View Full Version : Czech-mate!
Marshal Murat
05-28-2008, 12:55
The great environmental titans of our age, Al "I Love Earth" Gore and Vaclav "I Love Freedom" Klaus have finally come to...a disagreement over environmentalism. Actually, all Vaclav wants to do is debate Al Gore about environmentalism and it's threat to human rights and freedoms.
The Great Game (with NO RECOUNTS) (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/208338,czech-president-klaus-ready-to-debate-gore-on-climate-change.html)
Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.
"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said.
"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added.
So, is Klaus correct? Is environmental alarmism threating basic human rights?
I'm a little unclear as to how exactly environmentalism threatens human rights. As I understand it most proposed solutions to climate change are along the lines of economic incentives, e.g. carbon trading, higher taxes on high emission vehicles etc. People still have the right to pick their kids up from school in an SUV, they will just have to pay more in order to cover the true costs of doing so.
If a measure were proposed to solve the problem by confiscating high-emission cars by force or imprisoning those who drive them, for example, then it would breach human rights. But it would be that policy in and of itself that would do so, not the environmentalist movement as a whole. Besides, if he is truly concerned about human rights, what on Earth is he doing meeting with Dick Cheney, a man who has done a great deal to harm the credibility of the Western world in trying to oppose human rights abuses worldwide? ("enhanced interrogation", anyone?)
I also find it a bit rich that he calls environmentalists "alarmists" and in the same article goes on to compare them to a authoritarian dictatorship.
In the nineties we had the acid-rain hoax, now the global warming hoax. It's limiting our freedom of choice and freedom of choice is a human right, only a tiny amount of tax revenue goes to enviroment anyway, most goes directly to the treassury; nothing but a robbery.
But it is still simply taxation policy, which I'm not convinced has any bearing on human rights no matter how insane it is. And is freedom of choice really a human right? If it is, I can't think of any government which upholds it. Nobody has the right to choose to steal or commit murder.
LittleGrizzly
05-28-2008, 13:34
Yeah we want to watch out for those damn enviromentalists, bunch of nazis that they are, looking for a 90 day detention period for potential carbon terrorists, sending us off to foriegn countrys without rules and regulations to interogate us about our carbon terrorism, these enviromentalists are crazy we need a sane human rights respecting people like the anti-terrorist people, never has one group had sooo much respect for human rights...
Edit little sarcastic ramble there, my point obviously is enviromentalism is not a threat to human rights, hell enviromentalism is barely a threat to CO2 emissions at the moment, the very little legislation we have here just encourages recycling and using your car less (basically by saving money) i don't really see how enviromentalism could be a potential future threat, maybe this guy should be concentrating on anti terror legislation around the world if he is really worried about freedom....
Kekvit Irae
05-28-2008, 13:39
Damn. I clicked this thread hoping to find good advice and discussions on European dating and/or human trafficking. What a disappointment. :sadg:
LittleGrizzly
05-28-2008, 13:42
I clicked this thread hoping to find good advice and discussions on European dating and/or human trafficking.
A bird in hand is better than two in the bush...
But it is still simply taxation policy, which I'm not convinced has any bearing on human rights no matter how insane it is. And is freedom of choice really a human right? If it is, I can't think of any government which upholds it. Nobody has the right to choose to steal or commit murder.
Technically it's a violation of human rights to raise taxes without providing a service, nothing is actually being done with that extra tax on the SUV, the enviromental tax isn't spend on the eniroment. Called stealing.
It's almost unheard of for revenue from a given tax to be spent exclusively on the thing it is raised from. Is all customs tax spent on border patrols? Is all money raised from corporation tax spent on business regulation? Besides being a beauracratic nightmare, such a system would have the problem that unless by some freak chance the required spending exactly matched the revenue raised, every department would end up with either a huge surplus or deficit every year.
Instead we put all the money into a single pool and allocate spending based upon where it is needed. So even if the environmental tax is not spent on the environment, it is still spent on something. How is this so different from any other form of tax as to qualify as a human rights abuse? And even if that is the case, how is it so much worse than all the other human rights abuses going on that we must single it out for specific attention?
I said technically.
But food is one, and right now mucho people are dying from hunger because of the enviromentalists who succesfully lobbied for biofuel.
Surely that has something to do with Bush seizing upon biofuels as a quick fix solution? Many environmentalists are opposed to biofuels.
Badly thought out policies are enacted all the time. What is so particularly bad about environmental ones?
Surely that has something to do with Bush seizing upon biofuels as a quick fix solution?
hmmmmmno.
And I am all in favour of cleaner industry but global warming is controversial at best. But all the taxes go up regardless.
I'm with Fragony on this one.
Governments don't care about our environment, they just want our money and global warming is just as good as any other silly excuse.
If you say so. I don't have any particular interest in getting into a debate about climate change itself, if you aren't convinced by the science then you aren't going to be convinced by me.
My argument is with the claim, "environmentalism causes human rights abuses". I would argue that what causes humans rights abuses is unscrupulous governments trying to make a quick buck or political capital by screwing their people. That has nothing to do with environmentalism; it may be used as a pretext, but that is not the same as saying it causes the abuse.
If people are truly interested in human rights standards, they should be condemning abuses across the board, not specifically singling out those which might happen to have climate change as a pretext. Whether an abuse is rationalized as preventing terrorism or as preventing climate change makes no difference.
Alexander the Pretty Good
05-29-2008, 01:00
/mumbles something about banning DDT and the return of malaria
:shifty:
In the nineties we had the acid-rain hoax, now the global warming hoax. It's limiting our freedom of choice and freedom of choice is a human right, only a tiny amount of tax revenue goes to enviroment anyway, most goes directly to the treassury; nothing but a robbery.
Acid rain isn't a hoax
https://img153.imageshack.us/img153/26/acidrainwoods1eh9.jpg
/mumbles something about banning DDT and the return of malaria
Yes because DDT is the only possible way ever to get rid of malaria.
Acid rain isn't a hoax.
Where is it now. That hype got replaced by global warming. What you see there has to do with lower groundwater by the way.
Where is it now. That hype got replaced by global warming.
Where you'd expect it to be: still in the working. Though, not as bad as what it used to be, because something was actually done (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue_gas_desulfurization)with it.
What you see there has to do with lower groundwater by the way.
Not according to the photographer: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Acid_rain_woods1.JPG
edit; better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
edit; better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
Yeah, that's a good example. Scientists discover that something is harmful, and the general public ignore it because they know better; or in reality, nothing at all that is useful in the context; which is just what your link tells us. "Everything works just great, nothing could be wrong".
Who are the loudest speakers against global warming? It's politicians and the man in the street, not scientists.
Politicians because they want money and the man on the street because it's his money they want. Scientists have yet to present evidence that global warming happens because of us, heck they can't even prove global warming exists in the first place. Screw these watermelons, green on the outside red within.
Politicians because they want money and the man on the street because it's his money they want. Scientists have yet to present evidence that global warming happens because of us, heck they can't even prove global warming exists in the first place. Screw these watermelons, green on the outside red within.
The temperatures are rising; globally and for over a century; thus it could not be an anomaly, but a trend (where it'll end is a another matter). CO2 is a well known green house gas, that is not disputed. Cars, industry etc. releases CO2 in great amounts.
Two plus two gives four; how can anyone make it five?
You could argue that there are additional forces acting here, even that CO2 plays a minor role in the larger picture; but that there is no atmospheric heating caused by human CO2 emissions, I don't see how anyone can claim. (yes, now we have stepped down from the man causes "doom" to himself thought)
And please no, this isn't really off-topic. :clown:
And please no, this isn't really off-topic. :clown:
Fair enough, but as I have said, it would be nice if we could be quite clear that we are now discussing climate change itself, not human rights. The two are not connected, at least not in the simplistic manner suggested by the guy in the article.
Allignment of planets affecting earths orbit and solar activity are the most likely candidates. CO2 probably don't help, but most of all it helps the eco-nostra :yes:
CrossLOPER
05-29-2008, 14:22
*cheeky*
itt Fragony once again chooses to boost his post-count by trolling.
itt Fragony once again chooses to boost his post-count by trolling.
ok kinda guilty but the biojugend deserves it these guys believe everything they hear.
+1
Alexander the Pretty Good
05-30-2008, 02:47
Yes because DDT is the only possible way ever to get rid of malaria.
