TeamEmbo

Ah, but they do. There's been more heated debates about NZ driving standards and whether moving to NZ from UK improves your quality of life

Cape Blue

Over 25 years, most developed (& developing) nation governments along with all environmental NGOs like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, The Sierra Club, all in one big conspiracy to alienate their voters.

What is "in it" for the governments exactly? Their voters dislike taxes and solutions for MMCC are likely to increase costs and taxes - why would a government of any flavor want to have to tell its electorate this bad news when it is clearly unpopular?

What is the motivation for all these disparate governments and NGOs to band together in a giant conspiracy like this for over a quarter of a century.

I can see why the energy companies and automotive sectors would want to rubbish MMCC - they have a clear interest in doing so just like the smoking and asbestos sectors before them, but what is in it for the other players? I can almost see something in it for the environmental NGOs as its their meat and potatoes, but I can see no sensible motivation for governments across many differing nations to be involved in this huge cover-up (or is it swindle?).

Sally Redux

Exactly.

TeamEmbo

Why has Mars cooled and warmed to a smiliar degree over the same periods as Earth? As far as I know there are no humans on Mars burning fossil fuels.

Perry Groves

Aliens?

TeamEmbo

aliens with a flatulence problem

Charismatic

In a sense when the CEOs of big tobacco said that they didn’t believe smoking caused cancer they could have been telling the truth while still knowing fully about the effects of smoking on the human body (however I’m by no means endorsing that message).

As for the man made global warming thing it seems that there is not yet sufficiently reliable data to measure any effect nor do we have a complete understanding of what happens to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even trying the find the values of the half life degradation in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide can range from 5 to 6000 years depending on who you think has the best research method.

However they are by no means alone in being one of the great hypothesis of the age and will no doubt (along with SETI and various Abiogenesis models) need extensive research to fully understand before we can make meaningful statements with any degree of certainty .

Cape Blue

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rming-on-mars/

Again - perhaps the IPCC scientists, when studying CC for the past 20-30 years, have considered the sun's strength as an issue and factored that into their considerations.

Cape Blue

Their work is done.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/fe...poll-f02.shtml

Provided they get as many people doubting the science, even when 99.9999% of these people are not scientists and are not capable of understanding it, they have done their job and it's business as usual.

TeamEmbo

Well, just as sure as you are that global warming is man made, I am still just as sure it isn't. So, would you now be willing to, at least, accept its ok we don't all have to agree with the same view?

Cape Blue

I am not sure that MMCC is 100% proven - but the evidence in support together with the credentials of the organizations involved is sufficiently robust to make it the most logical stance at this point.

You pick various, spurious cut and paste arguments over issues like Canadian air temps and warming on Mars, all of which you have no chance of completely understanding in their fullness, and think that you are not being fooled by the vested interests of the status quo who are using the same tactics that have been used before on other issues like smoking.

It is not OK that we do not agree - not agreeing over who is the best rugby team is acceptable, ignoring logic and science and having no logical stance on an issue that effects us all is not sensible. Your desire to believe that the science isn't settled or that its some sort of government conspiracy, directly effects me when we find ourselves too late to steer ourselves away from significant problems.

I fully realise that you are not "convertible" - initially you had no clue why you did not believe in MMCC but you just didn't, after being called out you perused the usual drivel websites and cut and pasted arguments you didn't understand. 20 years ago (maybe 10) you would have been saying "its not proven, its not proven that smoking causes cancer" just like the lady I heard on the ski-lift a couple of years ago.

Nice article for you - the industries knew the science was right but lobbied against it anyway.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...deny.html?_r=1

janek

Lots of jobs that involve 'paper shuffling'. All these university graduates have to be hired somewhere, of course politicians and their governments set out to deceive, its all about selling one's ideals, so deception is the order of the day, you'd have to mad to think otherwise, way back in the 40's the people trusted their politicians and the politicians trusted the people, those days have long long gone.
The individual goes to the poll on election day because he/she has their own best interest at heart. To think the electorate vote on 'green' or 'environmental' issues.....no they don't. These parties would hold the power otherwise.

We live in a age of the 'individual'. This earth will always survive, its the humans that will 'burn out'

mickey_d

These guys knew, 35 years ago!!

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ideoid=8847781

TeamEmbo

initially I had no clue? Where did I post that? I said I had read what I read, heard what I heard and came to a conclusion I felt comfortable with. I wasn't called out at all; I kept replying saying it would be a futile exercise to keep posting up figures and links as we obviously don't agree and whatever gets put up isn't going to change that. But you kept badgering so I got(foolishly) dragged into responding but like I said at the outset, pointless exercise.

It must be lovely to be you and feel so righteous that you can dismiss everyone else who doesn't agree with you as simply not understanding. Whatever happened to the basic human right of freedom of speech? At no point have I said you're dumb or deluded for what you believe. I've simply said we obviously disagree and that's ok.

From Wikipedia
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and\or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Freedom of thought (also called freedom of conscience and freedom of ideas) is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints.

To be honest, I'm gobsmacked at your reply that it's not OK that we do not agree. Surely its that kind of conceited viewpoint that holds back the advancement of the human race against acceptance of difference of beliefs and cultures and kindness towards one another. Hope you don't get too dizzy up there on your pedestal.