of Lord_Herman
    Attacking Cube courtesy of Sampi
    Current avatar courtesy of Rutskarn

    My GiTP stuff
    Spoiler
    Show
    DM
    Currently none

    Player
    currently none

    Creations:
    Fimbulwight

    I have my own RB thread right here.





    Come and join in the newly minted Fictional Character Contest

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Given that Industrial Revolution Coal burning is probably the first major contributor, it is relevant.

    I am hoping it stays on the Science side of discussion, maybe more sources?

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    I know PGC has withdrawn, but I feel I should answer his points here if only the benefit of anyone else reading it.

    Quote Originally Posted by purple gelatinous cube o' Doom View Post
    While the melting of Antarctica will indeed have an impact on ocean levels, it hasn't been proven whether or not the continent has major melting occurring. I believe there's some data that the exact opposite is happening, and that the ice cover in the region is increasing. Along those lines, if all the ice of the polar ice cap were to melt, it would not raise the ocean levels one bit. Why might you ask? Well, the ice up there is not an anchored land mass, it's just a giant hunk of floating ice. And exactly like an ice cube, it displaces the amount of water relative to it's size.
    What have ocean levels got to do with this? We aren't currently observing rising ocean levels, no one has said we are. Where you got that from I don't know. For the record though, while the melting of the Arctic icecpa wouldn't effect sea levels the melting of Antarctica would, as that is an anchored landmass. Greenland is similar. All of them would however have an impact on ocean currents regardless.

    As to whether the icecaps are melting the answer is a quite definite yes. There is no data that they're increasing or anything of the kind. Both the arctic and antarctic ice sheets have been observed shrinking and breaking apart over the last few years. The ice covering Greenland is also melting at increasing rate. There is simply no disputing that, you can see it with your own eyes.



    How can you say that the cyclical nature of the temperature of the earth is soley due/started to human interaction. As I recall, the last ice age was due to environmental factors (granted that factor was a large meteor hitting the planet but still...)
    I have said that environmental factors were responsible for triggering the cyclical changes not once but twice already. The crucial difference this time is that no enviromental factors that could cause the current change in climate we are experiencing. There simply hasn't been any enviromental factors (e.g. Volcanic activity, solar forcing) that can explain why the climate is currently undergoing such change. Human activity is the only observable influence that could trigger such a change so it logically follows that human activity is probably the root cause.

    Can we affect what the current temperature is yet, but I think that it's more environmental factors that affect the cycles (now I don't currently have anything to back that up, that's just my thoughts).
    Unsupported opinion has no place in a scientific discussion (which is what this is). If you can't back it up then we have no reason to give it any consideration.

    Ok, global cooling is not "fringe science", and is actually a widely accepted theory, just as much so as global warming in many scientific circles. So please don't tell me that it's just a bunch of crackpots that have thought the idea up.
    Queenfange has already dealt with this. Global cooling has never, at any point, had significant scientific backing. It has never been even remotely comparible to Global Warming which, all enviromental scientists agree is happening (the only area of debate being to what extent it is the result of human action).


    Again, I reiterate that it's not the scientists that have agendas, that lies more with the politicians and the special interest groups than anything else.
    But all climate scientists aggree that we are currently experience a period of global warming and the vast majority of the scientific community is arguing that this is a result of human actions. This is the reason why so many politicians hold this same view. The fact that alarmist groups make exagerrated claims about the dangers of climate change does not change this.


    I personally don't think you can say either way whether it is or not. Much of the evidence they've found out for either warming or cooling is anecdotal,
    I'm sorry but this is just plain wrong. There is no other way to put. There is undeniably hard evidence that our planet is undergoing a period of warming. If there wasn't then there wouldn't be such a united scientific front on the matter. Science is all about evidence, no hypothesis without it can ever expect to get far in scientific circles without it (as seen in the case of global cooling, which is thoroughly discredited and never possessed any significant scientific following to begin with).
    and many models have been planned out and run through with many different factors involved.
    And all the ones based on up to date information are in agreement that climate change is taking place.
    Again, it comes back to the cyclical nature of the Earth's temperature. There will be warmer periods, and colder periods.
    See higher up this post.

