60 Leading Scientists: Kyoto is Pointless, human impact impossible to distinguish

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Elok
WTF? You think the rest of us agree with Agathon? Now you're really out of touch with reality.

No, I wasn't saying that rest of you agree with Agathon.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DaShi
Still more evidence than you presented for your claims.

Why? Is Wikipedia too difficult for you to comprehend?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


No, I wasn't saying that rest of you agree with Agathon.

I don't agree with Agathon either.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I dont understand the hand-wringing, sea levels rise a bit and people have to vacate large coastal cities that'll be partially flooded. But vast stretches of land in the northern hemisphere may become arable. Whats the alternative? An ice sheet covering 1000s of sq miles, including Boston, NYC, Moscow, all of Scandinavia? Look at a map, getting warmer aint a bad thing...

Berz, you don't seem to understand the consequences of global warming. There's a lot more to sea level rises a bit.

For starters, sea level will rise several metres. That's a lot more than a bit. That's sufficient to wipe out a whole bunch of islands in various oceans. Then you have the strange effect of hot places getting hotter and cold places getting colder. Not to mention there will be more storms, tornadoes. etc. and they will be more powerful.

[Agathon]

..not to mention the horrors of that smug look on Al Gore's face.

[Cort Haus]

The predicted 'consequences' are usually worst-case scenarios, that are used as a kind of morality tale about the evils of humanity. Also, I'm not sure that it's fair to say that the 60 sceptical scientists involved here are paid shills of Bush.

Whether the current warming is a consequence of human activity, a natural process, or both should be a subject of debate, and not taken as a given either way, but equally debatable is the effect of intended measures like Kyoto.

If long-term emissions can be reduced without an assault on living standards, particularly in the 3rd world, by use of progressive technologies then fine. My beef is with those who seek to roll back the tangible gains to humanity of industrial progress, which has brought us the ability to adapt to our environment like never before, and given better lives to more people than at any time in history.

[Cort Haus]

- anyway, where the hell is Park Avenue? He started this debate.

(lamenting Franchise United, I can only guess )

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
- anyway, where the hell is Park Avenue? He started this debate.

Why would the troll repost if the feeding keeps to come in?

[Cort Haus]

Oh - I didn't realise it was all a troll. Never mind.

[Solly]

I'm quite surprised there's been no coherent rebuttal, actually.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Wrong, there's more than enough evidence to support how people are contributing to global warming. The problem is the right wingnuts refuse to accept reality and keep demanding more of the same studies just so they don't have to do anything.

No, there isn't. There's evidence that global warming is happening. But the argument that humans are the major cause of it is opinion and "facts" pulled out of various people's arses. Yes, the human population has increased as global warming has increased. But, so have the number of internet porn sites. Maybe internet porn sites cause global warming?

It might be true, it might not be true. Throwing billions/trillions of dollars at it only to possibly find out later that it was a complete waste and we've screwed up the environment even more by doing so doesn't make sense.

[Sandman]

My beef is with those who seek to roll back the tangible gains to humanity of industrial progress, which has brought us the ability to adapt to our environment like never before, and given better lives to more people than at any time in history.

What does this have to do with Kyoto?

[JellyBean]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
But the argument that humans are the major cause of it is opinion and "facts" pulled out of various people's arses.

Untrue. At the very least, there's a plausible mechanism for human activity increasing global temperatures, which there is not for your alternative porn-site-induced global warming.

Humans have been putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. There is now more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there used to be. Increased levels of carbon dioxide should increase the greenhouse effect, leading to increased temperatures. Temperatures have, in fact, increased. (Everybody, don't trust me - check that I'm telling the truth!)

This doesn't necessarily mean that humans have been causing increased carbon dioxide levels, or that those levels in turn have been responsible for the increase in temperature, but it's pretty suggestive. Or do you disagree with one of the statements I made in my previous paragraph?

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
It might be true, it might not be true. Throwing billions/trillions of dollars at it only to possibly find out later that it was a complete waste and we've screwed up the environment even more by doing so doesn't make sense.

That depends on how likely global warming is, and how damaging it is likely to be. It might be worth sacrificing 10 years of growth to retool the economy for nuclear and solar power to avoid a 30% chance of major economic dislocations due to climate change. It would certainly be worthwhile to prevent a 90% chance of a worst-case methane-ice-clathrate-release mass-extinction scenario. It wouldn't be worthwhile to prevent a 5% chance of a few species of butterflies going extinct.

The fact that we are uncertain does not mean that it is not worth doing anything! If you go for a walk in winter, you take an umbrella - not because you know it's going to rain, but because it might. If your umbrella was big and awkward to carry, and the clouds looked a little bit threatening, you'd have to think about it ... that's where we are right now.

[Japher]

Humans have been putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. There is now more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there used to be. Increased levels of carbon dioxide should increase the greenhouse effect, leading to increased temperatures. Temperatures have, in fact, increased. (Everybody, don't trust me - check that I'm telling the truth!)

Used to be? Show me Carbon Dioxide readings that would have statistical signifigance on a global scale. Seeing how that earth is billions of years old, stable for several thousands, I don't think you have enough data to support that claim.

The fact that we are uncertain does not mean that it is not worth doing anything! If you go for a walk in winter, you take an umbrella - not because you know it's going to rain, but because it might. If your umbrella was big and awkward to carry, and the clouds looked a little bit threatening, you'd have to think about it ... that's where we are right now.

and if you needed to sell your house to buy an unbrella?

[Dinner]

This is almost like the fundies who get lists of names who all sign a form agreeing that creationism is the only real anwser and that evolution is from satan. It's just rubbish.