this is scary!! what s the world coming to

[JustBob]

That's naive. So you think the researchers take the funding money and put it in their pockets? No, they get funding to buy equipment, travel to the Arctic, drill for samples etc. Then what? What if the research showed that, indeed, there was no correlation between CO2 levels and climate change? The money would be 'refunded' to the funders?

Regardless of which side you're on, global warming research has become big business. No money no research. And since it's become THE hip issue, the "alarmists" get the boon of the funding. There's as much, if not more, "bad science" on the "alarmist" side as there is on the "skeptic" side, solely for that reason.

So you oppose Kyoto because, say, the company you work for would be fined, and would have to cut your job. OK, I understand that.

If you want to have an intelligent discussion, I suggest you quit playing psychic and stop putting words into other people's mouths.

I oppose Kyoto for several reasons. One, any treaty that does not include India and China is idiotic. Two, any treaty that set the bar so high that nations have absolutely no chance of meeting it's goals is also idiotic. Three, trillions of dollars have been pumped into Kyoto and estimate show that, even if all signatories were to achieve all the goals, this would most likely just delay the effects of global warming by a mere 10 years. All that wasted money could have gone to help developing nations, to address AIDS and malaria epidemics in Africa, etc... It's a matter of priorities. Again, which doesn't mean that global warming shoudn't be a priority. However, Kyoto was doomed from the start. Show me a treaty that actually makes sense, and I'll support it.

But do you also oppose that we should cut down on the 'shit' we emit into the atomosphere? Didn't think so. So what should we do? Let everyone figure it out on their own? Sit back while China builds more coal power plants because of their booming population and their primitive technology?

Kyoto is necessary! How else will you get countries to cut down emissions?

See above, China isn't even party of Kyoto... And over 60 new nuclear reactors will have been built by 2020. Half of those in China. That's why I bought uranium stocks.

Here, read this discussion. There's 30 pages worth. The guy who started this is definitely more in the skeptic camp than I am, but at least it allows you to get the other side of the story, which we simply don't get in the media because it's not a popular view... Have fun

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=460329

 

[Agrippa]

Regardless of which side you're on, global warming research has become big business. No money no research. And since it's become THE hip issue, the "alarmists" get the boon of the funding. There's as much, if not more, "bad science" on the "alarmist" side as there is on the "skeptic" side, solely for that reason.

The fact that there is bad science out there is not something I deny. I doubt, though, that it is coming from the scientists themselves. Yes there may be a handful of dishonest scientist is possible, Michael Mann being one of them, but most of the bad science comes from politicians trying to argue a point but not understanding the science behind it.

So you oppose Kyoto because, say, the company you work for would be fined, and would have to cut your job. OK, I understand that.

If you want to have an intelligent discussion, I suggest you quit playing psychic and stop putting words into other people's mouths.

I did not put actual words in your mouth. It was hypothetical, as noted by the 'say.' I am glad to have a discussion. I was just saying I can sympathise with opposition to Kyoto, but they are usually nearsighted arguments.

I oppose Kyoto for several reasons. One, any treaty that does not include India and China is idiotic.

Along with the US. Which I believe is the main reason why Russia, India and China are not joining. "If the US doesn't join, why should we." That's rather pathetic isn't it? But I agree that they those countries are going to be by far the major culprits of emissions with their massive populations about to start purchasing cars.

Two, any treaty that set the bar so high that nations have absolutely no chance of meeting it's goals is also idiotic. Three, trillions of dollars have been pumped into Kyoto and estimate show that, even if all signatories were to achieve all the goals, this would most likely just delay the effects of global warming by a mere 10 years. All that wasted money could have gone to help developing nations, to address AIDS and malaria epidemics in Africa, etc... It's a matter of priorities. Again, which doesn't mean that global warming shouldn't be a priority. However, Kyoto was doomed from the start. Show me a treaty that actually makes sense, and I'll support it.

But you've just said it yourself, all that effort and it only delayed it by 10 years. Is this not pressing enough? AIDS in Africa is still spreading at an alarming rate. But what can we do other than give them condoms and educate them? 'Solving' climate change will require a lot more capital...

