ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/24/2018 08:27 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  6.171 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
01/14/2007 02:10 PM ID: 59498 Permalink   

US Policy to Make U-Turn on Global Warming

 

The US administration is preparing for a historic u-turn on its position on global warming when President Bush makes his State of the Union speech later this month according to senior Downing Street officials.

The new stance on Global Warming is hoped to be a steppingstone towards a breakthrough in international talks on climate change and an outline of a successor treaty to the Kyoto agreement.

The new Global Warming strategy will force American industry and consumers to start conserving energy and curbing pollution details of which will be worked out at the forthcoming G8 meeting in June.

 
  Source: observer.guardian.co.uk  
    WebReporter: Hugo Chavez Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  62 Comments
  
  And the source of this new found 'heart' is ...  
 
Rupert Murdoch!

Australia Suffers Worst Drought in 1000 Years
http://www.shortnews.com/...

http://www.physorg.com/...


Greens welcome Murdoch empire's shift on global warming
http://greens.org.au/...


Murdoch Changes Mind on Global Warming
http://www.sciencenewsblog.com/...


AM - Rupert Murdoch reveals concern about global warming
http://www.abc.net.au/...


The Greening of Rupert Murdoch
http://blog.fastcompany.com/...


You wonder just who is the most powerful man in the western world really is, sometimes. I just searched for Murdoch and Global Warming.


Murdoch, best buddies with Reagan, Bush and influences many European global nations.
 
  by: redstain   01/14/2007 02:37 PM     
  Good news  
 
But is it too little too late?
 
  by: daniel2508     01/14/2007 03:33 PM     
  Hmm...  
 
I'd like to think it's never too late and that humans will do whatever necessary to ensure our continued survival. After all, we have lived over 60 years with the ultimate weapon of destruction - and we ARE still here - which in itself is attributed to the right choices by humans. With GM announcing their Electric cars again (about time, you crooks) that may also SUBSTANTIALLY help us, since vehicles create infinite amounts of pollution.
-np-
 
  by: NicPre     01/14/2007 04:10 PM     
  It is too late. U can't 'negotiate' /w the planet  
 
Threats like 'red menace', 'islamic fundamentalism', 'nuclear winters' have always been something human based.

The Ecosystem problem has gathered too much momentum. Let's say you're a heavy smoker - a 60-aday man and a slob. Would you feel safe from lung cancer or cardiovascular disease just because you quit yesterday?
 
  by: redstain   01/14/2007 04:49 PM     
  its too late  
 
and it will be already too late ,
first they will talk in june, make plans, decisions, organize, implement in another 10 years when it will be too late. just watch and see what i mean.
 
  by: FunkMan   01/14/2007 04:52 PM     
  I have to admit ...  
 
... I was very excited about this when I first read it. After all, if Bush prompted the U.S. to take the lead on halting global warming, it would have a huge impact, since the U.S. is the biggest offender.

But then my cynical side kicked in and reminded me that Bush initiatives are designed to accomplish three things:

1) Sound good to the layperson.
2) Force critics to regroup.
3) Bolster the Bush administration's public approval.

Notice there's no requirement that the initiative is effective. I suspect the administration has finally figured out which way the wind is blowing and has decided it better make a gesture in that direction.
 
  by: l´anglais     01/14/2007 05:09 PM     
  Bush initiatives  
 
Let me tell you another Bush Initiative:

Inflate the bank-accounts of all his family friends, and people he owes debts to....
 
  by: theironboard     01/14/2007 05:48 PM     
  sigh  
 
the thing that worries me is that some of theese people may just be blaiming people. It's posible people have effected the weather, but it's also posible that there are other factors. Weather patters, and even space weather . Statics show that sun activity such as solar flairs could be the cause major warming and cooling periods. This would coincided with the current high solar activy we've been experience and weather we've had.
 
  by: shoezacks   01/14/2007 06:45 PM     
  Natural cycle, or human causes  
 
Through out histroy the planet has gone through radical chances. Humans only have been recording tempatures for less than 150 years and is way too late to be jumping to conclusions on whats causing global warming. Is it deforestation, green house gases, or natural cycles? Also, It might be that the sun or planet is dieing.

As far a siencetists know, it could be caused by humans consuming processed foods, then getting consipated, and then farting out methane gas which distroys the atomasphere.

We all know there is a problem. If it is green house gases that are causing this warming, then we need to ban all burning of fossile fuels now, wich we know won't happen because every devoloped industry needs these fuels. If one country stops using green house fuels, but another country does not...it's sort of defeating the whole purpose. If some how we manage to stop using products that we think is causing global warming, it will still take 50-100 years to 'Guess' if we are making a difference.

All in all, it's too little too late. We don't know what is causing this. We can only hope that humans are the problem. The life on this planet will die most likey die because of humans because of thier greed for power. You never know, an asteroid may hit earth in a month and kill us all anyways.
 
  by: slayer06   01/14/2007 07:58 PM     
  Finally  
 
About 100 years too late in my opinion though
 
  by: Rodney Jason   01/14/2007 09:33 PM     
  @shoezacks  
 
I completely agree, especially since they have physical rock evidence to back up data showing that this is actually a semi-regular event that is perhaps magnified by the way we have treated the Earth. I would also like to point out that the Kyoto treaty was a load of crap for an industrialized nation our side, and that the writers specifically acknowledged it was written for a country the size of France. Don't make me do an overlay of France. The U.S. is also incredibly industrialized beyond France's wildest dreams, so to accept such an irrational treaty would have hurt the United States and could very well have caused many jobs to go southward - a problem we are already dealing enough with. A new 'Relaxed' Kyoto treaty, making special exceptions for nations like the U.S; Germany; and other industrialized nation is a great first step to getting the United States into the ballpark.
-np-
 
  by: NicPre     01/14/2007 09:47 PM     
  TIME TO SACRIFICE IN AMERICA  
 
In the early 1960's, President John F. Kennedy stated, "ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY."

In this year, 2007, there is something we can all do.

There are many current issues that call out for our personal sacrifices.

Some of the most important issues concern our use of oil.

There is a new book out that details a plan for all Americans to sacrifice in the fight to achieve American Oil Independence and National Security.

The book is entitled, 'HOW TO LIVE WELL WITHOUT OWNING A CAR" by Chris Balish.

Check it out! This book is amazing!
 
  by: tomnmnb   01/14/2007 11:21 PM     
  @slayer  
 
Get with the times mate! That is what Rupert used to believe. He will have you spouting his new views very soon.
 
  by: jendres     01/14/2007 11:24 PM     
  Well done USA :)  
 
Nice to see the US trying to keep up with the rest of the civilised world.

Lets just hope they don't welsh out of the next treaty.
 
  by: CrisW   01/15/2007 01:11 AM     
  My thoughts  
 
Whether it be natural or man made, One thing remains true. These pollutants we release in the air and flood into the waterways certainly isn't and cannot be good for us. So why the debate if it is causing global warming?
Lets correct the problem for what we know it causes, a bad health environment.
 
  by: hellblazer     01/15/2007 03:27 AM     
  It's about time!!  
 
