 |
I'll take my chances with the rising of the seas around NY... I doubt I'm going to be swimming down Broadway any time soon, barring a major water-main break.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
As for your book... we Conservatives are already perfect. We don't need no stinkin' book.
Elliot
China and India have opted for a voluntary scheme where a percentage of energy will come from renewables. That doesn't put the brakes on emissions, it just directs effortsQuote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Even the BBC has gotten skeptical. Is there hope for mankind yet?
Got to love that scientific consensus now.Quote:
What happened to global warming?
By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
You sure do think highly of yourself. Im sure the bible says it's a sin to think your perfect, if not I'll just misinterpret the bible to fit my point. I need some Republican help though. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
One thing science hates to do is say we are wrong, I don't place my faith in the media to give me hope, if I did I would be in despair.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Only 50 days to save the world from global warming according to British PM Gordon Brown:
I guess he doesn't watch BBC.Quote:
Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse".
He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was "no plan B".
This whole global warming from co2 thing has become an article of faith. You have the true believers, the fanatic fundamentalists, the skeptics (agnostics) and the athiests. Brown is among the fundamentalists as was was his predecessor.
Evening all
Firstly PLEASE PLEASE Do not think PM Gordon Brown is British, we have disowned him! He is Scottish and will stay that way
He is about to loose the next General Election and is looking for a Save the World Campaign - he has lost the plot
Talking about Scientists claiming this or the other
In the 80s, PM Margaret Thatcher wanted the science of global warming to proved or disproved
SO the givernment requested a team of people to look at this, and funnily enough they were promised grants if they proved it was an effect
Low and behold, they all came back with an opinon that Global Warming was occurring and it was man made
This was one of the Great Lady's ideas to start a new bsuiness for the country, especially at a time when we losing some of our industries due to foreign markets and needed jobs to be created in new fields
So I am afraid most of us brits do look at the scientific approach with a lot of salt
However, this is in noway supporting elliot idea that we should just forget everything just because the warming and cooling of the planet is a natural cycle
Who here wants to work in a town or city that is full of smog
Who here wants to have their children being brought up with high amounts of pollutants in the air that cause respiratory conditions
If the simple fact remains, that burning and consuming fossil fuels produce smog then why should we continue to do so especially when alternatives on the market exist to provide us with clean affordable and more importantly renewable energy
ElliotPlease mate, yet again we are back to a "Im all right jack" attitude, when will you realise there are 6bn people here, in 2040 this is expected to be 9bnQuote:
I'll take my chances with the rising of the seas around NY... I doubt I'm going to be swimming down Broadway any time soon, barring a major water-main break
Fossil fuels have a shelf life
We need to change the way we produce energy for starters, as the world cannot feed itself at the moment let alone adding more to the dinner table
Duly noted and understood.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
I think you'll find quite a few of us were fans of the Great Lady. Oh that we could find a couple more like her and counterpart over here at the time.Quote:
This was one of the Great Lady's ideas to start a new bsuiness for the country, especially at a time when we losing some of our industries due to foreign markets and needed jobs to be created in new fields
Don't let the things said about us here fool you into believing we're for trashing the planet or against alternative energy sources. I'm just against this sham that is the global warming 'consensus.'Quote:
Who here wants to work in a town or city that is full of smog
Who here wants to have their children being brought up with high amounts of pollutants in the air that cause respiratory conditions
If the simple fact remains, that burning and consuming fossil fuels produce smog then why should we continue to do so especially when alternatives on the market exist to provide us with clean affordable and more importantly renewable energy
Steve (also)
Eveing Steve
Thank you on the Gordon Brown thing - lost cause I'm afraid :)
Magaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, yes please, she really dug us out of a very large pit, and they way she would just say no to every politician (british or european) and state, "I am going to do it like this, you can follow if you like" was genius
I must say though, what I love about forums like this, is you get to understand what another countries poeples really think without being told via news etc
The news portrays the US as a oil crazed country where the idea of recycling is poo pooed, and yet I have found that it is not like that, purely the effect of previous generations on the next, so I do see your point of view.
Basically if I wanted to be lied to I would speak to my teenage kids, politicians have a resposnibilty to be honest, like that will ever happen
Yes you guys have been trying to get rid of those pesky scots for centuries, but you do like Labor politicians, why I can't understandQuote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
So now global warming is mad Margaret's fault, you do draw a long bow to suggest she could have that much influence on a modern world. Margaret's legacy is to cause a hole in the ozone layer by taking war to the south Atlantic. By the way my suggestion is about as equally plausible as yours.Quote:
Talking about Scientists claiming this or the other
In the 80s, PM Margaret Thatcher wanted the science of global warming to proved or disproved
SO the givernment requested a team of people to look at this, and funnily enough they were promised grants if they proved it was an effect
Low and behold, they all came back with an opinon that Global Warming was occurring and it was man made
This was one of the Great Lady's ideas to start a new bsuiness for the country, especially at a time when we losing some of our industries due to foreign markets and needed jobs to be created in new fields
I think there is actually more factual support for the idea that warming/cooling is a natural cycle that we have yet to discern. This has nothing to do with the desirability of continuing the use of fossil fuels. Our availability of fossil fuels is finite and unfortunately concentrated in parts of the world where they could become very expensive. Each nation needs to exploit its natural resources without the interference of the international community, so Britian/Europe has an abundance of wind, it makes good sense to use this resource, but without forcing the rest of the world to comply because it makes you uncompetitive. Australia has an abundance of sun/uranium/coal it makes good sense to use this resource even it it gives us competitive advantage, other nations have a different mix, but fixation on co2 is paranoia.Quote:
So I am afraid most of us brits do look at the scientific approach with a lot of salt
However, this is in noway supporting elliot idea that we should just forget everything just because the warming and cooling of the planet is a natural cycle
Who here wants to work in a town or city that is full of smog
Who here wants to have their children being brought up with high amounts of pollutants in the air that cause respiratory conditions
If the simple fact remains, that burning and consuming fossil fuels produce smog then why should we continue to do so especially when alternatives on the market exist to provide us with clean affordable and more importantly renewable energy
I agree that fossil fuels have a shelf life, but you won't change the attitude of people like Elliot who have failed to realise the US has entered the decline phase of their particular empire. The world can feed itsself and even for 9 Billion but we have to get the distribution right. This is the problem, we can produce food but to distribute it properly we have to get a lot smarter, like stop subsidising surpluses in Europe and the US. We need to teach Africa to feed itself and stem the migration of people who need economic development.Quote:
Elliot
Please mate, yet again we are back to a "Im all right jack" attitude, when will you realise there are 6bn people here, in 2040 this is expected to be 9bn
Fossil fuels have a shelf life
We need to change the way we produce energy for starters, as the world cannot feed itself at the moment let alone adding more to the dinner table
Right now the jury is still out on the greenhouse gas debate, but it isn't out on the fact that serious climatic changes are taking place, particularly at the poles. I think there is an arrogance that says we can influence that either way and the exploiters have found anew way to control and exploit us.
Phlanx,
I want to make my position clear.
I'm not in favor of polluting. I just don't think that it is causing global warming. There are very good reasons not to pollute the planet without having to resort to mythology and junk science.
I'm in favor of finding alternative fuels... if for no other reason than energy independence from foreign bodies that do not have our best interests at heart.
I'm in favor of ecological protection, if only so that the next generation can hunt, fish, and log as much as we can today.
I'm in favor of lowering emmissions where feasible and financially sound to do so, if only because of the health concerns from people who suffer from asthma and similar disorders.
But please don't tell me that the reason that I need to do this stuff is because of global warming when all the evidence points to a cooling trend and not a warming one. Please don't tell me that man-made pollution is changing the weather globally when all evidence points to the fact that the weather trends we are seeing are cyclical and have been going on for THOUSANDS of years... long before mankind was in the picture.
There are some very good reasons to be environmentally conscious... but global warming ISN'T one of them. And I resent those (like AlGore) who try to insult my intelligence on this issue with "Chicken Little" cries of "The sky is falling" when the sky is doing just fine, thanks.
Elliot
Hi Elliot
Well well, again we agree on a point :)
However, we are back with politicians again aren't we :)
Do you think, that it is a case of hope and fear
They breathe fear by stating the sky is falling, and spread hope through intervention
So their argument is based on the game they play of wanting to be re-elected?
Steve you know that it is all a game, a game of my statistics are better than your statistics. Do the planet warming statistics of recent years suggest it might be? What statistics? Well the area of sea ice in the arctic, the retreat of glaciers. Some statistics suggest it is cooling, what statistics? Try the level of snow fall in Eastern Antarctica, mean average temperatures over the last thousand years. Is CO2 the problem? According to Al Gore's short term measurement there is a correlation, according to others CO2 keeps rising but temperature isn't in step and thousands of years ago CO2 was much higher but we still have polar bears. This is a political game being played on a world stage. For Europe if everyone falls in line they win and everyone buys their technology. For the US, no warming means business as usual. What I say is Bah, Humbug, In fifty years we are going to laugh at how gullible people were.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
But the sad truth is the west will be reduced to third world standards because the third world will have all the economic power
I only have one thing to say.
I was looking forward to the planet warming up. I live in Canada, the winters are cold. :(
Now they're saying it's cooling down.
That does it, I'm moving to Hawaii. :(
I'd go now, don't wait, even if some parts are warming, the long term projections are it won't stay that way, it seems we can have an ice age even if CO2 levels are more than twice what they are now, something that these fanatics just haven't explained yet. I think I'll move North too, the winters are just too cold and with it becoming more humid it's becoming too hard to takeQuote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
Clete,
An ice age can be triggered by the mass of fresh water expanding with the melting of the ice caps pucshing the bodies of sea water further south
It is within the sea water that we have the warm currents that protect us from expanding poles, so when these are pushed south, the fresh water cools quicker and an Ice Age occurs and if it is anything like the animated film, bring it on :)
Hawaii will surely be disappearing under water in a few years so buy something inland so you'll be right there for the new beach front property.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
Hello Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
See, there the thing you right wingers don't get... If you're not in favor of polluting, why not just stop polluting even if it doesn't cause global warming?? If you're right, whatever pollution is causing will stop, even if it's not global warming... Pollution IS doing something bad, no??
excon
I have no problem with just stopping pollution.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What I have a problem with is government legislating an end to emissions that AREN'T pollution for the express purpose of regulating and controlling industry. What I have a problem with is government using non-existant "global warming" as an excuse to control the economy.
When the government can create a fiction that says that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and then make laws that limit the production of carbon dioxide, there is a problem. Because carbon dioxide is DEMONSTRABLY not a pollutant, and the sole purpose of limiting its production is to control industry, not control of pollution.
So if we want to make sensible laws about controlling pollution, I can get behind that. But I'm against laws that limit the production of stuff that isn't pollution just for the sake of government power.
Elliot
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:12 PM. |