|
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The actions needed to address anthropogenic warming, gigman, are now considered by almost all scientists to involve a combination of mitigation (reduced CO2 emissions) and adaptation (protection against warming that cannot be halted). For some very specific and detailed assessments of mitigation measures, visit AR4 WG3. The current Poznan international conference is wrestling over both the adaptation and mitigation commitments the nations will need to make in the next few years.
gigman7 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I've seen all of his videos. But he did not address what needs to be done about it. That will open up a whole new can of worms.
DeCapitator7 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
You said that he left out too many variables. In the other video he talks about that.
gigman7 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Why?
Silverslith (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I also have a small problem with what is in this video called "harm to the economy". There is a limited ammount of rescources available and the steps to reduce the "greenhouse effect" would inevitably remove funding from other areas and I am not sure that any of us are qualified to say that the effects of climate change are so much worse than anything else we can imagine. So the argument is biased in my opinion, but then, wonderingmind42 has never claimed otherwise. Thx for a mind boggling video
Silverslith (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
This video has really torn me in two. However there is an argument that I don't really find valid. "A lot of big companys support the global warming theory". While that is true we also hear (in he Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 5 of 8)) that "Forbes" and "Time" make outrages claims. If these companys are willing to print information of that sort then it is hard to believe that AAAS or NAS would not make statements that can not be disproven for a VERY long time.
bxbeall (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I think that is the point, even though there are uncertainties, by taking action A, you eradicate the uncertainty. Its just a comparison of risks, by "buying insurance" on the fact that global warming exists, you cover all the destruction it entails regardless of whether they will or will not happen. This isn't a matter of saving money, its about saving the human race.
wonderingmind42 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
wonderingmind42 is a biased hack blinded by his own arrogant overzealousness, unable to see anything that he doesn't want to see, and so he only blocks people with vaild points that disagree with his unquestioning belief in the religion of global warming. Oh, wait. icecreamdose and I are working out an operational definition by private messages (not limited to 500 char), so that all (including myself) can be confident I'm blocking fairly. Watch this space for updates.
icecreamdose (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
you have replied this same comment over and over and over grastog. according to the maker of this video you that is spamming.
wonderingmind42 MUST block you from commenting on this video for your spamming
bcfp090 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Kerry Emanuel has stated that he is reconsidering his position. Again I point out that the bottom right corner of the "chart" contains a large set of uncertainties. |
