Is global warming bad?
- Thread starter shadeau
- Start date
Okay, so your implication is that it's INDIVIDUAL contributions which are worse for the environment than CORPORATE ones.papasmerf said:
You're wrong.
And also totally evasive. The question is, WHY IS THE US NOT INTERESTED IN KYOTO?
The answer has nothing to do with whether or not they think it's good for the environment. It's because they don't have the money for it, global warming be damned.
Fortunately, if the US ever had any moral supremacy in the world (doubtful), it's passed to others in the last half dozen years.
Ranger68 said:
Opinions vary as to right and wrong.
As for Kyoto??? I was not in the meetings that led to the decision by policy makers not to sign. I am also quite sure you were not likely in those meetings either. So as i have said in the past, opinions vary. Prehaps someone here was there and can better answer your question. Beyond that, it is suposition.
No kidding!papasmerf said:
papa, pat yourself on the back. I think in this thread you have surpassed your non-sequiturs-per-post high benchmark by a wide margin.
Drunken
In a discussion over an unproven theory, all we have are opinions. And when a person attack occurs that too is an opinion. Why is there a need to react with a counter-attack?
In a discussion over an unproven theory, all we have are opinions. And when a person attack occurs that too is an opinion. Why is there a need to react with a counter-attack?
*sigh*
Why do I even bother?
Read the protocol, then we'll talk.
While you're at it, read some scientific literature. Point me to ONE scientific study which indicates that "volcanic activity" is responsible for the current level of GHG in the atmosphere.
Keep your heads in the sand, boys.
Why do I even bother?
Read the protocol, then we'll talk.
While you're at it, read some scientific literature. Point me to ONE scientific study which indicates that "volcanic activity" is responsible for the current level of GHG in the atmosphere.
Keep your heads in the sand, boys.
bbk,
There were several volcanic eruptions in the early 1800's, culminating with a massive one at Tambora in 1815. The overall effect was to decrease worldwide temperatures due to solar deflection from the dust in the atmosphere. In North America and Europe 1816 was referred to as the year without summer. Show me a credible link that claims volcanos are causing the rise in green house gases, or the rise in world temperatures.
There were several volcanic eruptions in the early 1800's, culminating with a massive one at Tambora in 1815. The overall effect was to decrease worldwide temperatures due to solar deflection from the dust in the atmosphere. In North America and Europe 1816 was referred to as the year without summer. Show me a credible link that claims volcanos are causing the rise in green house gases, or the rise in world temperatures.
If we're arguing whether or not global warming exists and how much of it is man-made, and you say that "well, the climate would be changing anyway", you're not really contributing anything to the discussion.
Thanks, anyway, but there's an increasing volume of scientific literature which supports the theory that we are contributing to the problem of global warming.
Thanks, anyway, but there's an increasing volume of scientific literature which supports the theory that we are contributing to the problem of global warming.
Ranger,Ranger68 said:
For every study there is an opposing study. Too bad that even science is political now.
As a laymen I have no idea what to think anymore.
http://www.globalwarming.org/
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html
http://yosemite1.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateUncertainties.html
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html
http://yosemite1.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateUncertainties.html
And that is just the way the 'powers in charge' want it to be. They want you confused as to what is valid science and what is not valid science. Science is not that much political, as it is being used to promote one agenda over another that may threaten the status-quo of the existing energy cartels.langeweile said:
Junk scientists and even 'doctors' have been used for years by the tobacco industry to hide and confuse the public on the dangers of smoking. These highly paid tobacco 'scientists' just a couple years back even came up with a study saying smoking was in fact a 'healthy' habit to have for some people complete with their 'scientific reports' to support these absurd conclusions!
It won't be the first time that scientists are used to make sure the 'facts reported fit the conclusions desired' as long as they are paid handsomely enough.
globalwarming.org is a collection site - and even then, I can't find any serious science ANYWHERE - just opinion pieces
ngdc - not a sniff of any indication that GW is not HC
nationalcenter.org - ah, finally some science - unfortunately, it's got the ONE guy it all comes back to - Singer - many of the scientific studies deriding HCGW are his - he seems to be mostly a man alone these days
the EPA site is singularly neutral - neither supporting nor denying HCGW, same as ngdc
Of these four, only the one has any science to back it up. I could point to DOZENS of scientific studies supporting the view that much of current GW is HC.
The MAJORITY of scientific opinion is on one side. It's NOT the case that "for every report one way, there's another on the opposite side".
ngdc - not a sniff of any indication that GW is not HC
nationalcenter.org - ah, finally some science - unfortunately, it's got the ONE guy it all comes back to - Singer - many of the scientific studies deriding HCGW are his - he seems to be mostly a man alone these days
the EPA site is singularly neutral - neither supporting nor denying HCGW, same as ngdc
Of these four, only the one has any science to back it up. I could point to DOZENS of scientific studies supporting the view that much of current GW is HC.
The MAJORITY of scientific opinion is on one side. It's NOT the case that "for every report one way, there's another on the opposite side".
A recently released report (after the election naturally), four years in the making by over 250 scientists sponsored by 8 Arctic nations including Russsia, Canada and the US (specifically the State Department). In it they document that the Arctic is melting so fast, the polar ice cap may disappear before the end of the century. They also put the primary blame on emissions from human machines.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/08/globalwarming.reut/
But I suppose bbk will say this is just part of the normal flow of climate change. When did you say that ice age was going to happen?
On the up side, oil companies say this will make it easier to drill. You gotta love these guys.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/08/globalwarming.reut/
But I suppose bbk will say this is just part of the normal flow of climate change. When did you say that ice age was going to happen?
On the up side, oil companies say this will make it easier to drill. You gotta love these guys.
Ranger68 said:
censuring peoples post because they do not suit you arguement is detracting from your position. If you are to debate you can not resort to childish behavior.
Asterix said:
Working upon the assumption that machines are causing this, are yu willing to shut them off?????
The only reasonable response is to eliminate the cause???
How much of this has been caused by the planets reduced ability to photosynthesize??????????
Maybe the wood has been the problem for centuries.
Actually, melting tundra will make drilling more difficult. It's extremely difficult to move heavy equipment through mud, but it's a snap moving it over permafrost.Asterix said:
