NationStates Jolt Archive

Talk about Global Warming here! I beleive in it because there is tons of proof ;)

Talk about Global Warming here! I beleive in it because there is tons of proof ;)

The freemasons are responsible for global warming. Them and those pesky Scientologists.

::Screams:: It's L. Ron Hubbards fault! ::Curses the Sci-Fi overlord::

Everything is L. Ron Hubbard's fault. Especially global warming.

Mr. Ear.

You might have better luck posting to this website's forum (http://clydelewis.com/).

I'm sorry Clyde. Where ever you are.

http://i18.tinypic.com/353d1zc.jpg

Everything is L. Ron Hubbard's fault. Especially global warming.

I think L. Ron Hubbard is the connection between the Freemasons and the Zionist Conspiracy. He was also a Knight of Templar.... And a member of the Millenium Group.

http://i18.tinypic.com/353d1zc.jpg
So true, I've seen movies that confirm this.
I think L. Ron Hubbard is the connection between the Freemasons and the Zionist Conspiracy. He was also a Knight of Templar.... And a member of the Millenium Group.

And a dream once told me he had something to do with Scientology.

Isn't someone here supposed to Blame Ruffy?
Seriously though, we're doomed.
*scorch*
*blub*

Talk about Global Warming here! I beleive in it because there is tons of proof ;)

Here is proof.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece
Disappearing world: Global warming claims tropical island


For the first time, an inhabited island has disappeared beneath rising seas. Environment Editor Geoffrey Lean reports
Published: 24 December 2006

Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.

As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities.

Eight years ago, as exclusively reported in The Independent on Sunday, the first uninhabited islands - in the Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati - vanished beneath the waves. The people of low-lying islands in Vanuatu, also in the Pacific, have been evacuated as a precaution, but the land still juts above the sea. The disappearance of Lohachara, once home to 10,000 people, is unprecedented.

It has been officially recorded in a six-year study of the Sunderbans by researchers at Calcutta's Jadavpur University. So remote is the island that the researchers first learned of its submergence, and that of an uninhabited neighbouring island, Suparibhanga, when they saw they had vanished from satellite pictures.

Two-thirds of nearby populated island Ghoramara has also been permanently inundated. Dr Sugata Hazra, director of the university's School of Oceanographic Studies, says "it is only a matter of some years" before it is swallowed up too. Dr Hazra says there are now a dozen "vanishing islands" in India's part of the delta. The area's 400 tigers are also in danger.

Until now the Carteret Islands off Papua New Guinea were expected to be the first populated ones to disappear, in about eight years' time, but Lohachara has beaten them to the dubious distinction.

Refugees from the vanished Lohachara island and the disappearing Ghoramara island have fled to Sagar, but this island has already lost 7,500 acres of land to the sea. In all, a dozen islands, home to 70,000 people, are in danger of being submerged by the rising seas.

I personally advocate the idea that global warming is part of a normal cycle. Sort of like long-term seasons.
Of course, I admit that humans may have exaggerated the proccess somewhat, but in a hundred years or so everybody is going to be worried about global cooling.
Not to mention the Space Mongols.
(a cookie to whoever gets the joke >_>)

I know I'm going to get slammed for this, but, I believe in global warming. I can't stop it from happening alone so I guess that I shouldn't worry about it. Besides, it'd be completely hypocritical of me to slam people causing global warming when I'm as big a cuprit as the next person. Unless we get rid of all of these priveleges that we've created for ourselves (which is completely not going to happen) then I see no stopping it. End of discussion.

Talk about Global Warming here! I beleive in it because there is tons of proof ;)

Use of the term "believe" is unnecessary when referring to science. The theory is either sound or it isn't. In this case, there's no real doubt among the scientific community about its validity, despite what the media likes to portray.

EDIT: Also, here's a story you may find interesting (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Oil_giant_paid_groups_to_mislead_0103.html).

I personally advocate the idea that global warming is part of a normal cycle. Sort of like long-term seasons.
Of course, I admit that humans may have exaggerated the proccess somewhat, but in a hundred years or so everybody is going to be worried about global cooling.
Not to mention the Space Mongols.
(a cookie to whoever gets the joke >_>)

More like a couple hundred years. The process is generally a very, very slow process. 100 years is not enough for anything to happen naturally, at least in a global sense.

Use of the term "believe" is unnecessary when referring to science. The theory is either sound or it isn't. In this case, there's no real doubt among the scientific community about its validity, despite what the media likes to portray.

EDIT: Also, here's a story you may find interesting (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Oil_giant_paid_groups_to_mislead_0103.html).

qft

Well, here its summer, and its hot as hell.

I want to see how you europeans and americans will deal with the heat. There are some scientists saying this will be the hotest year in history.

Well, here its summer, and its hot as hell.

I want to see how you europeans and americans will deal with the heat. There are some scientists saying this will be the hotest year in history.

Certainly not proof of Global Warming but will definitely get the attention of critics of Climate Change.

Talk about Global Warming here! I beleive in it because there is tons of proof ;)
The assertion "there is tons of proof" guarantees that you don't understand how proof works.

You might think there is much evidence.

Incidentally, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people who don't believe the Earth is getting warmer. The debate centers primarily around why it's getting warmer, whether it's a bad thing, and what the best response to it might be.

The assertion "there is tons of proof" guarantees that you don't understand how proof works.

You might think there is much evidence.

Incidentally, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people who don't believe the Earth is getting warmer. The debate centers primarily around why it's getting warmer, whether it's a bad thing, and what the best response to it might be.

You can't actually pretend to believe, no matter what your opinion is or which scientists you hold in high regard, that there isn't a plethora of peer reviewed scientific articles supporting the view that Climate Change is related to human activity.

You can't actually pretend to believe, no matter what your opinion is or which scientists you hold in high regard, that there isn't a plethora of peer reviewed scientific articles supporting the view that Climate Change is related to human activity.
"Related" is a pretty weak word.

The temperature really started to take off around 1840. Why? I don't know that answer, and I don't think anyone else does, either. Is it really skyrocketing now? Yes it is, but is it reaching unprecendented levels? No it isn't (they're only unprecendented if you look only at recent (last 2000 years) temperature data). This is why people disagree about how much a of a problem it might be, or what we should do about it.

The debate centers primarily around why it's getting warmer, whether it's a bad thing, and what the best response to it might be.

why it's getting warmer....30-40yrs ago there was debate whether the planet was going into an Ice Age, coming out of an Ice Age or somewhere in between.......the speed of climate change doesn't indicate this is a normal warming so most likely cause is human causes.........is it a bad thing, yes very bad,if it was a natural warming happening at a slower rate the planet's ecosystems could adapt....this isn't the case however, expect mass species extinction and environmental collapse......what can be done? a lot but it won't get done because there will too many in whose interest$ it is to delay progress.......in 50yrs the world will be a very different place than it is now(but I'll be dead so:rolleyes: , in 100-200yrs it will not be at all like it is now(civilization will likely be dead) ........and all this time we thought nukes would be our undoing......

