Quote:
Originally Posted by D-AIHC
Sorry, when global warming is concerned, I definitely trust the Meteorologist over the Astrologist anytime! Please disregard if I am wrong, but I think you meant to say "Astronomy", right?
|
But he studied both, and they both are closly linked in this case. The is alot more active now than it was in the 1970s (though it is calming down slowly).
Quote:
Considering this were true and we were talking about the same scientists - that would mean that if, say, a doctor was wrong like 10 years ago when he misdiagnosed you (he said it was a cold, but it turned out to be a sinusitis e.g.) you´d never trust any doctor again? Plus, you make a decision based on hearsay, and don´t even remember the scientist´s name who discredited his colleagues? You´re not the overly critical kind, are you?
Sorry, but I don´t buy it. This is not about scientists, it´s about complacency. As long as cheap oil provides a comfy ride in a comfy car, comfy electricity, and a comfy a/c, why bother worrying about all the downsides that come with that comfort. Denial is (again) the comfortable choice. Plus, as it seems right now, it´s the American choice.
|
Oh yeah, because Americans are the only ones who use oil, we only drive cars, we only ones use electricity and we only use planes to get from point A to B
. EXCELLENT POINT YOU MADE IN YOUR SECOND PARAGRAPH. If you actually know, in America, you'll know that most of the country has inferior public transit, not because we can't attain the technology, but because everything is very well spread out. Why spend a whole day walking 5 miles to a store to get food and supplies that should last you a week? It wouldn't work here, we need cars that are a bit larger to transport ourselves, if we did have more efficient transport, I'm sure many of us would use it. As for scientists part, you have to realize that they choose not to scream global warming for no reason. Most of them have to scream global warming sometimes just so they could get all types of funding for their projects. If they don't, then they'll get little or no money. Trust me, I go to a American University, I hear a few professors talking about that all the time.
Quote:
Criton,
you have provided a link to one (!) University of Utah professor´s opinion, yet you deny the United Nation´s findings on global warming as being a "French" product, and have asked for China to take action first. You really wanted to discuss whether China or the USA is the world´s worst polluter (as if it mattered) and, correct me if I´m wrong, wanted China as being #1 in your opinieon, to take action first.
I don´t mean to offend you, but most UN member nations (including China) have agreed on the UN report (including your president on the G8 summit recently) - it´s the lowest common denominator on the UN member nations´ scientific findings. Yet, you deny the UN findings and cite obscure sources instead. And you dare accuse me of complacency? Now, that´s original. Have you even read the UN report on global warming, or a summary of the report? Or do you choose instead to believe what you want to believe, rather than the scientific findings resulting from research all over this planet?
|
Well, one thing I find funny is how high recorded tempuratures were much higher in the 1920s and 1930s and yet, we're acting like we never had any day where the temp got above 90 F on earth. Another thing you fail to mention is that over the past 50 years we have been putting more efficent technologies and cleaner things as well. Recently a study was done that said the ice of Mt. Kilmanjaro had been melting for well over a century. Also, places on earth are actually getting a bit colder than usual. A UN done some time ago also did a study that said that livestock seems to cause alot Greenhouse Gasses, does that mean we have to find every farm, close down 90% of them, and only let the richest of the rich buy meat and eggs to eat (or eat period since most of the food most humans eat essentially come from eggs and milk?)
Trust me, there is nothing wrong with getting more efficient machinery, it's a good thing to prevent problems like bad air and acid rain, and large amounts of haze. But you can't force regular people to be more "green", not in a rapid pace anyways, if you did a revolution would break out and quite possibly reset everything for more than half a century (plus, it wouldn't be very economical either, since people would be going broke because the gov't forced them to be "green." Trust me, I have driven a 2000 Mercury Mountaineer with a V8, it did like 22MPG on a Expressway, when that one got hit by a red light runner (and got it to be totaled), I went for a Mercury Mariner with a V6, I drove it down the interstate and the Fuel Econ gauge was showing up to 29 MPG. Now for a SUV, despite it being a "cross over" SUV, is very good, efficient and I only have to refuel it usually once a week (I usually drive over 60 mi (~100km) a day.) Your theory that Americans will keep buying cars that are less and less efficent seems very flawed Hapag Floyd.