Page
1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by legjoints:
Saying "we should..." is not quite the same as telling someone what to do, nor is it demanding.
 You should stop telling us not to fly. quote: We live in a society. When the actions of an individual have an adverse effect on others in that society the members of that society have every right to proscribe that individuals actions.
You only have the right to tell someone to stop doing something that is illegal. If i choose through free will to fly on a plane or leave my tv on, that is my choice, and zero to do with you. Otherwise, i could tell you to stop posting on this site, to shut down your pc, because of the carbon it gives off, that fair? quote: People with large carbon footprints are severely damaging the planet on which we all live.
Prove it with hard concreate qualified evidence? quote: Hopefully, as more people get clued up on the science of global warming, they will voluntarily reduce their emissions
Whats the point? quote: I think legislation will also be required.
Legislation to enforce you never use electricity again? quote: Letting nature take its course means not adding to the high levels of CO2 already in the atmosphere:
Why not, 20,000 years ago, GW melted tonnes of ice which created the English channel, the irish sea, and the north sea. What sea has human CO2 created? quote: Orbital forcing (shifts in the earth's orbit).
Says who? And why is this not happening now, or something like it? |
| |
|
New Member
|
quote: Originally posted by mistergoode: quote: Letting nature take its course means not adding to the high levels of CO2 already in the atmosphere:
Why not, 20,000 years ago, GW melted tonnes of ice which created the English channel, the irish sea, and the north sea. What sea has human CO2 created? quote: Orbital forcing (shifts in the earth's orbit).
Says who? And why is this not happening now, or something like it?
So basically we have to wait for a catastrophe, probably killing countless people (most of the Earth being occupied) before we do anything about it? And "doing something about it" could take decades to take effect. I'm not sure that the currently proposed solutions are sensible or realistic, but just sitting back and waiting for a massive natural disaster is beyond foolish. |
| |
|
|
quote: The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.
Link |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by tarw: quote: The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.
Link
quote: The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world.
LINK |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Obtain Man:
So basically we have to wait for a catastrophe, probably killing countless people (most of the Earth being occupied) before we do anything about it? And "doing something about it" could take decades to take effect.
Nature has caused catastrophes since time began, without human help, nature will continue to do so. If humans could help, petrol would be illegal. |
| |
|
|
Raver, the page you link to is dated 01.24.06, which presumably means Jan 2006; the discovery of the Y2K bug in NASA's software renders that report void.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by tarw:
Raver, the page you link to is dated 01.24.06, which presumably means Jan 2006; the discovery of the Y2K bug in NASA's software renders that report void.
Your taking notes from a blog who got results from reverse engineering some other data source. How flaky can that get... I got banned for posting the link from a smiliar source like yours. I wonder why you're getting away with it. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Raver Ron: quote: Originally posted by tarw:
Raver, the page you link to is dated 01.24.06, which presumably means Jan 2006; the discovery of the Y2K bug in NASA's software renders that report void.
Your taking notes from a blog who got results from reverse engineering some other results. How flaky can that get... I got banned for posting the link from a smiliar source like yours. I wonder why you're getting away with it.
|
| |
|
|
My local weather forecast yesterday told me it was going to be sunhine all day with precipitation of 0-1mm, it rained all day.
In the Telegraph they had a story about a ten year weather forecasr that is supposed to be really accurate and that there will be no global warming in the next few year (like the last 7?) but then it will get worse.
Right, of course I believe it.
|
| |
|
|
So many interpretations - so much money to win for research - so few concrete answers.
Boy - i should jump on this gravy train.
So much better than doing something useful.
|
| |
|
|
Temperatures go up - temperatures go down.
That's the way of things.
Oil supplies however are dwindling.
Now - isn't that a more pressing problem?
Cos if we don't find a good solution soon - we are goung to have to find some pretty bad ones.
More scientists doing useful research please.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mistergoode: quote: Originally posted by legjoints:
Saying "we should..." is not quite the same as telling someone what to do, nor is it demanding.
You should stop telling us not to fly.
I never told you not to fly, I said "We should all cut down on flying. we should be campaigning for aircraft fuel to be taxed and to a halt in airport expansion" and was then told "You should stop telling people what to do." I smoke cigarettes but anyway... For ages people who don't like smoking have been saying you shouldn't smoke in restaurants, or when there are children around, or in someone else's place of work etc. but until recently it was always up to the establishment whether or not people could smoke. Now there has been legislation, enacted by a democratically elected parliament and without a lot of opposition I hear (I'm not in the UK). Perhaps it will be similar with other forms of polluting behaviour, far more damaging ones I believe. To start with some of us will suggest to people that they really ought to cut their emissions, but some of them may reply quote:
You only have the right to tell someone to stop doing something that is illegal. If i choose through free will to fly on a plane or leave my tv on, that is my choice, and zero to do with you.
and so, as with smoking, legislation may be put to parliament. I doubt it will be prohibition, but more likely various forms of taxation on polluting behaviour. So you will still be able to fly, if you can afford to, but the money raised in taxation could be used to deal with the effects of your emissions. |
| |
|
|
JulesCapriboyBioethonol  people aren't listening to you, which is a shame. People just believe their goggle box "news" reports. I wonder how much government funding i'd get for going against what government believe... |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mistergoode: JulesCapriboyBioethonol people aren't listening to you, which is a shame. People just believe their goggle box "news" reports. I wonder how much government funding i'd get for going against what government believe...
The tide is turning. People are not stupid. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by legjoints:
I said "We should all cut down on flying. we should be campaigning for aircraft fuel to be taxed and to a halt in airport expansion"
Ok, you shouldn't tell people to cut down and campaing for fuel to be txed. quote: I smoke cigarettes but anyway... For ages people who don't like smoking have been saying you shouldn't smoke in restaurants, or when there are children around, or in someone else's place of work etc. but until recently it was always up to the establishment whether or not people could smoke. Now there has been legislation, enacted by a democratically elected parliament and without a lot of opposition I hear (I'm not in the UK).
No you're wrong. Theres a pub in Bolton where the owner allows smoking. Why our fascist dictatorship government didn't allow free choice, explains that they are fascist. If you dont like smoke, dont go in the pub/restaurant. quote: Perhaps it will be similar with other forms of polluting behaviour, far more damaging ones I believe. To start with some of us will suggest to people that they really ought to cut their emissions, but some of them may reply
Whats the point? quote: and so, as with smoking, legislation may be put to parliament. I doubt it will be prohibition, but more likely various forms of taxation on polluting behaviour. So you will still be able to fly, if you can afford to, but the money raised in taxation could be used to deal with the effects of your emissions.
What effects? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mistergoode: JulesCapriboyBioethonol people aren't listening to you, which is a shame.
My friends call me Julz. And i wouldn't turn anyone away for something as petty as politics. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bioethanol: [QUOTE]Originally posted by mistergoode: My friends call me Julz. And i wouldn't turn anyone away for something as petty as politics.
Friends at the ballot box, then out on the  |
| |
|
|
And afterwards off for a good curry? |
| |
|
|
ooh yeah, madras hmm.
Grumpy old women on BBC2 saying how councils are bad for telling us to re-cycle.
|
| |
|
|
All the pseudo-academic denialism in the world changes nothing.
Whoever is proved right in the Global Warming argument, the Consumer Society is clearly unsustainable, and we will be faced with much the same decisions, whatever happens to the climate.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Little RJ:
All the pseudo-academic denialism in the world changes nothing.
Whoever is proved right in the Global Warming argument, the Consumer Society is clearly unsustainable, and we will be faced with much the same decisions, whatever happens to the climate.
and why do we not see that on the lips of our politicians and anchor men? vested interest? |
| |
|
|
Pretty much my point.
climate change is centuries away
energy crisis is decades
science is supposed to be useful.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bioethanol:
Pretty much my point.
climate change is centuries away
energy crisis is decades
science is supposed to be useful.
So the argument is pointless. We'll find out soon enough which scientists are right, but whoever wins, we still have to do the same things. So what things? |
| |
| |