"Related" is a pretty weak word.

The temperature really started to take off around 1840. Why? I don't know that answer, and I don't think anyone else does, either. Is it really skyrocketing now? Yes it is, but is it reaching unprecendented levels? No it isn't (they're only unprecendented if you look only at recent (last 2000 years) temperature data). This is why people disagree about how much a of a problem it might be, or what we should do about it.

A poor choice in wording isn't the issue here.

why it's getting warmer....30-40yrs ago there was debate whether the planet was going into an Ice Age, coming out of an Ice Age or somewhere in between.......the speed of climate change doesn't indicate this is a normal warming so most likely cause is human causes.........is it a bad thing, yes very bad,if it was a natural warming happening at a slower rate the planet's ecosystems could adapt....this isn't the case however, expect mass species extinction and environmental collapse......what can be done? a lot but it won't get done because there will too many in whose interest$ it is to delay progress.......in 50yrs the world will be a very different place than it is now(but I'll be dead so:rolleyes: , in 100-200yrs it will not be at all like it is now(civilization will likely be dead) ........and all this time we thought nukes would be our undoing......

This type of doomsday prophecy helps nothing and nobody.

It's Bill Clinton's fault. How many times do I have to say it? Everything is Clinton's fault. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

This type of doomsday prophecy helps nothing and nobody.

your Dr tells you "stop drinking alcohol now or you'll die in 3 months, stop and you live a long life".....or....would you prefer to hear "you know heavy drinking may be hurting your health, maybe you should think about cutting back".....which would you want to hear?

the reality is there, a 5 degree increase in temp will cause the death of millions(maybe billions), 10 degrees and we're done for as a civilization......if the global warning camp is wrong we can all laugh at them in 50yrs....but if they're right we'll be done for because it will be too late to take action.......

your Dr tells you "stop drinking alcohol now or you'll die in 3 months, stop and you live a long life".....or....would you prefer to hear "you know heavy drinking may be hurting your health, maybe you should think about cutting back".....which would you want to hear?

the reality is there, a 5 degree increase in temp will cause the death of millions(maybe billions), 10 degrees and we're done for as a civilization......if the global warning camp is wrong we can all laugh at them in 50yrs....but if they're right we'll be done for because it will be too late to take action.......

You are assuming that it is already too late to take action. Which is fine and may be true. But it is not how you go about solving problems.

It's Bill Clinton's fault. How many times do I have to say it? Everything is Clinton's fault. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Oh, come on. His blow job wasn't that hot.

A poor choice in wording isn't the issue here.
Sure it is.

If the two are related, then one impacts or responds to the other, but you haven't explained to what extent. If human activity the only factor? A confounding factor? A major factor we can't fully explain? These three things should produce vastly different responses from us.

A bigger issue is whether it's a problem. Mass extinctions have happened before. The temperature has been higher than it is now (though likely not for millions of years), and our response to it could be to adapt to higher temperatures or to mitigate the change somewhat (by adjusting the albedo of the earth, perhaps). There's a lot left to discuss.

Its too cold, bring on the heat and ill meet you at Arizona beach!

Sure it is.

If the two are related, then one impacts or responds to the other, but you haven't explained to what extent. If human activity the only factor? A confounding factor? A major factor we can't fully explain? These three things should produce vastly different responses from us.

A bigger issue is whether it's a problem. Mass extinctions have happened before. The temperature has been higher than it is now (though likely not for millions of years), and our response to it could be to adapt to higher temperatures or to mitigate the change somewhat (by adjusting the albedo of the earth, perhaps). There's a lot left to discuss.

But it is not up for discussion that humans are a major factor... though, it is being discussed endlessly. Nobody thinks that human activity is the only factor... nobody worth talking about. And I haven't seen any report of a confounding factor but would like to view one if you got it on hand.

And the issue that I was debating was whether or not there is a significant amount of support behind human induced climate change. You suggested that there was little evidence or that the evidence was equal to that put forth by nay-sayers.

I blame the fast food industry. (and L. Ron Hubbard of course)

fast food marketing = more burgers eaten = more people fart (global warming gas) and more beef eaten = more cattle farmed = more cow fart = more global warming gas

yes that's it folks, we and the cows we love to eat are farting ourselves out of existance.

Oh, come on. His blow job wasn't that hot.

It made a lot of people in the administration and the Democratic Party sweat. A few probably even used the word "Mama" in a context not often heard in the hauls of Congress. Rather like the time Jefferson was discussing Bach with a few friends in the hot tub at Montecello ...

Talk about Global Warming here! I beleive in it because there is tons of proof ;)
Somehow I can't take seriously a poster with a name like "The Plastic Ear".

Sorry.

Besides, it'd be completely hypocritical of me to slam people causing global warming when I'm as big a cuprit as the next person.
Then stop being as big a cuprit as the next person.

I personally advocate the idea that global warming is part of a normal cycle. Sort of like long-term seasons
It's certainly true that there are periods where the Earth is hotter and colder, but I prefer to be more cautious, so I think that the coincidence with the current spell with the rise of the Industrial Revolution is too much of a coincidence to be just chance.

Use of the term "believe" is unnecessary when referring to science.
A lot of people will blindly treat anything this way, whether it's science, religion, or political ideology.

A bigger issue is whether it's a problem. Mass extinctions have happened before. The temperature has been higher than it is now (though likely not for millions of years), and our response to it could be to adapt to higher temperatures or to mitigate the change somewhat (by adjusting the albedo of the earth, perhaps). There's a lot left to discuss.
I would rather humanity not go extinct, thanks.

Yes it is, but is it reaching unprecendented levels? No it isn't (they're only unprecendented if you look only at recent (last 2000 years) temperature data). This is why people disagree about how much a of a problem it might be, or what we should do about it.
Beyond 2000 years ago doesn't really matter when we're primarily concerned with maintaining our civilisation with as little disruption as possible.

It made a lot of people in the administration and the Democratic Party sweat. A few probably even used the word "Mama" in a context not often heard in the hauls of Congress. Rather like the time Jefferson was discussing Bach with a few friends in the hot tub at Montecello ...

If the paparazzi had not been listening in, masturbation wouldn't carry that social stigma...

I wonder if anybody has been following our cleverness across the boards?

You are assuming that it is already too late to take action. Which is fine and may be true. But it is not how you go about solving problems.

no..I'm not assuming it's to late, but according to some sources we may have as little as 10yrs to begin taking direct action......do we gamble that they are wrong?




A bigger issue is whether it's a problem. Mass extinctions have happened before. . and what, you think we can survive a mass extinction?

The temperature has been higher than it is now (though likely not for millions of years), and our response to it could be to adapt to higher temperatures or to mitigate the change somewhat (by adjusting the albedo of the earth, perhaps). There's a lot left to discuss

people make the mistake of thinking a 5 degree temp rise means nice, warmer winters and such, it's a catastrophe there is no adjusting to it, plants animals will die, the food chain will collapse, whole environments will collapse....a 5 degree increase is enough to destroy 90% of life on the planet, there is no adapting to it......there is a lot left to discuss but it should about what we are going to do to get control of the problem not on what's causing it.....

If the paparazzi had not been listening in, masturbation wouldn't carry that social stigma...

I wonder if anybody has been following our cleverness across the boards?

Probably not, but I've been enjoying it. Beats working.

Wasn't Cardinal Paparazzi the Papal Nuncio to the Americas at the time? The name is familiar in an ecclesiastic sort of way.

Beyond 2000 years ago doesn't really matter when we're primarily concerned with maintaining our civilisation with as little disruption as possible.

We also haven't seen this much carbon dioxide for 650,000 years... but of course, that would have no effect on Global temps...

Probably not, but I've been enjoying it. Beats working.

Wasn't Cardinal Paparazzi the Papal Nuncio to the Americas at the time? The name is familiar in an ecclesiastic sort of way.

Yes, he was. He was also responsible for the first rag about the rich and famous. Ye of Inquiring Minds Whom are of No Small Mind to Acknowledge that Which Bears Ye No Bearing on Ye Private Affairs. Which failed in a short amount of time because nobody could understand what the grammatically and sensically incorrect title was on about.

Yes, he was. He was also responsible for the first rag about the rich and famous. Ye of Inquiring Minds Whom are of No Small Mind to Acknowledge that Which Bears Ye No Bearing on Ye Private Affairs. Which failed in a short amount of time because nobody could understand what the grammatically and sensically incorrect title was on about.

Being in Latin didn't help, either. Though I think it did contribute in a minor way to the defeat of the Russians and Austrians at Austerlitz in December, 1805. I think the Russian commanding general stayed up all night before the battle trying to figure out an article about "L'Hilton de Paris" or perhaps "L'Hotel de Paris" and consequently was off his game in the morning when Napoleon attacked.

Being in Latin didn't help, either. Though I think it did contribute in a minor way to the defeat of the Russians and Austrians at Austerlitz in December, 1805. I think the Russian commanding general stayed up all night before the battle trying to figure out an article about "L'Hilton de Paris" or perhaps "L'Hotel de Paris" and consequently was off his game in the morning when Napoleon attacked.

Napoleon was not immune to the rags effects, either. "Tin Buttons: All The Rage in Paris" was an article which would have devastating consequences.

You suggested that there was little evidence or that the evidence was equal to that put forth by nay-sayers.
I did no such thing. I'm just pointing out the presence of uncertainty. We don't really understand the mechanism that's warming the climate. Yes, we're a major part of that, but we can't explain many of the decades long blips that have occurred.

Plus, the global warming alarmists seem unwilling to accept anything other than an emissions-based solution to the problem, and I want to know why.

I did no such thing. I'm just pointing out the presence of uncertainty. We don't really understand the mechanism that's warming the climate. Yes, we're a major part of that, but we can't explain many of the decades long blips that have occurred.

Plus, the global warming alarmists seem unwilling to accept anything other than an emissions-based solution to the problem, and I want to know why.

I agree with the idea that an emissions-based solution on it's own is short sighted and should be part and not the whole of the solution.

Does everybody remember that big hole in the ozone that the same people who are going crazy over global warming were going crazy over? Yea, remember all that 'science' that backed everything up?

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1883750,00.html

Wait. And here I was thinking that scientists were infallible.:rolleyes:

I did no such thing. I'm just pointing out the presence of uncertainty. We don't really understand the mechanism that's warming the climate. Yes, we're a major part of that, but we can't explain many of the decades long blips that have occurred.

Plus, the global warming alarmists seem unwilling to accept anything other than an emissions-based solution to the problem, and I want to know why.

ok....you wake up in your bed one night and find yourself floating in a flood of water you do what.....1-investigate the source of the incoming water because you're a curios type of person or 2-get to higher ground(roof) as fast as you can?

what the cause of global warming is is irrelevant, the only topic to be discussed should be "can we control it". If it's natural and we're doomed to die regardless what we do we shit out of luck.... and if it's a combination Human and natural and we may also be doomed to die.....but just maybe if we start now we may be able to influence it by reducing the human component.....where is the downside to playing it safe?

Does everybody remember that big hole in the ozone that the same people who are going crazy over global warming were going crazy over? Yea, remember all that 'science' that backed everything up?

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1883750,00.html

Wait. And here I was thinking that scientists were infallible.:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: If you were you fail at understanding what science is.

:rolleyes: If you were you fail at understanding what science is.

Tell that to the people who believe in global warming and every popular theory pertaining to it and would die rather than admit that scientists could be wrong.

Does everybody remember that big hole in the ozone that the same people who are going crazy over global warming were going crazy over? Yea, remember all that 'science' that backed everything up?

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1883750,00.html

Wait. And here I was thinking that scientists were infallible.:rolleyes:

why would you post a link to something that doesn't support your argument?

the ozone hole is real and governments listened to scientists and banned CFC's.....the danger was real, action was taken, and the damage will be repaired....

ok....you wake up in your bed one night and find yourself floating in a flood of water you do what.....1-investigate the source of the incoming water because you're a curios type of person or 2-get to higher ground(roof) as fast as you can?

what the cause of global warming is is irrelevant, the only topic to be discussed should be "can we control it". If it's natural and we're doomed to die regardless what we do we shit out of luck.... and if it's a combination Human and natural and we may also be doomed to die.....but just maybe if we start now we may be able to influence it by reducing the human component.....where is the downside to playing it safe?

Can you explain to me how we would die from global warming?

why would you post a link to something that doesn't support your argument?

the ozone hole is real and governments listened to scientists and banned CFC's.....the danger was real, action was taken, and the damage will be repaired....

Banning CFC's has nothing to do with the hole closing. It is b/c temps are cooling off in the upper atmosphere in antartica.

Tell that to the people who believe in global warming and every popular theory pertaining to it and would die rather than admit that scientists could be wrong.

"Hello, people who believe in global warming and every popular theory pertaining to it and would die rather than admit that scientists could be wrong, scientists can be wrong!"

Feel better? When new data comes in, we change the theory. New data came in. We changed the theory. Another triumph for science! :D

"Hello, people who believe in global warming and every popular theory pertaining to it and would die rather than admit that scientists could be wrong, scientists can be wrong!"

Feel better? When new data comes in, we change the theory. New data came in. We changed the theory. Another triumph for science! :D

The problem is that there isn't enough data yet to make a theory. You might as well just wait a bit and make a theory that you don't need to guess as much on and hold off on the PR campaign to make all the gullibles think you are correct.

Tell that to the people who believe in global warming and every popular theory pertaining to it and would die rather than admit that scientists could be wrong.

ya...and my dad denied for years that smoking could kill, "those scientists don't know everything" was his standard comment.......guess what killed him......

scientists can sometimes be wrong, but why would anyone gamble their life on that....

ya...and my dad denied for years that smoking could kill, "those scientists don't know everything" was his standard comment.......guess what killed him......

scientists can sometimes be wrong, but why would anyone gamble their life on that....

If the science backing something up is actual science then i couldn't be more happy to buy into something. But you can't run actual experiments on global warming. All you can do is collect historical data points and run computer models. It's the computer models that are being substituted for actual science and i think that that is lazy and wrong. Smoking isn't anything like it because you can easily conduct an experiment about it.

P.S. you never answered how global warming can kill all humans.

Banning CFC's has nothing to do with the hole closing. It is b/c temps are cooling off in the upper atmosphere in antartica.

luckily the world is in hands of people with a better understanding of science than you.....it was CFC's always has been, you better do some more research into the topic(and the ozone hole was over both poles, but you knew that too didn't you:rolleyes: )

The problem is that there isn't enough data yet to make a theory. You might as well just wait a bit and make a theory that you don't need to guess as much on and hold off on the PR campaign to make all the gullibles think you are correct.

So it's okay to go spraying CFCs into the atmosphere because we're not as sure as you'd like that they contribute to the ozone hole? Heck, let's not theorize about ... I don't know, are we really sure diseases are caused by tiny little one-celled creatures? Maybe we'd better hold off on the PR thing about washing your hands before cutting someone open, it might upset some people.

Don't be silly.

luckily the world is in hands of people with a better understanding of science than you.....it was CFC's always has been, you better do some more research into the topic(and the ozone hole was over both poles, but you knew that too didn't you:rolleyes: )

If you read the article you would see that it only talks about antartica. And yea CFC's break up O3 but the article cited lowering temps as the main catalyst of change.

So it's okay to go spraying CFCs into the atmosphere because we're not as sure as you'd like that they contribute to the ozone hole? Heck, let's not theorize about ... I don't know, are we really sure diseases are caused by tiny little one-celled creatures? Maybe we'd better hold off on the PR thing about washing your hands before cutting someone open, it might upset some people.

Don't be silly.

Lets review, i never said that CFC's contributed to the hole. That can't be disputed b/c it is backed up by actual experiments. You second 'example' is ludacris as it was meant to be b/c we can see them and we can conduct experiments to prove it.

Can you explain to me how we would die from global warming?

food system collapses because there is too many people and not enough food to feed them,ocean fisheries will collapse(over fishing and warming) arable land is lost(expanding deserts) and water supplies for irrigation dry up.....

food system collapses because there is too many people and not enough food to feed them,ocean fisheries will collapse(over fishing and warming) arable land is lost(expanding deserts) and water supplies for irrigation dry up.....

Drop in ocean salinity causes massive plankton dieoffs, meaning that A: the entire oceanic ecosystem collapses, and B: more oxygen is being consumed than is produced.

If you read the article you would see that it only talks about antartica. And yea CFC's break up O3 but the article cited lowering temps as the main catalyst of change.

you misunderstand the article, weather affects the ozone there is always a hole at the poles, it naturally grows bigger and smaller according to temp.......man made chemicals particularly CFC's were destroying it, 75% of the ozone depletion is due to man made chemicals, it was being degraded faster than it could be replished.....CFC's degrade naturally since the banning CFC's and other chemicals the ozone layer has been replenishing itself.....

http://www2.ebtech.net/~hgallawa/dcauses.htm

Use of the term "believe" is unnecessary when referring to science. The theory is either sound or it isn't. In this case, there's no real doubt among the scientific community about its validity, despite what the media likes to portray.

EDIT: Also, here's a story you may find interesting (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Oil_giant_paid_groups_to_mislead_0103.html).

The problem is that they allow "scientific" studies to be commissioned by the big oil companies and guess what their study finds? They use this information to promote their own self interest and people buy it because after all, it's a "scientific study."

"Related" is a pretty weak word.

The temperature really started to take off around 1840. Why? I don't know that answer, and I don't think anyone else does, either. Is it really skyrocketing now? Yes it is, but is it reaching unprecendented levels? No it isn't (they're only unprecendented if you look only at recent (last 2000 years) temperature data). This is why people disagree about how much a of a problem it might be, or what we should do about it.

Actually you are quite wrong. They have temperature records (available through ice drilling and fossil records) which can go back 650,000 years. They have tracked co2 level along with temperatures for this time and realize that temperatures followed a natural pattern. These patterns stretch back as far as 7 ice ages ago. So your notion that it's only the past 2,000 years is utterly false and ignorant of the current information. Yes it is unprecedented as 14 of the hottest years in these studies have been during the last 20. Disease locations have changed, plant and animal migration has changed, and all these studies have shown that as co2 rises so does the temperature.

The biggest element that you are neglecting to mention are ocean current and the cause of the last ice again. These current are precise and regulate the temperature of the entire globe. At the time of the last ice age the glaciers of North America, now the Great Lakes, melted and rushed fresh water into the area of the Labrador current. This made the dense cold water that ran at the bottom of the ocean lighter and fresh and cause the current to stop pumping the way it should. The scientist at NOAA have done on this research and you may review it by "the google." Once this heat transfer was shut off it sent Europe into the last ice age. The system is made to work only one way and once you disturb that balance you're screwed. There is not any peer reviewed studies that suggest otherwise. The only studies that say otherwise were commissioned by big energy companies that certainly have no bias. :rolleyes:

"Related" is a pretty weak word.

The temperature really started to take off around 1840. Why? I don't know that answer, and I don't think anyone else does, either. Is it really skyrocketing now? Yes it is, but is it reaching unprecendented levels? No it isn't (they're only unprecendented if you look only at recent (last 2000 years) temperature data). This is why people disagree about how much a of a problem it might be, or what we should do about it.

The Industrial revolution started about 100 years earlier, powered by Coal for the most part. What is Coal? A fossil fuel like oil that starts to pump CO2 into the atmosphere. By 1840, most major industrial cities in Western Europe and the Eastern US were shrouded in polluted fumes.

And in terms of unprecedented the 10 hottest years on record (as opposed to estimates of earlier periods) were in the last 12 years.

This type of doomsday prophecy helps nothing and nobody.

