• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'[W;96]

Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

TheNextEra said:
I would add fame to that, but yes that is definitely a possibility.
Click to expand...

I personally have no idea what it was, but I can tell you this. It most certainly was NOT for fame. It was widely unpopular and Gore was dismissed at the time by his senior colleagues. But it remained a passion of his that he picked back up after he had gained name recognition and people would listen. I think possibly there is at least some sincerity to his work.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Montecresto said:
I personally have no idea what it was, but I can tell you this. It most certainly was NOT for fame. It was widely unpopular and Gore was dismissed at the time by his senior colleagues. But it remained a passion of his that he picked back up after he had gained name recognition and people would listen. I think possibly there is at least some sincerity to his work.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying there wasn't ANY sincerity in his work, but I think as it progressed ego took over and he tried to make it more than what it was. I believe he was quite biased when he announced it in the late 90s.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

TheNextEra said:
I'm not saying there wasn't ANY sincerity in his work, but I think as it progressed ego took over and he tried to make it more than what it was. I believe he was quite biased when he announced it in the late 90s.
Click to expand...

Ok, we'll short of being able to cite material proving Gore is in it for ego and money, there's little point of continuing. I do recall him being so excited that he was going to get to go to Washington and work with the very people that could effect a change and so disappointed when they dismissed him as naive and round faced. So if we're just going by "beliefs", I'm sticking with his likely sincerity, even if he is wrong.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

CalGun said:
The amount of carbon emitted by a volcano may not do it, but it does more than man kind and there are several volcanos in constant eruption right now. Why don't you tax them and leave man alone.
Click to expand...

I am afraid it is a joint volcano-car carbon gas venture that does it. But there are other anthropogenic gases that are far worse like methane. It is 10 times worse than carbon.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

joG said:
Sure! And researchers would get less money, were they to say: "No Problem!"

There are lobbies on both sides and conflicts of interest and bribing and worse.

So what do you propose? Spend the money and hope it wasn't wasted? I mean, we are talking not Hundreds of Billions. This is serious money.
Click to expand...

The warmists MUST make this "problem" appear as catastrophic as possible not only to obtain funding for current research, but to make the eventual discovery that the next ice age is coming worth even more. That way the next generation of climate "scientists" will make more money and the future of the field is secure. It's already happened once in the other direction. This type of shenanigans is only possible in a field where the truth is hard to find and falsity is near impossible to scientifically disprove.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

joG said:
Sure! And researchers would get less money, were they to say: "No Problem!"

There are lobbies on both sides and conflicts of interest and bribing and worse.

So what do you propose? Spend the money and hope it wasn't wasted? I mean, we are talking not Hundreds of Billions. This is serious money.
Click to expand...

Risking serious money or risking serious global climate related health?

Which do you want to spare more: Money or health?
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:
Risking serious money or risking serious global climate related health?

Which do you want to spare more: Money or health?
Click to expand...

Obviously health is more important. The problem is that there is no consensus that there IS a problem, and there's been too many examples of people being caught playing with the facts on both sides. So we don't want to spend billions or worse on a hoax. Besides, on this side of the Atlantic, we need that money for the next war.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Montecresto said:
(Reuters) - A United Nations panel of experts met on Monday to review a draft report that raises the probability that climate change is man-made to 95 percent and warns of ever more extreme weather unless governments take strong action.

Scientists and officials from more than 110 governments began a four-day meeting in Stockholm to edit and approve the 31-page draft that also tries to explain a "hiatus" in the pace of global warming this century despite rising greenhouse gas emissions.


U.N. panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus' | Reuters
Click to expand...

I think they should all do their part then and stop exhaling.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Montecresto said:
Obviously health is more important. The problem is that there is no consensus that there IS a problem, and there's been too many examples of people being caught playing with the facts on both sides. So we don't want to spend billions or worse on a hoax. Besides, on this side of the Atlantic, we need that money for the next war.
Click to expand...

:lol: - About the war part! :)

If in order to enact something we need solid premises of conclusion then corporates have found a good way to stop us from doing something about it, have they not? Just raise dust and leave people undecided.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:
:lol: - About the war part! :)

If in order to enact something we need solid premises of conclusion then corporates have found a good way to stop us from doing something about it, have they not? Just raise dust and leave people undecided.
Click to expand...

I'm serious. With China cutting off our line of credit and our own Feds buying our own debt, we have no extra cash this year.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:
:lol: - About the war part! :)

If in order to enact something we need solid premises of conclusion then corporates have found a good way to stop us from doing something about it, have they not? Just raise dust and leave people undecided.
Click to expand...

I think with that you're blaming corporations, if so, I agree.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Montecresto said:
I'm serious. With China cutting off our line of credit and our own Feds buying our own debt, we have no extra cash this year.
Click to expand...

No extra cash that somehow immediately means that money determined to be spent on war, is it? Could it not be spent for something else instead? :)

That is why it seemed funny. You who opposed war to the point of wanting Putin to have the Noble Prize instead of Obama suddenly could not think of the extra money being used for anything else other than war.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:
Risking serious money or risking serious global climate related health?

Which do you want to spare more: Money or health?
Click to expand...

As I remember the maths, the optimum insurance policy can be calculated. Though this is a rather important issue, I have not seen a calculation of this price.

Don't get me wrong. I am a believer. We will have to change a lot. The Club of Rome was not wrong in that.

But ask yourself following question. How many percent of your income would you be willing to spend on the thing? 1%....5%....20%.....50%.....95%? How many basics are you willing to forego? Meat? Acapulco? The house? I've looked at the estemates and at today's technology we will have to give up quite a bit. Money we use to reduce CO2 or methane with inefficient processes will take money out of research or out of food bowels. If we can develop better technology we will not live as much more poorly and fewer people will be killed in the third world by our effort.

So how much damage are we willing to take without knowing how much we need take?
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

joG said:
As I remember the maths, the optimum insurance policy can be calculated. Though this is a rather important issue, I have not seen a calculation of this price.

Don't get me wrong. I am a believer. We will have to change a lot. The Club of Rome was not wrong in that.

But ask yourself following question. How many percent of your income would you be willing to spend on the thing? 1%....5%....20%.....50%.....95%? How many basics are you willing to forego? Meat? Acapulco? The house? I've looked at the estemates and at today's technology we will have to give up quite a bit. Money we use to reduce CO2 or methane with inefficient processes will take money out of research or out of food bowels. If we can develop better technology we will not live as much more poorly and fewer people will be killed in the third world by our effort.

So how much damage are we willing to take without knowing how much we need take?
Click to expand...

How about no damage and just green energy technology?
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:
How about no damage and just green energy technology?
Click to expand...

That would be great. Problem is the cost of traverse. Innovating that amount and type of plant takes a long time or is very costly (damaging). This is especially true, where the new technology is less efficient/more costly that the old. When the new technology becomes more well understood and more mature, the production price will fall independent of scale. Plant innovated earlier will have been inefficiently installed etc.

There is no way to make our present plant redundant without damage to people.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

joG said:
That would be great. Problem is the cost of traverse. Innovating that amount and type of plant takes a long time or is very costly (damaging). This is especially true, where the new technology is less efficient/more costly that the old. When the new technology becomes more well understood and more mature, the production price will fall independent of scale. Plant innovated earlier will have been inefficiently installed etc.

There is no way to make our present plant redundant without damage to people.
Click to expand...

The global climate change initiative was not about just criticizing the current fossil fuel based energy sources. They should also offer solutions.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:
The global climate change initiative was not about just criticizing the current fossil fuel based energy sources. They should also offer solutions.
Click to expand...

As I see it the initiative has indicated better technology. But the traverse is still expensive. That will get better, though.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:
I am afraid it is a joint volcano-car carbon gas venture that does it. But there are other anthropogenic gases that are far worse like methane. It is 10 times worse than carbon.
Click to expand...

That's right. We have tipped nature's balance. And with the melting of the glaciers and perma-frost, methane will make it tip a hell of a lot more.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Of course they are bias. But isn't the truth their best defense against dishonest and corrupt politicians seeking to regulate them, tax them and in some hateful ways even break them?


TheNextEra said:
I'm saying when people have skin in a game for either side, they become biased and looking to prove THEIR version correct. Yes? Or do you think the oil companies are so honest that they would NEVER do a thing like that?

I think Al-Gore is biased, but I hope you are not foolish enough to think the oil companies are not.
Click to expand...
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

joG said:
That would be great. Problem is the cost of traverse. Innovating that amount and type of plant takes a long time or is very costly (damaging). This is especially true, where the new technology is less efficient/more costly that the old. When the new technology becomes more well understood and more mature, the production price will fall independent of scale. Plant innovated earlier will have been inefficiently installed etc.

There is no way to make our present plant redundant without damage to people.
Click to expand...

New technology is costly, but it has got to start somewhere. Without a need/market, it will pretty much stay on the shelf and will not improve/grow. I read an article yesterday that said that for the first time ever, solar and wind power is now less costly than coal. Awesome, eh?
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

CalGun said:
Of course they are bias. But isn't the truth their best defense against dishonest and corrupt politicians seeking to regulate them, tax them and in some hateful ways even break them?
Click to expand...

But they aren't giving the truth, they are giving their bias as well. I suspect we will find that humans DO in fact cause some of the climate change we have been seeing. The question is how much. The oil industry wants people to bleieve that humans cause ZERO effects and that simply is not true.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Republic Now! said:
Does that include the several hundred year supply America is sitting on alone?
Click to expand...

Do you think it will be possible to extract all of that oil/natural gas without turning the land into a dumpster?
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Middleground said:
New technology is costly, but it has got to start somewhere. Without a need/market, it will pretty much stay on the shelf and will not improve/grow. I read an article yesterday that said that for the first time ever, solar and wind power is now less costly than coal. Awesome, eh?
Click to expand...

When it becomes reliable let us know.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

So now you want a fart tax too? Or just euthanasia of those you disagree with?


DDD said:
I am afraid it is a joint volcano-car carbon gas venture that does it. But there are other anthropogenic gases that are far worse like methane. It is 10 times worse than carbon.
Click to expand...
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

CycloneWanderer said:
The warmists MUST make this "problem" appear as catastrophic as possible not only to obtain funding for current research, but to make the eventual discovery that the next ice age is coming worth even more. That way the next generation of climate "scientists" will make more money and the future of the field is secure. It's already happened once in the other direction. This type of shenanigans is only possible in a field where the truth is hard to find and falsity is near impossible to scientifically disprove.
Click to expand...

jmotivator said:
Real Headline: Lapdog Scientists Attend Week Long Vacation to Schmooze with Government Sugar Daddies conclude that they need more money.
Click to expand...

You know, over-and-over again, throughout the many years I have been posting here, I have not once seen one iota of proof that private sector groups are funding scientific organizations so they can push their warming agenda. Who are these people/businesses??? :popcorn2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom