timesonline.co.uk — In the third in a series of reports, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said that keeping the rise in temperatures to within 2C would cost only 0.12 per cent of annual gross domestic product if governments exploited new technologies to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
May 4, 2007 View in Crawl 4
banderbeMay 5, 2007
The obvious solution to global warming is to nuke the sun.
globalstompMay 6, 2007
No matter the cause we are not going to be able to control it and we better get started with moving our farm belts and getting prepared for the coming events of food and other shortages in the stores then in addition the bee disappearance, shortages can be intensified.
zeroeffectMay 6, 2007
@globalstop & JusticeAkYou're so quick to accept that "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is fact to disprove that which you don't want to believe. But, I'll bet you weren't too quick to investigate the accuracy of this so-called "documentary".The writer and director has openly admitted to using graphs containing "serious errors" and using outdated data that has since been discredited. It's amazing how quickly people will write-off and "An Inconvenient Truth" because they don't want it to be true but will quickly claim, as fact, another so-called "documentary" without investigating the criticisms against it.<a class="user" href="http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece">http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece</a>
zeroeffectMay 6, 2007
@globalstomp"No matter the cause we are not going to be able to control it "Yeah, just like the ozone layer, acid rain, water pollution, air pollution, polio, etc... You're a disgrace to the human race if you honestly believe that.You created three separate posts in the same time span instead of creating three paragraphs in one post. Why is that? Are you actually trying to make people think that the popular opinion is against global warming (globally, it isn't). And why don't you provide any sources to back up your claims? I'm guessing you don't have any. I already threw a monkey wrench in your whole swindle claiming to be a "swindle" "proof".
bonmot5May 6, 2007
@zeroeffectHey, I don't claim to be an expert on climate change, and I agree with Aface, climate is a ridiculously complicated subject.To tell you the truth, I read "State of Fear" by Michael Crithton. It was an excellent book, and seemed to be well documented. The thing that I really got out of it, was not that the skeptics were the fear mongers, but (no offense) the people like you, and you are definitely right, we do have a responsibility to our planet and to our posterity. We are, in fact, stewards of this earth. What will people say 100 years from now about what we've done to improve the currant situation. But, since reading the book, I find fear mongering everywhere. Global Warming seems to be the monkey on every body's back. If the data is all debatable, which it is, why do we have to hear about it constantly in the media. They seem to be the # 1 source for creating fear. This is a big planet. Just because the news media show us huge chunks of ice falling into the Arctic, doesn't mean that we need to live in fear every day. They should have to show us THEIR documentation.
kuzotzMay 6, 2007
We're in a interglacial period where there is a warming trend. The earth isn't getting too hot. Yea climate change is happening, but the earth constantly does this. The earth was actually a lot warmer when Dinosaurs where alive than it was today because we are in the Ice Age, and to be specific within this ice age we are int he interglacial period of the Wisconsin Ice Age(last major one).. learnt this in geology.
Closed AccountMay 7, 2007
CO, SO2, ground level ozone, fine particulate matter (there are more but you get the idea). All are well documented hazards to human health.If you were hoping I'd say "global warming"--I could give a f**k about global warming. The worst mistake environmentalists ever made was to get all apes**t over "global warming" when much more immediate and well documented threats are prevalent and require action.
cryptokiMay 9, 2007
the more i think about it, im beginning to agree with "aface" too.Im just saying.... if the earth starts a reverse cooling trend in the next 100 years... it will be blamed on global warming too (lol) and we'll all be doomed to living in igloos.just for historical sake.. i told you so.
zeroeffectMay 9, 2007
@cerg7First off, you are basing you arguments on a science fiction author. "State of Fear" may use some research to help add believability to it, but it is still a work of *fiction*. It is designed to provoke emotion and excitement. But to do so it will embellish the facts, take things out of context and equivocate in order to keep the readers interested. It is hard to base an argument on a work of fiction.Think about who controls the media. Corporations. What is the sole purpose (by law) of a corporation? To make money for their shareholders. This is why there is a tobacco lobby, pharmaceuticals lobby, oil lobby, etc...When there is a consensus among the scientific community that this is a problem why is it so hard to believe? Mainly because of the activities of the oil lobby and marketing departments to discredit it. Of all of the times I have asked for scientific proof to show that global warming isn't a problem, no one has yet to provide something that hasn't been discredited -- no one. Google Global Warming and Scientific Journal and you will find more peer reviewed scientific articles than you can read in a year. These are articles that have been scrutinized and accepted by the general scientific community.Now, lets look at examples of *actual* fear mongering:1) Bush using fear mongering to convince Americans that Iraq has WMDs (or connecting Iraq to 9/11 also since denied by Bush)To this date no WMDs exist but Blackwater, Halliburton and many other Corporate friends of the Republicans made enormous profits because of it2) Tap water will kill you (or at least harm your health)Corporations (Coke, Pepsi, etc...) love selling the notion that drinking tap water is harmful. This convinces believers of the fear mongering that they should spend $1 per bottle for peace of mind. In many cases, bottled water is just tap water anyways (suckers!)3) Tobacco is bad for you. It causes lung cancer and can kill you.Corporations disagree and they will spend millions of dollars to prove it:<a class="user" href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_g4E7LUxWDug/RftYQpuYFVI/AAAAAAAAAEo/iBkv7aMSpwI/s1600-h/moredoctorssmokecamel.jpg">http://bp3.blogger.com/_g4E7LUxWDug/RftYQpuYFVI/AAAAAAAAAEo/iBkv7aMSpwI/s1600-h/moredoctorssmokecamel.jpg</a>Now, what did the scientific community have to gain by telling people that smoking can kill you? Money? Wealth?How is this different than Global Warming? Big Corporation (with billions of $$$ to lose) vs. The Average Scientist (with nothing to gain)?Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me twice...What part of this doesn't add up?
zeroeffectMay 17, 2007
Don't be sorry... Tens of thousands of scientists say otherwise:<a class="user" href="http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11653">http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11653</a>