Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 78

Thread: EU: Proposed 18% CO2 cut

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Location: Location: (UK)
    Posts
    2,496
    Fast cars will get bigger and more powerful if anything, HP sells and all that. We'll just have supercars that run on biofuels because of the higher octane rating of 102ron compared to the 99ron thats widely available.
    PPC - Put a V8 in it!

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    5,773
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    Can you be sure?

    But anyways, in the long run I guess we won't be around to find out who was right, or if it will even matter by then. So cheers to free speech and on going debates

    I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

    No, of course we can't be absolutely sure. The evidence now shows that we can be exponentially more sure than ever before, but no, we can't be absolutely sure. That doesn't matter.

    Do you seriously disapprove of what I say? The most knowledgable scientists on the planet say there's a 90% chance that humans are causing it, and you're hesitant to say it's likely? What on earth is wrong with you?

    The long run is exactly why it matters. Cheers to free speech indeed, but cheers to logic more so. Holocaust deniers have a right to free speech too, but it doesn't make their opinions valid. Realise the difference between a right to speak and being correct.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    2,039
    Since the topic of global warming is been discussed, I've been reminded of a question I'd like to ask.

    I recall reading that the continued rise in oceanic temperature is going to stop, or severly hinder, the jetstream. This will then plunge the northern hemisphere into a minor ice-age. Does anyone know if that's valid? I'd like to research it myself but I have to go.
    Go n-ithe an cat thu, is go n-ithe an diabhal an cat

    When you go Home, Tell them for us and say 'For your tommorrow, We Gave Our Today.'

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Egg Nog
    No, of course we can't be absolutely sure. The evidence now shows that we can be exponentially more sure than ever before, but no, we can't be absolutely sure. That doesn't matter.
    I meant the part about how you said they're unbiased.
    Holocaust deniers have a right to free speech too, but it doesn't make their opinions valid. Realise the difference between a right to speak and being correct.
    Err, the Holocaust is a fact, photographic evidence first hand accounts etcetera. Global Warming is a totally different arguement. It partly factual but the facts are only moderatly tied to the thesis, its all "reports" by various scientists and a few estimates.

    I dunno mabye I haven't read a convincing argument yet, see If you can find a really good article thats all facts and I might change my opinion, for now though I'll remain neutral.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    5,773
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    It partly factual but the facts are only moderatly tied to the thesis, its all "reports" by various scientists and a few estimates.
    How do you not understand? It's all "reports" by "scientists"? Look man, it's not a conspiracy theory. If it was as easy as hunting down the fabled "global warming" and snapping a few photos, maybe we'd actually have some progress. If you don't believe the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, then would do you think you should trust?

    I dunno mabye I haven't read a convincing argument yet
    And whose fault is that?

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    I promise to do more research before posting...

    Look, here is an overview of the recent IPCC report. Please keep in mind that everything they do is peer-reviewed, and the report must be unanimous or they won't publish it. As far as being unbiased and all-inclusive goes, this is the global report that really matters. It's a shame they only publish one every 5 years.

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...29?hub=SciTech

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    for now though I'll remain neutral.
    You can't have hard evidence on global warming. Nobody will show a picture as evidence.It's based on statistical findings.

    A 90% certainty is pretty damn good evidence for most people, but yeah, there is a 10% chance it's wrong.

    But for me, the argument isn't whether the phenomenon is caused by human action. Although I cannot prove it, it's pretty obvious that the problem is human-related.

    The argument for me is WHEN scientists will be able to prove it 100% by developing the relevant scientific methods. It's just a matter of time.

    But, as the management science says, there is "paralysis by over analysis". If mankind waits for a 100% confirmation, it might be too late.
    Minimising losses can maximise net gains

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,683
    Quote Originally Posted by lightweight
    You can't have hard evidence on global warming. Nobody will show a picture as evidence.It's based on statistical findings.
    I understand this and thats why I remain neutral. Sure there are statistics that point towards global warming/climate change because of human activities. But there are also stats that point torwards the arguement that humans do not affect the climate that much. (ie: Average temperatures havn't risen in nearly a decade and more CO2 comes from decaying plant matter then humans)

    You have to decide what to believe I guess, and I think theres still to much conflict to make a clear descision.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    5,773
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    I understand this and thats why I remain neutral. Sure there are statistics that point towards global warming/climate change because of human activities. But there are also stats that point torwards the arguement that humans do not affect the climate that much. (ie: Average temperatures havn't risen in nearly a decade and more CO2 comes from decaying plant matter then humans)

    You have to decide what to believe I guess, and I think theres still to much conflict to make a clear descision.
    The only way you could get to this point and say there is too much conflict to make a clear decision would be because you're not paying enough attention.

    This mindset is much of the problem; in fact it's exactly the same mindset of creationism/evolution debate (let's not go there though). It's not your job to come up with a reasonable interpretation of the truth. Climate change is not something you can make a value claim about. Climate change is empirical; so what do you do? You pay attention to the best possible sources.

    Please read the report I linked to. You might realise that your arguments are totally false. For the record, yes, natural factors do contribute more to greenhouse gases, but that is not the issue, it never has been, and it never will be. You might want to be careful saying that in a real debate; you will only make yourself look ignorant if you try to use that as a real point.

    I don't know where you heard that "average temperatures haven't risen in nearly a decade". Seriously, nobody is even arguing that. This is the one thing that is absolutely not a matter of opinion. Nobody on either side of the debate can deny the rising temperatures - this is why it's always been an issue of "who is causing it" rather than "is it occuring".

    Please read the link I posted earlier. This is a very prominent modern topic and it's necessary to keep up-tp-date with recent information. The IPCC report is a few days old, and it's the best information anyone has ever been able to come up with. The reason why everything is peer-reviewed is so that there is no bias. Please understand what science is.
    Last edited by Egg Nog; 02-06-2007 at 07:55 PM.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Egg Nog
    This mindset is much of the problem; in fact it's exactly the same mindset of creationism/evolution debate (let's not go there though). It's not your job to come up with a reasonable interpretation of the truth. Climate change is not something you can make a value claim about. Climate change is empirical; so what do you do? You pay attention to the best possible sources.

    Please read the report I linked to. You might realise that your arguments are totally false. For the record, yes, natural factors do contribute more to greenhouse gases, but that is not the issue, it never has been, and it never will be. You might want to be careful saying that in a real debate; you will only make yourself look ignorant if you try to use that as a real point.

    I don't know where you heard that "average temperatures haven't risen in nearly a decade". Seriously, nobody is even arguing that. This is the one thing that is absolutely not a matter of opinion. Nobody on either side of the debate can deny the rising temperatures - this is why it's always been an issue of "who is causing it" rather than "is it occuring".

    Please read the link I posted earlier. This is a very prominent modern topic and it's necessary to keep up-tp-date with recent information. The IPCC report is about a week old, and it's the best information anyone has ever been able to come up with. The reason why everything is peer-reviewed is so that there is no bias. Please understand what science is.
    Ok I read it and it points towards the earth's climate changing, possibly due to human activitys. I guess the only reason I started arguing is because I'm annoyed at the media exposure "global warming" is getting, it's like freakin doomsday, and also it seems like alot of people have nothing better to talk about now and so they get media coverage by talking about earths imminent demise due to global warming, its annoying. Anyway I guess you could say I'm biased so disregard anything I say

    Oh and that thing about global temperatures not rising since 1998, google it, there is some info on it but I don't know how accurate it is.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    For Tax Purposes, Cayman Islands
    Posts
    14,580
    it's a good step but until other industries and modes of transport, who contribute infinitely more gas into the atmosphere that new cars (who, lets face it, are getting cleaner by the day) at least match the Co2 Cut then it's the equivalent of scraping the surface.

    I'm not a big supporter of the Global warming theory - there is evidence out there but at the same time there is also evidence and statistics saying this is just the earth's climactic balancing act. However if only for the health of our air change should be made.

    The problem, as i see it with these new regulations, is that they do nothing to try and cut the Co2 of the vehicles already on the road - there are probably 20 times more cars that do not meet these new criteria but are still allowed on the roads. until something is done there also the top scraping issue comes back to the fore. Kudos for laying the groundwork but theres work to be done yet.
    <cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In the shed
    Posts
    9,941
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    Can you be sure?
    the long run I guess we won't be around to find out who was right, or if it will even matter by then.

    Will you be around in 50 years? then be prepared to se up to 30% of global land mass go under the ocean from arctic and antarctic melting. Including the east and west coasts of the States.

    Dont be a fool and delude yourself into that its next gens problem, yes it is but that doesnt mean we shouldnt help them to live on.
    The Datto will rage again...

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    For Tax Purposes, Cayman Islands
    Posts
    14,580
    I don't know about anyone else but i'm buying some land about 5-10 metres above sea level shortly
    <cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Gran Canaria, Spain
    Posts
    3,525
    [Back to the original topic]
    Yay! I think this is good news. I'm all for harsher restrictions for companies in most fields. In my opinion this is the best way to tackle the environmental problems as you cannot count on every person to make drastic individual changes for the sake of a common good. When an entire industry is targeted it's (in theory) all equal playing fields and the most innovative will come out as winners. This also forces the companies to put more resources into research as the value of new environmentally friendly innovations increases. For the consumer it isn't a big change at all, there might be some short term price increases, but the way most people think is at long as it affects everybody we can all bicker and complain about it together but essentially it's ok.
    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31695
    - Are YOU listed? -

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    4,031
    [quick sidestep to offtopic]
    Regards the believability of climate change, my city is currently affected by the worst drought in its history. Such is the dearth of rainfall in recent years that it is illegal to wash your car via domestic tap water

    Quote Originally Posted by govt water supplier
    Inflows to our dams since 2001 have been on average two thirds less than the historical average. This year has been disastrous. Inflows are almost 90% below average.
    90% !!

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Gran Canaria, Spain
    Posts
    3,525
    It seems like many parts of the world has had the most * in their history recently. We just had southern Finland's warmest December in recorded history, typical autumn weather all around. No signs of snow. Luckily the lovely cold is here now, I like it more than ever. I just looked at the temperature gauge, -23 degrees C, opened the window and took a deep breath of probably the cleanest capital air there is, smiled and made me a cup of hot chocolate.
    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31695
    - Are YOU listed? -

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •