Originally posted by lepomisProbably not, but justifying eco-terorrism by lending it official credence definitely won't. Have you heard some of the sick *$%# some of those guys come up with? If economic sanctions don't work, and all other options become exhausted, then yes, military action, but preferably in the form of covert ops, targetted assasinations, that kind of thing. Nothing with lasting ecological effect, and targetted as possible.
Hmmm.... what happens if we don't stop global warming? Good things?
Originally posted by lepomisIMO, it is not important enough to force anything. I do not believe any of that anthropogenic rubbish. Not this life-time or the next. Perhaps in the one after that, who knows? I may weaken. 😀
I am actually curious as to why it is not important enough to force countries into following the rules to save the environment.
God forbid the NOT MAN MADE skeptics (note that twist agryson?) ever get the power of the gun to force action from we pacifists. (also threw in diety reference for effect)
I have argued, reasoned and tried to "turn" agryson and mrstabby to no avail...alas, they are lost. :'(
Originally posted by agrysonNow your talking! Targeted assassinations... it just warms the cockles of my American heart... who's first? *ush, *intao maybe *illerson.
Probably not, but justifying eco-terorrism by lending it official credence definitely won't. Have you heard some of the sick *$%# some of those guys come up with? If economic sanctions don't work, and all other options become exhausted, then yes, military action, but preferably in the form of covert ops, targetted assasinations, that kind of thing. Nothing with lasting ecological effect, and targetted as possible.
Should we leave a note or something afterwards?
Originally posted by MacSwainI did say that all other options should be expended first.
IMO, it is not important enough to force anything. I do not believe any of that anthropogenic rubbish. Not this life-time or the next. Perhaps in the one after that, who knows? I may weaken. 😀
God forbid the NOT MAN MADE skeptics (note that twist agryson?) ever get the power of the gun to force action from we pacifists. (also threw in diety referen ...[text shortened]... ed, reasoned and tried to "turn" agryson and mrstabby to no avail...alas, they are lost. :'(
Originally posted by lepomisI'd start smaller, Ministers for the Environment, the message is clearer that way. Just cause I'm European doesn't mean I don't know how to tango!
Now your talking! Targeted assassinations... it just warms the cockles of my American heart... who's first? *ush, *intao maybe *illerson.
Should we leave a note or something afterwards?
No notes though, it should be clear enough after the first two or three.
Originally posted by agrysonOH NO!! Let me out of here! I have never heard of you guys...no never..who? Don't know them!
I'd start smaller, Ministers for the Environment, the message is clearer that way. Just cause I'm European doesn't mean I don't know how to tango!
No notes though, it should be clear enough after the first two or three.
Don't want my door kicked in in the middle of the night! 😲
Originally posted by MacSwainOh, and don't give up hope of "turning" me yet, all you need is convincing evidence. I've never held a position based purely on faith, if evidence contradicts my convictions (convictions require that one is convinced by evidence, not that one simply believes) then I will of course change my tune. Until that day, I wait for your evidence.
I have argued, reasoned and tried to "turn" agryson and mrstabby to no avail...alas, they are lost. :'(
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainMy E.U. brings all the boys to the yard,
OH NO!! Let me out of here! I have never heard of you guys...no never..who? Don't know them!
Don't want my door kicked in in the middle of the night! 😲
and they're like, it's better than yours,
damn right, it's better than yours,
I could teach you,
but I'd have to charge...
I hate getting drunk on my own...😞
Originally posted by lepomisEveryone agrees (I think even agryson), that we cannot stop global warming..the point is - skeptics think anthropogenic global warming is the cause of the problem. Again rubbish! never fear.
Hmmm.... what happens if we don't stop global warming? Good things?
Years ago, the same type argument regarding Ozone (which was the scare of the day) was afoot. I tried logic on a couple of scientific types and posed this hypothetical.
Q- The people of earth have just decided we must destroy the entire ozone layer. How do we go about it?
A- We could not, not possible - unless we "put out" the sun that is. You see the sun is the ozone creating engine. 😕
In a decade, when Mt Arafat is not under water, there will be a new doom and gloom scare to get government (taxpayer) monies released for "scientific" studies. :'(
Originally posted by MacSwainThe best way to fight Global Warming is to wait another 10 years and the earth will go through another cycle. Then we can start complaining about Global Cooling and the next ice age. We'll even blame it on the same things just like in the 70's. But if you truly believe in Global warming you can put away your picket signs and stop complaining about the bad USA. In a hundred years or so at the current rate the oil reserves will be used up as well as most other fossil fuels. Then if you're right it won't matter.
Everyone agrees (I think even agryson), that we cannot stop global warming..the point is - skeptics think anthropogenic global warming is the cause of the problem. Again rubbish! never fear.
Years ago, the same type argument regarding Ozone (which was the scare of the day) was afoot. I tried logic on a couple of scientific types and posed this hypothetic ...[text shortened]... and gloom scare to get government (taxpayer) monies released for "scientific" studies. :'(
Originally posted by MacSwainHang on, the chemical reactions regarding ozone breakdown are well know, and as soon as global action was taken and CFC's etc. were limited, the ozone layer has finally begun to heal. While the sun does produce ozone, that's over geological timescales and is a very slow process. Much slower than our abilities to destroy it.
Everyone agrees (I think even agryson), that we cannot stop global warming..the point is - skeptics think anthropogenic global warming is the cause of the problem. Again rubbish! never fear.
Years ago, the same type argument regarding Ozone (which was the scare of the day) was afoot. I tried logic on a couple of scientific types and posed this hypothetic ...[text shortened]... and gloom scare to get government (taxpayer) monies released for "scientific" studies. :'(
As for the reversibility of global warming, I do not agree that it is irreversible. We probably couldn't reverse it within a short timeframe, but we can limit the damage we are causing. As the poster who started this thread astutely pointed out, what have we got to lose by trying to do that? Did economies crumble when CFC's were banned? No.
Originally posted by hamltnblueOH MY GOD!
The best way to fight Global Warming is to wait another 10 years and the earth will go through another cycle. Then we can start complaining about Global Cooling and the next ice age. We'll even blame it on the same things just like in the 70's. But if you truly believe in Global warming you can put away your picket signs and stop complaining about the ...[text shortened]... s will be used up as well as most other fossil fuels. Then if you're right it won't matter.
No, that's not how it works.
We've been waiting over 100 years and it's still getting hotter. The 70's thing is dealt with here...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643
If you want any more info, explore that site. All of your facile theories are dealt with.
Originally posted by agrysonI thought you had gone out drinking...what are you doing up this late anyway?
Hang on, the chemical reactions regarding ozone breakdown are well know, and as soon as global action was taken and CFC's etc. were limited, the ozone layer has finally begun to heal. While the sun does produce ozone, that's over geological timescales and is a very slow process. Much slower than our abilities to destroy it.
As for the reversibility of glob ...[text shortened]... have we got to lose by trying to do that? Did economies crumble when CFC's were banned? No.
As someone who works in the field, please inform we miserable chess players what problems may have been discovered regarding the CFC replacements...or perhaps New Scientist omitted coverage of that one? 😉