    The thing I have issues with is that there are a select few, who publish stuff with the completely worst case scenarios.
    Here we are in agreement. Sensationalism and alarmist literature is never helpful. However, note that just because their claims are exagerated does not mean that human-caused climate change isn't happening. As far as the actual evidence is concerned it very probably is.



    Ok, first, if you're going to bash the guy, at least read his stuff and see what you think, I can't stand people who are willing to put something down when the guy has clearly done his research on the subject, especially when he has facts to back up everything he says (out of the 260 pages of the book, only 160 or so is the actual book, the rest of it is all the material citations from his research and notes).
    I'm not bashing him. I'm just saying that he's an ecomonist and that his views are not supported by the scientific community. I'm not saying he's definitely wrong but given that his economic claims will be based on his own non-expert opinion of the science behind you should be very careful (and exercise a lot of scepticism) in taking his word about the effects of climate change over that of actual scientists.
    One of the most telling things in the book is this. He asked a panel of top world economists to make a global priority list of pressing issues we have globally. He then did the same thing with a wide range of UN ambassadors, and the two lists were almost identical. They categorized the list items from very good opportunities to do much good to very poor. On both lists, climate was at the very bottom.
    Economists and diplomats are not scientists. You can't expect them to know all the relevent factors because in their own fields of expertise they are not going to need to know them.
    Yet, the Chancellor of Germany, along with many other heads of state keep preaching that Kyoto is the best answer, when this is just not true.
    I don't think they're preaching that Kyoto is the best answer (if anything the general consensus is that it's not enough). Nonetheless again, as they're politicians they will be making these claims on the advice of the scientists they have consulted. And since the general scientific consensus is that muan-caused global warming is really happening I'm really curious as to where your sources are for how it's 'simply not true'.

    And you're telling me that the powers at be do know this stuff, and are listening to it? That's a bunch of hooey and you know it.
    If they weren't listening to the scientific opinion they wouldn't be treating this as an issue at all.
    Example: The data states that for every dollar spent on Kyoto, you get about 30 cents worth of good out of it.
    How do you reach that conclusion? How are you defining 'good'? This is a soundbite and it really needs a lot more clarification.
    Even if it were to work perfectly, that plan would only delay the affects about 5 years (the world currently spends over a trillion dollars on Kyoto each year).
    Again this is based on Lomborg's own knowledge of climate science, a field which he is not an expert in. He's an economist.

    Now, if we invest $27 into AIDS prevention, it will save over 28 million lives,
    or by investing $12 billion into curing malnutrition, it would cut the deaths due to such by over half. Lomborg's whole point is not leaving the climate issue unchecked, it is that by spending that money more wisely, we can help the world with it's problems, and climate at the very same time, much faster, and more economically that what is being done now.
    How is this helping the climate? While both are comendable, neither has any impact on the levels of greenhouse gasses or polution in general. Again, bear in mind that we haven't stopped funding AIDs research

    In the future, please don't dismiss someone who's actually gone out and done his homework on this issue.
    I'm not dismissing it, I'm being sceptical about it. You seem to be taking him as gospel despite the fact that, once again, his view does not have the support of the scientific community all of whom have also 'done their homework' on this issue. This is probably quite closely related to the fact that he's an economist and not a scientist and isn't going to have the same level of knowledge on the subject (and won't be keeping as up to date with it) as a climate scientist would.
    Last edited by Mr.Silver; 2009-01-18 at 07:44 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    purple gelatinous cube o' Doom's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    on a cosmic wagon train
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    I didn't intend to post in this thread anymore, but found an interesting column I wanted to share. http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/i...global_wa.html
    Grinning Purple Gelatinous Cube avatar courtesy of Lord_Herman
    Attacking Cube courtesy of Sampi
    Current avatar courtesy of Rutskarn

    My GiTP stuff
    Spoiler
    Show
    DM
    Currently none

    Player
    currently none

    Creations:
    Fimbulwight

    I have my own RB thread right here.





    Come and join in the newly minted Fictional Character Contest

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/i...global_wa.html

    The earth was warmer 10 years ago than it was last year. The polar ice caps are now at their 1979/1980 levels.

    To me, this is not a sign of "global warming". This is a sign that Earth's climate is changing, as a planetary system is wan to do.

    Personally, I feel that the largest contributor to earth's temperature changes is the huge fusion furnace in the center of the system. Sunspots are an indication of increased solar output, and currently sunspot activity is very low, comparatively.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Serpentine's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Adrift in a sea of woe.
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Two and a half things about that article raise red flags to me.

    1. "Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties."
    The reason that's not so much of an issue now is all those environmentalists who pushed to have CFCs, the cause of the hole, banned. They were, and the hole has closed. That's not a matter of an issue being blown out of proportion, it's an issue being successfully dealt with.

    2. "To think, early last year, liberals suggested we spend 45 trillion dollars and give up five million jobs to fix global warming. But there is good news: now that we don't have to spend any of that money, we can give it all to the banks.

    John Tomlinson is a local conservative columnist for The Flint Journal."
    Political bitchiness and bias? In a scientific issue? Never!

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    John Tomlinson is a local conservative columnist for The Flint Journal."
    I.e. not a scientist. Nor even a science journalist. This alone is a sign to up your levels of scepticism, and the fact that he quite clearly treats this as a political issue rather than a scientific one is a serious red flag.

    The two men you're cited may well be fairly intelligent people and good at what they do but they do not have relevent experience in the field that actually matters: climate and environmental science. In fact, in that field you'll find anyone who is arguing that we are not experiencing a period of global warming/climate change. There are a few scientists and studies that argue that it's not the result of human activity, but there's very little indeed to suggest that it isn't happening at all.


    Personally, I feel that the largest contributor to earth's temperature changes is the huge fusion furnace in the center of the system. Sunspots are an indication of increased solar output, and currently sunspot activity is very low, comparatively.
    Actually, this is generally quite correct. Changes in the sun's activityt are the biggest contributer to earth's climate and there are actually a few climate scientists who are saying that this could be responisble this time around. However, the problem is that changes in solar activity do not correlate with the recent changes in temperature and climate that we've observed, which is the significant majority of climate scientists are arguing that human activity is the root cause (the second video I linked to in my first post looks over the arguements against human-caused climate change and spends a fair bit of time on this, so it's probably worth a look).
    Last edited by Mr.Silver; 2009-01-21 at 05:18 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    DigoDragon's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Quote Originally Posted by Serpentine View Post
    I don't know whether the ozone hole is completely healed, but it's definitely vastly improved. One of the true great victories of environmentalism...
    I read an article in a local newspaper a week ago that the Ozone hole won't seal up until 2030 and won't be completely healed until around 2050. Actual milage probably varies depending on who you ask.

    STILL, regardless if GW is real or not, I'm quite convinced that the everyday pollution we expel (such as car emissions, CFCs, littered plastics, etc.) is harmful to our immediate habitat and science has shown the effects from that much at least. Now if you think about it, we can consider our world a really big science experiment if we want to see the effects of all the CO2 we're expelling...
    Digo Dragon - Artist

    Quote Resume:
    Spoiler
    Show

    "For your astounding work in the field of punnery, you have been awarded one (1) internet." -Lix Lorn
    "Truly, there is nothing more terrifying than a DM with a sense of humour." -The Succubus
    "No pretty sure he thinks he's Digo Dragon." -Pinkie Pie
    "Digo, you're a liar and a scoundrel." -NeroGrimm


    Custom Avatar by me - My OC Changeling, Zeeps!

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    purple gelatinous cube o' Doom's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    on a cosmic wagon train
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Silver View Post
    I.e. not a scientist. Nor even a science journalist. This alone is a sign to up your levels of scepticism, and the fact that he quite clearly treats this as a political issue rather than a scientific one is a serious red flag.
    One, I never said he was a scientist, two I stated it was an article from the beginning. But, what is a fact is that 260 of the top climatologists think man-made global warming is a bunch of hooey. It is also a fact that the temperature worldwide has been declining for the past 10 year, and it's also a fact that Antarctica is back to the ice thickness it was almost thirty years ago. That is what I wanted to point out. The globe is cooling, there is plenty of evidence to support that. The Earth has warmed as well, but it seems obvious that this is actually not one of those times. There is also enough information to support the claim that if there is man-made global warming, it may actually be why things are not colder than they currently are.
    Grinning Purple Gelatinous Cube avatar courtesy of Lord_Herman
    Attacking Cube courtesy of Sampi
    Current avatar courtesy of Rutskarn

    My GiTP stuff
    Spoiler
    Show
    DM
    Currently none

    Player
    currently none

    Creations:
    Fimbulwight

    I have my own RB thread right here.





