Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintage_girl
I do think humans have contributed to some of the changes, but I don't think it's a good enough reason to start pushing through all kinds of legislation. Human behavior is difficult to change and while there are options to reduce waste and CO2 emissions, most people won't because it would interfere with how human life has existed for some time. Unfortunately, with the changing climate I don't think humans are going to do well with adapting in spite of its necessity. Throughout human history, we haven't had to deal with the changes happening in the short amount of time as they are occurring today.
How many ice ages have there been?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintage_girl
The polar ice caps are a good example. There are studies on the caps which reveal the amount of gases they hold, particularly CO2. If the climate is changing at a rate where they are melting much faster than projected, those gases are going to be released into the atmosphere. My question is, are we going to be able to adapt to the changes which arise? We have a tendency to insist the economy can't be hampered due to environmental factors but I think we are going to see a change in that within the next 50-100 years.
By al gore, they were supposed to be gone by now...
Trust me, some people really do behave as if they are still under thick sheets of ice.
Why is it controversial to suggest if there were human factors?
It isn't. It's controversial to ask people to fork over billions of dollars over a suggestion.
Quote:
We've been manipulating the environment for thousands of years and for the past 200 years introduced technology to shape it more. Is it unreasonable to suggest what we have done made a contribution?
Suggest it all day. Stand on a street corner and preach it. Just don't try and pass the plate.
By al gore, they were supposed to be gone by now...
Are you a fan of Al Gore? I consult other data sources, such as people who are actual scientists and conduct their own research. Will Steger has done research.
Are you a fan of Al Gore? I consult other data sources, such as people who are actual scientists and conduct their own research. Will Steger has done research.
What funny is people like you deny al gore, and has nothing to do with global warming, yet he was a very distinct part of the nobel piece prize....
Why or how could you do that, unless you were a complete figure head for global warming?
California senator Steinberg wants a carbon tax on car fuels. The tax would be split between credits to the poor similar to the EIC and public transportation. He wants to raise $4 billion a year, or about $100 in new taxes per person. Or maybe $200 from half and the other half get a check. It's wealth transfer. It won't actually reduce carbon. In fact, it will probably increase carbon.
California senator Steinberg wants a carbon tax on car fuels. The tax would be split between credits to the poor similar to the EIC and public transportation. He wants to raise $4 billion a year, or about $100 in new taxes per person. Or maybe $200 from half and the other half get a check. It's wealth transfer. It won't actually reduce carbon. In fact, it will probably increase carbon.
Of course it's a wealth transfer. Whenever the government insists its implementing policy to solve something such as environmental concerns by raising taxes, the reality is they just want to find an excuse to increase revenue. It's one thing if people vote it in, but often that's not the case.
Remember al gore stated 5 years ago, there would be no polar ice caps!
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
What funny is people like you deny al gore, and has nothing to do with global warming, yet he was a very distinct part of the nobel piece prize....
Why or how could you do that, unless you were a complete figure head for global warming?
Ok....
Ah, I see. You are ignorantly linking Al Gore to AGW's validity. That's not how science works, but you are already demonstrated you know little of how science works with your continually references to Gore.
Just like fundamentalists try to link modern evolution back to Darwin, same ignorant tactic. Again, AGW doesn't depend on anything Al Gore says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultor
I agree, Al "the climate wh*re" Gore is just a slimy opportunist. (James Hansen invented the AGW hoax)
However, whether you like it or not, Gore's elevation and anointment as Grand Imperial Poobah of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming was facilitated by his being awarded the Nobel Prize - he shall forever and always be the poster child of the (self)righteous.
Regardless, that's not how science works. Gore and Hansen should have kept their mouths shut instead of being alarmists. All it did we cause the tea baggers rubes to butcher science as they trip over each other to prove AGW is false.
The climate always changes. I am not so arrogant as to presume humans are the cause.
What does arrogance have to do with it?
Lastly, AGW isn't a black and white issue; that is it's not an issue of if the climate is warming purely to natural reasons vs purely anthropogenic reasons.
I'm guessing you've never considered that the planet is naturally warming and our human activity are exacerbating it.....
California senator Steinberg wants a carbon tax on car fuels. The tax would be split between credits to the poor similar to the EIC and public transportation. He wants to raise $4 billion a year, or about $100 in new taxes per person. Or maybe $200 from half and the other half get a check. It's wealth transfer. It won't actually reduce carbon. In fact, it will probably increase carbon.
Economies are based on wealth transfer..... It gets old hearing ignorant people demonize wealth transfer. By the way, the US is inching back towards historical economic inequality.... that wealth just keeps trickling up so spare me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
