Well meaning idiots

[DimPrawn]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...e-Charles.html

Climate change must be tackled before global poverty, says Prince Charles

The Prince spoke at a dinner in hosted by Michelle Bachelet, the President, for 300 guests from the world of politics, business and the arts.

“How can we begin to address poverty if we haven't first ensured our planet is habitable?” he said.

“If we do nothing, the consequences for every person on this earth will be severe and unprecedented - with vast numbers of environmental refugees, social instability and decimated economies: far worse than anything which we are seeing today.”

The Prince said Chile was witnessing “the terrifying effects of global warming, including the shrinking of nearly 90 per cent of your glaciers.

“Ladies and gentlemen, in the light of such evidence, and so much more from across the globe, I find it incomprehensible that there are those who doubt the science of climate change.”



Yes, taxing cars is more important to people than having clean water, shelter and food on the table with schools and hospitals.

[BoredBloke]

But he has a point - if the climate change predictions are true then the poor will suffer even more as there won't be anywhere left to put their table let alone thier house and the cost of food will be far higher. There is no point trying to give give everybody a good standard of living if it means the world is so fooked up that everybody is suffering.

The way I look at it is this. If you had a leak in your roof which was getting worse by the day would you spend all your cash decorating your lounge - which is going to get ruined by the water from above or would you fix the roof and try to do up your lounge at a later date?

[DimPrawn]

Yes, let's see if the predictions are true and spend trillions on Carbon Credits "fixing" the climate instead of stopping disease, feeding people, educating people etc.

Lets gamble peoples lives on a guessing game when the climate looks to be cooling and CO2 was a red herring.

[BoredBloke]

But you are simply gambling on the other side of the equation. You are basically betting that climate change won't happen and so spend the money fixing the poverty issue. That's fine if climate change does not happen but there is a very good chance that climate change is happening so money spent trying to lift people out of poverty wil be wasted when the effects of climate change kick in.

[dang65]

Yes, let's see if the predictions are true and spend trillions on Carbon Credits "fixing" the climate instead of stopping disease, feeding people, educating people etc.

Lets gamble peoples lives on a guessing game when the climate looks to be cooling and CO2 was a red herring.

How do you you people manage to reconcile having total belief in the theory of evolution, which the vast majority of scientists support, whilst simultaneously ridiculing anyone who believes in the theory of climate change... which is also supported by the vast majority of scientists?

I can't understand how it's the same people that do both things. You've basically made up your own mind about climate change and choose to completely ignore scientific research and evidence. You're exactly like those nutters that believe in creationism.

And don't claim that there are thousands of scientists that dispute climate change. Scientists will always question and challenge theories. That's what they're there for. But the evidence is overwhelming and is demonstrated over and over again.

The loss of human life and the changes in living standards of those that do survive will be vast, far outnumbering current levels of death from poverty or disease. How do you fail to see that?

[EternalOptimist]

How do you you people manage to reconcile having total belief in the theory of evolution, which the vast majority of scientists support, whilst simultaneously ridiculing anyone who believes in the theory of climate change... which is also supported by the vast majority of scientists?

I can't understand how it's the same people that do both things.

simple. I believe that the theory of evolution is correct, but I hold that belief irrespective of the number of scientists who agree. You seem to think this is some sort of popularity contest, I suspect you are easily led and a 'cushion'.

i.e. you bear the imprint of the last @rse that squashes you

[ace00]

simple. I believe that the theory of evolution is correct, but I hold that belief irrespective of the number of scientists who agree. You seem to think this is some sort of popularity contest, I suspect you are easily led and a 'cushion'.

i.e. you bear the imprint of the last @rse that squashes you

WHS.
But let's put some science on the table:

1. The increase in CO2 cannot trap enough energy by itself to warm the climate above approx. 1 deg. C per century (max) at current rates of increase. Therefore the Global Warming theory is wrong.

Discuss.

[DimPrawn]

WHS.
But let's put some science on the table:

1. The increase in CO2 cannot trap enough energy by itself to warm the climate above approx. 1 deg. C per century (max) at current rates of increase. Therefore the Global Warming theory is wrong.

Discuss.

Heretic! Burn him!

[BoredBloke]

Heretic! Burn him!

freeze him! Don't want to add to the problem!

[ace00]

2. Models: Urban Heat Island effect is greatly understated in AGW models. As is natural climatic variability (you know, sun, orbit, oceans, that kind of stuff). The source code (Fortran I think) has been analysed and found to be ...tulip. Various "adjustments" used in models are un-substantiated. I could go on. Therfore the models are GIGO rubbish or in CUK speak TITO (Tulip in Tulip Out)