Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

To this point, no one has been able to refute Suzuki's scientific observations concerning the enviroment. His is opinion based in fact. Mine is belief. I believe what Suzuki tells me because it is based on logic and scientific analysis.His opinion, is a consensus of a great deal of researchers. The proof is out there. No one has disproved what Suzuki ( & others) have claimed, succesfully.

Discussion, with many opinions, is the best way to analyze all the data, on any given topic. I have not excluded any rational theory about the debate. Assuming that I have disregarded information based on my beliefs or observations, detracts from the argument. The 2800 (or so) scientists are making the assertion that the accepted theory is wrong. It is up to them to disprove it. Not me.

I see many problems with how some enviromentists and affiliated groups are critical of (global) government policies and technical advancements. This in itself, creates a problem of legitmacy for these groups. There is a need to find acceptable solutions to potential enviromental disasters. This is a global problem. There is a need for everyone, governments and citizens of this planet to work together. That's why Kyoto is the starting point. It opens discussions on the matter at hand. It offers a chance to improve and share ideas. To assess what has or has not worked. You have to start somewhere.

   

Actually they have. That's why so many global warming deniers have failed peer review in open scientific forums...the science they presented was flawed so it was refuted...usually for ignoring data that did not fit the model.



The scientists who support global warming theory have gone back much farther than fifty years, Karra. Using geology, ice core samples, tree ring samples and so on they have, in fact, gone back tens of thousands of years. They have scientifically recorded not just the climate of the past, but the makeup of the atmosphere during the time the samples were forming. That work has been peer reviewed and withstood the tests of open scientific debate.

What all that work shows is that as we began industrialising and burning fossil fuels...producing greenhouse gasses...that the environment began to change more and more rapidly.

   

Mr. Zenfisher

While your goal is admirable your path is wrought with idealism. There is no need to assess what has or hasn't worked - as well there are questions that must be asked of that - deal with your home, yourself, what you personally can affect - look at your neighborhoods, cities, provinces and so on.

If you think for a moment that this country can get itself together when it's incapable of logic when it comes to something as simple and basic as bilingualism, you are so very wrong.

Kyoto is a lost cause; in a world as small as this, so full of hate and so ready to do battle (in a general sense) which is only an extrapolation of our small communities; what on earth makes you think we can all just get along regarding anything at all?

Will you sacrifice one, some, or all of your creature comforts so some young guy riding a bicycle in China can drive diesel?

   

Karra

All treaties are flawed. They are unfair to one party in one respect and unfair to the other party in other aspects. Both parties gain something, both parties give up something. But...both parties hope to gain more than they lose. In this case its countries giving up a little bit to help prevent losing the very planet we live on.

What a treaty provides is, a starting point to amend and improve on the original agreement. It is in every countries interest, to help solve enviromental issues. ( As every person should be concerned and want to help). I merely see Kyoto (flawed yes) as a point at which the world can begin to negotiate. When you do nothing...guess what...nothing gets done. But, if you start something, form it, mold, add to it...you might have a chance to build something that actually works.

Like Third Eye, you are making assumptions about what I may or may not be doing. You are right it is important to get involved on a local level.You have no idea what sacrafices I have made,nor I you.

I wear the idealist badge with pride and honour. Idealists change the world. Pessemists are happy in their misery. How do I know the world can find a way to agree on enviromental issues ? Why I may be a bit of an idealist I am also a bit of a realist. Survival is so wired into our brains. It takes a great deal of will to go against this instinct. Its about keeping us (humans) off the endangered species list. Its about wanting the best for our kids and hopefully their kids. This is about our possible extinction, only it will be at our own hands. That's why I know we can force the governements of the world to cut the crap,sit down and hammer out an accord. We have a starting point now. Sign it, then make improvements to it.

   

Is that so? What you have just described is known as paleoclimatology. The man you called a fool earlier, Dr. Tim Patterson, is a paleoclimatologist - and he has no ties to the oil industry. He, along with many of his peers, offer evidence contrary to what Kyoto is based on. This fact alone raises enough questions about the validity of Kyoto that we should step back and examine it a bit more before rushing into it so foolishly.



Really? Tell me, what is the number one greenhouse gas?

   

That is true, but that doesn't mean that "somewhere" is the wrong place.

   

i·de·al·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-d-lst)
n.
One whose conduct is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations.
One who is unrealistic and impractical; a visionary.
An artist or writer whose work is imbued with idealism.
An adherent of any system of philosophical idealism.

Yes, idealists do change the world - usually for the worse.

   

A good article outlining another significant input into the global warming equation that is excluded by UN climate models:

Blame sun for global warming

Many studies are starting to draw similar conclusions. They admit there is still some room for anthropogenic effects, but these are minor compared to natural causes.

Graph comparing sunspot activity to global temperature variation - from 1860 (end of last cool period) to 2000 (sunpsot activity peaked within the past two years, matching the continued trend of warming):

   

I am aware of the definition of idealist Third eye...on that note... idealists that have changed the world...

JFK... even in his death he inspired the push for the US to land on the moon. (Not to mention his support for the civil rights movement and that president thing.)

Martin Luther King...He inspired a generation and pushed for civil rights movent in the US

Pierre Elliot Trudeau... Love him or Hate him he had a vision for Canada and made it a true global player.

Lester Pearson... One the nobel peace prize for the settlement of the Suez crisis. The pension plan,the flag adpoted on his watch.

Nelson Mendala ... Brought down aparthied

Albert Einstein... Saw the great good his discoveries could do, fought against the use of its destructive power.

Mother Theresa...devoted her life to helping the poor in India.

The list is endless.

I don't know ...I think these "idealists" changed the world for the better.
A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step.

   

Can you tell us the number (percentages will do) of scientists that support global warming theory as opposed the number that oppose it, Third Eye? World wide, I mean. Global warming is a global problem and Kyoto is an international treaty, after all.

   

reuters

Here is another point that y'all ,might want to take into consideration. If governments are trying to intimidate scientists, it skews all the data. Which makes it even more imortant that a treaty be reached soon.

   

You forgot some.....

Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Josef Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Osama Bin Laden...

The list goes on and on.

The death of millions of innocents begins with a single flawed idea.

And let's not forget that idealism is in direct conflict with science, but I guess that point is moot now.

   

Yes - probably 100% support global warming theory. That is because global warming is a natural phenomenon that has happened many times in the past, and will happen, with or without us, again in the future. Is it so hard to accept that as the sun continues to be its most active in over 1000 years, it might just warm things up a little around here?

What I can't tell you is the percentages of scientists that support particular theories for the causes of global warming, because there are many theories (the solar activity theory is gaining moare and more support). Nor can I tell you the percentages that support or oppose Kyoto. Can you? Really?

   

I don't have the numbers, but it is the majority of the scientific community. Most of the dissent actually comes from within those who follow the theory because there are many disciplines and many sub-theories. Just like with evolution, those that do not support point and say, "Look, the theory is wrong because they don't agree on that point." That ain't how science works, though.

   

SUCK IT UP HIPPY! Or better yet, go to a third world country and see how they treat the environment (complain to their governments). Go to Thailand or Malaysia and see that they have some of the dirtiest ocean in the world! Their streets are filled with gutters of seweage running freely in the streets and the malls smell like rotten food or animal. You better pick and choose your battles Chief. And be completely informed and experienced in what you are talking about, before you start spitting out Hippy crap that 3.2% of the world cares about Global warming is "junk science" so people like you can keep your job! It's called Global Trend! I laugh when I hear idiots like you say, "Man, it hasn't been this hot for 100 years! It must be Global Warming." If it was that temperature or hotter 100 years ago, it's not global warming!

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next