Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Who's to say that the pro-Kyoto/pro-global warming crap isn't the politicisation of science? It is afterall, the politicians driving the agenda for that particular agreement. It is the politicians who are refusing to even meet with the thousands of scientists who simply want to debate the issue in an open forum. How much more political can you get when an agreement is signed by politicians without a full and healthy debate amongst the scientists who know the science?

   

What has become more prevalent over the past fifteen years - volatile weather, or weather reporting? Do you not think that if extreme weather events are reported more often on television, that your perception will be that there must be more extreme weather happening?

Climate change is a natural and recurring phenomenon.

   

Of course global warming is not something new. The earth has been far warmer in the past than it is right now, and it will be again - it is a natural cycle. Who are we to think that we can control it one way or another? We could stop burning all fossil fuels today and the earth could still warm up. Wouldn't we look foolish then?

   

Who died and made him the god of all scientists? Why would you place so much faith in one man?

   

Wow, four posts to start off a page. You should go on the radio, Third Eye. I say that because just this morning there was a guy on saying how the ice breaking up early in Hudson's Bay is reducing polar bear cubs. Perhaps you'd like to refute the work of a man who has to deal with the fallout of the situation you are denying exists?

   

My only argument is paraphrased from you, third eye (and I paraphrase)
"I am entitled to my opinion."

Beyond the fact that Suzuki tries to analyze all the data, pro & con, logic would dictate that if someone that is so pro Kyoto changed their mind and came out and said " NO Kyoto is a terrible idea, it would give credibility to the report you believe in. That is why I only need one scientist to prove my beliefs.

   

I was addressing four separate posts - what's wrong with that?

If you had read any of my posts, you would have learned that I don't deny that global warming exists. What is being questioned here is whether or not human activity is causing global warming, or whether Kyoto will have any effect on slowing or stopping it. How are we ever going to know if there is no scientific debate on the subject? The politicians only allow those scientists that support their pre-conceptions into the debate. That is not science.

Like I said in a post above, global warming has happened before - the earth has been far warmer in the past than it is now. There were no humans around at that time. The temparature increases we are seeing now are not out of the ordinary according to historical data. Why hit the panic button over something that is likely part of a natural cycle? Radical enviro-groups, politicians and the media have hyped it so much that people think the world is coming to an end.

   

Of course, I respect that you are entitled to your opinion - I didn't mean anything derogatory.

I see the logic in your point.

My point, though, is that whether one single person is for or against something may not necessarily be enough. Science is about proof, not beliefs. Beliefs cannot be proven or disproven. You can still believe in something, if you so choose, even if it has been scientifically refuted. Basing political decisions on belief over scientific proof, though, is a bad idea.

The reason for this thread was that certain groups have been given monopoly over the debate. It is not sound scientific practice to ignore the evidence that these other scientists wish to bring to the table. Excluding people because you believe they are wrong is not the right way to do it. You have to include them and then prove that they are wrong.

   

Global warming theory didn't come out of nowhere, Third Eye. There were years of scientific debate, models created, experiments done, and data taken. The vast majority of the scientific community believes in the theory that we are changing the climate because they have been convinced by the scientific data, not because of politics.

The vast majority of global warming deniers get funding from oil companies and right-wing political groups with connections to the fossil fuel industry. Much of their science has been seriously questioned, mostly because it ignores the vast amount of energy put into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels.

Your question at the beginning of this thread,

is something I whole-heartedly agree with. The parameters you have set out exclude Ball and Lindzen because they have ties to the fossil fuel industry. You would have to depend heavily on their work if you were to disprove global warming theory.

   

While concerns for the environment are admirable and hopefully at some point useful, as usual the zealots refuse to acknowledge that the earth has in fact been warming since it's inception. This is recognized but not documented as 'in the beginning' man was more concerned with basic elements of survival and inventing the wheel - which brings us to the last 100 years during which our globe has been exposed to astounding growth in every regard.

Documenting global warming is a recent achievement of science and one that keeps an astronomical number of businesses and people occupied and dependant on your dollars. This is a growth industry that no one is going to give up on any time soon and so the tactics invloved shouldn't be a surprise as livelihoods and reputations are at steak, hence the fear mongering.

That Canada would jump on board a vague plan full of and complete with vagaries of not much at all and pledge billions of your dollars on vague promises based on vague assumptions is reckless and irresponsible at best and typikal too. The manner in which any country could best deal with environmental concerns is to concentrate their efforts at home first. Individually countries can make a difference with their well-intentioned dollars as opposed to contributing to just another hoarific organization that will without a doubt become just as big and just as useless as the United Nations.

   

What are you talking about, Karra? The goals set by Kyoto are based on each country's past output so that each country can reduce their present and future output. In other words most government funding for Kyoto will be spent right here in Canada.

There is no huge, nameless organisation....just a small group that is already working within the UN.

There are some very real benefits to implementing Kyoto too. Although Kyoto deals with greenhouse gas, the same things that produce that also produce other forms of pollution. We'll have a cleaner environment.

Technology will be developed. New technology always drives the economy...the historical precedents are huge. What we are looking at is the creation of mid to high paid jobs. A lot of those jobs will be in areas where there is presently very little work, like Northern Manitoba.

The Canadian economy can become more economically diverse. Right now Alberta gets the largest share of the energy pie, but Manitoba and Quebec have the perfect geography for hydrogen production, as well as the ability to produce huge amounts of hydro-electric power. The creation of two more "have" provinces would be a great thing for this country.

You, very personally, will save money. Think about it...an insulated house is cheaper to heat, a fuel efficient car is is cheaper to run.

Even if you hate the environment and want to pave every inch of the country, Kyoto gives us a huge boost. Of course if your only concern is short-term profits from the oil industry, this must scare the crap out of you.

   

Karra, if the world has been warming since its inception what do you call the ice ages? As for cycles of warming being natural, this is true but we do not have to trigger the cycle. We may be able to stabilize the environment and then again we may not be able to but the least we can do is try. Because we are all going to die someday does not mean that we shouldn't try to have a healthier life style each day.

Switching over to a hydrogen based economy would sound the death knell for our monetary system. There is too much oil debt, too many petro dollars and too little value in the US economy to be able to withstand a collapsed global oil industry.

How do you claim a shortage of hydrogen, you run an electric current through water and you get hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is a regenerative element which means that when you burn Hydrogen it is not destroyed. When burnt, the two by products are water and heat. You never run out of hydrogen. You can get the electricity to split water using wind mills, nice clean environmentally friendly produced electricity.

As for science, a theory is accepted as legitimate until it is proven false. The so called warming theory debunkers offer no refutation of the basic science underlying the theory, the only thing they dispute is the conclusions drawn from the data. They resort to attacking scientists reputations instead of the scientific arguments underpinning the theories. In other words they resort to con man logic. Dazzle them with bullshit continuously broadcast from their corporate friends and backers media pulpits is their motto. Saying a thing is so does not make it so. The truth is the truth regardless of whether or not it is recognized by mankind.

   

Oh wow, you've really come full circle haven't you? I'm going to have to call you Rev_Flum if you continue to carry on in such a fashion.

However, on a lighter note I must say I can no longer carry on this conversation with you at this particular moment as I just came back from the bathroom where I discovered much to my delight I am down an entire pound aka 454 grams. And all of this with next to no exercise but merely sailing on a near daily basis. How lucky for me!

On a slightly more serious note I must say that you are quite correct when you state new technology drives industry - as a result you can thank democracy and those willing to fight for it for the creature comforts you and your ilk enjoy today.

Now, I notice that your alter ego has posted so I'm sure yawl will like totally understand that I must dash - just gotta read whatever he posted that is no doubt similar fact to yours.

   

New technology driving industry has nothing to do with democracy, Karra. Neither does capitalism.

   

Mr. Milton

I would call it global warming - what would you call it?


Evolution Milton, evolution I say! Your pie-in-the-sky optimism is admirable yet naive. There is absolutely nothing you or even a large collection you yawl can do to prevent emissions of any sort as is evidently evident on these fine fora for example. It's simply evolution and the best intentions won't prevent or even cause a pause.


The so-called warming theory scare mongers continue to offer no refutation of the basic science underlying the facts that this is simply nature at its best. In fact, rather than offer valid and supported scientific documentation they rely on recent data and by that I mean within the last fifty years that technology has allowed them to accurately record something never recorded scientifically but was most certainly recorded non-scientifically - which as you should most certainly realise completely endorses my point made above the point I made above the point above. . . .

I despair Milton that you still have not acquired the ability to write sans the severe lean - still you continue to post undistilled opinions complete with the vitriol and hate your komrade-at-arms posts - unless of course you are simply another of his sock puppets. . . . . are you, for there is a certain and large similaritiy wouldn't you agree - accompanied by a similar departure from you know where and for what you were both guilty of.


Is this a quote of yours?

Hey! What's with the change in font size? Or is it just a case of -

'my eyes are blind I cannot see, I have not brought my spec avec moi' prolly should post that to the blind dog thread . . . . .

it carries on -

'there were rats, rats, as big as alley cats in the forum, in the forum . . . . .'

lol, you know who you are, si?

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next