User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Non Planetarion Discussions > General Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 05:40   #1
Texan
Prince of Amber
 
Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,313
Texan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these parts
Greenhouse Hypocrisy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062801248.html

By Robert J. Samuelson

Wednesday, June 29, 2005; Page A21

Almost a decade ago I suggested that global warming would become a "gushing" source of political hypocrisy. So it has. Politicians and scientists constantly warn of the grim outlook, and the subject is on the agenda of the upcoming Group of Eight summit of world economic leaders. But all this sound and fury is mainly exhibitionism -- politicians pretending they're saving the planet. The truth is that, barring major technological advances, they can't (and won't) do much about global warming. It would be nice if they admitted that, though this seems unlikely.

Europe is the citadel of hypocrisy. Considering Europeans' contempt for the United States and George Bush for not embracing the Kyoto Protocol, you'd expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990 (Kyoto's base year for measuring changes) to 2002, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the International Energy Agency. The U.S. increase was 16.7 percent, and most of Europe hasn't done much better.


Here are some IEA estimates of the increases: France, 6.9 percent; Italy, 8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands, 13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; Spain, 46.9 percent. It's true that Germany (down 13.3 percent) and Britain (a 5.5 percent decline) have made big reductions. But their cuts had nothing to do with Kyoto. After reunification in 1990, Germany closed many inefficient coal-fired plants in eastern Germany; that was a huge one-time saving. In Britain, the government had earlier decided to shift electric utilities from coal (high CO2 emissions) to plentiful natural gas (lower CO2 emissions).

On their present courses, many European countries will miss their Kyoto targets for 2008-2012. To reduce emissions significantly, Europeans would have to suppress driving and electricity use; that would depress economic growth and fan popular discontent. It won't happen. Political leaders everywhere deplore global warming -- and then do little. Except for Eastern European nations, where dirty factories have been shuttered, few countries have cut emissions. Since 1990 Canada's emissions are up 23.6 percent; Japan's, 18.9 percent.

We are seeing similar exhibitionism in the United States. The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently endorsed Kyoto. California and New Mexico have adopted "targets" for emission cuts, reports the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. All this busywork won't much affect global warming, but who cares? The real purpose is for politicians to brandish their environmental credentials. Even if rich countries actually curbed their emissions, it wouldn't matter much. Poor countries would offset the reductions.

"We expect CO2 emissions growth in China between now and 2030 will equal the growth of the United States, Canada, all of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Korea combined," says Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In India, he says, about 500 million people lack electricity; worldwide, the figure is 1.6 billion. Naturally, poor countries haven't signed Kyoto; they won't sacrifice economic gains -- poverty reduction, bigger middle classes -- to combat global warming. By 2030, the IEA predicts, world energy demand and greenhouse gases will increase by roughly 60 percent; poor countries will account for about two-thirds of the growth. China's coal use is projected almost to double; its vehicle fleet could go from 24 million to 130 million.

Like most forecasts, these won't come true. But unless they're wildly unreliable, they demonstrate that greenhouse emissions will still rise. Facing this prospect, we ought to align rhetoric and reality.

First, we should tackle some energy problems. We need to reduce our use of oil, which increasingly comes from unstable or hostile regions (the Middle East, Russia, Central Asia, Africa). This is mainly a security issue, though it would modestly limit greenhouse gases. What should we do? Even with today's high gasoline prices, we ought to adopt a stiff oil tax and tougher fuel economy standards, both to be introduced gradually. We can shift toward smaller vehicles, with more efficient hybrid engines. Unfortunately, Congress's energy bills lack these measures.

Second, we should acknowledge that global warming is an iffy proposition. Yes, it's happening; but, no, we don't know the consequences -- how much warming will occur, what the effects (good or bad) will be or where. If we can't predict the stock market and next year's weather, why does anyone think we can predict the global climate in 75 years? Global warming is not an automatic doomsday. In some regions, warmer weather may be a boon.

Third, we should recognize that improved technology is the only practical way of curbing greenhouse gases. About 80 percent of CO2 emissions originate outside the transportation sector -- from power generation and from fuels for industrial, commercial and residential use. Any technology solution would probably involve some acceptable form of nuclear power or an economic way of removing CO2 from burned fossil fuels. "Renewable" energy (wind, solar, biomass) won't suffice. Without technology gains, adapting to global warming makes more sense than trying to prevent it. Either way, the Bush administration rightly emphasizes research and development.