    Come and join in the newly minted Fictional Character Contest

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    260 of the top climatologists think man-made global warming is a bunch of hooey.

    Temperature worldwide has been declining for the past 10 years.

    Antarctic thickness is back to what it was 30 years ago.

    Sources please?

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    purple gelatinous cube o' Doom's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    on a cosmic wagon train
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    260 of the top climatologists think man-made global warming is a bunch of hooey.

    Temperature worldwide has been declining for the past 10 years.

    Antarctic thickness is back to what it was 30 years ago.

    Sources please?
    Gladly

    Climatologists


    Arctic studies I haven't actually located the exact prject, but this is the group that conducted the study.

    Temperature Trends Many more can be found by searching for global temperature trends of the last 10 years/decade into Google.
    Grinning Purple Gelatinous Cube avatar courtesy of Lord_Herman
    Attacking Cube courtesy of Sampi
    Current avatar courtesy of Rutskarn

    My GiTP stuff
    Spoiler
    Show
    DM
    Currently none

    Player
    currently none

    Creations:
    Fimbulwight

    I have my own RB thread right here.





    Come and join in the newly minted Fictional Character Contest

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    260 of the top climatologists think man-made global warming is a bunch of hooey.

    Temperature worldwide has been declining for the past 10 years.

    Antarctic thickness is back to what it was 30 years ago.

    Sources please?
    He's repeating the article he linked to earlier.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Tomlinson
    At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis.
    Unfortunately, from what my couple of hours of fact-checking indicate, the claim itself seems to be based off Tomlinson misinterepreting an article from the site Right Side News (not exactly an unbiased source in the frist place) about an umpcoming senate minority report which apparrently features comments of 650 scientists (warning: I could only find the article in pdf format).

    The article itself lacks substance, consisting mainly of supposed 'preview' soundbites from various scientists, a rather large number of whom are not climatologists. If it is an accurate excerpt from the report then I doubt it will make much headway, most of them are presented in an attempt to appeal to authority, contain no sources or citations and very little context. Significantly however, both the quotes Tomlinson uses are contained within the first two pages of said article.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Tomlinson
    Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"
    For the record, David Gee is not a climatologist. He's a Geologist (hence presumably why he was chairing a geological congress). They are not the same thing.
    On a side, Right Side News did run an article on the Congress, which did contain the quote they used in the above article but for some reason didn't actually attribute them to Dr. Gee, simply describing them as words from 'a scientist'. (the article is here, the words themselves are in the last paragraph or so).

    The quote from Dr. Kunihiko Takeda originally comes from an interview he gave with the Japan Times in July 2008 (full article here), although it is rather more trimmed down. Again It is rather relevent to note that Kunihiko's PHD is not in climatology or environmental science but in Engineering. He also happens to be a staunch anti-environmentalist.

    The comment on temperatures having peaked I don't know about. Tomlinson doesn't even attempt to source it from anything so I can't really check it. The statement about temperatures set to drop is similarly unsourced (aside from a mention of ice cores). If PGC or Alex Knight could point out which studies this is based I'll be happy to look into them.

    He did, however cite one statement.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Tomlinson
    Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.
    Here is the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center's webpage. Yeah, that's basically all I feel the need to say on this one.


    One, I never said he was a scientist, two I stated it was an article from the beginning.
    So why did you think it was worth mentioning in a discussion of science? If you don't have a scientific source then just say so. Presenting something like this as if it was on a similar level (which it very clearly is not) will subtract more from your position than add to it.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    purple gelatinous cube o' Doom's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    on a cosmic wagon train
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Mr. Silver, you can check out the links I posted since you seem to not have noticed the first two. You seem to not believe that the aforementioned climatologists say that mad-made global warming is nonexistent. Seems to me that you're calling the best in their field liars. Are you also telling me that the research of a group from an accredited university is garbage just based on their website? It sure seems like that's what you're saying.
    Grinning Purple Gelatinous Cube avatar courtesy of Lord_Herman
    Attacking Cube courtesy of Sampi
    Current avatar courtesy of Rutskarn

    My GiTP stuff
    Spoiler
    Show
    DM
    Currently none

    Player
    currently none

    Creations:
    Fimbulwight

    I have my own RB thread right here.





    Come and join in the newly minted Fictional Character Contest

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Serpentine's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Adrift in a sea of woe.
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    PGCo'D: I think I dreamt about you last night. Can't remember what about you. I don't think I was doing anything bad to you On-topic, I think he was more accusing the author of the article of mis-quoting and misrepresenting his sources.

    You know what this reminds me of? I saw a show last night (Urban Legends) Where they got the Expert Opinion of a "science expert". An expert in science.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Quote Originally Posted by purple gelatinous cube o' Doom View Post
    Mr. Silver, you can check out the links I posted since you seem to not have noticed the first two.
    You don't seem to have noticed that the first two links are, in the fact, to the same article. Moreover the pdf I linked to is the exact same article. So technically the only source of yours I haven't checked is the last one. If we do, we yet again run into the problem that they don't say why they believe differently to the majority of climatologists. They say they've done research, but they don't say into what nor cite where it is.

    You seem to not believe that the aforementioned climatologists say that mad-made global warming is nonexistent. Seems to me that you're calling the best in their field liars.
    First point, a lot of them are most emphatically not climatologists. Hell, the very first quote they use is from a physicist. It goes on to feature engineers, geologists, geophysicists etc. as I already pointed-out in my last post.

    Futhermore none of those soundbites (and that is what they are) are properly cited, in no case does it say where these quotes were said (and they weresaid somwhere, if the inclusion of Dr. Kunihika's remarks are any indication). You may say this doesn't matter, but the fact is that it very much does. These statements are extremely short and provided without context, which is more than a little troubling particularly in regards to this one:
    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs [...]
    This sent a lot of alarm bells ringing, because it looks suspiciously like a quote-mine. Note that the statement is somewhat vague in meaning. What, exactly, does Briggs find it hard to remain quiet about? The article wants to imply that he's coming out to sate on record that global warming is a myth, but as far as that soundbite goes he could just as easily have been making a fuss about Pachauri's comment. Or maybe something else altogether, we don't know because there is no direct sourcing. If the article had actually bothered to include direct sourcing, instead of just long lists of qualifications of the speaker (which looks very much like an appeal to authority) I would not have this poblem with it as I could just go and look at them.


    Second point, I'm not calling them liars. I'm saying that there is a fair chance they are wrong. There is a rather significant difference. Not least because lying in the academic is a very dangerous thing to do because if you're caught on it then the consequences are going to be serious. So no, I do not think these people are liars (okay, I will admit the thought had crossed my mind over Tomlinson, but then he's not an academic).
    Are you also telling me that the research of a group from an accredited university is garbage just based on their website? It sure seems like that's what you're saying.
    Again, you seem to be misinterpreting my intentions. The most signifcant thing about their website (in the context of this discussion) is that it starts mentioning the negative effects of global warming on the arctic in the second paragraph and continues to do throughout the rest of the entire site. The point I was making is that this is not what you would expect if these people had actually produced the same kind of undeniable evidence that global warming isn't occuring that Tomlinson claims they did. I felt no need to comment because his source blatantly contradicts his entire argument, which very strongly suggests he never actually looked-into the Center himself. I'm not saying they're garbage, quite the opposite in fact. I was saying Tomlinson makes a shoddy journalist, which by this point should be obvious to everybody.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    _Zoot_'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    The way i see it is that every now and again the media needs to find some thing to make us think that it's the end of the world, they did this with Terrorism, the hole in the ozone layer, that hole ice age thing that came before that......

    As you may have noted some of these are really threats that humanity can help fix, especially with the hole in the ozone layer thing, we helped fix what could have been a real problem. I think that Climate change has been taken to far by the media and that wile it may not be a world ending problem as some areas would have us believe, it is a problem that must be dealt with.

