How Credible is This "Global Warming?"

[Mentar]

Ah well. Christmas. I'll try to fairly sum up our both positions and then try for some kind of conclusion. Feel free to correct me when you feel quoted or summarizes incorrectly.

Your position:

Global Warming and the CO2 influence on it are not conclusively proven. Yes, the majority of scientific bodies agree about it, but there are thousands of dissenting scientists. We don't have sufficient data to justify major steps which would lead to new taxes before we know what we're dealing with. Besides, those alarmists who would profit most about it are evil fat cat elitists who don't deserve to be pampered.

My position:

Due to the fact that the vast majority of climate experts consider the CO2-Global Warming link proven and the climate models indicate a grave danger, I consider it irresponsible not to act on it. Risk management doesn't handle disasters which are CERTAIN to happen, but rather incidents which are plausible enough that they COULD happen. And we can't wait a few more decades to collect data, because there's the danger that by the time we have a confirmation, it might be too late to change it. Besides, it's obvious that the "worst case" would be some extra taxes on one hand or rising sea levels and major climate changes on the other. The wiser choice seems obvious to me.

The ICSC intends to find the causes of climate change based on the many claims that it isn't as simple (or complicated) as the IPCC makes it. Obviously, there is bias to the other side of the argument, but if you look at the IPCC mission statement, they clearly state that they are researching the man made effect on climate (without due regard to the natural effect, is appears).

Look, every group which claims to "investigate" an issue by defining in their mission statement what the result is going to look like is not credible. Their own website is much more damning than the fact that it was founded by a professional Big Energy lobbyist in 2007.

So here is a collection of 500 papers with conflicting views to the "consensus". Now I put to you, forget your silly claims of lobbying[...]

What is "silly" when I point out that your group has been founded by a well-known professional lobbyist? It's rather silly to ignore that.

I'm not going to weed through the 500 papers. I made a few quick checks and it seemed that the majority dealt only tangentially with the issue on hand at best. But very well, I will concede that there obviously ARE dissenting voices in the science field. Will you be very disappointed if I say that I'm still inclined to believe the official bodies more?

Also, what's the point about solar activity? As long as the CO2 emissions do cause a greenhouse effect (I assume that at least this can be considered proven), it would be sensible to counteract it. The technologies for this do exist, so why shouldn't we employ and improve on them? This whole solar activity issue reeks very much like a cheap excuse not to do anything to me. (Also, I loved the ICSC mission statement which seemed to EMBRACE Global Warming, since it was "beneficial").

This whole "we need more investigations" is bullcrap too. What kind of investigations would that be? How many decades would we need before we gain more insights? What kind of result would convince you? Look in the mirror and ask yourself: Anything?

Essentially, it all boils down to the question whether or not you want to stick your head in the sand (and save some cash) or not. You're going to bet the farm on being right. I don't think this is the right way to go.

In Britiain we have the Digital Economy Bill being pushed by Mandy, which would give him unlimited power to practically create the laws as he sees fit. In Australia, the proposals are the same, which I'm sure you'll find plenty of result on searching (sorry for the wiki article), as it's a current topic of discussion. The USA has a similar proposal to the UK, which would give the state the power to filter as they please.

As far as I can see, this has absolutely nothing to do with Global Warming, but rather with copyright enforcement. We can cut this short, I'm categorically against any form of censorship, too. For whatever reason.

Believe me, the British people are not happy with their position in the EU, and we certainly are campaigning, quite sucessfully to get out of it. No, I do not mean the tories. That crook David Scameron is just another puppet for the big bankers. Labour or Conservative are just two different masks on the same face. You're correct in your statements about him, and it is quite possible he will be elected (thanks to the well educated public).

"Scameron" is cute

Okay - ask yourself: Which relevant decisions in the past 5 years can you remember which Brussels cruelly forced on you, which you'd rather have repealed? Nothing abstract like "Lisbon" please, something concrete?

The thing is simple: You want something (participation in the European market), then you'll also want to have influence over whatever affects it. Like for example, norms and regulations. And once you want this kind of policy influence, you need to be member. There is no real way to seperate "market" issues from "other" policies.

What happens here is another example of "Murdoch whipping up chauvinistic anger". Based on what I read, the vast majority of European experts in Britain agree that isolating the UK from the EU would be disastrous for them, but raging against the big fat EU bureaucracy is popular with the plebs. So, Cameron will continue to do so and then stop short before it really hurts the UK.

I'm talking about the UKIP and BNP, who both strongly object to our position in the EU, and who both strongly object to the "consensus" on global warming.

Goodness ^_^; ... okay, there you have the chauvinistic nuts. You think they will ever get close to political power?

We don't wish to completely separate ourselves from the EU. We wish to trade with the EU, without the restrictions imposed on us by the unelected at the centre, as the EU was described to be - a trading zone, though it never was - the plans for an EU dictatorship were there before the treaty of Rome was signed.

Won't fly. Either you want to have a word in how the regulations are shaped - then you need to be part of the political body - or you don't. And that won't make much sense.

"EU dictatorship" - you've hung too much with the loons. Who is the dictator, then? Oh, and a little side-comment: In the past decade, the EU commission has been the best governing body in the western world. Yes, they're technocrats, but at least they've been mostly untainted by the vast corruption exhibited in for example the American political system. Let's see how long it takes before the Euro leaves the British Pound behind completely (we're already close to parity).

The central body needs to be transparent, elected, and democratic. This is everything that the Convention didn't describe. You live in a country where dictatorship has been stamped out - why the rush to get back into one? I'm pretty sure if you ask some elderly who were around during the war, they'll have second concerns before rushing into a new form of fascism.

What is this nonsense supposed to be about? The EU? You can't possibly mean that, do you?

The European Parliament IS democratically elected. The EU commission is appointed by the Council, and confirmed by vote of the parliament. The European Council consists of the democratically elected heads of state. Etcetera.

Calling this "fascism" is so stupid that I'm pretty flabbergasted that you're listing it. It's generic Murdoch propaganda (just like anything showing regard for others is "Socialism") and the equivalent of "enemy", but you really need to be totally clueless about history to confuse the EU with fascism. Naturally, the Murdoch target group isn't exactly the intelligentsia...

Should you mean the body regulating international CO2 emission treaties: No, they don't have to be democratically elected. Just like the IMF isn't democratically elected, like Interpol isn't democratically elected, like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) isn't democratically elected either. We need experts in these positions. Besides, there is no such thing as worldwide elections - how would that be supposed to look like?

Ah whatever. You think that leaving the EU would benefit you? Then work for leaving it. To be honest, I'd _love_ to do a hard cut: Binding referendum in each EU country, but with one additional rule: Those countries who vote "nay" must immediately leave the EU, and those who vote to stay in carry on, based on double-majority decisions (majority of votes, and majority of member nations). No more unanimous decisions which lead to deal-sweeteners like in the US senate. No more obstruction and stalling. Lisbon was a big big step in the right direction. Now I hope the EU can carry on.

[iLney]

Careful about what you wish for. If the UK leaves EU, that body becomes a joke. Similarly, if the US leaves UN, UN who?

[Mentar]

Feeling a bit arrogant tonight? Never ceases to amaze me how many US/UK prideful loons seem to think the world revolves around them and only them.

The EU did pretty well without the UK in the past (which is why they grudgingly got in). The UK definitely has more to lose than the rest of the EU. I'm just getting tired of singular members trying to blackmail the rest of the EU due to the requirement of unanimous decisions. Thank god THAT is over with Lisbon.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by iLney

Careful about what you wish for. If the UK leaves EU, that body becomes a joke. Similarly, if the US leaves UN, UN who?

lol the un is a joke... considering unicef get's their jollies off protecting 2d children over real children

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

lol the un is a joke... considering unicef get's their jollies off protecting 2d children over real children

The General Assembly is the largest joke. Asking the taxpayers of the world to fund a over-sized talkshop is just stupid, especially when its resolution have no power.

[iLney]

Your definition of a joke is pretty loose

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by iLney

Your definition of a joke is pretty loose

The UN has zero power, it "suggests" things, but in the end if the g5 don't want to follow what the "world" wants they have no real power but to pass non binding resolutions, not to mention that the security council is run by the western world. Trust me, if you thought the league of nations was tame, the UN is just a formality entity that really is there to protect the colonial powers and America.

[Jazzrat]

Originally Posted by iLney

Careful about what you wish for. If the UK leaves EU, that body becomes a joke. Similarly, if the US leaves UN, UN who?

US and UK are no longer the dominant power it once was. And UN have long lost it's authority after the two country went ahead on their Iraq war without their approval.

While US still have a lucrative internal market, superior armed forces, a strong technological edge and remains an influential powerhouse on the global power play, i wonder what does UK has over other superpowers?

Any meaningful outcome would depend on the cooperation between China, US and Russia. If these 3 are willing to go ahead, the rest of the world (minus rogue states) would follow suit either by hook or crook.

[iLney]

I never say that the US and UK dominated the world or that everything must obey their will. How about this analogy: suppose that Congress passes a bill that forces strict environmental regulations on all oil companies except ExxonMobil. What do you think about that bill?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by iLney

I never say that the US and UK dominated the world or that everything must obey their will. How about this analogy: suppose that Congress passes a bill that forces strict environmental regulations on all oil companies except ExxonMobil. What do you think about that bill?

From my knowledge of Economics, the corporate world will adapt. However, the creation of such a bill means that there will definitely be loopholes to cash in and profit from. In the end, the company with the greatest financial loss will be ExxonMobil.

[iLney]

Well, yes. If only that were the only variable in the market.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Mentar

My position:

Due to the fact that the vast majority of climate experts consider the CO2-Global Warming link proven and the climate models indicate a grave danger, I consider it irresponsible not to act on it. Risk management doesn't handle disasters which are CERTAIN to happen, but rather incidents which are plausible enough that they COULD happen. And we can't wait a few more decades to collect data, because there's the danger that by the time we have a confirmation, it might be too late to change it. Besides, it's obvious that the "worst case" would be some extra taxes on one hand or rising sea levels and major climate changes on the other. The wiser choice seems obvious to me.

This must be really easy to say since you have, you know, a job, and a place to live, food to eat, money in your pocket... it's really easy for you to say that you're willing to live with a higher cost of everything in exchange for what you believe is saving the world.

But what about those of us who are struggling to simply survive in an economic climate that is decidedly hostile?

Do we just die... starve, or freeze to death... so you enviro-crazies can feel good about yourselves? We can't even afford to live as things are. Heaven help us all if things get more expensive.

Any new environmental regulation, but especially cap and trade, will hurt me and almost everyone I know.

Seriously, I don't give a shit if we're causing the world to heat up or not. I honestly don't care one whit about the environment at this moment in time. There is only one thing I care about and that is staying alive. Making energy costs rise will make it much harder for homeless and unemployed people to survive.

[Anh_Minh]

I'd like to point out that the economic effects of ecological regulations aren't that clear cut. Especially for those of us living in rich countries. Note that I'm not talking about specific regulations, which may of course be perverted by special interests.

Certainly, there are taxes, making things more expensive, at least in the short run. But:
- after the initial investments, we'll save energy.
- they'll create jobs - in R&D, and in construction (to convert existing buildings to more ecological designs). Most of our economies are already about keeping people busy making things we don't really need, but want (like, say, computers and internet access). The only difference is that eco-jobs may actually be a matter of need.
- they'll favor local production, since transportation releases a lot of CO2.

[Syntron]

This image clearly proves that:

1) Humanity drives big cars since 400k BC
2) Oil has allready run out about 4 times so god had to refill earth
3) I would stock up on warm clothes right about now

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

This must be really easy to say since you have, you know, a job, and a place to live, food to eat, money in your pocket... it's really easy for you to say that you're willing to live with a higher cost of everything in exchange for what you believe is saving the world.

But what about those of us who are struggling to simply survive in an economic climate that is decidedly hostile?

Amazing. All of a sudden you care for them? In the past it seemed to me that it was their own fault if people had problems to make ends meet. At least, that's what your soulmates have been telling me in the past, taking the US as benchmark.

There are various ways to make sure that the costs are mostly taken by those who can pay for it, but that's something each nation has to model by their own rules. In Germany, I see no problem at all due to the extensive safety net. In the US, maybe it's time to rethink the "swim or sink" mentality.

Do we just die... starve, or freeze to death... so you enviro-crazies can feel good about yourselves? We can't even afford to live as things are. Heaven help us all if things get more expensive.

Cry me a river. Hey, the US take pride in themselves to be the richest people on the face of earth. And all of a sudden you're telling me you're on the brink of starving and freezing to death?

Any new environmental regulation, but especially cap and trade, will hurt me and almost everyone I know.

Then fix your f*cking social net. This ridiculous "either I die right now or the world might possibly be in trouble in 50 years" is no real alternative.

Seriously, I don't give a shit if we're causing the world to heat up or not. I honestly don't care one whit about the environment at this moment in time. There is only one thing I care about and that is staying alive. Making energy costs rise will make it much harder for homeless and unemployed people to survive.

You know... the next time you begin another tirade about the awesomeness of the US, reread this last chapter. I think it's the most pitiful whining I've heard in a long while. So you're telling me that you're close to dying over there? Then I'd say you have some real problems to address in your country.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Syntron

This image clearly proves that:

1) Humanity drives big cars since 400k BC
2) Oil has allready run out about 4 times so god had to refill earth
3) I would stock up on warm clothes right about now

4) There are really people on this forum who believe that one can read degree centigrade temperature differences from 400.000 year old ice cores

Damn, the climatologists are really stupid. They had the answer in front of their noses for so long...

[Dark Knight Gafgar]

It wasn't ten years ago the environmentalists were wetting themselves over 'Global Cooling' and the new ice age that was supposed to have begun by now. Now it's supposed to be Global Warming and the Earth burning up. For frak's sake, if the Earth's ecosystem is this fragile why the hell haven't we moved to the Lagrange points yet?

[Dralha]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight Gafgar

It wasn't ten years ago the environmentalists were wetting themselves over 'Global Cooling' and the new ice age that was supposed to have begun by now.

No, no, you've got the canard all wrong. You're supposed to say, "I remember when all the climatologists were warning about global cooling in the 1970's."

Here's a good video that deals with that silly myth:

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman.../0/XB3S0fnOr0M

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight Gafgar

It wasn't ten years ago the environmentalists were wetting themselves over 'Global Cooling' and the new ice age that was supposed to have begun by now. Now it's supposed to be Global Warming and the Earth burning up. For frak's sake, if the Earth's ecosystem is this fragile why the hell haven't we moved to the Lagrange points yet?

In 30 years they'll probably be saying Global Cooling again.

[Dark Knight Gafgar]

Originally Posted by Dralha

No, no, you've got the canard all wrong. You're supposed to say, "I remember when all the climatologists were warning about global cooling in the 1970's."

And then they started warning about global warming in the 80s, and then it was global cooling again in the 90s, and now it's global warming. 2012 isn't going to be the end of the world: it's going to be when the tree-huggers start whining about global cooling again.