...make a comic about it. http://imgur.com/QvBIp seriously, though, i'm having a lot of trouble trying to understand these conspiracy theorists' minds.
Oh my goodness - you my sir, are a visionary. Just try not to be executed by Hitler III's commie-fascist universal dictatorship.
Frankly, anthropogenic climate change existing or not, what we're doing will make no difference what so ever. The more I read, the more lectures I attend, the more I'm convinced that the whole industry self perpetuates in order to keep a lot of people in work. First of all, the emotionalisation of the subject needs to be removed completely. Secondly, the entire science needs to change its name to adaption science. As humans we're incredibly short sighted, so what if we make the ice caps melting for an extra hundred years, or manage to stave off an ice age for a couple of centuries, it means nothing in the long term. There is so much that goes on in our local cluster that effects the weather on earth that we have little and no idea about it and thus, studying it is a wonderful thing but currently our knowledge is so short that the actions don't mean much. I mean, Kyoto for example, if anyone can prove that reducing man made emissions by 5.2% (And lets not forget that 98% of co2 on earth has nothing to do with humans) would make the blindest bit of difference then great. Personally I'm thankfully starting to see a shift in the way it's spoken about, I think strides are being made in the adaption arena. A while back there was a great lecture and the ZSL where much of the talk was about how nature is adapting to climate change and starting to focus on how we can adapt as opposed to trying to keep everything the way it is, which is impossible. Adapt or die, that's how it works. The climate will change whatever we do. I should also add, I am 100% for green evergy. We're incredibly wasteful as a species and the more we can recycle and the more efficient we can be the better.
CCFL's are ass. Their light is the equivalent to setting fire to a rare bird in terms of hazardous crap and life degredation caused by thermo-cycling.
Yes, because frankly the ancient Babylonians should have done more to reduce religios fundementalism. Seriously, if they'd been more careful 9-11 would never have happened! A hundred years is a huge timespan in terms of human advancement. We only got to the moon in the last 50 and we only achieved the first powered flight another 60 years before that.
I miss when pollution was a major topic of environmental concern. Everyone can agree on cutting down on litter and not dumping hazardous chemicals and materials into streams.
I agree 100% with zinfandel on this. It is a highly emotionalised and politicised issue with a lot of stakeholders on both sides in perpetuating either arguement. It seems to me through my interpretation of media on the subject is unlike in other areas of science it seems like the pro AGW side seems to be reluctant in investigating factors which could be disproportionately representing the extent or even reality of AGW. If you theorise in science that there is a major innaccuracy in the standard model of particle physics, it seems it will be studied and rejected or accepted in a professional manner. But on both sides of the AGW debate it seems there is a hell of a lot of language pretty much saying "f*** you, you're wrong". It just seems a bit inconsistent with other areas of science "In AGW someone may say what about urban heat islands or what about the change in distribution of weather stations into underdeveloped usually hotter areas over the last 100 years?" the answer at first that you get usually is something starting in ridiculous and ending in denailists. Take that in comparison with the faster than light neutrinos to which physicists say hmm might be right here better check. Conspiracy theories about AGW being a group of scientists, policians and eco fascists scheming together for whatever is complete and utter bull. It is not necessary in a world in which anything that relates to the day to day running and prosperity in our lives, whcih is politics and economics, is part of mainstream science. It is vastly irrelavent whether this theory is believed or not because more than likely we are going to see a severly restricted supply world wrenching oil, gas and coal some time in the not so distant future. Combating climate change shares many of the same goals. Problem being is that the desperation by the political class, the myopia and plain stupidity leads to idiocy such as land for food being used for fuel while people go hungry.
It's actually the norm. The misconception is that scientists are rational reasonable people and the reality is there "debates" are comparable to a lot of the heated discussions on here. Scientists build their names and reputations by establishing or overturning existing theories so there is a lot at stake.
Well the Babylonians didn't know what we know did they? You're right! Let's keep doing things the way they've always been done!
I just glanced over your post but this caught my eye. Surely any credible measurement of "global warming" isn't based on an average of temperates across the world but rather an average of the differences between temperates recorded at each monitoring station? Or, to be even more accurate, the different trends found in temperature changes recorded in different geographical areas. I think you've misunderstood, he's saying not to do as we always have. He's saying those extra 100 years of ice caps melting isn't being short sighted, it's actually a very large timeframe for a human which spans multiple generations and anything farther we can't possibly hope to predict. The fact that the Babylonians didn't know what we know is exactly the point: that's why it's so preposterous to consider that people are short sighted when they can't possibly be longer sighted with any accuracy. If we have reason to believe that our actions are causing a global environmental change for a duration in the range of 100 years then we're talking about a major impact on humanity, the "long range" of saying it'll eventually cycle back is an assumption which completely ignores what 100 years of human activity may have altered or how those changes may have altered humanity. To be honest, you're confusing me a little. Isn't adaption one of the shortest sighted solutions there is? Disregard the future, plan around what's coming at you right now?
