Okay, my turn for a rant.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9866684#post9866684 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by edr42
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, now i know this has nothing to do with global warming as such, but it seems to be a universal truth.
You are right, that has nothing to do with global warming and it is not a universal truth. That is a theory applied to kinetic energy.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9866684#post9866684 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by edr42
Something is going to happen, that much is for sure. As for exactly what and how much, those are the only questions.
:lol: How right you are, those ARE the questions that plague this discussion.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9871833#post9871833 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rosseau
I agree that the earth has warmed in the last ~200 years.
Just how much has it warmed in the past 200 years?
Is that the most the climate has ever changed?
What is the perfect temp. that the climate should be?
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9871833#post9871833 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rosseau
I think that “both sides†of this issue neglect to present all of the facts.
Here is a point that you and I can finally agree on for the very reasons you have pointed out.
There are to many people that have a non Altruistic vested interest in this. When the people who are pushing this the hardest are lawyers in the form of politicians, the united nations (which is nothing but a bunch of dictators, human rights abusers and down right thugs), the media in all of its forms who love nothing but sensationalism,
anti-globalists, anti-capitalist etc. etc. I get a little leery of the fatalistic predictions of fire and brimstone.
On the flip side you have the evil oil companies. Their only responsibility is to give consumers what they ask for at a price we will pay. If people demanded en-mas for electric cars or solar powered this or hydrogen powered that we would have had it a long time ago. But they haven't so they don't.
Let's face some facts; *oil is relatively cheap, *extraordinary advances in society are due to our cheap forms of energy, *human beings have an insatiable hunger for energy that will NEVER go away or diminish, *human population will keep increasing over time including events of disease, plague and natural disasters, *human life span will continue to rise. No matter how much you try... human beings will NEVER go back to a life style of the past, you can not turn back the hands of time, *carbon base forms of energy will be our main sources of energy until they are either exhausted or are not economically viable. *very much like the united nations, the vatican once had a consensus of scientists. *science is not infallible and has been proven wrong on many occasions. *science is very much like political polls, it can be made to "prove" any outcome you wish. *science is not a good substitute for common sense. *science with an agenda is more dangerous than religion or government.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9871833#post9871833 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rosseau
Perhaps, the general public doesn’t need to know that the earth’s eccentric orbit influences our climate or that increased global temperature likely means an increase in cloud cover and thus a decrease in local incident radiation (clouds reflect a large portion of incoming short wave solar energy) etc etc.
Maybe it just complicates the discussion further, yet it must be discussed somewhere or else we’re all missing the point.
I think you make a mistake when you underestimate peoples willingness to understand an issue when they do not feel they are being lied to for an ulterior motive.
More and more people are starting to notice the inconsistencies in this debate. You add to that the utter hypocrisy of the people who warn of our eventual demise and this whole issue is a loser. The very people who push this have made no change in their own lives whatsoever. Mansions, personal jets, CARBON CREDITS :eek1: . Does Mother Nature actually like the pollution that we pay for?
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9871904#post9871904 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rosseau
After a more careful review I would agree that this quiz is not impartial. In fact it’s much more obvious to me now that the creator may have an agenda. Yet it does present many real and often un-discussed portions of the climate system.
You make a good point here. So what if it is biased or not impartial? The facts remain. You insinuated yourself earlier that the proponents of this issue themselves have bias but still have a valid position.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9872790#post9872790 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
Not to worry, rants are quite alright so long as you leave out politics, religions and personal insults
This is were it gets touchy. Do to the fact that the united nations and politicians are the major players in this it is nearly impossible for it to not to become a discussion of politics. It is political at it's very core. It is a real shame that the u.n. is involved in this because any real efforts in this matter are doomed to fail from the beginning. I challenge anybody to name two positive outcomes on something that the united nations has been heavily involved in.
It is also a shame on a smaller scale because it has made reasoned discussion impossible. I have been told by some regulars in these discussions that my very low environmental impact is not good enough because my moral motivation was not correct. Add that to good old fashioned control via fear and superstition and that is where we slip into the pseudo religious aspect of this issue. Let's leave the fear mongering to the clergy and keep our science reasoned and clear thinking.