'The science is clear. It leaves no room for procrastination. Global warming is real.

[L Gilbert]

I just noticed in the pic, that the "pollution cloud" isn't over the area of China that's the most heavily populated, too. Interesting.

 

[Avro]

Did you mean "invoked", "involved", or what?

Sorry, I had no idea the spelling police were on duty.

INVOLVED

 

[tamarin]

Avro, with the Canuck government talking out of both sides of its mouth on Chinese trade, I would be very surprised if China did not benefit handsomely from the sale of credits. And part of its lucre coming from us.

 

[L Gilbert]

With China as rich as it is I can't fathom how we continue to toe the line that it's a developing country. It would add salt to an already gaping wound to pay them for emission credits. Gilbert, it's time you ran for office!

Sorry, but I'm a firm believer that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I prefer to remain a nice guy.

 

[Avro]

So you are saying we should forget about what we're doing and concentrate on China. I see.
Personally, I won't start cleaning up someone else's back yard (or even help them clean up) when my own is a mess. It's termed "hypocracy".

We do both.

Remember, it's called GLOBAL warming.

All we are really doing is making an attempt to get China to reduce it's GHG emmisions.

The EU is already doing this.

 

[L Gilbert]

Sorry, I had no idea the spelling police were on duty.

INVOLVED

No spelling police, but if you wish to be understood, it would help if you didn't post words that MIGHT have more then a couple meanings. "Involed" could have been typoed as "invoked" as much as "involved" and so the typo was ambiguous. Um, there is a spellchecker in the right hand upper corner that one could use when typing a post out.

 

[Avro]

No spelling police, but if you wish to be understood, it would help if you didn't post words that MIGHT have more then a couple meanings. "Involed" could have been typoed as "invoked" as much as "involved" and so the typo was ambiguous. Um, there is a spellchecker in the right hand upper corner that one could use when typing a post out.

Let's try and stay on topic. :roll:

 

[L Gilbert]

We do both.

Remember, it's called GLOBAL warming.

All we are really doing is making an attempt to get China to reduce it's GHG emmisions.

The EU is already doing this.

Global warming is part of a natural cycle in climate. We contribute a small fraction to it. We sure as hell cannot stop it. Although it wouuldn't hurt for us to be more responsible and quit polluting, the whole issue is extremely exaggerated by the press and politics.
So why would we give the rich in China more money when all we need to do is ask them to act responsibly toward the environment?
The Eu is already doing what? Cutting back? Forking money over to China (a foolish idea)?

 

[L Gilbert]

Let's try and stay on topic. :roll:

Why'd you bring it up then?

 

[Avro]

Why'd you bring it up then?

I was clearing up your inability to read between the lines.

 

[L Gilbert]

I was clearing up your inability to read between the lines.

Between the lines? Grow up, You misspelled a word so as to make the meaning of the sentence ambiguous. Don't pin your mistake on me.

 

[Avro]

Between the lines? Grow up, You misspelled a word so as to make the meaning of the sentence ambiguous. Don't pin your mistake on me.

Tell me dear sir, how would "invoked"played out in that sentence.

I've encountered spelling mistakes often in forums but have always been able to figure out what someone is saying.

If you want to run away from the topic that's okay.

 

[L Gilbert]

Tell me dear sir, how would "invoked"played out in that sentence.

I've encountered spelling mistakes often in forums but have always been able to figure out what someone is saying.

If you want to run away from the topic that's okay.

Why would I run away. You like Kyoto and its follies, you like the fearmongering, etc. I base things on actual science rather than hype and Kyoto stuff has little to do with science and a lot to do with political hype. Even ChRETIeN recognized that. At any rate there are at least a couple other threads based on this topic and I just read something about the mods and admins wanting to keep similar threads in one.
But if you can actually come up with some science and leave the fearmongering and hype aside, fine by me.

 

[#juan]

Global warming is part of a natural cycle in climate. We contribute a small fraction to it. We sure as hell cannot stop it. Although it wouuldn't hurt for us to be more responsible and quit polluting, the whole issue is extremely exaggerated by the press and politics.
So why would we give the rich in China more money when all we need to do is ask them to act responsibly toward the environment?
The Eu is already doing what? Cutting back? Forking money over to China (a foolish idea)?

While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges.

First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.

Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?

The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Where is the skeptic community's model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335

 

[Avro]

Global warming is part of a natural cycle in climate. We contribute a small fraction to it. We sure as hell cannot stop it. Although it wouuldn't hurt for us to be more responsible and quit polluting, the whole issue is extremely exaggerated by the press and politics.
So why would we give the rich in China more money when all we need to do is ask them to act responsibly toward the environment?
The Eu is already doing what? Cutting back? Forking money over to China (a foolish idea)?

What is the mechanism behind the natural cycle?

Why help a developing country with GHG emmisions? It's a a Global problem. Do I have to say it again?

The EU is helping china with technology like clean coal.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/09/04/afx2205699.html

 

[Avro]

Why would I run away. You like Kyoto and its follies, you like the fearmongering, etc. I base things on actual science rather than hype and Kyoto stuff has little to do with science and a lot to do with political hype. Even ChRETIeN recognized that. At any rate there are at least a couple other threads based on this topic and I just read something about the mods and admins wanting to keep similar threads in one.
But if you can actually come up with some science and leave the fearmongering and hype aside, fine by me.

Don't get me wrong, Kyoto has it's flaws but it is first step and the only international one.

I was a denier like you once.

 

[L Gilbert]

While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges.

First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.

We need to find the cause for cyclical climate change? Good idea. We need to find out how much of an effect we are having on it? Also a good idea, I suppose, but unnecessary becuse we can eventually stop emitting stuff harmful to the atmosphere. As of yet I have seen no science that says we caused GW nor have I seen any that says we are totally innocent of having an effect. Hence, we must have contributed, yes?

Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?

Don't include me in that group, I have already posted the human contributions to GW as well as evidence that some things we emit have an impact on warming. But, I'm curious; how do you know that the 2nd most important GHG doesn't contribute to warming?

The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Where is the skeptic community's model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070202a.html

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/tag/un-global-warming/

 

[L Gilbert]

What is the mechanism behind the natural cycle?

Why help a developing country with GHG emmisions? It's a a Global problem. Do I have to say it again?

And again I say if we run about the planet telling everyone else how to deal with GW without doing much about it ourselves, we'll be hypocrites and our credibility will suffer because of it. Get it yet?

The EU is helping china with technology like clean coal.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/09/04/afx2205699.html

Has the EU cleaned up its act? Has the EU donated money to China or simply helped it with technology? I could agree that helping with technology is a good thing but throwing money at China is a waste of money.

 

[L Gilbert]

Don't get me wrong, Kyoto has it's flaws but it is first step and the only international one.

I was a denier like you once.

What am I denying?

 

[Avro]

We need to find the cause for cyclical climate change? Good idea. We need to find out how much of an effect we are having on it? Also a good idea, I suppose, but unnecessary becuse we can eventually stop emitting stuff harmful to the atmosphere. As of yet I have seen no science that says we caused GW nor have I seen any that says we are totally innocent of having an effect. Hence, we must have contributed, yes?

Don't include me in that group, I have already posted the human contributions to GW as well as evidence that some things we emit have an impact on warming. But, I'm curious; how do you know that the 2nd most important GHG doesn't contribute to warming?



http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070202a.html

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/tag/un-global-warming/

Your first link torn to bits...

http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die


Shall I go on?