    But, this is my opinion and people mightn't like it, if you are one of those people, Don't hurt me.

    PS. this is not really relevant, but it is funny
    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=PzE3qcWhNDE

    WARNING!! CONTAIONS POLITICAL REFERENCES!!!
    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Solo View Post
    Smelling nice and mind control are, I fear, two completely different things.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Silver View Post
    Actually, I find your opinion perfectly reasonable. I'd be surprised if many people took issue with it.
    He's talking 'bout me!
    Quote Originally Posted by golentan View Post
    And then my father comes at me with the teapot and says "Why. So. British?"
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth View Post
    Hey, I can wait. I'm young with my entire life ahead of me. I'll dream of empires amongst the stars in worlds undreamt of if I wanna :p
    Quote Originally Posted by MasamuneSSX View Post
    There are no citizens, mind bananas. Go back to your control.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    king.com's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    Ok, before this gets locked im just oging to put something out here. Everyone seems to be having an intelligent discussion so here goes:

    One might argue that global warming is caused by man, is an actual fact, and is going to cause unparalleled damage if something is not done. I disagree but there is plenty of information to support both arguements.

    What i have to say is what do we do? What causes damages? The carbon emissions produced by factories, cars etc? If this is the case thne what do we then do? Shut down these factories? Create unemployment? Set the world on a spiral to radically change our culter, one which has been established through thousands of years of human history? Radical change is often necessary but tell me this. What if the change doesnt work (as all study of humanity would demonstrate the human resistance to change). What if there is mass unemployment, mass economic failure. Sure it may have stopped global warming but it would only have harnessed the possibilities of human problems.

    What then? Problems like these will always exist, how to we resolve them with progression? Sure a cleaner, power source would be nice but anyone with scientific data would clearly show you that the human race is the heighest emitter of carbon dioxide.

    Humanity in itself is a problem, that is our very nature. What defines us as a species is that we have overcome our past problems. Some by reacting, some by not.

    Isaac Asimov said it best "wait for the last possible moment, when only one course of action remains." It could mean the damnation of mankind or it could mean nothing. These problems mentioned previously have resolved themselves. The ozone layer (dispite what peple will tell you) has clsoed on its own, more cars were produced in the last 10 years than any in history, yet the ozone hasnt been damage?

    During the middle ages, a cold which was known as the "Dead Wind" (or something to that effect), spread across europe, freezing a continent.

    During the early 1900, temperatures were at a record high, far higher than today.

    What do we learn from this? Nothing, they passed, demonstration of a planet operating in its cycle, nothing human made, nothing caused, nothing effected.
    Many thanks to Z-axis for the great avatar.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saldre View Post
    you know whats worse than a regular Daemon-host? A Daemon-host with a Plasma Cannon.
    Quote Originally Posted by RandomLunatic
    "Eh. I do to 'Mechs what Simon does to American Idol contestants."

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

    @King.com: I don't really get what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting our best course of action is to do nothing at all, just in case we end-up making things worse (although it must be pointed out re: unemployment that we're in a reccession and it's going to be an issue no matter what we do about it) and just hope everything works it itself out?
    Regarding the Asimov quote, leaving the dubious wisdom of it aside, the problem is we can't tell when the last possible moment is going to be. We know there are going to be events which, if they occer, are going to remove any possible chance we even might have possessed of doing anything about it (e.g. if the methane trapped under the siberean ice is freed). What good is waiting for the last moment if we can only tell when that precisely is after we've passed it?

    I appologise if that wasn't your intended message, but your post seems a little vague.

    Quote Originally Posted by _Zoot_ View Post
    The way i see it is that every now and again the media needs to find some thing to make us think that it's the end of the world, they did this with Terrorism, the hole in the ozone layer, that hole ice age thing that came before that......

    As you may have noted some of these are really threats that humanity can help fix, especially with the hole in the ozone layer thing, we helped fix what could have been a real problem. I think that Climate change has been taken to far by the media and that wile it may not be a world ending problem as some areas would have us believe, it is a problem that must be dealt with.

    But, this is my opinion and people mightn't like it, if you are one of those people, Don't hurt me.
    Actually, I find your opinion perfectly reasonable. I'd be surprised if many people took issue with it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •