Concerns About Climate Change

[peter991]

Concerns about Climate Change Felt by Asian Consumers and Businesses

Monday, April 07, 2008

Asian consumers and businesses are becoming more eco-conscious according to recent polls which show that Asian people are feeling increasingly worried about the impacts of climate change, the Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) said last week.

"Some observers have suggested that Asia lags behind Europe and other regions in expressing concern about climate change," said PATA President & CEO Peter de Jong. But these polls show that Asians are worried and the travel industry needs to be responding to these concerns."

"More than ever, there is a need for the travel industry to understand that our customers are demanding that we take action, proactively and decisively, to reduce our carbon footprint,” Mr Jong said.

PATA will host the inaugural PATA CEO Challenge in Bangkok on April 29 -30, at which travel and tourism industry leaders will meet to share ideas which may be implemented to counter the negative effects of climate change.

Chief Executive Richard Branson is one such industry leader who supports the PATA initiative, "I strongly welcome PATA's initiative to address the issue of global warming from the perspectives of both aviation and tourism. Global warming is the biggest challenge facing mankind today and we must all do everything possible to reach a consensus on how to meet it. The PATA CEO Challenge comes at a very timely moment,” he said on the PATA website.

A GlobeScan survey of 1,000 consumers from 20 countries in five continents between May and August 2007 found that- contrary to popular opinion- Asians were far more worried than people in Europe that climate change would pose a threat to themselves or their family (8 in 10 or more in China, India, Indonesia and the Philippines compared to 74% in Italy, 69% in Britain and 58% in Germany).

The same survey, however, showed that Asians felt less empowered than Europeans to do anything to combat climate change. Some 93% of Indonesians, 76% of Indians and 63% of Chinese felt that climate change must be tackled on a world scale, saying the problem was too big for an individual to do anything substantial. Conversely, only 40% of Germans, 43% of British and 38% of Italians felt ineffective.

A Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) survey of 1,150 CEOs in 50 countries, conducted between September and November 2007, showed that Asian businesses are also concerned about climate change. The survey found that 79% of Asian CEOs were anxious that climate change would lead to rising energy costs.

A further 67% were worried about higher compliance and insurance bills; 59% about supply-chain disruptions; 46% about greater pressure from stakeholders to deal with climate change; and 46% about the physical damage climate change could inflict.

Finally a McKinsey & Company survey in March this year reported that 55% of consumers believe that environmental issues, including climate change, will be a top priority in the next five years, a 5% increase on 2006. Most notably, McKinsey said 51% of business executives now feel the same, a remarkable increase of 20% on only a year ago.

Mr de Jong noted the PwC survey showed that nearly 75% of CEOs believe businesses needed to collaborate more effectively with each other to address climate change.

"And at least a third of those polled believe their company's commitment to the mitigation of climate change will bring benefits such as stronger brands, an enhanced reputation or better access to talent," he said.

"That's certainly the feedback we're getting from travel industry leaders who are coming to the Challenge. They appreciate the urgency of the situation and genuinely want to work on effective solutions, either individually or in collaboration."

Mr de Jong said that Asian hoteliers, tour operators and industry players who believed that the issues raised by climate change had been sensationalized were not only out of sync with the needs and attitudes of their consumers, but also ran the risk of encouraging governments and regulators to act on their behalf.

"The nature of tourism makes it a soft target for lobby groups and regulators. The truth is, if we don't self-regulate, and quickly, governments will do it for us. And that's where the pain will be."

Peter

[londonthai]

79% of Asian CEOs were anxious that climate change would lead to rising energy costs.

A further 67% were worried about higher compliance and insurance bills; 59% about supply-chain disruptions; 46% about greater pressure from stakeholders to deal with climate change; and 46% about the physical damage climate change could inflict.

"And at least a third of those polled believe their company's commitment to the mitigation of climate change will bring benefits such as stronger brands, an enhanced reputation or better access to talent,"

it's not about an environment but shares, profits, brand names and talents. Sadly

[naka]

So the beasties have been running around planet Earth for a gazillion years

and now Man has decided after only a hundred years of collecting data that

the climate is changing ... Well, I guess some scientists can make a living from that !

I wonder what caused the global warming which ended the last "Ice Age",

I doubt it was burning coal.

Naka.

Edited April 7, 2008 by naka

[kmart]

I hope this link will explain things to all you worthless sinners. All In His Plan

[plachon]

So the beasties have been running around planet Earth for a gazillion years

and now Man has decided after only a hundred years of collecting data that

the climate is changing ... Well, I guess some scientists can make a living from that !

I wonder what caused the global warming which ended the last "Ice Age",

I doubt it was burning coal.

Naka.

A graduate of distinction from the GWB Academy of Science, to be sure.

I hate to say it, but UK primary school children have a better grasp on the fundamentals of climate change science than some posters here.

[AlexLah]

Yo kmart,

I really hope you are not one of them and posted that link to show that there are some real fanatic's (Christian lunatics) out there.

Climate change yes sure, the air quality is influenced by us but a lot of measures are taken.

Climate is very much influenced by the sun.

Air quality by humans.

[lardy]

So the beasties have been running around planet Earth for a gazillion years

and now Man has decided after only a hundred years of collecting data that

the climate is changing ... Well, I guess some scientists can make a living from that !

I wonder what caused the global warming which ended the last "Ice Age",

I doubt it was burning coal.

Naka.

A graduate of distinction from the GWB Academy of Science, to be sure.

I hate to say it, but UK primary school children have a better grasp on the fundamentals of climate change science than some posters here.

You mean Uk children are being brainwashed with this bumph!

[plachon]

So the beasties have been running around planet Earth for a gazillion years

and now Man has decided after only a hundred years of collecting data that

the climate is changing ... Well, I guess some scientists can make a living from that !

I wonder what caused the global warming which ended the last "Ice Age",

I doubt it was burning coal.

Naka.

A graduate of distinction from the GWB Academy of Science, to be sure.

I hate to say it, but UK primary school children have a better grasp on the fundamentals of climate change science than some posters here.

You mean Uk children are being brainwashed with this bumph!

If that's how you to chose to see it, then so be it. In the US, certain states think teaching kids about evolution is "brainwashing".

But most responsible parents and members of society, including apparently the government, the majority of the world's scientists and teachers themselves regard teaching the basics of climate change science as a key part of every child's education from a primary level, given the evidence piling up daily of human-induced global warming, from breaking up ice sheets in the Antarctic to glaciers retreating at ever-increasing levels in most major mountain ranges to increasingly erratic weather events worldwide. And today, there is an announcement from a NASA scientist that CO2 levels set by Europe (the most stringent in the world) of 550 ppm are way to high if the world is to avoid catastrophic warming consequences, and unless they can be brought down to 350 ppm, those same kids learning about climate change now are going to reach adulthood in one unstable world, where terrorism will be the least of many people's worries, especially those living at or near sea-level.

[lardy]

So the beasties have been running around planet Earth for a gazillion years

and now Man has decided after only a hundred years of collecting data that

the climate is changing ... Well, I guess some scientists can make a living from that !

I wonder what caused the global warming which ended the last "Ice Age",

I doubt it was burning coal.

Naka.

A graduate of distinction from the GWB Academy of Science, to be sure.

I hate to say it, but UK primary school children have a better grasp on the fundamentals of climate change science than some posters here.

You mean Uk children are being brainwashed with this bumph!

If that's how you to chose to see it, then so be it. In the US, certain states think teaching kids about evolution is "brainwashing".

But most responsible parents and members of society, including apparently the government, the majority of the world's scientists and teachers themselves regard teaching the basics of climate change science as a key part of every child's education from a primary level, given the evidence piling up daily of human-induced global warming, from breaking up ice sheets in the Antarctic to glaciers retreating at ever-increasing levels in most major mountain ranges to increasingly erratic weather events worldwide. And today, there is an announcement from a NASA scientist that CO2 levels set by Europe (the most stringent in the world) of 550 ppm are way to high if the world is to avoid catastrophic warming consequences, and unless they can be brought down to 350 ppm, those same kids learning about climate change now are going to reach adulthood in one unstable world, where terrorism will be the least of many people's worries, especially those living at or near sea-level.

It doesnt mean they are right though.

[plachon]

So the beasties have been running around planet Earth for a gazillion years

and now Man has decided after only a hundred years of collecting data that

the climate is changing ... Well, I guess some scientists can make a living from that !

I wonder what caused the global warming which ended the last "Ice Age",

I doubt it was burning coal.

Naka.

A graduate of distinction from the GWB Academy of Science, to be sure.

I hate to say it, but UK primary school children have a better grasp on the fundamentals of climate change science than some posters here.

You mean Uk children are being brainwashed with this bumph!

If that's how you to chose to see it, then so be it. In the US, certain states think teaching kids about evolution is "brainwashing".

But most responsible parents and members of society, including apparently the government, the majority of the world's scientists and teachers themselves regard teaching the basics of climate change science as a key part of every child's education from a primary level, given the evidence piling up daily of human-induced global warming, from breaking up ice sheets in the Antarctic to glaciers retreating at ever-increasing levels in most major mountain ranges to increasingly erratic weather events worldwide. And today, there is an announcement from a NASA scientist that CO2 levels set by Europe (the most stringent in the world) of 550 ppm are way to high if the world is to avoid catastrophic warming consequences, and unless they can be brought down to 350 ppm, those same kids learning about climate change now are going to reach adulthood in one unstable world, where terrorism will be the least of many people's worries, especially those living at or near sea-level.

It doesnt mean they are right though.

Well, until you can provide some convincing evidence to the contrary or the balance of scientific evidence swings the other way, I'd rather stick with the concensus view of the majority and allow our kids to be "brainwashed", rather than follow a dwindling minority of die-hard climate sceptics stuck in a timewarp.

[suegha]

I hope this link will explain things to all you worthless sinners. All In His Plan

Oh my word. People, please don't think that this is typical Christian opinion! I am a bible reading Christian and did not agree with one word of it. It has been written by some sort insane lunatic. To suggest that a Christian shouldn't care about their environment is preposterous! I believe that God has given us a great responsibility towards this planet and as a Christian I am concerned for it's future.

So please, give links like that the respect they deserve and don't think it's true of all Christians, because it's not.

[JetsetBkk]

A graduate of distinction from the GWB Academy of Science, to be sure.

I hate to say it, but UK primary school children have a better grasp on the fundamentals of climate change science than some posters here.

I hear they've been force-fed Al Gore's movie.

Such impressionable minds, such damage done. Shame.

[Spee]

A graduate of distinction from the GWB Academy of Science, to be sure.

I hate to say it, but UK primary school children have a better grasp on the fundamentals of climate change science than some posters here.

I hear they've been force-fed Al Gore's movie.

Such impressionable minds, such damage done. Shame.

Touche'.

Here is the real deal:

From a REAL climate scientist who DOES know what he's talking about:

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spence...bal-warming.htm

From John Coleman, a Co-Founder of The Weather Channel:

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documen...l+Warming02.pdf

People who force-feed global warming/climate change nonsense into the minds of innocent children, instead of teaching them the basics they need to get started in life, should be charged with reckless child endangerment.

Politicians who embrace and promote the nonsense above more pressing needs should be thrown out of office for dereliction of duty.

[suegha]

I hope this link will explain things to all you worthless sinners. All In His Plan

Oh my word. People, please don't think that this is typical Christian opinion! I am a bible reading Christian and did not agree with one word of it. It has been written by some sort insane lunatic. To suggest that a Christian shouldn't care about their environment is preposterous! I believe that God has given us a great responsibility towards this planet and as a Christian I am concerned for it's future.

So please, give links like that the respect they deserve and don't think it's true of all Christians, because it's not.

Phew, fortunately this 'church' is a spoof! see here, if you are at all interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church

[kmart]

I hope this link will explain things to all you worthless sinners. All In His Plan

Oh my word. People, please don't think that this is typical Christian opinion! I am a bible reading Christian and did not agree with one word of it. It has been written by some sort insane lunatic. To suggest that a Christian shouldn't care about their environment is preposterous! I believe that God has given us a great responsibility towards this planet and as a Christian I am concerned for it's future.

So please, give links like that the respect they deserve and don't think it's true of all Christians, because it's not.

