-
[quote=The_Canuck]You should look at this it's pretty interesting:
[URL="http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm"]http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm [/URL]
[URL="http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm"]http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm [/URL][/quote]
I do realise that there are people on both sides of the story. I've said that all along. Nothing you could show me would condradict the overwhelming consensus of scientists worldwide. It's ridiculous that you would attemp to use this as an argument when you don't take the IPCC seriously.
I'm embarassed that it's taken me this long to realise that you're hardly reading anything I post.
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog]I do realise that there are people on both sides of the story. I've said that all along. Nothing you could show me would condradict the overwhelming consensus of scientists worldwide. It's ridiculous that you would attemp to use this as an argument when you don't take the IPCC seriously.
I'm embarassed that it's taken me this long to realise that you're hardly reading anything I post.[/QUOTE]
I already told you to disregard anything I say. ;) :D
Lets end this stupid argument anyway, we kinda spammed up this thread(or at least I did).
-
[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]The output of 6 people amongst many other areas :)
It's always worth looking up the "about us" stuff on web sites !!
oh I forgot the "volunteers" as well --- about as reliable scientifically as the local catholic priest :D[/QUOTE]
Umm the petition is signed by 17,000...but anyway back on track...:)
-
I guess that most of you have read about Richard Branson's competition on extracting C02 from the atmosphere.
Most of the technology focuses on reducing emissions or making them stop altogether through the introduction of fuel cell technology.
This is the first approach on "deleting" the already emitted CO2 from past generations. Even if it doesn't work out it still is a good idea worth researching.
Apart from the marketing hype that is undoubtedly behind Branson's move, I really like the parallelisation with the geographical longitude contest many centuries ago (presented in Branson's press release and also the source below). But geographical longitude was known since the 1400's. That's the reason for which the Spanish were able to go to the US. So, Richie next time use better examples, since no one yet has been able to extract CO2 from the atmosphere
Source:
[url]http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/09/warmingprize_pla.html?category=earth&guid=20070209093000[/url]
-
Another interesting contribution on the topic is the emission trading scheme.
The story goes like this: Each company has an output of CO2. If this output is above the legal limit, then the company pays a fine. Companies that are below the legal limit can sell their CO2 "allowance" to another "lawbreaker" company. The buying and selling of CO2 follows the laws of the stock market, allowing escalated prices at periods of time and reduced prices at others.
The funds gathered are invested in environmental research
This concept was known for sometime ago, but today I read from the link posted below that the Australian Government has already implemented this.
Can our friends from the outback give us more information?
Source:
[url]http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/09/greenplanet_pla.html?category=earth&guid=20070209153030[/url]
-
The cynic in me suggests that Branson is doing this to ensure his airline can continue to fly and expand :D
Canuck ? 17,000 ?? Wow that's a lot for a web petition ---- NOT :D
-
[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]
Canuck ? 17,000 ?? Wow that's a lot for a web petition ---- NOT :D[/QUOTE]
Their all scientists :rolleyes: and I don't think you sign it online thats just a list. :)
-
[quote=The_Canuck]I already told you to disregard anything I say. ;) :D
Lets end this stupid argument anyway, we kinda spammed up this thread(or at least I did).[/quote]
It's not a stupid argument at all. I'm trying to convince you for your sake. If you're inviting people to disregard what you say, you obviously don't have a lot of confidence in what you're saying (for good reason). I am not solving anything to do with climate change by engaging in this debate with you, but hopefully I can get you to understand more of the problem so you can actually be realistic about it.
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog]It's not a stupid argument at all. I'm trying to convince you for your sake. If you're inviting people to disregard what you say, you obviously don't have a lot of confidence in what you're saying (for good reason). I am not solving anything to do with climate change by engaging in this debate with you, but hopefully I can get you to understand more of the problem so you can actually be realistic about it.[/QUOTE]
I should just come out and say, no matter what is happening, I don't really care. Mabye I would if it wasn't thrown at me everyday but I'm sick of it.
Sorry to you for engaging in a half assed "debate" but w/e hopefully your opinion of me isn't as bad as I assume :D
One more note: why was it called "global warming" for the better part of 2-3 years then suddenly changed to "climate change?" Perhaps ice storms in Texas did it? Doesn't make them look very credible whether their right or wrong does it? :)
-
[quote=The_Canuck]One more note: why was it called "global warming" for the better part of 2-3 years then suddenly changed to "climate change?" Perhaps ice storms in Texas did it? Doesn't make them look very credible whether their right or wrong does it? :)[/quote]
Again, this isn't anyone's fault, it's just your misinterpretation of what happened. Both are correct. Global warming exists because the [i]average overall[/i] temperature of the planet is rising. Climate change is just a better term to use because the term "global warming" is misleading for those who don't understand the issue. I'd guess that "climate change" is being used more frequently now because the issue has become much more mainstream, and thus there are more people at risk to confusion.
My opinion of you is not bad at all. You have the persistance to keep up with the debate, which leads me to believe you at least partially care. Caring is pretty important at this point. If the future brings a lot of awful shit for us to deal with, you're not going to feel very good about being one of those people who didn't care. I'm telling you for everyone's sake. There's no benefit to ignorance; knowledge is understanding.
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog] is misleading for those who don't understand the issue.[/QUOTE]
Like me :rolleyes: :D
[QUOTE]There's no benefit to ignorance[/QUOTE]
Bliss? :D Well I care...but not enough to worry about it.
Also I'd rather see pollution from factories reduced rather then sueing car companies, Damn you California. :D
-
[quote=The_Canuck]Like me :rolleyes: :D[/quote]
I must admit, I'm always impressed when someone actually has the balls to say this.
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog]I must admit, I'm always impressed when someone actually has the balls to say this.[/QUOTE]
Keyboard Warrior :p
-
[quote=The_Canuck]Their all scientists :rolleyes: and I don't think you sign it online thats just a list. :)[/quote]
Most of them have degrees.
Course I had two chemists, a physicist and a geologist on my project teams over the years ..... writing software for distributed monitoring systems. Their criteria is iffy :)
Also .... never one to take things at face value dug a little deeper based on the comment above ..... GO look at the breakdown by state and compare the numbers who signed in TEXAS versus other states. Might I suggest the "facts" are typically biased as much in this arena is by lobbyists and "lackeys" :D
Always QUESTION the "facts" - even those that seem to agree with an opinion !!!!
-
[quote=The_Canuck]One more note: why was it called "global warming" for the better part of 2-3 years then suddenly changed to "climate change?" Perhaps ice storms in Texas did it? Doesn't make them look very credible whether their right or wrong does it? :)[/quote]
"dumbing down" :D
Says more about the credibility of the audience and the news delivery companies !!!!!