climatic changes, what do you think about that?

[Espectro (DayZ) 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.

You are telling us to forget our "fantasy disaster" - but all I see from your recent posts is polluted imagination if you wish.

It's pretty naive to think that global warming isn't real weather human created or not - it is real, we see that from readings.

The problem is, that CO2 will incriese that global warming. Not only that, but global warming will also incriese CO2 levels making the oceans inhabitable.

That means billions of people dying from hunger. The main issue is, that CO2 levels, due to (mainly) the two mentioned feedback systems, will incriese exponentially making it impossible for us to stop in not many years from now.

Also, you seem to think that we feel that we should simply ban all CO2 emmisions in all countries. But the main issue is, of course, to lower CO2 emmisions globally while maintaining a stable economy in all those countries. It's not something that will happen overnight, as we have to find alternatives that are costeffective. Surely you agree that the first place to look for decriesing CO2 is in this western world, and that is why we need political will to do so in this world.

Too bad many of the world leaders are more concerned about economy than the planet, and simply buy co2 qoutes from third world countries, limiting their industry capacity while the western countries dont have to use money on researching and building a capacity of alternative energy.

[Baff1 0]

I don't think it's not real at all.

I think it is real, vastly overblown in it's predicted danger, and that the proposed solutions so far, are far more dangerous to society and the planet than Global Warming is.

I don't want a stable economy, I want one that continues to grow.

Not just grow, but grow as fast as it can. People are dying.

Anyone who proposes the radical replacement of the energy sector on a world wide scale is not friend of the economy. If you want a stable economy, these are the people standing in your way.

They just want to spend your money on exciting new and afshionable things.

I think you'll find that ECTS is the European Carbon Trading Scheme. There aren't any third world countries allowed in, let alone being strangled by the rich.

I've been alive for the 37 years of highest CO2 pollution in the history of the planet.

In all that time nothing has changed here. If you are to convince me that the next is going to bring apocalyptic climate change, I'm not buying it.

Common sense dictates that if for the last 37 years of worst CO2 pollution in the history of the planet, there has been no visible effect to my climate, that I should not fear the next 37.

So far in my life I have survived the inevitable climatic apocalypes from nuclear winter, transatlantic drift and the hole in the ozone layer.

What do I have to fear from global warming?

There is always an impending apocalypse. People like impending apocalypses.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I don't think it's not real at all.

I think it is real, vastly overblown in it's predicted danger, and that the proposed solutions so far, are far more dangerous to society and the planet than Global Warming is.

I don't want a stable economy, I want one that continues to grow.

Not just grow, but grow as fast as it can. People are dying.

Anyone who proposes the radical replacement of the energy sector on a world wide scale is not friend of the economy. If you want a stable economy, these are the people standing in your way.

They just want to spend your money on exciting new and afshionable things.

I think you'll find that ECTS is the European Carbon Trading Scheme. There aren't any third world countries allowed in, let alone being strangled by the rich.

I've been alive for the 37 years of highest CO2 pollution in the history of the planet.

In all that time nothing has changed here. If you are to convince me that the next is going to bring apocalyptic climate change, I'm not buying it.

Common sense dictates that if for the last 37 years of worst CO2 pollution in the history of the planet, there has been no visible effect to my climate, that I should not fear the next 37.

So far in my life I have survived the inevitable climatic apocalypes from nuclear winter, transatlantic drift and the hole in the ozone layer.

What do I have to fear from global warming?

There is always an impending apocalypse. People like impending apocalypses.

37 years is a very very very small timescale when it comes to global climate.

I've been alive for 24 years, and I have seen changes due to global warming. The past 11 months, we have had 8 heat records in Denmark - which means that is the highest average temperature per month since we started meassuring in 18xx.

If you were fishing for craps you would already have noticed the higher CO2 pressure in the oceans. Their shells are getting thinner, which means they are more and more vulnerable to predators. That is why craps is getting more and more expensive.

Just because global warming or CO2 pollution isn't visual at your farm, doesn't mean it isn't real.

Here in Denmark, all the vegetation started 1½ months earlier than normal - never seen before as long as anyone can remember or have written down. They even say that at this climate here, we can begin to grow wine in the lands of Denmark. That's okay, but too bad for those farmers whose crops isn't suitable for the climate anymore.

As for the economy. I don't feel any need that the economy in western Europe needs to rise. We have quite a good time as it is now, it's in the poor countries that money is needed as that is where the problem lies (which you would have understand from my previous post if you read it).

We have to bring down CO2 pollution in the Western countries emmidiatly. This can be done by alternative power. In 2020, Denmark will be powered by 75% wind energy. and the rest is Bio fuel. If Denmark can, so can your average other western country.

We HAVE to take care of our planet. I find it pretty sad that in most countries nowadays, you can't drink the water directly from the pumps, but you have to use chlorine and other stuff to sterilize it. In Denmark, more and more pumps are being shut down due to pollution from the farmers, as they keep overspraying their fields.

To sum it up. Economy isn't everything, and we can easily maintain status quo in the Western countries and decrease CO2. It's the third world countries where we can incriese CO2 levels, until they have a suitable standard of life. Then we can decrease it again in those countries.

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ]I've been alive for the 37 years

i'm 33, and you must be blind, because there are a lot of changes. you can read rapports about the permafrost (testimonys from Inuit peoples) , you can see some rainforests in south-east Asia which have almost any more animals etc etc.

ETC ETC ETC

[Baff1 0]

There aren't any rainforests here. No Inuits. No melting permafrost.

I thought it was supposed to be a a crisis for the entire planet, not just the Inuits?

37 years may not be a long time, but it is 1/5 of the industrial age. And it's the most CO2 polluted 37 years in the history of man, no other 37 years can show us what happpens when CO2 levels rise so clearly as this last 37. The next 37 years takes us up to 2044. 6 years short of many peoples predicted doomsday.

Which I predict is just another Doomsday. Just like all the others I've lived through.

I hear a lot about what 2050 is going to look like. And I'm willing to take bets.

I grow wine in England. Why not Denmark. All you need is sunlight, water and a strain suited to colder climates.

But I'm not intrested in what "they" say. What do you say. What have you seen.

I value your own experiences far higher than any mysterious "they".

You've had record heat? Have the sea walls all collapsed. Are people starving? Are all the bee's dead, any crops failed?.

A good year for wine, that's always good. The crops are early, that's always good too.

What else have you seen in Denmark that I should be worried about?

Third world countries need strong first world countries to trade with.

If we want to feed more people we must grow more food.

If we want to provide more sustainable trade with poor countries we must produce more trade goods.

It's a global economy, maintaining the status quo in 95% of the worlds market, won't help those without access to a market at all. We need to create new markets.

We have to grow.

I agree that the economy isn't everything, but when it comes to averting global disaster, famine and poverty; it's the single most important thing there is.

The fight against Global Warming is positively insignificant in comparison to it.

In the last ten years Global Economics has rescued a population = all of Africa. In ten years.

It's a different league.

By all means fight Global Warming, but if it costs just one penny more, that fight has become evil. Anti society.

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ]I thought it was supposed to be a a crisis for the entire planet, not just the Inuits?

lol, you know the word EXAMPLE

Quote[/b] ]The fight against Global Warming is positively insignificant in comparison to it.

even if global warming creates famine, diseases, and the disparition of the water in some countries.?

[sanctuary 19]

How can one that lived over 30 years can not notice the effect of our ever increasing pollutions (why do you ever insist on CO2, like if it was the only pollution resulting of our human activities) on our own (no need of distant countries or "pollar bears" or other fantasy arguments) environment, climate, life, health, ... is a bit beyond me.

But "is blind the one who refuse to see" and Baff1 is a good example of this.

[Journeyman 0]

But "is blind the one who refuse to see" and Baff1 is a good example of this.

On the contrary! Baff1 has thrown in some pretty significant arguments against upsetting the economy as a result of taking drastic action to cut man made co2. I haven’t yet seen anyone try and counter debate his reasoning, only continue to throw the same old stones over and over!  

Putting up a few wind farms is fine as is experimenting with other means of generating electricity. But don't believe for one minute that this is going to have any significant impact on overall co2 emissions! What about transportation, the steel industry etc? Will we be having solar powered aircraft or wind turbine steel furnaces?    Take a look outside your window (if you live in a city) how many cars, busses, trucks, trains, planes are travelling every minute of every hour of every day?

Think about it! If you seriously want to cut our emissions to any significant level it is going to take a lot more that the initiatives of a few topographically fortunate countries in setting up wind farms to help with electricity production.

Like Baff1 said if we really want to cut co2 significantly (and that is the only chance of it having any effect) we would need to take very drastic action that would not only cripple the economy but our whole transportation and production infrastructure! And even then after all that there would still be no guarantee that doing so will have had any affect whatsoever on the (ever) changing climate. So we would be both economically ruined and environmentally ‘buggered’ with no chance of us ever helping ourselves out of it!     ....So much for those columns and rows!

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

But "is blind the one who refuse to see" and Baff1 is a good example of this.

On the contrary! Baff1 has thrown in some pretty significant arguments against upsetting the economy as a result of taking drastic action to cut man made co2. I haven’t yet seen anyone try and counter debate his reasoning, only continue to throw the same old stones over and over!

Putting up a few wind farms is fine as is experimenting with other means of generating electricity. But don't believe for one minute that this is going to have any significant impact on overall co2 emissions! What about transportation, the steel industry etc? Will we be having solar powered aircraft or wind turbine steel furnaces? Take a look outside your window (if you live in a city) how many cars, busses, trucks, trains, planes are travelling every minute of every hour of every day?

Think about it! If you seriously want to cut our emissions to any significant level it is going to take a lot more that the initiatives of a few topographically fortunate countries in setting up wind farms to help with electricity production.

Like Baff1 said if we really want to cut co2 significantly (and that is the only chance of it having any effect) we would need to take very drastic action that would not only cripple the economy but our whole transportation and production infrastructure! And even then after all that there would still be no guarantee that doing so will have had any affect whatsoever on the (ever) changing climate. So we would be both economically ruined and environmentally ‘buggered’ with no chance of us ever helping ourselves out of it! ....So much for those columns and rows!

No no no no no, and no!

You and Baff1 are aimply ignoring all our arguments! Are you guys reading what I do? You have some kind of filter in your browser leaving out most of our valued points? You even take the liberty to qoute us out of contexts arguing against our points in a simple biased method - come on, now, let's be fair! Dude, you sound like my old gf arguing like that! (No offence, she was pretty hot - but damn annoying in any discussion).

Noone said that we are to cut CO2 emmision to zero. Reducing CO" emmision isn't the same as ringing full stop for anything mechanical. Of course we need transport, of course we need power, of course we need steel. Are you completely ignorant, or do you think we are so, when you bring in those pathetic arguments?

It's all political, and reducing CO2 is alot more affordable in the western countries than you seem to understand. Windpower, solarpower, tide-power etc. is all alternatives that can aid the power-suply. Ordinary fossil fuel cars are already being replaced to hybrid cars in some parts of Asia with a benifit for both enviroment and the local economy. Why not here!?

As said, in 2020 75% of the power in Denmark will be created using wind.

Will we still be producing CO2? YES, of course we will. But we need to go after cutting it down, so the planet can cope with it using its natural buffer systems.

Baff1 - the third world doesn't need to get all it's food from the western countries - you sound like the average capitalist. Instead we should focus on developing those third world ountries making them able to produce their own food. Afterall, the population is incriesing and we need every inch left of it, to produce food. Why not start now?!

[Journeyman 0]

Just like I expected  ...the same old stones!  

Quote[/b] ]Ordinary fossil fuel cars are already being replaced to hybrid cars in some parts of Asia with a benifit for both enviroment and the local economy. Why not here!?

Do you even know what a hybrid car is? Yes it is yet another brilliant moneymaking scheme and vote winner from our famed government funded scientists and their political golf partners! A hybrid car can use 'fossil fuels' for the engine or it can use 'fossil fuels' for generating the electricity that power the electric motors! .... What a brilliant way to save the world!   .... Over and out!

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Just like I expected ...the same old stones!

Quote[/b] ]Ordinary fossil fuel cars are already being replaced to hybrid cars in some parts of Asia with a benifit for both enviroment and the local economy. Why not here!?

Do you even know what a hybrid car is? Yes it is yet another brilliant moneymaking scheme and vote winner from our famed government funded scientists and their political golf partners! A hybrid car can use 'fossil fuels' for the engine or it can use 'fossil fuels' for generating the electricity that power the electric motors! .... What a brilliant way to save the world! .... Over and out!

So you dont think that driving 50 miles per gallon versus 10 is going to make a difference?

Over and out.

[Journeyman 0]

Just like I expected  ...the same old stones!  

Quote[/b] ]Ordinary fossil fuel cars are already being replaced to hybrid cars in some parts of Asia with a benifit for both enviroment and the local economy. Why not here!?

Do you even know what a hybrid car is? Yes it is yet another brilliant moneymaking scheme and vote winner from our famed government funded scientists and their political golf partners! A hybrid car can use 'fossil fuels' for the engine or it can use 'fossil fuels' for generating the electricity that power the electric motors! .... What a brilliant way to save the world!   .... Over and out!

So you dont think that driving 50 miles per gallon versus 10 is going to make a difference?

Over and out.

Lots of small diesel cars get 50 - 72 MPG and they get better acceleration and are a lot less costly to produce. Then there is the environmental cost of manufacturing the batteries and also carting them around!

You say versus 10 mpg? For your information I drive a 3.9 V8 Land Rover Discovery that has been converted to run on LPG. Even when I run this brut on petrol I still get more than 20mpg on a run. And yes I need a powerful 4x4 for towing heavy trailers so don’t start giving me all the SUV drivers shit!

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Just like I expected ...the same old stones!

Quote[/b] ]Ordinary fossil fuel cars are already being replaced to hybrid cars in some parts of Asia with a benifit for both enviroment and the local economy. Why not here!?

Do you even know what a hybrid car is? Yes it is yet another brilliant moneymaking scheme and vote winner from our famed government funded scientists and their political golf partners! A hybrid car can use 'fossil fuels' for the engine or it can use 'fossil fuels' for generating the electricity that power the electric motors! .... What a brilliant way to save the world! .... Over and out!

So you dont think that driving 50 miles per gallon versus 10 is going to make a difference?

Over and out.

Lots of small diesel cars get 50 - 72 MPG and they get better acceleration and are a lot less costly to produce. Then there is the environmental cost of manufacturing the batteries and also carting them around!

You say versus 10 mpg? For your information I drive a 3.9 V8 Land Rover Discovery that has been converted to run on LPG. Even when I run this brut on petrol I still get more than 20mpg on a run. And yes I need a powerful 4x4 for towing heavy trailers so don’t start giving me all the SUV drivers shit!

So youre saying that hybrid cars aren't as economic as new diesel cars?

Dude, your getting out on even deeper water...

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]I thought it was supposed to be a a crisis for the entire planet, not just the Inuits?

lol, you know the word EXAMPLE  

Quote[/b] ]The fight against Global Warming is positively insignificant in comparison to it.

even if global warming creates famine, diseases, and the disparition of the water in some countries.?  

I know the word example.

All I'm seeing is extreme examples.

And yes even if global warming creates famine, diseases and the disparation of water in some countries, it will never create more of these than CO2 emissions remove.

The cure is more fatal than the disease.

[Baff1 0]

How can one that lived over 30 years can not notice the effect of our ever increasing pollutions (why do you ever insist on CO2, like if it was the only pollution resulting of our human activities) on our own (no need of distant countries or "pollar bears" or other fantasy arguments) environment, climate, life, health, ... is a bit beyond me.

But "is blind the one who refuse to see" and Baff1 is a good example of this.

Because I haven't spent 30 years in distant countries. I have spent 30 years here.

This is either a global issue or it isn't.

People tell me that the climate has changed that my enviroment has become more unstable, but all I see is a marked improvement in both the stability and productivity of my enviroment. I don't feel any hotter.

If it only affects far away countries, then lets label the problem correctly.

The reason I focus on CO2 emissions, is that the suggested solutions to those are so inherantly and obviously destructive to civilisation.

I too, would much prefer it if everyone picked a more sensible form of pollution to counter. Pollution exists and it has adverse effects.

But it is not a simple good vs evil scenario.

Pollution is a by product of very beneficial processes.

You have to weigh up whether the damage done by pollution outweighs the benefits brought by the industry that produces it.

The trick of course is to minimise the adverse effects while maximising the beneficial ones.

In order to this, you must recognise both.

All I ever hear is pollution = famine, death, disease, and industry = rich selfish bastards killing all the poor.

It's no wonder I have difficulty taking these people seriously, now is it?

I could go about individual chemical bans and their adverse affects on the local enviroment. That's a whole new can of worms.

I prefer to deal with these each on their individual merits and flaws, I don't consider this an issue which can be simplifed into a single concern.

I could also provide examples of local clean ups that have benefitted the enviroment, but here we are discussing climate change.

Climate change isn't being caused by your local chemical factory releasing too much fertilsers into your local river.

Using DDT to save millions of lices worldwide in the fight against molaria may have caused thousands and thousands of infant deaths, but it didn't affect the climate.

[Baff1 0]

You and Baff1 are aimply ignoring all our arguments!

On the contrary I have addressed every single one you have raised.

(And enjoyed doing so, thanks for sharing your input).

I don't dispute a lot of your arguments, I simply attach a different weight of importance to most of them.

Quote[/b] ]Baff1 - the third world doesn't need to get all it's food from the western countries - you sound like the average capitalist. Instead we should focus on developing those third world ountries making them able to produce their own food. Afterall, the population is incriesing and we need every inch left of it, to produce food. Why not start now?!

I am the average capitalist. (Money is freedom).

It seems to me that average capitalism has a pretty good track record of getting things done over the last few millenia.

Socialism works too. It's doing wonders in China.

What works best for some works less well for others.

Capitalism works well here. My standard of living is good.

I agree that third world markets are not 100% dependant on first world markets. In fact the reason they are called "third" world, is that they are barely involved in trade with the first world at all.

They aren't dependant on us for food, (maybe some are), but food production isn't the only way to escape poverty and famine.

They could manufacture trade goods, for example. Not just food, but booze and cigarettes and petrol and toys....Whatever they can make cheap. And then trade for food.

All they need is someone willing to buy what they produce, and we have a sustainable development.

This is a global economy. Not every person on the planet needs to be a farmer, to produce their own food.

It works better for example, if we have 10 people who manufacture tractors and one farmer, than if we have 11 farmers with no tractor.

In the past we have developed many of those poor countries. Gone in, set up a load of agriculture, turned bushmen economies into global breadbaskets.

The trouble is, the moment we leave, they all fall apart again.

It's no good us just developing them, they have to develop themselves.

Aid is less effective than trade over time. It's not sustainable and efficiency is not directly rewarded.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

You and Baff1 are aimply ignoring all our arguments!

On the contrary I have addressed every single one you have raised.

(And enjoyed doing so, thanks for sharing your input).

What?

You havent adressed a single argument the past three pages!

When I tell you to look for signs of global warming, you refuse to achnowledge there is any, since your farmland havenøt changed the past 37 years - and since it haven't then it absolutely can't be a 'global' problem .

As another argument, you say that in another 37 years, it doesn't matter anyway, cause many people have already predicted doomsday by then due to their religion - jeez. Now come on! I assume you are just a tad intilligent, and therefor surely know that there is no such thing as a predicted doomsday as per religion (as there is no religion - it's just made up bollocks).

Quote[/b] ]Because I haven't spent 30 years in distant countries. I have spent 30 years here.

This is either a global issue or it isn't.

*Cough* - okay, here is a bet! I bet I can find readings showing the effects of human rape on the planet in your local environment. If you just give me an area close to you .

Quote[/b] ]All I ever hear is pollution = famine, death, disease, and industry = rich selfish bastards killing all the poor.

It's no wonder I have difficulty taking these people seriously, now is it?

Please do tell me, how would you define people who pollute unnessecary to get more money?

Quote[/b] ]I could go about individual chemical bans and their adverse affects on the local enviroment. That's a whole new can of worms.

I prefer to deal with these each on their individual merits and flaws, I don't consider this an issue which can be simplifed into a single concern.

I could also provide examples of local clean ups that have benefitted the enviroment, but here we are discussing climate change.

Climate change isn't being caused by your local chemical factory releasing too much fertilsers into your local river.

Using DDT to save millions of lices worldwide in the fight against molaria may have caused thousands and thousands of infant deaths, but it didn't affect the climate.

There you go again, ranting on and on. Noone ever put up arguments that it was. But now that you mentioned it, it actualy does affect the climate. It doesn't affect the global climate much, though, so what you said is kinda irrelevant to this discussion? Are you trying to pull into shore, with that comment or is there any other explanation you brought it up?

Quote[/b] ]I am the average capitalist. (Money is freedom).

It seems to me that average capitalism has a pretty good track record of getting things done over the last few millenia.

Socialism works too. It's doing wonders in China.

What works best for some works less well for others.

Capitalism works well here. My standard of living is good.

I'm sure your standard of living is good - but not everyone has it as good as you. And believe it or not. There ARE crime and poverty in capitalist countries as well! Yep, that's right. As in some countries there are people who believe it's every man for himself. Even though many of them have more than they can ever use. How incredible, ey?

Sure many great things have been made in the name of capitalism - but I can also mention lots of lots of bad things done in the name of capitalism. Just think of the first 15 wars you can think of, and see for yourself).

Quote[/b] ]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.

Yes, and the day we loose interest in those kinda products, the third world countries economy falls to the ground once again and were back as status quo.

Quote[/b] ]Anyone who proposes the radical replacement of the energy sector on a world wide scale is not friend of the economy. If you want a stable economy, these are the people standing in your way.

They just want to spend your money on exciting new and afshionable things.

Jeez, talk about being a conservative capitalistic liberalist. This is such comments where I think I waste my time. You simply refuse to think about anything else than your little wallet. You say, money = freedom. Well, not for everyone

Quote[/b] ]And yes even if global warming creates famine, diseases and the disparation of water in some countries, it will never create more of these than CO2 emissions remove.

That's one hell of a postulate! Luckily as it is a postulate, you need to give me some facts to back it up, as I can't see where you are getting this from - your neighbour or the local spirits hunting the farmland? Maybe even god himself?

Quote[/b] ]I agree that the economy isn't everything, but when it comes to averting global disaster, famine and poverty; it's the single most important thing there is.

The fight against Global Warming is positively insignificant in comparison to it.

In the last ten years Global Economics has rescued a population = all of Africa. In ten years.

It's a different league.

We could have saved so much more, if we hadn't been thinking about our own wallets that much. But congrats, you have now made Africa dependant on our food, medicin and chemicals. Too bad the infrastructure in africa is so bad, that most of the stuff we bring downthere isn't reaching whoever it was meant to reach, causing millions of lives each year. But why would you care? You get your few bucks, and the local baron lives like a queen due to corruption. Oh, hey! Capitalism just showed its ugly face again! You are right, money = freedome - for the few, and death for the majority.

Anyhow, we are not going any further - as Balschoiw said, i'm wasting my time here.

To sum it up:

You say global warming is overrated and biased, and a rising CO2-emission is necessary for global economy. Furthermore, you conclude that you know all about how nature works and reacts, since you, your neighbours and your father have worked at a farm.

I say it's not - but it's so much more complicated than just warming. CO2 affects our oceans chemical balance making some parts inhabitable for some animals. These changes will have an effect. Nature isn't as stable as you might think. Sure it's not going to change overnight, and it won't change dramatically over 10 years either. But CO2 have a large effect globally. Many people believe that it is responsible for the global temperature rise happend the last 30 years, some doesn't think so. But all agree on, that higher co2 pressure in the atmoshphear = higher co2 concentrations in our oceans disrupting the food chain.

You say that there haven't been any global warming or any other man-made effect to the clima in your area the past 37 years.

Fine, I'm not going to argue you. If you are blind and refuse to read articles etc. I assume the Earth is flat as well? As nothing ever rolled over your fields by itself?

You keep bringing in the big fight:

Industry vs environment

A I said earlier (But I assume you didn't read it), it's not ALL or NOTHING. We can't stop the pollution-train instantly. It's a huuuuge proces, it takes years to stop it (decades) and the wheels on the economy-class is going to have to be oiled in the mean-time while we stop. *hint hint*

But, you probably are going to ignore those arguments again, claiming to have adressed them all. Or you might even come up with new arguments slightly similar to these I have already presented, and start putting that into pieces. Please do not, it's a waste of your time .

Cheers

[Baff1 0]

You and Baff1 are aimply ignoring all our arguments!

On the contrary I have addressed every single one you have raised.

(And enjoyed doing so, thanks for sharing your input).

What?

You havent adressed a single argument the past three pages!

When I tell you to look for signs of global warming, you refuse to achnowledge there is any, since your farmland havenøt changed the past 37 years - and since it haven't then it absolutely can't be a 'global' problem   .

You asked me to look.

I've looked.

Were you just telling me look and report what I see? Or were you telling me to look and report what I've heard you say.

I've directly addressed your issues, not ignored them.

You didn't like my replies so you pretended I didn't directly answer.

If my farmland or anyones elses, hasn't been affected by climate change, then it isn't a global problem.

In order to be a global problem, everywhere on the entire globe most be affected.

Only everywhere hasn't been affected and it's not just round my farm where people aren't detecting any visible climate change either.

You are going to find me "readings" off the internet about a place in which I actually live, and expect me to believe them over my own personal experience of actually being here day in and day out for 37 years?

You're going to post me a link to how the enviroment I conserve at great personal effort and expense has been raped by man?

Are you really so suprised that I'm not going to be convinced by that? Balschow is right, you are wasting your time.

I think this really sums up your approach to the subject. Even before you've done any research, you've already concluded the outcome.

You already know you can prove my enviroment has been raped by man, even before you know where it is.

Not because you've seen it.

Not even because you've read about it.

Just because you know.

Even if actual eye witness should differ, you know more than they do.

Even though you haven't done any reserarch.

You haven't seen it.

You have no history in enviromental work or study.

You blindingly and unerringly already know and in your mind the only people who dispute this are fools.

This isn't science. It's faith.

You are using pseudoscience to justify your faith. Nothing more.

It's not just me you are going to be wasting your time with in life.

I forsee a lot more people to come, failing to appreciate this particular brand of wisdom you offer.

N.B. there's nothing wrong with faith. I put my own faith in global industry and world economics. I can't prove they will be beneficial to man in the future, but the track records been excellent so far. Hence my faith.

Quote[/b] ]You say global warming is overrated and biased, and a rising CO2-emission is necessary for global economy. Furthermore, you conclude that you know all about how nature works and reacts, since you, your neighbours and your father have worked at a farm.

My father is a second generation waste recycler.

I have some neighbours who are 3rd+ generation farmers.

I consider them to be experts on the local enviroment.

While I don't know everything about the enviroment and clearly very little compared to say those farmers,

I think my enviromental credentials are still pretty good.

I own and maintain a small nature reserve.

I conserve several endangered species. (Owls).

I have 18 years experience in waste recycling.

I believe I have a minor amount of first-hand enviromental experience that I have sought to share with you.

(I'd like to know what you think you do for your enviroment. Anything more than switching off the lightbulb when you are not using it?)

I get this crap all the time.

People who read some stuff on the internet and watched some stuff on TV, telling the people who live there what's happening.

People who do absolutely nothing for the enviroment, preaching about it to people who do. (Balschow was like what are you going to leave behind for your Children and Grand children. Lmao. What's he going to leave behind?)

I'm doing my bit. What are you doing?

There is crime everywhere, not just capitalist countries.

Poverty can be found everywhere too.

The standard of living here is very good. Capitalism, works for us.

It might not work where you live. Use whatever system you prefer.

Perhaps Faciso-Socialism? Anarcho-theocracy! I can't imagine how you try and define yourself politically.

I suspect you don't and just use any politically related word as a barb, an insult, a term of derision.

(No offence taken by the way. Or meant in return).

If you feel you could have given more to the poor, do so. Don't blame me, or society. Get off your arse.

Why talk about "we could have given so much more".

Take responsability for yourself. What you do, is up to you, not us.

Personally, I have responsabilites closer to home that are more important to me. I'm indirectly involved in third world investment, people who do business with me don't all die. All of them earn more money from than they would have if they didn't, and so do I.

That's how business works. Only those people for whom it is beneficial are intrested in getting involved.

And yes, the magnate earns more than the janitor. That's how it works.

If any particular area of African trade does dry up, they will have to do exactly the same as what every other manufacturer on the planet does. Diversify.

Quote[/b] ]You keep bringing in the big fight:

Industry vs environment

This is really all you've got, isn't it.

Capitalism is evil. Industry is versus the enviroment.

There is this great big global conspiracy that when it see's new and cheaper, cleaner, fuel sources deliberately and willfully turns away from them.

All the people buying their cars...look at two cars of the same performance, one is much cheaper to fuel, but everyone refuses to buy that one, they all chose the one that is killing the planet and costs more as a preference.

Energy companies have discovered a way to produce electricity at 1/30th of the cost but no one is actually doing it. They too prefer to pay more. To be less efficient, to get paid less.

This is some cranky stuff.

Capitalism, liberalism..."the status quo".

Are all these nasty words?

There is no big fight, Industry vs Enviroment.

The enviroment you live in, is built and maintained by industry.

Industry is the guardian of your enviroment. It's creator.

Have you read Swamp Thing?  It's a great comic buy Alan Moore. Swamp Thing is a kind of monster/super hero that defends the swamp from pollution. It's a really good one.

You should try it, I think you'll like it a lot.

It's only a comic though.

Quote[/b] ]But all agree on, that higher co2 pressure in the atmoshphear = higher co2 concentrations in our oceans disrupting the food chain.

I don't have anything to offer the discussion on this topic. I have no experience of aquatic food chains. (Do you?)

I highly doubt that everyone agree's. They don't normally.

I personally niether agree nor disagree. It is beyond my realm of experience and knowledge.

Perhaps a fisherman will drop by the thread and be able to shed more light on the matter for us. Either way, I don't know anything about it.

It's not one of my area's of education.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Well, of course if you are not going to believe readings, you are pretty hard to argue with.

As stated earlier, the nature is complex, and even though climate changes occur, they might not be visible to your eye. Simply because we are at the beginning of this likely to be a disaster.

In some areas, the changes will be more significant than others. That is the nature of local and global climate. It all depends on many factors such as how far you live from the ocean, what temperature that ocean is etc. But just because you haven't seen any floods lately, it doesn't mean there isn't a change.

Sure, we don't REALLY know if it's as bad as we can predics, I surely hope not - and I don't REALLY believe that it's going to be the end of the world, but as they say - the worse scenario the more people will awake - people tend to be ignorant on those areas, especially if it's something that is going to hurt their wallet.

But we really DO need to wake up. I don't really see what difference to trueth my recycling habits have? But I assume your habits are driven by your wallet and not your concern for the environment. This could be wrong, of course.

I have read on the subject, and I know alot about closed environmental system as that is part of what I do (Health and Technology engineer), and I have earlier provided sources of my posts, but as noone else did it, it just felt like a waste of time. Also, what I have posted the past 5 pages is all common info on the net, and a fast search on scholar.google.com will help you alot.

I do am sorry, though - I can't use your experience in 'local environment'. And neither can anyone else reading this thread. It's simply irrelevant in the discussion of global environement.

It's not I who keeps bringing industry into the picture, if you read my past posts I will rather have kept it out of here. I still stand at the same point. Convential industry is crucial in the 3rd world countries for the survival of many people. But we need to find alternative energy sources in the 1st world countries decriesing CO2 and other pollution sources.

Quote[/b] ]If any particular area of African trade does dry up, they will have to do exactly the same as what every other manufacturer on the planet does. Diversify.

The problem with Africa is, that the logistics isn't the same as in our countries. They simply doesn't have the choise of diversity. We have to aid them in that. That is why it's simply not enough to have trade with them. They also have to be independant. The western way of production line simply won't fit their environement. You can't centralize food production, as someday soon there will be a transportation blockage resulting in no food in larger areas.

Africa IS different than our countries, so we have to deal with them differently.

Quote[/b] ]Energy companies have discovered a way to produce electricity at 1/30th of the cost but no one is actually doing it. They too prefer to pay more. To be less efficient, to get paid less.

This is some cranky stuff.

Once again, you didn't read my post. I'm not going to repeat myself. Read my original post concerning this. And if necessary, go to the website I provided as well, it's pretty interesting.

[[aps]gnat 28]

The world has gone through Ice ages and warm spells before.

Yeh, but its VERY unlikely any past changes have happened in just the space of 100 years !!!

Whatever the cause, the REAL problem is that the real people in power all around the world who could soften the blow thats to come in 20-50 years, who can make policies now to prevent Millions of ppl dying in the years to come ..... are only elected to serve us between 2-6 years each time

It is not in their best interest to make long term plans now that will prevent them being re-elected in the short term.

(This is not targeted at any country or political party, its just a fact world wide)

[Journeyman 0]

The way I see this interesting argument is that Baff1 will refer to his long personal experience of his own environment/industry/economy and maybe that of close friends/neighbours to fuel his knowledge base on the subject and pretty much refuse to believe anything published on the internet/TV etc. while Espectro relies almost entirely on published articles from said media. Small wonder we have a problem agreeing with anything!

I can understand Baff1’s perspective more than most as I have also hade a lifetime experience with nature. I’ve been in landscaping/arboriculture for over 23 years and have travelled around several isolated communities around the world during my mountaineering days, I am also married to someone from a ‘third world’ country, so I also consider myself to have a fairly good personal knowledge base of the environment. I also get annoyed with being told stuff by local environment officials (read university graduates) how I should be doing certain aspects of my work! But I guess that is just part of life! Wisdom is precious but it isn’t everything!

I don’t fall into Baff1’s category though of only believing what I see with my own eyes as that is shutting out too big a collective knowledge base that we all need to harness. On the other hand I treat what I read and hear with great caution, as there are often hidden motives behind any publication. If I read something on the Internet or see something on TV I don’t suddenly get all excited and start telling everyone! Instead I start sifting through as much alternative sources of that information as I can to try and see if it really does stand up or is just another load of wishy-washy hype from the media!

This doesn’t make me an expert though anymore than anyone else but it just adds another point of view to this debate. As I quoted very early on in this debate I do believe (like Espectro and others) that there are big changes happening with the climate (I have seen this with my own eyes) and I am concerned for the future. For me the environment is changing and these changes could easily turn out to be catastrophic for our current ecosystem . This is why I voted: ‘this is a real problem for the future’ at the poll on top of this thread.

What I don’t agree about though is all the hype about what we should be doing about it! This is where I side with Baff1 because whatever the cause of this sudden change in climate (whether human related or not) we have to be extremely careful how we tackle it. I personally don’t believe that there is much (within the realms of common sense) that we as a collective world can do about it, or at least not without seriously upsetting the economy in such a way that would be far more crippling to our societies than tackling this potential impending climate problem head on as it arrives.

We have quite possibly got a looming climate problem coming our way, but let’s not put ourselves at a economical disadvantage in order to try and stop it because we will not stop it and all we will be doing is putting ourselves at a huge economical and social disadvantage in order to try and survive it! By all means be as green as you can, save energy as much as possible. But we will always just be pissing in the wind whatever we try and do!

This is the way that I see it! I also see all the other business opportunities that are coming from this ‘let’s try and stop climate change’ hype as I have said previously, which is why the reporting of the problem has become so corrupt.  

[walker 0]

Hi all

The poll reflects what the people on this forum think

The percentage of people who think climate change is real and happening in the poll of this thread is rising.

I think Red kite, Kode and Baff1 arguments are coming across as insincere.

Personal experience

Over in my area of the world this week, places flooded due to heavy rains that have never ever flooded before. Those people are seriously pissed off mostly with people who say global warming is not happening. Their houses are flooded because there is more humidity caused by the increase in global temperatures. And every body’s insurance costs have increased. They are up because the insurance companies are having to pay out more cash for more storms and flooding.

When I was a kid we never had tornadoes in England over the past few years we have had them every year and floods in places that don't normally flood, and summer monsoons, winters so dry our reservoirs don't fill, temperature records get broken year on year, we have Barbecues in February in London.

Physics 101

Heat a liquid and it produces vapour. Physics 101

We call the water vapour in the atmosphere humidity, it is the movement of this water vapour in our air by complex chaotic convection currents that cause wind to blow and all of our weather.

On the earth cover the seas in a greenhouse (CO2) it heats up the water producing more water vapour and you get more clouds.

The tops of the clouds are all nice white and fluffy and most importantly reflective, so they reflect back the heat.

We have the beginnings a self regulating system!  

BUT we live under the clouds.

Clouds produce rain and storms and super cells and hurricanes and floods and tornadoes. We call this weather. More water vapour equals more weather.

And while the clouds reflect the sun where they are; the CO2 greenhouse covers the whole planet, so those clouds, well they only make a difference when they are around and the consequences for us living under them is obvious.

Climate is the total energy in the system. The weather is what we get as a result of that energy. When the level of energy is low and steady weather systems tend to be small and smooth. Allow more energy to stay and accelerate its input in to a chaotic system like the earths weather and the systems get larger and starts to oscillate. We get bigger floods, hurricanes, tornadoes etc and they happen more often and are more destructive.

Anybody else notice anything like that?

We can also see the energy in the system because we have satellites that monitor it. The temperature is up, no if buts or maybes. The increase in energy held in the earths systems is undeniable. Those naughty conspirators from NASA and oh wait a second ESA and the Russians and err well everyone with satellite looking at the earth spotted it.

So where is this energy retention coming from?

Red kite, Kode and Baff1. have not got an answer for that one; they can no longer deny the world is warming. So they then try to blind us all with faux science and spin or failing that present us with a pop science conspiracy theory video.

The conspiracy theory claptrap video

Their conspiracy theory revolves around the Governments, NASA, ESA, the Russians, Charities, Tree huggers, Lefties, Oil Speculators, Oil Companies and some unknown shadow group trying to drive down the third world all conspiring in a smoky room.

Only a complete numpty would believe that conspiracy theory. So scratch that Red kite, Kode and Baff1 explanation.

Trying to blind us with science and spin

I will once again explain why none of the science blinding fits:

The science blinding is about putting up other explanations for the increase in global climate temperatures they have been forced to admit to. They say it is caused by other natural things such as volcanoes, tectonic activity sunspots etc. What they are talking about, if they actualy new the science, are trigger events that then release natural green house gasses that actualy raise the temperature holding capacity of our climate.

Our climate is a self regulating system remember those little white fluffy clouds?

But we know from the past that the climate can be triggered to level out at different temperatures. We call these things climate change.

Trigger events for climate change

The Trigger events are:

1) Volcanoes: Eject ash and other aerosols. When in the atmosphere these reflect incoming sunlight thus cooling the Earth.

2) Tectonic activity: continental movement alters our climactic temperature.

3) Orbital variations: Earth orbits vary on time periods of about 25,000, 40,000, and 100,000 years. Sometimes the periods can coincide. Ice age cycles can be tracked to this trigger for millions of years.

4) Internal variability: The climate system is complicated, and internal modes of variability exist. The most well known one in the US is the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During the El Nino phase, the earth is much warmer than during the opposite phase, the La Nina. In europe we worry more about the north atlantic conveyer and Gulf stream that are the North Atlantic Gyre. In India, Australia and southern Africa they worry about the Equatorial currents.

5) Solar variations: The sun is the main energy source for our planet. As the energy of the sun changes, so does the climate.

6) Natural greenhouse gas emission: CO2 and methane are trapped in various forms in the earth, plants and animals trap them in the normal biomass carbon cycle, a lot is trapped in the permafrost in Siberia even more is trapped on layers at the bottom of the oceans, some events such as large earthquakes or other global warming triggers can release this gas

7 human-emitted greenhouse gases: The new kid on the block. This is what we see in the hockey stick graph.

Which Trigger event fits?

I will now explain why each of the other trigger events do not fit the post trigger event continuation in rise of climactic temperature or the period of this trigger event:

1) Volcano's reduce global climactic temperature not raise it; so that is out.

2 & 3) We can immediately rule out tectonic activity and orbital variations they are much much too slow to account for warming over mere decades and anyway I think we would notice new continents or a wobble in the earth.

4) There is no observed Internal variability's that fit the time period, I think we would notice such a thing. El Nino did not precede the climactic temperature rise and does not fit the long period part of the event.

5) No known solar variation events have occurred that cover more than a small part of the recent rise in climactic temperature and in any event they are not of a long enough period to cover the long term record; they require a second factor.

6) We have not had a mass of earthquakes causing the oceans to boil CO2 and methane from the oceans bottom. As to Siberian methane and CO2 emissions they are only triggered by a preceding warming event. The science is well known and for obvious reasons of it being a greenhouse gas multiplier and the real cause of the LONG TERM climactic temperature variation, natural greenhouse gas is being very thoroughly studied.

Conclusion

7)human-emitted greenhouse gases: This is what we see in the hockey stick graph and are the only things that fit the time period as shown in your graph Red Kite. And CO2 has been proven by both Vostok Ice cores and the more recent and thorough Antarctic Deep Core Survey to be the key causal relationship in large scale climactic temperature  variation

Sorry but none of the factors cycles last the length of time we are talking about. Look back at the Vostok Ice cores

Look at the period of temperature change how long are you saying this volcano erupted for? or these sunspots were blasting away? or the el Ninio was in its hot phase? Or the planet had wobbled off its orbit for? Each of them has been disproved they just do not fit the facts.

They are just triggers not the actual effect. CO2 is the major ingredient in energy retention in the climactic temperature. Yes all those factors can trigger increase in natural CO2 release and now so to can human activity AND we have also added additional CO2 to the normal equation.

CO2 DOES NOT APPLY ADDITIONAL ENERGY TO THE EQUATION!

It works by increasing energy holding capacity in the sink.

Look again at Red kite's graph

Can anybody else see the tsunami of extra energy building up in the system?

No climate change scientist is denying that other factors add and reduce total energy in the sink; but as they all point out; none of those trigger factors energy inputs account for more than a smidgen of the total energy alteration in the earths energy sink in any of the paleoclimactic record. Those other trigger factors energy is just too small and not even remotely long lasting enough.

Most importantly of all as I have shown none of the other factors fit the time period of the current warming. They just don’t and no amount of wishing or spin from Red kite, Kode and Baff1 will make them fit.

So not only have we created a new trigger, we keep accumulating additional trigger to the equation AND the trigger is also the key factor in the effect.

You all live in the world is it getting warmer or not?

Red kite, Kode and Baff1 have given their explanation others like myself have given their explanations.

Those who have answered the poll have said what they believe.

Who do you believe?

Kind Regards walker

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

The way I see this interesting argument is that Baff1 will refer to his long personal experience of his own environment/industry/economy and maybe that of close friends/neighbours to fuel his knowledge base on the subject and pretty much refuse to believe anything published on the internet/TV etc. while Espectro relies almost entirely on published articles from said media. Small wonder we have a problem agreeing with anything!

I can understand Baff1’s perspective more than most as I have also hade a lifetime experience with nature. I’ve been in landscaping/arboriculture for over 23 years and have travelled around several isolated communities around the world during my mountaineering days, I am also married to someone from a ‘third world’ country, so I also consider myself to have a fairly good personal knowledge base of the environment. I also get annoyed with being told stuff by local environment officials (read university graduates) how I should be doing certain aspects of my work! But I guess that is just part of life! Wisdom is precious but it isn’t everything!

I don’t fall into Baff1’s category though of only believing what I see with my own eyes as that is shutting out too big a collective knowledge base that we all need to harness. On the other hand I treat what I read and hear with great caution, as there are often hidden motives behind any publication. If I read something on the Internet or see something on TV I don’t suddenly get all excited and start telling everyone! Instead I start sifting through as much alternative sources of that information as I can to try and see if it really does stand up or is just another load of wishy-washy hype from the media!

This doesn’t make me an expert though anymore than anyone else but it just adds another point of view to this debate. As I quoted very early on in this debate I do believe (like Espectro and others) that there are big changes happening with the climate (I have seen this with my own eyes) and I am concerned for the future. For me the environment is changing and these changes could easily turn out to be catastrophic for our current ecosystem . This is why I voted: ‘this is a real problem for the future’ at the poll on top of this thread.

What I don’t agree about though is all the hype about what we should be doing about it! This is where I side with Baff1 because whatever the cause of this sudden change in climate (whether human related or not) we have to be extremely careful how we tackle it. I personally don’t believe that there is much (within the realms of common sense) that we as a collective world can do about it, or at least not without seriously upsetting the economy in such a way that would be far more crippling to our societies than tackling this potential impending climate problem head on as it arrives.

We have quite possibly got a looming climate problem coming our way, but let’s not put ourselves at a economical disadvantage in order to try and stop it because we will not stop it and all we will be doing is putting ourselves at a huge economical and social disadvantage in order to try and survive it! By all means be as green as you can, save energy as much as possible. But we will always just be pissing in the wind whatever we try and do!

This is the way that I see it! I also see all the other business opportunities that are coming from this ‘let’s try and stop climate change’ hype as I have said previously, which is why the reporting of the problem has become so corrupt.

While I do trust my fair share of selected articles, I have seen the climate change myself. I think we all have (well, except for Baff1, who must be living in the third star from the right). You must be blind if you can't see it.

So Red kite. Your point is, that you are more sceptical of the global warming issue, although you see it with your own eyes. You haven't really shown us anything that even remotely sugests that solar activity was the cause of global warming the past 35 years.

As Walker said - theres a huge amount of energy building up - and it's doing so exponential. This energy comes out as wind in our athmosphear which means beatiful tornadoes coming your way. Why is the planet storing more and more energy? Due to CO2 being the 'battery' in the atmospheare. Of course there are other factors, but let's try and remain focused on the things we KNOW will make a change. I don't want any everyday tornado.

Let's try and stop this, ey?

[Baff1 0]

There have always been tornadoes in England, You get them near the coast a lot.

There hasn't always been an abundance of mobile phone camera's to record them.

Big floods occour every 50 years where I live.

Most of the people who live here have never experienced one before. They think it's new, but it isn't. They are.

A lot of the problems with flooding is due to building on flood planes. Not all perhaps, but a lot.

Houses have been recently built on those area's that flood every 50 years.

Look for houses that are hundreds of years old, you will see that they are all mysteriously positioned in the places that aren't flooded.

Everybody is looking for everything to be evidence of Global warming. Spring is late...Global Warming. El nino...Global Warming....a tornado Global warming. An extra cold winter...Global warming. A flood..global warming. Someones beehive died, global warming.

It's the disengage brain answer.

Glaciers aren't static, neither is erosion. Rivers change their course.

It's like buying Coca Coal not Pepsi, we've been branded. Our minds are conditioned to blame Climate Change first. The power of media. When we think about the enviroment, the words "climate change" are thought by each of us. We are conditioned for it. Just as we are to think Coca Cola or Pepsi not Tesco Value Cola, when we think about soft drinks.

We are all out in our daily lifes trying to find evidence of climate change. To see what all the fuss is about. We are looking for it. The harder we look, the more we find. The more we expect to find, the less we question what we find.

It's human nature.

Climate change is certainly occouring, but nothing like at the rate our imaginations suggest.

Baff doesn't deny that the earth is warming. Baff doesn't think Global warming is a conspiracy theory.

Baff thinks it is a popular fashion. A cultural movement.

The in opinion with the in crowd.

A trend.

Limited substance, unlimited hype.

Trigger events.

Quote[/b] ]5) No known solar variation events have occurred that cover more than a small part of the recent rise in climactic temperature and in any event they are not of a long enough period to cover the long term record; they require a second factor.

You forgot to mention that Mars a planet where man does not exist is also experiencing temperature rises at a comparable rate to Earth.

There is significant evidence to support a theory that solar activity is the primary trigger for the current levels of global warming.

I agree that it more likely a combination of factors than any one.

What combination and in what proportion still needs a lot of research. I doubt we will ever really know. Too many variables, too many unmeasurables, too many unforseens.

Satelitte systems.

Satelitte systems are excellent for measuring global temperature and the build up of any contained energy.

This to my mind is the most accurate and reliable data source available. It's really opened up the science.

You should remember however that they have only been up there for 18 years. Given that climate change is normal measured in millenia, it is important not to read too much into a very small data set.

We can accurately tell what has occoured from these measurements, but they are a long way short of providing us an accurate model of either the past or the future.

Google.

What I see with my own eyes will always be more reliable data to me than a Google link telling me about the same thing. First hand information wins.

Talking to an expert in person will alwasy be better than reading an interview with one in the media.

Second hand information beats third hand information.

By the time you get to newspaper/TV reports of what scientists said, you really need heavy BS filters. Sensationalism sells better than cold hard (dull) factual evidence.

I can pretty much find Google links to support any argument I can imagine.

It is a very good resource of information, but it is important to cross reference it with real life experience.

To apply the common sense test to all that you read.

The reason I don't go in for Google link discussions, is that I already have Google.

I've already looked it up myself before I posted.

This kind of conversation adds zero to my knowledge base.

If that's all you have to add, then you have nothing to add.

If that's all you know, then you know no more than anybody else, and quite probably a lot less.

Quote[/b] ]I have read on the subject, and I know alot about closed environmental system as that is part of what I do (Health and Technology engineer)

I don't think you will be seeing a lot of climate change inspecting kitchens. And no, I don't make any money maintaining my little slice of the enviroment. Quite the reverse, it is a very expensive hobby.

I enjoy it, and like Balschow says, it is important to have something to pass on to the next generation.

As for being blind if I can't see climate change where I live, I must be blind then. This must be a braile keyboard. A braile monitor.

You on the other hand must have bionic vision if you can see my place from where you live in a different country.

I can't see it, I'm in a perfect place to see it, but it's not happening here. Obviously with all the hype about it, I have been looking.

My information will only be useful to you if I lie, I guess.

The question is, what are you intending on using this information for?

Quote[/b] ]As Walker said - theres a huge amount of energy building up - and it's doing so exponential. This energy comes out as wind in our athmosphear which means beatiful tornadoes coming your way. Why is the planet storing more and more energy? Due to CO2 being the 'battery' in the atmospheare. Of course there are other factors, but let's try and remain focused on the things we KNOW will make a change. I don't want any everyday tornado.

I agree. Unfortunately, no one does know.

Still now that you think you do know, what are you going to do?

Do you actually believe in what you are saying?

Do you mean it?

I hear a lot of "let's" do this, or "we should" do that, and "we need to"'s from you. But never any I have done's.

Or are you just like so many others saying what you think sounds smart. Saying what your friends say.

Being part of the movement.

Are the words you speak for social gratification alone, or do they actually mean something to you?

We know that saying what you are saying is well received amongst our peers. That people will recognise you to be a socially spirited and intelligent and enlightened young man, but do you really believe it?

It clearly makes sense for you to say all these things, but does it make sense for you to actually act on them?

When it comes to walking the walk, how much of what you are saying actually matters to you?

How much of it do you really believe is true?

Only your actions can say. (Arrest CO2 emissions, turn off your PC! ) .

Are you going to tell us what we can do, or are you going to tell us what you are doing.

Fashion or substance. Which are you?

[Journeyman 0]

Those who have answered the poll have said what they believe.

Who do you believe?

So are you trying to get forum votes or something? What the ‘giggledygook’ has anyone else’s opinion (whether majority or not) got to do with this debate? The media in any case influences most people’s decisions!

And to top it all off you obviously haven’t read a single word of my last post (or probably any other)!  .... To quote myself...

Quote[/b] ]For me the environment is changing and these changes could easily turn out to be catastrophic for our current ecosystem . This is why I voted: ‘this is a real problem for the future’ at the poll on top of this thread.

What you are saying in your incredibly well put post that climate change is real .... Isn’t that what I have said also? To go on and debate whether more or less or most or neither of it is 'man made' is a complete waste of time! You have failed to make a single contribution about what we should be doing about it!

As far as I can see 'what we should or shouldn't be doing about it' is a far more important issue than the ongoing arguments as to who or what is or isn't to blame for it or in what proportions!

Like Baff1 says chances are it is a whole combination of many factors both natural and man made. Who gives a shit anymore! ...Unless any of you clever 'environmentalists' have got the perfect answer to halt it your just wasting space here!