climatic changes, what do you think about that?

[Gisen 0]

Umm, scatterbrain, you're the one that was ridiculing science....

I'm not advocating eco-taxes or bigger government and I don't think anyone else in this thread who understands the scientific evidence behind human-influenced climate change is.

Attack strawmen much?

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Umm, scatterbrain, you're the one that was ridiculing science....

I'm not advocating eco-taxes or bigger government and I don't think anyone else in this thread who understands the scientific evidence behind human-influenced climate change is.

Attack strawmen much?

mmm..nope, didn't attack science.  I did attack setting aside the scientific method...but science is good.  Kind of a broad topic to attack in general too isn't it....Science.

Mostly I just debate misguided solutions,  insincere crusaders, and try to open up to the fact that there are other probabilities.

Ok call me the devils advocate because I point out things like this:

Poor fish...

In fact, I don't know what the hell your talking about or why you took it personaly.  I just liked the way Shahnaz worded it.  Why would you think it had something to do with...you?

This isn't about us so lets it get back on topic.  I'll keep future irrelevant comments such as the one about the Shahnaz post to myself, as not to offend you.

[martinovic 0]

Over here where i live i don't remember ever having such an enjoyably mild summer. O.o Temperature didn't even go above 40.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Apparently going green even has its costs for the environment.

<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/14/eaorang114.xml" target="_blank">destroyed for bio-diesel

</a>

Whats the answer...less humans?

[Gisen 0]

Do you really think that destroying orang-utan habitat is a 'green' solution? Seriously?

Please stop making ridiculous strawmen claims.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Do you really think that destroying orang-utan habitat is a 'green' solution?  Seriously?

Please stop making ridiculous strawmen claims.

Do you always need to alter the meaning of my posts, have trouble with english, or just have no grasp of satire?

Clearly it's not a "green" solution.  It is ironic that our spurious attempts at "saving the environment" are leading third world countries to ruin their own.

Gisen before responding to my posts, read carefully.  Better yet just don't.

[Homer Johnston 0]

i wonder if back when the ice age was starting, the wooly mammoths were all screaming,

"GAAAAAAAAAH IT'S GLOBAL COOLING WE'RE DOOMED!!!"

... hmm

I wonder if surviving humans freaked out and screamed, "GAAAAAH NOOO IT'S GLOBAL WARMING" when it started warming up again.

I think other man-made things are going to lead to disaster in your life, and your grand-grand children's lives whom you'll never meet, long before your car's exhaust... like that guy who just got in his car drunk, or overpopulation. can't we just have 1 baby per family for a few decades?? (not to mention that would potentially solve "greenhouse gas emissions"!

...hmm.. I wonder if my supper's ready yet

[Gisen 0]

Do you really think that destroying orang-utan habitat is a 'green' solution? Seriously?

Please stop making ridiculous strawmen claims.

Do you always need to alter the meaning of my posts, have trouble with english, or just have no grasp of satire?

Clearly it's not a "green" solution. It is ironic that our spurious attempts at "saving the environment" are leading third world countries to ruin their own.

Gisen before responding to my posts, read carefully. Better yet just don't.

What you posted was not satire. You're trying to claim that dead orang-utangs are a direct result of green 'solutions' when it's obvious that its the absolute antithesis of green.

It's not green policies that are killing the orangs, it's people who don't know any better trying to make money. And they are doing so because they are getting fucked by their government and big business taking over their country.

It's nothing to do with green policies at all which you know very well. But you don't have the honesty to admit it because you wanted to push your bullshit against green policies.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Do you really think that destroying orang-utan habitat is a 'green' solution?  Seriously?

Please stop making ridiculous strawmen claims.

Do you always need to alter the meaning of my posts, have trouble with english, or just have no grasp of satire?

Clearly it's not a "green" solution.  It is ironic that our spurious attempts at "saving the environment" are leading third world countries to ruin their own.

Gisen before responding to my posts, read carefully.  Better yet just don't.

What you posted was not satire.  You're trying to claim that dead orang-utangs are a direct result of green 'solutions' when it's obvious that its the absolute antithesis of green.  

It's not green policies that are killing the orangs, it's people who don't know any better trying to make money.  And they are doing so because they are getting fucked by their government and big business taking over their country.

It's nothing to do with green policies at all which you know very well.  But you don't have the honesty to admit it because you wanted to push your bullshit against green policies.

Quote[/b] ]You're trying to claim that dead orang-utangs are a direct result of green 'solutions' when it's obvious that its the absolute antithesis of green.

No sheet Brainy Smurf, thats why its called irony.  I guess I shouldn't use such big words as to confuse you.

Quote[/b] ]i·ron·ic    Pronunciation[ahy-ron-ik] –adjective

1. containing or exemplifying irony: an ironic novel; an ironic remark.  

2. ironical.  

3. coincidental; unexpected: It was ironic that I was seated next to my ex-husband at the dinner.

 

Your right, its big business that is causing these people to flaten rainforest for bio-diesel.  And its big business that is pushing CFL bulbs that contaminate a house with mercury if broken.  Glad to see your finnaly catching on.

You dimwitt I am FOR green policies.  Just not STUPID ones. Get over yourself and contribute something to this thread instead of burdening us with your failure to comprehend.

Go read and find your own articles....wait...nm that seems to be the problem.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

If the public has accepted "global warming" as a reality, why hasn't science?

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory <<LINK

[Gisen 0]

Science has accepted anthropogenic climate change as reality.

You and your crazy peers just refuse to accept that.

Start with reading the IPCC Working Group 1, Annual Report 4, chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change and go on from there.

Oh and good call on your misunderstanding of irony.

Your post was a strawman, not irony, although they might seem similar if you have no comprehension of what either are.

Here are some links with real science in them:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Science has accepted anthropogenic climate change as reality.

You and your crazy peers just refuse to accept that.

Start with reading the IPCC Working Group 1, Annual Report 4, chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change and go on from there.

Oh and good call on your misunderstanding of irony.

Your post was a strawman, not irony, although they might seem similar if you have no comprehension of what either are.

Here are some links with real science in them:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

This is a thread about raising and debating questions.  You exemplify how this debate has been tainted, as you are closed minded.  You are unable to rationally discuss anything because you are insecure about your own beliefs.  

I have read the IPCC and the Abstract, and this has already been discussed here.  Go back and read previous posts, you seem to be a bit behind.

Your inability to accept that every issue has debatable points, is reflected in your inability to have an intellectual exchange in this thread.  So, I'm done here.

I spent this weekend clearing debris and replanting trees in forrest ravaged by fire because of a mistakes made by clueless environmentalists.  What have you really done to help the earth?

Labels mean nothing, but you continue to lable me as some outside group that you can't seem to specify.  Recycling your beer cans, buying carbon credits, or driving a Prius doesn’t make you "Green." And debating the issue does not mean your getting checks from oil companies.

It seems english is not your first language, so to be nice, I will help you again.  Just as I had to explain irony, I will explain the use of 'straw man.'  It is actually 2 words, unlike how you have used it repeatedly.  A straw man argument can be defined as:

Quote[/b] ]

An informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

I also reccomend a better understanding of the type of argument I was using, try reading up on 'devils advocate.'  

[Gisen 0]

This is a thread about raising and debating questions. You exemplify how this debate has been tainted, as you are closed minded. You are unable to rationally discuss anything because you are insecure about your own beliefs.

I have read the IPCC and the Abstract, and this has already been discussed here. Go back and read previous posts, you seem to be a bit behind.

Your inability to accept that every issue has debatable points, is reflected in your inability to have an intellectual exchange in this thread. So, I'm done here.

I spent this weekend clearing debris and replanting trees in forrest ravaged by fire because of a mistakes made by clueless environmentalists. What have you really done to help the earth?

Labels mean nothing, but you continue to lable me as some outside group that you can't seem to specify. Recycling your beer cans, buying carbon credits, or driving a Prius doesn’t make you "Green." And debating the issue does not mean your getting checks from oil companies.

It seems english is not your first language, so to be nice, I will help you again. Just as I had to explain irony, I will explain the use of 'straw man.' It is actually 2 words, unlike how you have used it repeatedly. A straw man argument can be defined as:

Quote[/b] ]

An informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

I also reccomend a better understanding of the type of argument I was using, try reading up on 'devils advocate.'

I've yet to see any rational debate from you. And you want close-minded? Look in a mirror.

What exactly do you fail to understand about the scientific consensus behind climate change? I'm willing to correct whatever misunderstanding is at the root of your delusion that it isn't happening if you are truly willing to learn.

Of course, if you do actually have any facts, better explanations or indeed anything other than strawman (or straw man, if it makes so much difference to you. I suggest you look at your own spelling and grammar before nitpicking) bullshit, I am also willing to be corrected. You just haven't actually posted anything worthwhile or valid yet.

I find it immensely amusing that you are unable to admit your ridiculous straw-man post was such.

First you claim it was irony, now you are claiming it was a devil's advocate position. It can't be both, as a scholar of the english language should know.

I don't really care what you want to be labelled as. All you have posted as evidence in support of whatever you think you are is a basic misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the huge body of scientific evidence supporting man-made climate change. If you want to explain exactly what you don't like about it clearly and concisely, go for it.

*edit* and you've still to answer a basic question relating to our initial disagreement :

"No matter what the potential cost of acting on climate change, if it gives even a small chance of averting the doomsday scenario it is worth doing. What exactly don't you understand about this?"

[Journeyman 0]

"No matter what the potential cost of acting on climate change, if it gives even a small chance of averting the doomsday scenario it is worth doing.

Interesting to see this debate still going!!!

Gisen.. the potential cost of acting effectively on man-made CO2 emissions would itself invoke a "doomsday scenario" for the world economy and thus all of us! ... This is a 'certainty'.

The potential calamity to the climate that some are predicting as a result of man-made CO2 emissions are not a certainty but a possibility. What are you doing to prevent this 'possibility'? .... Have you stopped driving your car and refused to travel by 'any' means of transport that uses fossil fuels? Don't buy any food from stores either because it was all transported by truck! Turn off all your lights too and all of your appliances (especially your PC!! because unless we all do these things 'NOW' according to you we're all fucked anyway!  

Oh BTW … Have a nice day!

[Gisen 0]

Interesting to see this debate still going!!!

Gisen.. the potential cost of acting effectively on man-made CO2 emissions would itself invoke a "doomsday scenario" for the world economy and thus all of us! ... This is a 'certainty'.

No, I think you are overstating the problem there. The very worst scenario from acting on climate is an economic disaster. Although indeed very bad, that is not as bad as NOT acting on it.

Quote[/b] ]

The potential calamity to the climate that some are predicting as a result of man-made CO2 emissions are not a certainty but a possibility. What are you doing to prevent this 'possibility'? .... Have you stopped driving your car and refused to travel by 'any' means of transport that uses fossil fuels? Don't buy any food from stores either because it was all transported by truck! Turn off all your lights too and all of your appliances (especially your PC!! because unless we all do these things 'NOW' according to you we're all fucked anyway!

Oh BTW … Have a nice day!

Look, you're being silly here and totally overstating what is necessary. There are clean, renewable sources of electricity. There are ways to hugely reduce the amount of emissions on all forms of transport and ways to allow development and work to go on without having everyone live in a grass hut eating tofu or whatever.

Think about what you're saying :

"we might be fucked, so lets make sure we're fucked." Brilliant.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

I also reccomend a better understanding of the type of argument I was using, try reading up on 'devils advocate.'  

Quote[/b] ]What exactly do you fail to understand about the scientific consensus behind climate change?

Maybe the LACK of "scientific consensus."Link.<<<

Quote[/b] ]Of course, if you do actually have any facts, better explanations or indeed anything other than strawman (or straw man, if it makes so much difference to you.  I suggest you look at your own spelling and grammar before nitpicking) bullshit, I am also willing to be corrected.  You just haven't actually posted anything worthwhile or valid yet

Getting tired of giving you a remedial course in reality.  Skip to page 17 if your a slow reader.  Link<<

Quote[/b] ]First you claim it was irony, now you are claiming it was a devil's advocate position.  It can't be both, as a scholar of the english language should know.

This is devils advocate - Link<<

This is irony - Link 1  Link 2

Don't get tampy with me if you can't process that.

Quote[/b] ]All you have posted as evidence in support of whatever you think you are is a basic misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the huge body of scientific evidence supporting man-made climate change.  If you want to explain exactly what you don't like about it clearly and concisely, go for it.

*edit* and you've still to answer a basic question relating to our initial disagreement :

"No matter what the potential cost of acting on climate change, if it gives even a small chance of averting the doomsday scenario it is worth doing.  What exactly don't you understand about this?"

I did you just missed it or chose to ignore it.  I'm sorry if using the IPCC Summary isn't good enough for you.  I believe in "global warming", I just don't see this perfect consensus on the cause.  The examples you have given in the past have been shown to have clear faults.  Misguided solutions and figureheads for "saving", "protecting", and "conserving" the environment continue to be my pet peve.  Such flawed attempts only hold back real change rather then promote it.  

Furthur, I have shown I'm willing to listen to arguments from both sides to facilitate an academic debate.  Your the only one denying anything.  You deny that there is any possibility other than the one you believe.  

That is the mark of an ignoramus.  (Do you need a definition for that?)

Anyone who claims to have a faultless argument deserves to have their soapbox kicked from under their feet.  Nothing I posted here is new.  It's the same articles as before.  You can again speak in circles and pretend its not layed out before you, but doing so has only made you look foolish before.  And will again.

All you do is attack people and play word games.  If you just want to argue, or can't comprehend the above, just keep it to yourself.  If you really care about the environment, show it in a insightful submission of information that will enlighten us.  

There is plenty of opinion here, what is needed is outide sources of information to move this topic away from the petty personal attacks.  And you now have the opportunity to take us there.

[Journeyman 0]

No, I think you are overstating the problem there.  The very worst scenario from acting on climate is an economic disaster.  Although indeed very bad, that is not as bad as NOT acting on it.  

This clearly shows that you have no grasp of understanding world affairs. An economic disaster would kill far more people than climatic displacement both directly through poverty and starvation and indirectly through wars and civil unrest.

Look, you're being silly here and totally overstating what is necessary.  There are clean, renewable sources of electricity.  There are ways to hugely reduce the amount of emissions on all forms of transport and ways to allow development and work to go on without having everyone live in a grass hut eating tofu or whatever.  

If I am overstating what is necessary then you are clearly showing a lack of understanding here about the scale of the situation. If man-made CO2 IS the driving force behind this current warming spell then making just a few reductions here and there is going to achieve nothing! Developing countries like China will quickly wipe out any progress on CO2 reductions made by the developed countries. Read HERE!

What I said is the reality. The time it takes for both the developed and developing world to move towards more renewable energy recourses would be far too long to curb our current emissions enough to prevent a ‘doomsday scenario’!

Also there are currently NO alternative ‘green’ fuels for such industries as steel, copper, glass plastics etc. Furnaces require a lot of heat from combustion of a fuel. Do you know of a fuel that produces ‘no’ CO2?

You think you have all the answers, so tell us all how you envisage the future of travel in the near future without burning fossil fuels and how would you propose that our big industries power their furnaces. Until you can answer these questions all you are doing is banging on about an ideology that can never happen in an attempt to preserve something that you know nothing about!

[Gisen 0]

I did you just missed it or chose to ignore it. I'm sorry if using the IPCC Summary isn't good enough for you. I believe in "global warming", I just don't see this perfect consensus on the cause. The examples you have given in the past have been shown to have clear faults. Misguided solutions and figureheads for "saving", "protecting", and "conserving" the environment continue to be my pet peve. Such flawed attempts only hold back real change rather then promote it.

Linking to the IPCC report doesn't actually tell me anything about what YOU have a problem with about it. It all supports my position, not what yours seems to be, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Page 17 included.

Human caused climate change is going to have long lasting effects which are going to continue long after the initial damage is done. I know this. What's your problem with this?

Quote[/b] ]

Furthur, I have shown I'm willing to listen to arguments from both sides to facilitate an academic debate. Your the only one denying anything. You deny that there is any possibility other than the one you believe.

That is the mark of an ignoramus. (Do you need a definition for that?)

Hmm, an ad hominem attack on me. How unexpected. If you are willing to listen to arguements from 'both sides,' could you at least point out what you disagree with when you refer to the IPCC in such disparaging tones? Could you also please try to understand what the word consensus means and why it is so persuasive that "The IPCC , the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, and the National Academy of Sciences (which even the White House calls the "gold standard of independent scientific review") all say that human activity is causing global warming."

Let me elaborate exactly what the problems are with the daily tech link you keep spamming about a lack of consensus, because I appreciate you may not have understood the first time.

1) The article refers to a survey, and a survey conducted by one person at that. Surveys are not as reliable or objective as other data.

2) It's unpublished. I.e. it has not been peer or editor reviewed, which at least raises the possibility that its a pile of foetid dingo's kidneys (although of course it may not be.)

3) Because it is a completely subjective survey by one person, when other people repeat the survey we would most likely find different results. In fact, we do: A different person gets completely different results

This analysis finds that the original researcher used flawed techniques to analyse the information and that consensus has in fact increased over time, not decreased. Please note that the same objections I raise to the original survey do also apply to this one.

4) Trying to interpret how the wording of a paper reflects on the individual scientist's acceptance or not of a particular theory is flawed at best.

Quote[/b] ]

Anyone who claims to have a faultless argument deserves to have their soapbox kicked from under their feet. Nothing I posted here is new. It's the same articles as before. You can again speak in circles and pretend its not layed out before you, but doing so has only made you look foolish before. And will again.

Well, if I had ever claimed to have a faultless argument that would indeed be true. However, if you are trying to say that the overwhelming acceptance of scientists of all nations and fields on the facts behind climate change indicates that they must be wrong, try to consider which is the most likely:

a) All of these scientists, with their peer-review, intelligence, hunger for truth, competitive interest in proving each other wrong and decades of training and experience are wrong and only you, with your ..... daily tech articles.... are intellectually

capable of seeing the truth

b) You're wrong.

Tricky one, isn't it?

Quote[/b] ]

All you do is attack people and play word games. If you just want to argue, or can't comprehend the above, just keep it to yourself. If you really care about the environment, show it in a insightful submission of information that will enlighten us.

There is plenty of opinion here, what is needed is outide sources of information to move this topic away from the petty personal attacks. And you now have the opportunity to take us there.

Well, I've already laid out the basic ideas with the video link I posted. I shall restate it in the hope that you actually find a coherent answer for any part of it:

"Despite the potential costs and risk of economic disaster in acting on climate change, any chance of averting a worldwide catastrophe that would result in the end of life as we know it on the planet is worth taking."

[Gisen 0]

This clearly shows that you have no grasp of understanding world affairs. An economic disaster would kill far more people than climatic displacement both directly through poverty and starvation and indirectly through wars and civil unrest.

What!! Are you quite mad, sir? I cannot believe that you actually think this is the case. Where do you think you get food, water and oxygen from? How exactly do you plan on surviving if the ecosystem collapses? The worst economic disaster imaginable is a mild annoyance in comparison, and certainly would not mean the extinction of the human race, which the loss of the ecosystem would.

Quote[/b] ]

Also there are currently NO alternative ‘green’ fuels for such industries as steel, copper, glass plastics etc. Furnaces require a lot of heat from combustion of a fuel. Do you know of a fuel that produces ‘no’ CO2?

I know of hundreds of fuels that produce no CO2: any that don't burn carbon in an oxygen atmosphere. Did you miss science at high school? In any case, the CO2 can also be reclaimed or scrubbed out if the plant cannot be converted to using pure fuels.

You are also STILL ignorant of the fact that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas despite it being mentioned almost every page of this thread.

Quote[/b] ]

You think you have all the answers, so tell us all how you envisage the future of travel in the near future without burning fossil fuels

This wonderful phenomenon called 'ELECTRICITY' can be generated without burning fossil fuels by a variety of means. Most people, especially fat, lazy people who drive SUVs across the road to their neighbours don't actually need to burn as much as they do.

Quote[/b] ]

and how would you propose that our big industries power their furnaces.

Using the almost magical power of electricity, we can create fuels such as hydrogen, or indeed heat things directly by using the electricity in such a fashion. I'm surprised you have not heard of electricity, it's quite popular over here.

Quote[/b] ]

Until you can answer these questions all you are doing is banging on about an ideology that can never happen in an attempt to preserve something that you know nothing about!

Yes, I suppose your attitude of complaining about something you don't want to understand because you're too selfish to want to change anything in your comfortable, wasteful life- and fuck everyone else - is a much better solution.

[Sennacherib 0]

some new informations:

2030 ---> increase in the request for energy + 30-40 % (China+India)

that means the use of coal, which is a factor of creation of co2.

the global warming is a fact. humans or earth guilty, this is not the problem. this debate is sterile, because this is already too late.

the real question is: shall we increase the process by our activities?

[Journeyman 0]

 Where do you think you get food, water and oxygen from?  How exactly do you plan on surviving if the ecosystem collapses?  The worst economic disaster imaginable is a mild annoyance in comparison, and certainly would not mean the extinction of the human race, which the loss of the ecosystem would.

FFS the eco system will not collapse!!  My OH My! The earth has gone through much bigger events than this mild little warming period in the past ... how come life still exists? Boy Oh boy you have got an issue with yourself here and you have shown yet again how little you understand the world economic system and how fragile and dependant it is on the status quo. You seriously believe that a world wide economic collapse will be nothing but a headache don't you?

I’ll quote myself …

This clearly shows that you have no grasp of understanding world affairs. An economic disaster would kill far more people than climatic displacement both directly through poverty and starvation and indirectly through wars and civil unrest.

... This holds true more than ever!!

To continue ...

This wonderful phenomenon called 'ELECTRICITY' can be generated without burning fossil fuels by a variety of means.  Most people, especially fat, lazy people who drive SUVs across the road to their neighbours don't actually need to burn as much as they do.

Quote[/b] ]

and how would you propose that our big industries power their furnaces.

Using the almost magical power of electricity, we can create fuels such as hydrogen, or indeed heat things directly by using the electricity in such a fashion.  I'm surprised you have not heard of electricity, it's quite popular over here.

Yes, I suppose your attitude of complaining about something you don't want to understand because you're too selfish to want to change anything in your comfortable, wasteful life- and fuck everyone else -  is a much better solution.

Ever tried smelting iron ore with electricity? Please contact the steel companies immediately I’m sure they will be grateful for your revelation!

As for your snappy arrogant attitude I think you need to take a hike! I could put it another way but I’m being polite here!

I’m off again shortly to continue my ‘comfortable, wasteful life’! No doubt you will still be ratting on about your passion to ‘correct’ the world of its wilful wrong doings when I return!  

[Gisen 0]

FFS the eco system will not collapse!! My OH My!

How exactly do you know that the ecosystem won't collapse? Please explain this to us. Your qualifications in biochemistry or similar would be helpful to know as well.

The simple fact is that you don't have the first clue what impact and knock on effects something like a huge increase in algae would have.

Another mark of ignorance from you:

Quote[/b] ]The earth has gone through much bigger events than this mild little warming period in the past ... how come life still exists?

...because life is pernicious and can survive ecosystem collapse?

Key word: LIFE. Not "HUMANS." Have you any idea what percentage of species die out when a mass extinction happens? Apparently not.

Quote[/b] ] Boy Oh boy you have got an issue with yourself here and you have shown yet again how little you understand the world economic system and how fragile and dependant it is on the status quo. You seriously believe that a world wide economic collapse will be nothing but a headache don't you?

What is wrong with your reading comprehension? Seriously. Plain english:IN COMPARISON

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

Quote[/b] ]

Ever tried smelting iron ore with electricity? Please contact the steel companies immediately I’m sure they will be grateful for your revelation!

Electric arc furnace

Maybe you should have tried looking on the internet before posting such stupid things. Or possibly reading the post you are quoting where I stated quite clearly

the CO2 can also be reclaimed or scrubbed out if the plant cannot be converted to using pure fuels.

Quote[/b] ]As for your snappy arrogant attitude I think you need to take a hike! I could put it another way but I’m being polite here!

I’m off again shortly to continue my ‘comfortable, wasteful life’! No doubt you will still be ratting on about your passion to ‘correct’ the world of its wilful wrong doings when I return!

As I said, lazy, selfish and ignorant.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Have you any idea what percentage of species die out when a mass extinction happens?  Apparently not.

In the past 550 million years there have been five major events when over 50% of animal species died.  Most recent being 65 million years ago when the dino's were killed off.  Your making quite a leap linking global warming with an extinction-level event.

Like it or not, the cause and/or extent of global warming is still theory.  Of course you don't ignore something with devastating potential, but irrational solutions and lofty claims are equally foolish.

The scientific method is still valid.  Moving global warming and its cause(s) from theory (formulation and testing of hypotheses) to verified results, is not helped by individuals such as yourself.  Making the debate personal only lessens your credibility.

Greenland ice yields hope on climate <<<LINK

Quote[/b] ]Ever tried smelting iron ore with electricity? Please contact the steel companies immediately I’m sure they will be grateful for your revelation!

Interesting and hopefull.  And yet where dose electricity come from?  In 2005, it was estimated that 40% of the nation's energy came from petroleum, 23% from coal, and 23% from natural gas. The remaining 14% was supplied by nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, and miscellaneous renewable sources.  Innovations in industry are important, but clearly much has to be changed in the production of energy before a real impact is made.  

Quote[/b] ]If you don't understand the words, look them up in a dictionary.

Now your just using my line.

In order to have a real discussion of the issue, the attitude dose need to be dropped.  Perceptive ideas and links to information are lost when sandwiched between grudge babble.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Is this good for the cause of environmentalism?

Or dose the hype and flap take away from the message?

Green Guilt ...Link<<<

Quote[/b] ]Paying someone to plant a tree to “offset†the carbon footprint of your SUV is just plain silly. Yet there are thousands of people spending real money on these kind of indulgences every day. Why?

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Where did the scientific consensus go?

http://www.earthtimes.org