What do you guys think about the rich countries signing a death warrant

[Adam]

for this planet to burn up and die last night?

I'm really disappointed myself. There is no difference between bush and obama. I'm sure that will make some of people happy that you've finally got back the low standard of presidency you missed after bush.

America had a chance to save this world and I was optimistic enough that the hard-on they get from going around being the cock-of-the-world would be enough to thrash out something even all the cynics would be happy with. Blaming China is no way to go about this - take responsibility for your previous actions and then other countries will follow taking responsibility for their smaller previous actions and future ones.

Only person to come out of Copenhagen with any credit was Hilary Clinton, Obama should of upstaged her.

The elite will always be fine, poorer nations, we've just placed in a game of never ending russian roulette. Grrrrrrrrrr, I am so angry. Kill the poor.

[RobMoney$]

Silly rabbit.

[Adam]

I'm calmer now. After making this thread I was catching up on the previous days news as I was out all day, and I was angry because I was foolishly optimistic, I liked Obama and expected more. Its sad we are in the hands of so few for every individual in the world.

Yes, its a total slap in the face to poor nations but its what we always do. The more you say to climate change denialist that for millions of years the earth has locked carbon safely in the ground, putting it all into the air within a couple of hundred years for economic growth, not matter what you think will happen, it can't be good since we breath that air - the more they dig their heels in and shrug to make it their children's problem. We evolved in a way that made us into the (more or less) intelligent apes we are today. We take advantage of our surroundings but those that aren't close to the alpha-male are the ones that suffer first. I'm not saying the human race will become extinct but I still do think in a generation or two our children will be looking at how their parents lived with their conscience as they watch places like the Maldives finally disappear and Africa become even more hostile and then impossible place to live. The rest of the world won't be able to support that population so we watch them slowly die while the new Geldof and Bono make everyone feel better by giving £10 to whatever rock star cause is trendy.

Its political suicide to suggest that rich nations need to change their life style drastically and developing nations need to cut population growth. One or the other won't work, both need to happen. The more I think about that, the more you've gotta turn the world into a dictatorship which left-leaning individuals such as me would also oppose. For everyone to start taking responsibility for their actions no matter how small is far too much to ask. Even I don't do what I preach - I try my best but modern world convenience is sometimes too nice to not be selfish every now and then.

But on the other hand I do think we are clever enough to develop geo-engineering techniques but the next moral question is who has controls for such devices? Because it will get to a stage of being able to control the weather globally. Wars have been fought over less.

Sorry for the two long rants but I needed to vent and its nice to be preached at. I know no-one is reading really, but if one person does and either starts taking small steps for themselves that haven't previously or manages to convince me that the world would be better without ice-caps, africa etc then it won't be for nothing (y)

meh

[RobMoney$]

Don't tell me you still subscribe to the liberal "global warming" lie?
I thought everyone was aware that the liars had been exposed by now?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102

Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/#) of machine guns.
Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/#). The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular.


Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists

Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).
I had the pleasure of meeting (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/#) the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.
Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.
Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, “ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.
Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/#) lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.


Total Control

These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/#), but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.
CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”


http://www.nationalpost.com/m/blog.html?b=fullcomment&e=lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor&s=Opinion

Instead, the band members turned to their friends in the media and to the blogosphere, creating a website called RealClimate.org. “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds” in aid of “combating dis-information,” one email explained, referring to criticisms of the hockey stick and anything else suggesting that temperatures today were not the hottest in recorded time. One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

[Adam]

Like I say, I'm with the majority of scientist rather than them on the payroll of energy companies.

But as I said above, I can't understand why some still believe that carbon is better in the air than in the ground. But to each their own.

I've lists of links that can counter prove and you can do the same - its all very grown up. Why not come up with the 'Oh, why was there a warming period in the middle ages before the industrial revolution' next - that is a pretty good argument - I have links saved for that to.

But, you can't change the mind of those that refuse to believe humans don't have a detrimental effect on the planet, I hope I'm wrong though and you're right (y)

edit: yes it is all a global swindle to tax people more.

[saz]

Don't tell me you still subscribe to the liberal "global warming" lie?
I thought everyone was aware that the liars had been exposed by now?


shocking

yeah, it's one major international conspiracy, involving thousands of people, the biggest threat posed to the very core of our freedoms, the fossil fuel industry. i bet you also have qualms with evolution and gravity.

[yeahwho]

shocking

yeah, it's one major international conspiracy, involving thousands of people, the biggest threat posed to the very core of our freedoms, the fossil fuel industry. i bet you also have qualms with evolution and gravity.

CO2 is just a figment of our imaginations, a way for the liberal politicians and corporations to cash in and control the people.

[RobMoney$]

Do you think using faked experiments as evidence to suggest marijuana causes brain damage is an effective way to curb its use?
That's what this seems the equivalent of.

We are spending millions of dollars to study the problem.
I know I'm a bit over the top, but for 15 years the other side was not covered one bit in the media.
Anyone who suggested we were not all going to die in 20 years was the equivalent to a holocaust denier.
The models have intentionally grossly over-estimated the problems and they need to be called to the mat for it. Especially since they are using phony numbers justify the average family to spend over $1000 per year more on energy.
That is flat-out theft in my opinion.

[Schmeltz]

Unfortunately, Rob, even if the stolen info from the CRU represented what you and the other foaming-at-the-mouth righties want so desperately to believe it does, it's only one institute among hundreds that have for decades presented a scientific consensus about the human effect on climate change. A few hyperbolic emails taken out of context does not a revolution make, man. The anti-science, anti-intellect, anti-thought right-wing fringe (like the National Post, which, in completely typical fashion, can't see any further than Wikipedia) has seized on this trivial incident as one more opportunity to vent their cherished belief that there's nothing wrong with consuming and destroying the planet on which we live - understandable since they seem to spend most of their time on another planet anyhow. The death threats received by scientists around the world in the wake of this hacking would seem to stand as proof of that.

We've heard over and over and over that if we attempt to do anything about the social and economic practices affecting the planet's climate it will destroy every single nation's economy. News flash: the economy's been in the shitter for over a year, and this had nothing to do with trying to alter destructive environmental degradation and everything to do with exactly the sort of unfettered capitalism routinely presented by the right as the be-all, end-all solution to everything. Embarrassing is too kind a word.

I think the real problem exposed at Copenhagen was a drastic failure of the international system - the inability of nation-states to transcend their individual interests and create a common solution to a common problem. It's a bad omen, not just for the matter of climate change but for any issue, present and future, that might rear its head and confront all of humanity with a crisis situation. If a globally cooperative social order can't be formed to deal with problems of this magnitude, then another global dislocation on the scale of a third world war is almost sure to follow.

[yeahwho]

Thank you Schmeltz for pretty much summing up the pathetic reality of those who blindly neglect science and embrace fantasyland.

What a horrible year, more war, forced corporate insurance and 0 environmental consciousness. Fuck. Back in May Obama sold his Credit Card Bill to the Republicans with of all things a rider to allow guns in National Parks, I knew the stooping and compromising would stop at nothing once that bill passed. A bill with imaginary interest caps, no lowering of late fees and no loosening of credit, that also had guns as a rider.

It all makes perfect fucking sense if you're living on the planet Idiocracy.

[RobMoney$]

The earth is millions of years old and our data goes back about 100 years. You cannot determine anything with that small of a sample size.
Look at what the Liberal alarmist scientists told us on the first "Earth Day" in 1970.


“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
Life Magazine, January 1970



This is why I'm skeptical.

[Adam]

I wouldn't say your skeptical - you was flat out denying earlier. Skeptical admits a little doubt in your position. I don't fully understand electricity but I don't deny it exists.

But just for a moment - if you are just skeptical - what if humans are slowly killing the planet. What if billions extra will be dead through inaction within a generation?

There was some saying copenhagen should fail for the good of the planet - they have a point as the backlash from that could lead to the revolution in just how pissed people are with the way the world is going. And there is anger rising through the ashes of this - oxfam tweeted something like "very disappointed but campaigning will continue" - and that made me think; yeah, I will carry on supporting for what I believe in, kinda gave me more energy on this fight.

I'm a terrible debater. All I can do for counterclaims etc is post a big wall of text from better writers which I hate doing and I hate seeing massive quotes during a debate, I get more from when people express their own thoughts.

I am a member of the UK Green Party - obviously we are part of the conspiracy I suppose to, I'm more of a silent member and my support is in my membership fee and number mainly but as with anything that is complete failure people go to the extreme side. Like with immigration policy and why people vote BNP, the current elite enable extreme views while feeding propaganda to the mainstream, but the mainstream seems unhappy about voting for any of the top three parties. I would suggest to anyone who is like this and has one issue that grinds them - vote on that. For me its the environment, I'm not deluded enough to think Greens will win the next general election but the more that reject the mainstream the more they have to listen to other views beyond their closest allies (ie banks and energy companies).

[rirv]

The earth is millions of years old and our data goes back about 100 years. You cannot determine anything with that small of a sample size.
Look at what the Liberal alarmist scientists told us on the first "Earth Day" in 1970.

This is why I'm skeptical.

That's the thing about science, it changes based on new findings. 1970 was 39 years ago, they were probably using data collected 15-20 years before that. 1950s science is a long way from where we are now.

[yeahwho]

Where does one start? What does it take to understand that those of you clinging onto any delirious piece of information that disproves Greenhouse Emissions are destroying earth to change your mind?

And why do the majority of us even give a fuck outside of it's freedom of speech?

I don't really care, in fact usually I just laugh... because c'mon now, who's asking you? Volunteer away the bullshit you believe.
I read this Wall Street Journal article and the conclusion I come up with is exactly the same that Adam comes up with.

Hope and funding for saving forests around the world (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121902262.html?hpid=topnews)

It doesn't take too much math to figure out what is happening here.

[travesty]

Smarter heads will prevail. I don't think that even the deniers are going to rush out and start slashing and burning the just because of these e-mails. Will the scandal slow down some legislation, probably. But I think the "green" mindset has firmly taken hold and will continue to bear fruit and point us in the right direction with every passing day. Some people are just more impatient than others.

[saz]

i already posted this but will include it here as it deals with the topic at hand. despite any failures at the international level, governments at the local, state and provincial levels are forging ahead and taking action with clear results.

science is neither liberal or conservative. it's science. to suggest otherwise is competely insane.


Local Governments Can Lead Fight Against Climate Change

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Posted: December 15, 2009 09:42 AM (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-arnold-schwarzenegger/local-governments-can-lea_b_392442.html)

COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- This week leaders from around the world gather here, in a quest for a global pact to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and tackle the single greatest challenge of our time.

I am joining them, to discuss the urgency of their efforts, the economic opportunities we can seize, and the tremendous role of subnational governments in climate-change mitigation.

Some pundits have described Copenhagen as the most important world summit since the end of the Second World War. And it has been suggested that without a binding international agreement, the fight against climate change is unwinnable.

Now, it certainly would be terrific if the world's governments reached such an agreement. But as much as 80 percent of the necessary greenhouse-gas reductions will happen at the subnational level. So why should we focus all our faith and hope in international action?

Throughout the course of history, all great movements have been born at the grassroots level. The American independence movement, the civil-rights movement and the women's suffrage movement were all begun by people who did not wait for others. Then they gained momentum and speed, and swept throughout our nation.

There is a lesson in this when discussing climate change. Even in the absence of national and international commitments, we must not ignore the tremendous movement that is already under way to solve our environmental and energy problems.

For example, states, provinces and cities have been busy passing their own laws and emission targets.

In California, we are implementing a law to cut our greenhouse-gas emissions 25 percent by the year 2020. We approved the world's first Low Carbon Fuel Standard and tailpipe emissions standards, which the Obama administration has now adopted.

We have gone out and formed partnerships with other states, provinces and cities in America, Canada, China, Mexico and Europe. And right now we are working with the U.N. to assist developing countries, especially in Africa.

There is a great tectonic shift already under way that is gaining strength every day. And everyone is getting involved, from businesses and entrepreneurs who are investing billions of dollars into green technology, to ordinary citizens who are buying more energy-efficient appliances, conserving water and choosing to pursue greener lifestyles on their own.

There are so many amazing examples.

Right now a foundation in the San Francisco Bay Area is investing in efforts to help upgrade cement factories in China.

Rajendra Pachauri, a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, has started an initiative to replace kerosene lanterns with solar lights for 1 billion rural people.

Electric utilities are installing millions of square feet of solar panels on warehouse rooftops.

Four of the world's largest meat producers have agreed not to buy cattle from deforested areas of the Amazon.

And this movement is about much more than just protecting the environment. It is also about seizing an incredible economic opportunity.

We can create a new economic foundation for the 21st century that is built on clean fuels, clean cars and clean energy.

Today, California leads the United States with more than 125,000 green jobs. In fact, over the last decade, green jobs in California have grown at nearly triple the rate of total job growth.

And it's not just happening in California.

Green jobs in Idaho have jumped 126 percent; in Kansas, 51 percent; in New Mexico, 50 percent.

Texas, which produces the most wind power of any state, has enjoyed a 16 percent increase.

One hundred and fifty years ago, the Industrial Revolution changed the world and ushered in a new era of prosperity. Today, the Green Revolution can do the same.

And to make that happen, we need everyone to come together and sacrifice for the common good, including the environmental community.

Environmentalists must stop letting the perfect become the enemy of the possible. They cannot oppose coal-fired power plants and at the same time block transmission lines for solar fields and wind farms. They cannot oppose safe and controlled offshore drilling, while also opposing nuclear energy.

If we all work together -- environmentalists, businesses, activists, ordinary citizens and subnational governments -- we can push our nations and the world toward a clean, sustainable future. And regardless of what happens in Copenhagen, we will continue pushing ahead toward that future, because we know we must succeed.

[travesty]

(y)

[Echewta]

Is it me or is Global Warming the only platform for not polluting and being irresponsible with the planet? CO2, CO2, CO2..., bring back the rain forests as the high light, seems to get more attention and do more good. Recycling programs. Safer oil tankers. Water rationing. Etcing.

People can debate that the earth is warming or not based on whatever data but don't we all agree it sucks that you can't find a stream of water to drink from that isn't going to kill you or make you sick because of stuff we did?

[yeahwho]

I should probably bow out of this debate. I have become from the perspective of most a gloomy guy on this topic. I wish I could be more optimistic but the crux of our survival from what I have gathered is CO2 volumes in our atmosphere... mankind is churning out too much CO2 in the form of "Greenhouse Gases".

