View Full Version : Global Warming
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-17-2008, 22:27
I am curious to see views the Orgahs hold on global warming, mainly in a fact-finding manner, though I will be quite pleased if it develops into a debate (which it usually does).
In addition, do you think that the "global warming exists" lobby is given unfair press?
Voting is public.
KukriKhan
08-17-2008, 22:48
I like:
"Global warming exists; global cooling exists; our ability to manage either is greatly exaggerated."
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-17-2008, 22:51
I like:
"Global warming exists; global cooling exists; our ability to manage either is greatly exaggerated."
That's pretty much option number four. I considered making this about climate change as a whole, and if voters in the poll would prefer that then I suppose I can ask someone to change it.
Louis VI the Fat
08-17-2008, 23:12
I vote:
Global warming exists, manmade causes exist, non-made causes exist, global warming is a cult, denying global warming is a cynical lobby; and lastly, like so many controversial issues, debate is stifled by the lunatic fringes.
Edit, make that, the lunatic fringes are the majority, at least they shout so loudly and so unintereptedly, that they appear to be a majority. I blame the internets.
Hosakawa Tito
08-17-2008, 23:41
I like:
"Global warming exists; global cooling exists; our ability to manage either is greatly exaggerated."
Put me down for this one.
m52nickerson
08-17-2008, 23:45
It does exist and man has greatly sped up a natural process. It is in that increase that the danger lies.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-17-2008, 23:47
Put me down for this one.
Option #4 then? ~;p
I'm sure our current levels of pollution are not great for the earth, but global warming has turned into a global cult using Al-Gore type material as its sermon.
I voted for the 2nd one.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-18-2008, 01:14
I agree that pollution and smog are problems that should be dealt with, very much so. I don't, however, think that global warming (whether it exists in the manner Al Gore thinks it does or not) is what should be driving the solutions to these problems. Basically, I feel that there's much ado about very little, and it's distracting us from actual environmental problems - smog and pollution. That's why I voted for option four.
I like:
"Global warming exists; global cooling exists; our ability to manage either is greatly exaggerated."
agreed.
on the subject of press coverage of global warming, i note the alarmists are complaining about how much coverage the skeptics get.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-18-2008, 01:31
on the subject of press coverage of global warming, i note the alarmists are complaining about how much coverage the skeptics get.
I think that's mostly because they want the skeptics to get none instead of only a little. ~;)
I agree that pollution and smog are problems that should be dealt with, very much so. I don't, however, think that global warming (whether it exists in the manner Al Gore thinks it does or not) is what should be driving the solutions to these problems. Basically, I feel that there's much ado about very little, and it's distracting us from actual environmental problems - smog and pollution. That's why I voted for option four.
I'd generally agree with those statements.
Papewaio
08-18-2008, 02:13
Lets point out the bias from the start:
Posting it in the Backroom (Politics) rather then the Frontroom | Science (Science) you have already pre-empted it as a political movement. ~;)
For a bit of science content. Which is the hottest planet in the Solar System?
=][=
For my opinion Louis says it all.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-18-2008, 02:17
Lets point out the bias from the start:
Posting it in the Backroom (Politics) rather then the Frontroom | Science (Science) you have already pre-empted it as a political movement. ~;)
It can easily degenerate into a political debate, from previous experiences. ~;)
PanzerJaeger
08-18-2008, 02:51
Had the backroom existed in the 70's, we'd be debating the same environmental hysteria - only in the opposite direction.
KukriKhan
08-18-2008, 02:57
Heh. True. And ZPG too.
Marshal Murat
08-18-2008, 04:01
Global Warming? No.
Global Climate Change? Maybe to Yes.
CountArach
08-18-2008, 11:00
I vote:
Global warming exists, manmade causes exist, non-made causes exist, global warming is a cult, denying global warming is a cynical lobby; and lastly, like so many controversial issues, debate is stifled by the lunatic fringes.
Edit, make that, the lunatic fringes are the majority, at least they shout so loudly and so unintereptedly, that they appear to be a majority. I blame the internets.
Wow, I could not have put it better.
Seems everyone's a scientist these days.
Quite what makes people think that holding a strong political opinion qualifies them to know more about science than the actual scientists escapes me.
Yet whenever I want to discuss any theory which doesn't step on anyone's political philosophy everyone seems strangely shy. Merits and flaws of string theory, anyone? Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics versus many worlds hypothesis?
Hmph. Suffice it to say I will not be buying a house on a flood plain any time soon.
Global Warming? No.
Global Climate Change? Maybe to Yes.
are you saying there is no global warming trend, or that that trend is not anthropogenic to any significant degree?
Seems everyone's a scientist these days.
Quite what makes people think that holding a strong political opinion qualifies them to know more about science than the actual scientists escapes me.
Yet whenever I want to discuss any theory which doesn't step on anyone's political philosophy everyone seems strangely shy. Merits and flaws of string theory, anyone? Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics versus many worlds hypothesis?
Hmph. Suffice it to say I will not be buying a house on a flood plain any time soon.
Amen, I voted the first option as it appears to be the mainstream take within scientific institutions.
Hmph. Suffice it to say I will not be buying a house on a flood plain any time soon.They're called flood plains for a reason- they flood. If you choose to live on a flood plain, you have to be willing to accept the risks.
Quite what makes people think that holding a strong political opinion qualifies them to know more about science than the actual scientists escapes me.Do you think most scientists believe that man-made global warming is a looming disaster?
That doesn't really have much to do with global warming though. The area I live in experienced it's worst floods in the 1970s, back when we were concerned with global cooling. :beam:
I voted the last option- I don't think any of them exactly square with my views, but it's probably closer than the others. I'll allow for the possibility that CO2 is having a significant impact on our climate, but even still I don't think it's catastrophic, nor is there anything we can do to meaningfully impact it.
LittleGrizzly
08-18-2008, 19:30
I don't much care what politicians have to say on the matter, scientists seem to mostly support the theory therefore i support the theory...
I went for option 1 but i didn't quite want something that extreme, something close to 1 but less further from 2, put me down as going for option 1.2 or 1.3
Devastatin Dave
08-19-2008, 04:08
What ended the last Great Ice age? Cavemen farts? How did the Romans grow grapes in Britain? We thing too highly of ourselves to think we can have such an effect on nature. Green is the new Red. All the commies and anticapitalist socialists have hidden their agenda behind this fraud because the Soviet Union failed. Green is the new Red, and like the Reds, the very few PROFIT from the miseries of millions. The truelly poor will be truelly ####** if these clowns get their way...
My favorite Bull **** episode (warning foul language)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAu68OsFggw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3InQzsLltHE
TevashSzat
08-19-2008, 04:23
Voted 2nd option here. Think its a real threat, but not gonna be a very imminent threat
Edit: I think this kind of topic will really never get anywhere online since it is near impossible to change the opinions of anyone who is really set on it through this medium. Best way to do things is to wait out a decade, take a look back, and then promtly set out to flame the side that lost(as in true internet fashion)
I voted 2. Though I think it is a major problem, it wont kill us all so it does not fit into the "holy crap, here it comes, run for the hills" category.
Marshal Murat
08-19-2008, 04:35
are you saying there is no global warming trend, or that that trend is not anthropogenic to any significant degree?
I'm saying that there is no 'global warming trend'. There is global climate change, and while some is no doubt derived from humans, I think we still don't understand this world we live on and there could be hidden factors at work here that we can't explain or even identify at this juncture in time.
I don't believe that we can, right now, correctly identify humans as the main source of this global climate change. I don't believe this because humans still don't know everything. My prime example is from when I went to Crete.
At Knossos, have the Minoan Linear A script, a script of human language that has not yet been deciphered by modern humans. How are we to say that we understand the great world we live on, while we cannot yet identify what these symbols meant to an ancient human civilization? We don't know everything, and we probably never will. So, I'm going to say a 'cautious skeptic'. I'd rather die a Christian and go to Heaven than die an Atheist and go to Hell.
Gaius Scribonius Curio
08-19-2008, 05:01
I have to say that I feel most like Kukrikhan on this one.
Global temperatures are definitely on the increase. However whether this is down to us, or whether we are even a major cause remains to be seen. In my Medieval History units opening lecture our lecturer showed a graph of average temperatures in Europe over the years that humans have been in existance. There was a pretty regular pattern, and we should be in a warming period right now. Of course there are other considerations, such as carbon pollution and she said that there is no guarantee that we aren't destroying our planet and that this (climate change on the scale we are seeing) shouldn't be happening, but we do know that sometime about 1100AD the world suddenly, and for no apparent reason began to get colder, and the average temperature was around what it is now, if not a little bit higher.
It follows that there is clearly a lot of scare-mongering. Anyone else sceptical of the whole, if we stop eating meat and massacre our livestock there will be less carbon pollution and we can all stop worrying?
I'm saying that there is no 'global warming trend'. There is global climate change, and while some is no doubt derived from humans, I think we still don't understand this world we live on and there could be hidden factors at work here that we can't explain or even identify at this juncture in time.
I don't believe that we can, right now, correctly identify humans as the main source of this global climate change.
it seems natural to me that there should be a warming trend as we are still exiting a glacial period.
agreed.
Mikeus Caesar
08-19-2008, 10:40
It's definitely happening, most likely a combination of us and natural climate change, and is a serious and imminent threat if you happen to live by the sea or on a low lying island. Do i care? No.
Years of it being constantly thrown at us by the media that the end is nigh has made me completely apathetic to the threat of global warming. I just don't care anymore.
For a bit of science content. Which is the hottest planet in the Solar System?
Venus at 480ºC!
I think it's happening, I don't know if it's as bad as it's made out to be. But, if it is then I'm fine with future generations/scientists/etc looking back at me and saying "I told you so".
What ended the last Great Ice age? Cavemen farts? How did the Romans grow grapes in Britain? We thing too highly of ourselves to think we can have such an effect on nature. Green is the new Red. All the commies and anticapitalist socialists have hidden their agenda behind this fraud because the Soviet Union failed. Green is the new Red, and like the Reds, the very few PROFIT from the miseries of millions. The truelly poor will be truelly ####ed if these clowns get their way...
My favorite Bull Sh** episode (warning foul language)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAu68OsFggw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3InQzsLltHE
Does the IPCC sell books, also?
I don't believe this because humans still don't know everything.
And perphaps they never will. It's not a relevant argument, nor is the comparison relevant.
Kralizec
08-19-2008, 16:19
It's happening, surely. But it's been warmer in the past. I accept that CO2 gasses have some influence but I think people are to quick to accept that it's the major cause behind the current warming and even if it were it seems a stretch that fossil fuels will last long enough to destroy civilization as we know it.
I voted #4.
LittleGrizzly
08-19-2008, 16:24
Green is the new Red. All the commies and anticapitalist socialists have hidden their agenda behind this fraud because the Soviet Union failed. Green is the new Red, and like the Reds, the very few PROFIT from the miseries of millions. The truelly poor will be truelly ####ed if these clowns get their way...
The faked lunar landings, Bush knocked down the towers... and the now the newest theory in our latest line of Conspiracy Theorys we have the evnviro commie conspiracy theory.
Conspiracy theorys, there for all your neanderthal needs, hate something ? very little evidence to support your theory ? then why not start a conspiracy theory today! nothing is too wacky! even willing to accept that completely opposed ideaologys are in fact linked! start your socailism is facism ct today and watch as friends and family admire your twisting of the facts..
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-19-2008, 17:40
Global warming is happening at the moment, that's fact. Whether it was caused by us, is natural, or is even a problem is where the debate begins.
Global warming is happening at the moment, that's fact. Whether it was caused by us, is natural, or is even a problem is where the debate begins.
It's never even that cut and dry- most measurements show that "global" temperatures have dropped from 2007-2008. Over the last 30yrs, there has been a warming trend, but I think the last ten years have more or less leveled off with, as I've said, a decrease over the last year. Does that mean we're going to experience global cooling now? Who knows. :shrug:
I think we can have a small impact on climate, and it can be more pronounced locally (heat islands, ect). However, our climate has varied wildly in the past and there's no reason to think that it won't continue to do so- I think it'd be pretty much impossible for us to override natural variations even if we wanted to.
Man-made global warming alarmism starts from the false premise that the climate is static, and therefore any change is not natural and must, by extension be caused by man. That's nonsense.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-19-2008, 18:01
It's never even that cut and dry- most measurements show that "global" temperatures have dropped from 2007-2008. Over the last 30yrs, there has been a warming trend, but I think the last ten years have more or less leveled off with, as I've said, a decrease over the last year. Does that mean we're going to experience global cooling now? Who knows. :shrug:
There isn't supposed to be any rise in temperatures for the next ten years. I voted for option four, but I'm leaning a little towards option five - global warming does seem to be in a large part natural.
Man-made global warming alarmism starts from the false premise that the climate is static, and therefore any change is not natural and must, by extension be caused by man. That's nonsense.
Quite the opposite; it takes the stance that the climate is dynamic, and might be affected by man, even.
Green is the new Red. All the commies and anticapitalist socialists have hidden their agenda behind this fraud because the Soviet Union failed. Green is the new Red, and like the Reds, the very few PROFIT from the miseries of millions. The truelly poor will be truelly ####ed if these clowns get their way...
overstated, but essentially i agree.
Yes, because if the Left supports it, it must be wrong, science or no science. Political purity is far more important than reality anyway.
Hosakawa Tito
08-20-2008, 02:06
Meh, come the winter solstice of 2012 (http://www.december212012.com/) we're all goners anyway.~:wacko:Dang Mayas...buncha smarty pants math nerds...
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-20-2008, 02:16
Yes, because if the Left supports it, it must be wrong, science or no science. Political purity is far more important than reality anyway.
I don't support it based on politics at all. I've grown up mostly in the country, and I have a great love for nature, especially winter. I just don't believe global warming is much more than a temperature fluctuation - quite possibly occuring naturally.
University of Guelph (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf)
Yes, because if the Left supports it, it must be wrongUsually a safe bet. :yes:
LittleGrizzly
08-20-2008, 09:43
Usually a safe bet. :yes:
you mean like iraq ? ...... ohh no wait... that was the right.... how about gauntanamo ? ...... ohh no wait... right again.... :juggle2:
CountArach
08-20-2008, 09:47
you mean like iraq ? ...... ohh no wait... that was the right.... how about gauntanamo ? ...... ohh no wait... right again.... :juggle2:
Xiahou supports both to the best of my knowledge... I was struggling to think of an issue where he agrees with the left, but I can't.
LittleGrizzly
08-20-2008, 09:54
I was pretty sure even the most ardent right winger realised the folly off iraq, gauntanamo i guessed he might support but even someone who supports the camp has to admit its been a disaster in several ways even if the original idea was ok.
CountArach
08-20-2008, 09:55
I was pretty sure even the most ardent right winger realised the folly off iraq, gauntanamo i guessed he might support but even someone who supports the camp has to admit its been a disaster in several ways even if the original idea was ok.
You overestimate the right...
rory_20_uk
08-20-2008, 11:34
In both extremes, failure of a policy is always evidence that it was not taken far enough - more needed to be in guantanamo for longer and the lack of evidence shows that the terrorists are worse than we thought!
Iraq was only the beginning - unless we go into Iran as well can we really lance the boil; the attack wa too little too late, allowing most of the WMDs to be moved abroad.
You can explain away anything with this "logic" / "deductive reasoning"
~:smoking:
LittleGrizzly
08-20-2008, 11:48
Iraq was only the beginning - unless we go into Iran as well can we really lance the boil; the attack wa too little too late, allowing most of the WMDs to be moved abroad.
Iraq was possibly the worst move we could have made, firstly with the conditions imposed on them and foriegn forces nearby they where a threat to no one, except perhaps thier own people, secondly if fundamentalist islam really is the object of the war on terror going for perhaps one of the more secular states (iraq pre invasion) is pure stupidity.
Iraq war was done to get rid of saddam, free up iraqs oil reserves, secure contracts for domestic companies such as oil related or rebuilding and finally to setup a democracy. The last one is perhaps the only valid reason but it was thrown in as little more than an afterthought.
If we had not commited ourselves to Iraq we would be in a better position to negotiate with Iran, Musharref would not have been in such a bad position in pakistan, perhaps he could have lasted longer, we would be in a better position in this current conflict with georgia and russia, and we wouldn't have driven a generation of young muslims to the recruiters
I have just wrote all this and now all of a sudden im getting a strong feeling you were being sarcastic.... im sure you were against iraq war, and your gauntanamo reasoning is suspect at best...
rory_20_uk
08-20-2008, 12:02
Iraq was only the beginning - unless we go into Iran as well can we really lance the boil; the attack wa too little too late, allowing most of the WMDs to be moved abroad.
Iraq was possibly the worst move we could have made, firstly with the conditions imposed on them and foriegn forces nearby they where a threat to no one, except perhaps thier own people, secondly if fundamentalist islam really is the object of the war on terror going for perhaps one of the more secular states (iraq pre invasion) is pure stupidity.
Iraq war was done to get rid of saddam, free up iraqs oil reserves, secure contracts for domestic companies such as oil related or rebuilding and finally to setup a democracy. The last one is perhaps the only valid reason but it was thrown in as little more than an afterthought.
If we had not commited ourselves to Iraq we would be in a better position to negotiate with Iran, Musharref would not have been in such a bad position in pakistan, perhaps he could have lasted longer, we would be in a better position in this current conflict with georgia and russia, and we wouldn't have driven a generation of young muslims to the recruiters
I have just wrote all this and now all of a sudden im getting a strong feeling you were being sarcastic.... im sure you were against iraq war, and your gauntanamo reasoning is suspect at best...
Yup, I was playing Devil's Advocate.
I think that Guantanamo managed to alienate entire countries and cultures whilst coming up with nothing. That it was created to sidestep laws shows that some are prepared to become the enemy to try to beat them.
Iraq? There was a chance after 1990's war to go in and do some good. This was missed for lack of stomach. To then go in with documents that the ink had failed to dry on with no plans for what happens afterwards was again a massive mess.
The VAST sums of money could have been used to create entire agencies to combat terrorism as opposed to trashing a coutry that hated militant Islam as much as we did. Realpolitik would be to ally with Saddam, offering help if he curbed the worst of his excesses.
No we are hamstrung over 2 conflicts. One is against the people and culture of the area as much as anything else, the other is allowing countries such as Syria and Iran to bleed the West dry with minimum fuss; in the meantime as you pointed out we are not able to do anything else on the world stage, in areas that are of far more direct concern.
