board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Global warming/not warming

Post Reply   Page 2 of 3  [ 45 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Mar , 2008 12:10 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
Crucifer wrote:
Nobody actually knows. People just believe what they believe to be the best argument. Like in religion.
I don't think evaluating who has the best argument figures much into either politics or religion.


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Mar , 2008 9:43 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:
Because the woman who was being interviewed in that article is a member of a political group that among other things is dedicated to disproving the consequences of environmental change. A group that is funded by mining interests. Like they have an axe to grind.
Doesn't that ring any warning bells with you as to how trustworthy their science is?
Yeah, they sound a lot like environmentalists - a political group that among other things is dedicated to proving the consequences of environmental change, a group with an axe to grind.
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:
You can believe the oil companies if you like hal. As you said, 'it's only ever an issue to anyone when they don't want to hear the results. ' I think that describes the big company attitude to global warming and explains why these news items come out of right-wing cover organisations.
Hal's right. The determining factor in science is whether the data is right and whether the model fits the data. It's not who funds it.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 25 Mar , 2008 4:10 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
Quote:
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:
Because the woman who was being interviewed in that article is a member of a political group that among other things is dedicated to disproving the consequences of environmental change. A group that is funded by mining interests. Like they have an axe to grind.
Doesn't that ring any warning bells with you as to how trustworthy their science is?


Yeah, they sound a lot like environmentalists - a political group that among other things is dedicated to proving the consequences of environmental change, a group with an axe to grind.
That would be a fair comment if I were trying to defend environmental organisations. If you read carefully you would have noticed I picked up hal's criticisms of environmentalist hyperbole by saying that we have no need to believe polemicists.
What I find dubious is the dishonest presentation of scientific research by conservative political groups in order to discredit theories of climate change that are supported by most of the world's independent research. It is irrelevant that environmentalists are using that research to promote economic and political changes because the research and theories came first and weren't politically motivated. The reaction of the mercantilists to use your economic jargon is to cast about to disprove the science and failing that to belittle or misrepresent it.
Unless all the scientists across the world who have come to accept climatalogical change are part of a secret plot. That seems to be what is being suggested.

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 25 Mar , 2008 4:18 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
But they're NOT supported by the world's "independent research." Who funds the research that these researchers are disagreeing with? Unless you say "absolutely nobody" then it's not independent, and if you say "absolutely nobody" then there is no research because there is no funding.

The studies presented that disagree with anthropogenic global warming, and even the studies that disagree with global warming, were funded by somebody, that is true. But it doesn't matter who funds them, they stand or fail on their own scientific merits.

No researcher is independent, but no data is dependent.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 25 Mar , 2008 5:25 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Here's an interesting article that I think might highlight how Global warming supporters are quite biased themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/scien ... nted=print

The researchers are studying the apparent extinction of a frog, and it's obvious that the frog is being killed off by a specific fungus. Now, one group of scientists tied this into Global Warming, by saying the fungus thrives in specific climate conditions.

Other scientists are disputing this claim, and there's a great deal of debate. Presumably they'll hash it out and let us know.

But there's a bigger issue here. I would have thought the initial theory would be that the fungus had adapted to survive more easily in the specific area, and thus endangered the frogs. But by tying it to Global Warming, not only is it suddenly mankind's fault, rather than simply nature running as it should, but it's a global effect on this one small area.

How much do you want to bet they got a whole lot of grant money after they found these results?

I particularly love this quote at the end:
Quote:
Ross A. Alford, a tropical biologist at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia, said such scientific tussles, while important, could be a distraction, particularly when considering the uncertain risks attending global warming.

“Arguing about whether we can or cannot already see the effects,” he said, “is like sitting in a house soaked in gasoline, having just dropped a lit match, and arguing about whether we can actually see the flames yet, while waiting to see if maybe it might go out on its own.”
So in other words, we shouldn't pursue the truth of the situation... we shouldn't debate the science when there is a disagreement. We should just accept that Global warming is to blame and ignore all these distracting arguments about why it probably isn't. We may not see any effects of the Global warming, but it's still going to destroy the planet.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 25 Mar , 2008 5:26 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
I have no problem with the world scientific community critically examining climatological research and finding anomalies and question marks. The world weather system is a complex affair and takes some understanding.

What I do have a problem with is commercial interests trying to misrepresent it using cover organisations, misrepresentation, cherry picking and fake statistics. If you come up triumphantly with some environmental group that does the same you are missing my point. Once again I point to the body that hal quoted in the original post as a typical conservative cover organisation trying to sound as if they were disinterested scientists. Once again I say that if they acknowledged that climate change posed hard problems, socially, politically and economically and how should we deal with them they would be honest but instead they prefer to go the dishonest route and try to deny it is happening or if it is it isn't the result of commercial activity but the sun or something that means they won't have to change anything.

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 25 Mar , 2008 5:31 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
and my problem is with people on the left, who want everyone to accept their view of the world as "truth" and anyone who says otherwise, or interprets data otherwise, is only out for commercial interests and wants to see the planet destroyed for a profit.

The fact is, if climate change is NOT the result of commercial activity, then we don't HAVE to change. Maybe, on the other hand, we should look for ways to live with climate change, rather than try to stop it.

We could still change, and should in many respects, but doing it to make sure our air is clean to breathe would be the reason, rather than apocalyptic extinction events scaring people into it...

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 25 Mar , 2008 10:07 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
Okey dokey
Here is Wikipedia on the subject of political pressure and what is known as anthropogenic (ie causes by human activity) global warming.
I think it proves my point and will follow the link by pulling out what I think relevant.
Feel free to pick out that which you think relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_war ... _partisans


#1
Quote:
On February 2, 2007, The Guardian stated[129][130] that Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with AEI, had sent letters[131] to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering US$10,000 plus travel expenses and other incidental payments in return for essays with the purpose of "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process," specifically regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

#2
Quote:
The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air'[135], that criticizes ExxonMobil for "[underwriting] the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for "[funnelling] about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue." In 2006 Exxon claimed that it was no longer going to fund these groups[136] though that claim has been challenged by Greenpeace[137].


#3
Quote:
Political pressure on scientists
Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist.[168]

U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,[169] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[170][171][172] Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by journalist Chris Mooney in his book The Republican War on Science.
#4
Quote:
According to an Associated Press release on January 30, 2007,

"Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming."
"The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report."[179]

Now it is a long article and there is much more on the site and I recommend you to read it. You will find people saying the opposite for instance the last item had someone on the Wall Street Journal say that the survey was unscientific. Overall I think it proves my point but there are things there which you can pull out to contradict me.

Many of the people who dispute these ideas have been shown to be lobbyists for energy companies, a distinction that the editor of the Science journal thinks is important.
So this is not a conspiracy of the left, more a conspiracy of commercial interests who wish to paint it thus in order to keep their foot soldiers quiet.

Once again, I have no quarrel with honest science, even or especially science that investigates anomalies and paradoxes in world climate. There must be a lot of conflicting data. I do dislike being taken as a fool by anonymous rich men.

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Crucifer
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 25 Mar , 2008 11:38 pm
A song outlasts a dynasty.
Offline
 
Posts: 3202
Joined: Tue 29 May , 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Wouldn't you like to know...
Contact: Website
 
There are hundreds of factors involved in something like climate change. To take them all into account and construct a conclusive model would take decades.

And funded research is, by its very nature, biased. People aren't going to fund a lab if the lab is going to come up with evidence that says what it's doing is wrong.

Non-funded research is short-lived at best, I would imagine.

_________________

Sleep is a death; Oh, make me try by sleeping what it is to die.


Top
Profile Quote
Berhael
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 26 Mar , 2008 8:52 pm
Milk and kisses
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4417
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:03 am
Location: lost in translation
 
halplm wrote:
and my problem is with people on the left, who want everyone to accept their view of the world as "truth" and anyone who says otherwise, or interprets data otherwise, is only out for commercial interests and wants to see the planet destroyed for a profit.
I wasn't aware that wanting everyone to accept a particular view of the world was a leftist trait; right-wing people do it all the time too.
Quote:
The fact is, if climate change is NOT the result of commercial activity, then we don't HAVE to change. Maybe, on the other hand, we should look for ways to live with climate change, rather than try to stop it.
So it's easier to try and change the world than the way capitalism works... riiiiight. :neutral:
Quote:
We could still change, and should in many respects, but doing it to make sure our air is clean to breathe would be the reason, rather than apocalyptic extinction events scaring people into it...
I agree with that, but if people don't feel the urgency, they won't feel motivated to change. Especially politicians who only think in 4-year spans until the next elections.

_________________


"The most terrifying day of your life is the day the first one is born [...] Your life, as you know it... is gone. Never to return. But they learn how to walk, and they learn how to talk... and you want to be with them. And they turn out to be the most delightful people you will ever meet in your life."


Top
Profile Quote
Feredir
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 28 Mar , 2008 4:45 pm
 
 
I really don't want to join in this debate but found this article and wondered what everyone's thoughts are on it.

http://green.yahoo.com/news/afp/2008032 ... hhour.html


I see some major crime prevention problems, which is why a lot of the landmarks are lit up. Low level or no lights = crime opportunity.


freddy


Top
Quote
Heliona
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 04 Apr , 2008 2:27 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue 02 Oct , 2007 11:44 pm
Contact: Website
 
I fail to see how looking at trends over a few years will tell you anything. In terms of climate trends, you have to look at things over decades and more.

I can say, in terms of a sailor, who obviously relies on weather patterns to determine where and when to sail, that the global weather pattern has changed in 20 years. The Gulf Stream no longer does what it is predicted to do and the Trade Winds, normally which you can set your clock by, are getting more eratic.

Whether this pattern change is following a normal course of events or has been accelerated by humans I obviously can't say for sure. But I do believe that the massive input into our atmosphere of Greenhouse Gases (which are more than CO2, but also include water vapour, methane, and ozone) must be having some kind of effect on the planet's atmosphere. We do need some form of Greenhouse Effect to take place to ensure that we don't freeze, but a delicate balance of these gases in our atmosphere is required, and we don't know if this balance has been upset.

I definitely think that a better safe than sorry attitude towards the Greenhouse Effect is the way to go. Just because that it can't be proven beyond all doubt that we are accelerating climate change doesn't mean that we shouldn't take precautions in case we are. After all, if we are not, then we've just helped clean up the air. (And unless you've been to some very remote places, you wouldn't believe how 'dirty' our air is, even out in the country.) The planet's population is steadily growing and hence our contribution to the atmosphere will also continue to grow unless we can curb it.

It is also worth noting that since fossil fuel is a non-renewable resource (unless you're immortal!) and our supplies are getting lower, that perhaps curbing our CO2 output (which mostly comes from burning fossil fuels) will extend the amount of time we can use it.

Also, just because scientists are funded by a company doesn't mean that they would deliberately lie about the results. Results are results. I would say that the majority of scientists don't have an agenda beyond trying to find out things they didn't know before. The same can not be said about politicians.


Top
Profile Quote
eborr
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 07 Apr , 2008 3:46 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 7:07 pm
Location: Member barely active
 
This whole thing has been bugging more for a long time, in term of climate change we have an unholy alliance of big business, politicians with no/failing agendas, scientists in search of grants and climatologists who are really excited cos people are paying them attention (climatologists are very very boring people).

Perhaps I should expand on this idea a little. Climate change is creating a whole new raft of "business opportunites" of the type that demands delivering no value but making charges.

In the old days if you had rubbish the coucil would take it away for you, now you need to dispose of it. - Supermarkets are going to charge now for plastic bags instead of giving them away free - surely ecological would mean the "give" us either paper bags or biodegradable plastic ones, we are getting people making wind farms for guarenteed expensive unreliable energy, there are all sorts of "eco-consultants" ruinning round compiling useless reports.

Look at the politico's - evironmental taxes = more taxes, great source of contention free taxation, and look at the politicians behind it, Al Gore, the only person in the universe who could loose an election to Bush, David Cameroon, a torie leader who can't creat a new policy because the labour party are to the right of the disraeli one-nation tories.

Lets look at the scientists - they make by research for private companies or for defence, nothing else until now, and in UK we can thank our scientists for ignoring and misrepresenting mad-cow disease, Gulf war syndrome, "safe" nuclear energy. Lesson 1 scientist cannot betrusted, as for the climatologists -nobody has ever taken them seriously before - so who can blame them.

I keep hearing statements from the cliamte change lobby, such as we are facing the most sustained rapid change ever, the problem is that there period of analysis is confined to those times when accurate records were kept, and certainly the numbers I have seen, say little to convince me.

In a similar manner they talk of all manner of disasters if the tempreture increase by 2-3 degrees, the reality is that the tempreture has changed by more than 3 degrees in the last couple of hundred years, and if we look at the archaeological record, that level of change is not exceptional.

These so-called scientists ignore what has happened on the earth prefering their own wacky climate-economic-socilogical models.

Lets look at one example they cannot really explain, why if we are in for a process of sustained climatic change has this year been the coldest since 1997 ?

But what is perhaps most evill of all, is that this represents a very sinister attempt by the establishment to reserve pleasure and power for themselves, they will use green taxes to make things like flying, and fast cars, and heated houses the reserve of the rich again. The environmental taxes will be decididly regressive.

This is what the worthy eco-friendly tree-hugging buffoons have really signed up for.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 07 Apr , 2008 11:03 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
For purposes of discussion, I think it worthwhile to separate the information from the use that is made of it.
eborr wrote:
Lesson 1 scientist cannot betrusted, as for the climatologists -nobody has ever taken them seriously before - so who can blame them.
Well, compared to what? Compared to politicians? Compared to oil companies? Compared to the CIA or MI5? It's not as if we had access to the really-real and the truly-true against which all lies could be compared. We only have what different people tell us, and they all tell us something different. So we inform ourselves as best we can, weight our sources of information by experience, and make whatever decision seems most reasonable at the time.

(It is news to me, by the way, that climatologists have never before been taken seriously. If you really want questionable science, take a look at what those paleobotanists are doing. ;) )
Quote:
the problem is that there period of analysis is confined to those times when accurate records were kept.
This is not correct, actually. We have good records of atmospheric content going back at least 36,000 years, from ice core samples.
Quote:
The environmental taxes will be decididly regressive.

This is what the worthy eco-friendly tree-hugging buffoons have really signed up for.
Well, a whole lot of us are buffoons ... won't argue with that. But I've yet to see anyone propose a perfect system whereby we can guarantee that unequal distribution of power and wealth will not distort our treasured legislations.

I am less convinced by the argument that we should do nothing while waiting for human nature to achieve perfection than I am by arguments that we should take some action, knowing in advance how imperfect it will be. It's really just a matter of reconciling ourselves to the fact that we're never done doing whatever it is we're trying to do. People are corrupt, systems are corrupt, and stuff changes.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
eborr
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 08 Apr , 2008 12:11 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 7:07 pm
Location: Member barely active
 
then the atmospheric records are from approximately the end of the last major glaciation, and so what do they tell us, I would suggest that it's the tempreture fluctuation is constant is aligned with sunspots, something overwhich we have little control.

for avoidance of doubt, I share the concern that we have to much packaging, that our growing waste tips are obnoxious, that if we keep breeding at the current rate there may be food shortages, but then I console myself that there is the potential for the world to produce ample food. THe reason we don't is not climatic it's economic and political, and all the climate change nonsense is another prosthetic to divert peoples real attention from the major challenge, which is to rest control from the rich and the greedy. Most of us though have enough food food and enough material possesions and sufficient supplies of whatever opiates ticcles our fancies, to sign up to the "recieved " wisdom.

Your quite right we need to take action, but the action shouldn't be that we wear recyclable clothes and take walking holidays in Scunthorpe raither than two weeks in Benidorm, we have to agitate for political change, and maybe do small things like buy the fairtrade products, humilate the local bank manager, deface pictures of Rupert Murdoch, but most importantly talk to your friends and colleagues, get them to question the crap that they are being fed and see if they enjoy ingesting it.

We will all tighten our belts, fly less, put up with more inconvenience pay climate levies, and follow the other lemmings over the cliff, the starving will remain so until they die, and the rich and powerfull will laugh at the trick they have played-

Whilst feasting in their private jets engorged with conspicuous consumption.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 11 Apr , 2008 3:03 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
eborr wrote:
... but the action shouldn't be that we wear recyclable clothes and take walking holidays in Scunthorpe raither than two weeks in Benidorm, we have to agitate for political change ...
Yes, I do agree.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
RELStuart
Post subject: Re: Global warming/not warming
Posted: Mon 08 Jun , 2009 4:14 am
Legendury speller
Offline
 
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon 14 Mar , 2005 2:06 pm
Location: US of A
 
Interesting article with some current news on this subject.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1244245 ... :b24942998" target="_blank

_________________

"When people don't believe in you, you have to believe in yourself. "
Pierce Brosnan

"Please don't disillusion me. I haven't had breakfast yet." Card


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject: Re: Global warming/not warming
Posted: Mon 08 Jun , 2009 9:12 am
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
The funny thing about this whole debate is how people who deny climate change seem to think that it's some liberal left movement type thing from people who care about the warm fuzzy creatures of the world.

The fact is, the world has naturally gotten warmer and colder over time, and the world will survive just fine through this, as it has done for millions of years.

What climate change deniers don't seem to realize is that yes, the world will surive just fine, but humans as a species probably won't. People who are fighting against climate change aren't just fighting to save the current species that live in the world, they're fighting to save the human race.

Technically, homo sapiens haven't been around long enough to be considered a dominant species - 200,000 years is absolutely nothing. Yet we have the arrogance to believe that because we are intelligent and have basically taken over the world with our numbers, that we are.

This debate is essentially useless except in terms of a solution for our own survival.

Other than that, it doesn't matter if climate change is natural or human caused.

Global climate change isn't a problem for the earth.

It will recover.

We won't.

Once that fact is shoved into the skulls of people who don't think that it matters that it is happening, maybe some change will come. Otherwise, we'll just be another species that gets shrugged off and goes extinct. It makes no difference to the planet we live on. It only makes a difference to us.


Basically, stop debating about "who started it" - that debate has no more use than a serious debate about what came first, the chicken or the egg (the egg did). It gets to a point where it doesn't matter who started it, but by wasting time arguing about who did, we lose time where we could be thinking of solutions to the problem.


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject: Re: Global warming/not warming
Posted: Mon 08 Jun , 2009 11:09 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
Smart woman :) .

_________________

[ img ]

"Believe me, every heart has its secret sorrows, which the world knows not;
and oftentimes we call a man cold when he is only sad." ~Robert C. Savage


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject: Re: Global warming/not warming
Posted: Mon 08 Jun , 2009 1:07 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
Estel, wasting time is exactly what the debate is about. They used the strategy for car emissions, tobacco legislation and other environmental and health matters.
Not yet, lets do it later, is a powerful and deliberate tool to stop any change. And it works. We had the technology to start dealing with this 40, even 50 years ago.

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 2 of 3  [ 45 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 »
Jump to: