I object to the use of the term "lower". They are not lower people, they are poorer people. And they don't get to have access to that immense standard of healthcare in many countries that the rich do. They certainly don't deserve to have their health damaged by the environmental problems big business causes with their pollution.
Originally posted by Starhawk
I object to the use of the term "lower". They are not lower people, they are poorer people. And they don't get to have access to that immense standard of healthcare in many countries that the rich do. They certainly don't deserve to have their health damaged by the environmental problems big business causes with their pollution.
Aha, well, insert "poorer" whenever I say "lower" then.
And they might have a less high standard, but they did not contribute as much as the richer did.
Originally posted by Starhawk
And how many scientists and credible people have shown us that it is our fault and there is allot we can do. Sorry I just don't buy into people who discredit anything that hurts big business.
The co-founder of Greenpeace and one of the co authors of the first UN climate report would certainly count if you ask me.... Both of them would probably know what they are talking about. Especially when it comes to the climate reports themselves.
Bunch of other scientists as well but I don't remember all of them.
So yeah I have plenty of reason to doubt the realness of the entire situation and I am certainly not willing to kill millions of people on a freaking theory. Besides big businesses can make millions of environmental issues if the government goes far enough in trying to prevent damage, because they will have to lower taxes for them in order to allow them to compete or they will have to give out some sort of subsidies otherwise they won't do anything.
Can't really fine them either, that would just make competing with the other country's harder. The first people that are going to suffer from anything are simply the poorest people in the world and the middle class in the rich area's of the world. Even if you do heavily increase taxes on the rich...
Taxes in Canada can't save lives in Africa after all, especially not if it hurts Canada's economy.
Originally posted by Starhawk
I never said heavily increase. And yes our lives and the environment are more important then the economy having to deal with what in the end would amount to a minor inconvenience in the end.
Except for the millions of lives lost in Africa, Eastern Europe, Southern America and a large part of Asia... But you seem to just ignore everybody that doesn't live in Canada anyway... So you probably don't give a damn about them.
Besides again, the theory isn't proven yet. Not as long as leading scientists in their fields disagree with it.
Originally posted by Starhawk
And the very large number that do realize it mean nothing to you?And how many more lives will be lost if the environment falls apart?
No, have you watched the great warming swindle? They make a persuasive argument, doesn't mean it's true but it certainly convinced me that global warming might not be. And until I see otherwise I will not believe the theory is true.
Not to mention that no politician alive is willing to support the opposing theory. Global warming is an incredibly hot issue right now, everybody has to say it's real otherwise you will lose voters. At this moment in time I'm more inclined to believe this is all just bullshit instead of something real... I might be wrong, but I'm personally not willing to risk our economy and millions of lives until it's proven beyond doubt.
Something that it simply isn't, you on the other hand are willing to kill millions before seeing prove that removes doubt. That is a very dangerous thing to do.
Originally posted by Fishy
No, have you watched the great warming swindle? They make a persuasive argument, doesn't mean it's true but it certainly convinced me that global warming might not be. And until I see otherwise I will not believe the theory is true.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070425_globalwarm_film.html
not that it wasn't a good film, and not that it doesn't have some extremely valid points, it just does paint some misleading pictures.
Kyoto aside, we are probably responsible for more than 50% of the warming that we are seeing. Kyoto doesn't address this, and is a bad thing for that reason. /shrug at least thats the way I sees it.
In the 70's, the great scare/bogyman was "Global Cooling"; people predicted that in several decades the Earth would be a snowball if man/industrializing was left unstopped. Some "scientist" event went on to propose this 'great humanity saving idea', where 'we'd' sprinkle a solar absorbing compound all over the North & South Poles (maybe just one, I forget) in order to raise the climate's temperature... imagine if everybody embraced that idea and it had been executed.
And both our science and technology have advanced considerably since then. You act as if this is a couple of rednecks with a chemistry set telling us the environment is screwed. It's a large number of the world's best scientists. I bet if the big businesses wouldn't be inconvenienced you'd be hopping all over that.
Originally posted by Starhawk
And both our science and technology have advanced considerably since then. You act as if this is a couple of rednecks with a chemistry set telling us the environment is screwed. It's a large number of the world's best scientists. I bet if the big businesses wouldn't be inconvenienced you'd be hopping all over that.
you'd be surprised about how difficult this is
for instance, there has recently been some controversy in the scientific community about the effect that global warming may have on hurricanes
The commonly postulated hypothesis indicated that they could be stronger, but may be pushed away from landfall by stronger ocean currents, or other such things. This is of course due to warmer ocean water.
However, a recently published paper about vertical wind sheer says that the increase in this phenomena would act against hurricane formation and that we would see a decrease in hurricane activity due to global warming.
As interesting as this debate is in and of itself, I am using it to illustrate a point.
When making the determinations about what would happen when warmer ocean water met higher vertical wind sheer, they had 18 different models of Earth's climate that they used to make these predictions. 18!. In physics, they don't have more than a dozen models of the atom. Hell, even in psychology there are only 5-6 "models" for human behaviour.
Further, you and I both know that if we turn on the weather network, they can't say with a high degree of certainty what the weather in 3 days will be like. Again, multiple models for atmospheric interactions.
This isn't to say that the planet isn't warming or anything like that. I guess its more to, again, try to convince you that this is still an ongoing research project, where the outcomes of this warming trend are still speculative at best.
Originally posted by Robtard
In the 70's, the great scare/bogyman was "Global Cooling"; people predicted that in several decades the Earth would be a snowball if man/industrializing was left unstopped. Some "scientist" event went on to propose this 'great humanity saving idea', where 'we'd' sprinkle a solar absorbing compound all over the North & South Poles (maybe just one, I forget) in order to raise the climate's temperature... imagine if everybody embraced that idea and it had been executed.
I am all for skeptical analysis of data.
There is a point where a spade must be called a spade, but in light of the fervor of the green movement on this one (ie- turning environmentalism into anti-capitalism) I am very willing to with hold real action until there is much more compelling science.
I wouldn't try to discredit the entire "global warming" thing anymore though. Even global cooling WAS a trend. The planet is in a warming trend, even if today is the last day of it 😛
I am sick of people acting as if this is just a few people in their garage with a chemistry set.
57 World bank economists
200 of the world's leading climate scientists
Scientists and representatives of over 100 countries.
More than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science.
Well over 1000 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming.
Originally posted by Starhawk
I am sick of people acting as if this is just a few people in their garage with a chemistry set.57 World bank economists
200 of the world's leading climate scientists
Scientists and representatives of over 100 countries.
More than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science.
Well over 1000 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming.
Originally posted by inimalist
This isn't to say that the planet isn't warming or anything like that. I guess its more to, again, try to convince you that this is still an ongoing research project, where the outcomes of this warming trend are still speculative at best.
The only thing all of those scientists and papers agree on is that there is a modern trend of warming possibly made worse by humans