Cancun. Scientists call for rationing to stem Global Warming:
-
I figured you'd miss the point. What the bailouts teach you nothing about Wall Street? It will be real interesting to see what wikileaks puts out about one of the major US banks early next year. I have plenty of money. Its just not a sustainable system. As people have repeatedly tried to explain to CSS there is a finite amount of resources on the planet. We waste a great deal of them doing things that don't serve any purpose other then vanity and keeping up with the jones. The more money you have the more resources you have at your disposal. That is the point I was trying to make.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
THats all well and good but whats it got to do with GW? And thats the point. You support GW because you agree with the effects of supposedly countering. You dont care a toss whether the science is valid or not, provided the finaly outcome acchieves the goal of limiting consumption.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Yep, you cant make this stuff up its so whacky: Global warming is now such a serious threat to mankind that climate change experts are calling for Second World War-style rationing in rich countries to bring down carbon emissions. [^] There are so m,any inaccuracies in this report its staggering. 1) The Royal Society just released a statement expressing doubt about the expected warming and its affects in line with its members positions. 2) At least 41C? Nope, the IPCC has alwys said betwen 2.5 and 4. 3) Causing floods, droughts, and mass migration. Absoloutely no scientific basis at all. But you see, they expose their true intent too easilly here: "halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years. " This is what they really want. This is thr true intent of AGW. Its not to save the planet, or help the starving poor, its to limit consumption, to limit capitalism. Its laughable, and AGW is becoming a joke. The more marginalised it becomes, the more aparent its true nature becomes. Good. Perhaps the world will start to take note.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
There are so m,any inaccuracies in this report its staggering.
Well, stop reading the Torygraph.
fat_boy wrote:
The Royal Society just released a statement expressing doubt about the expected warming and its affects in line with its members positions.
Would that be: 'Climate change: a summary of the science'[^]? Have you read it? If so, how can you say that it expressed doubt? Uncertainty, yes, but the IPCC report acknowledged uncertainty - average surface temperatures 2.5C to 4.7C higher indicates a degree of uncertainty.
fat_boy wrote:
Nope, the IPCC has alwys said betwen 2.5 and 4.
Nope, the full range of projected temperature increases by 2100 was 1.8C - 7.1C, 2.5C - 4.7C was the IPCC's best estimate.
fat_boy wrote:
Causing floods, droughts, and mass migration. Absoloutely no scientific basis at all.
But the Royal Society is about to publish papers in all these issues[^] - does that look like doubt to you?.
fat_boy wrote:
Its not to save the planet, or help the starving poor, its to limit consumption, to limit capitalism.
In the rich countries. The the poor nations will to continue to enjoy consumption and capitalism to the full.
modified on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 2:43 PM
-
Yep, you cant make this stuff up its so whacky: Global warming is now such a serious threat to mankind that climate change experts are calling for Second World War-style rationing in rich countries to bring down carbon emissions. [^] There are so m,any inaccuracies in this report its staggering. 1) The Royal Society just released a statement expressing doubt about the expected warming and its affects in line with its members positions. 2) At least 41C? Nope, the IPCC has alwys said betwen 2.5 and 4. 3) Causing floods, droughts, and mass migration. Absoloutely no scientific basis at all. But you see, they expose their true intent too easilly here: "halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years. " This is what they really want. This is thr true intent of AGW. Its not to save the planet, or help the starving poor, its to limit consumption, to limit capitalism. Its laughable, and AGW is becoming a joke. The more marginalised it becomes, the more aparent its true nature becomes. Good. Perhaps the world will start to take note.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
THats all well and good but whats it got to do with GW? And thats the point. You support GW because you agree with the effects of supposedly countering. You dont care a toss whether the science is valid or not, provided the finaly outcome acchieves the goal of limiting consumption.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
THats all well and good but whats it got to do with GW?
That those who have resources would be in the best position to survive climate change, not the average person. Governments are the next in line to have the resources to do something about it.
fat_boy wrote:
And thats the point. You support GW because you agree with the effects of supposedly countering. You dont care a toss whether the science is valid or not, provided the finaly outcome acchieves the goal of limiting consumption.
I go back and forth because of the hysterics of people on both sides. You're posts don't help shed any light on anything. My only concern is that if it is true people will act too late to either do anything about it or reverse it. Most people are reactionary and don't think about what they do and how it effects anything else either in the present or future. I don't know if the science is accurate. But thinking we don't have an effect is rather short sided. We have way to many examples of human screw ups to prove otherwise. I sited the Wall Street example as en example of what selfish people's action can cause and how society has had to clean up the mess. The only difference here is I don't see any bailout option. If we just consume and keep doing that we'll bring our own self destruction upon us. Even if it isn't man made, understanding what triggers a climate shift is still important. There have been several extinction periods in the Earth's history we as a race need to understand it fully. Especially since we're only on one planet. There are many pluses that go along with clean energy namely clean air for cities. Smog sucks, ask Ian or anyone else who lives in a major city. Bejing is horrible I've read. You may not like the method, but fear is a great motivator for people. I'm not fond of it.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
fat_boy wrote:
THats all well and good but whats it got to do with GW?
That those who have resources would be in the best position to survive climate change, not the average person. Governments are the next in line to have the resources to do something about it.
fat_boy wrote:
And thats the point. You support GW because you agree with the effects of supposedly countering. You dont care a toss whether the science is valid or not, provided the finaly outcome acchieves the goal of limiting consumption.
I go back and forth because of the hysterics of people on both sides. You're posts don't help shed any light on anything. My only concern is that if it is true people will act too late to either do anything about it or reverse it. Most people are reactionary and don't think about what they do and how it effects anything else either in the present or future. I don't know if the science is accurate. But thinking we don't have an effect is rather short sided. We have way to many examples of human screw ups to prove otherwise. I sited the Wall Street example as en example of what selfish people's action can cause and how society has had to clean up the mess. The only difference here is I don't see any bailout option. If we just consume and keep doing that we'll bring our own self destruction upon us. Even if it isn't man made, understanding what triggers a climate shift is still important. There have been several extinction periods in the Earth's history we as a race need to understand it fully. Especially since we're only on one planet. There are many pluses that go along with clean energy namely clean air for cities. Smog sucks, ask Ian or anyone else who lives in a major city. Bejing is horrible I've read. You may not like the method, but fear is a great motivator for people. I'm not fond of it.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
But thinking we don't have an effect is rather short sided
I prefer to look at the evidence. And so far, none of the warming can be attributed to man made CO2. Why? Because the warming isnt unusual. Its done this before, both recently and in the distant past. There is no proof man made CO2 ISNT causing warming, but equally there is no proof it is. OK, there is a mechanism whereby it SHOULD cause warming, but since there are so many unknowns, it is not clear whether it is actually causing warming. Plus the effect is known to be exponential, the more CO2 added, the less effect it has. And we have already contributed enough CO2 that any theoretical warming has already occured. Adding more even in theory isnt going to add much more warming. So, what do we do? Keep studying the climate of course, but limit CO2, especially given its benefits to crop productionis silly. Do we need alternative fuel? Probably. Do we need to conserve? Yes. Do we need to recycle? Yes. DO we have a ridiculous consumer economy based largely on waste? Yes. Should we change it? Yes, but how. You are as likely guilty as every other electronics consumer in throwing away old equipment that while stil functional is just outdated. Computers, phones, games, whatever. Yes, this needs to be recycled, and not in some dump in China, bu by us, properly. But obsessing about CO2 and thining it is a cure all for all our ills is foolish. We need to act on what we know, and not act on what we are guessing at.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
fat_boy wrote:
There are so m,any inaccuracies in this report its staggering.
Well, stop reading the Torygraph.
fat_boy wrote:
The Royal Society just released a statement expressing doubt about the expected warming and its affects in line with its members positions.
Would that be: 'Climate change: a summary of the science'[^]? Have you read it? If so, how can you say that it expressed doubt? Uncertainty, yes, but the IPCC report acknowledged uncertainty - average surface temperatures 2.5C to 4.7C higher indicates a degree of uncertainty.
fat_boy wrote:
Nope, the IPCC has alwys said betwen 2.5 and 4.
Nope, the full range of projected temperature increases by 2100 was 1.8C - 7.1C, 2.5C - 4.7C was the IPCC's best estimate.
fat_boy wrote:
Causing floods, droughts, and mass migration. Absoloutely no scientific basis at all.
But the Royal Society is about to publish papers in all these issues[^] - does that look like doubt to you?.
fat_boy wrote:
Its not to save the planet, or help the starving poor, its to limit consumption, to limit capitalism.
In the rich countries. The the poor nations will to continue to enjoy consumption and capitalism to the full.
modified on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 2:43 PM
Royal Society: Yes, I have read it, and the paper was produced following the complaints of it s members that its stated position did niot accurately reflect the uncertainties about climate science. If you want to debate whether these are doubts or uncertainties, then you are on your own. :) IPCC, OK, 2.5 to 4.7, I was clse enough. Saying at least 4 degress is therefore misrepresenting the facts. Re floods etc: No, i wasnt aware, but since there is no scientific basis in these events being more likely due to increased temperature all these rteports will contain words lke 'may' and 'could'. And I'll put money on that without reading even one of them. Rich vs poor: No, in fact the porr countries are being asked to mimit their use of fossil fuels. THats why India and China killed any agreement in Copanhagen, because they refuse to do so.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
News flash, news flash Some guy from some 'centre' no one's ever heard of had a silly idea that'll never get up. Good work. Going by experience this is now the point you start calling me names.
You started it asshole, way back. No go and fuck off. Again. ;P
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
You started it asshole, way back. No go and fuck off. Again. ;P
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
fat_boy wrote:
You started it a**hole
Really? Started what? Pointing out your amazing fucking stupidity? Seems there's a lot of competition doing that these days :laugh: :laugh:
:zzz:
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Royal Society: Yes, I have read it, and the paper was produced following the complaints of it s members that its stated position did niot accurately reflect the uncertainties about climate science. If you want to debate whether these are doubts or uncertainties, then you are on your own. :) IPCC, OK, 2.5 to 4.7, I was clse enough. Saying at least 4 degress is therefore misrepresenting the facts. Re floods etc: No, i wasnt aware, but since there is no scientific basis in these events being more likely due to increased temperature all these rteports will contain words lke 'may' and 'could'. And I'll put money on that without reading even one of them. Rich vs poor: No, in fact the porr countries are being asked to mimit their use of fossil fuels. THats why India and China killed any agreement in Copanhagen, because they refuse to do so.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
If you want to debate whether these are doubts or uncertainties, then you are on your own.
No need to debate, take the projected temperature increases. The IPCC is uncertain whether the increase will be as low as 2.5C or as high as 4.7C, but it doubts that it will be as low as 1.8C or as high as 7.1C. :)
fat_boy wrote:
all these rteports will contain words lke 'may' and 'could'
Oh pish, mere uncertainties. I'd bet that the authors have no doubt that these events will occur.
fat_boy wrote:
No, in fact the porr countries are being asked to mimit their use of fossil fuels.
In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years. Merely quoting from the link.