Man-made global warming.... biggest myth of this century

the world could learn a thing or two from the news forum... in years to come this place will be revered by future accademic generations.

The environment is no different, we don't have the luxury of something to switch to.. unless Andy can wikipedia a solution up for us..

Plunder a resource past its natural capacity to provide, then turn round and invest in it's future? Isn't that an some kind of oxymoron? I thought you were a socialist Joe, these are very righty capitalist views you're giving here..

Is it your opinion that even though we have the techniques and technology to mitigate the effects of the path of (virtually) unrestricted development we are allowing the chinese and indians to take is economically, socially and environmentally sound?

Or do you think it's ok because it's only fair they should be allowed to prosper and industrialise as the West has, in full view of the potential consequences that this presents and has presented already in the developed world?

In light of this, I prefer to have a hypocritical legacy that has or is presently learning from its mistakes and a 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude than a allow a 'monkey see - monkey do' path to non-occidental development.

you completely missed what I said scruf, I simply said allow the undeveloped world to develop then regulate.

it doesn't work the other way around.

In the long run it is cheaper to do it the other way round, rather than having to do stuff like retro-fit FGD on coal power stations.

The odd bits I have stated I knew before - I work in the energy industry.

ocean absorbs about 30% of the earths CO2 but contributes to 70%.... so obviously your cyclical argument falls over... if the earths temprature rises do more plants suddenly appear to cope with the extra CO2?

Its not a question of long run, its a question of the available capital at the present time...

If a nation can't afford the modern technology and are reliant on the wests hand me downs they simply wont develop.

my statistics come from google, but my arguments are common sense

I was actually generous in my figure:

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102198.html, they credit the ocean for 25%... most are around a third to one quarter...

basic science.... science boy

They have a multitude of alternatives to reduce emissions and waste - as does the West.

The only reason why they aren't enacted is because it initially costs money, and reduces profits of a select few.

And so we continue in our throw away culture which paradoxically costs more in the long term environmentally and economically.

Why not use the oppurtunity that is presented by the growth of these nations to instill more environmentally sound practices in their culutre and industry - thus driving costs down both economically and environmentally.

We don't do either of these because its cheaper and easier to maintain the status quo and line the pockets of the ever growing wealthy few - inefficient power stations cost less to run in the short term but are vastly unprofitable in the long term and cost even more when they have to be brought into line - so why not apply efficieny in the first place - learn from out mistakes?

But back to the question you keep avoiding Joe..

Unsustainable human development on scales never seen before (forget gloabl warming - I'm talking basic resources) resulting in potential humanitrarian catastrophe because in Brids words 'they have no alternative' due to some perverted sense of guilty conscience that happily allows us to remain in our consumer driven, disposable led lives..

vs

A managed regualted approach which allows the neccesary development with strategies in place to maintain a balance between resources available and economic need.

Either way human greed and ignorance will always prevail so the debate is pretty irrelevant. How sad.


Joe - Look up 'development planning system' to see how regulation post development is quite possible.

As sea temperatures rise, so does the ability of the ocean to absorb Co2, this rise subsequently triggers Methane from deep ocean deposits to be released into the atmosphere which is significantly and directly more threatening to human life than Co2...

I've toyed with the idea of buying one, but mooring fees are usually ridiculous (in London anyway).

ouch, typo

I meant temp increase / ability to absorb decrease / methane release increase - basic chemistry really...

Little venice