That taken by itself is tragic, but when it is compounded with deforestation (by slash fires durrrr) problems flow up and down the catastrophe chart that directly effect our climate.

So replanting trees which take 6-7 years before reproduction and thousands of years to reclaim rain forest status is unrealistic to put it in the mildest of terms. The CO2 absorption of these forests is going away.

Am I wrong?

[RobMoney$]

science is neither liberal or conservative. it's science. to suggest otherwise is competely insane.


Do you not understand that the links I provided prove that the science is being influenced by politics to provide skewed results in order to provide the enviormentalists with a stronger platform?

[saz]

the links you provided are from the national post which is a fucking joke, which schmeltz already rebutted. the argument that it's a major international conspiracy involving thousands of people is so laughable, as are all of the arguments on any issue permeating from the teabagging hillbilly right.

[Echewta]

teabagging hillbilly right.


well, thats a new one.

[RobMoney$]

So let me get this straight, you're denying that story is factual?
The emails were never hacked and then posted on the internet?

I get it tho, attack the messenger.

Perhaps these links will be more to your liking?

CBSNews (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml)
Boston Herald (http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1213483&srvc=business&position=recent)
Telegraph.co.uk (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html)



I actually feel sad for those of you who still subscribe to the church of Global Warming.

[saz]

no, i'm not denying that the hack took place. what i'm questioning is the logic and sanity of those who subscribe to meathead viewpoints.

[RobMoney$]

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/)

[RobMoney$]

Here's another "meathead viewpoint" story with facts you will probably continue to ignore, and instead attack the news source that published it.

Skewed Science (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx)
A French scientist’s temperature data show results different from the official climate science. Why was he stonewalled? Climate Research Unit emails detail efforts to deny access to global temperature data
By Phil Green

[travesty]

(y
People can debate that the earth is warming or not based on whatever data but don't we all agree it sucks that you can't find a stream of water to drink from that isn't going to kill you or make you sick because of stuff we did?

THAT IS A REAL PROBLEM! (y)
We're gonna run out of water to drink long before we burn up and melt due to a degree or two temperature rise per century. Our water is appalingly polluted and all the Brita pitchers in the world and melting glaciers ain't gonna cure it. This is by far and away the much more dire and immediate threat, yet it is largley ignored in favor of "greenhouse gas" booogie man.

[yeahwho]

gee I wonder how our water supply is getting so fucked up? I wonder if humans have anything to do with it? Nawwwwww, it's probably those pesky animals out there, we shouldn't have to worry about that because our actions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction#Mass_extinctions) are more than likely going to take care of those stream polluting species.

[yeahwho]

Here is some pure total bullshit propaganda, all lies and complete hogwash.

Who does this guy think he is (http://s361.photobucket.com/albums/oo60/bluestar2009/my_misc_vids/?action=view&current=James_Hansen_climate_scientist_Lett.flv)?

That stuff could never happen... could it?

[travesty]

Yeah there's no controversy surrounding the reputation or funding sources of James Hansen, none. Just google his name. (n) What do you expect from Letterman?

[yeahwho]

Whatever, google every name quoted on this thread, including the writers of all articles.

Show me who is the most credible.

Don't show me who is the most credible.

It doesn't matter even a tiny bit of carbon dust what you want to believe. I'm not here trying to win a debate. If you don't buy into CO2 emissions combined with rapid deforestation can effect our climate, how does that change anything?

That's your issue. I knew a post from a brilliant Climatologist with an incredible argument for environmental catastrophe would be poo pooed the instant I thought of posting it. It's expected. It will always be expected. That is the level of discussion here. Why bother when people who seemingly have brain cells ignore certain facts about life?

I am not going to entertain some issue that you have no grasp for other than arguing against. Stick to all the common sense anecdotes and homey feel good rhetoric then lets get together on this topic in 10 more years, hopefully you can laugh and I can laugh that this was all a load of bullshit. Until then I'm not fiddling or dancing.

[travesty]

Do whatever you please. If you want to get your panties in a bunch over the whole thing and run around worried that the sky is falling tomorrow, so be it. Don't jump my shit just because I questioned your messenger.

I have never said I don't beleive that man made CO2 and deforestation is not a problem or an issue to be addressed. You have me confused with someone else. It is a problem that I feel is serious enough to warrant many changes in my lifestyle over the years that I would have never considered 20 years ago. However, I will not be trading my truck in for a Prius nor will I be supporting cap and trade. Sorry. Call me the bad guy.

[travesty]

Here's a more credible messenger that's not out schlepping a fearmongering book- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen of M.I.T.

WSJ Article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html)

Summary of his accumulated data (http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist)

[Adam]

Ugh, cap and trade is a way passing the buck, it should be made illegal.

I dunno, we all want energy why not start a new economy on green energy? Everything alive today is because of the sun, why not use that more?

And also, the problem might not be as bad that we are at peak oil (although I think we are) but having such a short sighted view is damaging for future generations - because it will happen. I know we'll be all be dead but I feel a little guilty already of how we are currently doing nothing but making it harder for them. Generally we try to make things better for our children. Like I tried to put across originally, whatever you think is gonna happen with continued burning of fossil fuels that was in the earth - good, bad or no effect; it will run out at some point and the fact that CO2 is in the air that we breath rather than in the ground where the earth captured it previously for millions of years so life could flourish cannot be a good thing no matter which way you look at it, right?

If we act fast now (like we could of in Copenhagen), they'll be little changes in any1 lives but humans seem so stubborn and lazy we'd rather make it future generations problems...

It is pointless arguing though, it seems a minority view that pollution is a problem almost to a point of being demoralised and except our fate.

[RobMoney$]

Unfortunately, Rob, even if the stolen info from the CRU represented what you and the other foaming-at-the-mouth righties want so desperately to believe it does, it's only one institute among hundreds that have for decades presented a scientific consensus about the human effect on climate change.

I'd be interested in hearing about these "Hundreds" of other information gathering institutes that are as influential as the CRU on global warming.

Hell, I challenge you to list 5.


BTW, I'm in no way a "rightie", I subscribe to whatever policy makes sense, left or right.

[yeahwho]

I have never said I don't beleive that man made CO2 and deforestation is not a problem or an issue to be addressed. You have me confused with someone else. It is a problem that I feel is serious enough to warrant many changes in my lifestyle over the years that I would have never considered 20 years ago. However, I will not be trading my truck in for a Prius nor will I be supporting cap and trade. Sorry. Call me the bad guy.

Interesting, because Hansen is against Cap & Trade, while most liberals are for Cap & Trade.

Two weeks ago in the NYTimes (that fucked up big city fancy pants newspaper) Hansen wrote an ED/OP called Cap & Fade, then Paul Krugman the very next day wrote a rebuttal called Unhelpful Hansen.

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/unhelpful-hansen/?scp=3&sq=James%20Hansen&st=cse) vs. Hansen (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html?scp=2&sq=James%20Hansen&st=cse).

[yeahwho]

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen of M.I.T. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen) seems to already know which side to put the butter on his bread.

[travesty]

Yeah! You followed one of my links AND did your research. You're getting better yeahwho. I posted Lindzen for a reason; he's just another voice coming from the "brilliant" and "accomplished" scientific community yet is coming to far different conclusion about the CO2 data, as are many others. He also seems to have an alterior agenda based on the major sources of his funding. The potential for bias in today's institutionalized science programs due to funding sources can not be overlooked. We scream and yell when a big corporation spends money in Washington to sway legislation, but no one cares when they spend money at Berkley on a study aimed to produce data friendly to their cause. Believe the facts or believe the hype but there is still no majority consensus among climate rearchers that CO2 is the definitive cause for global warming. Are temps rising -Yes, Are Co2 levels rising-Yes, Are they related- maybe, maybe not. There are findings from "trustworthy" scientists to support both sides. Frankly, I don't know who to believe, I just know I don't trust anything coming out of the mouth of Al Gore.

[saz]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102

ah yes, dr. tim ball. the clown that's popular on many right-wing blogs. first of all, the guy does not hold a climatology phd. he has a historical geography degree. he's a doctor of philosophy, not a doctor of science. ball has also made the claim that he has been a climatology professor for over thirty years at the university of winnipeg. but in a recent lawsuit, ball acknowledged in his statement of claim (http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/TBall%20statement%20of%20claim.pdf) that he was a geography professor for eight years, not over thirty.

ball has also said that he has never received funding from the oil and fossil fuel industry. but in this (http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html) globe and mail article on ball, dr. barry cooper, who assisted with ball's previous fossil fuel industry friendly group called "the friends of science", admitted that ball's former organization received funding from the fossil fuel industry:

"[The money's] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry," says Prof. Cooper. "It's also from foundations and individuals. I can't tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals."

as for ball's former organization, "the friends of science", it is a front group for the fossil fuel industry, which received financial support from talisman energy, an oil company in alberta.


http://www.nationalpost.com/m/blog.html?b=fullcomment&e=lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor&s=Opinion

in his book, The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud (and those who are too fearful to do so), lawrence soloman wrote the following:

"As these rather dramatic reversals for the doomsday view mounted, however, I also noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers."

lawrence soloman also embarrassed himself by writing another op-ed piece for the national post in which he smeared astrophysicist dr. nigel weiss as a climate change denier. dr. weiss wrote a letter to the editorial board of the national post:

"The article by Lawrence Solomon, which portrays me as a denier of global warming, is a slanderous fabrication. I have always maintained that the current episode of warming that we are experiencing is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and that global temperatures will rise much further unless steps are taken to halt the burning of fossil fuel. Compared to these effects, the influence of variations in solar magnetic activity is unimportant, however interesting it may be to astrophysicists like me. For further details see the Press Release on the University of Cambridge website.

Nigel Weiss"

in addition, lawrence soloman might want to be more careful about the company he keeps in regards to his speaking appearances. here he is (http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/CEI%20larry.jpg) at an engagement sponsored by the competitive enterprise institute (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php), which received over two million dollars from exxonmobil between 1998 and 2005.

Here's another "meathead viewpoint" story with facts you will probably continue to ignore, and instead attack the news source that published it.

Skewed Science (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx)
A French scientist’s temperature data show results different from the official climate science. Why was he stonewalled? Climate Research Unit emails detail efforts to deny access to global temperature data
By Phil Green



phil green is another right-wing wingnut jackass and failed conservative party candidate, who thinks he knows better than the thousands of international scientists of the ipcc (http://www.ipcc.ch/) who have reached a consensus regarding climate change. i will take their data, findings and expertise over some right-wing redneck, writing a b.s. opinion piece in the national post. the bottom line is that all of these deniers, who are receiving funding from the fossil fuel industry, or their sympathies rest with the fossil fuel industry, are insinuating that there is some sort of massive international conspiracy involving thousands of people, a conspiracy which is undermining the very core of our freedoms: to pollute and destroy ourselves.

Here's a more credible messenger that's not out schlepping a fearmongering book- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen of M.I.T.

WSJ Article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html)

Summary of his accumulated data (http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist)

lindzen billed (http://dieoff.org/page82.htm) "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."

lindzen also took $10,000 (http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/) in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil-fuel industry.

lindzen is also a member of the annapolis center, which received $973,500 from exxonmobil (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=13) between 1998 and 2007.

Frankly, I don't know who to believe, I just know I don't trust anything coming out of the mouth of Al Gore.

it doesn't matter if it is al gore or arnold schwarzenengger. this is a non-partisan initiative which i credit both of them for undertaking and championing.

[saz]

Jim Inhofe gets cool reception in Denmark

By Louis Roug | 12/19/09 7:33 AM EST
Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30769.html)

COPENHAGEN — Sen. Jim Inhofe flew across the Atlantic and — on little sleep — braved the snow, the cold and the dark to deliver his skeptical message at the international climate conference.

What he found when he got here: a few aides and a single reporter.

“I think he’s going to be a little disappointed,” one of his aides remarked.

Inhofe was at least impatient.

The ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hoped to spread two messages in Copenhagen: Global warming is a hoax, and there’s no way the Senate is going to pass a cap-and-trade bill.

But it was early morning when he arrived at the Bella Center, and the halls were still half-deserted. He walked quickly, brushing off an aide who suggested that he slow down and take a breath.

“I don’t want to breathe — I want to get something done,” he said.

The senator didn’t have any meetings scheduled in Copenhagen, and he did not see chief U.S. negotiator Todd Stern or the members of the House delegation, who were not scheduled to fly in until later in the afternoon.

But Inhofe’s aides eventually rustled up a group of reporters, and the Oklahoman — wearing black snakeskin cowboy boots — held forth from the top of a flight of stairs in the conference media center.

“We in the United States owe it to the 191 countries to be well-informed and know what the intentions of the United States are. The United States is not going to pass a cap and trade,” he said. “It’s just not going to happen.”

A reporter asked: “If there’s a hoax, then who’s putting on this hoax, and what’s the motive?”

“It started in the United Nations,” Inhofe said, “and the ones in the United States who really grab ahold of this is the Hollywood elite.”

One reporter asked Inhofe if he was referring to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another reporter — this one from Der Spiegel — told the senator: “You’re ridiculous.”

Inhofe ignored the jab, fielded a few more questions, then raced to the airport for the nine-hour flight back to Washington.

After Inhofe left, some reporters were still a bit confused about what had happened and who he was.

“His name is Inhofe,” a German journalist told a Japanese reporter, “but I don’t know if it’s one or two f’s.”


inhofe claims oil and gas don't cause pollution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeyjFikvahU


Senator (R - OK) James M. Inhofe: Top 5 Contributors, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00005582&type=I&mem=)

Koch Industries - Total: $39,500; Individuals: $30,500; PACs: $9,000
Murray Energy - Total: $30,600; Individuals: $25,600; PACs: $5,000
Contran Corp - Total: $21,500; Individuals: $13,200; PACs: $8,300
Devon Energy - Total: $19,500; Individuals: $9,500; PACs: $10,000
OGE Energy - Total: $17,800; Individuals: $11,800; PACs: $6,000

Senator (R - OK) James M. Inhofe: Top 5 Industries, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00005582&type=I&mem=)

Oil & Gas - Total: $429,950; Individuals: $250,350; PACs: $179,600
Retired - Total: $287,968; Individuals: $287,968; PACs: $0
Electric Utilities - Total: $206,654; Individuals: $31,454; PACs: $175,200
Lobbyists - Total: $176,983; Individuals: $169,654; PACs: $7,329
Republican/Conservative - Total: $161,725; Individuals: $139,925; PACs: $21,800

and that's just from 2005-2010. here (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&type=I&cid=N00005582&newMem=N) are the totals throughout his career.