I, however, will wait to see actions to back up the pretty words.
 
  by: ixuzus     01/15/2007 04:58 AM     
  in my country  
 
We do no not have this globalwarming. In my country we must burn old tires to cook our food, for we have burned all the wood for heat. You spoiled rotten Americans would be so lucky as to have it so nice and warm outside in your little bikini with your toastie sun tanned skin.
 
  by: shoezacks   01/15/2007 07:09 AM     
  ..  
 
glbal warming is all made up nonsense.
the world adjusts and changes on its own.
 
  by: intheb0xx   01/15/2007 08:27 AM     
  @shoezacks, slayer06: transparent motives  
 
I've read all the naysayers arguements in this posts; they are using the same outdated arguements they tried last year. And I might accuse them of very transparent motives.

Outdated argurments: 1a) Global Warming is Natural.
The arguement here is that because of solar activity, global cyclic phases as seen in C02 levels in polar ice. Life will continue afterwards

Outdated arguement 1b) If we can divest humans of any blame for global warming, then we don't have to do anything.


The first arguement doesn't take into the account the *levels* of C02 that's built up in the two decades. This years CO2 spikes is 5-10 times higher than previous 'prehistoric' spikes. In fact, apart from conjecture from the 'layman', I challenge shoezacks, slayer06 to show us any scientific publication from a scientific body that would put their reputation at risk by saying 'global warming - nothing to worry about'. The ecosystem has tremendous inertia, just because we stop tomorrow doesn't mean global warming ceases.

The ecosystem by definition is a 'stable state'. When it's unbalanced, it will not 'transfer' but rather 'flip' to another stable state (ie: polar cap melts). We will see the signs, but the point of no return will happen suddenly.

The second arguement is, basically an attempt to excuse yourself from doing anything.

Well, I personally don't think it's a case of 'stopping' global warming now; more a case of 'damage control' and an attempt to survive past it.

Everyone's been ignoring the eco-hippies about CO2 levels for years. But *blam*, in one year 2006 climate has changed with storms and droughts. Once is concidence, 2008 will show us it's bad luck. 2009 will show us whether global warming will happen in our lifetime.

I guess everyone knows about polar caps melting will cause lots of land to go underwater. Everyone's gonna expect the disarray as nations struggle to move their populace into a smaller land mass. But what you forget is that the change in land and sea topology will also affect climate patterns. Land that was arable will be desert. Land that was desert may become arable.

Hope the world's made provisions.

PS. " Also, It might be that the sun or planet is dieing[sic]."
That is soooo grasping at straws. That scenario takes millions of years (not a decade).
 
  by: redstain   01/15/2007 09:26 AM     
  @ redstain  
 
You didn't listen to me. I didn't say that people didn't have some effect. However im not gonna listen to a bunch of fascist hippies blaim big business and Americans for everything. These people are driven by politics, and control, and these scientist looking or funding aren't any better.Were only about 10,000 years out of the ice age(glaciation with ice sheets advance and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scale), and entering a warming period. The increased C02 in the atmosphere may be aborbing more inford light, but on the same token polution in the air is blocking light, which can cause a much more dramatic cooling effect. It's been suggested by many scientist that the pollution in our air is actually counter acting natural global warming. And Actually this 2006-07 year we're in El Nino. Its predicted to be like the 1965-66 and 1957-58 El nino each of which ended cold and stormy after a warm start.
You also can not underestimate the effect space weather has on earth. To do so would be absolutely ignorant.
 
  by: shoezacks   01/15/2007 05:14 PM     
  @shoezacks: two wrongs make a right.  
 
"suggested by many scientist that the pollution in our air is actually counter acting natural global warming."

I like that theory: one form of pollution conteracts another. But this is clearly not the case. We can sit here hypothesising all we want but the images speak for themselves. The balance of nature is clearly shifting.

Please remember that this is not a change of thousands of years. These are photographs made a couple of decades ago. Major climate changes happen over tens of thousands of year.

Glaciers online » Morteratsch ice retreat
http://www.swisseduc.ch/...


TerraNature | Global Warming: Patagonia glacier melting
http://www.terranature.org/...


Retreat of glaciers since 1850
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
There are lots of photos available in REFERENCES section of the Wikipedia link.

And you don't have to look at glaciers to see climate change. The storm counts have been rising geometrically.

I am not blaming America but the whole community of developed nations. Every nation hopes that everyone else will go Green, so that they can 'sneak' off an few more tonnes of CO2.

"you put the phone down, no you put the phone down, no YOU put the phone down"
 
  by: redstain   01/15/2007 07:34 PM     
  @shoe  
 
What the hell is a fascist hippie? I can't even imagine such a thing.
 
  by: erasedgod   01/15/2007 08:10 PM     
  @redstain  
 
Which brings be back to my point that man probably has something to do with it, but probably not as much as people give him credit for. All I was saying to begin with is there allot of things that don't always get factored in here, and theres allot of scientist publishing bogus data and polutitions feeding off it. It's another cold war. The fact is that global warming and cooling happens naturally. My suspicion is that were just making it worse, but though the checks an balenses of mother nature, every thing will end up okay in the end).. This doesn't mean we shouldn't find cleaner sources of energy, something that should have been a major political focus scents the 70's.

@erasedgod
I'm guessing your not a fan of south park. It would seem like an oxymoron, but any one can be biased and oppressive, doesn't matter how "down" with the hole peace vibe they are.
 
  by: shoezacks   01/16/2007 03:27 AM     
  not just...  
 
.. man-made greenhouse gases are contributing to the global warming.

Just the sheer volume of modern devices producing waste heat (everything from street lights to car motors) have been projected to raise temperatures (nationally at least) by 1 degree C.

You can directly see the affect of modern technology on city temperatures by wathcing your nightly weather report. If the temperature sensor is at an airport (as it usually is) and the airport is outside the main city hub, then the temperature taken at that location is always several degrees cooler than a temperature taken from the middle of the city.
 
  by: Dedolito     01/16/2007 03:40 AM     
  lol  
 
no real comment just really liked the idea of "fascist hippies" lol
 
  by: Emp3r0r     01/16/2007 04:04 AM     
  To soothsayers of doom...  
 
It's not too late. Remember the “big hole” in the ozone? Remember how everyone was saying it was beyond repair?
US began an initiative to eliminate nonessential fluorocarbons and greatly reduced ozone-damaging emissions by implementing and enforcing legislation that forced manufacturers and business to meet the newer EPA restrictions and guidelines. The result? When was the last time you saw "Hole in Ozone Getting Larger" as a headliner? Yeah. My point exactly.

It's funnier, still, how some of you manage toss the blame for global warming in Bush's lap. You wanna-be-scientists need to read more about global warming before spouting words that make you look dumber than your preceding posts already have.

Many ecologists have shown that the irregular global warming made its prominence known in the mid-60s. That's 40 years before Bush became President. That's before many of you were even born.

Bush is to blame for global warming? Ha! What else is he to blame for? "Argggh! I burned my toast! Damn that Bush!!! It's all his fault!"
 
  by: CArnold     01/16/2007 04:21 AM     
  ...  
 
lol
good comment there CA
i 100% agree with you.
funny!
 
  by: intheb0xx   01/16/2007 07:44 AM     
  I didn't say Bush was responsible for /t envirn'mt  
 
He's not MY God. (He's responsible for the Wars, maybe)

No, Bush is as Bush always is; opportunistic and in the corner of BigOil.

The Ozone Layer, did recover, but it is false(spurious) logic to say that because the Ozone layer recovered that Global Warming will.

Again, what you're looking at is;
* comparisons with other situations
* hyphothesis without backing from Scientific Bodies.

Ignoring the pretty pictures of receding snow caps in my links (did you check them?), Global warming has already caused Billions of dollars of damage, and much more worldwide.

Enough of the "yeah, but" denials. Look at what has happened already.
 
  by: redstain   01/16/2007 09:38 AM     
  Bush to blame ?  
 
Bush is to blame for global warming? Ha! What else is he to blame for? "Argggh! I burned my toast! Damn that Bush!!! It's all his fault!"


You’re right Bush didn’t warm the place up by leaving his window open.

The blaming Bush by most on global warming (welcome to the 20 century it’s no longer “climate change” but back to “global warming” , glad to see you’ve followed your president onto the late bus) I presume comes from his refusal to sigh up to the Kyoto agreement . This despite the fact that the majority of people that voted for him believed that Bush was in favor of Kyoto (it being such an obvious point to start most just accepted it as logical).

The fact that those who voted for Bush were unaware of his stance on the Kyoto issue says more about the American electoral system and it’s focusing on personalities and leadership qualities rather those candidates’ stances on the issues.
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     01/16/2007 01:35 PM     
  Global warming and cooling  
 
Or climate change for short.

About 15,000 years ago, The earth cooled, glaciers advanced and man was driven from Britain.

About 10,000 year ago, the earth warmed, the glaciers retreated, man walked back into Britain, the sea rose, and cut off the land bridge.

Thats right kiddies, there was a bridge of land connecting Britain and mainland Europe.

If burning fossil fuels causes global warming, what caused this?

Answers on a post card.

Either, climate change is perfectly natural, or there was an industrial fossile fuel brning society that we have found no archeological evidence of.

Game
Set
Match.
 
  by: GogeVandire   01/16/2007 09:51 PM     
  @GogeVandire  
 
Not. That's a pathetically simplistic analysis.

Global cliamte change is indeed a natural occurance, but that does not preclude mankind from being able to influence it one way or the other.
 
  by: Dedolito     01/16/2007 10:26 PM     
  @Dedolito  
 
It may be simple, its also perfectly valid.

Climate change has always existed, naturaly, so why now must it be man made?

If I bounce a ball, and on the the fifth boucne, a cat walks past, the cat didnt make the ball bounce.

Would the climate be changingif we werent burning fossil fuels?
All evidence points to yes.
 
  by: GogeVandire   01/16/2007 10:32 PM     
  all evidence?  
 
all evidence? Where is it?
Lots of talk back it up.
 
  by: bugmenot   01/16/2007 11:02 PM     
  @Bugme  
 
Is that a question to me?
 
  by: GogeVandire   01/16/2007 11:18 PM     
  @detractors of global warming  
 
How about we stop politicizing the situation with talk of fascist hippies and greedy, conspiring scientists? Have you considered that the corporations at the source of the counterpoints might be a little greedy themselves? Remember, there was no causal link to cigarettes for years as those terrible scientists tried to grab up funding...

Goge, fire occurs in nature, does that mean that fire is not also man-made? Your gameplan has a huge hole in it, in that this is not a black and white world. Plenty of natural processes exist that we can affect and even replicate. Just because previous periods of global warming were natural does not mean we aren't affecting the next.

The same fallacy is assumed in the "not our fault" arguments. Hellblazer is entirely right, the degree to which we affect global warming should be irrelevant. Any person should be able to agree that these things are at very least no good for us, unless of course they put politics first.

The solution is similarly not so black and white. We needn't stop global warming, but I think we would be fools to reject trying to slow it. If someone steps into the path of your car and you don't think you can stop in time, do you just keep your foot on the accelerator? No, and there is no reason industry cannot do the same. All this talk of "Please, think of the corporations!" seems a little silly, because they seem to get by just fine.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/16/2007 11:43 PM     
  @goge  
 
No, it is not valid, because you are assuming that the options are mutually exclusive. They are not. Global climates of course change naturally. But to assume that mankind is also not effecting that change is purposefully naïve.

Mankind produces the sum equivalent of South America's plant life's CO2 requirement’s each year. The atmosphere might be a big place, but then that's also a lot of excess CO2 to have floating around. Do you expect that all that CO2 just magically disappears? Have you noticed a continent's worth of new vegetative growth to meet the excess output?

Mother nature has a partial answer -- carbon sinks. We have noticed in recent years that the carbon content in plant life around major metro areas is many times greater than in the same plants in distant urban areas. But it would be ludicrous to assume taht this ability is limitless in nature. In fact it's believed that in some areas the carbon sink abilities of these plants have been tapped out.

Furthermore, how do you reconcile the idea that man has no effect on quantifiable, annual increases of atmospheric CO2 concentration? The data from the University of Hawaii shows a steady increase in CO2 levels that closely correlates to the predicted raise in temperature for those levels.

Furthermore, as I mentioned above, we know we, man, are directly heating our environments via waste heat. Never mind CO2 emissions or other natural causes, just the fact that man utilizes technology that gives off a lot of waste heat directly and significantly warms the metro areas of this planet, heat that is radiated and dissipated into surrounding areas and eventually into space.
 
  by: Dedolito     01/17/2007 12:49 AM     
  @Charlie  
 
“You wanna-be-scientists need to read more about global warming before spouting words that make you look dumber than your preceding posts already have.”

You actually made this statement after implying that the o-zone hole problem was last weeks news because it isn’t splashed across the front pages of Bloomberg and the local Nashville daily.

I’m no scientist but it takes about 2 seconds and a Google search to find someone who is and most of them seem to agree take for example Dr Peter Hodgson, he’s the guy who wrote “The Rise of Ozone Research” which is published by the Institute of Physics.


He says ““the protective ozone layer remains under threat”.“The ozone ‘holes’ that appear annually at the polar regions are still large and long-lived; the possibility that climate change may bring conditions likely to cause even greater ozone loss is a contemporary danger.”

Although Greenpeace say that the Montreal Protocol does little or nothing to address the problem btw.


So the lack of newspaper headlines I suppose doesn’t imply that a problem has been solved or has simply gone away or that everyone who doesn't agree with you is "Dumb" it reflects the fact that Joe Public has moved on to “baby eating North Koreans” or something else to scare the rabble into line, the o-zone problem isn’t licked yet but I suppose it’s a start that measures are been taken and I hope you’re right when you say it isn’t too late.
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     01/18/2007 04:08 PM     
  Sorry its late  
 
My keyboard started being funky for some reason.

Anyway.

On CO2
Find me the study that proves CO2 causes global warming.

That a plant could become "tapped out" on carbon is, well, wrong.
Alllife on this planet is carbon based, plants remove carbon from the atmosphere, and grow with it.


Yes, CO2 levels are increasing, how can you prove that warming temperatures didnt allow for a population increase and a CO2 rise.
Again, prove CO2 causes global warming, not that they correlate.

As for man makes heat?
The Sun bombards us with 1kw per metre squard.
Shall we compare mans daily energy usage to that number?

