Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[Faldur]

Dr. Ivar Giaever knew the score, and got tired off all the bullshit.

In 2010, Giaever was quoted by the New York Times as saying global warming “can’t be discussed, just like religion.”

[trish]

Well Ivar (a one time quantum engineer, not a climate scientist) doesn't know what he's talking about because there are thousands discussions going on every day in refereed scientific journals. Poor Ivar just isn't holding his own in the tough and tumble of evidence-based discussion on climate. Not only is there discussion in scientific journals, but even the supposedly liberal New York Times by your own account interviewed Ivar and gave him a forum for his views. So what the fuck are you and he whining about??

[Ben]

climate science is a lot of bull and the left loves to suck up this bull which is made up by the UN scamer's, the real problem is their are far to many people on this earth

Per capita consumption is the problem. I mean, the U.S. uses 25 percent of the world's energy resources.
It's a simple law of physics and chemistry: we can't have infinite growth on a finite planet. It can't happen. It's impossible.
In the 1960s U.S. tobacco firms commissioned their own studies and found that cigarette smoking was indeed addictive and harmful. But decided to obfuscate or conceal these facts from the public.
Same with climate change. In the 1990s the energy companies commissioned their own studies and found that climate change is real and is extremely serious.
I mean, the one's that want to conceal the truth about climate change are the oil companies because they stand to benefit.
Again, I find it astounding that people are rejecting science.
And, too, the interesting thing about belief is, well, everyone can believe what they want. One can believe the moon is made out of cheese. One would be wrong. But one can believe that.
I mean, 98 percent of climate scientists are saying it's real and very serious. How can we simply dismiss science?
I mean, what if Einstein were a climate scientist today. Would we all just dismiss him as being wrong and idiotic and involved in some conspiracy ??? -- ha ha!

[russtafa]

science can be brought and that has already happened and you can write your own conclusion if you have enough money

[trish]

Yes, science can and should be brought to bear on the problem of global climatic energy imbalance. And NO, science cannot be bought. See http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=162

[hippifried]

Oh ye of little faith...

We can fix all of this by just sacrificing a few virgins to the volcano gods.

[russtafa]

science can be bought when these scientists are given grants and the ones that don't agree don't get their papers published or not given grants,it's that easy especially when the UN is sponsoring this scam

[Stavros]

Russtafa I think you are approaching this issue from the side entrance -there is a growing 'market' in carbon trading and the prospect of money being raised as a carbon tax is making the eyes of some bankers and politicians roll with dollar signs like in a cartoon from years ago, but remember what the real purpose of these processes intends to achieve.

Global warming is scientific fact, and it is going to affect the planet over the next milenium: the precise details get lost in the various micro-climates which mean that for example, Scotland will have a different experience from Spain, but the fundamentals are not in doubt.

The critics who say we have always had climate change, ignore the key point -not that we have had Tropical Britain and a Little Ice Age since 1066 so what is all the fuss about -but yes, in terms of the history of the planet global warming is a localised event in time- problem is, we are living through it. The planet may have been warming without modern industry, but carbon emissions since the industrial revolution are one of the main causes of its acceleration.

And this is the key point about carbon tax and trading: it is not a scheme designed to make more money for bankers, it is supposed to go to the root of the problem and persuade industry that its long term costs will be reduced if they reduce emissions from their business; with benefits to society as a whole. The long term aim is to reduce emissions. You could be cynical and argue that if the world is running out of carbon-based energy sources like oil and gas, what's another 100 years? We will run out of it anyway, and I will be dead. But what will the quality of life be like for those who remain?

You then have a moral choice: to make a judgement about what the right thing is to do. An analogy would be the arguments over lead in petrol that flared in the 1970s -by that time lead had been used in petrol/gasoline for years to deal with 'knocking' in engines that caused wear and tear: but was also damaging people's health. Some said reducing and eliminating lead in petrol would crash the car industry: it didn't: lead was removed from gasoline and cars are now cleaner than ever before but still emit carbon which is an additional problem: but it can all be solved, and the short terms costs have been offset by long term profits. Same with clean air legislation that has transformed major cities from brown-orange balloons into urban environments where you can see the sky is blue (not the case in Beijing or Shanghai these days, esp around 3pm).

A new energy mix is already part of the energy profiles of Brazil and Germany. France invested heavily in nuclear power in the 1970s and now most domestic energy is generated fom nuclear sources and their prices are cheaper than the UK. Nuclear has its critics, for obvious reasons -but there is no single solution. You can run a home on solar power, but not Los Angeles: the future will not be as simple as it is today. Coal remains a common source of energy, particularly in China, but is expensive and inefficient to produce, and a heavy emitter of carbon.

Unfortunately, as I said at the beginning, money rather than the feasible alternatives to oil and gas, are driving this debate, and squabbles over the international agreements and who should pay or not pay or how much. We can plan now to gradually phase in alternative energies as oil and gas declines, or you can whistle in the wind and pretend its not happening; to me its what the Americans call a no brainer; choose the whistling option and you end up without a world, never mind a fried brain.

[russtafa]

i look at it as a very high tax that our government admits will keep rising every year and which our supermarkets ,bottle shops,transport,hospitals will pass on to the public and most people wonder why when we contribute less than one percent of emissions of this planet but have to wear the brunt of this idiocy and we produce very cheap coal and of high quality and are one of the biggest exporters of coal .as for global warming i doubt it when i see no proof of this con job

[Faldur]

And NO, science cannot be bought.

Oh no the "science" or "preaching" if you prefer of man made climate change is always solid. NO one is twisting the results to sway their theology.

The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World showing an alarming 15% reduction of the Greenland ice shelf. Holy Crap!!! Oh wait, lets look at the facts. Reality is that less than 0.1% of the shelf has receded. Another example of the religious belief that is man made global warming. Your science was bought a long time ago..