|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 07/02/2001 : 22:26:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm with Tokyo. I don't think most countries are serious about it in a practical sense. I think they're cashing in politically with a bunch of grandstanding, and I think Europe in particular is privately quite relieved that Bush is killing it; now they get to act morally outraged but will never have to do the politically hard stuff at home to meet the emissions reductions. Frankly, if they're serious about it, why wait for a treaty?
I totally agree. That lot of European politicians are geting off easy.
But before that you said something about the US being entitled to any amount of energy. The US is only entitled to whatever energy it can produce on its own or purchase from outside. Another Arab Oil Embargo would be far more devastating now than it was in 1973. Of course many Arab nations are as aware as we are how convenient it is for us all to be buddies. They sell us oil, we defend them with American lives and they can just sit back and count the money. But they could cut us off in a heartbeat. heh, maybe we would reach the Kyoto CO2 levels 
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 23:16:49 [Permalink]
|
Hey all....I started a new spot under psuedoscience for the global warming thing. I know that Garrette has made comments about this being under both astronomy and general folders. So I thought consolidation of the debate in one folder would be easier to deal with for those who are debating the issue and those trying to follow along.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 03:14:40 [Permalink]
|
I live on this planet and if what the anti-environmentalists say is wrong and someone acts on them I wont be happy.
Also note that most of the worlds population would also not be happy and may deicde to do some very bad things to those who said there was nothing to worry about.
Remember, the Oceans can hold a lot of heat and really slow it down making us think it isn't heating up as fast as it is.
If they want to see if they are right they can find another planet to use, mars is close enough and needs to be warmed up anyway.
Or how about Venus?
Edited by - bestonnet_00 on 07/03/2001 03:15:59 |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 11:21:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If they want to see if they are right they can find another planet to use, mars is close enough and needs to be warmed up anyway.
Or how about Venus?
Well if you want to study the greenhouse effect, Venus is a very good subject. With 97% COČ Atmosphere and everything. The greenhouse effect appears to be working fine on Venus.
Nobody is really arguing that the earth won't significantly heat up, if we pump enough COČ in the atmosphere. The problem is deciding how much exactly is 'enough'.
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 01:04:19 [Permalink]
|
Well doubling will increase the temp by between 1.5 and 4.5 degress Celcius.
We don't know which end the real answer lies at, but somewhere between there.
Of course the effects of the Oceans, Sulphate particles, etc mean that we haven't experienced it in full.
Abondon Drugs, say no to Religion |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2001 : 21:20:18 [Permalink]
|
I just can't resist...
Everyone does something to the weather, but nobody talks about it
While I'm thinking of Mark Twain, I'm inspired to ask if anyone else thinks that looking for a correlation of background & source of income with a person or organization's "scientific" opinion about global warming and pollution in general would be interesting.
As Twain said, "you tell me where a man gets his corn pone and I'll tell you what his opinions is".
It is, because it isn't not, and that's the part that goes up. |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 01:38:21 [Permalink]
|
Those who have a vested interest in fossil fuels or capatilism tend to often be anti-environmentalists.
Those that don't tend to think global warming is occuring and will be bad.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 06:14:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Those who have a vested interest in fossil fuels or capatilism tend to often be anti-environmentalists.
Those that don't tend to think global warming is occuring and will be bad.
Ah, yes. I keep forgetting the millions in stock options I own in Mobil and Exxon.
And I suppose by this definition that most of the Western world is an 'anti-environmentalist' since we all have a "vested interest in capitalism."
You may as well say that those with a vested interest in anti-technology will always find ways to 'prove' global warming with humans as the cause. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there's big money on the environmentalists side, too; shall we discount all their claims as whimsically as you discount all those whose stance is opposed to yours?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2001 : 02:12:51 [Permalink]
|
There is a thing called evidence.
It is quite clear from the evidence that Global warming is occuring and that we are most likely the cause of it.
It is also most likley that Global Warming will be bad.
Pretty good reason to believe.
I probably should have said vested interest in laisze faire capatilism or getting close to it instead of just capatilism.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2001 : 06:07:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There is a thing called evidence.
It is quite clear from the evidence that Global warming is occuring and that we are most likely the cause of it.
It is also most likley that Global Warming will be bad.
Yes, and you've presented precious little of it. In the other threads discussing this, evidence on both sides has been presented. And the evidence over whether it is occurring is not conclusive, and if it is, the evidence linking it to human activity is highly questionable.
Without reiterating what has been said in other threads, the catastrophic scenarios presented by the doomsayers, most notably the IPCC, are based on the two worst-case scenarios out of over one hundred computer scenarios using multiple factors that the authors of the studies themselves admit are not well understood.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2001 : 02:40:27 [Permalink]
|
Of course the evidence isn't conclusive.
But its more then enough for claims that if we don't stop using Fossil fuels soon there will be big problems.
There are many possibilities, the doomsday ones are actually quite likely when considering what happens when ice-caps melt (which is likely to happen if GMST goes up).
As for us causing it, CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and a doubling of CO2 is known to cause between 1.5 and 4.5 oC or K temperature rise and we are getting pretty close to a doubling.
Can the environment handle such temperature rises well enough for us not to suffer as many adverse consquences as not taking action?
There is an old saying: "better safe then sorry".
I you would rather be sorry then go find another planet to test your theory that CO2 doesn't cause global warming.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2001 : 06:32:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of course the evidence isn't conclusive.
But its more then enough for claims that if we don't stop using Fossil fuels soon there will be big problems.
The point is that there are those (more than just me, and many reputable scientists) who disagree with you here.
quote:
There are many possibilities, the doomsday ones are actually quite likely when considering what happens when ice-caps melt (which is likely to happen if GMST goes up).
As for us causing it, CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and a doubling of CO2 is known to cause between 1.5 and 4.5 oC or K temperature rise and we are getting pretty close to a doubling.
None of this is 'known' in the absolute or scientific senses.
quote:
There is an old saying: "better safe then sorry".
And if there were no consequences of the actions proposed, then I would agree.
There's another old saying: "Look before you leap." Shall we form such important policy around platitudes?
quote:
I you would rather be sorry then go find another planet to test your theory that CO2 doesn't cause global warming.
Do we need to resort to this?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2001 : 08:14:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
None of this is 'known' in the absolute or scientific senses.
This also applies to the existence of God, yet atheists aren't bothered by it.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2001 : 10:19:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This also applies to the existence of God, yet atheists aren't bothered by it.
I'm not sure I follow this logic. Atheists aren't bothered by it because it's why they are atheists: No evidence (conclusive, credible, otherwise) for god, therefore they are atheists. And I am one, by the way.
To clarify my position, though, I do not require 'proof' of global warming to change my position, or 'conclusive evidence.' I can't put a percentage on what amount/type of evidence will convince me it's time to act as drastically as say Kyoto calls for so you can condemn me for that. But I do require more than I feel is out there because I find it woefully inadequate for basing significant policy decisions on.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2001 : 03:13:03 [Permalink]
|
Actually in countries where global warming isn't as much of a poiltical issue and more a scientific issue the consenses is that it is occuring.
Sunspot cycles do have an effect, but it is no where near as much as the denialists claim, most of it is to do with gases which is shown pretty clearly in computer models.
In terms of temperature rise, it is known to be within that range with a very high degree of certaintly.
Now as for consquences, moving away from fossil fuels would have consquences far less then staying with them, you should also know that history has consistantly shown that it costs far more to regulate and prevent environmental damage then it does to clean it up.
As for economic arguments, forget them, the economy is not as important as the environment and is a far softer science.
Oh and does anyone know why the USSR had such a bad environmental record?
Surprisingly it is also why the US is one of the worst polluters of the first world and has nothing to do with whether the state is run by commie bastards of capatilist pigs.
As for other planets, as far as I'm concerned if you want to prove me wrong about CO2 causing global warming your going to have to test it on another planet.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
