climatic changes, what do you think about that?

[Baff1 0]

I see the world being consumed by rabbits. I see it every day.

I grow crops as well as raise livestock.

It's not just foxes I shoot.

You need to be involved in agriculture to see that kind of thing.

I don't find nature too complex. I've spent my life managing it.

Some of the farmers I know have spent every hour of daylight in their lives managing nature.

And have learnt directly from their fathers who have spent 70 years before them doing the same thing. And their father's before them.

And then some dickweed, who studied enviromental science for 3 years at university, starts explaining things to them.

And this for me is the crux of the greenhouse effect issue. People who live in cities and shop at Tesco's think their experts on nature.

Democracy instills them with the belief that their opinions are as important as everyone elses, when it isn't.

They live in cities, exchange idea's with the other people who live in cities, and the government must act in favour of the majority.

95% of the population hasn't the first clue about the food chain or nature, but they have 95% of the vote.

They elect experts from amongst themselves and lunacy is compounded on lunacy.

I simply don't trust these people. They might be intelligent, but they are not wise.

All the combined experience of my life has shown them to be wrong about almost everything any time they have ever opened their mouths.

The people who call themselves enviromentalists, in my opinion, simply aren't.

[Sennacherib 0]

you analysis is not good at all. as Ofpforum said that takes time to have new species.

all the species were on earth before the humans and they have a part of the life of the nature.

without Polar bears = too much seals which will eat tons of fishes.

without wolfes = too many species would multiply themselves and lose the benefits of the natural selection

Quote[/b] ]Bears are top predators. They aren't especially relevant to the food chain.

so i suppose that you know the reason why the nature created this specie

this is a fact all the species are needed by the nature. except one; our specie.

and, you have forgot one thing; the natural selection. this fact is essential for the life on the earth, because that affect all the species, this is why predators are essential.

Quote[/b] ]Man can replace the bears place in the food chain

lol, this is easier to let the bears make their jobs. i don't understand this kind of mentality.

do you prefer an empty world with only humans on Earth?. sorry personally prefer to die that to see that. the Nature is amazing, mankind is just a heap of stupidity.

why mankind sould be more important that the other species? give me one reason.

our species is not used for nothing in the circle life on the Earth

and for my future children, i prefer that they live in a world of diversity. btw indigenous peoples are also in danger:

a link to understand environmentalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalist

take a look at the article about the ecosystem concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecology#The_ecosystem_concept

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem

http://library.thinkquest.org/11353/ecosystems.htm

and the essential link:

[NeMeSiS 11]

I see the world being consumed by rabbits. I grow crops as well as raise livestock. It's not just foxes I shoot.

Exactly my point, we (humans) affect nature so it turns the way we want it, and as you know shooting some rabbits isnt really a problem, they will 'replenish themselves' again. But when we flatten your farm and build a city, what happens then? Indeed, either they die or they move to another place.

I dont think im an expert at anything, and im not talking about the greenhouse thing in particular. But we as a species have the power to make the world as we want it to be, not as nature 'wants' it to. The whole natural balance established itsself in millions, maybe billions of years. But in the last 200 years we have become so powerful that we can do anything we want with it. As you said, alot of people arent experts, but think they are and they do have that very big power..

Sounds like trouble?

[Baff1 0]

you analysis is not good at all.  as Ofpforum said that takes time to have new species.

Quote[/b] ]Bears are top predators. They aren't especially relevant to the food chain.

so i suppose that you know the reason why the nature created this specie  

this is a fact all the species are needed by the nature. except one; our specie.

and, you have forgot one thing; the natural selection. this fact is essential for the life on the earth, because that affect all the species, this is why predators are essential.

Quote[/b] ]Man can replace the bears place in the food chain

lol, this is easier to let the bears make their jobs.    i don't understand this kind of mentality.

do you prefer an empty world with only humans on Earth?. sorry personally prefer  to die that to see that. the Nature is amazing, mankind is just a heap of stupidity.

why mankind sould be more important that the other species? give me one reason.

our species is not used for nothing in the circle life on the Earth

and for my future children, i prefer that they live in a world of diversity. btw indigenous peoples are also in danger:

a link to  understand environmentalism:

It might take time to make new species, but it takes no time at all for an existing species to migrate to a new food supply.

Nature did not "create" any species. Nature is not a deity. The species evolved.

In natural selection, predators go extinct too.

You can't make a polar bear do anything. Let alone it's job.

If you have a gun, you can stop it, that's about it.

And yes I prefer a world empty of everything that is willing to eat me.

I prefer a world full of my children than a world full polar bear children. If ever there should come a choice to make between the two, that would be one of those remarkably easy no brainer type choices.

You don't understand this kind of mentality because you have never tried growing your own food. Until you do, you never will.

Some things books and TV can't teach.

Why should mankind be more important than any other species? I'm not to worried about your particular religious beliefs, but I'm a man. I put my species first. Although I would still kill man in defence of my own animals.

If you want to preserve animals for the prosterity of your children. You should.

Might I recommend you start with something more modest than a polar bear.

It is one thing to say you want to keep them for your children to see, it is quite another that you should insist other people do.

Especially when discussing a man eating wild animal!

I keep 7 different species of endangered owl in my little wildlife sanction. (Plus deer, pheasant, falcons, grouse and Russian squirrels).

It costs money. (Money I made in Recycling).

So please, save the lectures about preservation of the species until you are doing more than just talking.

I don't really want a link to your idea's about enviromentalism.

The internet is the last place on earth you are going to learn anything about it.

[Baff1 0]

I see the world being consumed by rabbits. I grow crops as well as raise livestock. It's not just foxes I shoot.

Exactly my point, we (humans) affect nature so it turns the way we want it, and as you know shooting some rabbits isnt really a problem, they will 'replenish themselves' again. But when we flatten your farm and build a city, what happens then? Indeed, either they die or they move to another place.

I dont think im an expert at anything, and im not talking about the greenhouse thing in particular. But we as a species have the power to make the world as we want it to be, not as nature 'wants' it to. The whole natural balance established itsself in millions, maybe billions of years. But in the last 200 years we have become so powerful that we can do anything we want with it. As you said, alot of people arent experts, but think they are and they do have that very big power..

Sounds like trouble?

Please don't take any offence from my comments about experts, I find your humble approach to the subject emminantly readable and enjoyable and by no means wish to insult you personally in anyway.

I think people have a funny idea idea about nature. The jungle re-asserts itself in about 5 years flat. It doesn't take millions of years.

What many people normally describe as the "balance of nature" has been well regulated by man for thousands of years now.

There are very few wilderness areas that are regulated by nature alone.

The balance of nature may have established itself over millions of years, but it is not static in nature.

It continues to rebalance itself every minute of every day.

It is a permanent state of flux.

There are not many rabbits in cities because there are too many cats and dogs. These animals are all territorial.

With regards to the experts with big power, it's only the "enviromentalists" that I fear.

The traditional guardians of the enviroment are fighting a losing battle against them to my mind.

I think broadly speaking farms and industrialists are heading in the right direction already. I recognise their credentials.

[NeMeSiS 11]

What many people normally describe as the "balance of nature" has been well regulated by man for thousands of years now.

Depends on how you look at it, although we conquered the earth as a species quite a long time ago, i think we truly got our 'independence' in the industrial revolution, but its just how you want to look at it. After all, our food still comes from the nature, no matter how well we regulate it.

We also seem to look at it from a totally different perspective, you on one hand, are producing food, me on the other hand, i live in one of the most densely populated area's of the world several meters below sealevel.

While you may be able to adapt to big changes which could happen, a (temporary) shortage on food here would mean a disaster, or force me to sit on my roof/reach my boat very quickly/grow gills.

Thats why people over here in general dont like any changes in nature, although humanity as a species will most certainly survive any kind of disaster, alot of individuals will suffer, and as nature has seemed to work quite nicely for the last few centuries they are afraid of changes. (As a different 'balance' may not work out that well for them)

On yet another hand... Thanks to our awesome powers over nature im typing this right here in my home, 2 meters below sealevel..

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

This endless circle of debating INCONCLUSIVE science has created enough hot air to melt my tolerence for

SUV driving ex-hippies with Greenpeace bumper stickers that toss lit cigarete butts out their window.

Debate aside, those sticking to their guns with the "prove it" position have my respect.  I'm sure there are many intelligent, well meaning people who believe that humans need to wake up and change thier ways.

However, the lemmings who ignorantly and blindly regurgitate the bandwagon line are RUINING the ability to take it seriously.  

I have to pay my local garbage collector to take away my recycleables...so that they can sell them and make more money?  And when some homeless guy looks thru my trash to take my cans and scrape up money for a beer or some food he is arrested?

A real problem needs real answers.  Currently most of the solutions for "saving the planet" are a joke...a joke that someone is profiting from.  But ohhh all those evil scientists who are doubting it are just on the oil barrens payroll.  

If the oil tycoons have so much control, how is it that my state government wants to make it ILLEGAL to publicly say that "Global warming is NOT real."  Good solution.  That will magicly turn the greenhouse gasses into butterflys with good vibes.

I don't crap on my kitchen floor.  I understand the sense of the concept that we need to reasses our ways as to limit the negative impacts we have on this planet.  

As Luis Black said, "Of course we can create clean energy, we have *freakin* IPODS for god's sake!"

The funny part is the assumption that we actually have the power to "destroy the world."  Mmm no.  We have certainly developed the power to make it a quiet place for a few thousand years.  But some other species will eventualy become dominant and sift through our bones thinking "I can't believe these ugly *%^#'s were top of the food chain."

Judging from history, mother nature is one moody.....if we wake up and "save the planet" or not, history will repeat it self and the planet will scrub, shake, wash or burn off whatever is disrupting the balance. Hmm look at that new housing development being built in a flood plain...flood. Too many people...plague. You've been on top for a while, how bout giving the chipmunks a turn at being in charge....comet.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

This endless circle of debating INCONCLUSIVE science has created enough hot air to melt my tolerence for

SUV driving ex-hippies with Greenpeace bumper stickers that toss lit cigarete butts out their window.

Debate aside, those sticking to their guns with the "prove it" position have my respect. I'm sure there are many intelligent, well meaning people who believe that humans need to wake up and change thier ways.

However, the lemmings who ignorantly and blindly regurgitate the bandwagon line are RUINING the ability to take it seriously.

I have to pay my local garbage collector to take away my recycleables...so that they can sell them and make more money? And when some homeless guy looks thru my trash to take my cans and scrape up money for a beer or some food he is arrested?

A real problem needs real answers. Currently most of the solutions for "saving the planet" are a joke...a joke that someone is profiting from. But ohhh all those evil scientists who are doubting it are just on the oil barrens payroll.

If the oil tycoons have so much control, how is it that my state government wants to make it ILLEGAL to publicly say that "Global warming is NOT real." Good solution. That will magicly turn the greenhouse gasses into butterflys with good vibes.

I don't crap on my kitchen floor. I understand the sense of the concept that we need to reasses our ways as to limit the negative impacts we have on this planet.

As Luis Black said, "Of course we can create clean energy, we have *freakin* IPODS for god's sake!"

The funny part is the assumption that we actually have the power to "destroy the world." Mmm no. We have certainly developed the power to make it a quiet place for a few thousand years. But some other species will eventualy become dominant and sift through our bones thinking "I can't believe these ugly *%^#'s were top of the food chain."

Judging from history, mother nature is one moody.....if we wake up and "save the planet" or not, history will repeat it self and the planet will scrub, shake, wash or burn off whatever is disrupting the balance. Hmm look at that new housing development being built in a flood plain...flood. Too many people...plague. You've been on top for a while, how bout giving the chipmunks a turn at being in charge....comet.

Yep, but let's try to avoid that, yes?

Baff1

One thing is local veg and animal regulation. Another thing is a international regulation such as CO2 pollution.

Sure thing that nature will put itself into balance, but it takes thousind of years for it to do so. Not much time for a planet, but pretty long time for a species such as ours.

As it is now, we produce too much co2. The planet can simply not cope with it all using its current buffer systems. This leaves us with unhabitable oceans.

As a lifestock and crop - man. You are in for a nice income, but for the people who live of the oceans, they are probably pretty pissed.

[Baff1 0]

One thing is local veg and animal regulation. Another thing is a international regulation such as CO2 pollution.

Sure thing that nature will put itself into balance, but it takes thousind of years for it to do so. Not much time for a planet, but pretty long time for a species such as ours.

As it is now, we produce too much co2. The planet can simply not cope with it all using its current buffer systems. This leaves us with unhabitable oceans.

As a lifestock and crop - man. You are in for a nice income, but for the people who live of the oceans, they are probably pretty pissed.

Sorry but this is expert opinion based on zero actual experience again.

And it comes from all the same people who have reliably got everything else about the enviroment wrong.

(My income comes from my financial investments, not my farmland).

Fishermen make more money than me, but they are all pretty pissed off with enviromentalists telling them about fish stocks too.

It's not just farmers that dicked around by enviromental science graduates.

@opfforum.

Quote[/b] ] After all, our food still comes from the nature, no matter how well we regulate it.

Almost all of our food doesn't come from nature, it comes from regulated nature. The more we regulate it, the more food we produce from the same finite resource. How well we regulate it has everything to do with it.

Despite all increases to productivity and refridgeration and all the rest, this country (U.K.) does not produce enough food to feed itself.

It won't take a natural disaster for this to happen, it's been this way here for hundreds of years.

Instead of growing gills, we have built factories and ships.

CO2 powered industry is not dooming us to future starvation, it is freeing us from immediate starvation.

I also live in a very densely populated area of the world below sea-level.

All the land here was reclaimed from the sea in the fifties using Dutch technology.

The irrigation infrastructure was again radically overhauled in the 80's bringing an end to the previously seasonal floodings.

Mrs Baff lives in Osaka. On a site that was previously the sea. They are day by day, dumping more and more of their mountains into the sea and building on them.

For more marvels of man-made living space over sea-level, check out what they have done in Dubai.

Lowering CO2 levels isn't the only solution and it's by no means the easiest or most efficient.

I far prefer the tried and tested models used here and in Holland and even the new experimental techniques in Dubai and Osaka to anything as obviously unworkable and completely unproven as "Global CO2 reduction".

It's a bit of a poke in the eye to common sense if you ask me.

I might add that the advances to living space, food production and landmass in this country since the age of industrialisation is both not only marked and pronounced, it is of absolute record and has vastly outstripped any of the adverse effects of Global Warming in that same period. Global warming has had no noticeable effects in this country in the last 200 hundred years at all and any measureable effect is both tiny and hotly disputed.

Unlike CO2 producing Industrialisation which has trebled the population, turned unuseable land into useable land, doubled life expectancy, cured all most all diseases....etc etc etc and is continuing to do so to the very day.

As I see it, the science (as yet) does not provide the answers.This is a faith decision only.

I put my faith in Industry. It has a proven track record that I can trust.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

One thing is local veg and animal regulation. Another thing is a international regulation such as CO2 pollution.

Sure thing that nature will put itself into balance, but it takes thousind of years for it to do so. Not much time for a planet, but pretty long time for a species such as ours.

As it is now, we produce too much co2. The planet can simply not cope with it all using its current buffer systems. This leaves us with unhabitable oceans.

As a lifestock and crop - man. You are in for a nice income, but for the people who live of the oceans, they are probably pretty pissed.

Sorry but this is expert opinion based on zero actual experience again.

And it comes from all the same people who have reliably got everything else about the enviroment wrong.

(My income comes from my financial investments, not my farmland).

Fishermen make more money than me, but they are all pretty pissed off with enviromentalists telling them about fish stocks too.

It's not just farmers that dicked around by enviromental science graduates.

I also live in a very densely populated area of the world below sea-level.

All the land here was reclaimed from the sea in the fifties using Dutch technology.

The irrigation infrastructure was again radically overhauled in the 80's bringing an end to the previously seasonal floodings.

Mrs Baff lives in Osaka. On a site that was previously the sea. They are day by day, dumping more and more of their mountains into the sea and building on them.

For more marvels of man-made living space over sea-level, check out what they have done in Dubai.

Lowering CO2 levels isn't the only solution and it's by no means the easiest or most efficient.

I far prefer the tried and tested models used here and in Holland and even the new experimental techniques in Dubai and Osaka to anything as obviously unworkable and completely unproven as "Global CO2 reduction".

It's a bit of a poke in the eye to common sense if you ask me.

I might add that the advances to living space, food production and landmass in this country since the age of industrialisation is both not only marked and pronounced, it is of absolute record and has vastly outstripped any of the adverse effects of Global Warming in that same period. Global warming has had no noticeable effects in this country in the last 200 hundred years at all and any measureable effect is both tiny and hotly disputed.

Unlike CO2 producing Industrialisation which has trebled the population, turned unuseable land into useable land, doubled the expected age, cured all most all diseases....etc etc etc and is continuing to do so to the very day.

As I see it, the science (as yet) does not provide the answers.This is a faith decision only.

I put my faith in Industry. It has a proven track record that I can trust.

Well, the industry comes from science, mate .

Of course the global warming haven't had any effect on your belowed land, as it has hardly started yet. We are worried for the future, not the past.

Noone ever said reducing CO2 will be the final answer to all our prayers, you might wanna read some of the threads inhere again. But lowering it, makes the climate/ecology more stable to its current form.

It does takes thousinds of years for the world to stabilize after such an enormious factor has been presented in the system. Again, you are not looking at the bigger picture. The more acid we put in our oceans, the more the chemical components of it will change. That means that some animals in the oceans arent able to live there, and others will have a better time living their than now.

It's very hard to say which species is gonna profit from higher CO2 levels in the atmosphear and what species will suffer. But don't you feel a bit worried about the fact that we are making this world into a "trial and error" experiement? Let's hope we wont fail our first attempt when changing the entire ecology on the planet . Studies also show, that against popular beliefs, more co2 levels in the atmosphear is not favorable for vegetation leaving us with one less otherwise trusted buffer machanism.

Higher CO2 levels has a huge impact on the chemical composition of our oceans, which will have a tremendous effect on the lives of the planet.

Not to mention that it also incrieses the heat absorbtion capabily of the atmosphear and thereby rise the temperature of it.

I don't know why you bring the effects of the industry into the discussion? Aren't you aware that there are alternative ways for the industry to get their power? It's not like we say "Hey! We dont want so much co2 - confiscate them cars and turn of all powerplants!". It's almost like you believe that industry=co2? It doesn't .

[Baff1 0]

Industry brings it's benefits by producing things cheaper.

Making more resources more accessable to more people.

Increasing the price of production and distribution by using less economic fuel sources increases the cost and hence directly lowers available resources on the planet.

Industrialisation has brought astounding advances to the enviroment.

Any attempt to curb this proven process in the name of an unquantifiable and relatively insignifcant enviromentalism is self-defeating in the extreme.

I do not subscribe to fashion over substance.

The kinds of vegetation most supportive to man have all exponentially increased since the age of industrialisation. CO2 has increased since industrialisation as has agricultural productivity.

No amount of "studies" is going to change this.

In most countries, industry does equate to CO2 emissions. Fossil based fuels drive the economies of this planet.

You don't have to confiscate cars and turn off all the power stations to lower their efficiency, all you have to do is tax them.

Every time you raise the price another family in the world crosses the line into poverty and starvation.

While I agree that there is a very real possibility of danger in our future from carbon emissions.

There is a very much bigger actual and immediate danger from reducing them.

The dangers to mankind of overstating the importance of enviromentalism are very real indeed and a far larger threat to civilisation in my mind than any to be brought upon us by climate change.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Industry brings it's benefits by producing things cheaper.

Making more resources more accessable to more people.

Increasing the price of production and distribution by using less economic fuel sources increases the cost and hence directly lowers available resources on the planet.

Industrialisation has brought astounding advances to the enviroment.

Any attempt to curb this proven process in the name of an unquantifiable and relatively insignifcant enviromentalism is self-defeating in the extreme.

I do not subscribe to fashion over substance.

The kinds of vegetation most supportive to man have all exponentially increased since the age of industrialisation. CO2 has increased since industrialisation as has agricultural productivity.

No amount of "studies" is going to change this.

In most countries, industry does equate to CO2 emissions. Fossil based fuels drive the economies of this planet.

You don't have to confiscate cars and turn off all the power stations to lower their efficiency, all you have to do is tax them.

Every time you raise the price another family in the world crosses the line into poverty and starvation.

While I agree that there is a very real possibility of danger in our future from carbon emissions.

There is a very much bigger actual and immediate danger from reducing them.

The dangers to mankind of overstating the importance of enviromentalism are very real indeed and a far larger threat to civilisation in my mind than any to be brought upon us by climate change.

I haven't questioned all the good things industry gave us. But you haven't really argumented why industry=co2?

Using alternative power, can actually be cheaper than using fossil fuel. If you read my earlier post concerning the italian researches building a kite-driven turbine. That system can produce energy at 1/30 of the prize of normal fossil fuel plants.

It's all about politics, though.

Oh, I just found this on break.com

Very simple, but quite interesting. Please do comment it if you have any arguments against it

http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Industry brings it's benefits by producing things cheaper.

Making more resources more accessable to more people.

Increasing the price of production and distribution by using less economic fuel sources increases the cost and hence directly lowers available resources on the planet.

Industrialisation has brought astounding advances to the enviroment.

Any attempt to curb this proven process in the name of an unquantifiable and relatively insignifcant enviromentalism is self-defeating in the extreme.

I do not subscribe to fashion over substance.

The kinds of vegetation most supportive to man have all exponentially increased since the age of industrialisation. CO2 has increased since industrialisation as has agricultural productivity.

No amount of "studies" is going to change this.

In most countries, industry does equate to CO2 emissions. Fossil based fuels drive the economies of this planet.

You don't have to confiscate cars and turn off all the power stations to lower their efficiency, all you have to do is tax them.

Every time you raise the price another family in the world crosses the line into poverty and starvation.

While I agree that there is a very real possibility of danger in our future from carbon emissions.

There is a very much bigger actual and immediate danger from reducing them.

The dangers to mankind of overstating the importance of enviromentalism are very real indeed and a far larger threat to civilisation in my mind than any to be brought upon us by climate change.

I haven't questioned all the good things industry gave us. But you haven't really argumented why industry=co2?

Using alternative power, can actually be cheaper than using fossil fuel. If you read my earlier post concerning the italian researches building a kite-driven turbine. That system can produce energy at 1/30 of the prize of normal fossil fuel plants.

It's all about politics, though.

Oh, I just found this on break.com

Very simple, but quite interesting. Please do comment it if you have any arguments against it

http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

[Baff1 0]

Why does industry = CO2 emissions?

Because the bulk of the worlds energy sources are fossil fuels.

Why? Because they are. That is just how it is today.

Why did we not all change over to something alternative yesterday?

To some extent we already have begun to change over, but core demand is still met by fossil fuels.

Why not something alternative? Because there is no alternative.

Wind power is more expensive than fossil fuel powered electricity.

Wind power also cannot provide the same kind of steady supply that industry requires.

Biofuel is very expensive, and has an irregular supply.

New clean coal stations cost more too, (but seem to be on the rise).

Hydro electric is pretty cheap if you have the geography for it.

The trouble is not many places do.

Although energy companies are always attracted to the cheapest source first, it is of note that wind powered projects have all needed government subsidies to get built, no one is building nuclear at all, even with government subsides. Solar isn't cost effective outside of the equatorial regions.

Wave power has never gone beyond the experimental stage.

There are currently no cheaper alternatives to fossil fuel power electricity.

Should this kite power indeed turnout to produce electricity at 1/30th of the price of other forms, it will of course be adopted by all.

(Sounds like a load of bollocks to me though. Anything too good to be true, generally is).

One also has to bear in mind the costs of changing over to a new system and the time it takes to do so. Building new power stations isn't cheap, or quick.

Decisions to replace them will be taken when needed using the best available data at that time, not now based on a science fiction fantasy of what the future could turn out to be.

And to replace them before necessary is damaging to the economy. So is to tax them in the meantime, using a carbon trading scheme or an emission cap or whatever other money grabbing system they can devise.

It should also be noted that Industry relies on more than just electricity for power. Products must be brought to market. Resources mined and delivered.

Oil power is the cheapest method of transportation.

Industry = CO2 emissions, because that is the most efficient method currently available to us.

Research may come up with something new, but it may not. Even if it does, replacing the existing infrastructure of the entire planet comes at a price, (precious, much needed money that could be spent elsewhere), and isn't likely to be achieved in under a century.

CF the jump from sail to steam, or steam to fossil fuels.

I watched that video.

My table looks a little different from his.

In his if global warming doesn't exist but we take action we risk economic depression. I agree.

In his if global warming happens but we take action, we avert disaster. I disagree.

Avert disaster we do, but the costs of averting disaster are the same whether disaster occours or not. The risk global recession result still occours. He gave this box a smiley face to show disaster as averted, but for me, this box only averted one of the disasters implicit.

Further to this, he does not make the connection between global recession and war, plague and famine.

This is an American's eye view of the world.

For him it's a question of unemployed Americans. For the rest of world the matter may be rather more serious.

(These are all pretty extreme views of course and I don't buy into over-simplifications. I don't believe in the total global recession stories anymore than I believe in the approaching great deluge).

At this point with his premises and conclusions already so divorced from my own, I stopped watching.

If we take action to avert it, we still risk the global recession even if we are right about global warming and manage to do so.

And this for me is a very core issue.

Is there going to be a net gain?

Is the damage done to local and global economies and societies going to be larger or smaller than the damage we can expect from climate change. Is it worth the risk.?

Clearly the Chinese and the Indians already in the midst of plagues and famine, for almost a billion people between them, have a lot worse things to fear than global warming. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain from adopting CO2 limitatons.

Personally I see no compelling evidence to persuade me of the benefits of taking this risk.

I see plenty of compelling evidence, but none that compels me to take any actions drastic enough to risk the global economy or even just damage it.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Is the damage done to local and global economies and societies going to be larger or smaller than the damage we can expect from climate change. Is it worth the risk.?

Does New Orleans ring a bell ?

Multiply this event with serious, read multimillions of dead people, hunger crises, the total redesign of landscapes and countries by change of winds and temperatures and therefore the loss of millions of farmers worldwide due to sinking ground water level and dryness of soil while water will become a really valuable and seldom thing for a lot of countries and regions while others will drown.

Baff1, no hard feelings but when I was reading your posts over the last pages you seem to forget one major thing:

What kind of world do you hand to your children and grandchildren ? To me it looks like you are only trying to keep the status quo by all means, but you have to realize that this status quo is no longer existant and you will have to adapt to that if you want to "survive".

[Baff1 0]

I don't want to hand them a world crippled by idiots.

New Orleans?

Big deal.

Times a million!

Read multimillions dead!

LMAO.

Compare that to the 500 million hungry people in China. add another 500 million hungry people in India, add another 200 million hungry people in Africa.

Read billions dead.

Not in your imagination of the future.

Right now. Dying today.

Why wait for your fantasy of disaster?

Why not get on and deal with the existing one? You want to save the world, stop crapping on about global warming and get off your arse!

Don't bother saving us from the future, we need to be saved from the present.

these people aren't going to have any children. The Chinese are already limited to child. Infant mortality is rife.

What might happen to us in your nightmare vision of the future is a damned sight prettier than what is actually happening to us now.

Who gives a shit about global warming?

The great flood isn't coming, and even if it is, we already know how to build farmland below sea-level. We already know how to irrigate the desert.

The way to save lives is to make money.

Get rich and spend your cash on Chinese and Indian goods. Sustainable developments. Every penny counts.

Not in some catastrophic nightmare future.

Right now.

I don't want to hand my children to a world lead by people planning for disaster tomorrow while at the same time exasobrating a bigger disaster today.

I don't want to hand my children a world where enviromental policy is governed by city idiots, ageing hippies and the university set.

No thanks, they would be better off living in Waterworld.

[Balschoiw 0]

I see...

Wasted my time then.

[Baff1 0]

(Always nice to be given the opportunity to have rant all the same).

[Journeyman 0]

Compare that to the 500 million hungry people in China. add another 500 million hungry people in India, add another 200 million hungry people in Africa.

Read billions dead.

Not in your imagination of the future.

Right now. Dying today.

Why wait for your fantasy of disaster?

Why not get on and deal with the existing one? You want to save the world, stop crapping on about global warming and get off your arse!

Don't bother saving us from the future, we need to be saved from the present.

Absolutely agreed! Some people here need to get off their arses and do a bit of real world travelling! Sitting here surrounded by all our Western luxuries can lead us into a false sense of global well-being, but unfortunately nothing could be further from the truth.

I have travelled around several developing countries: Nepal, India, Philippines, Indonesia and although I have never been to the worst place for poverty and hardship that of Africa I can truly say that the words "Global Warming" don’t even register a blink of concern for these people, most of them are already living in a state of survival that many here I'm sure would consider apocalyptic!

Protecting the world 'Bollocks'! Protecting our privileged Western economies more like!

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Amen. But slapping on a bumper sticker, complaining about gas prices, and boasting about how "green" you are in your comfortable climate controlled home with a fridge stocked full of food....

....wasted words. Once again what began as a good idea has become a corrupt mess. Can't mention the evil word that caused it in this thread.

[Necromancer- 0]

Protecting the world 'Bollocks'! Protecting our privileged Western economies more like!

More like...

"Protecting our standard of living in the Western countries."

[Sennacherib 0]

lol,that would be logical, to save people autochtones and nature. we must repair our errors. that would be stupid and immoral to leave the countries has which we stole their resources to repair our errors.

most of ours resources are from poor countries. so if you close your eyes, YOU leave the western companies destroy the environment and kill old cultures around the world.

Quote[/b] ]our Western luxuries

lol, do you know poor people in western countries? I suppose that that is not the case, because you woudn't say that.

Quote[/b] ]Don't bother saving us from the future, we need to be saved from the present.

you should be careful, when you write things like that. this is too much funny. how can you change the present? or maybe you want also change the past? lol

oh! btw

Quote[/b] ]Protecting our standard of living in the Western countries.

if we want save the nature and the species around the world. we must chande our way of living.

so please, read and learn before to write that.

and finally. don't compare the politics of a state and the politics for the world. and when you speak about the african peoples, when you eat a banana, a guy works for you, and because you want low prices, this guy can't buy meat for his children.

Quote[/b] ]500 million hungry people in China. add another 500 million hungry people in India, add another 200 million hungry people in Africa.

and you know the reasons of that? i suppose not. we are responsible of that, because we want theirs ressources (oil, iron etc..) occidental governments support a lot of bastards in these countries (politicians, militaries, companies)

an example: the De Beers company has stolen the land of the bushmen only for diamonds which will flatter the vanity of the occidental women.

and the chinese, indian, and africans are responsible of their people. theirs governements are only plutocracies.

to try to save the environment is a chance also to help the poor peoples in the world.

[dmakatra 1]

Amen. But slapping on a bumper sticker, complaining about gas prices, and boasting about how "green" you are in your comfortable climate controlled home with a fridge stocked full of food....

....wasted words. Once again what began as a good idea has become a corrupt mess. Can't mention the evil word that caused it in this thread.

In today's society you cannot let the individual take responsibility for questions that spand farther than his own nose because individuals are incapable of getting his thumb out of his arse and react according to the situation. Therefore the responsibility must lie with the human race as a whole; politicians and the combined governments of the world. Laws, regulations, etc. Humans as individuals are always hypocrites, it's man as a whole that matters.

As for saving the present situation instead of worrying about upcoming problems - I partially agree. Of course saving people from poverty is a top priority, but what's the point in building a bridge that isn't going to hold? Man has to learn how to see in longer terms. It's short-term sight that got us in to this mess from the begining.

[Baff1 0]

@Dmak, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

It's better to just let some bridges go than drown all the townsfolk trying to fix it.

most of ours resources are from poor countries. so if you close your eyes, YOU leave the western companies destroy the environment and kill old cultures around the world.

Most of our resources are not from poor countries, and countries that trade with us are wealthier than when they do not.

1st world, 2nd world, 3rd world classifies countries by the amount of trade we do with them not by their wealth.

By strange co-incidence the third world countries (i.e. those we trade with least), also happen to be very poor.

Western companies aren't destroying the enviroment, they are creating it. Terraforming it, if you like.

Chinese people aren't starving because we are stealing their Iron ore and oil. What total nonsense.

(They are major importers of both, and we are major suppliers).

In the last ten years China has brought 300 million of it's population out of poverty.

That is a number of people equal to the population of the U.S.A. or the EU or the entire continent of Africa.

This isn't an ancient culture or enviroment destroyed.

It is ancient culture saved, an enviroment capable of supporting it's population created.

Our buying of Chinese materials and goods has significantly contributed to their economic expansion.

All those cheap clothes you are buying aren't exploiting them, they are employing them.

You won't see China embrace enviromentalism.

You think it saves people from poverty, but the Chinese know better. And they really know about fighting poverty.

Industry is what has been saving them, big, global, polluting industry.

Saving the planet. Day after day, year after year, century after century.

You won't catch the poor embracing enviromentalism. Only the Rich.

Japan, Western Europe, California.

Those that can afford the fashion.

Where are these poor people enviromentalism is saving, how come they all point blank refuse to play ball?

Don't they want to be saved?

Answer: not by you they don't.

De Beers.

De Beers bought the land. Hungry people bought food with the money.

De Beers is the single biggest employer in the country. In fact, it's the only big employer in the country.

Many hungry people buy food with their pay checks. In the rest of the country there is much depravation and the competition for jobs at DeBeers is very high.

People walk hundreds of miles on the off chance of getting a job there.

Every occidental diamond wearing woman is sponsoring the poor in West Africa.

The global economy is such that all you have to do to save the world is go shopping.

All you have to do is be greedy and buy as much as you can.

Be a greedy little consumer. Buy Chinese clothes, African Diamonds, South American Coffee. Eat chocolate, drink wine.

Smoke. Fill your car full of petrol. Buy your daughter "My Little Pony".

Help create sustainable industry in poor areas by giving them a market.

But oh, no.

You want them all to shut down their mines.

Some guy at the top is earning more than some guy at the bottom so you want it all to stop.

Shall we make DeBeers give the mines to all the local Bushmen?

Do you think Bushmen know how to run an international diamond trade? Do you really want to risk it going bankrupt and all those African's losing their jobs?

While we are at it, lets turn off their coal power generators and embrace enviromentalism. After all, if the richest people on the planet can afford the alternatives, why not the poor?

The poor don't need friends like this.

They too would be better off living in Waterworld.

[redpride 0]

Turning traitor on your roots and heritage is a great dishonor..but planting a knife in the faceless international corporation's back is a great deed. Don't let them classify you as a "terrorist".Don't fall for the globalist's brain washing.

Destroy what destroys you.