What we have now is a respectable charade. Politicians and advocates make speeches, convene conferences and formulate plans. They pose as warriors against global warming. The media participate in the resulting deception by treating their gestures seriously. One danger is that some of these measures will harm the economy without producing significant environmental benefits. Policies motivated by political gain will inflict public pain. Why should anyone applaud?
__________________
"We sleep safe at night in our beds because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who wish to do us harm." -- George Orwell.
Texan is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 06:11   #2
Tactitus
Klaatu barada nikto
 
Tactitus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 3,237
Tactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Exclamation Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Kyoto was never really about reducing emissions though. It was a redistribution of wealth program dressed up as environmentalism (via the mechanism of less-developed countries selling 'emissions credits' to developed countries). In that context, missing the targets is the preferred outcome.
__________________
The Ottawa Citizen and Southam News wish to apologize for our apology to Mark Steyn, published Oct. 22. In correcting the incorrect statements about Mr. Steyn published Oct. 15, we incorrectly published the incorrect correction. We accept and regret that our original regrets were unacceptable and we apologize to Mr. Steyn for any distress caused by our previous apology.
Tactitus is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 07:31   #3
Phil^
Insomniac
 
Phil^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
Phil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

politicians in hipocracy shocker.

Dont forget politics involves playing to the audience - so if you're talking about climate change you want to be seen to be working to prevent it since its seen as a bad thing.

Likewise if you're failing to meet a target or even didnt say you were going to aim for one, you dont want to be saying ' im/we're a failure ' , but rather " we've got a new idea/direction about how to do x even better "

If you dont want to scare ( and thus lower campaign funds for next re-election ) oil companies or those whos money comes from products that pollute you dont say you're going to impose tough restrictions and quotas on them.

its all about the politics , and how people look to certain others.

bottom line : you cant trust anything someone in a position of power says
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 08:07   #4
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texan
Second, we should acknowledge that global warming is an iffy proposition. Yes, it's happening; but, no, we don't know the consequences -- how much warming will occur, what the effects (good or bad) will be or where. If we can't predict the stock market and next year's weather, why does anyone think we can predict the global climate in 75 years? Global warming is not an automatic doomsday. In some regions, warmer weather may be a boon.
This is why people like this are difficult to take seriously. It is implying that it's almost a total unknown what will happen and therefore it's almost a 50% chance of good/bad. Significant climate changes will be bad almost everywhere, if nothing else then because population/economic centres are all situated / adapted towards their current climate. Even a relatively mild change will cause massive disruption (at best). It also ignores the increase in instability which could be seperate from temperature changes and cause different types of problems.

Yes, climate is an incredibly complex system and yes, we're far from understanding how effects will fully play out. But that's all the more reason to be concerned. If we knew specifically that x% of Europe will face desertification (or whatever) and y% of Asia will face a temperature drop then at least we could make some sort of sensible cost/benefit analysis.

As it is, it's almost like someone asking you "I'll rewire 40% of the neural pathways in your brain. I don't know what outcome it'll have - it could make you much smarter, or it could make you a mindless gibbering vegetable. No-one really understands the human brain that well." Would you go for it?
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 08:44   #5
JC
lolly roffle
 
JC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,514
JC is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himJC is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himJC is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himJC is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himJC is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himJC is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himJC is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himJC is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himJC is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himJC is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himJC is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
As it is, it's almost like someone asking you "I'll rewire 40% of the neural pathways in your brain. I don't know what outcome it'll have - it could make you much smarter, or it could make you a mindless gibbering vegetable. No-one really understands the human brain that well." Would you go for it?
The guy who wrote the article might as well, he has nothing to lose.
__________________
eXcessum
JC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 08:57   #6
KoeN
Lucky
Helicopter Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: -
Posts: 3,830
KoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant future
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

so what's new about that article?

about 97% of all CO2 emissions is caused by natural sources, so there isn't much to win there.
but i don't believe that was the priority of the Kyoto protocol in the first place. reducing CO2 emissions is something that's easy to understand for everyone. it's much easier to make people try alternative energy-sources via that way than to make people see how the whole energy-market is changing.

1 step at a time.

Last edited by KoeN; 1 Jul 2005 at 09:27.
KoeN is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 09:36   #7
Deepflow
Next goal wins!
 
Deepflow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 5,406
Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

it's FAR too early in the morning for bullshit articles like this
__________________
bastard bastard bastard bastard
Deepflow is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 10:16   #8
wu_trax
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,290
wu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

what a lot of crap

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texan
First, we should tackle some energy problems. We need to reduce our use of oil, which increasingly comes from unstable or hostile regions (the Middle East, Russia, Central Asia, Africa). This is mainly a security issue, though it would modestly limit greenhouse gases. What should we do? Even with today's high gasoline prices, we ought to adopt a stiff oil tax and tougher fuel economy standards, both to be introduced gradually. We can shift toward smaller vehicles, with more efficient hybrid engines. Unfortunately, Congress's energy bills lack these measures.
about ****in time.
Quote:
Second, we should acknowledge that global warming is an iffy proposition. Yes, it's happening; but, no, we don't know the consequences -- how much warming will occur, what the effects (good or bad) will be or where. If we can't predict the stock market and next year's weather, why does anyone think we can predict the global climate in 75 years? Global warming is not an automatic doomsday. In some regions, warmer weather may be a boon.
if the weather conditions become more extreme (which they will the higher the average temperature), that can hardly become a good thing. more storms are bad, drought are bad and so on.
Quote:
Third, we should recognize that improved technology is the only practical way of curbing greenhouse gases. About 80 percent of CO2 emissions originate outside the transportation sector -- from power generation and from fuels for industrial, commercial and residential use. Any technology solution would probably involve some acceptable form of nuclear power or an economic way of removing CO2 from burned fossil fuels. "Renewable" energy (wind, solar, biomass) won't suffice. Without technology gains, adapting to global warming makes more sense than trying to prevent it. Either way, the Bush administration rightly emphasizes research and development.
there is no market. why they hell should anyone reduce their CO2-emissions if they dont cost them anything while reducing them would?
to trade emission rights was a very good idea, it creates incentives for such new technological advances. to lay back and hope that someone will someday come up with an idea is just stupid.
__________________
im not tolerant, i just dont care.
wu_trax is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 12:57   #9
onetwothree
4 5 6
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 168
onetwothree is a name known to allonetwothree is a name known to allonetwothree is a name known to allonetwothree is a name known to allonetwothree is a name known to allonetwothree is a name known to all
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

typical yanks.
onetwothree is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 13:17   #10
JamMak
Cynical Optimist
 
JamMak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Solihull / University of Warwick
Posts: 502
JamMak has much to be proud ofJamMak has much to be proud ofJamMak has much to be proud ofJamMak has much to be proud ofJamMak has much to be proud ofJamMak has much to be proud ofJamMak has much to be proud ofJamMak has much to be proud of
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Even if rich countries actually curbed their emissions, it wouldn't matter much. Poor countries would offset the reductions
So let's not bother
JamMak is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 14:03   #11
Yahwe
I am.
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texan
Europe is the citadel of hypocrisy.


political gain will inflict public pain.
I'm assuming the writer is aged 12.
__________________
hi
Yahwe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 14:20   #12
Radical Edward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
Radical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
I'm assuming the writer is aged 12.
only if he is in remedial class.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........

ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
Radical Edward is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 14:50   #13
acropolis
Vermin Supreme
 
acropolis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
acropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by KoeN
so what's new about that article?

about 97% of all CO2 emissions is caused by natural sources, so there isn't much to win there.
source of some sort? that seems rather unbelievable to me.

anyway, 'what dante said' about weather changes. that was a really retarded paragraph. far as i can tell, in the short term weather changes are 100% bad.

I used to respect Samuelson. About 4-5 years ago he turned shit and never went back. Sad when that happens.

But I guess if his point is "to reduce CO2 emissions we need to switch to nuclear. And Europeans are pricks." then I can't really refute him.
acropolis is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 15:13   #14
KoeN
Lucky
Helicopter Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: -
Posts: 3,830
KoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant futureKoeN has a brilliant future
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by acropolis
source of some sort? that seems rather unbelievable to me.
actually i've read about it in various reports about this issue, stuff i have to go through now because i study on the subject.

could find you one (Dutch, sorry) url about it aswell though:

http://www.induplo.nl/duplomaat/artikel/acOtCf4B

there they speak about 4%, but i've also read about 2-3%. will try to find you better urls next week when i'm back online.
KoeN is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 15:51   #15
acropolis
Vermin Supreme
 
acropolis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
acropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by KoeN
actually i've read about it in various reports about this issue, stuff i have to go through now because i study on the subject.

could find you one (Dutch, sorry) url about it aswell though:

http://www.induplo.nl/duplomaat/artikel/acOtCf4B

there they speak about 4%, but i've also read about 2-3%. will try to find you better urls next week when i'm back online.
My Dutch is less than stellar.

What does this paragraph say?
Quote:
Mochten alle modellen juist zijn en de wereldgemeenschap (de EU in het onderhavige geval) de temperatuur willen verlagen, dan is Kyoto hiervoor niet het juiste instrument, omdat het ten onrechte de nadruk legt op koolstofdioxide (CO2). De door de mens veroorzaakte uitstoot van CO2 bedraagt ongeveer 4% van de totale natuurlijke CO2-emissies en is tevens veel kleiner dan de variaties daarin. Daarnaast is CO2 een onbelangrijk broeikasgas: in de atmosfeer bevindt zich honderd keer zoveel waterdamp, het belangrijkste broeikasgas. Tevens zou kernenergie (de echte groene stroom) dé oplossing zijn voor het broeikasprobleem, omdat het geen CO2 uitstoot, maar ook hier spreekt de milieulobby zich tegen.
acropolis is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 17:00   #16
Nusselt
share the <3
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 2,709
Nusselt single handedly makes these forums a better placeNusselt single handedly makes these forums a better placeNusselt single handedly makes these forums a better placeNusselt single handedly makes these forums a better placeNusselt single handedly makes these forums a better placeNusselt single handedly makes these forums a better placeNusselt single handedly makes these forums a better placeNusselt single handedly makes these forums a better placeNusselt single handedly makes these forums a better placeNusselt single handedly makes these forums a better placeNusselt single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

an internet gremlin working at the seventh level of babel fish hell said this

Quote:
All models should be correct and the world community (the EU in the present case) the temperature wants reduce, then Kyoto for this not the correct instrument is, because it lays wrongfully the emphasis on koolstofdioxide (CO2). The emission of CO2, caused by people, amounts to approximately 4% of total natural Co2-emissies and is tevens much smaller than the variaties in this. Moreover CO2 an unimportant greenhouse gas is: in the atmosphere are themselves so much hundred times water mist, the most important greenhouse gas. Also nuclear power (the real green flow) dé solution would be for the greenhouse problem, because it expels none CO2, but here too the milieulobby contradict themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

btw i seem to remember something about polution particles in the atmoshphere preventing sunlight getting to the earth and thus reducing the impact of global warming?
__________________
Sophie is hotter than you
though ive gone off her now; the way Susanna Reid squirms around on sml is, however, awesome
Nusselt is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 17:04   #17
Phang
Aardvark is a funny word
 
Phang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm No Nino Rota
Posts: 5,923
Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by acropolis
source of some sort? that seems rather unbelievable to me.
not when you factor in respiration it doesn't (which i assume the statistic is doing). in that instance it's positively terrifying that it's so high.
__________________
Efficiency, efficiency they say
Get to know the date and tell the time of day
As the crowds begin complaining
How the Beaujolais is raining
Down on darkened meetings on the Champs Élysées
Phang is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jul 2005, 18:52   #18
dda
USS Oklahoma
 
dda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

If we stop global warming, I shall have to sell my real estate investments in Siberia and Tierra del Fuego.
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
dda is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 05:51   #19
Texan
Prince of Amber
 
Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,313
Texan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these parts
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Befuddled by the fog of Kyoto
Rosemary Righter
Britain's environmental policy is a costly shambles based on dubious predictions about the future

THE MOST valuable present that Tony Blair could make to his fellow-summiteers at Gleneagles would be the rigorous and persuasive report on the economics of climate change published today by the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords. He is unlikely to do so, for two main reasons. The first is that the report unanswerably demonstrates not only that in terms of averting or even delaying global warming, the Kyoto Protocol is about as futile as sending seven maids with seven mops to rid a beach of sand, but that “more of the same”, a “Kyoto-plus” treaty that sets tougher emissions targets, would fail too, because the whole approach it embodies is fatally flawed.

The second reason would be embarrassment. In compelling detail, the report shows that, rather than setting an admirable example of innovation and effectiveness, Britain’s own climate change strategy is a shambles based on “dubious” assumptions, vague, “wildly optimistic” estimates of costs — and a politically correct approach so dominated “by certain renewable technology interests” that the “big” future technologies, such as hydrogen power, are being neglected in favour of an obsession with wind power.
The Government has not the foggiest notion what Britain’s self-imposed and hugely ambitious target of cutting C0² emissions to 60 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050 will cost. The estimates range from anywhere between £60 and £400 billion in today’s money — and the lower figure assumes, totally implausibly, that costs up to 2020 will be negligible because the emissions targets can be met merely through more efficient use of energy.

Gordon Brown has correctly observed that finance ministries need to be involved as deeply in climate change policy as are environmental departments. Yet in Britain, Defra rules OK; and the approach of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is that the anticipated reduction in UK growth rates is trivial, by comparison with the (presumed) returns in reduced environmental risk. As the committee observes, “no other item of government expenditure is treated in this way. If it were, it would be easy to justify almost any large scale item.” The Treasury has not even done an overall cost-benefit analysis of the returns to be expected from the emissions-reduction strategy — and because Britain’s emissions are a minute fraction of the global total, the truthful answer would be high cost for zero benefit, should other countries not follow “the British lead”. No wonder the report calls for a complete overhaul of government policy.

Mr Blair should, however, swallow hard and push this report as hard as he can into the international domain, because it poses questions of the first magnitude about the faulty and, in some cases seriously misleading economic “scenarios”, produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), on which not only Britain’s but other countries’ policies are being based. The committee accepts that the uncertainties that still surround the science of global warming do not constitute a justification for doing nothing; “the issue is how to behave in the face of that uncertainty”, and it must be right to take out insurance against the worst risks. But not “at any cost” — particularly when the estimates of the impact of global warming vary enormously, are even more highly speculative than the science of climate change and may heavily overestimate the damage, particularly when some parts of the world would actually benefit from a warmer climate — something that the IPPC has consistently underplayed.

The major point this report makes is that the links between economic growth and global warming have “not been sufficiently rigorously explored”. Put less gently, some of the IPPC “scenarios” — including the ones that predict global warming in excess of 5C — are based on fantasy.

Climate change modelling involves combining scientific data, observed and projected through models, with economic forecasts. Assumptions about per capita emissions of greenhouse gases, for example, are critically affected by things such as the future size of the world’s population, global growth rates, energy efficiency, and the prospects of developing new technologies that reduce future reliance on fossil fuels. The IPPC’s “high end scenarios” assume not only that carbon and methane emissions rise steeply, when they are currently stable or actually shrinking, but artificially inflate the magnitude of global warming by assuming that the world’s population will be half as large again 2100 as it is expected to be. The IPPC also consistently factors in global growth rates that are far higher than those historically recorded.

These “worst-case scenarios” are constantly cited, erroneously, as forecast, and they are seriously distorting policy. It is urgent to arrive at more realistic estimates, to be clearer about the trade-offs involved and to be more honest about the high costs that generations now living will asked to bear, for benefits that lie far in the future.

More thought, the report says, also needs to be given to the merits of adapting to climate change, given that some measure of global warming is unavoidable. Adaptation is “the Cinderella” of climate change policy. “Nearly all of the public debate . . . is about mitigation — reducing emissions — rather than about . . . assisting the most vulnerable societies in the world to adapt to the risk they may face.” With or without global warming, for example, water scarcity may affect as many as six billion people by 2080.

How might governments get themselves off the Kyoto hook? By focusing on incentives rather than imposed targets. The goal should be to make carbon-free energy economically viable, and that will require heavy investment in such technologies as solar photovoltaics, carbon sequestration and hydrogen technology. Governments need to get away from targets and penalties, and concentrate on maximising the potential of research. Because this is what the Bush Administration has been saying, the Gleneagles summiteers will not want to admit that Kyoto is a bankrupt strategy. But the issue is too important for pride to trump common sense.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...682423,00.html
__________________
"We sleep safe at night in our beds because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who wish to do us harm." -- George Orwell.
Texan is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 19:20   #20
Chris_1
career peOn
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12
Chris_1 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

To be honest global warming could just as easily be a natural phenomenon than a man-made one.

The earths temperatures have been constantly rising and falling through time, its why we have had glaciations in the past and why the UK was once covered by sea. In fact the last glaciation was only 10,000 years ago, which is a short time relatively speaking. Its quite possible that this is just a natural warming of the earth in between ice ages , which we can do little about. Ask any geologist.....
Chris_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 19:25   #21
Yahwe
I am.
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

why do the americans keep posting long and boring articles written by right wing idiots who would rather deny the obvious?

we know that climate change is occuring. we see it here in britain.

we also know that america has decided to play ostrich because you are the biggest polluter and are too ****ing selfish to do anything about it.

we know you'd burn your own grannies if it stopped you having to walk rather than drive.

so why throw all this verbiage at us? it's misleading bollocks that we're not even going to bother to argue with.

we know we can't make you stop acting like spoilt little children and you should know that you can't make black white by waffling a lot.
__________________
hi
Yahwe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 19:26   #22
Marilyn Manson
Gone
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Marilyn Manson has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Question Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Texan: Do you ever actually argue with people, or do you just reproduce articles which (Presumably) support your own viewpoint?
Marilyn Manson is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 19:31   #23
Chris_1
career peOn
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12
Chris_1 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Im British, I just studied it in university and its not as clear cut an issue as many people seem to think
Chris_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 19:43   #24
Yahwe
I am.
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_1
Im British, I just studied it in university and its not as clear cut an issue as many people seem to think
who the hell was talking to you?
__________________
hi
Yahwe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 19:45   #25
Chris_1
career peOn
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12
Chris_1 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Maybe I just felt like talking anyway
Chris_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 20:24   #26
themast
Punk
 
themast's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 397
themast is infamous around these partsthemast is infamous around these partsthemast is infamous around these partsthemast is infamous around these partsthemast is infamous around these partsthemast is infamous around these parts
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_1
To be honest global warming could just as easily be a natural phenomenon than a man-made one.

The earths temperatures have been constantly rising and falling through time, its why we have had glaciations in the past and why the UK was once covered by sea. In fact the last glaciation was only 10,000 years ago, which is a short time relatively speaking. Its quite possible that this is just a natural warming of the earth in between ice ages , which we can do little about. Ask any geologist.....

what planet are you on? cos it looks like your 1,000,000 light years from earth
__________________
Rd13 SiNND (12:4:3)
Rd6&7 4D (20:8:6) & (20:2:10) Rd14 ND (2:5:4)
Rd8 Did not play Rd15 Did not play
Rd9 4D/SWaRM (13:4:10) Rd16 ND (14:1:6)
Rd9.5 SWaRM (42:7:4) Rd17 ND (13:10:8)
Rd10 SWaRM (21:4:7) Rd18 ND (13:6:8)
Rd10.5 SWaRM (5:5:10) Rd19 ND - HC (1:9:3)
Rd11 ND (32:2:10) Rd36 ND 7:9:7
Rd12 ND (30:10:1)
themast is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 20:29   #27
Chris_1
career peOn
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12
Chris_1 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

I know, I thought Id drop by and pay you a visit!
Chris_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 20:40   #28
Nodrog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

The evidence linking climate change to man made activities is relatively inconclusive despite the mass hysteria coming from some quarters. Repeating something over and over doesnt make it true.
Nodrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 20:45   #29
themast
Punk
 
themast's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 397
themast is infamous around these partsthemast is infamous around these partsthemast is infamous around these partsthemast is infamous around these partsthemast is infamous around these partsthemast is infamous around these parts
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
The evidence linking climate change to man made activities is relatively inconclusive despite the mass hysteria coming from some quarters. Repeating something over and over doesnt make it true.

no but the evidence is stareing you in the face
__________________
Rd13 SiNND (12:4:3)
Rd6&7 4D (20:8:6) & (20:2:10) Rd14 ND (2:5:4)
Rd8 Did not play Rd15 Did not play
Rd9 4D/SWaRM (13:4:10) Rd16 ND (14:1:6)
Rd9.5 SWaRM (42:7:4) Rd17 ND (13:10:8)
Rd10 SWaRM (21:4:7) Rd18 ND (13:6:8)
Rd10.5 SWaRM (5:5:10) Rd19 ND - HC (1:9:3)
Rd11 ND (32:2:10) Rd36 ND 7:9:7
Rd12 ND (30:10:1)
themast is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 20:48   #30
Phang
Aardvark is a funny word
 
Phang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm No Nino Rota
Posts: 5,923
Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by themast
no but the evidence is stareing you in the face
christ, post something good.

my perception was that while climate change is largely a naturally-occuring phenomenon, through deforestation and CFC/CO2 emission and so on we were reducing the coping mechanisms of the earth pretty steadily and that when we ****ed up all the oceanic algae through subtle temperature changes we'd be REALLY in the shit.
__________________
Efficiency, efficiency they say
Get to know the date and tell the time of day
As the crowds begin complaining
How the Beaujolais is raining
Down on darkened meetings on the Champs Élysées
Phang is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 21:19   #31
Chris_1
career peOn
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12
Chris_1 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phang
christ, post something good.

my perception was that while climate change is largely a naturally-occuring phenomenon, through deforestation and CFC/CO2 emission and so on we were reducing the coping mechanisms of the earth pretty steadily and that when we ****ed up all the oceanic algae through subtle temperature changes we'd be REALLY in the shit.

There is one theory where because of global warming the methyl hydrates frozen on the sea bed start releasing methane (an even worse greenhouse gas!) and that then leads to runaway global warming and catastrophic climate change. This has happened in the past and caused some of the more drastic sea level changes in earths history. But this brings us back to the main problem again, no one really knows how much man is a contributor and how much is due to natural causes
Chris_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 21:22   #32
themast
Punk
 
themast's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 397
themast is infamous around these partsthemast is infamous around these partsthemast is infamous around these partsthemast is infamous around these partsthemast is infamous around these partsthemast is infamous around these parts
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

but we warmed the oceans which makes it escapes
__________________
Rd13 SiNND (12:4:3)
Rd6&7 4D (20:8:6) & (20:2:10) Rd14 ND (2:5:4)
Rd8 Did not play Rd15 Did not play
Rd9 4D/SWaRM (13:4:10) Rd16 ND (14:1:6)
Rd9.5 SWaRM (42:7:4) Rd17 ND (13:10:8)
Rd10 SWaRM (21:4:7) Rd18 ND (13:6:8)
Rd10.5 SWaRM (5:5:10) Rd19 ND - HC (1:9:3)
Rd11 ND (32:2:10) Rd36 ND 7:9:7
Rd12 ND (30:10:1)
themast is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 21:25   #33
Deepflow
Next goal wins!
 
Deepflow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 5,406
Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Deepflow has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by themast
but we warmed the oceans which makes it escapes
can someone ban him please, im stoned and he is hurting my eyes
__________________
bastard bastard bastard bastard
Deepflow is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 21:27   #34
Chris_1
career peOn
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12
Chris_1 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

As I said in my earlier post the oceans have been warming and cooling for millions of years before man was even around. So it could just as easily be another factor causing sea level change the truth is no-one really knows
Chris_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 21:31   #35
Nodrog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

The problem is that (afaik) the data doesnt really establish any particular conclusion, so most people have just resorted to believing whatever it is they want to be true. It seems quite obvious to me that 90% of the pro-Kyoto arguments are motivated by a distrust of capitalism/America, and the most vocal supporters of generally tend to be those who also support various other anti-capitalist policies and movements. Its no real secret that environmentalists tend to march hand in hand with Marxists, opponents of the Iraq war, pro-Palestianians and supporters of other causes which are generally labelled as 'leftist. Even though these positions dont really have anything logical grouping them together, people who gravitate towards one generally tend to support all (or most) of them to some degree - its rare that you'll find someone who cheers for both Kyoto and the Iraq war, or who doesnt like America yet favours Israel over Palestine. Even taking a quick glance at the groups who joined up at the G8 protests makes it fairly clear where loyalties lie. But at the same time, those who strongly favour capitalism or state-'capitalism' seem to want to ignore any evidence put forwards that supports the 'humanity contributes to negative change' hypothesis, as if even admitting it could be valid is going to result in an overnight onslaught of government tyranny. I'm really glad that I'm not one of the people who actually has to sort through the mounds of bullshit and extract something sensible from it all.

Last edited by Nodrog; 7 Jul 2005 at 21:38.
Nodrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 21:37   #36
Chris_1
career peOn
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12
Chris_1 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
The problem is that (afaik) the data doesnt really establish any particular conclusion, so most people have just resorted to believing whatever it is they want to be true. It seems quite obvious to me that 90% of the pro-Kyoto arguments are motivated by a distrust of capitalism/America, and the most vocal supporters of generally tend to be those who also support various other anti-capitalist policies and movements. Its no real secret that environmentalists tend to march hand in hand with Marxists, opponents of the Iraq war, pro-Palestianians and supporters of other causes which are generally labelled as 'leftist. Even though these positions dont really have anything logical grouping them together, people who gravitate towards one generally tend to support all (or most) of them to some degree - its rare that you'll find someone who cheers for both Kyoto and the Iraq war, or who 'likes' nuclear weapons and favours Israel over Palestine. Even taking a quick glance at the groups who joined up at the G8 protests makes it fairly clear where loyalties lie. But at the same time, those who strongly favour capitalism or state-'capitalism' seem to want to ignore any evidence put forwards that supports the 'humanity contributes to negative change' hypothesis, as if even admitting it could be valid is going to result in an overnight onslaught of government tyranny. I'm really glad that I'm not one of the people who actually has to sort through the mounds of bullshit and extract something sensible from it all.
Amen to that
Chris_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 21:39   #37
dda
USS Oklahoma
 
dda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
why do the americans keep posting long and boring articles written by right wing idiots who would rather deny the obvious?

we know that climate change is occuring. we see it here in britain.

we also know that america has decided to play ostrich because you are the biggest polluter and are too ****ing selfish to do anything about it.

we know you'd burn your own grannies if it stopped you having to walk rather than drive.

so why throw all this verbiage at us? it's misleading bollocks that we're not even going to bother to argue with.

we know we can't make you stop acting like spoilt little children and you should know that you can't make black white by waffling a lot.
Good point. So from America I say piss off, not much you can do about it. Ha Ha Ha! You'll all be thanking us in 10,000 years when the next ice age strikes!
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
dda is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 21:40   #38
Yahwe
I am.
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by dda
Good point. So from America I say piss off, not much you can do about it. Ha Ha Ha! You'll all be thanking us in 10,000 years when the next ice age strikes!
i'm hoping for sooner

that'll get rid of the ****ing mosquitos
__________________
hi
Yahwe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 22:47   #39
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
The problem is that (afaik) the data doesnt really establish any particular conclusion, so most people have just resorted to believing whatever it is they want to be true.
Doesn't matter in an issue of this magnitude. If we're wrong, then we're doomed, basically. A form of pascal's wager should imply that dealing with the problem is the way to go.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jul 2005, 22:57   #40
Nodrog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
Doesn't matter in an issue of this magnitude. If we're wrong, then we're doomed, basically. A form of pascal's wager should imply that dealing with the problem is the way to go.
Errrr, no. This isnt a 'lets put an extra lock on the front door just in case' job, its more "lets disrupt the entire world economy, slow down progress accross the globe, and send a firm message of **** you to all 'second world' countries like china, india, and so on". If you want to institute such radical changes then your claims shoudl really be based on solid facts rather than baseless leftist rhetoric.

This is part of the reason why Pascals Wager isnt actually a valid argument.
Nodrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Jul 2005, 07:04   #41
Texan
Prince of Amber
 
Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,313
Texan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these partsTexan is infamous around these parts
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson
Texan: Do you ever actually argue with people, or do you just reproduce articles which (Presumably) support your own viewpoint?
I often reproduce articles that don't support my viewpoint. I also think something needs to be done to protect our environment. But I think ruining the U.S. and European economies with no proven positive effect on the environment is a crock of crap. All that will do is make us less capable of handling diasters when they do come. I have some ideas about fixing some problems, but even the greenest person won't agree with me, because they are too distasteful. I will give you one example that I came up with back in the early 90's that one of my green voting friends said was completely unacceptable.

1. Move all ground-based transportation underground and change the roads and railways to pedestrian and bike paths or just parks.

If you don't like that one, you will like idea number two even less.
__________________
"We sleep safe at night in our beds because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who wish to do us harm." -- George Orwell.
Texan is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Jul 2005, 10:11   #42
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
Errrr, no. This isnt a 'lets put an extra lock on the front door just in case' job, its more "lets disrupt the entire world economy, slow down progress accross the globe, and send a firm message of **** you to all 'second world' countries like china, india, and so on". If you want to institute such radical changes then your claims shoudl really be based on solid facts rather than baseless leftist rhetoric.

This is part of the reason why Pascals Wager isnt actually a valid argument.
I'm not going to argue with you, because you're in one of your "be really really stupid" phases.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Jul 2005, 10:18   #43
ChubbyChecker
King of The Fat Boys
 
ChubbyChecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,331
ChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriendChubbyChecker needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusselt
btw i seem to remember something about polution particles in the atmoshphere preventing sunlight getting to the earth and thus reducing the impact of global warming?
For some reason I read pollution particles as political parties and just thought: wtf????

And yes, this does happen. It's a phenomenon called global dimming. However over the last few decades we have been very good at tackling this problem by introducing better filters in our power stations and stuff like that. Unfortunately that means that global warming will be more pronounced as we are increasing the amount of sunlight reaching us. I did read up on what percentage of sunlight is said not to reach us through global dimming and what temperature difference this accounts for but I've forgotten the figures, google it if you're interested. In fact I think there might have been a thread about it on GD already.

Oh look, here it is

The article linked in that thread should tell you everything you wish to know.
__________________
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
ChubbyChecker is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Jul 2005, 12:37   #44
Radical Edward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
Radical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
A form of pascal's wager should imply that dealing with the problem is the way to go.
A form that isn't logically a load of bollocks?
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........

ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
Radical Edward is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Jul 2005, 12:43   #45
Radical Edward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
Radical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
The problem is that (afaik) the data doesnt really establish any particular conclusion, so most people have just resorted to believing whatever it is they want to be true. It seems quite obvious to me that 90% of the pro-Kyoto arguments are motivated by a distrust of capitalism/America, and the most vocal supporters of generally tend to be those who also support various other anti-capitalist policies and movements. Its no real secret that environmentalists tend to march hand in hand with Marxists, opponents of the Iraq war, pro-Palestianians and supporters of other causes which are generally labelled as 'leftist. Even though these positions dont really have anything logical grouping them together, people who gravitate towards one generally tend to support all (or most) of them to some degree - its rare that you'll find someone who cheers for both Kyoto and the Iraq war, or who doesnt like America yet favours Israel over Palestine. Even taking a quick glance at the groups who joined up at the G8 protests makes it fairly clear where loyalties lie. But at the same time, those who strongly favour capitalism or state-'capitalism' seem to want to ignore any evidence put forwards that supports the 'humanity contributes to negative change' hypothesis, as if even admitting it could be valid is going to result in an overnight onslaught of government tyranny. I'm really glad that I'm not one of the people who actually has to sort through the mounds of bullshit and extract something sensible from it all.
Therefore carry on? The problem with this situation I see is the dichotomy between action and inaction. Either we are risking runaway damage to the environment or we aren't. if we merely assume that we aren't and turn out to be wrong, then we are quite literally stuffed. The fact that there is so much indecision amongst the very scientists who are supposed to be trying to answer the questions raises concerns. should we wait until we have a conclusive answer before action, or should we premeditate the conclusion by acting to shape up our act in the first place regarding our consumption of limited resources, regardless of the actual situation at hand?
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........

ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
Radical Edward is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Jul 2005, 13:53   #46
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical Edward
Therefore carry on? The problem with this situation I see is the dichotomy between action and inaction. Either we are risking runaway damage to the environment or we aren't. if we merely assume that we aren't and turn out to be wrong, then we are quite literally stuffed. The fact that there is so much indecision amongst the very scientists who are supposed to be trying to answer the questions raises concerns. should we wait until we have a conclusive answer before action, or should we premeditate the conclusion by acting to shape up our act in the first place regarding our consumption of limited resources, regardless of the actual situation at hand?
^^^

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical Edward
A form that isn't logically a load of bollocks?
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Jul 2005, 14:20   #47
Radical Edward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
Radical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
^^^
I know, sorry, I forgot the smiley to indicate a facetious remark. It wasn't a criticism of what you said, it was just a dig at the original pascal's wager, which is logically bollocks
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........

ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
Radical Edward is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Jul 2005, 15:18   #48
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
If you want to institute such radical changes then your claims shoudl really be based on solid facts rather than baseless leftist rhetoric..
What radical changes? MrL said we should be "dealing with the problem". He didn't say "Let's end industrial production" or "Stop Capitalism Now". So what exactly are you referring to?

On your earlier points, by concentrating on who is opposing/supporting something you are missing the point somewhat. It doesn't really matter if the most vocal opponents of smoking are leftist statist politically correct single mother black lesbians who want to take our rights and burn the flag. It doesn't matter if most people who go on about environmentalism are anti-meat eating hippies. This doesn't strengthen or weaken the arguments themselves.

An argument (or hypothesis) can be correct yet we can still find it's supporters distateful.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Jul 2005, 15:22   #49
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
What radical changes? MrL said we should be "dealing with the problem". He didn't say "Let's end industrial production" or "Stop Capitalism Now". So what exactly are you referring to?
I think nod can be forgiven, partially, because I can't think of any ways off the top of my head of combatting GW without giving industry a hit - fairly obviously.

Of course, given that we really should be weaning ourselves off burning hydrocarbons anyway, a bit of added impetus in the form of governmental support wouldn't go amiss.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Jul 2005, 15:28   #50
Radical Edward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
Radical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriendRadical Edward needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
I think nod can be forgiven, partially, because I can't think of any ways off the top of my head of combatting GW without giving industry a hit - fairly obviously.
wasn't there that idea about seeding large areas of ocean with iron or some other mineral in order to stimulate growth of microorganisms, which would then sink and carry away lots of carbon. there were quite a few interesting ideas for carbon sinks that I have heard of.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........

ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
Radical Edward is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018