Actually it does as most people just like to say "I'll worry about it later." By the time later comes you'll have ice over your head and all around you. Global warming brings about a huge that takes place almost immediately. The subtle changes we see now turn into a drastic change that ends life as we know it. People should fear this greatly as the price is life.

silly, it's 58 degrees in FELIXITY... el nino....
every body will be crying it's too cold next year..
piled under two feet of snow...DON'T question
mother nature, embrace her

I did no such thing. I'm just pointing out the presence of uncertainty. We don't really understand the mechanism that's warming the climate. Yes, we're a major part of that, but we can't explain many of the decades long blips that have occurred.

Plus, the global warming alarmists seem unwilling to accept anything other than an emissions-based solution to the problem, and I want to know why.

because over the past 650,00 years them temp and co2 have gone up, they've gone down, up and down, up and down. As they go up and down so do the temperatures. Since we can't stop eating, breathing or drinking to eliminate co2 the only rational response it to lower the amount we are artificially creating through industry and travel purposes. We could try and just kill of half the world's population and that might work. We could also destroy much of the factory based systems we have and replant tons of trees and that would help. Then again when the leaves fell in the fall and winter the co2 would rise sharply and might put us in the same place. C02 levels are at historic highs and as China continues it's development their billions of people are going to use more oil and fossil fuels than even the US. This will shoot them temps though the roof and change ocean temperatures. This change will shut the Labrador current down and end the transfer of heat in the oceans producing another ice age killing 90% of the world's population. I suggest you move really close to the equator.

Does everybody remember that big hole in the ozone that the same people who are going crazy over global warming were going crazy over? Yea, remember all that 'science' that backed everything up?

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1883750,00.html

Wait. And here I was thinking that scientists were infallible.:rolleyes:

Erm... scientist are fallible, but that's not what this article is about. The cold air has allowed the hole to grow more than it usually does. The hole grows and shrinks through the year according to temperature, however its average size was getting much bigger due to CFCs and other gases. Some years ago the governments of the world agreed to stop producing CFCs but the amount already expelled will linger for several years. This all was known, there's been no failure in this case.

Does everybody remember that big hole in the ozone that the same people who are going crazy over global warming were going crazy over? Yea, remember all that 'science' that backed everything up?

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1883750,00.html

Wait. And here I was thinking that scientists were infallible.:rolleyes:

Uhhh, why do you think it will shrink? Could it maybe be because we started to ban and cut down on CFC's that it will heal? Thank you for proving the scientists point when you thought you were just being a wiseass. :fluffle:

Banning CFC's has nothing to do with the hole closing. It is b/c temps are cooling off in the upper atmosphere in antartica.

The ozone "hole" opens up over the Antarctic every year in mid-August and usually peaks in size by September. It is not a hole in the literal sense because ozone still exists over the continent but significant amounts of the gas are destroyed in this area because of the temperature and presence of damaging gases such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Article continues
"This year it's been very cold in the Antarctic ozone layer and, as a consequence, [the hole] has had a chance to expand to quite a large size," said Jonathan Shanklin, head of the meteorology and ozone monitoring unit at the British Antarctic Survey.

Tell me again how this supports you argument and defies ours? Cognitively challenged are we? You die from global warming because it brings about another ice age my dear confused one.

The problem is that there isn't enough data yet to make a theory. You might as well just wait a bit and make a theory that you don't need to guess as much on and hold off on the PR campaign to make all the gullibles think you are correct.

sure, 650,000 years of data is just not long enough. :headbang:

Actually it does as most people just like to say "I'll worry about it later." By the time later comes you'll have ice over your head and all around you. Global warming brings about a huge that takes place almost immediately. The subtle changes we see now turn into a drastic change that ends life as we know it. People should fear this greatly as the price is life.

Or they will reply with the, "Nothing can be done about it so why worry?" There is no need to hinder rational thought with fear.

Talk about Global Warming here! I beleive in it because there is tons of proof ;)

I dont believe in it because theres tons of proof.;)

Banning CFC's has nothing to do with the hole closing. It is b/c temps are cooling off in the upper atmosphere in antartica.

Do you have the least bit of knowledge regarding ozone and CFC's? I mean, just a little bit?

You die from global warming because it brings about another ice age my dear confused one.

that would be another debate-I've heard that scenario but I trouble accepting Global Warming triggering another Ice Age......polar Ice caps are shrinking, breaking up(arctic ocean may be open water in 50-100yrs) , Greenland's Glacier is receding, some N American glaciers will be gone in as little as 30-50 yrs......

that would be another debate-I've heard that scenario but I trouble accepting Global Warming triggering another Ice Age......polar Ice caps are shrinking, breaking up(arctic ocean may be open water in 50-100yrs) , Greenland's Glacier is receding, some N American glaciers will be gone in as little as 30-50 yrs......

I'd say even less than half of that time.

what the cause of global warming is is irrelevant, the only topic to be discussed should be "can we control it". If it's natural and we're doomed to die regardless what we do we shit out of luck.... and if it's a combination Human and natural and we may also be doomed to die.....but just maybe if we start now we may be able to influence it by reducing the human component.....where is the downside to playing it safe?
There is significant cost to "playing it safe", and without a solid understanding of what the cause is we have little reason top believe what we're doing will work.

Now, there are solutions that are guaranteed to work because they address the root cause of the heat, but those have nothing to do with emissions.

Sunlight. If we hang a solar shield at L1 (something we already have the technology to do, because SOHO is already there), we could reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth, and if we did that by 1% we'd solve the warming problem.

There is significant cost to "playing it safe", and without a solid understanding of what the cause is we have little reason top believe what we're doing will work.

Now, there are solutions that are guaranteed to work because they address the root cause of the heat, but those have nothing to do with emissions.

Sunlight. If we hang a solar shield at L1 (something we already have the technology to do, because SOHO is already there), we could reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth, and if we did that by 1% we'd solve the warming problem.

At the same time, we could reduce emissions. Thereby saving the costs of having to launch a shuttle everytime some little thing goes wrong with the shield.

At the same time, we could reduce emissions. Thereby saving the costs of having to launch a shuttle everytime some little thing goes wrong with the shield.
A space elevator also eliminates the cost of a shuttle.

There's more than one possible solution to this "problem". Let's at least be willing to discuss them.

We could spend a few dollars and see if this (http://www.science.edu/TechoftheYear/TechoftheYear.htm) pans out.

I doubt anyone is in favor of that though. I mean looking for an actual soloution is not the point of this exercise.

Why don't we just go the whole hog and have a 'war on carbon'. Mmmmm, taste that guaranteed lifetime non-profit and government employment goodness. (Which is what all this is really about).