Phew, fortunately this 'church' is a spoof! see here, if you are at all interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church

Relax, matey.

It is a spoof indeed. And one of the funniest sites on the interweb.

Yer welcome.

[lardy]

Ah real sense at last.

The point is has any global warming pro member or anti member changed their point of view on this subject yet?

I haven't. Still anti (the causes)

I particularly liked the Viking (weather) chart where it was nice and hot ,too perhaps their boats were CO2 burners?

[plachon]

A graduate of distinction from the GWB Academy of Science, to be sure.

I hate to say it, but UK primary school children have a better grasp on the fundamentals of climate change science than some posters here.

I hear they've been force-fed Al Gore's movie.

Such impressionable minds, such damage done. Shame.

That's just what the religious extremists say about any part of science that tends to weaken their grip on those impressionable young hearts and minds. "Don't teach kids about evolution, birth control, paleontology, etc,.......... it might damage their minds".

I doubt v. much if primary school kids are shown "An Uncomfortable Truth", but they are shown age-appropriate lesson material, which should ensure that they are at least aware of the basic science behind climate change by the time they leave school, unlike the unfortunate generations before them who were not given this chance and ended up believing whatever their own particular prejudice dictated and Coleman-balls type people could feed off.

The trouble is, as the evidence grows and is internalised of what human-induced climate change could mean, it's going to get mighty lonely on that limb you're out on and one day in the not-too-distant future, denying the reality is going to be like claiming "the earth is flat". Just in the past year, I've witnessed a huge turnaround in UK public opinion and awareness to what mankind is facing.

[the highlander]

A graduate of distinction from the GWB Academy of Science, to be sure.

I hate to say it, but UK primary school children have a better grasp on the fundamentals of climate change science than some posters here.

I hear they've been force-fed Al Gore's movie.

Such impressionable minds, such damage done. Shame.

That's just what the religious extremists say about any part of science that tends to weaken their grip on those impressionable young hearts and minds. "Don't teach kids about evolution, birth control, paleontology, etc,.......... it might damage their minds".

I doubt v. much if primary school kids are shown "An Uncomfortable Truth", but they are shown age-appropriate lesson material, which should ensure that they are at least aware of the basic science behind climate change by the time they leave school, unlike the unfortunate generations before them who were not given this chance and ended up believing whatever their own particular prejudice dictated and Coleman-balls type people could feed off.

The trouble is, as the evidence grows and is internalised of what human-induced climate change could mean, it's going to get mighty lonely on that limb you're out on and one day in the not-too-distant future, denying the reality is going to be like claiming "the earth is flat". Just in the past year, I've witnessed a huge turnaround in UK public opinion and awareness to what mankind is facing.

Have any of BMs that harp on about climate change ever actually read any books or papers that oppose there own misinformed views?

Our children and the rest of us are being fed untruths about climate change constantly!! Why you ask?

Money that's why!!

How else would Nu Labour be able to charge us £1 .10p for a litre of petrol!! The idiots in the UK have bought into the intuitive science of climate change and are paying for it!!

Environmentalists are like Watermelons!!!

They may appear green on the outside but they are red right to the core!!

[JetsetBkk]

A graduate of distinction from the GWB Academy of Science, to be sure.

I hate to say it, but UK primary school children have a better grasp on the fundamentals of climate change science than some posters here.

I hear they've been force-fed Al Gore's movie.

Such impressionable minds, such damage done. Shame.

That's just what the religious extremists say about any part of science that tends to weaken their grip on those impressionable young hearts and minds. "Don't teach kids about evolution, birth control, paleontology, etc,.......... it might damage their minds".

I doubt v. much if primary school kids are shown "An Uncomfortable Truth", but they are shown age-appropriate lesson material, which should ensure that they are at least aware of the basic science behind climate change by the time they leave school, unlike the unfortunate generations before them who were not given this chance and ended up believing whatever their own particular prejudice dictated and Coleman-balls type people could feed off.

According to this link, it's aimed at 11-14 years olds - young enough to be impressionable to "sentimental mush".

The trouble is, as the evidence grows and is internalised of what human-induced climate change could mean, it's going to get mighty lonely on that limb you're out on and one day in the not-too-distant future, denying the reality is going to be like claiming "the earth is flat".

I guess it's much warmer and comfortable on your limb, surrounded by the lovely thick coats of the other sheep.

Just in the past year, I've witnessed a huge turnaround in UK public opinion and awareness to what mankind is facing.

I'm not surprised; it takes a strong will and clear mind to keep focussed on the facts and to not let peer pressure get to you.

Tell you what, I'll add this thread to my "bookmarks" and in 10 years (is that long enough?) I'll get back to you and we can have a good laugh about this while we're freezing our nuts off in the new "unexpected" ice-age . (Please, Thaivisa, keep going at least another 10 years - there is so much unresolved business here to take of )

By the way, did you watch the Middlesborough v. Man U. match yesterday? Snow in April?

[sjaak327]

People who believe that climate change is a fairy tale should think again.

Indeed the weather is clearly confused, indeed snow in April, just this morning I had to defrost my windscreen, it's the 8th of April for crying out loud.

But if we deny long enough, it might be to late to do anything about it. And why would we want to hey, don't increase prices of fuel, because that would mean that we might have to use public transport, instead of standing in a traffic jam every day. Don't increase the prices of electricity, heaven forbid we have to switch of that airconditioner for a few hours.

We want to avoid our responsiblity by pretending climate change is a minor thing, not something we should worry too much about. Of course, who gives a damm about the world in say 100 years.

[JetsetBkk]

People who believe that climate change is a fairy tale should think again.

Indeed the weather is clearly confused, indeed snow in April, just this morning I had to defrost my windscreen, it's the 8th of April for crying out loud.

But if we deny long enough, it might be to late to do anything about it. And why would we want to hey, don't increase prices of fuel, because that would mean that we might have to use public transport, instead of standing in a traffic jam every day. Don't increase the prices of electricity, heaven forbid we have to switch of that airconditioner for a few hours.

We want to avoid our responsiblity by pretending climate change is a minor thing, not something we should worry too much about. Of course, who gives a damm about the world in say 100 years.

I remember snow at Easter time about 7 years ago in the UK. So nothing has changed.

I also worry about the planet in 100 years time - how much corruption there will be, how gullible people will pay through the nose to clever people making money for themselves by proposing unsubstantiated, scary but plausible theories, etc.

[Spee]

Just in the past year, I've witnessed a huge turnaround in UK public opinion and awareness to what mankind is facing.

What "mankind" is actually facing is a barrage of government-sponsored chicken-littling global warming commercials bought and paid for with the tax dollars of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public. When whole governments drink copious amounts of the koolaid and elect to throw the full weight of the tax purse behind spreading the propaganda, it is no wonder that some of the feeble-minded have become brainwashed from so much broadcasted nonsense.

Speaking of snow at Easter, we just had almost 2 inches of snow this past Sunday and a hard frost again this morning. Global warming my ass! And it's not just here. Several regions in the US just recorded their coldest winters for many decades. So much for global warming. Oh, that's right, they changed the chant. It's now global climate change. What a concept. Wow, the global climate changes. Big surprise, eh?????????

Edited April 8, 2008 by Spee

[dave_boo]

Wow, a lot of misinformation in this thread. Yes the gloabl temperature IS rising. However, seeing as how everything in the world is interconnected, and despite what Americans (or the Brits in this thread) think what happens in their isolated corner of the world is evidence that a theory they don't agree with is bunk, a change here in there is insignificant in the cascade of events that are unfolding.

For instance, most likely, while the rest of the world is warming up, the Eastern Seaboard of the US and Western Europe are most likely going to cool. Why? Because as the rest of the world is warming the polar caps are going to be melting. As they melt, the cooler fresh water from them (remember that salt water doesn't freeze at the same temperature as fresh water and thus the vast fields of ice have almost zero salinity) it is caught up in the oceans' currents. Now being colder and at a different salinity, they don't mix well with the surrounding waters. Thus they are able to travel significant distances. As the amount of low salinity water changes, it is enough to change or even stop currents.

This is very applicable to both places I listed in the last paragraph because of the Gulfstream Current. The Gulfstream originates in the Gulf of Mexico where it is heated by the equitorial sun. As this water is heated it expands out of the Gulf and travels out into the Atlantic. It zooms up the Eastern Seaboard, transverses the Atlantic and warms Western Europe. Now imagine that stream was diverted or even stopped. What would happen? Those areas would end up with a colder average temperature, perhaps even more in line with the areas of the same latitude.

And that's just one quick example.

The fact that it's a theory should be a clear give away. Very few things in Science are considered laws because we as humans are not born with infinite knowledge. We have to go through and study and refine our thoughts until we reach a fairly good understanding of what is happening.

@Spee, you trying to use Robert Spencer as a "REAL climate scientist"(empahsis mine) is funny. Other than designing an algorithm for a meterological satellite-which makes him more of a mathematician than climatologist-the only other thing related to climatology I could find was his attack on global warming. Oh and that whole pesky "Intelligent Design" alternative for evolution that he wants to believe in. And let's not even mention Coleman since his whole life has been telling people about the weather that someone else has fed him; not investigating the patterns. If he really wanted to know what was going on he would have been into research and not reporting. The fact he founded the Weather Channel affirms this.

[Scott]

I tend to try and think in scientific terms and so I have never fully made up my mind on whether global warming is real and if it is, what is causing it. The question is complex, but what I read seems to point toward warming and tends to point toward the influence of human activitiy.

At a very minimum, it's a wise idea for everyone (regardless of what you believe) to treat the resources of the world with great care. Whether burning coal causes global warming or not--I don't think sulfur dioxide and other pollutants are good for us or the environoment. Oil is getting expensive and harder to find. These are the facts. Thus arguing is somewhat moot.

Behind much of this is a rapidly ballooning world population that we are beginning to see is going to harder than ever to feed and care for. I think efforts need to be employed to stop the out of control growth of population, assuring a reasonable standard of living for everyone.

Conversely, we could just continue to marginalize and exploit the very poor and allow them the lowest form of existence and not allow them to use 'our' precious resources!

[plachon]

The trouble is, as the evidence grows and is internalised of what human-induced climate change could mean, it's going to get mighty lonely on that limb you're out on and one day in the not-too-distant future, denying the reality is going to be like claiming "the earth is flat".

I guess it's much warmer and comfortable on your limb, surrounded by the lovely thick coats of the other sheep.

No, whichever limb you happen to live on it's bloody crowded these days. Didn't used to be, mind you, especially when I first started reading about the risks of global warming 24 years ago from author's like James Lovelock and joined Greenpeace. It's taken a while for public opinion and govt policy to get the picture that we're in deep shit unless we change our production and consumption patterns, but slowly and surely they're getting there.

Just in the past year, I've witnessed a huge turnaround in UK public opinion and awareness to what mankind is facing.

I'm not surprised; it takes a strong will and clear mind to keep focussed on the facts and to not let peer pressure get to you.

THE "FACTS"! Some people wouldn't recognise a fact if it bit them on the balls and sang Yankee Doodle Dandy.

Tell you what, I'll add this thread to my "bookmarks" and in 10 years (is that long enough?) I'll get back to you and we can have a good laugh about this while we're freezing our nuts off in the new "unexpected" ice-age . (Please, Thaivisa, keep going at least another 10 years - there is so much unresolved business here to take of )

I'm up for this little challenge, as it's a no brainer who will be having the last laugh. London's annual temperatures could be heading towards that of the South of France by then, so expect to see me on a sun recliner with chilled Newky Brown in hand on that day.

By the way, did you watch the Middlesborough v. Man U. match yesterday? Snow in April?

I expect you are familiar with the saying, "two swallows do not a summer make". Ergo, if you think that a bit of snow in April somehow proves your point and disproves AGW, then it is a perfect example of how you do not understand even the basics of climate science, and you might be well advised to get a primary school textbook to help you understand the difference between "weather" and "climate".

I'm 42 years old, judging by your photo (if that ugly mug is indeed your goodself! ), then you are a few years my senior. In which case, if you grew up and lived in UK, you should be able to remember years when the snow stood for 5 - 15 weeks and snowfalls being recorded in May in southern England and June in northern England or Scotland at low altitudes. It very likely won't happen this year, nor next, nor ever again. Guess why, snowflake?

[Spee]

@Spee, you trying to use Robert Spencer as a "REAL climate scientist"(empahsis mine) is funny. Other than designing an algorithm for a meterological satellite-which makes him more of a mathematician than climatologist-the only other thing related to climatology I could find was his attack on global warming. Oh and that whole pesky "Intelligent Design" alternative for evolution that he wants to believe in. And let's not even mention Coleman since his whole life has been telling people about the weather that someone else has fed him; not investigating the patterns. If he really wanted to know what was going on he would have been into research and not reporting. The fact he founded the Weather Channel affirms this.

Another side effect of drinking the climate change koolaid is deafness, blindness, close-mindedness and a dim view of reality.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Spee

[dave_boo]

@Spee, you trying to use Robert Spencer as a "REAL climate scientist"(empahsis mine) is funny. Other than designing an algorithm for a meterological satellite-which makes him more of a mathematician than climatologist-the only other thing related to climatology I could find was his attack on global warming. Oh and that whole pesky "Intelligent Design" alternative for evolution that he wants to believe in. And let's not even mention Coleman since his whole life has been telling people about the weather that someone else has fed him; not investigating the patterns. If he really wanted to know what was going on he would have been into research and not reporting. The fact he founded the Weather Channel affirms this.

Another side effect of drinking the climate change koolaid is deafness, blindness, close-mindedness and a dim view of reality.

Interesting, you can not attack my counter argument so you devolve into a childish tirade. I'm sure that will convince those sitting on the fence about this.

Even if I am wrong (which -gasp- wouldn't be the first time), I'd rather err on the side of caution. The science is convincing, and if it turns out that it was all flawed, we can just have a good laugh and revel in the idea that at least attempted to obtain the knowledge. You only have to be right once for all those years of paranoia to pay off anyways.

[Spee]

Interesting, you can not attack my counter argument so you devolve into a childish tirade.

Pot, kettle, black my friend. You did nothing in your response but ridicule well known and well respected voices in the field. Why would you deserve a response?

But in fairness, since you asked for it, let's not dwell on that. What about your speculative response that things like the gulf stream and other planetary climate phenomena are changing, perhaps even radically?

Ok, fine, the gulf stream has probably changed radically in the past, may be changing radically again, and will probably change radically again in the future. So <deleted>' what?

Man didn't affect it then, isn't affecting it now and won't affect it again in the future. Greenland wasn't named Greenland because it was a greyish-white tundra covered wasteland since the beginning of time.

Mankind didn't blink an eye when Mount Pinatubo blew its top, causing the greatest climate change of our lifetimes. Mankind didn't cause it and couldn't do anything about it. so what did we do? We kept on with our lives like nothing changed. Why? Because for all intents and purposes (and local inhabitants obviously excepted) NOTHING HAPPENED!

Mother Nature cut a big ripping nasty fart. The average global temperature dropped by a couple of degrees nearly overnight. But guess what? A few years later, Mother Nature had rinsed out the underwear and everything was back to normal, business as usual.

Is your paying more taxes, ceding more control over your life to the government and spreading your butt cheeks to the high lords of climate change like Algore going to change one <deleted>' thing about what the gulf stream or other climate phenomena may or may not be doing now or in the future?

No, nein, nada, mai chai, how ever you want to spell it, the answer is still the same. All it is going to do is leave you with less money and control over your life, and leave your offspring with even less money and control over their lives. In other words, by drinking this koolaid and blindly following the false prophets, you are screwing your offspring rather than helping them.

They didn't change the mantra from global warming to global climate change overnight just willy-nilly for the heck of it. They changed it purposely to put a greater stranglehold on their prophecy, and try to exert yet even further control over you and the people you claim to be so concerned about.

[dave_boo]

Interesting, you can not attack my counter argument so you devolve into a childish tirade.

Pot, kettle, black my friend. You did nothing in your response but ridicule well known and well respected voices in the field. Why would you deserve a response?

You call it ridicule..perhaps it was. However, that doesn't negate the fact that those two people listed have very little scientific accomplishments to stand upon. Espeically when compared to the reams of others from the camp that has views contrary to theirs. Perhaps you could present a more comprehensive list of fully accredited scientists that support your allegations?

But in fairness, since you asked for it, let's not dwell on that. What about your speculative response that things like the gulf stream and other planetary climate phenomena are changing, perhaps even radically?

It's merely speculative on my part because I have a basic understanding of all of it, mainly from my perusal of the presented information. However, there are numerous studies out there that are supportive of my post. Are you suggesting that the Gulf Stream has no effect on the world's climate?

Ok, fine, the gulf stream has probably changed radically in the past, may be changing radically again, and will probably change radically again in the future. So <deleted>' what?

The point is that at numerous times humans have been responsible for climate change. Granted it didn't happen all at once, but was much more a cumalantive result of various actions taken. And the fact that we are currently releasing carbon/methane that has been stored in the ground back into the air is just going to exacerbate the problem.

Man didn't affect it then, isn't affecting it now and won't affect it again in the future. Greenland wasn't named Greenland because it was a greyish-white tundra covered wasteland since the beginning of time.

Interesting that you assume man has never had an affect on the enviroment. I suppose that the direct correlation between the deforestation due to increased farming and the resulting Ice Age are to be ignored. Oh and Greenland DID have ice cover for at least 131 000 years. That's why they're able to core the ice sheets and get information dating all the way back to the Eemian Intergalacial Era.

Mankind didn't blink an eye when Mount Pinatubo blew its top, causing the greatest climate change of our lifetimes. Mankind didn't cause it and couldn't do anything about it. so what did we do? We kept on with our lives like nothing changed. Why? Because for all intents and purposes (and local inhabitants obviously excepted) NOTHING HAPPENED!

Yeah, except for one thing, Mt. Pinatubo was a single solitary incident that dumped some 17 million tons of S0₂ into the air--much different than CO₂ or Methane due to the fact that it was contained and soot which blocks the sunlight, the exact opposite of what we are doing around the world. I.E. we're dumping greenhouse gasses that allow the sunlight to come through and not be be reflected. Also, due to the luck with which it was located, the local weather system managed to do a good job of cleaning it up. Would it have done such a good job if the Mountain would still be dumping crap in the air to this day? I doubt it; yet we humans are continually polluting the air.

Mother Nature cut a big ripping nasty fart. The average global temperature dropped by a couple of degrees nearly overnight. But guess what? A few years later, Mother Nature had rinsed out the underwear and everything was back to normal, business as usual.

Is your paying more taxes, ceding more control over your life to the government and spreading your butt cheeks to the high lords of climate change like Algore going to change one <deleted>' thing about what the gulf stream or other climate phenomena may or may not be doing now or in the future?

No, nein, nada, mai chai, how ever you want to spell it, the answer is still the same. All it is going to do is leave you with less money and control over your life, and leave your offspring with even less money and control over their lives. In other words, by drinking this koolaid and blindly following the false prophets, you are screwing your offspring rather than helping them.

And if those "false prophets" are right, which hurts my offspring more--not having a little money or spending all that money that I was able to pass onto them on protection from the ecological disaster I did nothing to help prevent from occuring? I'm all for having control over my life. I respect your right to have control over yours. However, if that control or freedom infringes on another human's basic rights to a healthy life that is at least as good as their forefathers, my and your rights extend too far.

They didn't change the mantra from global warming to global climate change overnight just willy-nilly for the heck of it. They changed it purposely to put a greater stranglehold on their prophecy, and try to exert yet even further control over you and the people you claim to be so concerned about.

They changed the terminology to more effectively describe what is happening. Wether you want to read something sinister into that move or not is your perogative.

[JetsetBkk]

They didn't change the mantra from global warming to global climate change overnight just willy-nilly for the heck of it. They changed it purposely to put a greater stranglehold on their prophecy, and try to exert yet even further control over you and the people you claim to be so concerned about.

They changed the terminology to more effectively describe what is happening. Wether you want to read something sinister into that move or not is your perogative.

Maybe they didn't like the name "Global Warming", because it hasn't been "warming" for a long time...

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998