climatic changes, what do you think about that?

I don't know what is wrong with you.

I explained this quite clearly last time.

Consensus means 'most' - it doesn't mean 'all.'

The conclusions of two people do absolutely nothing to the OVERFUCKINGWHELMING consensus of educated, intelligent, qualified scientists. Do you understand?

The conclusions of two people do absolutely nothing to the OVERFUCKINGWHELMING consensus of educated, intelligent, qualified scientists.  Do you understand?

Again the article is titled:

Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

Source earthtimes.org

The article questions the cause of climate change, not if it exists.  You really need to read before getting all red in the face.

The only one not getting it here seems to be you.  Read again and keep your unsuitable language and comments to yourself.

This thread is for DEBATE of the issue.  If all you have to give is your foul attitude, then its not needed.

If you can give an opinion without being rude then by all means do so and enlighten us with information.  Include a source or link so that it can be studied.

Anyway...

Serious Dough

Found an interesting article on the rise of consumer prices due to staple crops being used for alternative fules.

Is this just an excuse to charge people more?  I read that the byproduct of using corn to make ehthanol can still be used as feed, so why should prices be going up?

Anyone here raise animals or have a farm that could comment on that?

[Serious Dough

Found an interesting article on the rise of consumer prices due to staple crops being used for alternative fules.

Is this just an excuse to charge people more?  I read that the byproduct of using corn to make ehthanol can still be used as feed, so why should prices be going up?

'I don't know what is wrong with you.

I explained this quite clearly last time.

The OVERFUCKINGWHELMING consensus of educated, intelligent, qualified scientists state that the world eco systems will collapse and we will all die and kill the world forever.  Do you understand?

The conclusions of a few hundred scientists do absolutely nothing to the OVERFUCKINGWHELMING certainty of this statement! I know because I have the power to see into the future and every other person with an opinion is just a fucking moron!

If you don't understand the words, look them up in a dictionary.

As I said, lazy, selfish and ignorant.'

… Haha!! Sorry mate I just didn’t want to disappoint you!!

Seriously though higher prices for anything are just another demand and supply reaction and will always undermine any fundamental changes to our energy supply. It just proves what I have said in the past about how fundamental the economy as in determining our progress form our current fossil fuel dependency towards more environmental ones, and you can bet your bottom dollar that any shift from one fuel to another however small will have a big knock on effect on the economy. That is why we are where we are. Our world leaders and chief economists know this and are very wary of making any sudden changes whether we desperately need them or not.

It will happen though; public pressure will force it if dwindling fossil fuel supply doesn’t! Maybe it’s a good time to get yourself self-sufficient if you are lucky enough to have the land and means to do so! That’s what I will be doing! I can’t stand all this uncertainty!

Whoa there's a bunch of people effected by the political process in here. When there's thousands of scientists who all agree on this issue. Leave it to the uneducated to decide the course of action.

Whoa there's a bunch of people effected by the political process in here. When there's thousands of scientists who all agree on this issue. Leave it to the uneducated to decide the course of action.

As in:  

a.) Man made global warming deniers should be sent to re-education camps!

or

b.) Quit trying to sell me that crap, I'm busy fertilizing my lawn with used motor oil.

 

Back on track...

I would like to suggest a book that has been praised for having good points, even by those who disagree with the conclusion.  So far its quite an interesting read.

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years

If any one has a contrary opinion put forth in an equally ration manner, please suggest the book so I can read it.

I would like to suggest a book that has been praised for having good points, even by those who disagree with the conclusion.  So far its quite an interesting read.

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years

If any one has a contrary opinion put forth in an equally ration manner, please suggest the book so I can read it.

I don't have the time to read books these days unfortunately! If I can't find a summary in less than 10 minutes I usually take exception! However, I am interested to learn more about this, so if you can give us some interesting snippets/highlights it would be appreciated!

I'm sure some would accuse you of trying to protect your right to continue driving your SUV! These are the ones that have a closed mind and will be jumping off cliffs as soon as they are advised to by the OVERWHELMING majority of FUNDED advisors!  

...if you can give us some interesting snippets/highlights it would be appreciated!

I don't have a whole lot of time, and far too many interests myself.  Part of the reason I haven't finished it.  But I will try to do that.  For now you can try here or search it and read reviews on other sites.

Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years reviews

Quote[/b] ]I'm sure some would accuse you of trying to protect your right to continue driving your SUV!

