Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 45

Thread: What top scientists think (and shouldn't we listen?)

  1. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: What top scientists think (and shouldn't we listen?)

    Quote Originally Posted by big easy View Post
    just what kathy said.... there is absolutely NO concrete proof that justifies hammering our economy and signing treaties that have china and india exempt from the draconian demands that everybody seems to be so willing to place on the evil U.S.....

    and again...Science is NOT consensus....how many times has the consensus been proven wrong?
    And since when do we have to wait for "concrete proof" to act? Especially when the stakes are so high? I don't understand this insistence on putting economic growth ahead of anything else- do you seriously think that's going to matter in the face of the cataclysmic events we're probably facing? It's time for a reality check here. We can't possibly continue to grow as we have in the past- not with the present over-population problem and not with the reality of finite resources such as water. Not to mention oil. How practical or sensible is it to insist that we continue the status quo, when that is clearly unsustainable?
    Why don't you and others who are concerned about economic growth see that investing in alternative energy sources could be just as profitable?
    And something else......this insistence that global warming is all part of a natural cycle....and thus, not anything we can address, is just plain beside the point. Even if it's true (and I think the charts showing the dramatic increase in warmth coinciding with industrialization just can't be denied), it's ridiculous to do NOTHING! To just sit back and not even try to mitigate the effects is not only irresponsible, but immoral, IMO. We owe it to future generations to at least TRY.
    Don't we????????

  2. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Posts
    3,516

    Re: What top scientists think (and shouldn't we listen?)

    Consensus really just means that there's an amount of scientific agreement, which seems to be the place that the nation's EPA has decided to go with. Even GW has seems to be getting on board with more statements from him.

    The US, like it or not, is one of the biggest worldwide environmental polluters. We either suck it up and do better or we don't. We can't ask others to do what we don't do ourselves.

  3. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: What top scientists think (and shouldn't we listen?)

    I just read that China is actually now emitting more carbon dioxide emissions than we are- a really astounding reality, and proof positive that China is turning into the 800 pound capitalistic gorilla (on steroids) in the room!
    It's a sad state of affairs when leaders in this country care much more about corporate profits (campaign donations) than they do about making the world a better place. makes me so nostalgic for the days when the United States was a leader in all areas....and not an Empire in decline because of greed.
    Cats, you and I are old enough to recall when America was looked up to (justifiably) by the rest of the world....and we pursued policies that deserved that respect. It's so disheartening to see what's happening today.

  4. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,781

    Re: What top scientists think (and shouldn't we listen?)

    ever seen that documentary on Beijing? ..you have to wear a mask due to coal being the main source of energy...with no controls...you have to wash your car everyday...respitory sickness is way out of this world...yet Clinton and many others want us to sign kyoto... making china and india exempt.... hell yea baby..capitalist over here would love it...more red carpets overseas and more industry packing up and moving...

    you don't just throw away jobs when there is no concrete proof that the world is doing the same damn thing it's been doing for millions of years... there is a concrete money trail with all the global warming crap..it's right in front of your eyes if you would just open them

    sheesh...

  5. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    602

    Re: Other scientists have other views

    What kills me about this debate is that there is a broad consensus among scientists that the earth's temperature is changing quicker than it should and that humans are partially responsible. We create pollution (no debate about that) so it seems we should do as much as possible to limit said pollution. Just seems to make common sense...do no harm and take care of the earth.

  6. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    602

    Re: What top scientists think (and shouldn't we listen?)

    Actually science is consensus until someone proves it wrong....how long did it take for us to actually see quarks? They were theorized for years and the general consensus was they existed. Or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle....yes science can have uncertainty...that's why we have statistics and probabilities. The nice thing about science is people are always looking to disprove what we think we know and thus science changes. It's not static and never has been. Scientists know this but the general population doesn't seem to get it.

  7. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: What top scientists think (and shouldn't we listen?)

    Yes, and does it really matter if we don't have certifiable proof that man's activities are causing a dramatic spike in global temperature....with all the resulting repercussions and problems? The point is- it's HAPPENING and we need to address it seriously NOW.
    It just seems to me that those who want to bury their heads in the sand always through out the dire economic forecasts as a reason for doing nothing..........as if global warming isn't going to have dramatic and negative affects on world economy anyways.......and as if it even matters considering the potential devastation we're looking at!
    How will we explain our collective failure to act to future generations? How can we ever justify this dithering and bickering and dragging of heels to those who will be most affected- our grandchildren?
    And bigeasy- the fact that China is a cesspool of pollution is just no excuse for our failure to lead. If Kyoto needs adjusting then let's do it....NOW, instead of sitting back and blaming other countries. The reality is, China is only so polluted and industrialized precisely because of their trade with us- we're the ones buying all that cheap stuff.
    We need to take charge, get involved and make something happen- something that Bush and Co. have just refused to do. And that lack of attention, IMO, is immoral and completely irresponsible.

  8. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,781

    Re: What top scientists think (and shouldn't we listen?)

    there is nothing "dramatic" about the temperature change over the last 100 years..based on what I've read, there have been many more dramatic changes before humans arrived...

    I don't understand how you can just piss more jobs away and weaken an economy that has direct impacts on families on junk and speculative science

    the U.S. is a LOT more responsible than other areas of the world when it comes to pollution.....go to Lima Peru...smell the leaded gas.... but nobody barks at them because they are 3rd world.... Let's not be so quick to join them..

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •