Changing environment due to pollution

[mrcash2009 0]

Google "Iron Mountain Report".

[Avoidable 10]

The good times are over for the green movement. There's going to be a lot of cuts and they are top of everyones list.

Good times will be over for the species if scientific opinion is right.

The ecomonmy that you don't want people ruining won't help you when it's stuffed as a result of hyperinflation from food shortages and what not.

People will lose jobs due to lack of demand for luxury items since consumers will be struggling to buy the basics.

Those cuts that will be reserved for the green movement will be shifted onto the poor, but they won't be employment cuts.

If its true it won't be an overnight transition, but it will become harder and harder. Peoples lifestyle will take a hit, which would be ironic since the general lifestyle of the west has been noted as the major contributor to the whole issue and its what pro climate reps want changed.

I might be wrong, and it'll be awesome if I am, but I think it'd be preferable not to test the scientific theory to find out.

They might be wrong about smoking too, god I miss smoking

(Edited for spacing, posted originally on a blackberry :o)

Edited December 1, 2009 by Avoidable

[GoOB 0]

The interesting thing is that most if not all industrial companies save money by moving towards polluting less, this goes for both greenhouse gases and more directly harmful pollution like mercury and so on and so forth. Companies will save in two ways; Increased efficiency of production and having to pay a smaller emissions tax, a tax that atleast in Sweden was in place long before the "climate scare". It might cost companies money to move towards these changes, but in the long run it will save them money as opposed to costing them money.

In the long run I think there will be more benefits in striving to shift towards less emissions than wallowing around in the same coal infused mud that we started to wallow in during the industrial revolution. Even if there is no truth behind the scientific consensus that seems to have been established, what exactly can be bad about shifting towards energies and industry models that strives to minimize pollution? Without having to buy oil, gas or coal nations without these resources save money, there is no need to rely on (sometimes shaky) relations with Russia or the middle east. That and we can hopefully continue to enjoy nature that is still somewhat unspoiled.

I just cannot see the benefits of not changing and developing means to pollute less. Except the fact not changing, and instead stagnating seems to be a rather comfortable route to take.

[Baff1 0]

New doesn't = better.

If you have the optimum solution already, changing it for the hope of future gains mistake.

We already don't have to buy oil, gas and coal. We don't have to, we want to.

History has proven to us exactly how much better our lives can be if we do.

Good times will be over for the species if scientific opinion is right.

OOO scarey.

I'm quaking in my boots.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Baff1

[riffleman 20]

Not good so,when anyone suffer with pollution effect than he can understand very well what is it.

From sitting in luxury and hygiene condtion you can not say anything about pollution.

[GoOB 0]

New doesn't = better.

If you have the optimum solution already, changing it for the hope of future gains mistake.

We already don't have to buy oil, gas and coal. We don't have to, we want to.

History has proven to us exactly how much better our lives can be if we do.

I just cannot see how coal, gas and oil is the optimum solution. It certainly is a convenient solution, we already have the powerplants to burn these resources. But the fact of the matter is that these resources will dry up, atleast when it comes to oil and natural gas that point may be rather close for two large suppliers of European oil. Relatively speaking ofcourse, but Denmark and Norways own figures say that their oil exporting jig will be up by 2015. So that means atleast two of the most reliable and comfortable exporters of raw oil will rather soon be out of the game. And when they are indeed out of the game, Britain for instance will once again be reliant on dealing with the middle east and or russia for it's oil and natural gas. Something you cleary do not want, as seen by the fact that you moved away from middle eastern oil in the late 70's.

I still do not see the benefits of not developing and changing the way we extract electricity from this earth. And as said, I am discounting the "enviromental scare" here. There is more to gain from developing new sources of energy than sticking to the old ones like they were some ancient, underground gospel from the cretaceous period. Not changing or evolving because you might have the option to comfortably sit back also "gains mistake".

But I am sure you know energy policy better than the British government that aims for 20% renewable energy by 2020, the Danish government who already uses 17% renewable energy, the German government that has acheived 15% renewable energy (with the aim of reaching a 100%) and ofcourse the Swedish government who uses 39% renewable energy. It would seem these nations, amongst many others disagree with the "optimum solution" of continuing to burn fossilated matter for energy. Renewable energy is cheaper and cleaner... The only positive thing about coal, oil and gas is that the infrastructure for these energy sources is already in place - That however does not make them in any way superior, it just makes them first.

[vilas 478]

one small note:

in some very scientific and demanding knowledge areas - a lot of people say "i don't agree with scientists"

who are them to dare doubt in scientists' opinions ?

are they doctors of chemistry, doctors of medicine, doctors of environmental science to "know better" ?

or simply "my one car burn 25 liters, other too, so i doubt in pollution and global warming and etc."

okay, 2-nd December, Poland, Warsaw... do i see snow ?

no... i see people with untied jackets and no hats

okay - is it smoke, is it sheep farting, is it just globe axis turn - whatever... i don't demean peoples' with profesors' degree reports

pollution and alergy - those are for me clear, but concerning "warming causes" i won't say anything

but i have "only" MSc, sometimes people with secondary school "knows better" than PhD etc.

some people are too self confident, some are ignorants to facts or not understand facts, some completely others have philosophy "the more i learn, the more i see how far i am from being perfect"

if you criticize scientists - what is your education level ?

if you are also doctor and you know they lie for some "lobby" - okay, hats off

if you are not educated but you "know better" and you "no need to believe" - you are ignorant as*** or simply too young and in time you will change opinion (when i was young i had other opinions, i was also self-confident much more than now)

that's my opinion

that's why me, as engineer in one area, not dare to questioning those reports - simply i am too small to dare judge such reports

thats why i focused in my posts on pollution, on allergy < i know it and i see it around me (i wrote about cooperating with market surveillance in previous page )

but for heaven sake i have no opinion when it comes to global warming effects

maybe for some people who doubt in other's opinions this post will help, they maybe ask themselves questions "why?"

i think "why" is one of most important questions in life, if you "know" "believe" and not question - you are fool, wise man tries to understand "why" , stupid man "knows better"

so maybe dear gents we focus on pollution, alergy - those that we can judge as normal people

let's not mess with global warming

topic is "changing environment due to pollution" not "cause of raising temperature level"

if someone of you deny human-industry-cause for warming - you mislead topic

cause you concentrate on "temperature", while "pollution" is : allergic kid , people poisoned by food, people poisoned by products, dying trees , sneezing and eyes crying etc.

pollution is when you buy boots and they unglue and you have to throw them into trash after 3 months

pollution is when your cake is not packed in paper, but in your trash bin there is kilo of PE, PP etc.

and knowledge issue about pollution (what i said , when one man have TV station, his friend has poisoning plant, will you know about it?)

global warming is "famous word", and discussion went to it too much, as we (here) cannot judge scientist reports about temperature effect causes, such discussion is pointless

global warming is just one of terms and i divide it from "pollution"

i cannot see "temperature effect cause", but i can see "fishing forbidden" near lake and water too dirty to see depth of lake

i can hear my family members (4 work as medics) saying "more and more newborn and kids are allergic"

in some european countries - market surveillance and ecological knowledge/conscience is big, supported by TV and press

in other countries "big companies lobby" choke such knowledge , thanx to internet we can know more

if we chat about "Changing environment due to pollution" - yes, damn, pollution changes world around very much and very against us - normal people

we don't earn so much as polluters owners - to buy water from some clean areas (we use water from sink in wall/kitchen/bathroom) , to buy fresh air by going for month holidays to clean area, we don't have money for expensive exclusive super clean food etc.

one who pollutes earns killing us

Edited December 2, 2009 by vilas

[riffleman 20]

Here electricity generated from water,which i think very good.in country water is main source but thermal power are there also.which i did't like.

[Avoidable 10]

OOO scarey.

I'm quaking in my boots.

Relax mate, you won't need to worry. It'll just be your kids left with the crap, or their kids etc. But you'll be fine.

[Baff1 0]

OOO scarey.

Think of the children!

I just cannot see how coal, gas and oil is the optimum solution. It certainly is a convenient solution, we already have the powerplants to burn these resources. But the fact of the matter is that these resources will dry up, atleast when it comes to oil and natural gas that point may be rather close for two large suppliers of European oil. Relatively speaking ofcourse, but Denmark and Norways own figures say that their oil exporting jig will be up by 2015. So that means atleast two of the most reliable and comfortable exporters of raw oil will rather soon be out of the game. And when they are indeed out of the game, Britain for instance will once again be reliant on dealing with the middle east and or russia for it's oil and natural gas. Something you cleary do not want, as seen by the fact that you moved away from middle eastern oil in the late 70's.

I still do not see the benefits of not developing and changing the way we extract electricity from this earth. And as said, I am discounting the "enviromental scare" here. There is more to gain from developing new sources of energy than sticking to the old ones like they were some ancient, underground gospel from the cretaceous period. Not changing or evolving because you might have the option to comfortably sit back also "gains mistake".

But I am sure you know energy policy better than the British government that aims for 20% renewable energy by 2020, the Danish government who already uses 17% renewable energy, the German government that has acheived 15% renewable energy (with the aim of reaching a 100%) and ofcourse the Swedish government who uses 39% renewable energy. It would seem these nations, amongst many others disagree with the "optimum solution" of continuing to burn fossilated matter for energy. Renewable energy is cheaper and cleaner... The only positive thing about coal, oil and gas is that the infrastructure for these energy sources is already in place - That however does not make them in any way superior, it just makes them first.

It's not the same for everyone mate. I don't live in Sweden. I don't live in a desert.

Bully for Sweden that it can generate 39% of it's electricity from renewables.

The country can only support a few million people. We can't all move there.

British oil hasn't been enough to support us for long long time now mate.

Why did you think we invaded Kuwait and Iraq.

Now I understand that if you come from a country with nothing to trade and no military to protect it's foreign assets that domestic supply is more important to you than it is to us.

But for us, we have plenty of coal. Loads of it. We don't have plenty of valleys to flood and turn into giant hydro dams. We have oil fields built all round the world, (including Russia) and if the people of Denmark or Norway wish to buy oil or coal from us, we will sell it to them cheaper than the prices they are paying on renewbale energy farming such as solar or wind power.

We love you guys. It will be a pleasure. You don't have to rely on the Russians if you don't want to.

And far from running out, we are discovering more. Every day. More oil more gas. We just keep finding more and more and inventing cheaper and cheaper ways of getting it to you.

The British government has indeed promised to deliver 20% renewable energy by whenever it is. Which as it turns out is a bit of a problem as we can''t afford to pay for overpriced electricity any more. Our economy collapsed right after they signed up to that stupity.

(Lets face it, our ecnomy never had much chance with those kinds of people running it).

Germany's 15% renewable energy has all been subsidied by the state and is costing them more over all. They have coal in abundance just as we do. There is no prospect of them running out in 5 years time.

Thet are the worlds largest manufaturer of the internal combustion engine. The very idea that Germans should be bothered about CO2 pollution is a joke on an epic scale. Their entire economy is dependant on it.

And yet they do worry about it. They are paying for more expensive electricity just because they do. Making their cars more expnsive to buy and selling less of them because of it.

It's a luxury item, and we're all feeling the pinch. So we will be cutting down on luxuries not spending more for the time being.

I'm not saying to you that if you live next ato Hydro electric plant in Sweden you need to switch to coal. But planet wide, coal's the big one. It's a resource far more reliable than sunlight or the wind and far easier to harness.

And if it happens to be running out where you live, no need to worry, this is a global economy. You can always trade for it.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Baff1

[ICE-Raver 10]

I posted earlier that I was in agreement about climate change. Now I want to retract that stance. Since "email-gate" has surfaced I have changed my opinion about this farce for the most part.

Furthermore if you are overly concerned about global warming, you need to get off the net.

Do some research about how much energy you are using surfing the web, doing emails and stuff and realize you're a major part of the problem you are railing against.

---------- Post added at 12:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 PM ----------

one small note:

in some very scientific and demanding knowledge areas - a lot of people say "i don't agree with scientists"

who are them to dare doubt in scientists' opinions ?

are they doctors of chemistry, doctors of medicine, doctors of environmental science to "know better" ?

or simply "my one car burn 25 liters, other too, so i doubt in pollution and global warming and etc."

okay, 2-nd December, Poland, Warsaw... do i see snow ?

no... i see people with untied jackets and no hats

okay - is it smoke, is it sheep farting, is it just globe axis turn - whatever... i don't demean peoples' with profesors' degree reports

pollution and alergy - those are for me clear, but concerning "warming causes" i won't say anything

but i have "only" MSc, sometimes people with secondary school "knows better" than PhD etc.

some people are too self confident, some are ignorants to facts or not understand facts, some completely others have philosophy "the more i learn, the more i see how far i am from being perfect"

if you criticize scientists - what is your education level ?

if you are also doctor and you know they lie for some "lobby" - okay, hats off

if you are not educated but you "know better" and you "no need to believe" - you are ignorant as*** or simply too young and in time you will change opinion (when i was young i had other opinions, i was also self-confident much more than now)

that's my opinion

that's why me, as engineer in one area, not dare to questioning those reports - simply i am too small to dare judge such reports

thats why i focused in my posts on pollution, on allergy < i know it and i see it around me (i wrote about cooperating with market surveillance in previous page )

but for heaven sake i have no opinion when it comes to global warming effects

maybe for some people who doubt in other's opinions this post will help, they maybe ask themselves questions "why?"

i think "why" is one of most important questions in life, if you "know" "believe" and not question - you are fool, wise man tries to understand "why" , stupid man "knows better"

so maybe dear gents we focus on pollution, alergy - those that we can judge as normal people

let's not mess with global warming

topic is "changing environment due to pollution" not "cause of raising temperature level"

if someone of you deny human-industry-cause for warming - you mislead topic

cause you concentrate on "temperature", while "pollution" is : allergic kid , people poisoned by food, people poisoned by products, dying trees , sneezing and eyes crying etc.

pollution is when you buy boots and they unglue and you have to throw them into trash after 3 months

pollution is when your cake is not packed in paper, but in your trash bin there is kilo of PE, PP etc.

and knowledge issue about pollution (what i said , when one man have TV station, his friend has poisoning plant, will you know about it?)

global warming is "famous word", and discussion went to it too much, as we (here) cannot judge scientist reports about temperature effect causes, such discussion is pointless

global warming is just one of terms and i divide it from "pollution"

i cannot see "temperature effect cause", but i can see "fishing forbidden" near lake and water too dirty to see depth of lake

i can hear my family members (4 work as medics) saying "more and more newborn and kids are allergic"

in some european countries - market surveillance and ecological knowledge/conscience is big, supported by TV and press

in other countries "big companies lobby" choke such knowledge , thanx to internet we can know more

if we chat about "Changing environment due to pollution" - yes, damn, pollution changes world around very much and very against us - normal people

we don't earn so much as polluters owners - to buy water from some clean areas (we use water from sink in wall/kitchen/bathroom) , to buy fresh air by going for month holidays to clean area, we don't have money for expensive exclusive super clean food etc.

one who pollutes earns killing us

LOL @ all the people trying to change the name from global warming to other things now.

Edited December 3, 2009 by ICE-Raver

[grub 10]

Furthermore if you are overly concerned about global warming, you need to get off the net.

Do some research about how much energy you are using surfing the web, doing emails and stuff and realize you're a major part of the problem you are railing against.

LOL @ all the people trying to change the name from global warming to other things now.

I'm on green power here buddy. :)

I always thought global warming was the same as "the greenhouse effect" which has a lot to do with pollution. For those of you not familiar with this - its the middle of winter. Its freezing cold but the sun is out. Inside a greenhouse the suns rays can get in but not out, thus heating up the "house" even though its freezing outside.

It is the same with the earth, this thick layer of man made s*** is preventing the suns rays from escaping thus heating the earth and keeping in a lot of the suns radiation, which if you've ever been at extremely high altitudes you will become exposed.

The holes in the ozone layer are 1) proven scientifically to exist and 2) again caused by pollution. CFC gases were getting around at a rampant rate for a while there and were being used in all sorts of products that like Vilas stated get thrown out in 3 months or have an excessive amount of packaging.

David Suzuki stated back in the nineties that if we "sorted out our emissions now (90's) the ozone layer would start to heal itself by 2020. That long you say, well. He also said that if we continue to not do anything then it will never heal, he gave us till two thousand and something. This was back in the nineties.

I think the world could learn something from Germany and other European nations when it comes to alternate solutions. Google Germany's recycling system and their attitude toward packaging. I think you'll all be pleasantly surprised. They truly are world leaders in the field.

Also there was a documentary I watched about plastic a couple of months ago and holy s*** have we f***ed up there. It showed these particular parts where cold and warm parts of the ocean meet causing a circular churning effect. Riddled with plastic bottles and bags and animal dead due to entanglement. We're just a f***ing disease. Check it out, I cant remember the name but it really makes you sad. It mentions the amount of oil used in one water bottle so it pays to but one and refill.

It also shows you what good things people are doing with plastic through engineering/construction to art. Very cool stuff. If I think of the name I'll post it.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Grub

[riffleman 20]

India decide to cut 20% emission,ready to raise voice with developing countries.we are one week away of summit.i make some painting and show it in exhibition.it rocks.

[Baff1 0]

The holes in the ozone layer are 1) proven scientifically to exist and 2) again caused by pollution. CFC gases were getting around at a rampant rate for a while there and were being used in all sorts of products that like Vilas stated get thrown out in 3 months or have an excessive amount of packaging.

David Suzuki stated back in the nineties that if we "sorted out our emissions now (90's) the ozone layer would start to heal itself by 2020. That long you say, well. He also said that if we continue to not do anything then it will never heal, he gave us till two thousand and something. This was back in the nineties.

Would that be the same hole in the ozone layer that isn't operating as a greenhouse in the Antartic and is believed to be the reason why the ice fields there have been steadily growing there for the last 40 years instead of melting?

David Suzuki. Lol.

As soon as you start making stupid predictions like David Suzuki, you will find yourself getting laughed at.

You know what I mean? In the nineties the hole in the ozone layer was going to kill us all. (just like the impending ice age was in the 70's, and the impending meteor strike in the 80's). And now it turns out it was saving us all along. And now we've fixed it and it's healing, and when it is fully healed, we are all going to die!!!

At what point do I stop listening to these idiots? At the point where they predict a cataclysm.

So scarey!!!

I cannot count the amount of impending cataclysms mankind has faced in my life time.

How could I have survived so many.

I think the risk of mankind dying out is an acceptable one compared to the risk of listening to fools.

There is always an impending cataclysm. Always will be. I remember everyone at school waiting for Nostradamus' end of the world, (hopefully arriving before my teacher asked me for my homework that I hadn't done). And here we all are, still waiting.

Also, you may be on green power, but your ISP is not. This bulletin board? It's not on Green power either.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Baff1

[grub 10]

Right...

So when were these findings published and where and by whom?

If its not a fully independent, unbiased assessment of things I tend not to read too much into it as its most likely funded by BHP Billiton.

Big business' always ask (hire) scientists (blokes in coats) to do some research (cool graphs) on the environmental impact their company is having. We see it all the time. And just because its no longer in the news doesn't mean its not going on. Its like earlier this year petrol dropped back to $1.00 AUD from $1.50. Then it slowly went back up to around $1.20 everyone started talking about it instead of weather. Media was all over it as an atrocity to working families, how will we all cope. The price then dropped back to a dollar and all went calm again. It currently sits at $1.24 and no one gives a s*** why? Because its not on the news.

You accuse me of listening to fools and yet its highly probable that your information comes from a different set of fools. Until you and I have gotten together and done some research ourselves we cannot take anything as truth. Don't ya think?

David might be wrong but so might every other ass. I'll always be open to other opinions provided they are unbiased in their research.

My opinions are formed around what I see is happening and what is plausible.

I still think we're trashing this rock though. This planet is like a top S*** computer. Everything in it, microscopic to things the size of opera in the 90's has an integral part to play and without them things start to work differently or not at all. I live in a country that has been "colonised" and all the fauna that came over has greatly affected things here. As has mining and bulk coastal industry. You can see the differences and their not a good thing. It does affect things.

Its not good, I don't care where your from.

[trickster1982 10]

Yet again the arrogant human race thinking it is the be all & end all of planet earth :rolleyes: if we die out as a species, so what? the earth & nature will carry on just fine & probably better without us!I hate all this "our childrens children" crap. The planet was far warmer in different periods of history as well as a lot colder at times! near York in the UK there were vineyards in medieval times because it was warm enough to grow grapes there, good luck trying it now it would be too damned cold!The climate is changing all the time, we've only been keeping accurate records for a couple of hundred years compared to the age of the earth which is millions so what do we really know other than eggheads/government sponsered theories which might not even be correct?

This climate change lobby is becoming like a religion at the moment,anybody who disagrees or is indifferent is treated with contempt, and the government rubs its hands with glee because they can use it to impose a whole host of "green" (or guilt) taxes which will actually do nothing whatsoever for climate change. The hypocrisy of the green lobby bleating at those of us who fly once or twice a year on holiday or drive a car, while they jet off all over the world every 5 minutes to talk about climate change is astonishing!

[Baff1 0]

The green lobby are tossers mate. The holier than thou brigade.

They like to beat people with their superior moralities to compensate for whatever it is that's bugging them.

If it wasn't "green" it would be some other just cause.

But when push comes to shove, they want everyone else to pay their price for them. They don't have the balls to go and live in cave.

Crying on about what the world will be like for their children, when if they were truly green principled, they won't be having any children.

David might be wrong but so might every other ass. I'll always be open to other opinions provided they are unbiased in their research..

My sources are not a different set of fools to yours, they are the very same fools. NASA.

The key to this one is there is no such thing as unbiased research.

You won't consider research unbiased if it is independantly financed, and I won't consider it unbiased if it is governmently financed.

Neither will I consider it unbiased research if a man employed to study global warming says "global warming is very dangerous and needs more research".

I am intrinsicaly skeptical of anyone in such a position saying such a thing.

They have an uphill battle trying to persuade me because they have a clear personal bias from the outset and anything they see must be viewed through this filter.

What was he going to say, it's all fine. "Please terminate my well paid contract that I have trained for 5 years so that I can sign on or work at MacDonalds instead"?

Likewise when the Saudi Government says there is no global warming, they too have a clear and obvious bias through which I filter their comments.

If I had to choose between "big business" and an inter-governmental agency I would obviously choose Big Business as being the most transparent and publicly accountable.

Although I think it's fair to say most people would easily recognise the natural bias of both. To imagine that people somehow don't see that an oil company researching CO2 pollution has an agenda is taking a little far I think. Everyone read comic books as a child. We all get the idea.

My opinions are also formed by what I see happening.

And what I see happening is a after a string of mild winters, people claiming the world is over heating, just as after a string of cold winters I saw them claiming it was going into an ice age.

My garden is also colonised by plants from all over the planet. And for me, it is good. I eat well. I am surrounded by beauty.

This also contributes to my personal research. I have a pretty good test lab of bio diversity here that all thrives or flounders on the minutest changes in the enviroment.

How you can consider all the mining and industry in your country as "not a good thing" is quite beyond me.

Perhaps you prefer the Aboriginal life? Considering you are using a computer to talk with me I don't think so.

Big Business and industry, the bugbears that haunt you, are the things that have raised man out of subsistence farming roles.

When you side against them, you are just mad. Plain and simple. Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And here I predict a cataclysm of equal proportion as one caused by Global Warming. With as many people dying or more. On a much shorter time frame.

All that needs to be done is the price of energy raised worldwide and people will begin to starve. It will start in Africa and China and the poorest places and it will spread. And people in richer countries will lose their jobs and the chain reaction will feed on itself. Not in 10, 50 or a hundred years time but right now today. It's already happening. It's an ongoing crisis that mankind has yet to escape from.

It's an imaginary crisis in the future and we are in the midst of an immediate and very real one.

You see, the real problem with Global Warming, is that however bad it is going to get, the cure is worse than the disease.

Luckily however I don't believe it is going to get that bad. Certainly current data trends have it getting better not worse. And I'm a typically optimistic person.

Neither do I believe that idiot greens will take over the world and force people to abandon the industries that keep them alive and wealthy that allows for record levels of human population, record heights of child mortality, record life spans.

But they will try.

They always do. There will always be fools anywhere there is people. The trick is not allowing them any influence over your life.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Baff1

[vilas 478]

If I had to choose between "big business" and an inter-governmental agency I would obviously choose Big Business as being the most transparent and publicly accountable.

never heard bigger bullshit

back to what i wrote, who are you to doubt in reports of people with scientific degree

how old are you ? are you doctor of chemistry degree ?

[Baff1 0]

I'm 39

I don't have a doctorate in chemistry.

Common sense> chemistry degree.

Sorry but there it is.

And for what it's worth I have met and do meet a lot of people with science degrees from the worlds top univeristies.

Common sense and scientists aren't readily associated with each other.

I have reason to doubt anyone who directly financially profits from holding a certain opinion. Anyone and everyone.

It is natural and correct to apply a filter of skepticism to any person with an obvious bias.

This is the common sense approach.

If you have a chemistry degree and you are paid to learn more about "Global Warming" it is not in your personal intrest nor the personal intrests of any of your peers to discover that there is no problem and you are in fact more useful to society working in MacDonalds.

So no one expects Global Warming researchers not to find any evidence of Global warming. You pay them to find it they find it.

What else were you expecting them to find?

It's just common sense mate. The world isn't about to end.

Ooo big bad business! So evil. LMAO.

I doubt the reports of my government. They like me do not have chemistry degree's either. I have equal expertise as them on the subject and equal access to the science. Unlike them, I'm not getting paid to say this stuff, I don't need to constantly say popular sounding things to keep my job. I don't have a hidden agenda to pursue.

Who am I? I am any mans equal.

I'm an educated man with the time and all the tools I need to study most subjects at university degree level.

If I want a doctorate in Chemistry I can get one. If I felt I needed one to validate my opinion or better understand the science of the subject matter, perhaps I would.

How old are you? Do you have a Chemistry Degree? Have you used this degree to re-create any of the same experiments in your own studies?

Who are you to vouch for their opinions?

Edited December 6, 2009 by Baff1

[ICE-Raver 10]

The scientists with "degrees" are the ones making up false data, and trying to bury any data that goes against their propaganda.

Leaked emails were a huge black eye for these guys.

[vilas 478]

busines only want sell and money, not take care about life of people, behavior of business was many times visible when companies were polluting or poisoning ground

do i have degree ? thats why i wrote site ago my opinion about discussions in warming already

when some people who have no idea about such science want to discuss scientific report it is silly

this is the same level of silliness as discussion of two deaf about which band plays better by looking at clip

Edited December 6, 2009 by vilas

[Baff1 0]

Business makes money so that people can live their lives.

It cares about people because it is constructed from people. It's very purpose is to provide for people.

I know for you it's an evil anti-communist bugbear, but mate. Try and get over all the comic book stuff.

It's not just businesses that have polluted grounds. Governments have too.

Nuclear testing, nuclear waste, they kind of leave busuiness in the little league.

And while we are at it, it's not just businesses and governments that pollute. It's individuals too.

So do you have a dregree or not mate?

I just want to know why you think you are qualified to know who is able to make informed decisions about science or not?

Are you a teacher? Do you know what qualificatios are required to understand the subject matter.

By the age of 18 all good students should be equiped the the educational tools they need to understand a wide variety of subjects at degree level.

Understanding scientific method is perhaps one of the most common of those fundamental skills that I expect students in my country to have grasped by the age of 11.

You may think you need to be a rocket science, but I don't.

Enviromentalism isn't "high science", it's standard geography.

[vilas 478]

hahahahaha

you show typical american way of thoughts

if someone say that greedy management not care about anything than own big profits (including poisoning activity against environment) than he is communist???

than every sane man is communist too :)

do i have degree ?

MSC , 2002 ended university of technology and because of respect i would not dare to questioning reports of people with professor's degree or doctor's degree, cause the more i learn, the more i see how far i am from being good and the more i need to know

only arrogants and over-self confident ignorants could dare to questioning reports made by scientists, not being scientists themselves

and i work with doctors of chemistry cause i work in one of agencies that also cooperate with market surveillance and i know what greedy companies management do "to have more money"

every educated man, who is trustworthy do not questionize scientists if he has no specialization in mentioned area of science

and if you say about 18 years old ... o god, in PL it is not even secondary school (US college/high school ) finished

students by age of 11 ?

what have you drunk/smoke/injected ???

11 is KID, small KID, not someone who understand anything like global warming

It's not just businesses that have polluted grounds. Governments have too.

Nuclear testing, nuclear waste, they kind of leave busuiness in the little league.

And while we are at it, it's not just businesses and governments that pollute. It's individuals too.

with this i can agree

but rest looks like one joint too much today, 11 years kids understanding scientific methods, 18 years old (still only primary education level) boys educated to understand science reports by professors and doctors... it really sounds like insane man gibberish

kids having 11 years old not know where is Germany, France, Argentina, they not know what happened in 1492, 1789, 1791, 1905 etc. and you call them students ?????????

children, not students !

small children,

18 years old has no "life knowledge"

what i see - complete lack of any humility for people with scientific knowledge and their researches that not fit US lifestyle 25 litters burning engine of 6 litters, 8 cylinders pickup , 3 cars, etc.

i have such humility, cause i have "only" MSc, not "so damn proud" , cause i am far below their knowledge, which i see in some researches laboratories that i visit from time to time , cooperating with market surveillance

big business do mass products, they use many technologies to make "as cheap as possible" and it pollutes, cause for example no cleaning water after process etc.

Edited December 6, 2009 by vilas

[Baff1 0]

I'm quite comfortable with communism, capitalism and the U.S. Thanks.

It's all good.

Big business great! Bring it on. I own lots of it.

I don't disrespect the science, it's the politics I disrespect.

A lot of people confuse the two.

The guys sticking thermometers in the sea day and night? If they say the temperature is such and such a degree, who am I to argue with the science.

It doesn't take Albert Einstein to do that and if a 12 year olds did that I probably wouldn't argue either.

In fact 12 year olds do do that. A lot of that weather centre data is taken from school weatherboxes around the globe. When I was 12 that's what I was doing.

Yes, boys are educated to understand reports written by doctors and professors. Aren't schools marvellous things.

Not just educated to understand them, but able to participate in them. You see it's just not that technical. You look at the thermometer, and you write down what it says. No PHD needed.

Perhaps you have an over-inflated opinion of your self worth? Perhaps you think your education is somehow far deeper than everyone elses. Frankly I doubt it is.

In my country scientific method is taught to all 11 year olds. You don't need to be the worlds greatest scientist to understand it, everyone here does. Even the children.

Everyone and his dog here understands Global Warming. They teach it in all the schools. They teach it in the newspapers, they teach it on TV. And yes, they do teach the kids here about it in primary school.

If you think that's impressive wait until you see the Korean primary school kids building robots in class.

The purpose of a secondary school is to prepare students for university.

By 18 you should have all the study skills you need ready to understand and learn your specialised subjects.

You should have already studied the works of doctors and professors, you should have already studied under doctors and professors.

If any of my students ever felt that they were not equiped to take on the subjects of their choice I would be deeply unhappy about it. It's not for me to teach young people their place, it is for me to equip them with the tools to prosper in any field they wish.

Not to teach them that they can never know as much as a professor but to equip them with the tools to become a professor themselves or to work alongside professors and doctors should they wish to.

If where you live 18 year olds are still in primary, I'm very surprised.

18 might not be old enough for life knowledge, but it is certainly old enough for academic ability.

I'm old enough for both. Older than you.

I'm the same amount older than you, than you are older than them. If they are kids to you, then you are a kid to me.

I was around for the last two big global enviromental scares. My life knowledge has seen this all before. In ten years time when we have moved on to the next one, so will have you.

Edited December 6, 2009 by Baff1

[vilas 478]

If where you live 18 year olds are still in primary, I'm very suprised.

primary 7-15 (8 years )

secondary 15-19/20, so if someone is 18, he not graduated (finished) secondary finished "Matura" exam that allows to enter university, or "technician" if someone learn in technical secondary 5 years old school (electronic, electrician, car mechanics, nurse)

if someone not finished secondary, than he is primary, like if you not get sergeant, you are corporal ...

student is 19-24/25 (law, medicine 6 years, not 5 like other universities) university is called "higher school", as i know in america "high school" or "college" is name for our "secondary",

other thing is seeing temperature in termometer

(in Poland since few years we have no winters , no snow comparing to what i remember from 80's, 90's)

other thing is understanding is report about cause of raising temperature - false of truth

every one can use thermometer and see that temperature raises, no winters, etc.

some ice turn into water on Himalaya etc.

mountaineer moan they don't have ski tourists since 2-3 years cause no snow in Tatra

other thing is cause of global warming effect

this you cannot understand, scientists reports say about "reasons"

and neither 11, nor 18 years old boy won't understand something, which is learned at university or during long researches across the globe

in US (as i see from TV) there is snow, in Poland, since few years almost no snow comparing to my childhood

our army never had ripstop uniforms, since 5 years there are issued ripstop uniforms

while 20 years ago i remember all those wool-cotton thick shirts

now ripstop is issued

i see warming, but i not dare to discuss reason of it, cause i am "only" MSc in technics (not environment), i could discuss it if i was doctor (in such areas, not for example mechanics, electronics and other specialization different than chemistry, environment etc.)

you seems to think about yourself that you are smarter than professors who made reports ??

you and your 11 years olds kids know reason for temperature raise in globe and how big influence is of human activity on it and in what percentage every factor appears ???

if something is made by people after scientific researches - i don't dare to discuss it without being environmental or chemistry or other science scientist

but what can i do if in some countries young people were taught about other history than facts and etc.

maybe there are places on earth where people learn that 2 + 2 = 5

i won't discuss "reasons and factors" for global warming, cause i feel not competent to it

but when i see people demeaning reports made by scientists after researches i feel sick

also this whole (like Militias from Texas forests or wherever they hide preparing to "war with sionistic gov" like they write on their websites as all those "legions of Christ" and etc. ) distrust to governmental researches and etc. compared to business ?

business only care about money and nothing more than money

like in my country - if punishment for polluting air is 50 000, and filtr/cleaner for chimney cost 300 000 , than plant prefer to pollute, cause "more money for another Lexus than making cleaning system"

also there were accidents with WalMart and people who sue them, known even here, in Europe from French TV Planete

if for big company throwing poison to river is cheaper than building cleaning systems - they poison people, to have another palace for director, cause greedy beast in most expensive suit and Rolex watch wants another palace, than some kids will be ill, some allergic, some will die, cause beast is hungry for millions of dollars and 3 houses on every coast

lol

Edited December 6, 2009 by vilas