Seems people in Australia have not drunk the Kool-aid.
http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2009/0...s-to-australia/
http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2009/0...s-to-australia/
Australia leads the way
- Thread starter rshaw125
- Start date
- Status
dose paskey oozies
The science is settled...you're not supposed to worry about it. Just go with the flow.
I'm not going to say "the science is settled" but that link was as useful as a bag of hammers...
The majority of climatologists believe that the current global warming is caused by man, and partially caused by CO2 emmisions.
We won't know for sure if the models are right or wrong for many years to come.
So really the debate is, is our consumption/fossil fuel based lifestyle worth the gamble of raising the global temperature in the future?
The majority of climatologists believe that the current global warming is caused by man, and partially caused by CO2 emmisions.
We won't know for sure if the models are right or wrong for many years to come.
So really the debate is, is our consumption/fossil fuel based lifestyle worth the gamble of raising the global temperature in the future?
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I'm not going to say "the science is settled" but that link was as useful as a bag of hammers...
The majority of climatologists believe that the current global warming is caused by man, and partially caused by CO2 emmisions.
We won't know for sure if the models are right or wrong for many years to come.
So really the debate is, is our consumption/fossil fuel based lifestyle worth the gamble of raising the global temperature in the future?
So why the f%^& not just be honest about it? People are stupid to a point.....then when you priss them off, you are worse off than where you started.
I'm not going to say "the science is settled" but that link was as useful as a bag of hammers...
The majority of climatologists believe that the current global warming is caused by man, and partially caused by CO2 emmisions.
We won't know for sure if the models are right or wrong for many years to come.
So really the debate is, is our consumption/fossil fuel based lifestyle worth the gamble of raising the global temperature in the future?
So why the f%^& not just be honest about it? People are stupid to a point.....then when you priss them off, you are worse off than where you started.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: Pablo
So why the f%^& not just be honest about it? People are stupid to a point.
Most people are also dishonest and don't expect the truth. People prefer clear-cut theories so they can make a clean choice without having to think -- and nothing will ever change that.
So why the f%^& not just be honest about it? People are stupid to a point.
Most people are also dishonest and don't expect the truth. People prefer clear-cut theories so they can make a clean choice without having to think -- and nothing will ever change that.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
So really the debate is, is our consumption/fossil fuel based lifestyle worth the gamble of raising the global temperature in the future?
The debate should be do we want to make profound, and likely irreversible, destructive economic changes, on the basis of dubious evidence, that when implemented will likely have little to no beneficial impact on a problem that may or may not even exist.
Let me know when China and India get on board this GW thing - they'll probably be too busy working, since that is where most of the jobs will be cap and traded to.
So really the debate is, is our consumption/fossil fuel based lifestyle worth the gamble of raising the global temperature in the future?
The debate should be do we want to make profound, and likely irreversible, destructive economic changes, on the basis of dubious evidence, that when implemented will likely have little to no beneficial impact on a problem that may or may not even exist.
Let me know when China and India get on board this GW thing - they'll probably be too busy working, since that is where most of the jobs will be cap and traded to.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: Pablo
So why the f%^& not just be honest about it? People are stupid to a point.
Most people are also dishonest and don't expect the truth. People prefer clear-cut theories so they can make a clean choice without having to think -- and nothing will ever change that.
That is true. I'd say, in our contemporary information climate (cough-cough) ..that it's a matter of whom presents the better case of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
So why the f%^& not just be honest about it? People are stupid to a point.
Most people are also dishonest and don't expect the truth. People prefer clear-cut theories so they can make a clean choice without having to think -- and nothing will ever change that.
That is true. I'd say, in our contemporary information climate (cough-cough) ..that it's a matter of whom presents the better case of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.
OK, when the science IS settled, we could well be facing problematic, and irreversible damage to the thing that keeps us alive...food.
And if we take action now, against a potential risk, we save finite fossil fuels...and make them last much longer into the future.
Complaining about the mercury in a CF light, when the power station that feeds it releases far more is ridiculous. Plus the cost of not using the energy is cheaper by far than the cost of installing new plant to feed an incandescent.
People on this site happily support a "pre-emptive" war on what turned out to be a non-threat.
Why not pre-emptivley prevent another threat that actually has (some) science behind it ?
And if we take action now, against a potential risk, we save finite fossil fuels...and make them last much longer into the future.
Complaining about the mercury in a CF light, when the power station that feeds it releases far more is ridiculous. Plus the cost of not using the energy is cheaper by far than the cost of installing new plant to feed an incandescent.
People on this site happily support a "pre-emptive" war on what turned out to be a non-threat.
Why not pre-emptivley prevent another threat that actually has (some) science behind it ?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Because it involves self sacrifice, perhaps?
put it to youse this way... the earth has cooled and warmed at much greater rates MANY times in geological time (100's of millions of years (and importantly, in the last 2 million years). i think it is totally within what has happened to the earth before.
I prefer a few thousand ppm CO2. It's closer to the atmosphere of my home planet.
The earth is always heating and cooling. Maybe it is warming now. In the 70's they were warning of a mini ice age on the horizon. The idea that cap and trade will some how change the earth's climate trend is the ultimate arrogance.
Humans are going to die off no matter what.
Quote:
Why not pre-emptivley prevent another threat that actually has (some) science behind it ?
You mean the same science that stated we were headed into an ice age in the 70's?? If we are headed toward an ice age, and carbon raises temperature, I'm not sure why people are complaining about carbon emissions...
Why not pre-emptivley prevent another threat that actually has (some) science behind it ?
You mean the same science that stated we were headed into an ice age in the 70's?? If we are headed toward an ice age, and carbon raises temperature, I'm not sure why people are complaining about carbon emissions...
- Status
Similar threads
