If you don't see that Mars and Earth climates are far more similar than different, I just don't know what to tell you. Nothing to worry about then. You can move to Mars when things get too hot here. Don't forget your woollen sox.
Dear A. Coward, solar activity has this year reached its minimum in its 11-year cycle. As to the surface temperature objection, I wish to remind you lucky stratosphere-dwellers that most of us humans still live on the surface of the planet. And so do most of the living creatures. You admit that the temperature has been rising. I'll remind you of these facts: a) human activities are producing huge quantities of CO2 and b) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's then pretty obvious human activities cause global warming. If the cause was another - solar radiation, alien attack, God's will - it's still us who have to live in the ever-heating Earth. I don't think you have an alternative. So I think a more intelligent strategy that that of playing lay-the-guilt on something else would be actually reducing the emission of greenhouse gases.
Just one thought before seeing my karma dumped to hell. Manmade global warming is nowadays known as one scientific fact. This means it's been proven by a huge quantity of data and innumerable research papers point out it's really happening. The same huge quantity of data proves the Nazi killed almost 6 million Jews in their concentration camps during WWII. Notwithstanding all this data, there are Holocaust deniers just as there are global warming deniers. My question is, why denying the Holocaust is seen as immoral and possibly illegal while denying global warming isn't?
The stupid who's writing this has been happily using Linux for 2 years without ever needing to compile anything himself. And everything runs perfectly. Sometimes I wish I was able to compile successfully anything, just to get the feeling of how it is - but for the needs of the average computer user, no compiling is needed in most modern Linux distros.
I'm afraid this isn't about the near future. It is about now. And nobody's saying we should abandon civilisation, it'd be plain mad. A lots of people is just saying we ought to change the way we see civilisation. Does adopting a renewable-energy-driven economy rather than a petrol-driven economy mean 'abandon[ing] civilization right this very minute'? Does making the politicians take steps towards a cleaner economy mean 'abandon[ing] civilization right this very minute'? I don't think so. It's a different approach, but does not mean 'abandoning civilisation'. Many European countries - and countries worldwide - are taking steps in this direction, but it's not as easy as "cleaning up CO2 in the athmosphere", or other sci-fi solutions. Secondly, most of the controversy there is about manmade global warming is between scientists on one side and economists and politicians on the other. The scientific community is quite united on this topic - and it is their job to base their opinion on measurable facts. On this regard, I invite you to read the related Wikipedia article.
Thanks for citing your sources. Right, the scientific community is diverse and they'll never concord on anything. Actually, you'll see scientist debating on the validity of Newton's law and on the Laws of Thermodynamics; and, after all, it's their job. However, the above-mentioned Wikipedia article says that the 'prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"'. I take it more than 50% of scientists believe manmade GW is there. Now, if manmade GW exists, it's a very grave problem as it's deeply changing the environment in a way we're not sure we can cope with as a species - at least a lot of us are likely not to make it. So, I'd rather take action - and see governments take action against it, soon. Using the discord as an excuse for letting things go the way they're going doesn't seem to me a very good idea - I think it's criminal indeed - because when we finally decide GW is happening and begin reacting to it, it might be too late.
Then I guess the Washington Post 'is tainted by the anti-U.S., anti-capitalism, anti-progress political beliefs'. Huh, and here it is the Wikipedia and scientific community by the way. Ah, but you're right: they are a community, thus they must be Communists. Then I guess we might overlook the fact that climate's changing faster in these last 20 years than it's been changing over the million years man has existed. And go on running our SUVs on cheap petrol./sarcasm
Please refer to those sceptical scientists. There's no disagreement over man-made global warming in the scientific community and it takes a short trip to wikipedia to see it. Of course, it's harder if your source of information is junkscience.com.
Actually there was consensus among the UN 'experts' that there've never been WMDs in Iraq. On the contrary, most of the world's climatologists believe global warming is taking place and is manmade.
Questioning 'experts' is good, but denying facts isn't.
But Communism and Socialism aren't the same everywhere. There is a huge difference between Russian Stalinism on one hand and Marxism and Leninism on the other. See Cuba. While I know the Cuban government has been accused of the infringement of human rights, they aren't the only ones (Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, anyone?). Apart from this, I wouldn't think the Cubans are too badly off, and this is even more admirable taking into consideration a certain 50 years old embargo. In fact, their educational and health systems are incredibly efficient, to the point they actually export doctors and teachers to all of South America.
encourages brazilian women to continue their slutty ways In fact, my Brazilian 89-year-old grandmother still likes to act in pr0n movies. Besides, it is widely known/all/ Brazilian women are sluts.
That's funny. 'Red agenda'. You must be stuck in the 60s, Mr. McCarth... ehm... Maxo-Texas. Hello! This is 2007 and Communism is long dead. Saying environmentalists 'hate business, capitalism, and progress'/is/ commonplaceness. It's just like saying the Jews are subverting the order of the Reich or whatever Nazi propaganda bullshit. Most environmentalists simply don't accept the current model of business and of "progress" and they propose a new model. On the other hand, I've seen too many times the much praised capitalism foraging wars in the name of profit and speculating on pain and suffering, e.g. the tobacco industry, the big pharmas, the weapon industry, the big oil companies. It is too easy forget people are suffering as a result of business when cash flows in.
Many vegetarians avoid consuming meat not because of moral issues but because its production on a massive scale is ecologically unsustainable. I agree meat - in small quantities - is part of an healthy diet. But one thing is having meat once in a while, another is having meat on a daily basis, three times a day. Westerners are having too much of it - and this is yet another source of stress for the environment.
Producing meat is destructive. But not just because of the killing of animals - which, while being an issue isn't the biggest issue. It is destructive because it takes up a lot of resources.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear A. Coward,
solar activity has this year reached its minimum in its 11-year cycle. As to the surface temperature objection, I wish to remind you lucky stratosphere-dwellers that most of us humans still live on the surface of the planet. And so do most of the living creatures.
You admit that the temperature has been rising. I'll remind you of these facts: a) human activities are producing huge quantities of CO2 and b) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's then pretty obvious human activities cause global warming. If the cause was another - solar radiation, alien attack, God's will - it's still us who have to live in the ever-heating Earth. I don't think you have an alternative. So I think a more intelligent strategy that that of playing lay-the-guilt on something else would be actually reducing the emission of greenhouse gases.
But then, I can understand your position. There's still a lot of people trying to claim the Holocaust could never have happened.
Just one thought before seeing my karma dumped to hell.
Manmade global warming is nowadays known as one scientific fact. This means it's been proven by a huge quantity of data and innumerable research papers point out it's really happening. The same huge quantity of data proves the Nazi killed almost 6 million Jews in their concentration camps during WWII.
Notwithstanding all this data, there are Holocaust deniers just as there are global warming deniers.
My question is, why denying the Holocaust is seen as immoral and possibly illegal while denying global warming isn't?
Touché.
The stupid who's writing this has been happily using Linux for 2 years without ever needing to compile anything himself. And everything runs perfectly.
Sometimes I wish I was able to compile successfully anything, just to get the feeling of how it is - but for the needs of the average computer user, no compiling is needed in most modern Linux distros.
God is going to provide a warp engine for us!
Ha! Opposing theories. They should teach both in schools!
So yeah, we need to summon the power of the Mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster once again.
I'm afraid this isn't about the near future. It is about now. And nobody's saying we should abandon civilisation, it'd be plain mad. A lots of people is just saying we ought to change the way we see civilisation. Does adopting a renewable-energy-driven economy rather than a petrol-driven economy mean 'abandon[ing] civilization right this very minute'? Does making the politicians take steps towards a cleaner economy mean 'abandon[ing] civilization right this very minute'? I don't think so. It's a different approach, but does not mean 'abandoning civilisation'. Many European countries - and countries worldwide - are taking steps in this direction, but it's not as easy as "cleaning up CO2 in the athmosphere", or other sci-fi solutions.
Secondly, most of the controversy there is about manmade global warming is between scientists on one side and economists and politicians on the other. The scientific community is quite united on this topic - and it is their job to base their opinion on measurable facts. On this regard, I invite you to read the related Wikipedia article.
Sorry for citing again Wikipedia, but it's the best I have at hand. I invite you to also read the article on the "Global warming controversy".
Thanks for citing your sources.
Right, the scientific community is diverse and they'll never concord on anything. Actually, you'll see scientist debating on the validity of Newton's law and on the Laws of Thermodynamics; and, after all, it's their job.
However, the above-mentioned Wikipedia article says that the 'prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"'. I take it more than 50% of scientists believe manmade GW is there.
Now, if manmade GW exists, it's a very grave problem as it's deeply changing the environment in a way we're not sure we can cope with as a species - at least a lot of us are likely not to make it. So, I'd rather take action - and see governments take action against it, soon. Using the discord as an excuse for letting things go the way they're going doesn't seem to me a very good idea - I think it's criminal indeed - because when we finally decide GW is happening and begin reacting to it, it might be too late.
Then I guess the Washington Post 'is tainted by the anti-U.S., anti-capitalism, anti-progress political beliefs'. Huh, and here it is the Wikipedia and scientific community by the way. Ah, but you're right: they are a community, thus they must be Communists. /sarcasm
Then I guess we might overlook the fact that climate's changing faster in these last 20 years than it's been changing over the million years man has existed. And go on running our SUVs on cheap petrol.
Whoever modded you as insightful? Anyhow, here's a link for you: there's no more question manmade global warming is happening.
Please refer to those sceptical scientists. There's no disagreement over man-made global warming in the scientific community and it takes a short trip to wikipedia to see it. Of course, it's harder if your source of information is junkscience.com.
Actually there was consensus among the UN 'experts' that there've never been WMDs in Iraq.
On the contrary, most of the world's climatologists believe global warming is taking place and is manmade.
Questioning 'experts' is good, but denying facts isn't.
But Communism and Socialism aren't the same everywhere. There is a huge difference between Russian Stalinism on one hand and Marxism and Leninism on the other.
See Cuba. While I know the Cuban government has been accused of the infringement of human rights, they aren't the only ones (Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, anyone?). Apart from this, I wouldn't think the Cubans are too badly off, and this is even more admirable taking into consideration a certain 50 years old embargo. In fact, their educational and health systems are incredibly efficient, to the point they actually export doctors and teachers to all of South America.
In Italy, we don't use nuclear power. Instead, we buy electricity from France which built nuclear power stations just across the border.
I confirm this information. I've given up watching TV here.
Satire and information... brilliant!
One should think before posting.
That's funny. 'Red agenda'. You must be stuck in the 60s, Mr. McCarth... ehm... Maxo-Texas. Hello! This is 2007 and Communism is long dead. /is/ commonplaceness. It's just like saying the Jews are subverting the order of the Reich or whatever Nazi propaganda bullshit.
Saying environmentalists 'hate business, capitalism, and progress'
Most environmentalists simply don't accept the current model of business and of "progress" and they propose a new model. On the other hand, I've seen too many times the much praised capitalism foraging wars in the name of profit and speculating on pain and suffering, e.g. the tobacco industry, the big pharmas, the weapon industry, the big oil companies. It is too easy forget people are suffering as a result of business when cash flows in.
"Many enviros are simply Marxists that found a willing home.
They're "watermelons": green on the outside, red on the inside."
Wow! So much prejudice and commonplaceness in just 2 sentences. Congratulations.
Anything against the Jews or the old good blacks?
I don't know about digi cameras but Ubuntu with Rhythmbox detected my Nano out-of-the-box.
Sorry there's no cure for bad luck.
Many vegetarians avoid consuming meat not because of moral issues but because its production on a massive scale is ecologically unsustainable.
I agree meat - in small quantities - is part of an healthy diet. But one thing is having meat once in a while, another is having meat on a daily basis, three times a day. Westerners are having too much of it - and this is yet another source of stress for the environment.
Producing meat is destructive. But not just because of the killing of animals - which, while being an issue isn't the biggest issue. It is destructive because it takes up a lot of resources.