Global Warming Theorists Computers Hacked

[rehsifylf]

agreed.

 

"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either."

 

Hey SL - you and Sun agree - I think that is what he suggested when he started this thread.

[mvdaog]

Yeah, a lot like these guys.

 

 

interesting....

[reevesr1]

For all those following this thread, and all the others we've had on Global Warming, you may be interested in listening to or watching the Munk Debate held recently in Toronto. It's available in audio at

 

Munk debate mp3

 

and in video here,

 

Munk debate video

 

The debate's resolution was "Climate change is mankind's defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response." On the pro side they had Elizabeth May and George Monbiot, and on the con side, Bjorn Lomborg and Nigel Lawson. If one's measure of victory is which team changed the minds of the most people in the audience, then the con side won. Anyway, it's interesting listening. In my biased opinion, the "pros" resorted to the usual emotional hype and the "cons" made very reasoned arguments -- rather like the discussion going on here. :lol: Terry

 

What Terry forgets to mention here is that 3 of the 4 participants believe in man generated global warming. The difference is in how to respond to it. The economist in the group (Bjorn Lomborg, who was by far the most effective) stated several times that man generated global warming cannot be disputed. His issue is that the cost of fixing it is more than the cost of possible damage his group of economists think it could cause. Therefore we should focus our money on more pressing problems while investing heavily in alternative energy sources to allow CO2 to come down by the world slowly switching over to more efficient, less harmful energy sources. Hardly a "status quo" solution. I could call it the Smitty Solution, based on a previous post. Sounds very reasonable, making the huge assumption that if we don't spend it on GW we would then spend it on World Hunger (or malaria, or drinking water, or affordable medicine, etc.). Personally, I've seen little evidence of countries contributing huge sums of money to fight these problems in the past and don't see that stance changing in the future. But if there really was a choice on where to spend the money, I could see myself siding with Bjorn, I just don't believe such a choice exists.

 

All of the other 3 were politicians and authors. Well read and informed politicians and authors. But politicians and authors nonetheless. I found all three ineffective, but in my view Nigel was the least believable. Sorry, pro side.

 

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Why can't the pro side at least protest...during the winter...like those kind, warm hearted girls are doing for PETA these days?

 

Note to IPCC

 

Just not Elizabeth May please...

 

How about Scarlett Johansson

 

Contant protesters like that...and I am firmly...decided.

 

P.S. My vote went for swaying towards not believing...but undecided...ICAC.

[TerryH]

What Terry forgets to mention here is that 3 of the 4 participants believe in man generated global warming. The difference is in how to respond to it. ......................

I wasn't trying to hide anything. Anyone who watched or listened to the debate would figure that part out.

 

BTW, as far as the Munk debate resolution is concerned, the good guys (i.e. my side) were the Con side.

Terry

 

[Ricinus]

While I am a firm believer in anthropogenic climate change, I'm not sure about:

 

A Is it going to be as bad as some make out, and

B Can we realistically do anything about it

 

In the overall scheme of things, I think overpopulation is going to be more of a problem and is probably a leading cause of climate change

 

Regards Mike

[Guest Sundancefisher]

While I am a firm believer in anthropogenic climate change, I'm not sure about:

 

A Is it going to be as bad as some make out, and

B Can we realistically do anything about it

 

In the overall scheme of things, I think overpopulation is going to be more of a problem and is probably a leading cause of climate change

 

Regards Mike

 

On some days when I could be more convinced of global warming...you points above also trouble me.

 

Why can't we take all the carbonation from all the beer, wine and soft drinks and put it in the ground instead? Just drink flat beer from now on?

 

Small trade off for saving the planet?

[bigbowtrout]

[hydropsyche]

This video says it all as far as I'm concerned. It runs about 35 minutes, but is well worth watching -- easy for me to say, I'm not at work . Terry

 

Lord Monkton on Climategate

 

Two pages of posts after this one and no discussion on what this guy says. I was expecting posts on how he is funded by big oil or how he is a fruit fly scientist. I'm a bit disappointed. Now I'm going to have to do my own research on this guy.

 

[Ricinus]

On some days when I could be more convinced of global warming...you points above also trouble me.

 

Why can't we take all the carbonation from all the beer, wine and soft drinks and put it in the ground instead? Just drink flat beer from now on?

 

Small trade off for saving the planet?

 

Beer and wine are proof God loves us and wants us to be happy

We can't screw around with them so bye-bye Tar Sands.

 

 

Regards Mike