Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|7111|NT, like Mick Dundee

CameronPoe wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

stategies for the misinformed to fix something that is normal.
The jury is out for me as regards the 'man-madeness' of global warming but conserving finite resources of something we use to make PLASTICS is a big issue for me.
I had the good fortune to speak to Dr Ian Lowe recently (yesterday) for about an hour on the topic.

Global Warming is happening. It's natural. The fact that in the last 30 years the rate that warming has taken place has risen at near exponential levels is worrying and has had scientists looking for, and finding explanations.

Now before anybody gives me the "It's just the natural rate increasing"... It's not. There is a massive gap in what should be taking place according to predictions based on data from the last 15,000 years and what is actually taking place. This scientists believe is the impact of the disrupted carbon cycles, CF-Cs, NOx and other crappy substances in the air and that the time lag in the system is catching up fast. Average global temperatures are predicted to rise roughly 2 degrees C over the next 80 years. Weather patterns are being thrown into chaos as we here in Australia have noticed. A 15 year drought... Dubbo's average yearly temp dropping by about 1 degrees C while rises of up to 3 degrees C on the yearly average have been recorded elsewhere over just the past 10 years. Something has fucked up the worlds climate systems over the last 100 years... Only thing that has changed much is human technology.

An interesting article on a recent US Supreme Court case... There is hope yet for the USA.

@S.Lythberg... NOBODY WANTS TO TRY BRING IN NUCLEAR POWER, AS SOON AS YOU TRY DO IT INDEPENDENTLY THE USA GOES LOCO AND ACCUSES YOU OF MAKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS...
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6808|Vancouver
Schwarzenegger signs carbon pact in Canada

   
VANCOUVER, British Columbia - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell signed a memorandum of understanding Thursday to jointly reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as Schwarzenegger wrapped up a three-day visit to Canada.

The pact, known as the Pacific Coast Collaborative to Protect Our Shared Climate and Oceans, commits the two jurisdictions to cap and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and work on the development and implementation of clean technologies, but is not legally binding.

The deal commits both areas to work together to protect the waters off the Pacific coast of North America, a significant portion of which are bordered by the state and province.

A major part of the agreement is the commitment to build a so-called hydrogen highway between British Columbia and Baja California in Mexico to foster the use of zero-emission vehicles. The collaboration, which also includes Oregon and Washington, is a previously agreed-to plan to build fueling stations along the highway, so that by 2010 a hydrogen-powered vehicle could travel that route.

Schwarzenegger praised President Bush's proposal Thursday urging 15 major nations to agree by the end of next year on a global target for reducing greenhouse gases.

"That means they are acknowledging the global warming," Schwarzenegger said at a news conference. "I think that is a really great step forward in the right direction."

Schwarzenegger earlier criticized the American and Canadian federal governments that have been hesitant to adopt the 1997 Kyoto Protocol requiring industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2012.

Canada was a signatory to the deal, but announced in April that it would not meets its Kyoto commitments and released a new plan to reduce greenhouse gases.

"We have to show leadership," he said. "If we are waiting for them to do the same thing, it would never happen."

The governor's comments came as Bush sought to blunt international criticism of the U.S. record on climate change.

The MOU with British Columbia, similar to one he signed earlier this week with the province of Ontario, is not legally binding and imposes no obligations on either California or B.C.

Because no other state has adopted California's emissions caps, the agreements are largely symbolic, and their effects, if any, are years away.

The agreement  also provides for the sharing of information on coastal resources and health including monitoring and management of marine protection areas and synchronization of environmental protection at Pacific ports.

"By working in partnership with California and other coastal jurisdictions, we can continue to lead in sustainable environmental management and improve the quality and impact of oceans research," Campbell said.

Currently, the states of Washington, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and B.C. are partners in the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative. The Canadian province of Manitoba has also expressed interest in signing, Campbell said.

Source
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7121|Canberra, AUS

Flecco wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

stategies for the misinformed to fix something that is normal.
The jury is out for me as regards the 'man-madeness' of global warming but conserving finite resources of something we use to make PLASTICS is a big issue for me.
I had the good fortune to speak to Dr Ian Lowe recently (yesterday) for about an hour on the topic.

Global Warming is happening. It's natural. The fact that in the last 30 years the rate that warming has taken place has risen at near exponential levels is worrying and has had scientists looking for, and finding explanations.

Now before anybody gives me the "It's just the natural rate increasing"... It's not. There is a massive gap in what should be taking place according to predictions based on data from the last 15,000 years and what is actually taking place. This scientists believe is the impact of the disrupted carbon cycles, CF-Cs, NOx and other crappy substances in the air and that the time lag in the system is catching up fast. Average global temperatures are predicted to rise roughly 2 degrees C over the next 80 years. Weather patterns are being thrown into chaos as we here in Australia have noticed. A 15 year drought... Dubbo's average yearly temp dropping by about 1 degrees C while rises of up to 3 degrees C on the yearly average have been recorded elsewhere over just the past 10 years. Something has fucked up the worlds climate systems over the last 100 years... Only thing that has changed much is human technology.

An interesting article on a recent US Supreme Court case... There is hope yet for the USA.

@S.Lythberg... NOBODY WANTS TO TRY BRING IN NUCLEAR POWER, AS SOON AS YOU TRY DO IT INDEPENDENTLY THE USA GOES LOCO AND ACCUSES YOU OF MAKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS...
Fair enough.

Anyone ever read "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery? Good read.

Oh, and:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as … 007_pg5_29 (not the greatest of sources I admit)
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/s … 09,00.html (Even worse)
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/06/ … 79569.html (related)

You get the idea.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6808|Vancouver
B.C.'s greenhouse gases drop as the economy booms


VICTORIA -- When Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gordon Campbell meet today in Vancouver each will be playing the role of anti-global warming crusader.

But it just may be ordinary British Columbians are already ahead of the California governor and B.C. premier.

The newest data from Environment Canada, which was provided to The Vancouver Sun by the B.C. government Wednesday, found greenhouse gas emissions in the province declined significantly in 2005, even as the economy remained one of the hottest in Canada.

"According to Environment Canada, greenhouse gas emissions for 2005 actually decreased by 2.4 per cent," Campbell told NDP leader Carole James in a little-watched debate in the legislature Tuesday evening.

"That was in spite of an economy that grew at 3.7 per cent."

Fluctuations in greenhouse gas emissions aren't unprecedented in B.C. Despite a steady increase in emissions from 50.6 million tonnes in 1990 to 65.7 million tonnes in 2005, there have been small decreases from time to time.

From 1996 to 1997, when the economy struggled, there was a decrease of 1.8 million tonnes. And in 2001-2002, another period of sluggish growth, there was also a drop of 1.4 million tonnes.

But the 2004-2005 drop -- a 1.6-million tonne reduction from 67.3 million tonnes -- occurred when the economy was growing at a rapid rate.

"These are preliminary numbers given to us by the feds," said Environment Minister Barry Penner.

"It's significant that this happened when the economy was also growing so strongly at the time."

Campbell's purpose in meeting with Schwarzenegger today is to sign a memorandum of understanding to signal B.C. is committed to joining California in setting stiff reduction targets, penalties for companies who don't meet those targets, as well as a carbon trading market enabling "green" companies to sell carbon credits to polluters.

If that policy continues, as Campbell has vowed, reducing greenhouse gases will be a major fixation of both government and the private sector for years to come.

What is notable about the 2005 decrease in greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. is that it occurred before the B.C. government's recent elevation of fighting global warming to a top priority. The government itself was surprised at the drop.

Some of the reasons for the reduction included a decreased use of personal vehicles, which saw emissions drop 5.2 per cent, or half a million tonnes.

Boating also saw a major decrease of 7.4 per cent, or 200,000 tonnes and manufacturing decreased by 11.7 per cent, or 750,000 tonnes.

"We've actually seen people driving less," said Penner. "Higher gasoline prices likely encouraged people to reduce unnecessary trips in their personal automobiles and/or move to more efficient vehicles," he said.

"And we're hearing anecdotal evidence that boaters are just not burning as much fuel on the water."

Penner attributed the decrease in greenhouse gases from manufacturing primarily because of changes in efficiency, such as reductions in power consumption by Alcan at its giant aluminum smelter in Kitimat. He also said there was a decrease of 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases coming from landfills thanks to new technologies to burn off methane gas.

"These numbers are good news for us," says Penner.

But they're also a drop in the bucket. Campbell has vowed to decrease the province's total greenhouse gases emissions to one-third of current levels by 2020.

That would mean a decrease of more than 20 million tonnes within 13 years.

The NDP has in fact accused the premier of creating his new "climate action plan" on a back of a napkin to copy the lead of Schwarzenegger.

The NDP has been trying, unsuccessfully, to get Campbell to explain where the 33-per cent reduction target came from and to provide the economic analysis of what it will mean for British Columbia.

"Full of words and full of photo ops," James said of Campbell's global warming initiative and his plan to meet the former Hollywood action hero today.

"While I appreciate that the premier is going to enjoy his time with the governor, I think it's important that we see action."

Source
13rin
Member
+977|6925

CameronPoe wrote:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1268452,00.html

President Bush has called on 15 major countries to agree strategies to reduce greenhouse gases.
Didn't anyone tell him about the Kyoto Treaty? Wow.
But Cam, isn't he always wrong?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
GATOR591957
Member
+84|7073
Look back at the past six years.  If the word "strategy" is associated at all with "Bush" it should be declared an oxymoron.
topal63
. . .
+533|7164
Doing nothing = wrong and will cost more in the long run.
Doing nothing = ethically wrong in the long term. We're not talking about any single life here, we're talking about the whole system. We cannot just be apathetic and pass on this problem to another generation.

Global Warming being directly correlated to the burning of fossil fuels (and some land change use) is a fact, anthropomorphic CO2 concentrations increasing in the atmosphere causing radiative forcing and feedback enhancement = the current trend above any natural trend, is a fact, get over that it is (who cares if you're misinformed, suffering from disinformation or infotainment-itis, or are utterly uninformed).

Bush saying he'll do something and something happening - well, we'll see.
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6800

CameronPoe wrote:

Didn't anyone tell him about the Kyoto Treaty? Wow.
WOW ? the Kyoto Treaty had no real teeth, it left out the biggest and fastest growing polluters, it was at the least, basically a weapon to be wielded against the USA in an economic battle. What Clinton owed the Chinese we never did know but he treated them with kid gloves and bestowed upon the many technological advances that we  wish he had not. Clearly his loyalty lay outside the USA on many issues. If your going to address a ( Pollution problem ) at least do something ( anything ) that’s real and hold everyone, particularly the worst, accountable.

The Kyoto Treaty was pure showmanship.


Kinda like burning down a church out in the middle of nowhere In the name of Law and Order !

and saying It was to protect the kids ! ( that died in the fire )

or pounding sand and empty tents with multi million dollar missiles so people wouldn't think

That “ he just jerked off ! " after the First Terror attack on the WTC.

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-06-02 09:07:21)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7028|SE London

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

What Clinton owed the Chinese we never did know but he treated them with kid gloves and bestowed upon the many technological advances that we  wish he had not.
The US owe China a lot. Several trillion dollars and their economic solvency. If the Yuan were not pegged to the dollar, there'd be problems, big problems. Without China, the US fails (without the US, China isn't quite as profitable).

It might be a good idea to be nice to them.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-06-02 09:40:36)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7001

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Didn't anyone tell him about the Kyoto Treaty? Wow.
WOW ? the Kyoto Treaty had no real teeth, it left out the biggest and fastest growing polluters, it was at the least, basically a weapon to be wielded against the USA in an economic battle. What Clinton owed the Chinese we never did know but he treated them with kid gloves and bestowed upon the many technological advances that we  wish he had not. Clearly his loyalty lay outside the USA on many issues. If your going to address a ( Pollution problem ) at least do something ( anything ) that’s real and hold everyone, particularly the worst, accountable.
What do you propose be done about the issue given difficulties with China then? What's the solution to the problem? Honest question.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-06-02 10:26:26)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6851|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

What Clinton owed the Chinese we never did know but he treated them with kid gloves and bestowed upon the many technological advances that we  wish he had not.
The US owe China a lot. Several trillion dollars and their economic solvency. If the Yuan were not pegged to the dollar, there'd be problems, big problems. Without China, the US fails (without the US, China isn't quite as profitable).

It might be a good idea to be nice to them.
....or better yet, it might be best for America to care about more than cheap labor and actually diversify its manufacturing interests more.

China should not be trusted and certainly not to the degree that we currently do.  Their government makes ours look saintly by comparison, human rights are a joke there, and a lot of their craftmanship is simply shoddy (compare their electronics to Japan's).
CC-Marley
Member
+407|7275

CameronPoe wrote:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1268452,00.html

President Bush has called on 15 major countries to agree strategies to reduce greenhouse gases.
Didn't anyone tell him about the Kyoto Treaty? Wow.
Please don't bring that up again. You all know it would cripple the  American economy while India and China would get a free pass. Along with the German coal industry. That names a few exemptions. Some of the countries that signed it are not even following it.
EDIT. China is expected to become #1 polluter by late this year. Definitely by 2010.

Last edited by CC-Marley (2007-06-03 14:15:46)

CC-Marley
Member
+407|7275

CameronPoe wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The jury is out for me as regards the 'man-madeness' of global warming but conserving finite resources of something we use to make PLASTICS is a big issue for me.
The chinesse make plastics and they reproduce like rabbits.  what was your point?
We could all be doing the right thing in terms of conservation and diversification and penalise China for not doing so until they will. Just because one stubborn shit of a nation is reluctant to commit doesn't mean everyone else has to not bother. Hence the reason practically everyone except for the US, Australia & China have signed the Kyoto Treaty and are working towards the targets set down within. Even Russia and India signed the damn thing.
India signed it because it doesn't include them. While Russia will sell it's credits for $.

Last edited by CC-Marley (2007-06-02 23:16:08)

Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7121|Canberra, AUS
I suppose it's actually a good thing that we didn't sign Kyoto in a peverse kind of way. If we had signed it, it would've done shitall (Australia's emissions are actually allowed to INCREASE - go figure), but we'd be sitting on our laurels saying 'yeah, we've done our bit', which will be worse in 5-10 years.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
CC-Marley
Member
+407|7275
Anybody else?
iamangry
Member
+59|7091|The United States of America

topal63 wrote:

Doing nothing = wrong and will cost more in the long run.
Doing nothing = ethically wrong in the long term. We're not talking about any single life here, we're talking about the whole system. We cannot just be apathetic and pass on this problem to another generation.

Global Warming being directly correlated to the burning of fossil fuels (and some land change use) is a fact, anthropomorphic CO2 concentrations increasing in the atmosphere causing radiative forcing and feedback enhancement = the current trend above any natural trend, is a fact, get over that it is (who cares if you're misinformed, suffering from disinformation or infotainment-itis, or are utterly uninformed).

Bush saying he'll do something and something happening - well, we'll see.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and it shows.  Without fully delving into the subject or into the scientific method, I will tell you (for a fact ironically) that the correlation is NOT A FACT.  There are two opinions, one has MASSIVE political support.  There is NOT ENOUGH DATA TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT YOU BELIEVE.  It is a reasonable possibility. 

But it IS a real possibility.  I believe I've said before that I will only say this one more time, but apparently that cliche didn't get anyone's attention, so I'll say it again. 

- There is plenty of oil in North America.  It's just not popular knowledge.  Canada's reserves makes the Middle East look like a drop  We're talking TRILLIONS of barrels.  Right now we are totally exploiting them, and good for it!  When they need oil in 50 years, they'll get it from us and russia, and then we'll laugh our asses off and force them to become modern and not barbaric.

- Even when we run out of oil there exists various ways to synthesize oil and gas from coal and other materials.  Most of the innovation was done by Germany over 60 years ago!  Its just cheaper to suck it from under the ground than to synthesize it.  But when the time comes, we will still have plastics. 

- The way to reduce emissions across the board is as follows:
      - Develop and require better filtration mechanisms for factories.  Through the right cleaning methods, SOx, NOx, CO2 and Ammonia compounds can be efficiently removed from most forms of industrial exhaust.  The technology exists, and the particulate emissions acts of about a decade ago adressed some of these well, but more can be done if required by governments. 
      - Use nuclear power (fusion ultimately, but fission for the next 20 or 30 years) and advanced battery systems.  As long as you use something with carbon to create energy, whether it be diesel or coal... or "clean fuels bullshit" like ethanol or biomatter, you will have your greenhouse gases.  Nuclear power for electricity to homes and factories, batteries for vehicles that don't fly (flying's another story... you'll need a better fundamental understanding of physics to come up with a better fuel for things that fly).  But then you need a way to economically and environmentally make batteries... like fuel cells.  A fuel cell isn't a energy generating technology, but an energy storage technology.  So you plug in your car to rehydrate your fuel cell (split its components back up, or recompose whatever compound is being decomposed) and you're set.  It's all in the technology. 

I think THIS is what Bush should have announced.
iamangry
Member
+59|7091|The United States of America
Wow, almost a day and no one has called me out on my post.  Does everybody agree then?
GATOR591957
Member
+84|7073
You started out your rant with "You have no idea what you're talking about and it shows."  Soon to be followed with "it is a reasonable possibility."  Kind of difficult to debate something with logic like that.

Last edited by GATOR591957 (2007-06-05 12:11:04)

iamangry
Member
+59|7091|The United States of America

GATOR591957 wrote:

You started out your rant with "You have no idea what you're talking about and it shows."  Soon to be followed with "it is a reasonable possibility."  Kind of difficult to debate something with logic like that.
He had no idea about what he was speaking of with regards to the process of science.  He says that global warming is a fact.  It is not.  It is a theory.  This is why it's a reasonable possibility.  It's NOT fact, its only a theory.  A theory with contention from other theories.  A theory that does not have sufficient evidence to support it as the dominant theory, only a mass of politicians and gullible people who believe in the "democracy of the truth" as the comedian Colbert would put it.  Just because Al Gore thinks its a fact, or because 100 scientists think its correct doesn't make it so.  However (and I said this before) it is a possibility that is very real.  And to address it we need only to work at it for a little bit to employ many of the energy policies I have outlined (not ranted about) on.  I'm not disagreeing about it being an issue, I'm disagreeing about this particular SCIENTIFIC issue's complications due to excessive POLITICAL influences (there I ranted, but with good reason) and how topal seemed to play right into the politicians' hands.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7208

lol..mother nature = fact.

ahahahahahahahahahaha
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7256|Nårvei

iamangry wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

You started out your rant with "You have no idea what you're talking about and it shows."  Soon to be followed with "it is a reasonable possibility."  Kind of difficult to debate something with logic like that.
He had no idea about what he was speaking of with regards to the process of science.  He says that global warming is a fact.  It is not.  It is a theory.  This is why it's a reasonable possibility.  It's NOT fact, its only a theory.  A theory with contention from other theories.  A theory that does not have sufficient evidence to support it as the dominant theory, only a mass of politicians and gullible people who believe in the "democracy of the truth" as the comedian Colbert would put it.  Just because Al Gore thinks its a fact, or because 100 scientists think its correct doesn't make it so.  However (and I said this before) it is a possibility that is very real.  And to address it we need only to work at it for a little bit to employ many of the energy policies I have outlined (not ranted about) on.  I'm not disagreeing about it being an issue, I'm disagreeing about this particular SCIENTIFIC issue's complications due to excessive POLITICAL influences (there I ranted, but with good reason) and how topal seemed to play right into the politicians' hands.
You can`t discard it as only a theory, this theory is based on an overwhelming amount of facts, it is not 100% but as close as you can get and much much closer to 100% than most theories therefor making it a very plausible one.

And it`s not 100 scientists that believe it is so, it`s 2400 + that think it is correct and it`s not politically influenced at all!

Seemingly you are played right into the hands of the opposition since you obviously believe what you just wrote.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
iamangry
Member
+59|7091|The United States of America

Varegg wrote:

You can`t discard it as only a theory, this theory is based on an overwhelming amount of facts, it is not 100% but as close as you can get and much much closer to 100% than most theories therefor making it a very plausible one.

And it`s not 100 scientists that believe it is so, it`s 2400 + that think it is correct and it`s not politically influenced at all!

Seemingly you are played right into the hands of the opposition since you obviously believe what you just wrote.
It is, ONLY A THEORY.  It is NOT fact. 

By my first post on this topic, I did not discard global warming because it was a theory as an issue which needs to be discussed and acted on.  In fact, I gave a clear and concise plan for the United States to nearly eliminate not just greenhouse gases, but nearly all quantities of emissions which are harmful to people and the environment.  The fact of the matter is that global warming is much more viable of a theory because it has received massive amounts of political attention and money to do its research.  We don't know about climate change.  We think we have a pretty good idea.  Acting on it will not affect the environment adversely by any theory, so it is sound scientific advice to act on it (hopefully in the ways I've detailed before). 

I took the number 100 from one of the political debates over the past few nights (think it was the democratic) in which they sited the agreement of 100 scientists as being reason to declare global warming unilaterally correct.  I found this offensive and decided to speak about it in my previous post. 

The only hands I've played right into are the hands of SCIENCE.  I don't really care whether global warming turns out to be the correct theory or not from a scientific (or political, since apparently science and politics are the same thing in America now) stand point.  I care that people are able to look past the bullshit politicians are doing for your vote.  I care that politicians get called out on their stance on global warming and that they understand the technical aspects of the situation before trying to push their agenda on us.  Most of all I care that we move to a system like the one I described previously because even if global warming doesn't exist, the system I describe will be far more efficient and far more sustainable.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7256|Nårvei

You don't come across as a very knowledgeable person in this debate to be frank.

You keep screaming about it only being a theory and that is partially correct but not quite if you take a look at the facts the theory is based on.

There never was any political funding for the UN climate report, something you should have known.

To not look stupid i suggest you read up a little on the facts before you make posts so decisive in content.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
iamangry
Member
+59|7091|The United States of America
The UN is a political organization.  "An Inconvenient Truth", the movie that most people get their facts from was made by a politician.  It's a good report, and it would seem to indicate that the world is getting a little hotter than it should be.  Hell, its a pretty logical jump from CO2 reflectivity to global warming.  I've never once said here I disagree with the conclusion of the scientists on the side of global warming.  I think its viable.  Am I a knowledgeable person on climate change?  No, that's not my scientific or technical discipline.  I have taken a little time to look at the data available though.  I can't say with complete certainty whether climate changes are man made.  We have seen periods in the past where the Earth has been cooler due to nature, this could just be an upswing due to nature.  I've tried to say several times here that there is reason for concern, because IF global warming is really caused by greenhouse gas emissions, then the current theories will be almost dead on.  All I'm saying is that there's something substantive, but nothing conclusive per the standard of science.  Unfortunately, that data will not be readily available until we've had a few hundred years to further examine our environment.  I haven't said its "only a theory", I haven't been screaming on and on about that its "only a theory", because in all likelihood it will turn out to be nearly dead on.  I'm screaming about the politicians invading science for their own personal gain.  I think even you can agree that its not right that people now get their scientific opinions from Albert Gore and not Albert Einstein. 

To be honest, I believe you and I are arguing semantics here.   We both agree that global warming needs to be acted on.  What we disagree on is the absolution of the theory.  It matters not though.  The fact of the matter is that whatever action taken to stop global warming it will do no harm to our environment or the way we live if we do it right.  Maybe I haven't been clear about this, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from now.


(And I DO know about energy.  What I've said about energy is very sound in my technical opinion.)
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7256|Nårvei

Actually you did say it`s only a theory!

iamangry wrote:

It is, ONLY A THEORY.  It is NOT fact.
But i guess you are right about the semantics seeing as you do have the "correct" view on climate change imho

And fyi the UN is not a political institution, they may of course seek political advice but bottom line is they work for the good of mankind without any restrictions of race, religion or politics.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard