Global Warming

[Furore]

Why shoul "you" give a damn? Isn't going to kill "me"? Can you think about someone that isn't you? What about the millions of people in Bangladesh, or the Netherlands, or the Maldives, or Pacific Islanders? Warm = ice melt = sea level in the order of about 8m by 2100 in most reliable situation. Sure it won't kill you. But it will probably result in someone's death. It will probably result in hundreds of millions of displaced people. And hey, it may affect your children. or your children's children. See where I'm going? Just because something doesn't bother you, doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned. I'm personally unaffected by the recession' my mother just got anew job that pays double what she used to do, so my family is better off now than ever before. But i'm still concerned by it. I'm concerned for the people who are losing their jobs, and their homes. Sure, I'm a bleeding heart Lefty, but really, grow up. You're one in billions. You're not important, nor am I, nor is any individual reading this. But collectively, as people, as global citizens, we are important. And we are responsible.

The millions of people in those countries are still alive and fine and will likely be dead by 2100. I'm not too cold hearted though. No I give enough of a damn about people who are actually suffering such as those in various third world countries who don't even get a nutritious meal let alone things like an education many of us take for granted to donate a note or two to them every week when I go shopping. $50 is nothing to me, but it's a lot to these kids when it can buy them a shitload of rice. I am *such* a bleeding heart and shit.

I think the difference between myself and you is that I give a shit about people who are suffering now. People mightn't even exist in 100 years if some sort of catastrophic event occurs. I'd rather support people who need help than people who might need help provided they actually still exist at that point in time.

"Stir up shit"? Only one doing that is you. I can guarantee that 99% of scientists do not look for false scientific facts in the search of funding. Most scientists are funded before they publish results, so stop slagging respected people who are a lot more informed than any of us here.

I can guarentee you're quite naive if you honestly feel 99% of scientists actually search for the truth. Greed isn't exactly a foreign concept to most people and the promise of quick cash to play around with something a scientist actually cares about OR to help finance a good life for the scientist can be damn tempting. Employers know this. It's why security guards like myself get paid more than we could hope to spend in a week weekly. So we don't become corrupt. And even with the incentive some guards STILL feel the desire to steal cash so they can get a hyper expensive car or a classy whore or whatever else they might want. I don't slag respectable scientists. I slag the ones who feed the public bullshit for their own gain.

Ice formation depends a lot more than on it being cold. One of the main reasons Antarctica is ice-covered is because it is isolated from other land masses, allowing a strong, cold, oceanic current to circumnavigate the continent and keep it cold.

No kidding. I totally didn't know that and thought the areas were icy because Santa wanted to keep the fire demons out of his totally awesome VIP only snowy strip clubs. It needs more than the cold and and a strong oceanic current too from what I understand.

The poles are icy, that does not have to mean the planet isn't warming, or that this warming is not significant.

It doesn't have to mean the planet is warming or that any warming is significant either.

Wiki Milankovitch Forcing, I think this is what you mean. It's basically changes in the orbital parametres of the Sun and Earth. But, again, human or non-human, the planet is warming. This trend is NOT always linear (e.g NZs glaciers spent 10 years growing from 1996 to 2006) but it is a recogniseable trend. It isn't hard to find "graphs" (from whence all your understanding seems to come from) that suggest this. In fact, go the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) website, and I'll bet money you'll find one. If you can't, I'll go looking and post a link.

Yeah, I looked at some graphs that stretched thousands of years. From what I've seen it's been constantly rising with pits along the way from before humans did anything bar act feral. I've also read that if you go on an even longer time scale it goes up for so and so many thousand years (or was it millions?) and then down for a long time in cycles. That's part of what makes me think it'll take a damn long time before we're effected.

Speaking of which, where'd you get that ocean rising by 8 metres by 2100 from? I've read half a metre on one site and 20-90 cms on another. Both are a far cry from 8 metres.

Non-linearity on a linear trend, brother. Fluctuations from year to year are to be expected. Some years may have greater levels of sea ice formation, leading to more reflectivity, and colder temperatures, but the trend is clear: CO2 emissions mean more infrared radiation is absorbed, and the planet's temperature increases.

Well in science, the theory means jack when it doesn't occur that way in real life. It generally means either the theory is wrong OR (and I believe it to apply in this case) other factors are left out. I do not know what those are, but we are seeing drops as well as rises.

You underestimate the power of the individual. Read Bryce Courtenay's "Th Power of One"? Heard of Gandhi? Martin Luther King Jr.? We can all contribute, and one way I like to is by convincing people like you that this is a significant concern. It's called awareness. Sadly, I think you're a lost cause.

You overestimate the individual. It's only when the individual becomes part of a larger group of individuals or a smaller group of powerful individuals that they usually achieve anything that leaves a mark in a positive manner. I for example am a very strong individual which makes me a great guard. That said, five lesser men could likely very easily kill me if they were hell bent on it.

If depopulation is necessary, then lets get rid of people who don't even support the idea of climate change. Makes sense to me. Seriously, stop being so cynical, don't diss my dust theory unless you actually have a constructive approach. Killing people is destructive, so you got some thinking to do.

Whatever gets results, yo!
I doubt I'd be killed anyways. The world's powerful people need strong men to beat their opposition into respecting their law and that's my job. =D

What I meant was, regardless of whether you think CC is human-induced or not, the problems are very real; possibly not apparent yet (though I'd argue the collapse of the Larsen Ice Shelf was hugely significant). So no, my opinion on climate change doesn't matter. But it does matter that I want to see action, not the inaction from you and the rest of your brethren.

See, that's Larsen's fault for not building his shelf out of something that wouldn't melt. Major lack of foresight there.
I can think of a great way to spread awareness though. Make a TV ad campaign something like this:

GLOBAL WARMING CAN KILL PEOPLE*

*Just not you or anyone you know and quite possibly not your children or their generation neither.

Laugh if you want. That's what I'm going to do.

Ok. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And now you have an incentive to prove me wrong.

[Alpha]

I'm not going to go into detail, as your arrogance and indifference is simply foreign to me. Whoever says NZ should amalgamate with Aussie is completely wrong. If you have similar opinions with the rest of your country, I'd rather go to war than merge as the next state of Australia.

The millions of people in those countries are still alive and fine and will likely be dead by 2100. I'm not too cold hearted though. No I give enough of a damn about people who are actually suffering such as those in various third world countries who don't even get a nutritious meal let alone things like an education many of us take for granted to donate a note or two to them every week when I go shopping. $50 is nothing to me, but it's a lot to these kids when it can buy them a shitload of rice. I am *such* a bleeding heart and shit.

I think the difference between myself and you is that I give a shit about people who are suffering now. People mightn't even exist in 100 years if some sort of catastrophic event occurs. I'd rather support people who need help than people who might need help provided they actually still exist at that point in time.

People are hurting now, and yes, I try and help them now as well. In fact, I one day hope to work in the UN or Oxfam (etc), hence the signature, that's if I don't go back to studying Geology (which I just quit, while leaving a door open if I change my mind). What you don't seem able to comprehend is that Global Warming will actually exacerbate existing issues in Third World countries. They already have water shortage and water quality issues, that global warming will make worse (I don't care if you don't believe it, I'm just gonna talk about what I KNOW). Helping the so-called Third World sounds good (and there are many moral challenges inherent in aid itself: do they even want to 'develop'? But that's off-topic, slightly). So yeah, helping now is good, but isn't helping ensure a better future even better? Millions are dying today. That's bad. Many more millions could be dying in 2100 due to our collective inaction with regards to CC. Foresight goes a long way, just like 'Larsen and his ice shelf' (made me lol).

I can guarentee you're quite naive if you honestly feel 99% of scientists actually search for the truth. Greed isn't exactly a foreign concept to most people and the promise of quick cash to play around with something a scientist actually cares about OR to help finance a good life for the scientist can be damn tempting. Employers know this. It's why security guards like myself get paid more than we could hope to spend in a week weekly. So we don't become corrupt. And even with the incentive some guards STILL feel the desire to steal cash so they can get a hyper expensive car or a classy whore or whatever else they might want. I don't slag respectable scientists. I slag the ones who feed the public bullshit for their own gain.

Hmm maybe 99% is too high, I agree there's a bit of greed, however abhorrent I find it. But it almost seems as though you're suggesting that any scientist who doubts climate change is corrupt and supported by someone with an agenda. Well, the entire Geology department at Victoria Uni in Wellington say human-influenced (not wholly human-cuased) CC is happening. And they're not funded by the government (well, a little bit), but mostly by student fees. And how's this: Jim Salinger, cheif scientist of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) in NZ was recently sacked, for, as he and many of NZ say, for his stance on climate change (he beleved it was human-induced). Who's got an agenda now?

No kidding. I totally didn't know that and thought the areas were icy because Santa wanted to keep the fire demons out of his totally awesome VIP only snowy strip clubs. It needs more than the cold and and a strong oceanic current too from what I understand.

Just. So. Cynical.

It doesn't have to mean the planet is warming or that any warming is significant either.

Hmm true, I'll give you that.

Yeah, I looked at some graphs that stretched thousands of years. From what I've seen it's been constantly rising with pits along the way from before humans did anything bar act feral. I've also read that if you go on an even longer time scale it goes up for so and so many thousand years (or was it millions?) and then down for a long time in cycles. That's part of what makes me think it'll take a damn long time before we're effected.

Speaking of which, where'd you get that ocean rising by 8 metres by 2100 from? I've read half a metre on one site and 20-90 cms on another. Both are a far cry from 8 metres.

You and your graphs, eh? What is concerning about current CC is the speed it is occuring. Yes, it is natural for the planet to heat up, but not this rapidly. Did you know that in Shakespeare's time, the Thames river froze over EVERY winter. The ice was so thick, that every year a winter market opened up ON the ice of the river. It's been over a hundred years since that last happened (not sure when the last time was, so could be longer.) The industrial revolution, when we started pumping those evil emissions into the sky occurred in Britain in the 1800s. In many Third World countries (i.e 70% of the world), it is just beginning, or has only been happening for a short period of time. Let's say, on average, it has happned in 100 years. Do you know how insignificant 100 years is in a geologic sense? Here's an idea to put it into perspective. The Earth is 4,600,000,000 years old. Do you know it takes longer than 200 years (non-stop, no eating, no sleeping) to count to that number? Human impact on the environment is WAY out of proportion to the length of time we've been changing the atmosphere. That really should alarm you. (Though it won't alarm you unless I draw you a graph, will it?)

Well in science, the theory means jack when it doesn't occur that way in real life. It generally means either the theory is wrong OR (and I believe it to apply in this case) other factors are left out. I do not know what those are, but we are seeing drops as well as rises.

Do you know that Milankovitch forcing alone has an apparent 3-$ degree shortfall of what scientists see, and what they expect from oribital changes? So, yes, things are left out. In this case it is emissions. The earth is 3-4 degrees warmer than it should be based on just Milankovitch forcing. So, yeah, you're right things are left out, to bad it's the bad things that no one wants to see.

You overestimate the individual. It's only when the individual becomes part of a larger group of individuals or a smaller group of powerful individuals that they usually achieve anything that leaves a mark in a positive manner. I for example am a very strong individual which makes me a great guard. That said, five lesser men could likely very easily kill me if they were hell bent on it.

And how do individuals come together? By first being individuals. Rosa Parks wouldn't get out of her chair, and inspired millions of people to lobby for change. You're the most pessimestic person I've ever encountered. I like you though, you stand by your convictions. Gives me a challenge to beat them down .

Hmm, so I did go into some detail.. fail.

See, that's Larsen's fault for not building his shelf out of something that wouldn't melt. Major lack of foresight there.
I can think of a great way to spread awareness though. Make a TV ad campaign something like this:

In all seriousness, the Larsen B and C Ice Shelves had been there for the last 10,000 years. Somethings up. The renowned glaciologist Mercerer (first name escapes me), called the Larsen Ice Shelves the 'canary in the coal mine'. BTW, Mercerer was a nudist. Yes, he was naked in Antarctica (not all the time, but I did see one photo. What a human.)

GLOBAL WARMING CAN KILL PEOPLE*

*Just not you or anyone you know and quite possibly not your children or their generation neither.

And that somehow diminishes it's importance?

Ok. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And now you have an incentive to prove me wrong.

Gee, thanks!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I KNOW your opinion is invalid (though I'll defend your right to say it), so I'm laughing. One day, when your in Heaven or Purgatory or whatever, and you see Australia with even worse droughts, maybe you'll realise. Your great-grandchildren may even starve. But hey, you don't care, do you?

[Furore]

I'm not going to go into detail, as your arrogance and indifference is simply foreign to me. Whoever says NZ should amalgamate with Aussie is completely wrong. If you have similar opinions with the rest of your country, I'd rather go to war than merge as the next state of Australia.

Now, now, now, don't lump me in with those other people living on this continent. I resent you saying that as it's indicating you feel I'm conforming to their ways which I'm really not. Most of them feel global warming is bad yet don't know what global warming is. Know why? The media.

I do know that most Australians don't like their sheep quite as much as NZers do, so I think there would be things for both sides to sort out in the event of a possible merger.

People are hurting now, and yes, I try and help them now as well. In fact, I one day hope to work in the UN or Oxfam (etc), hence the signature, that's if I don't go back to studying Geology (which I just quit, while leaving a door open if I change my mind). What you don't seem able to comprehend is that Global Warming will actually exacerbate existing issues in Third World countries. They already have water shortage and water quality issues, that global warming will make worse (I don't care if you don't believe it, I'm just gonna talk about what I KNOW). Helping the so-called Third World sounds good (and there are many moral challenges inherent in aid itself: do they even want to 'develop'? But that's off-topic, slightly). So yeah, helping now is good, but isn't helping ensure a better future even better? Millions are dying today. That's bad. Many more millions could be dying in 2100 due to our collective inaction with regards to CC. Foresight goes a long way, just like 'Larsen and his ice shelf' (made me lol).

Many millions could never have the chance to exist by 2100 if their ancestors aren't helped now. I'm not suggesting the world won't eventually be ****ed. I just think present problems should be a higher priority than future problems, especially when future problems mightn't even be the biggest threat when they do decide to rear their ugly heads in a century or so.

Hmm maybe 99% is too high, I agree there's a bit of greed, however abhorrent I find it. But it almost seems as though you're suggesting that any scientist who doubts climate change is corrupt and supported by someone with an agenda. Well, the entire Geology department at Victoria Uni in Wellington say human-influenced (not wholly human-cuased) CC is happening. And they're not funded by the government (well, a little bit), but mostly by student fees. And how's this: Jim Salinger, cheif scientist of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) in NZ was recently sacked, for, as he and many of NZ say, for his stance on climate change (he beleved it was human-induced). Who's got an agenda now?

I'm not suggesting ALL scientists who think global warming is a real big problem are slag-worthy. Just the ones spreading shit that mightn't be the least bit true via the media. It's like made up cults, a lot of them will have people who actually believe in what the cult stands for.

Just. So. Cynical.

As opposed to having my head in the dustclouds?

Hmm true, I'll give you that.

Cheers bro.

You and your graphs, eh? What is concerning about current CC is the speed it is occuring. Yes, it is natural for the planet to heat up, but not this rapidly. Did you know that in Shakespeare's time, the Thames river froze over EVERY winter. The ice was so thick, that every year a winter market opened up ON the ice of the river. It's been over a hundred years since that last happened (not sure when the last time was, so could be longer.) The industrial revolution, when we started pumping those evil emissions into the sky occurred in Britain in the 1800s. In many Third World countries (i.e 70% of the world), it is just beginning, or has only been happening for a short period of time. Let's say, on average, it has happned in 100 years. Do you know how insignificant 100 years is in a geologic sense? Here's an idea to put it into perspective. The Earth is 4,600,000,000 years old. Do you know it takes longer than 200 years (non-stop, no eating, no sleeping) to count to that number? Human impact on the environment is WAY out of proportion to the length of time we've been changing the atmosphere. That really should alarm you. (Though it won't alarm you unless I draw you a graph, will it?)

Did you know with the aid of fire I can boil water so it starts becoming steam in mere minutes? And the sun is a whole lot hotter than the fire I have access too, oh yeees. And yeah I know 100 years is jack in a geological sense. That's part of why I think what I do based on the graphs I've seen. It gets higher for many years and then lower for many years before repeating. Know what else I know? I know that to a human 100 years is a hell of a lot of time. Most humans won't see 90 years let alone 100.

Feel free to draw me some graphs as I like graphs quite a bit. Can you do the lines in that silver ink with the sparkly shit? I love the look of that stuff...

Do you know that Milankovitch forcing alone has an apparent 3-$ degree shortfall of what scientists see, and what they expect from oribital changes? So, yes, things are left out. In this case it is emissions. The earth is 3-4 degrees warmer than it should be based on just Milankovitch forcing. So, yeah, you're right things are left out, to bad it's the bad things that no one wants to see.

Yeah I meant as in things we'll possibly not know until they make their presence well and truly known. There's almost always a fair few unexpected variables when seeing the real deal for the first time. It always made me laugh at school when in science experiments did the opposite of what they were supposed to due to not properly controlling the variables. A few times even the science teacher couldn't figure out what was wrong.

And how do individuals come together? By first being individuals. Rosa Parks wouldn't get out of her chair, and inspired millions of people to lobby for change. You're the most pessimestic person I've ever encountered. I like you though, you stand by your convictions. Gives me a challenge to beat them down .

You've pegged me wrong. I'm so optimistic I DO get out of my chair. Several times a day in fact. And even though sadly my getting out of chairs hasn't inspired people I still keep a nice smile on my face most of the time. I'm just a realist. The world is ****ed and thankfully I won't see the true depths of the ****age. Neither will you, awesome, no? Certainly puts a smile on my face.

Hmm, so I did go into some detail.. fail.

You mentioned a fictional book and two men. Now for every two men who make history like them, how many great men aren't snapped up in the pages of history books? Seriously, many great individuals do die out without achieving renown even if they did do a lot more than those we know.

In all seriousness, the Larsen B and C Ice Shelves had been there for the last 10,000 years. Somethings up. The renowned glaciologist Mercerer (first name escapes me), called the Larsen Ice Shelves the 'canary in the coal mine'. BTW, Mercerer was a nudist. Yes, he was naked in Antarctica (not all the time, but I did see one photo. What a human.)

Yeah I wore a t-shirt, thongs (the footwear) and boardshorts on my first trip to the snow. I didn't get frostbite or nothing neither. Yay for not rugging up?
Geography in general does change though. Shit under the crust's moving around, mountains and ridges form every here and there due to the movement, some molten material comes up every so often including underwater where it can influence temperatures and the surrounding area in general through influencing the temperature...
Hell I'm just describing the symptoms of one factor here and there are MANY factors constantly changing the face of the Earth. It's normal stuff.

And that somehow diminishes it's importance?

Yes, in the same way that lawnmowers can claim your fingers, but won't. (Unless you're a dumbass and stick your hands in there or someone really hates you/wants to see what a lawnmower can do to your fingers).

Gee, thanks!

You're very welcome. No sweat off my balls back

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I KNOW your opinion is invalid (though I'll defend your right to say it), so I'm laughing. One day, when your in Heaven or Purgatory or whatever, and you see Australia with even worse droughts, maybe you'll realise. Your great-grandchildren may even starve. But hey, you don't care, do you?

No, you BELIEVE my opinion is invalid as in your subjective reality people are capable of anything including saving a possibly already ****ed world. My subjective reality leads me to believe something else and unless we both live past 120, neither of us will likely see whose views are closer to the objective reality.

And just like we don't know shit about global warming, neither of us knows if I'll ever have great-grandchildren. Unless you're psychic or something.

[Alpha]

Haven't got much time, I'll be brief.

You mentioned a fictional book and two men. Now for every two men who make history like them, how many great men aren't snapped up in the pages of history books? Seriously, many great individuals do die out without achieving renown even if they did do a lot more than those we know.

What fictional book?

Yeah I wore a t-shirt, thongs (the footwear) and boardshorts on my first trip to the snow. I didn't get frostbite or nothing neither. Yay for not rugging up?
Geography in general does change though. Shit under the crust's moving around, mountains and ridges form every here and there due to the movement, some molten material comes up every so often including underwater where it can influence temperatures and the surrounding area in general through influencing the temperature...
Hell I'm just describing the symptoms of one factor here and there are MANY factors constantly changing the face of the Earth. It's normal stuff.

Firstly, thongs = jandals.

Secondly, you're talking about plate tectonics, which takes millions of years. NZ and Aussie (thankfully) broke apart 82-84 million years ago. However climate cycles have been shown to be operating on 14,000 24,000 and 100,000 year cyclicities (I think I had the details in a much earlier post), but modern global warming is much more rapid than the changes we've seen so many times in the past (I've seen many a graph that shows this, and I might post a link to one tonight).

Yes, in the same way that lawnmowers can claim your fingers, but won't. (Unless you're a dumbass and stick your hands in there or someone really hates you/wants to see what a lawnmower can do to your fingers).

No, it's like a lawnmower that hasn't chopped your finger off yet, but WILL eventually. Even if it waits so long that it will have to chop your children's fingers off when they inherit it.

No, you BELIEVE my opinion is invalid as in your subjective reality people are capable of anything including saving a possibly already ****ed world. My subjective reality leads me to believe something else and unless we both live past 120, neither of us will likely see whose views are closer to the objective reality.

Climate science is intensely objective. Yes, sometimes objective reality can present two opposing situations. Yes, as the post-modernist Michel Foucault said; "Truth is not an objective reality, but a political tool. There is not one truth, but many possible truths." But at the same time, MOST scientists who study this believe in human-induced CC. If we assume that equal proportions of scientists from both sides of the fence are corrupt, then the evidence tends to suggest that human-induced (amplified natural rythms) CC is occurring. It's like probability. If 1/3 of scientists say no, but 2/3 say yes, who would you side with. Yes, either could be wrong, but one is more likely to be correct.

And just like we don't know shit about global warming, neither of us knows if I'll ever have great-grandchildren. Unless you're psychic or something.

Many things are yet to be explained, but action is still better than inaction, just in case.

[Furore]

Haven't got much time, I'll be brief.



What fictional book?

The Power of One.

Firstly, thongs = jandals.

ALways be thongs to a thong nong like myself I'm afraid.

Secondly, you're talking about plate tectonics, which takes millions of years. NZ and Aussie (thankfully) broke apart 82-84 million years ago. However climate cycles have been shown to be operating on 14,000 24,000 and 100,000 year cyclicities (I think I had the details in a much earlier post), but modern global warming is much more rapid than the changes we've seen so many times in the past (I've seen many a graph that shows this, and I might post a link to one tonight).

Yeah that was just ONE example of natural occurences that change the planet in a ton of ways. I could bring up others if you wanted. Ain't the Earth changing over thousands if not millions of years due to global warming? We see small bits of change now, but I bet plate tectonics are the same. I'm not a big fan of intense heat, so I'll get you to go down there and take a look for me, aye?

No, it's like a lawnmower that hasn't chopped your finger off yet, but WILL eventually. Even if it waits so long that it will have to chop your children's fingers off when they inherit it.

No it's like one that mightn't. I highly doubt global warming will kill me.

Climate science is intensely objective. Yes, sometimes objective reality can present two opposing situations. Yes, as the post-modernist Michel Foucault said; "Truth is not an objective reality, but a political tool. There is not one truth, but many possible truths." But at the same time, MOST scientists who study this believe in human-induced CC. If we assume that equal proportions of scientists from both sides of the fence are corrupt, then the evidence tends to suggest that human-induced (amplified natural rythms) CC is occurring. It's like probability. If 1/3 of scientists say no, but 2/3 say yes, who would you side with. Yes, either could be wrong, but one is more likely to be correct.

The way I see it is truth is the objective reality. Trouble is, people don't see the objective reality and merely project their own subjective reality over the top. As for that second bit, look at history. The majority COULD be total dumbasses and if you disagreed with those with the power you tended to suffer. Just now it's your character that suffers, once upon a time you would have been tortured, eaten by animals, stoned or something.

Many things are yet to be explained, but action is still better than inaction, just in case.

Except when there are more immediate problems that have been properly identified.

[Alpha]

The Power of One.

Ahh, of course, I thought you meant a book that didn't exist at all

The way I see it is truth is the objective reality. Trouble is, people don't see the objective reality and merely project their own subjective reality over the top. As for that second bit, look at history. The majority COULD be total dumbasses and if you disagreed with those with the power you tended to suffer. Just now it's your character that suffers, once upon a time you would have been tortured, eaten by animals, stoned or something.

All good points, and there's no point arguing, because this argument can beat all other arguments. You could be wrong, I could be wrong. You could be right, I could be right. Tom-aye-to tom-aah-to

Except when there are more immediate problems that have been properly identified.

Action on climate change isn't mutually exclusive with action on other issues. For example, the New Zealand Green Party has successfully spearheaded a campaign to insulate NZ homes with Pink Batts. People can apply for a government grant for this. The idea is if our homes are warmer, then we will use less electricity, meaning we can burn less fossil fuels. At the same time, this creates work for builders, including my friens, who was made redundant about two months ago, but has since been re-hired and is flat out working. It's possibly the major reason NZ has half the unemployment of the US or the EU.

[RagnaToad]

The way I see it is truth is the objective reality. Trouble is, people don't see the objective reality and merely project their own subjective reality over the top.

And that's not what you're doing?

You refuse to believe the majority of scientists and claim to base your beliefs on reason, while what you're actually doing is refusing to believe a truth that would make you feel guilty.

You wouldn't have any problem with the facts about our planet if you wouldn't have to give up some things because of those facts. Don't deny that.

[Furore]

And that's not what you're doing?

It's exactly what I'm doing! For I said it was what people do and I'm pretty sure I have a lifetime membership to the people group.

You refuse to believe the majority of scientists and claim to base your beliefs on reason, while what you're actually doing is refusing to believe a truth that would make you feel guilty.

Why would I feel guilty about something my individual impact wouldn't be a drop in the ocean towards? I just despise things that are overhyped AND realise that there are scientists who believe otherwise AND even if all scientists did think this would end badly any time soon, it mightn't as we haven't seem this happen before and the best science could manage at this point is an educated guess with a bad margin of error.

You wouldn't have any problem with the facts about our planet if you wouldn't have to give up some things because of those facts. Don't deny that.

I wouldn't have any problem with your facts if they were a definete, likely to effect me type thing and not shown in the media so much over more immediate problems. Personally I despise hearing about theories that might very well amount to either nothing or jack so much, especially when they take up pages from the real news and induce further stupidity in the general public.