I learned long ago that in order to debate effectively, you need to know the other sides argument before they even say it.  Not being a scientist, I have tried to review much of the information on the topic so I can have a somewhat objective view.

Sad part is, my view has been altered by the more misguided "solutions", the carpet baggers that spew them, and the close minded activists.  

It is clear to me that a more sustainable approach to our environment and energy policy is needed, but I can't suspend reality in order to accept only what I want to hear.

I guess it would be easier to hop on a band wagon and forfeit my soverign mind...but thats just not how I roll.  

I don't know what is wrong with you.

I explained this quite clearly last time.

Consensus means 'most' - it doesn't mean 'all.'

The conclusions of two people do absolutely nothing to the OVERFUCKINGWHELMING consensus of educated, intelligent, qualified scientists.  Do you understand?

Any scientist who's default position is not skepticism isn't worth listening to.

If there is one thing we all know about the consensae, it's that the consensus is usually wrong.

That in every 20 people, 3 are idiots 7 are thick, 7 always agree with the best looking and 3 are smart.

Anytime the consensus agree's on something it's a good time to look around.

You don't get to the top by following everyone else's lead.

The great breakthrough's in science weren't made by the sheepmind of the consensus.

It's not that thousands of scientists all agree that the the end of the world is nigh.

It's that people don't understand the science.

When a scientist provideds a model and all the other scientists agree that it is a well made model, they all understand the limitations of the model.

Joe Bloggs just reads "the world is about to end, science predicts".

It is in the nature of man to need an impending doom. Nostradamus, Revelations. Asteroid.

Everyone loves an impending apocalypse. It is one of the most written about subjects in the culture of man.

Nuclear apocalypse, a new ice age and now global warming.

There has always been an imminent and almost unavoidable man made disaster around the corner all my life.

I find my scientific tooth just aching with skepticism.

I have some intresting scientific consenus for you.

The hottest decade in the last 100 years was the 1930's.

According to the IPCC, space based measurements have recorded a steady drop in global temperature from 1998 to this year.

It is only terrestrial measurments which show any global warming in the 21st Century.

One consensus I will give you amongst eco scientists, is this.

If there is found to be no global warming there will be found to be no budget for global warming research either.

But then when it comes down to the environment, no matter how qualified a scientist is, he is still only a scientist. An academic.

How can he ever know as much as a farmer? How can 5 years of reading books inside a city library ever equip him with the lifetime of knowledge and experience acquired from dawn to dusk living the dream?

I trust a related scientists opinion more than a car mechanics....sure.

But no one in his right mind would consider an academic an expert on the subject.

Not every thing can be taught in school. Spending time in school actively removes the opportunity for education in any number of subjects.

The great outdoors being one them.

(Also scientists, despite holding many consenae on the subjects, notoriously know very little about, sex, disco dancing, boxing, car mechanics, politics, investigative journalism, body building, fishing, conducting orchestra's, opera singing, playing guitar, tree surgery, brain surgery.....etc etc etc).

I'm not looking to scientists or the university set to provide leadership over the enviroment. I don't recognise their qualification.

A consensus of idiots is just a bunch of idiots to me.

Any scientist who's default position is not skepticism isn't worth listening to.

Amen.

Quote[/b] ]in every 20 people, 3 are idiots 7 are thick, 7 always agree with the best looking and 3 are smart.

That's great, going to have to remember that one.

One step forward, two steps back.

Study: Biofuels May Disperse More Greenhouse Gases Than Oil

One step forward, two steps back.

Study: Biofuels May Disperse More Greenhouse Gases Than Oil

... Or out of the frying pan and into the fire!

Another interesting read from Times Online: An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

Also from Fox News: Ancient Utah Oak Indicates Warmer Climate

Global warming is a political propaganda strategy by the democrats to regain the white house.

Global warming is a political propaganda strategy by the democrats to regain the white house.

lol

Global warming is a political propaganda strategy by the democrats to regain the white house.

Uh yea...well, it seems we have found Gisen's polar opposite.  Some "evidence" of this would be rather entertaining to read.  

And no, youtube video of someone ranting in their mom's basement converted to a room does not count.

but maybe this dose....

GW on GW

Ok sorry...but on a slightly more serious note, what happened to this move?

11th Hour

Has this Global Warming movie become one of the biggest flops of all time?  If you never heard of it then I guess the answer is yes.

If humans are stupid enough and doen't take this seriously and so it seems, soon there isn't anything we can do about it. Becouse if we continue to destroy our forests and poluting air, earth takes thousands of years to recover and still we have to live in this poluted world. Everybody is knowing that smoking will kill, but it took almost hundred years to realize this, I hope it doesn't take so long time to realize that air polution is killing us. Maybe people who don't beleave this should visit cities with huge smoke clouds hanging over them and then visit some place with clean air. According to researchers dinosaurs were wiped on earth by huge increase in co2 levels and now we are doing excatly the same thing over again, perhaps to experience same faith as dinosaurs, killing ourselves to extinction. Many animals and life species are already died to extinction becouse changes in climate and their living environment, it could be soon our turn, maybe sooner than we think, if we don't do anything about it.

http://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-05/fm-bcf052305.php

People who oppose the fight against pollution (that's what you do when you try to ridicule the talks about global warming), should probably have a look how "beautiful" is for example the "smog" effect on some large cities like Los Angeles.

It is a known fact that you die soon if you are inside your garage, doors and windows closed and your car's engine is running... If you let that smoke outside, well there comes a moment when there is too much smoke and the same thing happens as in your garage.

The "smog" is of course not caused by just emissions from internal combustion engines, there are other sources too like heating systems and industries which need to generate lots of heat.

Al Gore is coming to Austin Oct. 1st. Hopefully my inside contact can get us tickets.

Al Gore is coming to Austin Oct. 1st. Hopefully my inside contact can get us tickets.

Al Gore...

Unfortunately he dose as much to harm the cause as he does to help it.  The "do as I say not as I do," cardon credits   , oil and coal trust fund kid is not a proper leader for sensible change.

Baddo your common sense approach is dead on.  Your not making "the sky is falling" claims, but making a common sense argument.  That we are continuing down an unsustainable path.

Unfortunately the "11th hour" vs. "What me worry?" debate sucks the air out of the argument.  So far we have little to show for in the area of sensible change.

The awareness of the issue is out there.  Now it's time for RATIONAL steps go get things moving by the common people, while science gets out of the public debate and goes back to academic review.

You can disagree with my assesment all you want but the fact remains we are getting nowhere by digging trenches to hold the lines of the confliciting schools of thought.

Like every other debate I see going on today, people seem to be more focused on anger and shaking their fist at the other side, rather than working together to provide sensible solutions.

Nice thread but teh Poll needs more choices like THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM NOW..

& most of the people who dont think Climate problems are happening NOW because of HUMANS base that on the fact that there well waterd pot plants are ok & the Concrete paths & tarmac roads look the same color....

It seems that now Mr. G.W.B. wants to speak about protecting the environment...

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/28/bush.climate/index.html

U.S. prepared to cut greenhouse emissions, Bush says

Story Highlights

NEW: "We acknowledge there is a problem" with gases, President Bush says

Bush calls on nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

"U.S. will do its part," Bush tells international meeting

President proposes more use of clean coal technology, biofuels

(CNN) -- President Bush told a global climate change conference Friday that the United States will do its part to improve the environment by taking on greenhouse gas emissions.

"We take this issue seriously," he said at the Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change, which the White House sponsored.

In his address, Bush called on "all the world's largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions, including developed and developing nations," to come together and "set a long-term goal for reducing" greenhouse emissions.

"By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem, and by setting this goal, we commit ourselves to doing something about it," he said. Watch Bush address the climate conference »

"By next summer, we will convene a meeting of heads of state to finalize the goal and other elements of this approach, including a strong and transparent system for measuring our progress toward meeting the goal we set. ... Only by doing the necessary work this year will it be possible to reach a global consensus at the U.N. in 2009."

Bush said it will be up to each nation to "design its own separate strategies for making progress toward achieving this long-term goal."

He said new technology, such as clean coal technology and biofuels, could help reduce greenhouse gases. He also called for more use of nuclear, wind and solar power.

"It was said that we faced a choice between protecting the environment and producing enough energy. Today we know better," the president said. "These challenges share a common solution: technology."

"We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people," he said.

"We know this can be done," Bush said. "Last year, America grew our economy while also reducing greenhouse gases."

If the preliminary numbers stand, it would make 2006 the first time in Bush's presidency that greenhouse emissions dropped.

In prepared remarks this week, Assistant Secretary of Energy Karen Harbert said, "Preliminary data for 2006 suggests an absolute reduction in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions of 1.3 percent for that year despite economic growth of 2.9 percent."

In previous years, the administration also has said its policies were reducing greenhouse emissions, but Department of Energy figures through 2005 show emission figures went up each year.

The administration also said during those years it was reducing "greenhouse emissions intensity," a term referring to the ratio between emissions and the size of the economy. The administration said the economy was growing at a faster rate than the emissions themselves.

While the White House has taken heat for its environmental policies -- including from some Republicans such as Sen. John McCain -- Bush said at the conference Friday, "By working together, we will set wise and effective policies."

He added, "I want to get the job done. We have identified a problem -- let's go solve it together."

Other nations have been critical of the Bush administration's policy on climate change after the United States withdrew from the 1997 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, known as the Kyoto Protocol.

That protocol, which was signed by more than 150 countries, called on industrialized nations to cut greenhouse emissions in absolute terms. It did not make that demand of developing nations. The protocol expires in 2012.

Representatives of 16 countries, the United Nations and the European Union are attending this week's two-day conference. The Bush administration has billed it as an initiative to develop a common approach to combat global warming following Kyoto's collapse.

At a Group of Eight conference in June, Bush pushed for a new framework on global gas emissions to counter the effects of global warming.

Bush said he believes every nation should set its own goals. The president expressed concern that setting strict targets would damage the U.S. economy. Instead, he said, industries should enact voluntary measures.

On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also told delegates to the global climate change conference that countries around the world must work together to combat climate change, much as they cooperate against terror and the spread of disease.

"No one nation, no matter how much power or political will it possesses, can succeed alone," she said. "We all need partners, and we all need to work in concert."

Rice said the United States takes climate change seriously, "for we are both a major economy and a major emitter."

In her address to the Major Economies Meeting, Rice said an integrated response, including "environmental stewardship, economic growth, energy supply and security and development and the development and deployment of new clean energy technology," is the key to moving forward on the issue.

Better later than never. The USA can have massive effect on reducing pollution and is critical player if we want to see actual improvements done World-wide.

As a first step, why not recycle all those cars made in USA which have ridiculously high fuel consumption and replace them with... something more economical? With something like a Nissan Micra with a 1.0 liter engine?

I'm sure Americans find an amendment from their constitution to let them keep their gas-guzzlers! Just kidding  

In my country, Finland, there are now talks of moving the taxation model of automobiles into a model which collects more tax from cars which pollute more - in my opinion my country should have done this a long time ago already! It's frustrating how slowly the bureaucracy is working when it comes to making obvious improvements such as this.

 OMG this is from the guy who called Global warming DATA "Speculation" was this thesame guy who called climatologist's "Sensasionalists"  

Nah this is to do with the Climate Report they are only telling HALF the story if that, one of 2 things have happend.

CLIMATE REPORT ABUSE!

1# he has been Forced to do this.(maybe "god" told him to do this?)

                   or

2# somthing scared the shit out of him.

Governemnts, Specialy Bush's Govt.  Dont do the right thing unless they have to as its not normaly profitable, there's more to this... hmmm

Quote[/b] ]Finland, there are now talks of moving the taxation model of automobiles into a model which collects more tax from cars which pollute more

uhm Dood thats not cool what about Farmers & people that have to use heavy vehicles for a living? like trucks.. that bring your food to your local store?

I mean yeh i agree in priciple, why do all these  women who can barely see over the wheel need huge V6 4x4's in the centre of city's?? (as an example)

But it should take into acount the difference's/Needs between Urban populations & Rural populations.

Yeah, people say "Oh, its nothing" or "Fuck you, its not real, end of story".

I'm like "WTF, I need more proof", so I'm kinda in the middle, but leaning towards the "Its a real problem" side.

uhm Dood thats not cool what about Farmers & people that have to use heavy vehicles for a living? like trucks.. that bring your food to your local store?

They drive rapeseed-oil-driven tractors and ethanol-driven trucks.

They can even grow their own fuel!

I was fully convinced climate change is a real problem until Al Gore joined the fray, now i'm seriously skeptical.

Him and all the other democrats... they're just as bad as republicans in their self-condradictions, it's just that instead of soliciting gay sex they make oil pipeline contracts inside fragile ecosystems off the coast of California (helloooo Vice president Gore! and refuse to allow wind turbines to be built near their homes (well just inside the horizon - and that's the Kennedys).

Then again i hate most political figures...

edit: i typed govna in the place of VP... -_-

edit2: and it wasnt a pipeline off the coast... it was drilling caused by the privatsation of Californias Oil Reserves by Gore.

Global warming is a political propaganda strategy by the democrats to regain the white house.

What about the rest of the world then?