Sorry heck but that is typical US propganda just like we won WW2 the fact is that the US had done noting for over a decade regarding climate change because the US governemnt did not belive in it all thw while EU countries like the UK and Germany have been spearheading the drive ands technology and putting it to good use the in the last few years the US realises climate change is a problem and sudeenly they are the world leaders in solutions.
I can see some truth to that but regardless of when the U.S. steps in I think our country is better equipped to push this thing through and get worldwide attention. If what you say is true and the UK has been trying to get going for 10 years it looks like they haven't done that good of a job.
And what's this about WW2? France fell, England was next.
h@ts said this in post #132 :
Who are these "proponents" who you keep putting up as the people with the solution to the problems of global warming, because they aren't the people I see on the news. Idiots exist in all walks of life. You need to look elsewhere for your news.
The proponents are everywhere. They all say the same thing. If the news features people offering cures for MMGW, I am pretty sure they believe in it. So I don't see what difference it makes where I get my news from. Some news features people who reject MMGW, and they don't offer remedies for it.
You offered a source to prove that there are substantive remedies being offered, yet as I mentioned in post #109, your own source raved about the simplicity and pain-free cures to MMGW. I have yet to hear any proponent offer any solution that is anything near what will be required to solve the problem that they themselves have defined and quantified.
If someone says the sky is falling and then says it can be held up OK with a couple toothpicks, I have to wonder if the sky really is falling.
I can see some truth to that but regardless of when the U.S. steps in I think our country is better equipped to push this thing through and get worldwide attention.
We don't need attention we need action, tha majority now accepts global warmig is a problem and have yet to see anything from the US that is a solution hell how can you have a solution when one US state produces mor emisions that the whole of Europe combined. The US can make nises promise cash etc etc but we need solutions even action all over the US in terms of reducing carbon would be a start.
If what you say is true and the UK has been trying to get going for 10 years it looks like they haven't done that good of a job.
Incorrect the UK has done a good job more can be done but we have done a hell of a lot more than the US. We have invested in renewables such as wind and currently looking at wave technology, government grants to allow people to make thier houses more efficent by installing wind generators, eco friendly heating systems etc etc, a ban on all new elctrical equipment that is not energy efficent, Houses will soon be given an energy effcient rating for buyers information, persueding some businesses to change to clean coal, high tax on 4x4s low tax on cleaner car models, pay as you drive will come into force soon to force people to use the car less, higher air travel tax ( EU idea to be fair), maiking sure all UK households are properly insulated, a ban on non long life lightbulbs , by 2020 the UK plans to reduce co2 emmiosns by 30% and by 2050 50% the conservatives have even higer targets if they take power and finally the Britsh government has been having a debate on these issues and keeps coming with new ideas every year. Of course while we have been doing out bit the US has been asleep at the switch.
And what's this about WW2? France fell, England was next.
And then Russia tokk germany and Hitler killed himself because of that the war ended soon after.
EUCLID said this in post #141 :
The proponents are everywhere.
So why just post stupid examples like cars being forced to only do left turns.
quote:
They all say the same thing.
Complete and utter B!**$%%^s. It's you that keeps repeating the same nonsense.
quote:
If the news features people offering cures for MMGW, I am pretty sure they believe in it.
The news reports. Countries, governments, institutions, and people implement and offer solutions.
quote:
So I don't see what difference it makes where I get my news from.
Clearly it makes a huge difference because you keep claiming that noddy and big ears said turning off the kettle is all we need to do to prevent global warming becoming a disaster.
So why just post stupid examples like cars being forced to only do left turns.
Complete and utter B!**$%%^s. It's you that keeps repeating the same nonsense.
The news reports. Countries, governments, institutions, and people implement and offer solutions.
Clearly it makes a huge difference because you keep claiming that noddy and big ears said turning off the kettle is all we need to do to prevent global warming becoming a disaster.
I have not heard anything but stupid examples of how we are to prevent MMGW. I have asked you for examples that are not stupid, and you give me a link full of more stupid examples.
The crisis is being defined as something that can only be prevented by the elimination of most, if not all, manmade CO2. And this has to happen very soon, certainly less than ten years. So what are we going to do in order to eliminate the CO2 produced by all cars, trucks, trains, planes, ships, construction equipment, ag equipment, industrial processes, commercial and residential heating, cooling, and lighting? This will be a BIG, BIG task.
Certainly anyone who truly believes in the predicted crisis of MMGW would advocate the immediate end of air conditioning for example. This would be relatively easy. Also easy would be an end to all motorized vacations or non-essential driving. Also easy would be a change of diet that allowed the cessation of all refrigeration. All consumption of electicity for entertainment of liesure, non-essential purposes could be eliminated. Doing all these things would still not be anywhere near enough to solve the problem, but they would make a dent.
All that is needed to go beyond these easy measures is the money to sequester CO2 from all the sources that cannot be directly eliminated. We could also eliminate the use of nitrogen fertilizer, and revert to 100% organic farming, for an added cost. All it takes is money. Why have the proponents of MMGW not provided a cost estimate? A cost is a fundamental component of any serious proposal.
So if you can provide a source that defines a practical remedy to MMGW, I would like to see it. And it cannot be a bunch of platitudes about finding a solution through innovation, looking for clean or renewable fuels, thinking green, etc. I want to see a concrete plan with predictable results.
It doesn't have to be 100% elimination co2 in a decade in fact most governemnts are loking for a minimum of 50% by 2050 or 2060 depending on your specific program. If evry country ezpecially the US, China and India can do that, then that will be huge step.
lodgebo said this in post #145 : It doesn't have to be 100% elimination co2 in a decade in fact most governemnts are loking for a minimum of 50% by 2050 or 2060 depending on your specific program. If evry country ezpecially the US, China and India can do that, then that will be huge step.
With a lot of sacrifice, a lot of cost, and the continuation of loss of industrial production from outsourcing, the U.S. might be able to cut CO2 by 50% by 2060. With China and India on a steep upward trajectory, and with the rest of the world approving of the concept that China and India should not be burdened because they are developing countries, and with those countries taking on the industrial production of more advanced countries; I would be very surprised if China and India cut CO2 at all by 2060.
But I keep hearing the proponents of MMGW saying that we have less than ten years to reverse the trend of MMGW, otherwise it will runaway and become unstoppable. If the entire world except China and India begins to reduce CO2 on a trajectory to cut CO2 by 50% by 2060, will there be enough reduction within ten years to reverse MMGW? That is a question for you scientitsts.
06-04-2007 03:41 PM