I admit, I couldnt find how much energy we use a day, but I'm guessing its much much smaller.
Show me some proof, and I'll discuss more.
 
  by: GogeVandire   01/18/2007 08:15 PM     
  @Goge  
 
It's late here, too, so no proof; just a few logical rebuttals:

"That a plant could become "tapped out" on carbon is, well, wrong.
Alllife on this planet is carbon based, plants remove carbon from the atmosphere, and grow with it."

Someone should tell that dead woman in Sacramento that the human body is 70% water. The idea that she's dead would seem to be, well, wrong.

"On CO2
Find me the study that proves CO2 causes global warming."

Science proves nothing, it only indicates, suggests, and demonstrates. Given the choice between siding with laymen "seeking" an unreachable burden of proof and an entire community of experts in agreement, I'll side with the experts.

"As for man makes heat?
The Sun bombards us with 1kw per metre squard.
Shall we compare mans daily energy usage to that number?"

No, because that makes no sense. Once again you're assuming that since something exists in nature any man-made increase cannot be harmful. Our planet is in an equilibrium, that's why it's the only one with life around here.

"Yes, CO2 levels are increasing, how can you prove that warming temperatures didnt allow for a population increase and a CO2 rise."

Are you trying to imply that the warming caused these things? If so, how?

"Again, prove CO2 causes global warming, not that they correlate."

And why would they simply correlate? I see another 10 foot hurdle being placed between facts and beliefs here.

A closing question: do you really think that corporations haven't paid scientists big bucks to prove these things already? Let's face it, it's not like anyone but the general public and lobbyists are really debating this any more...
 
  by: momentofclarity     01/19/2007 10:51 AM     
  @MoC  
 
Someone should tell that dead woman in Sacramento that the human body is 70% water. The idea that she's dead would seem to be, well, wrong.

Perhaps should have said plant life as a whole.
Global warming is predicted to make the earth warmer and wetter, exactly the consitions plants like.
Extra CO2 means extra plants, although how global dimming affects this waits to be seen.

Science prooves everything, thats what scientific proof is.
We've proved lots of things, electricity, gravity, conservation of momentum, bloody everything.

These experts you follow, what makes them experts?
You blindly follow them, but you have no idea what makes them reach these conclusions, somewhat fanatical dont you think?
I simply ask for proof, or at least to see there evidence before I change my life entirely.

The suns energy is very relevent.
If the sun bombards us with 5000x the energy we create, I think we can call ourenergy output irrelevent.
The Earth is far from in equilibrium, there was an ice age that covered two thirds of the planet in glacier 10,000 years ago, and there have been hundreds, probably thousands of such occurances.

Not to mention things like, the yellowstone super volcanoe, the gulf of mexico meteor ect causing mass extinctions and mass climate changes.

Slightly further up someone talks about when the Indian continent hit Asia and created the himilayas.
Global weather patens and sea currents utterly shifted, the worlds biggest mountain range was created, ect ect ect.
Equilibrium is far from what the earth is.

*******
"Yes, CO2 levels are increasing, how can you prove that warming temperatures didnt allow for a population increase and a CO2 rise."

Are you trying to imply that the warming caused these things? If so, how?
*******

Warmer climate, more food,
more food, more people
More food, more people, less farm workers as %, more workers to work in industry.
More coal burning, more CO2.

Why is that not just as plausible asd the other way round, neither of us can offer anything more than speculation.

This also covers correlation.
I'll also point out that, yes, the two were very closer correlated until recently.
Over the past few years, CO2 has increased far far faster than we've put there, but climate change has actualy closed.
It doesnt even correlate anymore.


As for lobbyists.
Theres an entire industry of climate change experts, prevention consultants and what not.
Do you not think these experts are all biased?

Did you know recently that the US meteorlogical society has threatend to expel members who publicly challenge the theory that man causes global warming.

Didnt the catholic church burn people who said the earth revolved round the sun?

If someone proves, even beyond reasonable doubt, that man is causing global warming, fine, until then, well, I no more believe it then someone who claims to have made a scaleable perpetual energy machine.
 
  by: GogeVandire   01/19/2007 07:45 PM     
  @Goge  
 
"Global warming is predicted to make the earth warmer and wetter, exactly the consitions plants like."

More generalizations. Most plants like the amount of water and temperature to which they are accustomed.

"Science prooves everything, thats what scientific proof is.
We've proved lots of things, electricity, gravity, conservation of momentum, bloody everything."

That's a layman's understanding, but in fact (as will often be noted when evolution comes up), these are all Theories. As these are old Theories, they are accepted as fact. Global warming does not have that benefit, and in fact seems to be meeting with the same outrage and skepticism faced by those Theories when they were young. If you've ever had any training in a science or research, the first lesson you learn is to strike the word "proves" from your vocabulary.

"These experts you follow, what makes them experts?"

Degrees? Education and experience in various relevant fields? Essentially, the things their critics often lack.

"You blindly follow them, but you have no idea what makes them reach these conclusions, somewhat fanatical dont you think?"

They've been posting the data for years, so no, I don't find it fanatical. No moreso than following your doctor's advice...what makes him such an "expert" anyway? Where's the proof that my arteries are clogging? I can't see them, and even if he provides pictures, how does HE know that my diet is causing it? I've seen no proof....

"I simply ask for proof, or at least to see there evidence before I change my life entirely."

1) Then look it up yourself. I may not have the time to find it, but since they've been publishing climate data and the like openly for decades, I find claims that it's not available to a real indication of laziness or very determined ignorance. This is like asking someone to educate you on evolution - it's big, it's complex, and it requires a modicum of effort to learn the basics before anyone else wastes time with more.
2) How are you being asked to drastically change your life? I am always wondering why some people have their hands clamped so firmly over their eyes, acting as if the alternative is that we all must become Amish or something. have you thought about what changes you'd have to make, or is it the concept of change that upsets you?

"The Earth is far from in equilibrium, there was an ice age that covered two thirds of the planet in glacier 10,000 years ago, and there have been hundreds, probably thousands of such occurances."

"Equilibrium" does not mean "static," in fact quite the opposite. An equilibrium must be maintained. If the balance is knocked off, the whole must reallign itself. The result are those changes you mention, and the cause may well be small, gradual changes like an inching up of glocal temperatures. That inching would be caused by heating factors IN ADDITION to that which the sun already provides in perfect quantity. We are NOW in equilibrium, and it's probably in our best interest to keep it that way unless you WANT another Ice Age.

"Why is that not just as plausible asd the other way round, neither of us can offer anything more than speculation."

That's because neither one of us is educated in earth sciences. Just saying something does not make it as valid as the opinion of someone actually educated in the matter. i can tell you in a very sensible and well-written way that the Earth does must not spin because we cannot feel it, but that does not make it any more likely to be true.

"Theres an entire industry of climate change experts, prevention consultants and what not.
Do you not think these experts are all biased?"

Not really, because pretty much everyone BUT the lobbyists and laymen agree with them. There is not some insidious League of Scientists out there, who sit around and plot the next consensus to perpetrate upon the world. Science is peer-reviewed - that means if data is faulty, someone can make a buck showing it. If a theory like global warming could be refuted, that would be VERY lucrative. Why do you suppose no one has collected yet?

"Did you know recently that the US meteorlogical society has threatend to expel members who publicly challenge the theory that man causes global warming."

I don't know that, but now that I've read it, why don't you prove it? No right-wing blogs, please.

"If someone proves, even beyond reasonable doubt, that man is causing global warming, fine, until then, well, I no more believe it then someone who claims to have made a scaleable perpetual energy machine."

No, I don't think you will believe it, and quite deliberately so. Tell me, what IS the proof? That's a very vague term, as easily applied to evidence already out there as the Word of God that I suspect needs to be personally offered to win over most folks. Tell me exactly what can be shown by mortal man which will convince you, because I think you've set the bar to an unre
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/19/2007 09:25 PM     
  @Goge2  
 
To conclude:

Tell me exactly what can be shown by mortal man which will convince you, because I think you've set the bar to an unreachable level to avoid really thinking about it. Instead, you seem to want to be told, just as you were told that the climate is A-OK.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/19/2007 09:27 PM     
  @MoC  
 
"Global warming is predicted to make the earth warmer and wetter, exactly the consitions plants like."

More generalizations. Most plants like the amount of water and temperature to which they are accustomed.


Indeed, however a correct generalisation is still correct.
Shall we compare biodiversity in a rain forest to a meadow?

As for proofs, I spent a lot of time proving things in maths.
QED
********
"These experts you follow, what makes them experts?"

Degrees? Education and experience in various relevant fields? Essentially, the things their critics often lack.
*******
Experience in global warming, you mean they went to another planet, where time travels faster, and they experimented, then came back, and told us?

"You blindly follow them, but you have no idea what makes them reach these conclusions, somewhat fanatical dont you think?"

They've been posting the data for years, so no, I don't find it fanatical. No moreso than following your doctor's advice...what makes him such an "expert" anyway? Where's the proof that my arteries are clogging? I can't see them, and even if he provides pictures, how does HE know that my diet is causing it? I've seen no proof....
**********
So show me this evidence?
Where is it, believe me I've searched for it.
I've not found one theory that can explain previous climate change and tie humans releasing CO2 into it.
If you can show me this theory, I'll sing it from the rooftops.
The difference between the docter and the climate change guy, is the docter HAS done experiments (probably not personaly) that demonstrate eating too much of certain foods and not exercising enough causes this. They've autopsied the bodies for evidence.
********
1) Then look it up yourself. I may not have the time to find it, but since they've been publishing climate data and the like openly for decades, I find claims that it's not available to a real indication of laziness or very determined ignorance. This is like asking someone to educate you on evolution - it's big, it's complex, and it requires a modicum of effort to learn the basics before anyone else wastes time with more.
********
I've looked, I havent found

2) How are you being asked to drastically change your life? I am always wondering why some people have their hands clamped so firmly over their eyes, acting as if the alternative is that we all must become Amish or something. have you thought about what changes you'd have to make, or is it the concept of change that upsets you?
*********
Oil has a return on energy invested of around 200:1, within months
Solar around 7:1, within decades.

I'd call 30x as expensive energy a lifestyle change.

*******

"Equilibrium" does not mean "static," in fact quite the opposite. An equilibrium must be maintained. If the balance is knocked off, the whole must reallign itself. The result are those changes you mention, and the cause may well be small, gradual changes like an inching up of glocal temperatures. That inching would be caused by heating factors IN ADDITION to that which the sun already provides in perfect quantity. We are NOW in equilibrium, and it's probably in our best interest to keep it that way unless you WANT another Ice Age.

So what caused the one 500 years ago, or the one 10,000 years ago?
The suns output varies, it isnt static, never has been, never will be.
What about the amount of energy the earths magnetic field deflects?
You do know that earths magnetic field is weakening right?
Were actualy overdue a shift, when magnets will start pointing south not north.
When that field collapses for a year, what will that do to equilibrium?

I'll even hand you that were now in equilibrium, but werent we during those last changes, what caused them?
Was the earth different some how?

*******
That's because neither one of us is educated in earth sciences. Just saying something does not make it as valid as the opinion of someone actually educated in the matter. i can tell you in a very sensible and well-written way that the Earth does must not spin because we cannot feel it, but that does not make it any more likely to be true.

Because I could go onto google and find you the proof to prove you wrong.
The mathematic models, and the numbers put through them, that show how it happened.

Earth scientists have yet to do this for climate change, becuase they have yet to release the model that explains both previous ice ages and this "man made" one.
Show me the proof, and I'll admit I'm wrong and your right.

*******

Not really, because pretty much everyone BUT the lobbyists and laymen agree with them. There is not some insidious League of Scientists out there, who sit around and plot the next consensus to perpetrate upon the world. Science is peer-reviewed - that means if data is faulty, someone can make a buck showing it. If a theory like global warming could be refuted, that would be VERY lucrative. Why do you suppose no one has col
 
  by: GogeVandire   01/22/2007 12:51 PM     
  part 2  
 
As for no one collecting, I'd say organisations threatening to expel members who try would take care of that.

**********
"Did you know recently that the US meteorlogical society has threatend to expel members who publicly challenge the theory that man causes global warming."

I don't know that, but now that I've read it, why don't you prove it? No right-wing blogs, please.

You'll have to wait till tomorrow, I think it was in the guardian though, I'm off work, snowed in, and it was in a daily bulletin I get.


********
Tell me exactly what can be shown by mortal man which will convince you, because I think you've set the bar to an unreachable level to avoid really thinking about it. Instead, you seem to want to be told, just as you were told that the climate is A-OK.

"A mathematical model that fits previous events and predicts future ones."
That sounds like a fair stab at a proof, I admit its been a while.


If you were to chellenge thermodynamics, I could spend 20 minutes on google, and come back with an experiment you could do to demonstrate it.

Can you come back with even a theortectical one?
 
  by: GogeVandire   01/22/2007 12:53 PM     
  @Goge  
 
Hey, I'll state up front - I'm not about to educate you on global warming when so many others are out there making the case. You reject those arguments, so I'll not waste my time because I'm not a vociferous enough advocate. I've not seen proof, nor do I care, because I've seen evidence. Perhaps this is why mathematicians and the like are always trotted out to defend the industries, because they can cast doubt because the methods they use to prove something are different than those used by scientists to show it.

You've clearly got a binary system of thought - if it can be shown natural forces did it once, we needn't consider that we're doing it this time. We needn't even PLAN on how to reduce levels of pollutants we know are otherwise harmful. Why would I argue with this when the reality of the situation is more complex? If you're comparing meadows to rainforests, as if the species of flora were even similar, what chance is there for a proper argument? It can't be stuffed into that little box you insist upon. I mean, your main point seems to be that since a mathematical formula cannot be affixed to the process, we ought to just forget about it. Your motivation seems to be that since you don't think there are other technologies out there, you won't support finding them, an attitude which allows energy companies to put off developing them.

Seems that there's a dollar sign at the end of that tunnel-vision. What's really important here, Goge? The money, or the unquestionable certianty of being Right or Wrong?
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/23/2007 12:43 AM     
  @naysayers  
 
I would like to know exactly what you think you'll have to change about your life if the U.S. decides to do something about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I would also like to know what you think you're defending from those who would have people reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Because it seems to me that the only thing that is really at risk here is one particular type of internal combustion engine -- the type that can only run on gasoline.

The world is already full of internal combustion engines that can run on renewable fuels that can be made right now, including biodiesel, ethanol and methane gas. Those engines can be used to generate electricity or propel a vehicle.

There are thousands and thousands of households in the world right this very moment that are running on electricity derived soley from wind power. Mine is one of them. I buy my electricity from the same company I've been using for eight years, and they've been around for decades, though they only recently bought into the wind power market.

I'm just wondering what, besides the actual act of burning fossil fuels, will go away if the world transitions from less-polluting fuels. I can explain to you (as can many experts inside and outside the fuel industry) how nobody has to go out of business or lose their job by converting the energy industry to run on renewable fuel.
 
  by: l´anglais     01/23/2007 01:59 AM     
  One more thing  
 
As an American, I'd really like to see my country not have to be energy-dependent on a region that produces so many would-be killers of my fellow citizens.
 
  by: l´anglais     01/23/2007 02:09 AM     
  @Langlais  
 
You seemto be under the misguided impression that only cars make CO2.

You need to add to that list coal power plants, oil power plants ect ect.

There are alchohol fueled ICE's, they atualy produce more power for the same size engine.
However we couldnt possibly grow that much sugar beet/cane without starving half the population.

Wind farms are a possibility, you just have to hope theres not a calm day.

As for terrorism, well, oil exists world wide, from the caspian sea to the north sea, to texas, although Bush has killed plenty of americans.

Mass climate change has happened dozens of times before and it was nothing to do with man burning hydrocarbons.
Why is it this time suddenly different?

Its not that difficult a question.
 
  by: GogeVandire   01/23/2007 07:13 AM     
  Who cares why the earth is warming up  
 
You will never "prove" it either way. I can't even give real proof that I'm here posting tonight. All I know is I can always stand to breath a little cleaner air and drink a little cleaner water. It's easy to get American factories to sign up for this, they are all leaving for China. "Sure our company will cut emissions by 100 percent, just let us finish packing up".
 
  by: BornInKy   01/23/2007 07:39 AM     
  @Goge  
 
"Mass climate change has happened dozens of times before and it was nothing to do with man burning hydrocarbons.
Why is it this time suddenly different?

Its not that difficult a question."

Wildfires happened millions of times before, does that mean we can write off arson as a cause today because, well, why should it be matches this time?

The possibility of multiple triggers is really not that difficult to grasp. Species went extinct before we started hacking away rainforests, too, but does that mean deforestation isn't causing extinction of some species? Mudslides happened millions of years before rich folks started building homes on hillsides in Malibu, does that mean the building didn't weaken the hillside and bring the house down? I could go on. Few things on this planet are influenced by one thing and one thing alone.
 
  by: momentofclarity     01/23/2007 08:10 AM     
  @Goge  
 
Power plants are a major contributor to the greenhouse gases that are making global warming worse; thanks for pointing that out. However, there are plenty of non-polluting power plants up and running today, and there's plenty of technology that could be retrofitted onto dirty plants that would reduce their pollution significantly. Yes, it would take a large sum of money to do it; but these days, I like to compare such efforts to the price tag on the Iraq war. If we're willing to spend that much on toppling Saddam Hussein, based on the notion that he might someday pose a threat, I propose spending a third of that sum on battling greenhouse gas emissions, based on the notion, supported by the overwhelming majority of serious scientists, that the world is heating up faster than it ever has before and that that poses a threat to all of humanity.

I don't know why you bring up unsuitable alternative fuel technology (alcohol-driven engines); obviously that wouldn't be used on a large scale.

"you just have to hope theres not a calm day."

Oh, come on now ... every bit of energy created by a turn of the blade isn't used up on the consumer end. The excess is stored in batteries in case it ever gets so calm that you actually see a significant production drop. And the wind farms are built as demand for wind power increases, so that there's more than enough infrastructure to meet the demand. You might have a calm day at one farm, but they're built all over the place, so power's always being generated.

I read that if the land in Texas available for wind farms was built up with wind farms right now, they'd create enough power to supply every household in the U.S.

"As for terrorism, well, oil exists world wide, from the caspian sea to the north sea, to texas, although Bush has killed plenty of americans."

Not over oil, he hasn't. But you can bet killing for oil will just become more commonplace if the world remains dependent on it -- remember, oil doesn't reproduce. There's a finite supply of it.

"Mass climate change has happened dozens of times before and it was nothing to do with man burning hydrocarbons.
Why is it this time suddenly different?"

Because the previous instances of mass climate change happened at much more stately paces that allowed nature time to adjust. A deciduous forest just can't transform itself into a tropical rainforest in 100 years -- give it 1,000 years, and it has a much better chance.

The rapid pace of modern climate change can be proved just by the numerous instances of how it is "confusing" (for lack of a better term) the environment. Cold-weather forests are standing in the mud of a melting permafrost (or trying to stand; they look a bit tired now). Birds' migrations are becoming confused -- flocks have been observed traveling north and then retreating south as the weather fluctuates wildly. Polar bears haven't adapted to the rising temperatures in the Arctic circle and have even been found drowned because the ice they're used to swimming to isn't there anymore.

These sorts of things just don't tend to happen when climate change is slow and steady, and animal and plant species have generations to adjust to it. This "confusion" of nature strongly suggests that the climate change we're experiencing now is swift and abrupt, at least to creatures without the ability to seal themselves indoors and enjoy an artificial climate.

You still haven't answered my question -- what change do you fear, and what do you think you're protecting by trying to shout down the majority of scientists?
 
  by: l´anglais     01/23/2007 02:34 PM     
  You still dont get it  
 
There is no proof and very little evidence that man causes global warming,

We have seen in the past that climate change occurs naturaly.
And it does occur VERY quickly, it took the last ice age 5 years to cut grain ratios from 7:1 to 1:1.

Climate change happens all the time, naturaly.
If you want to say this time is different, produce your evidence WHY its different this time.



Wildfires happened millions of times before, does that mean we can write off arson as a cause today because, well, why should it be matches this time?
*********
Because a significant nu8mber of wildfires have been proven to be caused by arson, or human error, and even then, all avenues must be explored

The possibility of multiple triggers is really not that difficult to grasp. Species went extinct before we started hacking away rainforests, too, but does that mean deforestation isn't causing extinction of some species?
**********
Again, we have evidence of such.

Mudslides happened millions of years before rich folks started building homes on hillsides in Malibu, does that mean the building didn't weaken the hillside and bring the house down? I could go on. Few things on this planet are influenced by one thing and one thing alone.
***********
Again, we have actualy physical models of how and why building houses causes land slides.



Power plants are a major contributor to the greenhouse gases that are making global warming worse;
**********
Proof that "greenhouse hases" cause global warming please.

thanks for pointing that out. However, there are plenty of non-polluting power plants up and running today, and there's plenty of technology that could be retrofitted onto dirty plants that would reduce their pollution significantly.
*******
Such retrofitting costs money, and more importantly down time, are you willing to pay for the upgrades and provide base line power till there back online?

Yes, it would take a large sum of money to do it; but these days, I like to compare such efforts to the price tag on the Iraq war.
********
Which I'm against

If we're willing to spend that much on toppling Saddam Hussein, based on the notion that he might someday pose a threat, I propose spending a third of that sum on battling greenhouse gas emissions, based on the notion, supported by the overwhelming majority of serious scientists, that the world is heating up faster than it ever has before and that that poses a threat to all of humanity.
*********
I'm not a yank so didnt fund the war, and you've still to privde a SINGLE serious scientists research into the area.




Oh, come on now ... every bit of energy created by a turn of the blade isn't used up on the consumer end.
********
It better be, you obviously know nothing about thge electricity industry.

The excess is stored in batteries
********
Really? No, its not, under any large scale circumstance, the only possible storage is a dam.

in case it ever gets so calm that you actually see a significant production drop. And the wind farms are built as demand for wind power increases,
*******
You do realise power demand changes wildly hour to hour dont you?

so that there's more than enough infrastructure to meet the demand. You might have a calm day at one farm, but they're built all over the place, so power's always being generated.
********
But never enough.

I live in the UK, inarguably one of thwe windiest (SP?) places in the world.
Even our "green government" has ruled out mass wind farms.




Because the previous instances of mass climate change happened at much more stately paces that allowed nature time to adjust. A deciduous forest just can't transform itself into a tropical rainforest in 100 years -- give it 1,000 years, and it has a much better chance.
********
You mean like the mini ice age that crippled grain production and killed half the population of Europe about 600 years ago?
In 5 years?




Because the previous instances of mass climate change happened at much more stately paces that allowed nature time to adjust. A deciduous forest just can't transform itself into a tropical rainforest in 100 years -- give it 1,000 years, and it has a much better chance.
*******
Trees take decades, plants take years, amazingly, they dont appear at once.


The rapid pace of modern climate change can be proved just by the numerous instances of how it is "confusing" (for lack of a better term) the environment. Cold-weather forests are standing in the mud of a melting permafrost (or trying to stand; they look a bit tired now). Birds' migrations are becoming confused -- flocks have been observed traveling north and then retreating south as the weather fluctuates wildly. Polar bears haven't adapted to the rising temperatures in the Arctic circle and have even been found drowned because the ice they're used to swimming to isn't there anymore.
*********
And you have proof that this hasnt happened hundreds of tim
 
  by: GogeVandire   01/23/2007 09:27 PM     
  Part 2  
 
And you have proof that this hasnt happened hundreds of times before?
I admit, I cant prove it did, but it hardly seems unreasonable.



These sorts of things just don't tend to happen when climate change is slow and steady, and animal and plant species have generations to adjust to it. This "confusion" of nature strongly suggests that the climate change we're experiencing now is swift and abrupt, at least to creatures without the ability to seal themselves indoors and enjoy an artificial climate.
********
Again, still not proof climate change was normaly slower.



You still haven't answered my question -- what change do you fear,
*******
Pointless change caused by fear mongers and glory hounds.

and what do you think you're protecting by trying to shout down the majority of scientists?
********
The truth?
Way of life?


What staying the same do you fear?

I'll assume global warming.

Do you not want proof that the changes you make to your life will have any bearing?

What do you think your protecting with blind obediance?


You seem to have it in your head that I'm some dyed in the wool Bushite, however I'm doing exactly what they dont do, I'm questioning.
What are you doing?

All I'm asking for is proof, and despite 51 comments and counting, nobody has been able to offer it.

@MoC
Sorry dude, forgot about the link, I've felt crappy all day, flu type thing and paracetamol sends me dolally.
 
  by: GogeVandire   01/23/2007 09:30 PM     
  @Goge  
 
You know very well that there's abundant evidence that the climate change going on now is unprecedented, largely man's doing and precipitates something much worse than some "mini" ice age. But your standards of proof are so high that no one will ever convince you that:

a) CO2 causes the earth to conserve more solar energy, thus warming it

b) The unprecendented levels of CO2 in the atmosphere come from man-made sources

c) The consequences of allowing the earth to heat rapidly will be catastrophic for life

Here's a story that reminds me of your attitude: Samuel Shenton, who helped revive the International Flat Earth Society in the 1950s. When presented with photographs of a spherical Earth from outer space, his reported reply was, "It's easy to see how that kind of photograph could fool the untrained eye."
 
  by: l´anglais     01/24/2007 01:54 PM     
  @Langlais  
 
I'll not even ask for proof anymore.



a) CO2 causes the earth to conserve more solar energy, thus warming it
******
Back this statment up with some form of evidence.
Its been preached at me hundreds if not thousands of times, yet no one has yet been able to offer the slightest bit of evidence to back up this statement.


b) The unprecendented levels of CO2 in the atmosphere come from man-made sources
*******
Among others,


c) The consequences of allowing the earth to heat rapidly will be catastrophic for life
********
There we go with the do as I say or god will strike you down rhetoric again.


Here's a story that reminds me of your attitude: Samuel Shenton, who helped revive the International Flat Earth Society in the 1950s. When presented with photographs of a spherical Earth from outer space, his reported reply was, "It's easy to see how that kind of photograph could fool the untrained eye."
**********
The difference being, your yet to show me the "photograph"

And again, I can go on google and find proof that the earth is round.
 
  by: GogeVandire   01/24/2007 02:06 PM     
  @goge  
 
lord, you're tiresome. go read this article, helpfully supplied to me by one of the many other people here who think you're good for a laugh and nothing more, top to bottom, then get back to me:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
 
  by: l´anglais     01/25/2007 05:19 PM     
  Well, its  
 
news article

Not a scientific paper, but we'll give it a go.

Nothing there what so ever.

All it is is someone quotinbg someone who claims to have a read a report that says something like.

Come back with the report.

Or quote something from that article that I've missed.

Oh wait, page two has some actual information.

***********
Raising the temperature
The world’s global average temperature has risen about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1901 to 2005. The two warmest years on record for the world were 2005 and 1998. Last year was the hottest year on record for the United States.The report will draw on already published peer-review science.
********
Very true



**********
Some recent scientific studies show that temperatures are the hottest in thousands of years,
*********
When they back up that statemnt, lets talk.
But I dont see the average john in the UK growing limes in his back garden like the romans were doing 2 millenia ago.

***********
especially during the last 30 years; ice sheets in Greenland in the past couple years have shown a dramatic melting;
**********
Indeed they have

**********
and sea levels are rising and doing so at a faster rate in the past decade.
**********
Very true


************
Also, the second part of the international climate panel’s report — to be released in April — will for the first time feature a blockbuster chapter on how global warming is already changing health, species, engineering and food production, said NASA scientist Cynthia Rosenzweig, author of that chapter.
**************
I'm sure it does



Shall I carry on, or shall I say again, where is the evidence man is to blame.
The report doesnt even make that claim.

We know sea levels have risen, they did so 3 millenia ago when the UK was cut off from Europe by them.
We know glaciers melt, I've been to landscapes made by them melting.

We know they reform, we have evidence of them advancing from the poles to cover most of Europe.

What I've still yet to see, is some evidence that points to man having caused this.

Can you show me this evidence?

And if not, why not?