See above, China isn't even party of Kyoto... And over 60 new nuclear reactors will have been built by 2020. Half of those in China. That's why I bought uranium stocks.

As far as I understood, the vast majority of China's power will still be coming from coal. They have plenty of it. If they are building 30 new nuclear reactors, it's because it's all they can afford. Besides, I have no idea how viable AND reliable 30 nuclear reactors are, but that may be another dire issue to deal with in the future... how to dispose of that waste.

Here, read this discussion. There's 30 pages worth. The guy who started this is definitely more in the skeptic camp than I am, but at least it allows you to get the other side of the story, which we simply don't get in the media because it's not a popular view... Have fun

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=460329

I'll give it a try, because I remain open minded and will sigh in relief if it were to be proven that our actions have no influence on the earth, but I doubt this will happen.

 

[vtguy]

Rose interviews Crichton

Charlie Rose interviewed Michael Crichton recently,

http://tinyurl.com/2rqrg6

They don't discuss global warming until well into this video.

He's not against going green. He is against idiocy though.

 

[JustBob]

FYI, India and China have ratified the protocol of Kyoto, but they are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement despite their relatively large populations. In other words, Kyoto gives developing nations a free pass. And as far as the US goes, people bitch and whine that they haven't signed Kyoto and yet, they are doing a hell of a lot better at reducing their emissions than Canada is. So the argument that "we need Kyoto because if there's no treaty, nations will do nothing" is false.

 

[Agrippa]

Weather patterns are changing but this is not new ( although I do wonder who was taking and documenting the measurements in the middle ages).

They go to the arctic and drill into the ice. They can see strata (just like in the earth) of frost defrost, their thicknesses, CO2 content, etc, and deduce temperatures. I think tree trunk rings can also give indications of temperatures in the past.

For me, I don't think either Al Gore or Micheal Chrichton have all the answers. The "Chicken Littles" sing the global warming lament with such zeal it's a near religious experiment for them. Few seem to sell their car and rely on the subway though.

I never owned a car, nor do I plan on owning one. I prefer to live next to work in order to save the few minutes of commute by car or the 30 minute commute by subway. If a viable alternative were to be offered, say an electric car that can provide enough power and can provide it for 100Km on one charge were around, I think the majority of people would prefer to own it. I didn't get a chance to see Who Killed the Electric Car? I wonder how close we were...

The "ostriches"......well I guess they figure they will be long gone before it's a really big problem.

And we all agree that this is a selfish, idiotic stance right?

What we do in Canada has so little impact in the world scheme of things if you really want to get bent out of shape go do it in Chinawhile they build another coal fired electrical plant....you'll have plenty of opportunity as they plan to build hundreds more.

Indeed, but we do have to lead by example. If we don't develop these technologies, who will? Not China, they can barely build a car that works.

 

[Agrippa]

FYI, it's not a matter of China and India not joining Kyoto, it's a matter of the protocol giving a free pass to developing nations. They are excluded from (following) the guidelines of the protocol itself. And as far as the US goes, people bitch and whine that they haven't signed Kyoto and yet, they are doing a hell of a lot better at reducing their emissions than Canada is. So the argument that "we need Kyoto because if there's no treaty, nations will do nothing" is false.

I was not aware that they were given a free pass. I guess that's the incentive necessary for them to join - to see that their eceonomy would not be hindered. Regardless, in the end, it is their huge populations that will do us in. The have to be bound by something, someday.

It is shameful that Canada hasn't met any of the standards, true. I do what I can, but in the end, it is the role of govts to enforce Kyoto (or whatever is decided). Individually, I have little say in forcing a corporation to change to some other non polluting technology... the Liberals did little, as we are always reminded, and the Conservatives have undone the little that was in place to attempt a reduction in green house gases...

 

[Agrippa]

The US has 300 million people, and yet uses far more resources than India which has four times as many people. Russia has less than half the population of the US, yet probably pollutes far more. So pollution is probably not caused by overpopulation.

Maybe not currently, but can you imagine, as China and India become industrialised, those two billions of people having the same standard of life as Americans? Watering their lawns, driving their cars, eating meat at every meal... That's going to be some serious overconsumption!

Things seem to be going in that direction. I remember seeing that footage of the thousands of bicycles in Beijing a decade ago. Where have all those bicycles gone? Replaced by cars...

 

[mooner]

Did you read the book State of Fear or the testimony I posted? State of Fear is a novel but it contains extensive citations to REAL scientific research, on both sides, the value of which Crichton debates in the book. Why do you think he was invited to testify before the US Senate? Because he is a fucking stunod who knows nothing on the topic?

Hey Beaver,
Yes, I read it, like most of Crichton's books (from the Andromeda Strain to Next, his latest book on biotechs and speaking chimps): all very entertaining, but no more...
If fiction is a good source of info for you, what did you think of The Day After Tomorrow... after all it must be credible, it is the 39th top grossing film of all time, with total revenue of US$542,771,772. It is the second highest grossing movie not to be #1 in the US box office (behind My Big Fat Greek Wedding).

In September 2005 Crichton testified at a Congressional hearing on climate change because : 1) he was called by Senator James Inhofe, a well-known skeptic about global climate change who has called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people"... and because 2) you do get to be a millionaire best selling author by refusing such publicity venues to sell more of your works of fiction!

Since then the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) http://www.ipcc.ch/ (established by WMO ) has published a new report in early 2007:
« Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level »

Until that report I, like you, was still very much of a sceptic about the facts, the science and the origin of global warming. If like Crichton calls it, environment(alism) is akin to a religion, then I've become a believer, and it is GWB who would be the likes of agnostics, and the dreaded atheists even!
But the facts are stubborn, and I think that they are now overwhelming.

Warm regards
Mooner

 

[prophetofdoom]

If this, the four answers before me (without counting JustBob) are an indication of the concern for this planet we are doomed indeed especially when looking at China who thinks just the same.

You could add BYTGER on your (and my) side of the debate too in addition to JustBob ! BYTGER was being sarcastic in his first post on the thread as you probably realize.

We may not have the proof that everyone agrees on but the precursors are certainly there. It's like heart disease which long before showing up in tests gives indications to the individual. It would certainly be wise on the part of the individual to take certain precautions in terms of diet and exercise if this is the case. IMHO, with all the gases we belch out and the quantity thereof, it's hard to imagine that there is no danger of drastic adverse effect on the echo system whether or not we agree upon what exactly is going to unfold. It behoves us to be prudent and take steps to reduce our deep and negative impact on the environment.

 

[Franzappa]

History is repeating itself

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/climate_report

It is strange how history is repeating itself. In an article publish in Newsweek in 1975, scientist predicted that we were entering in a new "little ice age".

Just read the article and relax. You might think differently after reading it.

Are we getting manipulate by environmentalist group ? The media ?

Is it at the advantage of governements that the mass population get distract by this mass hysteria ?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/ei...ling_world___by_peter_gwynne.guest.print.html

 

[JustBob]

Considering that the heat produced during encounters with hot SP's is a major cause of global warming, I propose we all sign a protocol by which we agree to reduce such encounters by 10% by 2010.

 

[Franzappa]

Global warming bullshit

The following news item is too good to pass up. An expedition to the Arctic ment to bring attention to global warming was ended after one of the explorers was overcome by... frosbite ! The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, this weekend called off their journey across the Arctic Ocean after Ms. Arnesen suffered frosbite in three of her toes, and after the extreme cold there drained the batteries in their electronic gears. Ms. Ann Atwood, who helped organise the expedition and is the spokesperson for the group, said that Bancroft and Arnesen "were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming... But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

http://www.yourexpedition.com/explore/ArcticOcean2007/pressroom.jsp

 

[mtlman2005]

Ok, to get the facts straight, I only read the posts on the first page so maybe someone already said all this....
The earths rotation around the Sun changes every so often. I wont get into details but for the next 37 years the Earth is going to get closer and close to the Sun. That is what actually cause global warming. Im not saying that we aren't at all to blame for this, we cause maybe 2 or 3%. After the 37 years are up, we are going to move away and the temperature is going to go down! Now, the changes aren't going to be massive: at the end maybe a 5C changes but for the Earth thats pretty huge...