~:smoking:
on the other hand every nut-case fruitloop in the middle-east with an urge to pop off a few rounds at the great/little satan in the name of jihad went to iraq instead of america or the UK.
it would take a cynical mind to believe that we could find a convenient country to turn into a charnel house to process two decades worth of jihadists trained and experienced in guerrilla war and terrorism and sprinkled forgotten around the world.............. but maybe i am such a cynic. in which case things are going jolly well in iraq, wouldn't you agree?
rory_20_uk
08-20-2008, 13:55
Whilst I think that this cull is a good thing, there's an endless supply of them, and the percentage killed is probably about the same if not less than those that decide to go Jihad because of this modern day crusade; and since some natives in countries such as the UK get the same idea the problem is arguably worse.
Let's not forget that the Iran-Iraq war polished off something like 1 million of 'em. So far even with America's trigger happiness we've not got anywhere close.
~:smoking:
LittleGrizzly
08-20-2008, 14:13
I don't think its quite working like that, for one does anyone realise what a horrible stratergy that is ?
Imagine your country be used as some kind of slaughtering ground for some other countries enemys.
Secondly i think we started with a far smaller pool of extremists, sure some of the original pool have been killed, and a load of the new terrorists we've created are dead now too, but the problem is what we are now left with is a much bigger pool of exremists, and the possibility if we don't manage to stabilise Iraq that the place will become something like Afghanastan before we arrived, a breeding ground for terrorism...
but there are two decades worth, are we really radicalising new people or just forcing the old ones out of the woodwork?
and what this really boils down to is the crushing of an ideoolgy, that once crushed will no longer be attractive to the rebels-in-need-of-a-cause? we plant the wests flag in iraq and say; "bring it on!" we liquidate the nutters and turn iraq into a western style democracy, in view of the whole world........
difficult to believe in radical islamism as a valid credo after that, huh?
p.s. i am positing this as the thought processes of some strategists buried in Whitehall or the Pentagon.
ajaxfetish
08-20-2008, 15:38
and what this really boils down to is the crushing of an ideoolgy, that once crushed will no longer be attractive to the rebels-in-need-of-a-cause? we plant the wests flag in iraq and say; "bring it on!" we liquidate the nutters and turn iraq into a western style democracy, in view of the whole world........
difficult to believe in radical islamism as a valid credo after that, huh?
Let me just say that that sounds incredibly optimistic. Also, how'd we get off on discussing the Iraq war here? Isn't global warming a divisive enough topic to keep its own thread going?
Ajax
LittleGrizzly
08-20-2008, 16:17
but there are two decades worth, are we really radicalising new people or just forcing the old ones out of the woodwork?
I suppose this depends on two things, How much of the violence in Iraq is done by Iraqis, as im fairly sure there was no significant iraqi portion of AQ, secondly how much of the foriegn contingent in Iraq were inspired by the war itself, i don't think that anyone can seriously suggest that all the suicide bombers we've had in Iraq were on thier way to the west until the iraq war.
Lets get back on topic. :yes:
m52nickerson
08-21-2008, 02:01
I have a lot of respect for most on these boards...........but I'm still going to go with the scientist. I think they know just a little bit more (read huge amount) then any of us here.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-21-2008, 02:54
I have a lot of respect for most on these boards...........but I'm still going to go with the scientist. I think they know just a little bit more (read huge amount) then any of us here.
University of Guelph (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf)
MIT Professor (http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Prof%20Richard%20S.%20Lindzen.html)
Some articles from PhD's here. (http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=11)
Vast majority of engineers and earth scientists in survey disagree on consensus (http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=1d688937-54b7-48f4-a4be-d6979dada5df&k=65311)
Consensus? (http://www.petitionproject.org/)
I agree that some scientists know more than us. I would also say that not only does alarmism suppress alternate beliefs, but that some people are seeking a conclusion that they already have in mind, and not from an impartial standpoint.
rory_20_uk
08-21-2008, 18:22
I've read PhDs that by undertaking different experiments have come to conclusions diametrically opposite each other.
Either there is a massive amount of bias, or small studies can't be relied on.
~:smoking:
Either there is a massive amount of bias, or small studies can't be relied on.
~:smoking:
yes, i have heard of such things too:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3406
Well..studying a thing like this is difficult to say the least, and my opinion on the fact of global warming is that humans are severely overrating it, much less thinking that we can make a serious impact on earth.
And for me, that's the arrogance of the human. We constantly think we can threaten the earth itself. We've been on this planet for what, 300,000 years? The earth has been here for about 5 billion years. Come on people, how seriously do you take yourselves?
Anyway, global warming. I think it's an entirely natural process in which the human race has no severe impact on. What we do have impact on is the cleanliness of the air, however, and thus I am in favour of finding alternate fuels.
my opinion on the fact of global warming is that humans are severely overrating it, much less thinking that we can make a serious impact on earth.
Suppose we were to simultaneously detonate the world's entire stockpile of nuclear weapons. Do you think we would be silly to think that might have a serious impact on the Earth? Why do we think that extracting a large percentage of the world's entire reserves of oil and dumping it into the atmosphere as CO2 would be unlikely to have an effect? Personally I would be amazed if doing something so drastic to the atmosphere did not have an effect.
We constantly think we can threaten the earth itself.
It's not so much whether we will destroy the earth (at least for anyone but the most extreme climate catastrophe fanatic), but whether we can simply make it an inhospitable place for us to live for a long time (on a human timescale, not geological). As demonstrated by my example with nuclear weapons we are quite capable of doing that.
We've been on this planet for what, 300,000 years? The earth has been here for about 5 billion years.
You could argue that makes the opposite point: Human society has only been around for a relatively short period of time, and industrialized human society for an even shorter period, a couple of hundred years, the blink of an eye in geological terms. Industrialized society is unprecedented in the history of the earth (or if it has existed before, it destroyed itself so thoroughly as to leave no trace of its existence, surely an ominous sign), it is essentially an experimental leap of faith, we have no idea whether it is sustainable in the long term.
Trying to do science based on intuition and a vague sense of the "common sense" way things should work is not generally a good idea. Nature has an unerring ability to surprise us every time we think we've got the hang of it.
Suppose we were to simultaneously detonate the world's entire stockpile of nuclear weapons. Do you think we would be silly to think that might have a serious impact on the Earth? Why do we think that extracting a large percentage of the world's entire reserves of oil and dumping it into the atmosphere as CO2 would be unlikely to have an effect? Personally I would be amazed if doing something so drastic to the atmosphere did not have an effect.
We would utterly destroy ourselves, that much is obvious. What would happen to the earth is also pretty much certain, we would transform it into a barren piece of rock (I wonder how much would be left standing), though as long as there is still a core and something vaguely resembling an atmosphere, it can heal. However, on the point of global warming, I do not believe us wasting resources as oil can make a serious impact on this planet.
It's not so much whether we will destroy the earth (at least for anyone but the most extreme climate catastrophe fanatic), but whether we can simply make it an inhospitable place for us to live for a long time (on a human timescale, not geological). As demonstrated by my example with nuclear weapons we are quite capable of doing that.
Ah yes, of course. To be honest, I think we could be capable of that, though, as I stated in my previous post. However, as I said before, I do not regard it as it having a serious impact on the geological timescale.
You could argue that makes the opposite point: Human society has only been around for a relatively short period of time, and industrialized human society for an even shorter period, a couple of hundred years, the blink of an eye in geological terms. Industrialized society is unprecedented in the history of the earth (or if it has existed before, it destroyed itself so thoroughly as to leave no trace of its existence, surely an ominous sign), it is essentially an experimental leap of faith, we have no idea whether it is sustainable in the long term.
An excellent point. However, I still think that whatever humans do, it would be a larger threat to ourselves than to the planet. The planet has been through stuff much worse than us, keep that in mind. And you are right that the planet has not has seen industrialization in the past, and you could say I am underestimating human capabilities, yet when we are long gone (how many years? 200, 2000, 20.000 perhaps?) the planet is perfectly capable of healing itself. We are a threat to ourselves, not to the Earth. So instead of everyone telling us to 'Save the Planet', perhaps they should say 'Save Ourselves.' Thinking about themselves is the best thing humans can do after all.
Trying to do science based on intuition and a vague sense of the "common sense" way things should work is not generally a good idea. Nature has an unerring ability to surprise us every time we think we've got the hang of it.
That's what nature is, isn't it? We can never control it.
LittleGrizzly
08-21-2008, 23:55
So is your problem with global warming (protestors/supporters/theory) that the planet will be fine, it is just the humans that will be wiped out...
Kralizec
08-22-2008, 00:02
nevermind, I probably shouldn't post when I'm drunk.
However, I still think that whatever humans do, it would be a larger threat to ourselves than to the planet. The planet has been through stuff much worse than us, keep that in mind. And you are right that the planet has not has seen industrialization in the past, and you could say I am underestimating human capabilities, yet when we are long gone (how many years? 200, 2000, 20.000 perhaps?) the planet is perfectly capable of healing itself.
I have no doubt the planet is capable of healing itself on a geological timescale, but I am of the opinion that if we think we may be on course to sending it seriously out of whack on a human timescale we probably ought to do something about it. Whether the planet would be capable of healing itself after the human race is dead and gone and done messing with it is not of much concern to me, whether the future world will be a place my children and grandchildren will be able to live in is.
That's what nature is, isn't it? We can never control it.
That all depends on what we mean by "nature" and "control". As a scientific realist I would strongly disagree with any suggestion that we can never understand nature, at least without justification. But certainly there is a big difference between "control" and "affect". You can affect a bee's nest by whacking it with a stick, but that doesn't mean you control it.
Tribesman
08-22-2008, 00:41
Climate change ??????
Where the :daisy: are the swallows this summer?
LittleGrizzly
08-22-2008, 00:43
I would like to exclusively blame the welsh rain filled summer on CO2, everyone who visits this forum contributes in thier own small way, so here's to you!
(now where is that middle finger emoticon...)
m52nickerson
08-22-2008, 00:57
University of Guelph (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf)
MIT Professor (http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Prof%20Richard%20S.%20Lindzen.html)
Some articles from PhD's here. (http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=11)
Vast majority of engineers and earth scientists in survey disagree on consensus (http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=1d688937-54b7-48f4-a4be-d6979dada5df&k=65311)
Consensus? (http://www.petitionproject.org/)
I agree that some scientists know more than us. I would also say that not only does alarmism suppress alternate beliefs, but that some people are seeking a conclusion that they already have in mind, and not from an impartial standpoint.
The first two are attacking the Kyoto protocol, so they start with a bias.
The third talks about earth scientist and engineers. Does not speak to if they have doe research in the field of climate change, or have even read any of the studies done.
The third has some 9000 PHDs again not saying in what the PHD is in or if that person holding the PHD is up-to-date with all the information.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-22-2008, 04:48
The first two are attacking the Kyoto protocol, so they start with a bias.
They're attacking the Kyoto Protocol for a very good reason. As I recall, the IPCC snuck out a (very quiet) retraction. They're still both scientists, and just wait until I dismiss any pro-alarmist stuff as biased - because that's what a lot of it seems to be, especially after the IPCC was caught out with those graphs.
I have no doubt the planet is capable of healing itself on a geological timescale, but I am of the opinion that if we think we may be on course to sending it seriously out of whack on a human timescale we probably ought to do something about it. Whether the planet would be capable of healing itself after the human race is dead and gone and done messing with it is not of much concern to me, whether the future world will be a place my children and grandchildren will be able to live in is.
That all depends on what we mean by "nature" and "control". As a scientific realist I would strongly disagree with any suggestion that we can never understand nature, at least without justification. But certainly there is a big difference between "control" and "affect". You can affect a bee's nest by whacking it with a stick, but that doesn't mean you control it.
Amen to all of that, saved me from some serious typing. ~;)
ajaxfetish
08-23-2008, 19:35
However, as I said before, I do not regard it as it having a serious impact on the geological timescale.
And what on God's green earth does the geological timescale matter to us? I agree with you that 'Save Ourselves' would be a much more accurate catchphrase than 'Save the Planet.' I suppose it just doesn't have a sufficiently heroic ring to it to catch on. In the end, the entirety of the issue is whether we can affect or are affecting the planet in such a way as will improve or worsen our species' chances for survival and quality of life.
Ajax
Meneldil
08-25-2008, 22:33
Usually a safe bet. :yes:
That's totally unrelated to the main topic, and probably deserve a thread of its own, but actually (and I'm serious), I can't think of any good thing the right brought to humanity.
200 years of unparalleled economic growth with has lifted billions out of poverty?
200 years of unparalleled economic growth with has lifted billions out of poverty?
Actually I prefer to give science the credit for that. Aren't scientists supposed to be a bunch of lefties?
i was being a little tongue-in-cheek with that comment. personally i believe that engineers and not politicians are responsible for most significant advances in human civilisation.
LittleGrizzly
08-28-2008, 02:09
That's totally unrelated to the main topic, and probably deserve a thread of its own, but actually (and I'm serious), I can't think of any good thing the right brought to humanity.
Well Bush has personally contributed some classic material for comedians
Now can somebody please explain me why temperatures haven't been on the rise for 10 years despite the rapid development of China and India as industrial superpowers who don't exactly produce their stuff enviroment-friendly? That doesn't make sense. Eco-nostra just keeps repeating repeating, treat it as a fact and people will eventually believe it. It's a hoax, it's all about money. :yes:
Thing is Frag, it really doesn't matter what you think about global temperature change because it's a scientific issue, not a social one, and thus not open to public debate. Similarly, when the LHC begins operation this autumn the experimentalists at CERN will not be beating a path to your door to ask you what energy range they should begin searching in.
The question of what, if anything, we should do about climate change, is open for debate. Many people seem to have decided that they could not give a crap about climate change, which is fair enough. What I do not understand is why if people are happy with that they feel the need to try to crowbar the science post-facto into justifying their decision. To me it reeks of a guilty conscience.
But hey, don't ask me, I'm clearly in on the conspiracy.
Banquo's Ghost
08-28-2008, 20:55
Thing is Frag, it really doesn't matter what you think about global temperature change because it's a scientific issue, not a social one, and thus not open to public debate.
This assertion reminds me of a joke my biology professor used to introduce his first lecture:
Science is Truth; don't be misled by facts.
Of course science is open to public debate. Debate is precisely the lifeblood of science, where informed (not necessarily purely scientific) opinions mull over the evidence and produce a consensus (hypothesis) that can then be tested.
There is a comprehensive consensus about the occurrence of global warming based on much evidence. It is rare to find a dissenting voice. Where there is much less of a consensus is on the cause of this warming - natural or man-made or what proportion of both, if either. There is almost no consensus on how to solve this warming, if indeed it needs to be "solved".
The truly difficult part for scientists is that the hypotheses are very difficult to verify, because we don't have the time, observation ability (ie the model is extremely complex) and most especially because we don't have a control experiment.
As my professor was intimating in his introduction, what is also difficult for many scientists is to admit that we don't have all the answers, all the time.
There is a comprehensive consensus about the occurrence of global warming based on much evidence. It is rare to find a dissenting voice. Where there is much less of a consensus is on the cause of this warming - natural or man-made or what proportion of both, if either. There is almost no consensus on how to solve this warming, if indeed it needs to be "solved".
to take it a stage further; where it is truly difficult is stand with hand on heart and state, given the uncertain nature of our understanding of climate, that it is worth pouring a significant amount of the worlds future economic growth into trying to reverse a phenomenon that may be 98% natural.
do we really know that the human outcome will be better with kyoto than spending a tenth as much mitigating the effects of global warming............., especially given that industrial powerhouses like india and china will take no part in the coming 'revolution'?
right now, i would rather spend a trillion building sanitation, housing, and flood defences than screwing over UK economic growth for the next century.
rory_20_uk
08-29-2008, 09:57
An incoming asteriod might be natural, but if there was a way of preventing it, I'm all for it, especially if it naturally wipes off 98% of all life on earth again.
I don't think that reducing emissions will inevitably destroy growth. I think that such things as our appalling education system are doing a far better job of that, as is our lack of a work ethic (look at the 1970's for a much more extreme example).
~:smoking:
one swift look at the disgrace that is kyoto tells me it would cost britain a great, and india and china nothing.
so it would slow our economic growth while doing piss all to halt global warming........... on the assumption that enough global warming is anthropogenic for us to have a chance to effect change upon.
Thing is Frag, it really doesn't matter what you think about global temperature change because it's a scientific issue, not a social one, and thus not open to public debate. Similarly, when the LHC begins operation this autumn the experimentalists at CERN will not be beating a path to your door to ask you what energy range they should begin searching in.
The question of what, if anything, we should do about climate change, is open for debate. Many people seem to have decided that they could not give a crap about climate change, which is fair enough. What I do not understand is why if people are happy with that they feel the need to try to crowbar the science post-facto into justifying their decision. To me it reeks of a guilty conscience.
But hey, don't ask me, I'm clearly in on the conspiracy.
It is a fact that temperatures aren't rising, haven't been on the rise for 10 years. Say what you want about Bush, but unlike global warming terrorism actually exists, how is that for scare tactics.
Debate is precisely the lifeblood of science, where informed (not necessarily purely scientific) opinions mull over the evidence and produce a consensus (hypothesis) that can then be tested.
On the contrary, I would argue that the whole problem with the climate change issue is that it has been so muddied by people arguing from political, rather than scientific, positions, especially when people extend their political views to form an opinion on the science itself. Left wingers support the theory because it gives them an excuse to clamour for the demise of big business regardless of whether that would truly help. Right wingers oppose it because it contradicts their mantra that all economic growth is good. This is fair enough when we are dicussing what we should do about climate change (which is a political question) but not when we are discussing the science itself. My original assertion was perhaps too strong, I posted unwisely and in annoyance at Fragony's facetious remarks, but I maintain that letting political ideology influence scientific theory is a recipe for disaster.
Where there is much less of a consensus is on the cause of this warming - natural or man-made or what proportion of both, if either.
If we are waiting for 100% approval before we can accept a scientific theory as valid we will be waiting forever. However this issue is still not as controversial as it is often made out ot be in the non-scientific media. I am not aware of any major scientific publication or professional organization which disagrees with the conclusions of the IPCC. Yes, there are dissenting opinions among individual scientists and research groups, that is normal and healthy but it is certainly not a reason to overturn the prevailing theory until they can verify their claims. Certainly to accept uncritically the assertions of the fringe groups seems like lunacy and I can think of no reason why people do so other than political ideology.
There is almost no consensus on how to solve this warming, if indeed it needs to be "solved".
On this we are in complete agreement.
As my professor was intimating in his introduction, what is also difficult for many scientists is to admit that we don't have all the answers, all the time.
I would go further than that. The difficult thing, both for scientists to admit and the public to accept, is that science does not deal in certainties at all, it deals in probabilities. There is always an uncertainty, there is always dissent, which is precisely why it is such a good method for finding out about the natural world, but at some point we have to come down on one side or the other. As I say, if we reject every theory that doesn't recieve 100% approval we would never get anything done.
It is a fact that temperatures aren't rising, haven't been on the rise for 10 years.
Link?
On the contrary, I would argue that the whole problem with the climate change issue is that it has been so muddied by people arguing from political, rather than scientific, positions, especially when people extend their political views to form an opinion on the science itself.
maybe that is the fault of climate scientists for advocating political policy, Hansen would be a prime suspect.
Link?
Here is one; http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0501/p25s01-wogi.html
This one says seven years, no rise in 7 years. Now is it just me or is that a bit, well odd, I mean with China and India joining the industrial giants. Maybe it is all bull. Yes it is most definatily bull, the only thing that is on the rise is taxes. Of all these new taxes 98% goes directly to the treasury, only 2% goes to the enviroment. At least here in the Netherlands.
m52nickerson
09-01-2008, 18:31
Here is one; http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0501/p25s01-wogi.html
This one says seven years, no rise in 7 years. Now is it just me or is that a bit, well odd, I mean with China and India joining the industrial giants. Maybe it is all bull. Yes it is most definatily bull, the only thing that is on the rise is taxes. Of all these new taxes 98% goes directly to the treasury, only 2% goes to the enviroment. At least here in the Netherlands.
One link from a site that also thinks evolution is a lie also proves it!:laugh4:
Science is open to debate, just by those people who have done the research and read the per-reviewed article. Not really by the general public.
One link from a site that also thinks evolution is a lie also proves it!:laugh4:
Science is open to debate, just by those people who have done the research and read the per-reviewed article. Not really by the general public.
Contact your local weather station. Temperatures aren't rising, sorry about your science must have been tough.
KukriKhan
09-01-2008, 19:04
One link from a site that also thinks evolution is a lie also proves it!:laugh4:
Science is open to debate, just by those people who have done the research and read the per-reviewed article. Not really by the general public.
Those people did (and do) the research and write and read those peer-reviewed articles on the general public's dime. Does that not give the gen pub some right to question findings, the better to understand them - particularly if the findings are used to promote or prescribe public policy?
m52nickerson
09-01-2008, 19:05
Those people did (and do) the research and write and read those peer-reviewed articles on the general public's dime. Does that not give the gen pub some right to question findings, the better to understand them - particularly if the findings are used to promote or prescribe public policy?
As far as the policies, not as far as the science.
As far as the policies, not as far as the science.
Well the data would be a start, scientificaly. And it just happens to be that the earth hasnt been warming up for 10 years! Mon dieu!
m52nickerson
09-01-2008, 19:21
Well the data would be a start, scientificaly. And it just happens to be that the earth hasnt been warming up for 10 years! Mon dieu!
You do know that Global Warming and climate change are talked about over long periods of time, like centuries, and there are many flat spots, and dips, over shorter periods.
In other words the data from the last ten years means nothing by it's self.
Banquo's Ghost
09-01-2008, 19:35
Those people did (and do) the research and write and read those peer-reviewed articles on the general public's dime. Does that not give the gen pub some right to question findings, the better to understand them - particularly if the findings are used to promote or prescribe public policy?
:2thumbsup: Yes, it does. Most especially when that public policy may significantly affect their choices in life.
As far as the policies, not as far as the science.
The two are inextricable. Or do you think the voting public should just shut up and do what they are told because the politicians say so? :no:
m52nickerson
09-01-2008, 19:41
The two are inextricable. Or do you think the voting public should just shut up and do what they are told because the politicians say so? :no:
No, not the politicians. The general public and the politicians need to listen to the scientists and act accordingly.
In other words the data from the last ten years means nothing by it's self.
Oh, now they don't, what a convenient inconvenience.
You do know that Global Warming and climate change are talked about over long periods of time, like centuries, and there are many flat spots, and dips, over shorter periods.
In other words the data from the last ten years means nothing by it's self.
What about the data from 30 years?
m52nickerson
09-01-2008, 19:49
What about the data from 30 years?
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm
You mean the data that shows a rise in temperature. Xiahou, don't kid yourself in believing that the scientific evidence is not there.
i am utterly convinced the data isn't there for me as a tax payer to consign a large proportion of future economic growth to defeating something that may not need defeating.
i don't yet buy 'the consensus'.
The two are inextricable. Or do you think the voting public should just shut up and do what they are told because the politicians say so? :no:
This is a dangerous line of reasoning. Yes of course the policy should be influenced by the science but you seem to be saying that the reverse is also true. That scientists should intentionally alter their data and theories to better fit what the public wants to hear. Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but that is what you seem to be saying.
Oh, and having finally gotten around to reading the link (work is busy at the moment), I noticed this little nugget:
The team says it expects natural shifts in ocean circulation to affect temperatures in ways that temporarily out-wrestle the effects of rising greenhouse-gas emissions.
So Fragony's article actually answers his own question of why there has been no warming for 10 years (if you accept their findings). This year is a La Nina year and yet it is still something like the 10th warmest on record.
i am utterly convinced the data isn't there for me as a tax payer to consign a large proportion of future economic growth to defeating something that may not need defeating.
You are utterly convinced? So there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that warming is entirely natural? If not, why exactly are climate change skeptics utterly infallible paragons of wisdom while all other scientists are deluded opportunistic liars?
Banquo's Ghost
09-01-2008, 23:06
This is a dangerous line of reasoning. Yes of course the policy should be influenced by the science but you seem to be saying that the reverse is also true. That scientists should intentionally alter their data and theories to better fit what the public wants to hear. Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but that is what you seem to be saying.
That's not remotely what I am saying. I'm saying that the scientists' role is to provide data and hypothesis, not set public policy. It is perfectly reasonable for the public to debate policy, and to be concerned with the inconsistencies in the science.
As I noted before, there is a substantial scientific consensus that climate change is happening, but much less agreement on whether these changes can be linked to human activity, let alone particular activities. Those scientists that feel it necessary to get involved in the political debate are significantly divided on what solutions will be effective even in the reduction of carbon emissions. The eminent environmental scientist James Lovelock proposes a substantial nuclear programme, for example, which provokes many of his colleagues to have assorted kittens.
In the same way that many scientists who reject man-made climate change may have the roots of their objections traced to funding from oil corporations (which does not necessarily invalidate their data but informs the interpretation) many of those who embrace the idea uncritically must also have their conclusions put to the test of bias. Science relies on scepticism, on observation to test hypotheses. My concern about the case for man-made causes of climate change is that it has become less science and more religion. The data is quite contradictory - though trends can be identified - and the model is incredibly complex. Yet some proposals call for an enormous economic impact on modern day life, with pretty tenuous evidence.
My own view is that regardless of the actual impact of human activity on climate change, it makes sense to strive to minimise reliance on carbon based fuels as soon as possible. If carbon emissions prove to be damaging to the planet, then we will have averted a problem, but fossil fuels are definitely finite and more importantly, strategically vulnerable, located as they are in deeply unstable parts of the world. By encouraging technological innovation, we would be stepping to a new energy independence and world view, creating new industries within the developed world and potentially saving money. Right now, improving energy efficiency would save vast sums of money. These are desirables, regardless of whether human activity can be proven to cause climate change.
Trying to get politicians to change standards of living back towards the Stone Age on the doom-mongering say-so of fairly confused science is not going to happen. Convincing them to save money for their citizens, reduce dependency on autocratic regimes, and create whole new industries full of jobs in their own countries along with enormous export opportunities - well, that might be a goer, as they say.
So Fragony's article actually answers his own question of why there has been no warming for 10 years (if you accept their findings). This year is a La Nina year and yet it is still something like the 10th warmest on record.
Just one of the many theory's of why the earth isn't warming up, there are many; ocean currents, solar activity, planetary allignments, etc. What remains for my argument is the simple fact that was seemingly completily unknown to you, that simple fact being the fact that the earth isn't actually warming up.
You are utterly convinced? So there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that warming is entirely natural? If not, why exactly are climate change skeptics utterly infallible paragons of wisdom while all other scientists are deluded opportunistic liars?
read what i actually said:
i am utterly convinced the data isn't there for me as a tax payer to consign a large proportion of future economic growth to defeating something that may not need defeating.
i don't yet buy 'the consensus'.
Just one of the many theory's of why the earth isn't warming up, there are many; ocean currents, solar activity, planetary allignments, etc. What remains for my argument is the simple fact that was seemingly completily unknown to you, that simple fact being the fact that the earth isn't actually warming up.
I was quite aware that this year is an unusually cold one. Your assertion that there has been no warming in 10 years is simply not true, which is why I was not aware of it. The article actually states that there has been no significant warming in 7 years. It goes on to predict that this trend will continue for another 10 years before warming resumes, as they claim the underlying warming is being temporarily suppressed by shifts in ocean currents.
i am utterly convinced the data isn't there for me as a tax payer to consign a large proportion of future economic growth to defeating something that may not need defeating.
There's a lot of vague terms in there. "may not need", "a large proportion", and yet you preface it with the extremely strong "I am utterly convinced", which is really what I was taking issue with. The implication seems to be that you feel there is no reason to be concerned whatsoever. Do you believe no action at all is necessary, or advisable? Would you, for example, consider buying a car with a smaller engine, even if you can afford a larger one? As Banquo points out in his excellent post, many of the things proposed to combat climate change (shifting away from dependance on fast depleting and foreign-held fossil fuels, reducing wastefulness, encouraging technological innovation) are things that either we should be doing anyway or which would not significantly impact the economy. It does not have to be a stark choice between destroying the economy and continuing exactly as before; I have said all along that it is entirely appropriate to discuss policy. What I feel is inappropriate is to simply draw our own conclusions about the science itself, especially when those conclusions widely differ from the prevailing views of the scientific community.
I was quite aware that this year is an unusually cold one. Your assertion that there has been no warming in 10 years is simply not true, which is why I was not aware of it. The article actually states that there has been no significant warming in 7 years. It goes on to predict that this trend will continue for another 10 years before warming resumes, as they claim the underlying warming is being temporarily suppressed by shifts in ocean currents.
I know what the article says, and again that is one of the many theory's on why the earth isn't warming up
There's a lot of vague terms in there. "may not need", "a large proportion", and yet you preface it with the extremely strong "I am utterly convinced", which is really what I was taking issue with. The implication seems to be that you feel there is no reason to be concerned whatsoever. Do you believe no action at all is necessary, or advisable? Would you, for example, consider buying a car with a smaller engine, even if you can afford a larger one? As Banquo points out in his excellent post, many of the things proposed to combat climate change (shifting away from dependance on fast depleting and foreign-held fossil fuels, reducing wastefulness, encouraging technological innovation) are things that either we should be doing anyway or which would not significantly impact the economy. It does not have to be a stark choice between destroying the economy and continuing exactly as before; I have said all along that it is entirely appropriate to discuss policy. What I feel is inappropriate is to simply draw our own conclusions about the science itself, especially when those conclusions widely differ from the prevailing views of the scientific community.
there is certainly global warming, and we are certainly right to plan now to mitigate the effects of it.
likewise i am happy with the move to nuclear, and an element of renewables as part of a program of energy independence and decentralisation.
but programs like kyoto are daft and ill conceived.
Louis VI the Fat
09-10-2008, 23:09
This thread seems an appropriate place.
Video of tree-huggin' hippies. (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=roFB7bGCAgc)
This thread seems an appropriate place.
Video of tree-huggin' hippies. (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=roFB7bGCAgc)
What the hell? :laugh4:
What. the. hell. Of course in England.http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html
with any luck that judgement will be squashed on appeal.
and hopefully hansen will lose his job over it.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-12-2008, 13:06
What. the. hell. Of course in England.http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html
:wall:
CountArach
09-12-2008, 13:17
What. the. hell. Of course in England.http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html
I'm intrigued as to how it cost that much to rub Gordon's name off the Coal Tower?
I'm intrigued as to how it cost that much to rub Gordon's name off the Coal Tower?
Probably needs a repaint after the rub, industrial paint is hidiously expensive and you can't do a square it needs a complete overhaul or it will fall off.
CountArach
09-12-2008, 14:00
Fair enough I suppose, but seriously - wouldn't the tax payer be better spent having his name up there and receiving this money back in the form of some extra service?
Also where does that quote in your signature come from?
Fair enough I suppose, but seriously - wouldn't the tax payer be better spent having his name up there and receiving this money back in the form of some extra service?
Also where does that quote in your signature come from?
In a normal country Greenpeace should fix it but it's england, these same terrorists have been throwing concrete boulders to sink fishing ships (nets get stuck) and they have to pay for the removal.
Dunno about the quote, read it somewhere and thought it was a great way to annoy the local linkschmensch.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.