Then why aren't the alternatives being used? Or if they are, why aren't they working?
I'd rather save human lives now and work on developing an alternative later than what we have now.
Crazed Rabbit
05-30-2008, 03:33
Yes because DDT is the only possible way ever to get rid of malaria.
It is probably the best way, but because of environmental hysteria being blown out of proportion, it was banned in a knee jerk reaction. People died because of environmentalists being alarmists, because the best anti-malaria weapon was taken away.
As to the OP - the Czech Pres is right.
Socialism; let's heavily regulate industry and the economy!
Greens; Let's heavily regulate industry and the economy...for the trees!
IIRC, there are connections between some green and socialist groups.
CR
Socialism; let's heavily regulate industry and the economy!
Greens; Let's heavily regulate industry and the economy...for the trees!
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
HoreTore
05-30-2008, 10:24
In the nineties we had the acid-rain hoax
Acid rain hoax....?
Yeah, it's just a coincidence that the acid level of our rivers are rising while the fish living there is dying...
Ya who put applejuice in these glaciers.
Socialism; let's heavily regulate industry and the economy!
Greens; Let's heavily regulate industry and the economy...for the trees!
IIRC, there are connections between some green and socialist groups.
CR
Here we go again.
Actually, the way it works is this:
Socialism; let's heavily regulate industry and the economy!
Greens; Let's heavily regulate industry and the economy...for the trees!
Communism; let's heavily regulate industry and the economy, and also severely restrict freedom of speech and of the press, and imprison or execute anyone who questions us!
The repulsive thing about the Communist governments of of Eastern Europe was that they were authoritarian dictatorships with appalling human rights records. The fact that they also happened to be socialists (at least in terms of economic policy) is entirely incidental.
The fact that so many on the right seem unable to tell the difference is frankly quite scary. Perhaps it goes some way to explaining "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation"? After all, these aren't socialist human rights abuses, so they must be OK, right?
The link being made between environmentalism and human rights abuse is both spurious and opportunistic. Badly-thought-out policy is enacted all the time. If some of it happens to be environmental policy, the problem still lies with the policy itself, not environmentalism as a whole. If someone happens to enact a stupid economic policy, does it follow that economics itself is stupid?
You want to debate the validity or otherwise of climate change? Go ahead. Just please try to do so without making absurd links to human rights abuses, all it achieves is to cheapen the message of those who think human rights are an important issue in and of themselves.
You want to debate the validity or otherwise of climate change? Go ahead. Just please try to do so without making absurd links to human rights abuses, all it achieves is to cheapen the message of those who think human rights are an important issue in and of themselves.
Hitler liked nature, do you want to be like Hitler? Nuff said discussion over.
Hitler liked nature, do you want to be like Hitler? Nuff said discussion over.
And on this, at least, we are in total agreement.
Can there be a surer sign of total victory in a debate than forcing your opponent to resort to Godwin's Law?
And on this, at least, we are in total agreement.
Can there be a surer sign of total victory in a debate than forcing your opponent to resort to Godwin's Law?
It's all yours mia muca, don't spend it all on candy :laugh4: :laugh4:
Ja'chyra
05-30-2008, 12:51
Environmentalism shouldn't affect human rights if it is managed prorerly.
Proper environmental mangement and sustainable development is all about balance, not banning things.
Oh, and global warming is a real thing, it's not caused by mankind we just aren't helping.
Alignment of planets affecting earths orbit and solar activity are the most likely candidates. CO2 probably don't help, but most of all it helps the eco-nostra :yes:
SO, basically anything but what that could be caused by humans is to be considered a cause. That road you're taking is the shortcut to loose this discussion, have fun as the roads goes bumpy.
Then why aren't the alternatives being used? Or if they are, why aren't they working?
I'd rather save human lives now and work on developing an alternative later than what we have now.
Before doing something, it could be clever to make certain that the help actually is helpful and does not have dangerous side-effects. There are always other methods if there is enough decication.
It is probably the best way, but because of environmental hysteria being blown out of proportion, it was banned in a knee jerk reaction. People died because of environmentalists being alarmists, because the best anti-malaria weapon was taken away.
CR
So we are know suddenly knowing that DDT is NOT dangerous? Last time I checked, this was a controversial topic; certainly not the correct topic for a besserwisser attitude.
Oh, and global warming is a real thing, it's not caused by mankind we just aren't helping.
Bollocks, the only scientific view that has gathered any kind of consensus at all is that the global warming is man made.
Yeah because that is the idea that needs to be promoted. Tons of scientists who oppose it but they don't get to eat microphone.
Yeah because that is the idea that needs to be promoted. Tons of scientists who oppose it but they don't get to eat microphone.
Tons of scientist opposing it for thousands of different reasons will never lead to a consensus. :juggle2:
Tons of scientist opposing it for thousands of different reasons will never lead to a consensus. :juggle2:
Only one. It's bull.
Ja'chyra
05-30-2008, 15:33
Bollocks, the only scientific view that has gathered any kind of consensus at all is that the global warming is man made.
So there haven't been warm periods and ice ages before man?
link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/migrationtemp/1539807/Global-warming-'just-a-natural-cycle'.html)
Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html)
So there haven't been warm periods and ice ages before man?
They can predict ice-ages and warm periods up to a hundred years with the planetary allignement model I mentioned earlier. But that is all a bit scientific.
Only one. It's bull.
All of them do not claim that; some of them are serious in approach and do not make unfounded conclusions. And beyond that, creativity does not rest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy).
All of them do not claim that; some of them are serious in approach and do not make unfounded conclusions. And beyond that, creativity does not rest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy).
Ok so we have established that there is controversity surrounding global warming, still it's presented as an absolute fact, in schoolbooks, the media, say what you want about the war on terrorism but at least something blows up from time to time, and they are supposed the scaremongers yeah right.
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 17:25
Here is a cute and well written summary of many of my opinions on the issue.
Moving Toward Energy Rationing
By Charles Krauthammer (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/moving_toward_rationing.html)
WASHINGTON -- I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.
Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems -- from ocean currents to cloud formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.
Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."
If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming -- infinitely more untested, complex and speculative -- is a closed issue.
But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.
For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class -- social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies -- arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).
Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.
Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but -- even better -- in the name of Earth itself.
Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment -- carbon chastity -- they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.
Just Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.
There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.
So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research -- untainted and reliable -- to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.
Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean.
But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo.
Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing?
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group
So there haven't been warm periods and ice ages before man?
link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/migrationtemp/1539807/Global-warming-'just-a-natural-cycle'.html)
Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html)
That's not a consensus.
They can predict ice-ages and warm periods up to a hundred years with the planetary allignement model I mentioned earlier. But that is all a bit scientific.
Heh..provide me with a source. Planetary alignments come and go and do not last very long.
Ok so we have established that there is controversity surrounding global warming, still it's presented as an absolute fact, in schoolbooks, the media, say what you want about the war on terrorism but at least something blows up from time to time, and they are supposed the scaremongers yeah right.
Controversy, yes, but how real is it? Something that there is scientific consensus (http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619)on is something that enter text books; and on GW there is.
Heh..provide me with a source. Planetary alignments come and go and does not last very long.
Neither do ice-ages, pick one http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=planetary+alignment+%2B+global+warming&btnG=Zoeken&meta=
Neither do ice-ages, pick one http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=planetary+alignment+%2B+global+warming&btnG=Zoeken&meta=
The only thing in that search that had the slightest resemblance to scientific notes was the self promoting web page of a scientist that cannot even be found on wikipedia.
If you actually clicked you would have found many websites refuting it, it's a theory, that is the thing with theory's they aren't presented as facts. Like global warming is.
edit, ice ages http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=ice+age+prediction&btnG=Zoeken&meta=
gulfstream and allignment are supposedly linked, http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=gulfstream+planetary+alignment&spell=1
If you actually clicked you would have found many websites refuting it, it's a theory, that is the thing with theory's they aren't presented as facts. Like global warming is.
I did click it; but I did not find any scientific reports. I do not count secondary publishers; apart from the purely scientific ones like Nature, Science etc; to be reliable sources on controversial topics. Everything in science is a theory; nothing is considered to be 100.000% true. Doesn't the theory of general relativity ring a bell, not even the slightest?
100% sure my taxes went up over something nobody knows what's going on, that's my science. So now we aren't even sure why, all theory after all?
more; http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=nl-nl&q=global+warning+hoax&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Ja'chyra
05-30-2008, 18:49
con·sen·sus
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
There is no consensus on the subject and if there was it would change every other week, or has there been a vote on the subject.
There is no consensus on the subject and if there was it would change every other week, or has there been a vote on the subject.
Of course consensus is relative; but most science that is done nowadays support the theory that an increase of the atmospheric level of CO2 is the most likely cause for the heating. A list over major (relevant) scientific institutions that endorses the IPCC conclusion can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change).
100% sure my taxes went up over something nobody knows what's going on, that's my science. So now we aren't even sure why, all theory after all?
Yes, it is presumed that we know what is going. A scientific theory can be disproved; the more tests it stands, the more likely it is that it is the truth.
Well let's face it, thermodynamics and electromagnetism are just theories.
So you should sell your car and computer and live in a tipi eating mung beans, right? After all, it's just a theory that engines and electronics won't explode or eat your babies, isn't it?
Dissent is important in science and should always be present. However, when it comes time to make policy based on science, why on earth would it make more sense to follow the dissenting minority opinion instead of the majority?
It are the scientists who oppose the political inconvenient ' truth'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
aren't the least.
LittleGrizzly
06-01-2008, 15:05
It are the scientists who oppose the political inconvenient ' truth'.
Its stupid when are people going to realise that scientists just hate oil companies, electric companies, car companies and electricity suppliers. They hate energy and new technology that requires power to run, the reason they are against all these new things which you assume scientists would like its because they are all secretly luddites....
It are the scientists who oppose the political inconvenient ' truth'.
Its stupid when are people going to realise- that scientists just hate oil electric and car companies and electricity suppliers-. They hate energy- and new technologies- that requires power to run, the reason they are against all these new things- its because they are all secretly luddites....
Look what I did I made a rap from it
It are the scientists who oppose the political inconvenient ' truth'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
aren't the least.
There are scientists opposing everything; but there is no reason to give them any credit just like that.
I get it now!
Environmentalism leads to Stalinism, kind of like how the theory of evolution leads to Nazism :inquisitive:
Crazed Rabbit
06-01-2008, 22:23
So we are know suddenly knowing that DDT is NOT dangerous? Last time I checked, this was a controversial topic; certainly not the correct topic for a besserwisser attitude.
Of course it has dangers, like nearly everything. But the banning was not rational.
The repulsive thing about the Communist governments of of Eastern Europe was that they were authoritarian dictatorships with appalling human rights records. The fact that they also happened to be socialists (at least in terms of economic policy) is entirely incidental.
Or maybe they had to resort to being authoritarian dictatorships to implement those socialist policies. Like, how Ukrainian farmers resisted the collectivization schemes of Stalin, resulting in their brutal treatment and mass famine.
That's not to say other authoritarian dictatorships haven't become so for completely unrelated reasons, or that Stalin was brutal in part to simply to secure his power. But it's not entirely incidental.
Anyway, to the global warming consensus - how come the world hasn't warmed since 1998? How come it didn't warm between (IIRC) 1940 and 1970? Carbon levels rose during both these periods.
CR
Ironside
06-01-2008, 23:01
Or maybe they had to resort to being authoritarian dictatorships to implement those socialist policies. Like, how Ukrainian farmers resisted the collectivization schemes of Stalin, resulting in their brutal treatment and mass famine.
That's not to say other authoritarian dictatorships haven't become so for completely unrelated reasons, or that Stalin was brutal in part to simply to secure his power. But it's not entirely incidental.
Or look at Republican Spain during the civil war... Ruins your ideas about resorting pretty badly.
That was more of a bottom up policy though. :juggle:
Ja'chyra
06-02-2008, 07:44
Of course consensus is relative; but most science that is done nowadays support the theory that an increase of the atmospheric level of CO2 is the most likely cause for the heating. A list over major (relevant) scientific institutions that endorses the IPCC conclusion can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change).
Yes, it is presumed that we know what is going. A scientific theory can be disproved; the more tests it stands, the more likely it is that it is the truth.
From your link:
European Academy of Sciences and Arts - Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future
National Research Council (US) - The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue
So like I said
Oh, and global warming is a real thing, it's not caused by mankind we just aren't helping.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.