[Adam]

This (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas) is very interesting - a fascinating read even.

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth...

It goes on, but basically the Chinese do seem to of come up a lot on who is to blame in separate reports but this is the first I've read on how and why. Maybe I'll take some of my anger away from America. I really did get a feeling good things would come at the final day of copenhagen. hmmmms.

[travesty]

You hit the nail on the head Saz and that was exactly my point by citing Lindzen (I was really just baiting yeahwho). Prominent "scientists" on both sides of the argument are suspect by association to funding entities with overt agendas. This only dilutes their claims even further in my mind and continues to foster skeptics.

[yeahwho]

(I was really just baiting yeahwho).

I have nothing of any interest for you. The verification and vetting process is over for me. I'm not really into trying to convince anybody anything. You have a belief system that is skeptical and good for you.

I am aware of what is happening and that is the best I can do for my family and myself. As the title of the movie suggests, There will be Blood.

[travesty]

Don't sell yourself short yeahwho, you have a lot that's interesting to me. Although sometimes erratic, I find lots of sound reasoning in your posts and I mostly enjoy our discourses as you are not afraid to stand up and say what you feel. That is precisely what I look for when I come to this board. I do know that you don't quite enjoy them as much as I but what can I do? I wasn't trying to bait you into some sort of trap or anything, I was trying to bait you into a good discussion. Anyhow, I'll be offline for a spell so Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to you and everyone else here! 2010 ought to be interesting and I wish all of you and your families the very best! Peace. :)

[Michelle*s_Farm]

it is clear that humans and other species destroy others (including the environment) to further their own short-term selfish interests. there are some tough decisions to be made ahead and clearly we are not a mature enough of a species to make the right choices. scientists can help provide information and suggest ways out of the mess we are moving toward in a seemingly inevitable manner. if world leaders and the people being governed are not willing (or able) to share responsibility by fairly reducing consumption and selfishness i fear that the future of humans (and many other species) on this planet are indeed truly limited. still we should fight the good fight until we are dead.

happy holidays and sorry for the bummer post on a difficult topic.

[RobMoney$]

More evidence of the global warming myth...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece


World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."

The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: "Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.

"Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif."

The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain's 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.

[Adam]

Yup, the times are well known for their unbiased, non-alarmist well researched journalism (y)

[RobMoney$]

Attacking the messenger?

Perhaps this liberally slanted news outlet is more to your liking...
http://topics.treehugger.com/article/0amw3Yiddr1RM

If not then try this...
http://www.google.com/search?q=World+misled+over+Himalayan+glacier+meltd own&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

[Adam]

point taken

http://www.coneybeare.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/image.jpg

[RobMoney$]

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1717636&postcount=8

All I can do is laugh at someone who advocates enviormental restrictions that will ultimately equal higher energy costs, yet posts about not being able to heat his parents home due to the "crippling" (your term, not mine) costs of energy.

Fuckin Ironic.

[rirv]

More evidence of the global warming myth...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

It is not evidence of a global warming myth. Evidence of a global warming myth would be hard data showing that man made emissions have no impact whatsoever on the planet's climate.

This is evidence of poor selection of sources by one group of scientists. Yeah, it's the UN, but since when have you taken the UN seriously?

[rirv]

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1717636&postcount=8

All I can do is laugh at someone who advocates enviormental restrictions that will ultimately equal higher energy costs, yet posts about not being able to heat his parents home due to the "crippling" (your term, not mine) costs of energy.

Fuckin Ironic.

It's not irony. It's looking out for the greater good.

[RobMoney$]

It is not evidence of a global warming myth. Evidence of a global warming myth would be hard data showing that man made emissions have no impact whatsoever on the planet's climate.



This is evidence of poor selection of sources by one group of scientists. Yeah, it's the UN, but since when have you taken the UN seriously?


Ok, fair enough,

More information that supports Global Warming is a myth...

[HAL 9000]

Out of interest Rob, are you saying that Global Warming itself is a myth (ie that temperatures are rising)? Or are you saying that you doubt humanity is impacting it?

For what its worth, it seems to me that temperatures are rising, but both sides of the argument are so crowded with self-interested politicians on the take that the science is easily lost.

We do have a viable mechanism by which human activity could be expected to increase global temperatures (e.g. production of a greenhouse gas) and we have observed correlation between production of that gas and the temperature. I suspect, that the climate models are have so many variables which are beyond our control, that demonstrating causality to a statistically satisfactory level is beyond us. The problem is, at what level of confidence to we say it is worth throwing our resources at it?

Personally, I am prepared to pay the costs now against the possibility that it will help. A hundred years from now, it wont matter that we tightened our belts slightly for no good reason. It will matter though if we fail to act and it turns out we should have.

[RobMoney$]

Out of interest Rob, are you saying that Global Warming itself is a myth (ie that temperatures are rising)? Or are you saying that you doubt humanity is impacting it?

I imagine Christopher Columbus having to deal with the same sort of logic back in fifteenth century Spain.

Just because temperatures may be rising, (and I'm not even sure that has been fully established), that doesn't mean it's because of anything man has done. The earth is millions of years old, and has gone through lord knows how many heating and cooling periods since it's formation.
It's a moving piece of machinery.

The only thing that has been established about our enviorment is that we can't prove anything for a fact.

[saz]

whatever

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm

[travesty]

Personally, I am prepared to pay the costs now against the possibility that it will help. A hundred years from now, it wont matter that we tightened our belts slightly for no good reason. It will matter though if we fail to act and it turns out we should have.

If that is your stance then maybe you also ought to become a priest and devote your life to God just in case he turns out to be real too. :confused:

[Bob]

If that is your stance then maybe you also ought to become a priest and devote your life to God just in case he turns out to be real too. :confused:

but what if god turns out to be muslim? then you've screwed up

[kaiser soze]

If that is your stance then maybe you also ought to become a priest and devote your life to God just in case he turns out to be real too. :confused:

this is why war is stupid - billions of dollars and bombs down the throats of millions of people who have no idea why they're sitting there suffering to only turn into an enemy years down the road later.

because you know....war makes people your friends 4-ever

[Adam]

Council tax and water rates I said was crippling - sorry you misunderstood. I said I don't heat a 4 bed, three floor home just for the sake of it. I know its not the wasteful way I should of been bought up to do.

I'm with a company called good energy for electric - they source all their energy from renewable sources - I could get it cheaper yes but I choose not. My gas bill is about £8 per month which is very cheap (avg for a home this size in this sort of winter is £50), I can't help my home is heated via fossil fuels. I'm not stupid, I know I do a lot of harm to the environment but little things I can do to lessen my impact I will do.

You're a fucking a douche Rob for bring my parents into this, because I do genuinely like your argument style; I hardly ever agree but you're passionate and that is what we need for a better world - leaving a home empty doesn't make economic or environmental sense - fuck you you insensitive jerk! (n)

[HAL 9000]

If that is your stance then maybe you also ought to become a priest and devote your life to God just in case he turns out to be real too. :confused:

You are comparing a decision to act against global warming to Pascal’s Wager. However, this is a false analogy, the reasons that Pascal’s Wager fails is another topic (and I am sure you don’t need it explained to you), but it is not because risk management is a flawed concept (which is the implication of what you are saying).

In life one deals with uncertainty all the time, one has to make decisions based on marginal risk and estimates of probability. Should I buy Home Insurance? How much of my income should I invest in property? How much of the company budget to we spend marketing product A vs product B. All of these are day-to-day decisions in which allocation of scarce resources is based on assessments of risk under conditions of uncertainty.

Another such decision is ‘how much of the worlds resources do we spend against the problem of global warming’ Let us say we can show causality to a 99% level of confidence – perhaps this justifies spending $100 billion on the problem. What if the confidence level is 92%? I would argue, that in such a hypothetical situation we should still spend something – maybe $80 billion and also fund more research. The opposing view (and that which seems to be implied by your comment) is to say that because the confidence level is less than 99% we should spend nothing on the problem.

[HAL 9000]

I imagine Christopher Columbus having to deal with the same sort of logic back in fifteenth century Spain.

Just because temperatures may be rising, (and I'm not even sure that has been fully established), that doesn't mean it's because of anything man has done. The earth is millions of years old, and has gone through lord knows how many heating and cooling periods since it's formation.
It's a moving piece of machinery.

The only thing that has been established about our enviorment is that we can't prove anything for a fact.

Thanks Rob, I just wanted to check where you were coming from on this. I think much of what I just wrote to travesty applies here too. But as a piece of pedantry I would observe that science will never prove anything about the environment (proof being a mathematical, logical or legal construct rather than a scientific one). All you are going to get from science is a level of confidence linking global temperatures to particular variables. That confidence will never be 100% because that is impossible. So the question is, at what level of confidence do we act and how much do we act?


I’m not sure I follow the Christopher Columbus point I’m afraid. I suspect though that if he had taken the view that it was not worth spending resource unless there was a 100% certainty of outcome, he would never have set sail.

[RobMoney$]

I know losing a parent can be hard. I've dealt with losing them myself.
I'm genuinely sorry for your loss, Adam.

[Adam]

I know losing a parent can be hard. I've dealt with losing them myself.
I'm genuinely sorry for your loss, Adam.

Eh, sorry. Just came back to delete that post but can't edit now. It was 6am, before my coffee and first thing I read. I took it the wrong way, I should always get coffee before turning on a laptop