Actually you are quite wrong. They have temperature records (available through ice drilling and fossil records) which can go back 650,000 years. They have tracked co2 level along with temperatures for this time and realize that temperatures followed a natural pattern. These patterns stretch back as far as 7 ice ages ago. So your notion that it's only the past 2,000 years is utterly false and ignorant of the current information. Yes it is unprecedented as 14 of the hottest years in these studies have been during the last 20. Disease locations have changed, plant and animal migration has changed, and all these studies have shown that as co2 rises so does the temperature.
Was I talking about the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature? No, I wasn't. I was pointing out that some of the temperatures over that period were HIGHER than the one's we're currently experiencing, and the world survived those. Regardless of whether the current temperatures are our fault, the fact remains that these temperatures aren't unprecedented.
The biggest element that you are neglecting to mention are ocean current and the cause of the last ice again. These current are precise and regulate the temperature of the entire globe. At the time of the last ice age the glaciers of North America, now the Great Lakes, melted and rushed fresh water into the area of the Labrador current. This made the dense cold water that ran at the bottom of the ocean lighter and fresh and cause the current to stop pumping the way it should. The scientist at NOAA have done on this research and you may review it by "the google." Once this heat transfer was shut off it sent Europe into the last ice age. The system is made to work only one way and once you disturb that balance you're screwed.
A medieval society might be screwed. An advanced industrial society can adapt.

sure, 650,000 years of data is just not long enough. :headbang:

None of that data was taken in an experiment with a control and control over the factors. For example, in a controlled experiment you can add C02 to something and see the heat rise or you can add heat to something and see the C02 rise. With an uncontrolled experiment, all you see is that two things increased but you don't know which caused the other or if they have any relation at all.

I was pointing out that some of the temperatures over that period were HIGHER than the one's we're currently experiencing, and the world survived those.

Except it isn't the increase of temperature that causes the problems. It's the rate of increase. If it increases too quickly, then things won't have enough time to evolve to deal with the higher temperatures and the lower levels of water salinity.

A space elevator also eliminates the cost of a shuttle.

There's more than one possible solution to this "problem". Let's at least be willing to discuss them.

No doubt. But it is still something that must be constructed in order to be taken seriously, though there have been significant steps toward that goal. I see no reason why this shouldn't be part of the solution. But I also see no reason why this part of the solution should let business run as usual with emissions.

Well, here its summer, and its hot as hell.

I want to see how you europeans and americans will deal with the heat. There are some scientists saying this will be the hotest year in history.

You know that already. They deal with it by installing aircon everywhere and burning a bunch of coal to run it.

Kangaroos deal with the heat by lying down under a tree and looking disgusted. Works OK if you can find a tree ....

Does everybody remember that big hole in the ozone that the same people who are going crazy over global warming were going crazy over? Yea, remember all that 'science' that backed everything up?

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1883750,00.html

Wait. And here I was thinking that scientists were infallible.:rolleyes:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/05/03/ozone-layer060503.html
The ozone layer showed signs of stabilizing or increasing slightly in the past 10 years but it's unlikely to recover to a level observed before 1980.

Nobody said the hole would stay forever. People were more worried at the time that the hole would expand.

We could spend a few dollars and see if this (http://www.science.edu/TechoftheYear/TechoftheYear.htm) pans out.

I doubt anyone is in favor of that though. I mean looking for an actual soloution is not the point of this exercise.

Why don't we just go the whole hog and have a 'war on carbon'. Mmmmm, taste that guaranteed lifetime non-profit and government employment goodness. (Which is what all this is really about).

What is so damn tasty about carbon emissions that have you salivating so fiercely every time it is mentioned that we'd be better off not relying on them? You have stock in an oil company or something?

Banning CFC's has nothing to do with the hole closing. It is b/c temps are cooling off in the upper atmosphere in antartica.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Ozone_cycle_overview
http://www.theozonehole.com/cfc.htm

Now tell me CFC's had nothing to do with ozone depletion. Also, what does temperature cooling in Antarctica have to do with the Ozone hole closing? Ozone molecules contribute to global warming on the ground level, so if the temperature is cooling, then shouldn't there be less ozone molecules?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Ozone_cycle_overview
http://www.theozonehole.com/cfc.htm

Now tell me CFC's had nothing to do with ozone depletion. Also, what does temperature cooling in Antarctica have to do with the Ozone hole closing? Ozone molecules contribute to global warming on the ground level, so if the temperature is cooling, then shouldn't there be less ozone molecules?

There was no reason to post links. If that person actually wanted to know what caused the hole in the ozone, a simple search would have enlightened him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Ozone_cycle_overview
http://www.theozonehole.com/cfc.htm

Now tell me CFC's had nothing to do with ozone depletion. Also, what does temperature cooling in Antarctica have to do with the Ozone hole closing? Ozone molecules contribute to global warming on the ground level, so if the temperature is cooling, then shouldn't there be less ozone molecules?

Okay, i never said that CFC's had nothing to do with ozone depletion. If you want to actually look at what i said then go ahead. However you probably shouldn't say anything because 5 people have already said the same exact thing. I believe what you are doing is called trolling actually.

The problem is that there isn't enough data yet to make a theory. You might as well just wait a bit and make a theory that you don't need to guess as much on and hold off on the PR campaign to make all the gullibles think you are correct.
Researchers in the scientific community wait until they have enough evidence to back up their theories, or else they would keep on researching. If you think they should wait until they are 100% sure about something, then you might as well just be skeptical about everything. Hell, you don't have proof that you exist 100%.

There was no reason to post links. If that person actually wanted to know what caused the hole in the ozone, a simple search would have enlightened him.
I'm just that optimistic sometimes about stopping human stupidity. *sigh*
Okay, i never said that CFC's had nothing to do with ozone depletion. If you want to actually look at what i said then go ahead. However you probably shouldn't say anything because 5 people have already said the same exact thing. I believe what you are doing is called trolling actually.
*scratches head*

Trolling?

Okay, screw the environmental debate, how about I link you to the forum rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573) first?

Trolling?

Okay, screw the environmental debate, how about I link you to the forum rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573) first?

The topic is actually global warming. You are talking about the ozone layer. That is off topic. That is also threadjacking. Just stop. I know that i was wrong about a lot of what i said. Move on.

Researchers in the scientific community wait until they have enough evidence to back up their theories, or else they would keep on researching. If you think they should wait until they are 100% sure about something, then you might as well just be skeptical about everything. Hell, you don't have proof that you exist 100%.

I'm saying that i don't think that researchers have waited long enough. Any decent scientist will tell you that skeptics help keep the scientific community in check. Of course the ones with control of the media are not the same.

I really don't know what it means to exist 100% but whatever.

The topic is actually global warming. You are talking about the ozone layer. That is off topic. That is also threadjacking. Just stop. I know that i was wrong about a lot of what i said. Move on.
Oh silly me. How could I have gone so off-topic as to mention precedents in global atmospheric environmental problems.

Apology accepted, so run along now, n00b.

What is so damn tasty about carbon emissions that have you salivating so fiercely every time it is mentioned that we'd be better off not relying on them? You have stock in an oil company or something?

Quite the opposite. I sold those in the spring when it became obvious the democrats were going to win congress.

If they really are a problem, then something should be done about it. However, whining about them, funding dubious research and writing silly papers is not accomplishing jack shit. Global warming has just become another non productive whinge industry for people with no productive skills. It's at the point now where a sizeable minority is convinced that the sky is falling but still want to spend most of their time arguing either how fast or tryng to convince everyone else. And yet it has its own momentum, so it's guaranteed employment for these folks. (And asshats on the other side).

No-one ever actually suggests a concrete solution. I mean one with diagrams and numbers and a critical path to implementation. It's all just about the 'latest' findings and 'raising awareness'.

The move to a carbon neutral regime is an engineering and physics problem. There is no impetus on either side to actually start doing this. (Well there is some vague talk by some, but nothing actually concrete, and even then most of that is mixed in with shit about living a more primitive lifestyle). Frankly, the whole thing has become as moribund as the war on cancer, poverty and aids.

Frankly, both sides should shut up until they have something constructive to offer. That won't happen though. Nothing will be accomplished either way. I imagine carbon emissions will be dictated more by the economics of using fossil fuels in the long run.

The topic is actually global warming. You are talking about the ozone layer. That is off topic. That is also threadjacking. Just stop. I know that i was wrong about a lot of what i said. Move on.

You brought it up... weird...

The topic is actually global warming. You are talking about the ozone layer. That is off topic. That is also threadjacking. Just stop. I know that i was wrong about a lot of what i said. Move on.

That's not off topic at all........:confused:

Quite the opposite. I sold those in the spring when it became obvious the democrats were going to win congress.

If they really are a problem, then something should be done about it. However, whining about them, funding dubious research and writing silly papers is not accomplishing jack shit. Global warming has just become another non productive whinge industry for people with no productive skills. It's at the point now where a sizeable minority is convinced that the sky is falling but still want to spend most of their time arguing either how fast or tryng to convince everyone else. And yet it has its own momentum, so it's guaranteed employment for these folks. (And asshats on the other side).

No-one ever actually suggests a concrete solution. I mean one with diagrams and numbers and a critical path to implementation. It's all just about the 'latest' findings and 'raising awareness'.

The move to a carbon neutral regime is an engineering and physics problem. There is no impetus on either side to actually start doing this. (Well there is some vague talk by some, but nothing actually concrete, and even then most of that is mixed in with shit about living a more primitive lifestyle). Frankly, the whole thing has become as moribund as the war on cancer, poverty and aids.

Frankly, both sides should shut up until they have something constructive to offer. That won't happen though. Nothing will be accomplished either way. I imagine carbon emissions will be dictated more by the economics of using fossil fuels in the long run.
I'm pretty much in agreement with you here. If it were not for the oil industry creating so much smoke screening in their own self-interest (which, realistically - what else could we possibly expect them to do?) maybe there would not be so mcuh silliness with repetitive papers and endless convincing. I have hopes, in the US at least, that finally some definitive work may be done. Not especially high hopes, though.

That's not off topic at all........:confused:

nether is that.:rolleyes: Just let it die

nether is that.:rolleyes: Just let it die

It won't die. It's got a mind of it's own. It has three hearts, for Pete's sake! Kick it in the balls! It just may slow it down...

I'm pretty much in agreement with you here. If it were not for the oil industry creating so much smoke screening in their own self-interest (which, realistically - what else could we possibly expect them to do?) maybe there would not be so mcuh silliness with repetitive papers and endless convincing. I have hopes, in the US at least, that finally some definitive work may be done. Not especially high hopes, though.
Well, some States are at least trying to develop alternative energy sources, aren't they? I mean, with the jacked up oil prices lately, people are moving more and more towards smaller hybrid cars. Though the reason might be selfish and purely monetary, the outcome for CO2 emission level is good. We're not as doomed as many people say. I just wish Dubya would pull his head out of his ass for once.

It won't die. It's got a mind of it's own. It has three hearts, for Pete's sake! Kick it in the balls! It just may slow it down...
LG reincarnate? :p

I'm pretty much in agreement with you here. If it were not for the oil industry creating so much smoke screening in their own self-interest (which, realistically - what else could we possibly expect them to do?) maybe there would not be so mcuh silliness with repetitive papers and endless convincing. I have hopes, in the US at least, that finally some definitive work may be done. Not especially high hopes, though.

I think it is time that the greens started using some of their fundraising efforts to put money into projects like the link I provided. Maybe it's nothing, but the potential upside for a small investment <$200 million, is enourmous. (Also, the expected portability would mean it would be ideal as a power generation unit for developing countries, thereby short circuiting the high carbon load they are expected to go through in the next fifty years).

And other projects too of course. I would like to see an environmental non-profit actually start its own alternative energy supplier. They have the political muscle and high profile to pull it off. Doubtless the cost of such power would be higher, but I think many people would pay that. At the moment there simply isn't that option. For example, I have a choice of electricty suppliers, but they are all trapped in the traditional generating model. It's one thing to say to consumers they must be more green, but if no-one is providing alternatives to them it is very hard to do. And clearly the people most able to get the ball rolling in this direction are the people who are already devoting their working lives to this issue.

You, know, things like that. If that started happening I'm sure I'd pay more attention.

Finally, as I have posted many times before, public transportation needs to be addressed. But it has to be done properly, with the end user and not unions or politicians and their patronage in mind.

Well, some States are at least trying to develop alternative energy sources, aren't they? I mean, with the jacked up oil prices lately, people are moving more and more towards smaller hybrid cars. Though the reason might be selfish and purely monetary, the outcome for CO2 emission level is good. We're not as doomed as many people say. I just wish Dubya would pull his head out of his ass for once.


There are a few token efforts, but it doesn't really amount to anything. It's <2.7% and a fair amount of that is hydroelectic which has its own set of environmental problems.

Also, if you try and build a windfarm, a lot of environmentalists get angry and want to stop it. No pleasing some people I expect. (Though I think that for a sizeable minority of the loudest voices on the green side this is not actually an enviromental issue, but a method of imposing their preferred lifestyle on everyone else).

There are a few token efforts, but it doesn't really amount to anything. It's <2.7% and a fair amount of that is hydroelectic which has its own set of environmental problems.

Also, if you try and build a windfarm, a lot of environmentalists get angry and want to stop it. No pleasing some people I expect. (Though I think that for a sizeable minority of the loudest voices on the green side this is not actually an enviromental issue, but a method of imposing their preferred lifestyle on everyone else).
Well, if you count nuclear as an alternative energy source, then it should be a lot greater than 2.7% from what I've read. (Don't quote me on this, I might be wrong.) Not that I'm advocating nuclear energy itself, but at least it's not emitting greenhouse gases. Nuclear might be a viable transition from fossil fuels to cleaner sources.

As for the environmentalists, some of them are too radical for my taste, and I'm quite the environmentalist. There isn't going to be an energy source that doesn't alter its environment somehow. It's ultimately how much damage the energy source does.

Was I talking about the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature? No, I wasn't. I was pointing out that some of the temperatures over that period were HIGHER than the one's we're currently experiencing, and the world survived those. Regardless of whether the current temperatures are our fault, the fact remains that these temperatures aren't unprecedented.

A medieval society might be screwed. An advanced industrial society can adapt.
Sure, we will survive. No one has actually suggested that the human race will become extinct due to global warming. We will stay here. But all of us? Our economies? Our nations? At what cost?

The temperatures are not unprecedented, no one has said that either. But every time that temperature has undergone extreme changes entire ecosystems have been wiped out, a big portion of biodiversity lost, and generally it's been a miserable time for all life.

I'm very confident that the clever apes will be able to come up with something to ensure their survival, but they're not going to like it.

Well, if you count nuclear as an alternative energy source, then it should be a lot greater than 2.7% from what I've read. (Don't quote me on this, I might be wrong.) Not that I'm advocating nuclear energy itself, but at least it's not emitting greenhouse gases. Nuclear might be a viable transition from fossil fuels to cleaner sources.

As for the environmentalists, some of them are too radical for my taste, and I'm quite the environmentalist. There isn't going to be an energy source that doesn't alter its environment somehow. It's ultimately how much damage the energy source does.

Nuclear is around 20% I think. I just didn't include it because a lot of people don't view it as an alternative energy source. It's also more of a boogeyman in some peoples minds that fossil fuels. It's worthwhile looking at the french model though, and their surprisingly low carbon emissions (lower per capita than sixty other countries) compared to their high standard of living and economic productivity.

Nuclear is around 20% I think. I just didn't include it because a lot of people don't view it as an alternative energy source. It's also more of a boogeyman in some peoples minds that fossil fuels. It's worthwhile looking at the french model though, and their surprisingly low carbon emissions (lower per capita than sixty other countries) compared to their high standard of living and economic productivity.

I can't source this, but I am fairly certain that Nuclear power (including mining to construction etc) produces 75% the carbon of a coal power station (also including mining and that). Consider me googling.

<...>

No-one ever actually suggests a concrete solution. I mean one with diagrams and numbers and a critical path to implementation. It's all just about the 'latest' findings and 'raising awareness'.

<...>

Your turgid post is completely invalidated by this one statement.

Concrete solutions are called "emission targets." Heard of them? Heard of carbon trading? Heard of the JET reactor? Ever seen a windfarm? :rolleyes:

Nuclear is around 20% I think. I just didn't include it because a lot of people don't view it as an alternative energy source. It's also more of a boogeyman in some peoples minds that fossil fuels. It's worthwhile looking at the french model though, and their surprisingly low carbon emissions (lower per capita than sixty other countries) compared to their high standard of living and economic productivity.
Well, what I find is that generally, in people's minds, there seems no difference between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Even for those who focus only on nuclear energy, Chernobyl was enough to scare the pants off anybody. Do you have a link for the French model? I would be an interesting case study to look at.

Nuclear is around 20% I think. I just didn't include it because a lot of people don't view it as an alternative energy source. It's also more of a boogeyman in some peoples minds that fossil fuels. It's worthwhile looking at the french model though, and their surprisingly low carbon emissions (lower per capita than sixty other countries) compared to their high standard of living and economic productivity.
Here's a couple of useful links:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/figure_9.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec11_36.pdf

Concrete solutions are called "emission targets." Heard of them? Heard of carbon trading? Heard of the JET reactor? Ever seen a windfarm? :rolleyes:

Giving emission targets is not a solution unless someone figures out a way to achieve them. It's like gordon brown lifting a million children out of poverty.

Giving emission targets is not a solution unless someone figures out a way to achieve them. It's like gordon brown lifting a million children out of poverty.I know an old WWII survivour. He's fond of saying: "What people need today, is to survive a war." every time he's presented with common idiocy & political poverty. I'd very much like to disagree, but I'm not entirely sure that I do.

Essentially what you're saying is utter rubbish. There are tonnes of concrete plans for varying degrees of sustainable energy policy floating about. There's not a nation on the planet that can't adopt a wholly sustainable energy policy.

And let's just define 'sustainable' before someone rants about eco-hippies & whatnot. A sustainable energy policy is one that can be maintained without causing depletion of resources, and without causing irreprable harm to any part of the environment.

Mercantilism is the reason we're not even trying. There's massive economic interests tied up in not restructuring, and no immediate payoff in restructuring. So we wait, 'til we either can't wait any longer, or 'til we're past the point of no return - which ever comes first, it'd seem.

It might come as a shock, but private orgs trying to create alternatives, face some grimm odds. Nevermind the only press we'll ever get is slander, payed for by traditional competitors. We simply cannot get neither funds nor permissions to create functional alternatives. Sure, experients are good, most of the time, but actual implimentation is different thing. Unless you expect us to arm ourselves & start a civil war, it's just not gonna happen on any meaningful scale, before there's political will to make it happen. And when politicians & especially ministers responsible for making those decisions can look forward to easy lifetime employment with sky-high wages in the existing energy industry as long as they do nothing, political will won't ever be there.

To put it very simply; we seem to have become too rich & content, to fathom the possibility that we'll have to work to maintain (nevermind increase) our wealth.

I think it is time that the greens started using some of their fundraising efforts to put money into projects like the link I provided. Maybe it's nothing, but the potential upside for a small investment <$200 million, is enourmous. (Also, the expected portability would mean it would be ideal as a power generation unit for developing countries, thereby short circuiting the high carbon load they are expected to go through in the next fifty years).

And other projects too of course. I would like to see an environmental non-profit actually start its own alternative energy supplier. They have the political muscle and high profile to pull it off. Doubtless the cost of such power would be higher, but I think many people would pay that. At the moment there simply isn't that option. For example, I have a choice of electricty suppliers, but they are all trapped in the traditional generating model. It's one thing to say to consumers they must be more green, but if no-one is providing alternatives to them it is very hard to do. And clearly the people most able to get the ball rolling in this direction are the people who are already devoting their working lives to this issue.

You, know, things like that. If that started happening I'm sure I'd pay more attention.

Finally, as I have posted many times before, public transportation needs to be addressed. But it has to be done properly, with the end user and not unions or politicians and their patronage in mind.
Aye-aye.

Personally, I'd like to own a home in the future that was completely self efficient with solar energy and the like. The initial cost is pretty prohibitive right now but would save me thousands over time.