Actually, that's complete and utter crap. The information is not the same. That's the beauty of science, you can prove or provide a high level of certainty that something is correct. It's true that an argument can be made for either side, but the quality of the argument is ultimately only as strong as the evidence that supports it.
Maybe not proven as fact yet, but you need to realize what side of the issue the evidence is pointing towards, strongly pointing towards.
Global cooling had no where near the level of evidence or scientific acceptance that GW has. Also, the latest IPCC report calculated the probability that the current warming is entirely natural to be less than 5%. That is STRONG evidence.
So what? You think that those facts haven't been taken into account? Please.
None.
Actually, other countries DO want to do something. The biggest roadblock is the US and our continual refusal to commit to anything substantial. China and India are major problems, but like you said, it's like children arguing. I suppose the next step is to man-up and DO something. Don't you agree? The US also deserves its scapegoat status as we are the largest polluter, for the near future anyway. I'm sure you just want to wave your flag and put a sticker on you car bumper, but don't delude yourself as to what this country REALLY is.<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11434423#post11434423 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by AquariaOCD
Why is it our responsibility to do anything for other countries (CHINA cough cough) to do something to clean up THEIR act?? The whole "you first" game is an irresponsible attitude from ALL countries. The whole thing makes me think of a bunch of children arguing.....................................and the US has just become the world's scapegoat. Clean air is a good thing. The politics of it is the REAL polution.
The IPCC was a committee of scientists from UN countries, not politicians. Skeptics such as Dr. Christy were also included as members of the panel to ensure both sides were represented. They were simply asked to review the pre-existing literature on the subject and put it in useful terms for policymakers. Everything they said is already represented in the scientific literature except for their recommendations of how we should deal with the problems. Can you point out something they specifically got wrong based on sound science?
Yeah, you're right. Corollas are sooo uncomfortable and extremely impractical for all that harsh driving people do. SUVs and muscle cars are definitely better suited to interstate driving and those high speed commutes to work.
They don't go hand in hand if you insist on using 1970's technology like American carmakers do. Like I said my car is almost 20 years old and it makes about 75 HP/liter as compared to a 2008 mustang that makes about 50 HP/liter. I'm not blaming politicians at all. I'm blaming the automakers for sticking to the status quo and the citizens for not demanding any more from them.
Yep, and that's part of the reason American manufacturers have been suffering from poor sales lately while Japanese manufacturers like Toyota are seeing record profits and increased sales of fuel-efficient vehicles.
Given how little people care about gas prices or environmental impacts there isn't anything that's poised to knock off gas. That's not because alternatives like biofuel and fuel cells don't have the potential to be better or have insurmountable problems, but because there's not a terrible amount of effort being put into developing them further. Biodiesel works great, but there's no infrastructure to manufacture and distribute it. Hydrogen has the same problems, plus a few others with the production methods. The problems with both could be addressed within 12 years if there was a push to do it.
No.
CITES
Because that's what's reflected in the scientific literature.
Actually those models are based on data. There's observational data, proxy data like sediment cores, direct measurements from some sources like trapped air in ice cores, biological data such as range shifts, and changes in the timing of seasonal events just to name the stuff I can think of off the top of my head.
What economy wrecking decision are we talking about basing on unverifiable models? One really big one comes to mind, but it's against RC policy to talk about it.
Those are the kinds of problems with production methods I was talking about. None of them are insurmountable; the technology just isn't mature yet because there hasn't been much public will to develop it. We also have ways of producing H2 from water and electricity which can be produced from renewable sources. The trouble with that though is it's slow. Last I heard the production of biofuel was worse than 1:1. You have to keep in mind that we've put almost no effort into optimizing either process though so we shouldn't write them off. We have to judge the alternatives based on their potential, not where they're at now. Keep in mind when oil refining first started that people though gasoline had no potential and literally threw it out.
