Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
& still they doubt Global Warming
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

& still they doubt Global Warming
Apr 26, 2002, 13:01
>
> UK scientists say the last three months were
> globally the warmest January, February and
> March since records began.
>
full article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1951000/1951084.stm
necropolist
necropolist
1689 posts

Re: & still they doubt Global Warming
Apr 26, 2002, 13:22
is it just me?
whenever anyone is inserting a link at the mo its not showing up on my browser. tho oddly i can still click on where it's meant to be
is this a problem at my end or h2h's?
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Re: & still they doubt Global Warming
Apr 26, 2002, 13:26
what browser / OS are you using?

(links are showing up fine for me - IE6 / Win XP)
FourWinds
FourWinds
10943 posts

Re: & still they doubt Global Warming
Apr 26, 2002, 13:28
Links show up fine for me too.

Try this one:







Great innit?
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Re: & still they doubt Global Warming
Apr 26, 2002, 13:33
excellent FW - if ever a site demonstrated the positive potential of the internet, that's it. i'm off to browse some more of those articles...
necropolist
necropolist
1689 posts

bloody browsers
Apr 26, 2002, 14:31
bastard!

there's really nothing there!

is there?

(on iCAb - not had a problem with it before)
ron
ron
706 posts

Re: & still they doubt Global Warming
Apr 28, 2002, 03:16
bluddy good stuff... but please don't try to confuse the issue with facts and figures... as everyone knows that only kooks and crazys with phd's and nobel prizes actually believe that shite... only the true deep thinkers (republicans and conservative talk show hosts) actually know the truth... u know? it just blows me away that being the 'supposed' high level species on the planet earth that very stupidly we shall not survive too much longer... oh, and lets involve every tribe on the planet in a bloody war just move things along...

The old Cherokee chief sat in his reservation hut, smoking the ceremonial pipe, eyeing the two U.S. government officials
sent to interview him. "Chief Two Eagles," one official began, "you have observed the white man for many generations, you have seen his wars and his products, you have seen all his progress, and all his problems." The chief nodded. The official continued, "Considering recent events, in your opinion, where has the white man gone wrong?" The chief stared at the government officials for over a minute, and
then calmly replied. "When white man found the land, Indians were running it. No taxes. No debt. Plenty buffalo. Plenty beaver. Women did most of the work. Medicine man free. Indian men hunted and fished all the time." The chief smiled, and added quietly, "White man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that."

anyone 'ave a spare match? i feel the need to lite a candle...

x
ron
ron
706 posts

Re: & still they doubt Global Warming
May 10, 2002, 03:25
hmmm, hopefully rush limbaugh will explain to me how/wot this is really caused by...

http://webcenter.newssearch.netscape.com/aolns_display.adp?key=200205091946000274384_aolns.src

these so called scientists @ nasa are really a persistant lot aren't they? you'd almost think they were trying to tell us sumthin...

x
FourWinds
FourWinds
10943 posts

Re: & still they doubt Global Warming
May 10, 2002, 08:48
I'm not saying that global warming don't exist right but .....

I've yet to hear anyone from that particular lobby address the fact that it is still over 2 degrees colder now than it was 5000 years ago.
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Re: & still they doubt Global Warming
May 10, 2002, 10:22
>
> I've yet to hear anyone from that
> particular lobby address the fact
> that it is still over 2 degrees colder
> now than it was 5000 years ago.
>
i have.

On the energy-industry mailing lists that i've gotten myself on to, there are an amazing number of intelligent, apparently-reasonable, rational people who disagree with the premise that the current warming trend is human-made.

Nobody, when shown the data, can dispute that Global Warming is occurring (globally, 9 of the warmest years on record took place in the last 10... though when they say "on record"... those records only go back 130 years or so). What *is* in dispute is whether humankind has anything to do with this warming.

And that's not so cut and dry.

At many points in the recent past (and i use recent to mean, say, the past 100,000 years) we can show from geological evidence that the planet went through phases of being even warmer that it's been over the past 20 years. So, say the sceptics, this warming cycle has "natural" precedent; why do we need to blame innocent old industry?

There are problems with this argument (i.e. the rate of global temperature change appears to be greater this time than any previous), but essentially it makes logical sense - there is no evidence that human gas emissions are the *cause* of this recent rise, so it *could* be whatever natural cycle it was that caused previous warmings acting independent of humanity.

The simple counter-argument, however, is not a scientific one, but a 'risk-management' one. Sure, this warming *may* not be the result of human activity. But we know that theoretically it *could* be, given that fossil fuel emissions contain gasses that would tend to have a warming effect, if released in sufficient concentrations.

Given the catastrophic social and environmental effects which could be wrought by runaway global warming, it makes sense to act as though human emissions *are* the cause despite the absence of direct evidence. Whatever factors are contributing to this potential global disaster; we only have control over one of them, and the risk is too great to simply ignore.

That's why it's important to realise that there are indeed rational arguments to be made in favour of the theory that global warming is not being objectively *caused* by humanity. However, i do not believe there is a rational case to be made for acting in any way other than to assume that we *are* the cause, from a species-survival, risk-management viewpoint.

In fact, the only arguments *against* making such an assumption are economic. That eceonomic arguments are being listened to, ahead of species-survival ones is the great disgusting irony of this debate.
Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index