[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

But what can be done? You claim that by human intervention you can try to stop this "Global Warming" theory,

No. I never said such nonsens. The situation already is far too bad as if you could prevent. It is about adopting to the consequences that are shaping up in more and more grim clearness, and it is about stopping to speed up the process. Even if we would have a full stop of environment-hurting behavior and emissions - the agentsa we already have emitted will continue to do their work at the current pace for another 30-60 years.

Some weeks ago I linked to calculations saying that the economical costs of trying to adopt as best as we can would cost around 1% of global GNP, but repairing the damages being done by climate change that hits us without us trying to adopt will cost around 20-30 % (which again is the IPCC calculation the US and others tried so hard to prevent from being published). What investment is the more reasonable?

yet supposedly this was all started by human intervention. Or can we just go on and adapt, like humans have for the past thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years.

You ignore that this change now will affect billions of people and will kill hundreds of millions. As the current IPCC report have made clear AGAIN. But the calculation is not new. First time I was confronted with such statements was during late school. That is over 25 years ago.

It is also about the immense level of extinction of species. You may not realise it, but we depend on these, and on an intact natural environment. as long as we do not want to live in something like moonbase alpha 1 at last (and that would be a highly vulnerable place of living, btw.).

Environment-related desease have dramatically increased over the last 40 years, btw, in all Wetsern world. Starts with skin and lunge disease, leads over cancer, and ends with things like allergies and general immune system defects.

Besides, I see no creditable proof of CO2 emissions directly affecting global temprature rise. Even the National Science Foundation (or something like that) came in on Al Gores parade during his little speech in `D.C. saying there was no research that directly linked CO2 and temperature gain.

No? That is mysterious, since I stumbled over so many over the years.

when you stand a hundred times at a traffic light and see that when there is yellow, but no yellow-red, and the next colour nthen is always red, than you still do not have any evidence that the next colour you see will be red again (instead of green), nevertheless it is a conclusion that is boosted by massive empirical evidence.

BTW, the NSF is a governmental institution, and thus is run by clearly defined political agendas. I am not surprised that they went for Gore. I would have been surprised if they wouldn't have. It has been complained repeatedly that they change their standards and course of orientation depending on what kind of government is currently ruling in Washington.

I don't go into a debate on wether CO2 helps global warming or not - not AGAIN. we just had that. there are other factors, too, methane, but I can't take it serious that CO2 is not extremely harmful. It is one factor amongst others, nevertheless a very dangerous one. Others like methane maybe are even more importanrt, but that does not make CO2 harmless. WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING PPOSSIBLE TO ADOPT AND TO STOP SPEEING UP THE CLIMATIC PROCESSES THAT ALREADY AFFECT US AND ANIMALS AND PLANTS AROUND THE GLOBE. Please do not come with that CO2 petition thing AL already tried - I ripped that one in pieces, as I remember quite clearly. You may wait another lifetime for any proof that may satisfy your high standards. Until then - the worstening developement will continue, and finally you will find yourself with just another couple of decades being wasted. Decades that then will have prooven eto be xtremely costly both to your people and your economy. Let's see what this year's hurricane season will bring. Probably no argument you would accept...

Who decides what the lies are? Who decides which data is correct? You? Germany? The USA? Me? Who?

Again, I do not go into a discussion that we alraedy had repeatedly. Fact is you will always try your best to put all data from sources that are not serving the interests of your industry and government at discredit, and call that reasonable doubt. Well, the majority of global scientists strongly disagrees, and since a majority does not replace quality, some very competent adresses amongst scientif institutions also disagree. I referred to the Potsdam Institute for climatic change some weeks ago, as an example. It's president called it a crime what immense sums are invested by interested lobbies just to put scientific data that is unwelcome news at doubt, and distort existing data.

WE DONT NEED MORE DATA; WE ALREADY HAVE ALL DATA WE NEED SINCE ALMOST 15-20 YEARS. It is unimportant if you rethorically try to distract by asking fundamental questions of who is deciding this or that. You are distracting.

One must not distort empirical obervations and data in order to come to the conclusion that man-made industrialization and mass-agriculture is linked with global warming. One must use distortion of data in order to deny that link.

No, I meant "Let's hope it happens, for the sake of our children." for giving up. I don't want to see my future kids enslaved behind laws that limit their freedom for a (still) unproven fact. I don't want to see my kids grow up in fear that if they fart one too many times, that if they get in a car that runs on an internal-cumbustion-engine they will end all life on the planet, because of a stupid law invented by people who would rather cower behind one man's words than try to see the reality of the situation. We are harming ourselves with these imposed laws, protocols, and treaties.

Future generations will have no compliments for you. They will ask instead why we did not act, but always delayed, and why them need to pay the price for our selfishness. We have wasted decades alreaedy. According to you, we will waste some more: because trying to adopt and trying to save what is left to be saved would damage our industries and finance systems.

What a strange list of priorities.