[Changleen]

There is no proven causation of the effect.

There is a very strong correlation.

You cannot alter the economies of the world based upon what is far less than junk science (go back and read the posted articles).

I'm sorry but your articles, if they even purport to be 'scientific' which I really hope for the sake of journalism they don't, are some of the most 'junk' science I've ever read. Read some proper research. We DO need to change the economies of the world. Cutting down on emmisions, however, DOES NOT mean that the economy has to take a swift one in the crotch. If you thought about it for a minute you would see the many many opportunities there are for new industries, for new markets based on these new circumstances. The status quo changes over time, it's natural. Oil and steel are old industries. Their time has come. We, as a planet NEED to move on. Just because it's the agenda of your idiot-in-chief to support them way past their best before date doesn't make it the right thing to do, for the American economy or the planet.

We cannot allow a culture of conscensus to direct the world.

Pffft. Ever noticed how basically every other country in the world has signed up to Kyoto? How everyone else except the American right wing thinks its a good idea? And like Alexis said, are you willing to gamble your, and your childrens future on sticking with an outdated, polluting status quo that without or without climate change we'd be healthier as a world without anyway?

That said, I absolutely think we need to have less of an impact on the planet. Burn less fuel, produce fewer pollutants etc. But sweeping moves like the Kyoto agreement that are not based in quality science could very well have a similar effect as the environmentalists moves against the US steel industry on a global scale.

Kyoto is far from 'sweeping'. It's a sign that people are waking up to the problem.

We can't risk destroying economies on what amounts to a shake of the magic 8-ball.

Tell that to Iraq.

 

[Damn True]

You mean Democracy?

No I mean repeating a fallacy enough times that eventually people take it as fact.

By example: Sagan's "Nuclear Winter" or for that matter the world being flat. At the time anyone disagreeing with those "theories" would have been litteraly or figuratively labeled a heretic. As you are attempting to label me.

 

[Damn True]

There is a very strong correlation.

Where is your scientific method? Correlation does not prove causation.

I'm sorry but your articles, if they even purport to be 'scientific' which I really hope for the sake of journalism they don't, are some of the most 'junk' science I've ever read. Read some proper research. We DO need to change the economies of the world. Cutting down on emmisions, however, DOES NOT mean that the economy has to take a swift one in the crotch. If you thought about it for a minute you would see the many many opportunities there are for new industries, for new markets based on these new circumstances. The status quo changes over time, it's natural. Oil and steel are old industries. Their time has come. We, as a planet NEED to move on. Just because it's the agenda of your idiot-in-chief to support them way past their best before date doesn't make it the right thing to do, for the American economy or the planet.

No less so than the reports that claim to link HCFC with the Ozone hole and CO2 with Global Warming. The simple fact is that nobody knows. Nobody knows is not a good reason to make gross changes in how entire Nations work. That said, I totally agree that there is tremendous economic opportunity in doing things "clean" so to speak. But I think that a more measured, process oriented approach is the better way to go about it. The world is dramaticly cleaner than it was 20 years ago. Is that enough? Heck no. But it's a move in the right direction and I think its best to nurture that current process and encourage its development as opposed to forcing the process beyond current technologies. The Kyoto protocol's base requirement of an average 5% reduction in greenhouse gas emmisions is I think, absolutely doable, however it is my understanding (if I'm wrong please correct me with a quote from said document) that there are other requirements who's goals are not realisticly attainable within the prescribed time allocation.
And....since you brought it up, my views on the stewardship of our natural rescources are my own and often run counter to GW's and were formed long before he was in office.

Pffft. Ever noticed how basically every other country in the world has signed up to Kyoto? How everyone else except the American right wing thinks its a good idea? And like Alexis said, are you willing to gamble your, and your childrens future on sticking with an outdated, polluting status quo that without or without climate change we'd be healthier as a world without anyway?

I have repeated at least three times that I absolutely think that we need to clean up our (in a global sense) act. I don't think that giving a multinational council with agenda's that go far beyond peroflourocarbon emissions authority over our economy is the right way to do it. I will oppose any and all moves that give away control over the way things are done in this country to another. Do you want Kazakhstan to determine how things are done in NZ?
Again, Im saying that the status quo is not good enough. We absolutely need to clean things up. But, I don't think an environmental version of the UN with authority over the economies of the world working on junk science is the right way to go about it.

