Global Warming, just a hoax?

[eagle]

I'm more concerned about water food and population then global warming. Yea I think its man and his carbon use, not just the ice age receding, making the weather patterns change. We are seeing drought flooding, more fires rising sea levels which is a problem if you live on a tropical atoll like the Marshal islands which will be underwater soon. Bangledesh and its millions will be a bit harder to relocate to the Andes :shock: but yea that could happen. I haven't seen credible reports disclaiming the carbon burning theory and I have seen more and more consensus that the climate is f*cked and we will have to deal with it.

[Hugo]

I'm more concerned about water food and population then global warming. Yea I think its man and his carbon use, not just the ice age receding, making the weather patterns change. We are seeing drought flooding, more fires rising sea levels which is a problem if you live on a tropical atoll like the Marshal islands which will be underwater soon. Bangledesh and its millions will be a bit harder to relocate to the Andes :shock: but yea that could happen. I haven't seen credible reports disclaiming the carbon burning theory and I have seen more and more consensus that the climate is f*cked and we will have to deal with it.

bump

(hrrrr, this is an old-style-topic-does-not-exist-thread, I'm performing as eagles post-bumper)

[Hugo]

I'm more concerned about water food and population then global warming. Yea I think its man and his carbon use, not just the ice age receding, making the weather patterns change. We are seeing drought flooding, more fires rising sea levels which is a problem if you live on a tropical atoll like the Marshal islands which will be underwater soon. Bangledesh and its millions will be a bit harder to relocate to the Andes :shock: but yea that could happen. I haven't seen credible reports disclaiming the carbon burning theory and I have seen more and more consensus that the climate is f*cked and we will have to deal with it.

bump

(hrrrr, this is an old-style-topic-does-not-exist-thread, I'm performing as eagles post-bumper)

bump bump, dammit :roll:

[eagle]

I'm more concerned about water food and population then global warming. Yea I think its man and his carbon use, not just the ice age receding, making the weather patterns change. We are seeing drought flooding, more fires rising sea levels which is a problem if you live on a tropical atoll like the Marshal islands which will be underwater soon. Bangledesh and its millions will be a bit harder to relocate to the Andes :shock: but yea that could happen. I haven't seen credible reports disclaiming the carbon burning theory and I have seen more and more consensus that the climate is f*cked and we will have to deal with it.

bump

(hrrrr, this is an old-style-topic-does-not-exist-thread, I'm performing as eagles post-bumper)

bump bump, dammit :roll:

Thanks my lesbian bug humping photoed friend. Could it be that global warming is from increased friction from bug humping. I'm sure I can get a million dollar grant to study that !! !!

[Hobbes]

I've posted (frequently) before that I don't believe Global Warming is man made. I'm sure we have had some effect, but the vast majority (I think) is part of a vast global cycle.

Every time I post, I get people saying the same things...

1) The scientists that write papers backing this theory are not credible.

2) The scientists that write papers backing this theory are paid by oil companies.

3) Lots of scientists disagree, so they must be right.

4) I'm blind, ignorant, sticking my head in the sand or stupid.

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe climatologists... As each prediction says that the last prediction was wrong, doesn't that undermine their credibility?

Sea levels are rising... of course they are - every day, millions of tons of sediment is washed into the oceans. Doesn't that displace an equivalent volume of water?

When I see a BBC report saying that the earth has not warmed during the last decade, I look for the climatologists' explanations and find them increasingly desperate.

There are many reasons to control pollution and preserve the seas.... I just don't think global warming is one of them.

(Power up those megaphones, boys. We got a non-believer in the house!)

Ok, sure there are still scientists that have issues with some aspects of global climate change and to what extend we are responsible for it. These are prominently called on when some interested parties are trying to show that there is no consensus. But scientist that outright deny anything like that is happening at all are very few by comparison.

The BBC report doesn't contradict the threat of global warming (see the website link further below). 11 of the 12 hottest years recorded so far have all taken place since 1995. The trend still remains upwards. Again that doesn't mean it will everywhere get equally warmer. Some regions might even cool (weakening of the gulf stream would cause cooling for central Europe for example) or warm considerable faster than the global average (ice-free Arctic within the next decade for example).

Like you there are loads of folks who simply don't know quite what do belief or whom to trust what with always new studies published often replacing or contradicting previous ones. But that is how science works, models, ideas and hypotheses are build on observations, measurements and data. Others using different methodology or more up-to-date data supersede these or provide a vastly different result. Then all these studies are peer reviewed, experiments need to be re-created, data re-evaluated and all this is rarely done with a view on making this really digestible for the general public. And whilst there are plenty of aspects not yet fully understood with regard to climate change there are also quite a few that are understood by now. This BBC site is a good starting point for the confused. A more scientific approach (well, it's a site done by climate scientists after all :wink: ) can be found here. On their title page is for example an explanation regarding that 10-year hiatus taken apparently by global warming.

As for the rising sea levels, sediments washed into the oceans by the rivers around the world do of course displace an equal amount of water. Given how large an area of our planet is covered by oceans (around 70 %) compared to the land mass though, this is a rather minute amount of sea level rise. Much more serious is the melting of ice sitting on landmasses like in Greenland and Antarctica and glaciers. Even more of an issue as far as rising sea levels are concerned is the fact that the oceans are also the 'heat storage' of our planet. Just imagine rising the surface temperature of the Pacific by 1C. Even with the thermal coefficient of expansion of water being as small 0.00021 per 1 degree Celsius at 20 degree Celsius that would still be a noticeable expansion on a body of water as large as the pacific.

[Stramash]

Iain D,

I don't really care.

I think that certain person here are intolerant to anything but their own arrogant ideology. Anyone who has a different opinion is derided as "stupid" or worse.

pluggy is offering his opinion. I don't see where he has written anything so offensive as to be insulted in the manner that he has been. His comments could be taken any number of ways. The folks who attack anyone with a non-perfectly liberal ideology are the aim of my sarcasm. Not the protection of any minority, etc.

You're pulling a useless guy and making assumptions based on inaccurate data on this one.

I still assert that no actual discussion is meant for this thread. Only the group think assertion that "we" are correct and "they" are wrong.

I could give a f*ck less about global warming.

Kill a few millions. Screw ém. Bunch of dumbfucks going hungry. Screw ém. Get off your a*s and take out the despot in power who is holding you down or quit yer whining and die.

As for Global warming. If it is truth. Gospel Truth. We will come to know it as such. If it is not, we will come to know that as well. My opinion is that most of the "science" is guess work. Who was alive during the last ice age. Who can tell us of the cycles of the earth or universe that is eons aged. No one alive today. That much is certain.

I believe that in the end. If the earth sees us as a threat. She will exterminate us. And if that happens, we will have deserved it.

Humanity is not infallible as we have proven. We are not entitled to eternity. We must earn that.

I agree.

Let's kill the bastards.

And if anyone objects, let's kill those bastards too!!

Toten Sie die Juden! Wir konnen nicht stillstehen bis sie alle tot sind! Okay, I'm ready. I'm ready to do thy bidding, Mel Gibson.

:twisted:

Wondering how it is all going to go down when Preacher Moobs trunddles off to meet his gfs mum and mum asks him about 'family & the future'? Let's hope mum gets a more postive response than the above which seems a bit bleak.........

Oh and Iain, I do hope no one takes your ironic comment out of context and nothing worse than having the Zionists at your door. (Well perhaps the Mormans and the Amway lady).

Zionists at the door??

Just sic Eric on them...

no irony

just a cynic

A CYNIC IS JUST AN IDEALIST WHO HAS BEEN HAPPY SLAPPED BY REALITY

:twisted:

[Mister Moobs]

For the record, your exact words were:

My opinion is that most of the "science" is guess work.

Still nonsense.

Let's see. It's a discussion about Global Warming. Within the context of that discussion, I stated that "most of the 'science'is guess work." I know it's a stretch, but, perhaps I was referring to the "science" behind global warming theories.

You know being that the planet is millions of years old and we have data from only the last couple of hundred years or so.

Science in this case is a search for needle in a hayfield.

Don't worry. I'm used to arguments of convenience and phrases taken completely out of context in order to grasp at ammunition for iinsults by the TF Gang.

And you are still simply resorting to insults. No matter how you try to dress up the pig. It's still a big fat, greasy, smelly pig. You did it again in that post. You can't simply say that you think he's wrong or his arguments are off or that they are weak. You have to attempt to humiliate or insult the guy.

Good for you Hobbes. I guess that kind of thing makes you feel like a big man.

[eagle]

For the record, your exact words were:

My opinion is that most of the "science" is guess work.

Still nonsense.

Let's see. It's a discussion about Global Warming. Within the context of that discussion, I stated that "most of the 'science'is guess work." I know it's a stretch, but, perhaps I was referring to the "science" behind global warming theories.

You know being that the planet is millions of years old and we have data from only the last couple of hundred years or so.

Science in this case is a search for needle in a hayfield.

Don't worry. I'm used to arguments of convenience and phrases taken completely out of context in order to grasp at ammunition for iinsults by the TF Gang.

And you are still simply resorting to insults. No matter how you try to dress up the pig. It's still a big fat, greasy, smelly pig. You did it again in that post. You can't simply say that you think he's wrong or his arguments are off or that they are weak. You have to attempt to humiliate or insult the guy.

Good for you Hobbes. I guess that kind of thing makes you feel like a big man.

Not to get into your dance with Hobbs but science is not guess work. They have tracked the earths climate for thousands of years and taken into account ice ages and mans past carbon use via wood burning which has had effects in the past along with volcanoes. Now granted you can buy scientific evidence and results but the consensus from what I'm hearing is mans burning of carbon is having a serious effect.

[Mister Moobs]

For the record, your exact words were:

My opinion is that most of the "science" is guess work.

Still nonsense.

Let's see. It's a discussion about Global Warming. Within the context of that discussion, I stated that "most of the 'science'is guess work." I know it's a stretch, but, perhaps I was referring to the "science" behind global warming theories.

You know being that the planet is millions of years old and we have data from only the last couple of hundred years or so.

Science in this case is a search for needle in a hayfield.

Don't worry. I'm used to arguments of convenience and phrases taken completely out of context in order to grasp at ammunition for iinsults by the TF Gang.

And you are still simply resorting to insults. No matter how you try to dress up the pig. It's still a big fat, greasy, smelly pig. You did it again in that post. You can't simply say that you think he's wrong or his arguments are off or that they are weak. You have to attempt to humiliate or insult the guy.

Good for you Hobbes. I guess that kind of thing makes you feel like a big man.

Not to get into your dance with Hobbs but science is not guess work. They have tracked the earths climate for thousands of years and taken into account ice ages and mans past carbon use via wood burning which has had effects in the past along with volcanoes. Now granted you can buy scientific evidence and results but the consensus from what I'm hearing is mans burning of carbon is having a serious effect.

So thousands of years ago, exactly what instrument did they use to take the earths temperature and what tools did Methusaleh an company use to track the earth's climate.

A hypothesis is still a guess. An educated guess, but, a guess nonetheless. Unless we have invented time travel and I wasn't aware.

Thousands of years ago. Like before they invented math. Back when they thought that the sun revovled around the earth and when they thought the earth was flat and we would fall off the edge if we got too close. You mean those scientists were tracking climate data.

Good lord. Now you are stretching it.

I have no doubt that man is having an affect on the climate. And it's still all guess work. Until we have data that spans millions of years and not guess work from millions of years.

[eagle]

For the record, your exact words were:

My opinion is that most of the "science" is guess work.

Still nonsense.

Let's see. It's a discussion about Global Warming. Within the context of that discussion, I stated that "most of the 'science'is guess work." I know it's a stretch, but, perhaps I was referring to the "science" behind global warming theories.

You know being that the planet is millions of years old and we have data from only the last couple of hundred years or so.

Science in this case is a search for needle in a hayfield.

Don't worry. I'm used to arguments of convenience and phrases taken completely out of context in order to grasp at ammunition for iinsults by the TF Gang.

And you are still simply resorting to insults. No matter how you try to dress up the pig. It's still a big fat, greasy, smelly pig. You did it again in that post. You can't simply say that you think he's wrong or his arguments are off or that they are weak. You have to attempt to humiliate or insult the guy.

Good for you Hobbes. I guess that kind of thing makes you feel like a big man.

Not to get into your dance with Hobbs but science is not guess work. They have tracked the earths climate for thousands of years and taken into account ice ages and mans past carbon use via wood burning which has had effects in the past along with volcanoes. Now granted you can buy scientific evidence and results but the consensus from what I'm hearing is mans burning of carbon is having a serious effect.

So thousands of years ago, exactly what instrument did they use to take the earths temperature and what tools did Methusaleh an company use to track the earth's climate.

A hypothesis is still a guess. An educated guess, but, a guess nonetheless. Unless we have invented time travel and I wasn't aware.

Thousands of years ago. Like before they invented math. Back when they thought that the sun revovled around the earth and when they thought the earth was flat and we would fall off the edge if we got too close. You mean those scientists were tracking climate data.

Good lord. Now you are stretching it.

I have no doubt that man is having an affect on the climate. And it's still all guess work. Until we have data that spans millions of years and not guess work from millions of years.

You are clueless as to how scientist do their research and I am not going to google sites for you.

[Mister Moobs]

I have a basic understanding of how they come to their conclusions. As much as anyone at any rate.

Yet, still, they are going on hypothesis. Not based on actual clmate data or temps.

They have their theories.

Others have theirs.

In the 70s, we were in imminent danger of an Ice Age. Thirty years later, we are all going to melt.

Make up my mind, please.

I don't think it matters at any rate. We will not destroy the earth. She will destroy us first. And then she will take her time to recover.

As I said, if we allow it to reach that point, we will have deserved our fate. Eternity is not an entitlement. Nature isn't a social program. It's survival of the fittest. Nature is more powerful than ALL of us.

[eagle]

Not based on actual clmate data or temps.

thats how they come to their conclusions for pete's sake...

[Stramash]

Not based on actual clmate data or temps.

thats how they come to their conclusions for pete's sake...

Jerry...

Dave's point is; they could not measure the ACTUAL data as they weren't there, nor were the instruments...

they can hypothesise by examining various things from rock strata to ice cap sediment, and most of what they come up with is probably quite close, but is not EXACT. Not the way you could walk into your house, look at a thermometer and tell the exact temp.

So a lot of what they postulate is prediction, not being able to say exact things will happen. They may very well be right, but there is a small chance that they are wrong.

[eagle]

Not based on actual clmate data or temps.

thats how they come to their conclusions for pete's sake...

Jerry...

Dave's point is; they could not measure the ACTUAL data as they weren't there, nor were the instruments...

they can hypothesise by examining various things from rock strata to ice cap sediment, and most of what they come up with is probably quite close, but is not EXACT. Not the way you could walk into your house, look at a thermometer and tell the exact temp.

So a lot of what they postulate is prediction, not being able to say exact things will happen. They may very well be right, but there is a small chance that they are wrong.

Well I have more confidence in their methods "i guess" I think we can all agree man has to get his sh*t together.

[Bruce551]

Energy Consumption

? The world consumes about 472 quadrillion (quad or 1015) British thermal units (Btu) of energy each year.

o Approximately 86% of that use comes from burning fossil fuels ?

petroleum, coal, and natural gas.

Today, in contrast, hundreds of scientists worldwide participate in assessments of the state of knowledge and have repeatedly ratified the conclusion that human activities are driving global warming -- through the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the scientific academies of various nations (including our own), and leading scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

Readers and commentators must learn to share some practices with scientists -- following up on sources, taking scientific knowledge seriously rather than cherry-picking misleading bits of information, and applying critical thinking to the weighing of evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032002660_pf.html

It's time to get on with fixing this problem.

[English_Bob]

They may very well be right, but there is a small chance that they are wrong.

A SMALL chance?

They are wrong every week! Every prediction they make is superseded by a new, more dramatic one!

So if the new prediction is right, why isn't the last scientist called to account for publishing incorrect information?

And no-one has yet answered this question... "If we can't accurately predict next week's weather, why should we rely on predictions stretching 10, 50 or 100 years into the future??!!"

[Mister Moobs]

They may very well be right, but there is a small chance that they are wrong.

A SMALL chance?

Yeah, you know small. Like the difference between an atom being the smallest division of matter and the proton or neutron being the smallest division of matter and so on and so forth. Small like the difference between heliocentric and geocentric theories of the Universe. Small like the difference between an impending global ice age and global warming. Small like the difference between the amount of Cadmium, Carbon in the body and the amount of Beryllium or Vanadium.

Small. Like the difference between reactor grade and weapons grade plutonium.

You know. Small.

[Mister Moobs]

They may very well be right, but there is a small chance that they are wrong.

A SMALL chance?

Yeah, you know small. Like the difference between an atom being the smallest division of matter and the proton or neutron being the smallest division of matter and so on and so forth. Small like the difference between heliocentric and geocentric theories of the Universe. Small like the difference between an impending global ice age and global warming. Small like the difference between the amount of Beryllium in the body and the amount of Vanadium.

Small. Like the difference between reactor grade and weapons grade plutonium.

You know. Small.

[Hugo]

They may very well be right, but there is a small chance that they are wrong.

A SMALL chance?

Yeah, you know small. Like the difference between an atom being the smallest division of matter and the proton or neutron being the smallest division of matter. Small like the difference between heliocentric and geocentric theories of the Universe. Small like the difference between and impending global ice age and global warming. Small like the difference between the amount of Beryllium in the body and the amount of Vanadium.

Small. Like the difference between reactor grade and weapons grade plutonium.

You know. Small.

bump

The bugs are NOT lesbians as the careful observer will note!

[farang_subson]

And no-one has yet answered this question... "If we can't accurately predict next week's weather, why should we rely on predictions stretching 10, 50 or 100 years into the future??!!"

The difference between ordinary TV meteorology and climatology has probably been explained to you on numerous occasions.

I could be wrong here, but perhaps the restaurant business offers some parallels. What's more predictable, day to day business, month to month business, or year to year business? All it takes is a several large parties and yesterday's business is wayyy different than today's. A heavy rain, and a normally busy Saturday night is a bust. But you could probably make some decent predictions about your income on the average Saturday night next year, or how you'll fare next July.

*************

From another site (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/10/consensus_what_is_it_good_for.php): This is really a debate over the nature of truth. It seems that the (post)modern conservative movement has adopted the relativist position that all knowledge is political, and there are no objective truths. They've utterly conflated normative claims ("what should be") with objective/positive claims ("what is"). You certainly have a right to your own opinion as to what we SHOULD do in response to knowable facts, because "should" statements depend on subjective values about the good life, obligations to others, etc. But you don't have the right to interpret what those facts ARE.

Fortunately, science is the one area of life where the truth is objectively knowable and ISN'T political. Unfortunately, when science implies that certain policies may be a good idea, ideologues opposed to those policies are all too willing to "interpret" the known facts to suit their preconceived beliefs.

It's kinda funny to see the cons taking the "all knowledge is political" angle. That used to be reserved for the libs.

[Stramash]

They may very well be right, but there is a small chance that they are wrong.

A SMALL chance?

Yeah, you know small. Like the difference between an atom being the smallest division of matter and the proton or neutron being the smallest division of matter and so on and so forth. Small like the difference between heliocentric and geocentric theories of the Universe. Small like the difference between an impending global ice age and global warming. Small like the difference between the amount of Beryllium in the body and the amount of Vanadium.

Small. Like the difference between reactor grade and weapons grade plutonium.

You know. Small.

No. Wrong small. Much much smaller than that... :twisted:

[English_Bob]

And no-one has yet answered this question... "If we can't accurately predict next week's weather, why should we rely on predictions stretching 10, 50 or 100 years into the future??!!"

The difference between ordinary TV meteorology and climatology has probably been explained to you on numerous occasions.

I could be wrong here, but perhaps the restaurant business offers some parallels. What's more predictable, day to day business, month to month business, or year to year business? All it takes is a several large parties and yesterday's business is wayyy different than today's. A heavy rain, and a normally busy Saturday night is a bust. But you could probably make some decent predictions about your income on the average Saturday night next year, or how you'll fare next July.

Maybe I should have said 'adequately explained'.

Meteorology is badly flawed and inefficient. Climatology is even more haphazard and complex.

Scientists don't fully understand gravity, deep sea exploration, El Nino etc. What makes you believe they know the future so clearly?

These 'predictions' of 1 - 5 degree temperature rises over the next 100 years are bullshit.

Plain and simple - extrapolation of flawed data. Lines extended on graphs that have no meaning.

Fix the immediate problems first, take care of the 100 year problems later.

[Hobbes]

I have a basic understanding of how they come to their conclusions. As much as anyone at any rate.

Yet, still, they are going on hypothesis. Not based on actual clmate data or temps.

They have their theories.

Others have theirs.

In the 70s, we were in imminent danger of an Ice Age. Thirty years later, we are all going to melt.

Make up my mind, please.

I don't think it matters at any rate. We will not destroy the earth. She will destroy us first. And then she will take her time to recover.

As I said, if we allow it to reach that point, we will have deserved our fate. Eternity is not an entitlement. Nature isn't a social program. It's survival of the fittest. Nature is more powerful than ALL of us.

Whilst you may have a basic understanding of some things or the other, I doubt it is about how scientific research works. There is no guesswork.

There is plenty of evidence that allows them to reconstruct temperatures, atmospheric conditions, ocean temperatures, ocean accidity and other relevant data going hundreds sometimes million years back. Ice cores from Greenland, drilling cores from sediment rocks or the sea beds, fossilised plants, geology are all providing hard data on what the condition were back then by using the half life of certain isotopes for example.

A scientific theory is not quite the same as when one uses the word theory in everyday language. A scientific theory is a body of research underpinned by a substantial amount of evidence that so far has withstood any scrutiny as to falsify it and is thus accepted . The Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Gravitation are some examples. Hypothesis on the other hand are bodies of ideas based on models that lack sufficient evidence so far because it can not (yet) be proven (Multi-dimensional universe for example).

The research in the 70's predicting a new ice age was undertaken by as large a body of scientists as those working on climate research at present? And it was the consensus by the scientific community at large back then? If so, you should perhaps provide such information otherwise we can just book this one under 'sensationalist' media story from back in the 70's. Btw, an interruption to the gulf stream would indeed likely to trigger a rather cold period for most of Central Europe despite global warming taking place. This would not be an anachronism.

Nobody doubts Earth will survive us. Question is who gives us the right to make the place inhabitable for future generations? Sitting back saying "I don't give a ****, we're all doomed anyway!" won't do.

[farang_subson]

Scientists don't fully understand gravity, deep sea exploration, El Nino etc. What makes you believe they know the future so clearly?

Good point! All these rocket scientists with their fancy-schmancy orbital mechanics want us to believe they can zip a craft around the sun and planets, travel for 7 years, and then land it within a few kilometers of a target when they don't fully understand gravity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini-Huygens) Where's the common sense in that? Pack of lies!

Is there a moon hoax thread on TF?

:roll:

******

As for the "ice age" that scientists predicted in the 70's...they didn't.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

Even Richard Lindzen, arch AGW skeptic, admits the "ice age" theory was a media product, not a scientific one.

[Mister Moobs]

I have a basic understanding of how they come to their conclusions. As much as anyone at any rate.

Yet, still, they are going on hypothesis. Not based on actual clmate data or temps.

They have their theories.

Others have theirs.

In the 70s, we were in imminent danger of an Ice Age. Thirty years later, we are all going to melt.

Make up my mind, please.

I don't think it matters at any rate. We will not destroy the earth. She will destroy us first. And then she will take her time to recover.

As I said, if we allow it to reach that point, we will have deserved our fate. Eternity is not an entitlement. Nature isn't a social program. It's survival of the fittest. Nature is more powerful than ALL of us.

Whilst you may have a basic understanding of some things or the other, I doubt it is about how scientific research works. There is no guesswork.

There is plenty of evidence that allows them to reconstruct temperatures, atmospheric conditions, ocean temperatures, ocean accidity and other relevant data going hundreds sometimes million years back. Ice cores from Greenland, drilling cores from sediment rocks or the sea beds, fossilised plants, geology are all providing hard data on what the condition were back then by using the half life of certain isotopes for example.

A scientific theory is not quite the same as when one uses the word theory in everyday language. A scientific theory is a body of research underpinned by a substantial amount of evidence that so far has withstood any scrutiny as to falsify it and is thus accepted . The Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Gravitation are some examples. Hypothesis on the other hand are bodies of ideas based on models that lack sufficient evidence so far because it can not (yet) be proven (Multi-dimensional universe for example).

The research in the 70's predicting a new ice age was undertaken by as large a body of scientists as those working on climate research at present? And it was the consensus by the scientific community at large back then? If so, you should perhaps provide such information otherwise we can just book this one under 'sensationalist' media story from back in the 70's. Btw, an interruption to the gulf stream would indeed likely to trigger a rather cold period for most of Central Europe despite global warming taking place. This would not be an anachronism.

Nobody doubts Earth will survive us. Question is who gives us the right to make the place inhabitable for future generations? Sitting back saying "I don't give a sh*t, we're all doomed anyway!" won't do.

I just remember hearing it talked about constantly.

Could really give a rat's ass about it.

Who gives us the right to breath?

Who gives us the right to eat from the bounty of the earth?

Who gives us the right to force our ideas on the masses?

I can't answer those questions either. But I see it happening all the time.

Who gives the "future generations" the right to live period. Between abortion and Western birth rates, those future generations may not make it here.

Who gives us the right to life?

Sure, we're born. But who says that we have the right to live or to live longer than is natural without the aid of science. Yet, we do it.

Who would be this powerful being who is denying me the right to destroy the earth and make it uninhabitable for future generations.

I didn't say that I wasn't doing anything about it at any rate. I find it entirely plausible that we have an effect on the climate. I invest accordingly and started purchasing in a green direction about two years ago.

Even so, if the world can't or won't come online and these scientists are correct, we're f**ked. I can only do my small part.

But I agree with China on some things. The West made their money whilst polluting the hell out of the world. Now we want to hold them to a higher standard.

Much like Europe. They conquered their empires and now that they are no loger strong enough and really no longer have the will to defend themselves, they want to hold everyone else to a diffeent standard. International Law and Standards is pretty convenient for you guys. International Law is the realm of the weak.

It's a genius plan. However, I doubt that it will work forever.

Someone is going to ask; "Who gave Europe the right to make all the rules and keep all the riches?"