Alarm at new climate warning - Page 4

punky · 15-02-2005, 14:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

No I'm not telling you that "no environmentalists or agencies are trying to whip the population of the world up in a mass hysteria", I'm trying to tell you that your assertion that there are "certain groups behind them who are trying to spread mass fear and panic to the public" is nonsense and I've yet to see any justification for the implication that there's some sort of world-wide conspiracy going on.

Bit of a contradiction in there as "environmentalists and agencies" surely must count as "certain groups"?

And I never said there was a conspiracy, nor did I ever say there wasn't an environmental problem coming. I merely said people are launching into scare tactics based on science that isn't proven, or scrutinised, or most crucially, enactable. At very best, it is wild guesswork.

I will not sell my car, live up a tree and eat grass for the rest of my life, based on (shaky) guess work. I require something a bit more substantial before I am going to fall in line with the doomsday-sayers

Quote:

o avoid environmental emission controls and making certain that Bush doesn't sign up to annoying things like the Kyoto protocol...

Actually, it has nothing to do with Bush. Clinton was originally against it, although Al Gore signed for it against his wishes. The Senate however refused to ratify it (nothing to do with Bush). Bush has said he opposes it, but if the Senate voted to ratify it, he'd stand by it. Kyoto is a joke. China is exempted from it, Australia opposes it (even though it produces under its quota of waste, under Kyoto Australia would profit from from trading their credits to industrial nations), as does Russia. Russia only ratified it recently as a political move to please everyone, even though chief environmental advisor to Putin was against it. Kyoto: avoiding a possible climate catastrophe by guaranteeing an economic one.

Quote:

And, again, I ask you, what will you do if it *does* happen? Say "oh, sorry, I didn't know that was going to happen, so I didn't worry about doing anything to stop polluting the planet..."?

And, please, this is *nothing* like terrorist attacks

And rather than implying there's some sort of global conspiracy and dismissing any comment about the subject, why can't you accept the fact that *ARE* no absolute facts about this, but there are things to be concerned about and the time to start doing something about it is now!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham
And this has precisely *what* to do with terrorist attacks as Punky asserts...???

You are saying we should go to extreme measures to avoid some diastrous on little more than a hunch. The same is extreme measures to fighting terrorism. Also, you claim that certain groups are trying to instill fear about a future terrorist attack, which might not happen. Environmentalists are trying to instill fear about a future climate disaster which may not happen. People are jumping to conclusions there just isn't evidence, or proven theory that a) what's happening in the world would lead to a diaster, and b) what is happening isn't anything other than completely natural.

ian@huth · 15-02-2005, 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

"Grandad, why are we living in Cambridge on Sea now?"

"Well, son, it's because I didn't give a toss when I should have..."

Although it could be "Grandad, when do we go scuba diving to look at the remains of Cambridge on Sea"

Pierre · 15-02-2005, 15:21

Quote:

Oh dear, is this the best counter argument you can come up with?

I haven't been watching *any* films. I suggest you start looking at the science of this and stop trying to dismiss reasonable arguments with glib comments.

Which ones shall I listen.

The ones that say we're warming up?

The ones that say we'll freeze up?

The ones that say that this is cyclical and cannot be prevented anyway?

The ones that say man made CO2 emissions are miniscule compared to natural ones.

The ones that say the deforestation of South America doesn't matter in terms of CO2 - Oxygen conversion becuase it is so small compared that of the oceans.

The ones that say oil is actually a replenishing resource (its true - scientists say)

When even our learned friends don't even know what fcuk is going on how are we supposed to make an informed decision.

Or should we just flip a coin?

Stuart · 15-02-2005, 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

I don't really have this huge stock of evidence global warming. I don't really believe one side more than the other, because after all, how would I know? There are experts for this sort of thing. And they are doing educated guess work, but it is still guess work. Michael Crichton used to say, in the 1800s, they guessed that the air would be too polluted because of the amount of horses and their waste products. Of course they never envisioned the motor car.

As you requested, I did find these:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...346489,00.html
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp...3326&sec=world

If you notice virtually all the doom-saying about global warming, is "may.." and "might..." hardly convincing, as it shows they don't know for sure.

It is just too early to get hysterical about it.

I think the main problem (as neatly illustrated by punky's post above) is that we only have a few hundred years of weather data to model on. A few hundred years is a lot, but it's not an awful lot compared to the age of the planet. It's entirely possible that what's happening at the moment is just a natural variation in climate.

As with Punky, however, I don't know enough to say for sure (but, TBH, I don't believe anyone else on this planet does either).

**Maggy** · 15-02-2005, 15:32

The truth is I can See Graham's point but I can also see Pierre's point as well.

Yes we need to be less heavy polluters but which of the many 'theories' are we to go with.

We can't manage/afford all of them unless we drastically ALL change our lifestyles and jobs.Everything is so interdependant that I suspect that even if we could give up and change everything we can we won't be able to operate at any technological level.

The choices may well come down to we just need less people or we live like stone age man.

ian@huth · 15-02-2005, 15:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by scastle

I think the main problem (as neatly illustrated by punky's post above) is that we only have a few hundred years of weather data to model on. A few hundred years is a lot, but it's not an awful lot compared to the age of the planet. It's entirely possible that what's happening at the moment is just a natural variation in climate.

As with Punky, however, I don't know enough to say for sure (but, TBH, I don't believe anyone else on this planet does either).

I would tend to agree, but my own senses and observations make me believe that the weather is changing with increased rapidity. It may only be cyclical variation but it had better change the other way pretty quick or I will be worried.

18-02-2005, 16:17

Update on new EVIDENCE:

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/20...gwarning.shtml

I'm not looking foward to this now

AndrewJ · 18-02-2005, 16:33

Why is the stupid USA being such a pig headed load of ****ers over this, the stupid morons don't they see they aint helping matters, true we could find this is bad research but this arrogant attitude to global warming and Kyoto Agreement is wrong.

Perhaps its time the UN laid some sanctions onto the USA.

18-02-2005, 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

Why is the stupid USA being such a pig headed load of ****ers over this, the stupid morons don't they see they aint helping matters, true we could find this is bad research but this arrogant attitude to global warming and Kyoto Agreement is wrong.

Perhaps its time the UN laid some sanctions onto the USA.

Why are you bashing at the USA? There's loads of other countries that won't bother helping

punky · 18-02-2005, 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

Why is the stupid USA being such a pig headed load of ****ers over this, the stupid morons don't they see they aint helping matters, true we could find this is bad research but this arrogant attitude to global warming and Kyoto Agreement is wrong.

Perhaps its time the UN laid some sanctions onto the USA.

Dismissing the science for a minute, and looking at the the economic situation, it would be nothing short of a financial disaster for the US as countries like China and India aren't bound by Kyoto, they can do whatever the hell they like. The US is the feeder of the world, if that country struggles, then it creates a knock on effect that hurts everyone. It isn't the world's best interests to plunge the US into a deep recession. That is why the bi-partisan senate won't approve of Kyoto. It is like saving your right leg from being chopped off, by chopping off your left.

Stuart · 18-02-2005, 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Electrolyte

Why are you bashing at the USA? There's loads of other countries that won't bother helping

Because, world wide, the US account for nearly half of the polution released into the atmosphere.

injuneer · 18-02-2005, 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by scastle

Because, world wide, the US account for nearly half of the polution released into the atmosphere.

And they only represent just over 5 % of the world population. Imagine if we all created the same amount of pollution !! Nature will sort it out (and us !!) if we don't become a little less humble, you only get one planet to live on.

AndrewJ · 18-02-2005, 20:27

Either way the fuels we burn the cars we drive the technology we use for transport making plastics and paints etc are so outdated its unreal, if we speant the same cash that goes into the improvement of fossil fuels and other primitive resources we could likely improve our technology ten times quicker but because the fuels and engines and everything else even though dirty and harming this planet are a quicker money earner...we leave it be.

All business and no thinking, money is okay but when there is only ice as the stuff you walk on, and the Earth is killing us off, Oil money wont save you then.