Amusement in the NewsFollow

Then they'd be on the right, and therefore have a vested interest in not agreeing with global warming. Namely Big Oil profits and industrial regulations.

Yeah, that'd be just awful. Imagine, no smelly gas-hogs running around. No smog. No noise, because electric cars are whisper quiet. No dependence on oil.

God, you're a blind douche.

It's amazing you can't get a grip on reality. It's a volunteery service a citizen could do.

You know, like this country actually had to sacrifice in WWII?

This thread has generated massive amounts of wasted energy and come to zero conclusions, whilst doing nothing to clean up the planet....

Wich, in a nutshell, is exactly my problem with the whole man-made global warming industry debate that has been going on since the 70's.

Oh for ****'s sake. Do you even know what oil is?

Right, so the question is; will any action taken by us right now achieve some significant effect in delaying or mitigating the damage caused by global warming? We can predict and speculate but there is no clear model or paradigm from which to judge.

However, when you consider the processes and actions which created an excessive amount of CO2, it is clear that those processes and actions are detrimental to our environment and very inefficient regardless of their link to global warming, so why wouldn't we enact policy change?



Forget global warming, what about the inefficient waste of limited non-renewable resources? What about the impact to local environments, smog and acid rain and other concerns? Why would we not want to replace our energy infrastructure with clean and renewable energy generating technology? Why would we want to be dependent upon the Middle East and China for coal and oil? Plenty of reasons to enact these policies besides global warming.

Otherwise referred to as "Zero Point" energy.

Varus,



I don't know how it's possible, but I think you've moved to a new level of stupidity. Before, my mental image for you was a pair of clown shoes. Now, I don't even know what to think.

Then again, maybe you know something about giant space dinosaurs that we all don't.

Er? For the range as well. The range is from "an impact so small we can't really be sure it's there" to "worldwide floods in 50 years".




Are you suggesting that the global warming predictions are similar in "range" to option (2)? Cause that would make my earlier statement about no temperature increase over the last decade relevant, wouldn't it?


And if it's not, then how do we measure this? You can't both claim that GW predicts specific effects over a specific (and relatively close) period of time, and then argue that not seeing *any* of those effects over the last decade doesn't call it into question at all.



You've said yourself many times that science must be falsifiable in order to be useful. Is Global Warming falsifiable? If so, by what?

Holy fuck.