Global Warming
- Started
- Last post
- 643 Responses
- ETM0
- lowimpakt0
also Raf - one of the places where you can find information on product pulled from the market is Rapex - http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/dy…
* not to be confused with the anti-rape device :)
- ukit20
The U.S. is finally trying to take serious action on climate change, and of course the usual special interests are opposed because it might result in the loss of a few jobs. They totally dismiss the potential of crop failure and water shortages across the world, but some guy in Kentucky losing his job is completely unacceptable.
- deathboy0
Occam's Razor works on smaller scale stuff. Say we have a greater understanding in the last 100 years, but for the last 10,000 we really dont know that much, nor all the factors. Even in the last few thousands we have differing views based on different evidence and priority given to evidence to support different hypothesis. Personally I havent found a way to slice away natural dynamics to give a high yield of probability. Like i said i think climate change is as dynamic as life, especially on smaller scale. If i used the razor on larger scale calculations id say we are likely to push the envelope of warming a few hundred years leading to a natural cold cycle. But that would be about as good as a weather man predicting the weather in a 2 month timeline.I just dont think with the varying factor you can have good predictions. I think it needs to be compared to a small scale but as many variables as a single human being. Their life, genetics and choices, random chance.
Im only arguing against our innate desire of security and our ignorance in thinking we control everything. And of the ability of men to exasperate the ill effects when thinking they can control things. A quick example is the ignorance of greenspan with a more localized economic policy. I dont know. I cant understand how others can take a few variables and time scales and think they know and take it as an absolute.
But hey let me predict climate will change warmer or colder or both on a timeline and there is nothing we can do except hedge it slightly a bit on the timeline, and theur will be costs. that im pretty certain of.
- drgs0
- joeth0
Also... yes there's a lot of deception about 'green' products, but would you rather companies weren't trying to out-green each other?
It's good for consumers to be skeptical, but if we demand more transparency, the legit greener businesses will come through.
- ukit0
It's alright guys, while we argue endlessly over something 99% of scientists say is real, the Chinese are already locking down the market for electric cars.
http://www.time.com/time/busines…
http://business.timesonline.co.u…
http://earth2tech.com/2009/09/16…
On the upside, at least your beloved free market capitalism seems to be working - it just won't favor the West.
- deathboy0
Dammit why cant we control these darned flares. We're the 99% we should be able to kick the suns ass. OR fine maybe the sun is 2% but we got the numbers.
- detritus0
I thought the above article was a bit over-egged..
- lowimpakt0
"those who will die if the global tax become law??"
what global tax law and how does it kill people?
- ukit0
Pinning your anti-global warming argument on whether temperatures are going up or not isn't a very good one when you look over the past 100 years.
Or to take a longer view:
So this is the point where you shift arguments and say, well yea sure, but how do we know it's because of humans, it could just as well be because of energy from the sun/ natural cyclical change/ Al Gore's evil plan to dominate the Earth/ some other random untested theory.
But it seems like a hell of a coincidence that that spike happened over the same period that humans started burning fuel, building factories, driving cars etc.
- version30
chemicals pollutants: bad.
- utopian0
I am 99% sure that the Big Oil does not give two fucks!
- raf0
I wasn't talking about developing world as a market for light bulbs. I was talking about so called 1-st world closing their market for traditional lightbulb makers.
Why do you need a proof for ill-health? CFL contain mercury, incandescent bulbs don't. Both are in many places at home, both break at times, often in presence of children. What's to prove?
Does the fact that "most people have a mini toxic lab under their sink" justify adding more toxicity (under the flag of environmental friendliness)?
Water in many developed countries (including Ireland) is toxic, poisoned with fluoride (which is being gradually banned from toothpaste by EU). Does that justify forcing toxic light bulbs into the market?