Tell that to Iraq.

We are in agreement. I don't think that whole deal was handled well at all. At this point we can hope though, that the end result is someday worth the cost.

 

[Damn True]

True, what I see, in all honesty, is your willingness to tow the line, no matter what.You not only have unyeilding faith in God, you have unyielding faith in the right's agenda.

Global warming doesn't fit the agenda: it's an indictment of current policy. So, you go with whatever arguments there are against it.

I'm sure you would have prayer in schools, creationism in the curriculum, and abortion doctors thrown in jail, if any of that were possible. Correct me if I'm wrong.

To me, you look like a team player. A go-down-with-the-ship team player. Unfortunately for the planet, and everything on it, there are many people that are as faithful as you.

Well thank you for your insightful examination of my psyche. However, it is clear that you failed to read or understand what I have said.

I disagree with a lot of the far-right agenda and I don't think we are doing enough to conserve natural rescources.

I would allow prayer in school to any diety the kid wishes, or to none at all if thats what he/she decides. I support freedom of religion.
I would like to have the tennants of all religions presented to children. I think one of the best ways for kids to learn to understand, honor and appreciate each other is to understand their culture. Religion is the biggest influence on the culture of most of the world. I would like it if abortion were illegal except for dire circumstances, but I would not not like to see doctors jailed for what they have done in the past. And since you are pretending to fully understand my values you should know that I support gay marriage.

My faith as it pertains to this issue however is that people are basicly good and that nobody wishes for the destruction of life on earth as we know it. We are headed in the right direction in regard to cleaning up our past mistakes and we need to accelerate the process. But an agreement based on junk science that gives authority over global economies is not the way to do it.

 

[ohio]

When you factor in the myriad other reasons for global climate change it's not clear whether human effects (burning of fossil fuels, etc) either exacerbates the trend or actually works against it.

However, what is widely accepted is that we are polluting our environment with toxins and altering the carbon balance (more CO2 in the air means the rapid growth, mutation, and evolution of photosynthetic organisms... mostly bacteria, and the converse extinction of countless aerobic organisms), which will have broad reaching affects whether or not the average tempurature changes one degree.

Combine that with the fact that we are currently very precariously balanced between an Ice Age and a Heat Age, and we really shouldn't be doing anything to mess with the global temp. But hey, if it makes you feel better about your truck and your vote, go ahead and select the articles that make you feel warm and fuzzy.

 

[ohio]

No I mean repeating a fallacy enough times that eventually people take it as fact.

You mean like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" or "condoms don't prevent AIDS" or "Kerry is a flip-flopper" or "Saddam Hussein supported Al Qaeda"

How about this: if you want to look for Chicken Littles inciting fear for political gain/influence, look no further than the terror alert system.

Of all the lies and fallacies to be fighting...

 

[Damn True]

When you factor in the myriad other reasons for global climate change it's not clear whether human effects (burning of fossil fuels, etc) either exacerbates the trend or actually works against it.

However, what is widely accepted is that we are polluting our environment with toxins and altering the carbon balance (more CO2 in the air means the rapid growth, mutation, and evolution of photosynthetic organisms... mostly bacteria, and the converse extinction of countless aerobic organisms), which will have broad reaching affects whether or not the average tempurature changes one degree.

Combine that with the fact that we are currently very precariously balanced between an Ice Age and a Heat Age, and we really shouldn't be doing anything to mess with the global temp. I agree with all of that. But hey, if it makes you feel better about your truck and your vote, go ahead and select the articles that make you feel warm and fuzzy.

Did you read any of what I said about the absolute need to clean up our collective act? BTW, I drive a Subaru.

 

[Damn True]

You mean like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" or "condoms don't prevent AIDS" or "Kerry is a flip-flopper" or "Saddam Hussein supported Al Qaeda"

How about this: if you want to look for Chicken Littles inciting fear for political gain/influence, look no further than the terror alert system.

Of all the lies and fallacies to be fighting...

Hey look! It's the Goodrich Blimp.

 

[ohio]

Did you read any of what I said about the absolute need to clean up our collective act? BTW, I drive a Subaru.

You posted 8000 words of "Global Warming is a Lie" out of your desire to clean up our collective act?

Again, I point to putting efforts into preaching that condoms don't prevent AIDS out of a desire to save lives in Africa.

I'm all for scientific accuracy, and believe using fallacies to advance a cause will most likely come back to haunt the cause, but call me crazy for thinking it worth more effort to put forth the truth than just dispute the lies and leave everyone as confused as they started.

Something about sight and forests and trees... bah, I can't remember.

 

[Damn True]

I said.....

That said, I absolutely think we need to have less of an impact on the planet. Burn less fuel, produce fewer pollutants etc. But sweeping moves like the Kyoto agreement that are not based in quality science could very well have a similar effect as the environmentalists moves against the US steel industry on a global scale. We can't risk destroying economies on what amounts to a shake of the magic 8-ball.

....and....

The simple fact is that nobody knows. Nobody knows is not a good reason to make gross changes in how entire Nations work. That said, I totally agree that there is tremendous economic opportunity in doing things "clean" so to speak. But I think that a more measured, process oriented approach is the better way to go about it. The world is dramaticly cleaner than it was 20 years ago. Is that enough? Heck no. But it's a move in the right direction and I think its best to nurture that current process and encourage its development as opposed to forcing the process beyond current technologies. The Kyoto protocol's base requirement of an average 5% reduction in greenhouse gas emmisions is I think, absolutely doable, however it is my understanding (if I'm wrong please correct me with a quote from said document) that there are other requirements who's goals are not realisticly attainable within the prescribed time allocation.

 

[ohio]

The simple fact is that nobody knows.

Bull****. It is not simple. It is not one fact. And there are many things we do know.

The simple fact is that there is one aspect of which we are uncertain, and there are dozens of facts of which we are quite certain. The facts of which we are quite certain are enough to justify change, if it weren't for the pseudo-scientists arguing on both sides over the uncertain one. It disracts people from the facts and it discounts those that can and should affect change.

 

[Damn True]

Bull****. It is not simple. It is not one fact. And there are many things we do know.

The simple fact is that there is one aspect of which we are uncertain, and there are dozens of facts of which we are quite certain. The facts of which we are quite certain are enough to justify change, if it weren't for the pseudo-scientists arguing on both sides over the uncertain one. It disracts people from the facts and it discounts those that can and should affect change.

Jeez dude, you are so intent on "proving" me wrong and you right that you are completely overlooking the fact that we are both in support of cleaning up the environment.

Same song, we are just playin in a different key.

 

[Changleen]

No I mean repeating a fallacy enough times that eventually people take it as fact.

By example: Sagan's "Nuclear Winter" or for that matter the world being flat. At the time anyone disagreeing with those "theories" would have been litteraly or figuratively labeled a heretic. As you are attempting to label me.

We're not calling you a 'heretic'. We're asking you to back up your claim that climate change has nthing to do with man by showing that despite that we know CO2 causes the greenhouse effect, the CO2 that we as humanity has released does not add to it. Go ahead.

 

[Damn True]

As Ohio said: " When you factor in the myriad other reasons for global climate change it's not clear whether human effects (burning of fossil fuels, etc) either exacerbates the trend or actually works against it."



Furthermore:

ABSTRACT

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

 

[Andyman_1970]

One study I read determined that world wide the largest producer of "green hosue gases" were cattle - all the methane they burp up and fart as a result of their digesting vegtable material. Maybe we should ban cattle..........LOL

 

[steve45]

just thought i'd throw another varaible into the mix.

Global Dimming
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

 

[valve bouncer]

True mate, as soon as you quote Michael Crichton in your diatribe the rest of us shake our heads. You should know better. Yeah, I see your Crichton and raise you 2000 real scientists that actually know what they're talking about. I won't bother to quote reams and reams of internettage as you have, god knows 2 seconds of basic googling found it, suffice is to say- arse<-head..... remove.

 

[Zark]

just thought i'd throw another varaible into the mix.

Global Dimming
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

Interesting read. That could explain a lot of the variance scientists have seen in CO2/ global temp. estimates.

"So we need more particulates to balance it out, right?"

 

[fluff]

True mate, as soon as you quote Michael Crichton in your diatribe the rest of us shake our heads. You should know better. Yeah, I see your Crichton and raise you 2000 real scientists that actually know what they're talking about. I won't bother to quote reams and reams of internettage as you have, god knows 2 seconds of basic googling found it, suffice is to say- arse<-head..... remove.

Yeah, as soon as I read Crichton I stopped paying attention. That guy's been talking smack about global warming for too long. It's odd how actors should not air their political views but novelists can talk crap about science...

btw, are you still in the UK?

 

[valve bouncer]

Yeah, as soon as I read Crichton I stopped paying attention. That guy's been talking smack about global warming for too long. It's odd how actors should not air their political views but novelists can talk crap about science...

btw, are you still in the UK?

Been, gone, got the maxed out credit card to prove it. 5 quid for a pack of ciggies. You gotta be kidding me. I thought the UK was a working mans paradise.

 

[Damn True]

True mate, as soon as you quote Michael Crichton in your diatribe the rest of us shake our heads. You should know better. Yeah, I see your Crichton and raise you 2000 real scientists that actually know what they're talking about. I won't bother to quote reams and reams of internettage as you have, god knows 2 seconds of basic googling found it, suffice is to say- arse<-head..... remove.

You missed the entire point of his speech.

He's not saying that he knows in a definitive sense what is and isn't correct. He is saying that junk science and the culture of consensus that led to widespread nonsense like "Nuclear Winter" when applied to this "crisis" absent of whether it does or does not exist horribly undermines the credibility of people using said junk science to further a goal which is intrinsically good.

If you tell people that we need to clean up the planet because CO2 causes abnormalities in the balance between photosynthetic and aerobic life forms which dissrupts the lowest levels of the food chain (which is actually the only effect that is thus far factual) and it's the right freakin thing to do most folks will get on board. If you tell them we need to clean it up because alien bullfrogs will fly out of their butts if they don't most people are going to scoff.

Right now the "Global Warming" scare is starting to resemble the alien bullfrog argument.

 

[fluff]

Been, gone, got the maxed out credit card to prove it. 5 quid for a pack of ciggies. You gotta be kidding me. I thought the UK was a working mans paradise.

Uh-huh. London is very expensive, the rest of the UK is simply expensive. Paradise is elsewhere I'm afraid.

Whaddya doing buying cigarettes? That ****'ll kill ya.

 

[valve bouncer]

Uh-huh. London is very expensive, the rest of the UK is simply expensive. Paradise is elsewhere I'm afraid.

Whaddya doing buying cigarettes? That ****'ll kill ya.

Brought my own from Nippon....quarter the price...except if ya go down to the Brixton tube station there was always some dodgy bloke selling black market ciggies for 2.50, as well as all the other dealers...."You want skunk man?" Not shy them fellas.

 

[Damn True]

Uh-huh. London is very expensive, the rest of the UK is simply expensive. Paradise is elsewhere I'm afraid.

Whaddya doing buying cigarettes? That ****'ll kill ya.

What is the value of a quid to a US dollar?

 

[quadricolour]

What is the value of a quid to a US dollar?

1 USD = .54 GBP today.

 

[Damn True]

1 USD = .54 GBP today.

Is a pound the same as a quid?

 

[valve bouncer]

Is a pound the same as a quid?

Yep, same as saying a buck, though I'm hard pressed to believe that a well travelled man like yourself doesn't know that True.

 

[Damn True]

Yep, same as saying a buck, though I'm hard pressed to believe that a well travelled man like yourself doesn't know that True.

Ive been to more countries than I care to list, but the only time Ive been in the UK is changing planes at Heathrow. I consider it a character flaw.

When I was in the CG I tried for years to get an "exchange aviator" assignment with the RAF in Scotland. The closest I got was an offer to be assigned to a CAG which I declined.

 

[Changleen]

Ive been to more countries than I care to list, but the only time Ive been in the UK is changing planes at Heathrow. I consider it a character flaw.

When I was in the CG I tried for years to get an "exchange aviator" assignment with the RAF in Scotland. The closest I got was an offer to be assigned to a CAG which I declined.

I agree. Heathrow is a character flaw. It's a ****ing ****hole. I advise you fly into any other UK airport if you ever have the opportunity not to pollute your very being by going there!

 

[ohio]

you are completely overlooking the fact that we are both in support of cleaning up the environment.

I've read what you wrote. Now read what I wrote. I hear that you recognize the other impacts of our pollution (including CO2 pollution). Next time state ALL of those, before you go to work on the one of which we're UNCERTAIN. Every time you state that it's "wrong," you kill a little bit of our world.

Think about what your goals in this thread were. If they were to encourage safe environmental practices, you did a very poor job of achieving those goals. If it was to attack an uncertainty at the expense of the credibility of other certainties, you did a fine job, simply through what and when you chose to present views.

 

[fluff]

1 USD = .54 GBP today.

How low can it go?

 

[Changleen]

How low can it go?

People will start getting excited if it actually hits $2.00. It'd be like the 80's again.

 

[Changleen]

Awesome! Check this out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1485595,00.html

US cities snub Bush and sign up to Kyoto

Dozens of mayors, representing more than 25 million Americans, pledge to cut greenhouse gases

Mayors from across the US are signing up to an initiative to get American cities to meet the US's Kyoto environmental target which George Bush repudiated: cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 7% by 2010.

The response has astounded the scheme's founder, Seattle's mayor, Greg Nickels, who persuaded eight other mayors to write on March 30 to 400 colleagues across the country.

Dozens of cities have since contacted his office with the total reaching 134 in 35 states yesterday.

Article continues
The mayors who have signed up represent 29.3 million people. Although most are Democrats some 12 big cities with Republican mayors, representing 8 million people, have joined, including New York city. Mr Nickels is a Democrat but he said his campaign was non-partisan.

"This campaign has clearly touched a nerve with the American people," he said. "The climate affects Democrats and Republicans alike. Here in Seattle we rely on the winter snow for our drinking water and hydro-electricity but it is disappearing; in Florida they have had hurricanes; in California they have had unseasonal heavy rain. Our weather patterns are changing."

He said each city had a tough target of cutting its emissions by 7% and each mayor would choose "a different path". "Conditions in Hurst, Texas are different to here in Seattle," he said "but we both think we can do it."

He said the fight to prevent climate change would not be expensive. "There are changes we will have to make but there are many opportunities to create employment and make for a better life. In any event the costs of doing nothing are greater than doing nothing.

"Climate change is happening and causing a lot of problems already. This can only get worse and we have to start doing something about it now. Lots of other Americans appear to agree."

Among the proposals are running municipal vehicles on gas or electricity, investment in renewable energy, planting trees, promoting car pooling, improving public transport and providing cycle lanes.

Each city has signed up to produce a greenhouse gas inventory and a plan on how to reduce it.

In Seattle cruise ships are required to turn off their diesel engines in dock and hook up to the city's renewable energy supplies to cut emissions, a move which has caused some ships to refit their electricity systems. Salt Lake City has become Utah's biggest buyer of wind power in order to meet its target.

New York's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who signed up last week, is trying to reduce emissions from the municipal vehicle fleet by buying hybrid powered vehicles.

Ray Nagin, the mayor of low-lying New Orleans and a Democrat, told the New York Times that he joined the coalition because a projected rise in sea levels "threatens the very existence of New Orleans".

In Hawaii, the mayor of Maui county, Alan Arakawa, a Republican, said he joined because he was frustrated by Washington's failure to recognise the scientific consensus that climate change was happening because of human activity.

Seattle's move is the latest in groundswell of concern about the Bush administration's failure to take action on climate.

The White House has poured money into research and believes technology will solve the problem while at the same time maintaining that taking action now would lead to higher energy prices and the loss of 5 million jobs.

In a separate alliance a number of states, including New York, have signed up to a carbon trading deal which would cut the emissions of fossil fuel burning power stations by exchanging carbon credits for cash.

Well, It seems some of your locally elected officials have a brain on their shoulders, even if the oil-racketeer-in-chief doesn't.

 

[SkaredShtles]

Awesome! Check this out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1485595,00.html

Well, It seems some of your locally elected officials have a brain on their shoulders, even if the oil-racketeer-in-chief doesn't.

Now now. Let's not overlook the fact that this is a great vote-getting technique. You can be "for" something without any risk. Clever on their parts.

"But I voted for Kyoto!"

-S.S.-

 

[Changleen]

Now now. Let's not overlook the fact that this is a great vote-getting technique. You can be "for" something without any risk. Clever on their parts.

"But I voted for Kyoto!"

-S.S.-

Lets see if they hit their targets, or at least put some measures in place, then we can complain/congratulate. Giving yourself a nice, measurable target is a good start. If they start talking smack about 'different types' of targets or something then you can start getting suspicious.

 

[fluff]

It'd be like the 80's again.

Oh... joy...