|
|
Post by adamhannah on Jul 31, 2009 4:24:51 GMT -5
As a small side note to the Chemists wonderful thread about climate change 'alarmism', what do all you guys think about it? Is enough be done? Is it all a left wing designed hoax? I'm studying a subject on it at uni at the moment and I'd like to hear some thoughts, particularly from the Americans on here.
From the small amount of study and reading I have done it appears that fuck all has and is being done and that many people are still skeptical, despite a very large amount of scientific research been done over the last 50 years or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Aug 1, 2009 1:26:07 GMT -5
it's pretty obvious global warming exists. we can't prevent it from happening, as it's inevitable, but we can all do our parts to slow down the heating rate.
|
|
|
|
Post by thechemist on Aug 1, 2009 14:51:49 GMT -5
How do we do our parts to "slow down the heating rates"? No industrialized nation will be able to do anything about reducing their carbon emissions. That's a pipe dream. Just ask Ted Kennedy about where windmills should go (not in his back yard, in case you don't get it). Even if they could, India, China, Brazil and the rest of the industrializing world will be making those ereductions moot.
No, if the alarmists really cared, they'd be trying to determine how to live in a warmer world. Because cardon WILL NOT BE REDUCED. Speaking of which, how about hearing some of the BENEFITS of a warmer planet?
Carbon is the latest in a long series of attempts by the lefties to get rid of coal. Period. Coal is the cause of all evil in the world. Who cares if the grennhouse gas theories are true. They've got traction. Run with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Aug 1, 2009 19:16:53 GMT -5
No, if the alarmists really cared, they'd be trying to determine how to live in a warmer world. Because cardon WILL NOT BE REDUCED. Speaking of which, how about hearing some of the BENEFITS of a warmer planet? absolutely! as the netherlands will drown, i hope we'll get all their football players! we would win the fucking world cup for centuries!!!  not to speak about the chance to live next door to mimmi!!! |
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Aug 2, 2009 1:15:44 GMT -5
...or l4e next door to eva.
as far as i'm concerned, i like seeing the u.s. at least attempt to use different technologies for fuel. it gives us less credence to deal with those schmucks running most of the middle east. when we stop needing the saudis for oil, we can officially describe them as they really are: anti-western, anti-semitic, terrorist-harborers.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamhannah on Aug 2, 2009 4:20:01 GMT -5
How do we do our parts to "slow down the heating rates"? No industrialized nation will be able to do anything about reducing their carbon emissions. That's a pipe dream. Just ask Ted Kennedy about where windmills should go (not in his back yard, in case you don't get it). Even if they could, India, China, Brazil and the rest of the industrializing world will be making those ereductions moot. No, if the alarmists really cared, they'd be trying to determine how to live in a warmer world. Because cardon WILL NOT BE REDUCED. Speaking of which, how about hearing some of the BENEFITS of a warmer planet? Carbon is the latest in a long series of attempts by the lefties to get rid of coal. Period. Coal is the cause of all evil in the world. Who cares if the grennhouse gas theories are true. They've got traction. Run with it. There would be benifits. For America. Maybe Russia. Catastrophe for anyone near the equator and possibly much of Australia. Coal is not evil. Just inefficient. Surely we should be looking for more efficient ways to power cities after so long using inefficient and polluting means such as coal? It's not any easy thing to do, but surely worth it? |
|
|
|
Post by thechemist on Aug 2, 2009 10:21:37 GMT -5
...or l4e next door to eva. as far as i'm concerned, i like seeing the u.s. at least attempt to use different technologies for fuel. it gives us less credence to deal with those schmucks running most of the middle east. when we stop needing the saudis for oil, we can officially describe them as they really are: anti-western, anti-semitic, terrorist-harborers. STOP THE PRESSES! NYR and I agree on something! So why are we framing this question as a carbon issue ONLY and not a national security issue? A great op-ed piece in the Washington Post today about how our "green" initiatives are actually making us MORE reliant on Saudi oil as opposed to less. Our "green" initiatives will be funnelling MORE money to the pockets of these autocrats, not less. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/31/AR2009073102609.htmlNational security first, THEN "climate security". I personally believe both are possible, but not when nuclear and coal are EVIL. |
|
|
|
Post by thechemist on Aug 2, 2009 10:37:44 GMT -5
And a little bit of honest debate would help also. I was perusing my two Sunday morning papers today and a couple of "climate change" items caught my attention. First, from the right-leaning Washington Times: "San Francisco Bay Area Revs Up For Electric Cars Future". I'm all for electric cars. But if liberal SF is taking the lead, you know there are some "debate honesty" problems. Wil someone please read this article and tell me where all of this additional electricity is coming from? www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/02/bay-area-revs-up-electric-car-future/And now an opinion piece from the left leaning Washington Post: "Warming Relations: Despite lingering disagreements, the U.S. and China are making noteworthy progress on climate change". Get this: "Just last week, China and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding that commits them "to respond vigorously to the challenges of energy security, climate change and environmental protection through ambitious domestic action and international cooperation." China signed a "MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING"!!! Wow! THAT'S got some teeth to it. The piece actually implies that China is more serious than former president Bush in curbing carbon. CHINA! with its' planned 650 coal fired power plant openings per year. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/01/AR2009080101926.html |
|
|
|
Post by eva on Aug 2, 2009 10:39:32 GMT -5
...or l4e next door to eva. uh? wait--wait--what? where's the benefit in that?!  I'm joking, l4e, no need to jump ;D |
|
|
|
Post by thechemist on Aug 5, 2009 21:54:37 GMT -5
This is a tough one for all of you sheep to defend. You so badly want to pray to the globa...sorry, "climate change" altar but it's hard to defend it with the mounting evidence that your little pet project will:
1 - Change the balance of power in the world to some pretty questionable regimes,
2 - Do ZERO to effect world temperatures,
3 - Destroy western economies.
It was SO much easier when all we needed to do to teach big coal a lesson was to make doing business more expensive. Now we need to change the structure of the word. Kind of makes you wish you'd taken a smaller bite, I'll bet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guy Fawkes on Jun 8, 2023 17:39:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by AllOrNothing on Jun 8, 2023 18:04:53 GMT -5
52°C in Puerto Rico
this is bonkers
|
|
|
|
Post by Guy Fawkes on Jul 28, 2023 16:57:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 28, 2023 18:21:26 GMT -5
Quite telling that in 14 years since this thread, literally nothing has changed on the world stage. Remember that conference in Glasgow? What a load of posturing that is, and that's all it's been.
And I see Keir Starmer, UK's next PM in waiting, has no balls and no leadership on this as with most things. Deperately wanting to follow the Tories by scrapping environmental policy and telling Mayor of London Sadiq Khan to rethink his low emission policies. At the very least, Khan has shown some fucking leadership on this. You might actually learn something in what it means to, you know, actually lead. Rant over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guy Fawkes on Aug 18, 2023 13:03:07 GMT -5
|
|
I'm joking, l4e, no need to jump ;D
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5