[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by Skybird

No. I never said such nonsens.

There is an "e" at the end of that.

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.

I'm getting tired of this discussion, but here goes: Says who? Scientists? Of course they have to be correct. They always were, like when they said the world was flat, and when they said spontaneous generation is where all life evolved from dust. Someone presents a doomsday senario and why does everyone goes nuts. You refuse to belive anything else. Why don't you open up to other possibilities other than were all going to die in 100 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?

(Seriously) can you show me? I'd like to see it too.

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.

I missed the report. I there some kind of link to it or something?

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.).

Were not going to live on "moonbase alpha" as long as that foolish treaty of "No nukes in space" is still alive, but that's another story. Also, I hardly belive that a increase in temperature of only a few degrees will kill of so much life. So far, I've only heard stories about how the Atlantic is warming up. Did you know the Pacific isn't? How convienient. Of course, I'm not sure if you all are familiar with the TAO.

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.

Or is it because with our new technology we can finally see that it's there, instead of guessing about that African epdemic fourty years ago. Most of these diseases were there all along, it's just with the invention of the electron microscope and such that we are able to know that they even exist.

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

Can you show any?

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.

So you are basically saying that this is still a theory, not a proven fact.

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.

Can you explain to me then why another non-government funded research program fired many-a-scientist for claiming that Global Warming was not true? And besides, you think the IPCC isn't? It's in there name! INTERGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.

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...

Um, ok. Did you know that not one hurricane last year hit us (Florida, Georgia, ect.), despite all the predictions that last year would be worse then the rest?

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.

Or you just don't want to listen, perhaps?

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.

So scientists simply cannot be wrong, no matter what? I'll be dead before I belive that.

What a strange list of priorities.

As such I can say the same for yours.




I grow weary of this...