Global Warming Debate

[RAGNAR]

zzzz

[Idiens]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

I prefer phenomenally fast cars, but what ever does it for you.

We have had the Germans producing those for years, a nation who kindly keeps the speed limits off a few remaining roads so we can use them legally.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Again, the Greens and those like them can't band them -- individuals toolerating the greens through an endless number of choices will allow the parasites to ban whatever.

You underestimate their power. How many new cars come without catalytic converters? The rubbish sorting religion has taken over here, how about there? Why can't you own your own private nuclear power station in your back yard?

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

... the compromise implicitly endorses both GW and that autos are a culprit.

Hey there's money in this! Climb on the band wagon.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

I finds it incredible that you and so many others are willing to accept CO2 as the cause of warming. The numbers are clear: the atmosphere and/or surfaces warms up first, CO2 rises after.

Who accepted it? I didn't. What I do accept is that its a new religion that makes money for those who take the opportunity. Those who accept neither loose out.. I also think that messing up the planet is not such a good idea, whether it causes GW, or just plain polution.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

... fuel prices aren't anywhere near historic highs.

Very true, the prices will drop when people stop buying. So as you say, its all in your individual hands.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Fiction. There is a strong overall trend towards smaller vehicles in the US.

Do you mean towards Toyotas? But the US has always followed cyclic fashion trends and its a good fashion statement to have a small car (BMW) parked outside and a big pick-up in the garage.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Further, this idea that Americans, or any Western population are "allowed" to or forbidden from doing something reaks of conspiracy theory. WE CHOSE, BROTHER!

How does that square with your following statement:-

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

The US is the only nation that imports refined products. Worse, our laws make mass production of these fuels difficult and therefore, expensive.)

OK. Because you chose to.

[chrondi]

Climate change presents a double challenge today. First, severe climate change impacts can only be prevented by early, deep cuts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Swift transition to a global low-carbon economy is therefore the central pillar of the EU’s integrated climate change and energy policy and designed to reach the EU’s objective of keeping global average temperature increase below 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels. Beyond 2°C change, the risk of dangerous and unpredictable climate change could increase significantly and costs of adaptation could escalate. That is why mitigation is such an imperative for the global community and why EU Heads of State and Government at the 2007 Spring Council unanimously agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an international effort, by 30% by 2020 and called for a global reduction of up to 50 % by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.
Second, with climate change already happening, societies worldwide face the parallel challenge of having to adapt to the changing climate conditions and its impacts. Adaptation action has become an unavoidable and indispensable complement to mitigation action. A certain degree of climate change due to past emissions is already inevitable throughout this century and beyond, even if global mitigation efforts over the next decades would prove successful. A global mean temperature increase of 2°C will already lead to significant impacts worldwide.
Adaptation is not an alternative to reducing GHG emissions for there are limits to adaptation. Once certain temperature thresholds are crossed, certain climate impacts are expected to become severe and irreversible and large-scale displacement of populations may be the only option.
The EU's task is to adapt in order to address the new realities in a coordinated way, to ensure that its policies are conducive to adaptation helping citizens and partners worldwide to face and tackle the consequences of climate change. As adaptation actions get underway it will be vital to ensure that they are consistent with mitigation actions and vice versa.
Any objection, folks?

[PBzeer]

Objections? I don't know if you'd call it that, but......

Climate changes, it has throughout history, and will continue to do so, irregardless of mankind. Does mankind have an effect on the climate? Yes. To what degree, and how much it can be mitigated is a question which no one can answer with any certainty. What is fairly certain though, is that mankind has the least impact on the climate of all the possible forces acting upon it.

That said, mankind does indeed have a responsibility to act, responsibily. Yet, that does not mean that wholesale modification to the current practices is necessarily warranted. This is a question of at least as much, economics, as it is climitalogy, if not moreso. One need only look at the Kyoto Protocols, to understand that this is more than simple science at work. It is, and always has been, a political, as well as scientific, statement. Just as the UN reports are issued, not by the scientists whose results they are based on, but by buearacrats.

When the leading, most vocal cheerleader for action does not practice what he preaches, how is anyone else suppose to take it seriously?

Currently at 32 15 21 N 80 44 40 W

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[poopdeckpappy]

Originally Posted by chrondi

First, severe climate change impacts can only be prevented by early, deep cuts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Swift transition to a global low-carbon economy is therefore the central pillar

Gotta agree with Ragnar on this one, this sounds like nothing more than the hype of special interest jockying for position in what they see as a new energy market. There is no evidents that the above quote will prevent anything, to the contrary they say that even if we went zero emission right now, it would have now effect on GHG over the next 100 years, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't move in that direction

Adaptation is not an alternative to reducing GHG emissions for there are limits to adaptation.

Once certain temperature thresholds are crossed, certain climate impacts are expected to become severe and irreversible and large-scale displacement of populations may be the only option

You're right you either adapt and survive or you don't, and that temperature threshold is going to be crossed with or without us, that's just the way it works.

It blows me away that such a insignificant species as intelligent as we our made out to be, has become so irrogant it thinks it can play God and politics with mother nature.

Instead of spending billions of dollars and billions of hours on pointing fingers in all direction, they ott to spend it on educating the species on the inevitability of our own evolution

[xort]

Chrondi
How did Greenland get its name???
An Inconvient Truth indeed.
Man Made Global Warming is total BullSh*t.

More and more REAL climate scientists are coming forward with stories of intimidation or misuse of their work.

[sailaway21]

Chrondi, you're back! (same old horse-pucky, though)

How are all the boys, who actually signed Kyoto, doing? Boy, by now, I'll bet those old emissions are dropping like a rock. How's abouts an update there, sunshine?

[RAGNAR]

zzzz