Did anybody see the C4 prog in the week? There was enough evidence that GW is not man made. I'm not saying this is right, but ARE we being brainwashed into cutting carbon consumption for political reasons?
2007-03-09 20:52:09 · 12 answers · asked by lulu 6 in Environment
All the facts aren't in? IPCC is the definitive fact packed document of the new millennium. Government policy is being driven by this report. According to this report (man made -Anthropogenic GW) AGW is very likely the cause of the heating we are seeing. If this is false we're being taken down the path of energy constraint when we need not. All other environmental problems notwithstanding, I can see the sense in the adoption of the precautionary principle in taking efforts to slow AGW, but we must confirm or deny the evidence present in the C4 programme as a matter of top priority as it goes to the very heart of the issue, namely is there a problems here or not. If not then would do better directing our efforts to fusion energy and micro generation and ultra clean energy sources (as particulate pollution and Global Dimming are real). BUT if it turns out that AGW is a problem then we carry on down the path that we have now set ourselves on.
They can model this - Is it included or not; and what response does the GW community make to the claims made and science presented in the C4 programme?
C'mon give us some answers.
2007-03-10 02:34:37 · answer #1 · answered by Moebious 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We will never know for 100% sure whether global warming is man-made so let's look at the real issues instead:
(1) In the current state of science, and given the stakes, should we make it a priority to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions? Anyone who has weighed the evidence honestly will say yes to this.
(2) On current trends, developing countries will soon dwarf emissions from deveoped countries. The single best thing that can happen is for developed countries to lead by example, for efficient energy technology to be transferred to the developing world, and for the culture to change towards using less energy and getting fulfilment from things that do not depend so much on energy. People will end up less fat, less lazy, healthier and more aware of other people and the environment they live in, whether natural or man-made.
(3) The very first thing that should happen in developed countries is cutting down energy waste. It boggles the mind that people refuse to save money, limit nuisances, and reduce dependency on nasty regimes and failed states. Simple examples: (a) most high street shops keep their doors open while the heating or air conditioning on permanently (b) light pollution is a major nuisance to anyone interested in skywatching let alone astronomy, and is by definition a waste of energy.
On the other hand, as a result of global warming and mounting political problems, it will soon become clear enough and all the right things will happen anyway...
2007-03-09 21:17:41 · answer #2 · answered by Me 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
So what is the actual cause of global warming according to that program? I believe it is the machines that consume fossil fuels. Industrial countries cannot continue developing without them. Winning the global warming issue by the environmentalists will be a big loss to those countries. The global warming issue is being counterattacked by some hidden parties that only think of gaining profits until the end.
2007-03-09 21:07:38 · answer #3 · answered by Kuku 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good grief there really is no hope for the human race.
I remember a conversation I had years ago with a friend who had just seen an interview with the Chinese leader.
"What a nice guy", he said.
"The Falun Gong wouldn't think so", I replied.
"No, no, he told us that they are a terrorist organisation bent on bringing down the government".
I really despair, quite often these days, that nobody thinks anymore.
Hey, I don't have kids, and no plans for the future either. So go ahead believe what you want. It's no skin off my nose.
And when the politics of waste bring the current world-wide violence to your door? Well don't look at me, I'm not gonna help you.
2007-03-09 21:14:10 · answer #4 · answered by Simon D 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Cutting carbon emissions would prolong the duration of the supply of fossil fuels. This is a good idea until viable alternatives are available. The anti-CO2 global warming band wagon has become a self-sustaining industry which is not above moulding the "facts" to its own ends.
2007-03-09 20:58:56 · answer #5 · answered by Finbarr D 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no. if it were up to political reasons then the government would never let the hybrid cars take over. the electric car was "murdered" due to the fact that it did not consume any gas at all. the government knows that the world is going down hill right now.
2007-03-09 20:57:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
And why exacty would cutting our energy usage be a bad idea? Wouldn't we save money and stop supporting repressive governments at the same time?
2007-03-09 20:55:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I've been saying that for yonks! We are just being swindled and all based on a 'theory'. It sucks, and it's not going to stop!
2007-03-10 02:07:55 · answer #8 · answered by floppity 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There theries and evidence untill it can be proofed 100% it is just a theory.
2007-03-09 20:58:09 · answer #9 · answered by Mr Hex Vision 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
all is circus.........when moebas were put in one environment they grew up by eating themselves to extinction...it will happen to us one time in future
2007-03-09 20:56:31 · answer #10 · answered by Raineli 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