I think what some ppl here fail to grasp is no, the earth won't go down, no matter what we do. And no, ppl are not evil just for polluting. Earth survived bigger catastrophes, volcanos, asteroid impacts and so on. And yes, humanity will survive as well.

It also does not really matter if its humankind alone to blame, or if natural causes have their part in this. But even if it is a natural cause, which still needs proof, then pollution still amplifies the effect.

No, the problem is, rising temperatures will cause "humane" problems, and big ones. For some countries it's a blessing, northern countries especially, but for the majority of the world population droughts, lack of water, even a slightly rising ocean level will be a life or death question. Most folks on this planet live on coasts and/or relativly dry regions. More fights for water, ressources and civil unrest will be the result in third world countries, which may very well indirectly or directly effect first world countries. The latter will have less problems coping with this, but still need to invest enourmous sums to counter the changes imposed by climate change.

This is not about "saving the environment", though that would be a nice bonus. It's about saving costs. And developing future industries and science. I mean seriously, are ppl that stupid they do not realize that climate change, for good or bad, also offers a lot of chances? Ignoring it is a road to international isolation and further scientific backdrop, especially in a country whose only top science left is weapons.

There we have the US, producer of 25 percent of the worlds air pollution, stepping in and actually stating "it's not real". How...convinient. And then you wonder why terrorism comes up in third world countries who do not have the financial basis to fight climate change and blame the west for hypocrisis? Please.

From all courses one could take, no matter the agenda, ignoring or dismissing it for short term industrial gain and "I do want to power my AC full throttle! D:!" is the most stupid move in the long run. Protection of an industry that is in dire need of modernisation won't pay off, that is a lesson most communist countries had to learn already.

Beowolf, I am agreeing with you on most of your post. The fifth paragraph, however leaves me scratching my head. Are you saying that terrorism is caused because of greenhouse gases or other pollution?:hmm:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...an-feared.html

No, I am saying terrorism is caused for many parts by ignorance and arrogance of the west. Ppl don't just start hating for the fun of it or just because someone else is richer. And the treatment of a global problem by those nations that caused it, or may have a hand in amplifying it, is a perfect example. If I were a farmer living in the middle east, and a westerner, known for exploiting my region for ressoruces and beeing involved in political power gambles for this goal for decades, resulting in authorian regimes, revolutions, civil wars and international wars and beeing responsible for the vast majority of the worlds air pollution for centuries, came and told me "oh, yeah, we love to drive inefficent big cars, run our ACs full throttle, do not like to invest in our industry to make them more effective, and cimate change is caused by the sun, so eh, sorry, but it's not our problem if you guys starve", then I certainly would be on his throat in no time.
This may not be the direct cause for terrorism, but it certainly forms up the basis terrorists recrute their folks from. These sentiments certainly won't decrease or just evaporate over time should temperatures raise even more, causing catastrophes in such countries.

That just to elaborate on your question, not to steer the topic into another direction. But a good reason to take the whole topic "very" serious even aside the purely environmental issues. And this is the reason why the EU is taking action even without international consensus and fully aware of the short term economic problems caused by it. Just as an example, the EU is forcing car builders to lower their emissions to a degree that companies like Porsche already stated they will seize to exist (though that may be typical industrial blabla from companies fearing for their shareholder value). Nevertheless, it's one of Germany's crown jewels, even the possibility of sacrificing it should give you a hint how serious this all is taken over here.

Aside from giving you a feeling of doing something to address the issue it won't accomplish anything, let alone prevent temperature increase as long as population growth remains unchecked.

Well, I suppose putting your hands in your lap and having a cig is the best course of action then, hm?

This all reminds me of a childhood saying my parents kept reminding me of whenever I argued in the lines of "hey, the others do it, so I do it, too".

It was, roughly translated "and if the others jump from the bridge, you will, too, hm?"

As far as Countries like SA or Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, it looks to me like they have lived in very arid conditions for a millenia. They have oil and poppies which bring them income, but it seems that only a few have benefitted from their resources. OPEC and the Saudi royalty specifically.

The form of muslim terrorism has its roots steeped in religion. Israel being its number one target. America supports Israel, so then we become number two target.

I do not think for a moment that a coward could recruit an ignorant woman to strap a bomb on her body in the name of global warming, but I do see how a fanatical mindset invoked by religion can accomplish this. Just like how cults get their followers to commit suicide etc... It is called Jihad.

I quit smoking over a year ago and I will never have children. I also live within walking distance of my job so my car stays in the garage all week long. Now all of those items actually address the problem of global warming far more than creating another tax.

So what have you done, hmmm?

Then you should check the history of british, french and american oil companies from the the beginning of the 20th century onwards in this region. The support of the Shah and the later iranian iraqi war with it's massive american infuence. Add to that americas and europas support of Israel and you will understand these ppl quite a bit better, especially that such anti jewish tendencies only really developed "after" the foundatiion of Isreal, massivly influenced by german ideology. The OPEC is fairly young in comparison to this history.

If you want, you can trace this back even to the middle ages and their crusades, then Bush talking about a "crusade" on international TV when it came to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. It is not so much if those prejudices against the west are justifed or if everything thrown around down is based on facts. But it's all about how the common ppl "percieve" it there.

You are right, btw, the area is pretty arid, and was so for quite some time. Now imagine it becoming even more dry, reducing the few areas capable of agriculture even more. Or for that matter, all the african nations. Not to forget the vast areas of the great plains and southwestern russia who will suffer, too. Food shortages already caused massive and worldwide uproars last year.

No, based on global warming alone a palestine women won't bomb anybody. There we agree. But with the effects of global warming in mind, based on all the other expiriences these ppl made with the west, this will be an amplifier. And it does not even matter if they really put the blame on the west for that. The more extreme conditions alone will create more extremists.

But as said before, this probably works better to continue in another thread.

This is not so much about individual behaviour, though I do ride to work on my bycyle and use the car only for long distances, just for the record. Both have the added benefit of health and costs, which actually were my prime goals in this, the environmental effect beeing a bonus. I also live in an apartment with triple layered glass windows and redone temperature isolation, both greatly reducing energy requirements and costs.
But unless it's done on a nationwide oder even international level, this won't achive a lot. Now ppl won't invest anything for purely environmental issues. For that ppl are too greedy in general, which is understandable to a degree. But folks have to realize these measures actually create new industries, thus new jobs and wealth.

No, people don't want to invest in ill thought out knee jerk reactionary measures which have no chance of accomplishing their stated objectives.

Triple layered windows and improved insulation will help drive an individuals costs down and that's a great thing, but as long as world population keeps increasing it will quickly outstrip any cost saving effort.

I don't know why you take issue with this but there you are.

Look, you have an attitude of "why should I do something, I can't change anything anyways". That is the attitude I have isues with.
If you want to look at it this way, then it's your choice, but I prefer to act and support those that act.

Besides, the west, with only a fraction of the worlds population, is reponsible for nearly half the worlds pollution, especially when it comes to carbon dioxide. That does not go together with your overpopulation theory, which is indeed a problem, but goes into a different direction.

Wrong, that's never been my position.

Which even adding the rest of the world is but a small fraction of the Co2 produced naturally. If you are so concerned why are you generating unnecessary Co2 by playing computer games and posting in forums?

In light of lacking alternatives presented by you...yes it is.


Because it belongs to my daily routine, that simple. Catch questions like these neither solve anything nor do they contribute to the discussion at all, but merely serve to undermine the discussions partners argument. If you feel the need to drop to this level, have fun discussing with yourself.

Sure! The fact that other countries have oil and other countries do good business with them to have that, is just business. It is not like the country was invaded and their resources taken away from them to incite the muslim world. This also includes China and Russia. SA and the UAE do not seem to have a problem with doing business. This does not seem to me to be a genuine motivator for terrorism. Besides the terrorist do not represent their country anyway. They are extremist and need to be terminated with extreme prejudice. They give good muslims a bad name.