You seem to believe absolutly that man is the cause, but you cant offer one shred of evidence WHY you believe this.
 
  by: GogeVandire   01/25/2007 05:41 PM     
  @Goge  
 
And we come back to your impossible proof; impossible because so long as other factors could feasibly have caused this, there is no possible conclusive evidence. None of the chunks of ice broken off of melting glaciers are going to come with a tag saying, "Man did this." No mathematical formula can ever be the Word of God answer, because we can never know conclusively just how these cycles have worked for the vast life of our planet. I come back to my arson example, noting that this is like investigating a fire before modern techniques were developed. So what if we found a man's footprint and lighter at the center of the wildfire? That only tells us man was there, not that one did it, so let's go home and chalk it up to nature.

Frankly, I think we need a significant government program to bring us to a new era of energy usage. Let's not talk about this being unprecedented - a government technology program got us into space, why oppose it revolutionalizing our way of life on Earth?
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/29/2007 07:38 PM     
  @Moment  
 
I've stopped asking for proof now, I want evidence.

I come back to my arson example, noting that this is like investigating a fire before modern techniques were developed. So what if we found a man's footprint and lighter at the center of the wildfire? That only tells us man was there, not that one did it, so let's go home and chalk it up to nature.
********
Show me this footprint and lighter.

At the moment, I'm saying, this has happened before naturaly, why is it different this time.

Unless you can give an answer better than, well, it could be, because.
Then I dont see your arguement.

There MUST be something out there to make you feel this is man made, what is it?




Frankly, I think we need a significant government program to bring us to a new era of energy usage. Let's not talk about this being unprecedented - a government technology program got us into space, why oppose it revolutionalizing our way of life on Earth?
********
Because space travel is possible, ignoring conservation of energy isnt.
(Well actualy it is, but you still cant create energy)

Renewables from tidal and hydro, to solar and wind, just cant create reliable enough power.
And is prohibitivly expensive

Nuclear, despite being relativly clean with the addidtion of thorium breeders, raises the protesting army.

Cold fusion, isnt possible.

And it goes on, the fact is, hydorcarbons are cheap, transportable, scaleable and massivly energy dense.
 
  by: GogeVandire   01/29/2007 08:05 PM     
  @Goge  
 
"I've stopped asking for proof now, I want evidence."

No, you're still asking for proof, only now you're asking it of the evidence. Evidence has been provided, and now you're insisting that it be proven that THOSE things were caused by man, rather than global warming as a whole. It's like a shell-game WITHIN a shell game, and as equally impossible.

'Ok, well how do we know THAT lighter started the fire? How do we know THAT sweater came from the perpetrator? We don't, so lightning probably caused this fire, let's go home.'

"Unless you can give an answer better than, well, it could be, because.
Then I dont see your arguement."

Right, so long as there's any uncertainty, you're content to ignore the matter. Imagine if scientists didn't investigate a phenomenon until it was objectively proven. We'd still be back in the Dark Ages.

"Because space travel is possible, ignoring conservation of energy isnt."

The best I can discern from this is that you meant to say that space travel is possible, but better energy cannot be developed. This betrays an amazing lack of vision on your part and an ignorance of how hindsight is 20/20. Do you really think that before space travel, everyone knew it was possible so that's why they did it? I feel only relief that the majority of people didn't share your mindset last century.

"Renewables from tidal and hydro, to solar and wind, just cant create reliable enough power. And is prohibitivly expensive"

Sounds like talking points to me - do you have evidence? That is, proof that not only is the technology currently unfeasible, but that it always will be even once finally given serious research time and money? If not, it would seem that you're as awfully ideologically wed to your opposition as some are to advocacy.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/29/2007 08:41 PM     
  @MoC  
 
Show me on this page where evidence has been provided.



The best I can discern from this is that you meant to say that space travel is possible, but better energy cannot be developed.
*********
Better sources, it'll take somethin ground breaking.


This betrays an amazing lack of vision on your part and an ignorance of how hindsight is 20/20. Do you really think that before space travel, everyone knew it was possible so that's why they did it? I feel only relief that the majority of people didn't share your mindset last century.
***********
Space travel isnt, in theory, different than jumping.
Its laws of motion, wether people believed is irrelevent.



Sounds like talking points to me - do you have evidence?
*******
I could go and get it.

That is, proof that not only is the technology currently unfeasible, but that it always will be even once finally given serious research time and money?
********
Assuming the rules dont change, yes

If not, it would seem that you're as awfully ideologically wed to your opposition as some are to advocacy.
**********
Not at all.

However power grids work, manage peak and spot demand spikes, baseline power and the like are all ideas people have explained to me, ideas that can be tested easily with a high school electronics set.

Why renewables fail on these, or for other reasons, has been explained to me, clearly and conceisly.

Why burning coal is going to change the world hasnt burn, and whenever I question the dogma, I'm attacked as backwards, ingorant, foolish and in love with bush
 
  by: GogeVandire   01/29/2007 09:31 PM     
  @Goge  
 
"Show me on this page where evidence has been provided."

Firstly, I needn't, you've already admitted you've seen all of it and ignored it because there's no "Made in the USA" tag affixed to the climate change examples. Secondly, L'Anglais provided one such example, and you did the same. I ask you again, give me a specific example of what would convince you?

I've said I won't try to educate you on all of this. What I will do is try to point out how your impossible standard of proof/evidence impairs your analysis of the situation. I don't think you're thinking about global warming, but rather thinking about how global warming is not true.

"Better sources, it'll take somethin ground breaking."

Something which you will not even consider pursuing until someone tells you it must be done. Where do you think these ground-breaking discoveries come from, people sitting back on their laurels and saying, "Well, we could do something, but I don't see why we NEED to...?"

"Space travel isnt, in theory, different than jumping.
Its laws of motion, wether people believed is irrelevent."

No, people believing is what got the space program as far as it went, motivating and funding serious research. Space travel was as theoretically possible as global warming is now, and it certainly didn't need to be done by any extension of the theory, yet how much better is society for it? I say again, the world would be in dire straights today if all men of science just sat back and waited until all aspects of a problem were known and dire consequences imminent before they even tried to solve it.

"I could go and get it."

By all means, I believe I'm owed a link showing scientific persecution, as well.

"Assuming the rules [about alternative energy] dont change, yes"

What rules? You speak as if science has gone as far as it can and there's nothing more to be done. Your perceptions of such pursuits as futile are just that, not "rules." Any of those means mentioned can be used to harvest it, and if even George Bush has begun talk of such things, I doubt that they are impossible to develop nationwide.

"Not at all.

However power grids work, manage peak and spot demand spikes, baseline power and the like are all ideas people have explained to me, ideas that can be tested easily with a high school electronics set.

Why renewables fail on these, or for other reasons, has been explained to me, clearly and conceisly.

Why burning coal is going to change the world hasnt burn, and whenever I question the dogma, I'm attacked as backwards, ingorant, foolish and in love with bush"

I'm sorry, but could you restate this more clearly? What I gather is that someone once told you using convincingly basic language why no alternative fuel could ever work, and since then you've seen no reason to change your mind. Frankly, if you think that the technology is so simple that a day without wind or sun will bring it all down, I'd say it's time to reconsider. Basic analysis of the debate leads one to question your views - if these alternative were so ridiculously useless and fallible, why would anyone be talking about them?

I'll wait to see the evidence which has you so convinced.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/29/2007 11:26 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com