Global warming...

[Jehosaphat]

My opinion on global warming.....

 

I think it's sorta fake. It is true that pumping crap into the ecosystems doesn't help the planet, and that on a large enough magnitude, it could significantly harm the planet. Do I think we've hit that magnitude? No. Do other people? Depends on the person.

 

Oh, and since this is sorta on-topic....

 

The Peace Prize lost all meaning to me when Al Gore pumps out more dioxide getting various awards than hundreds of SUVs combines. Him and his stupid private jet.

[Furah]

She said there's been a cooling trend as of the past few years, but that's all statistical nonsense. If you go back a few years and take a regression line, it shows a decrease in temperature; if you go back a bit more, it shows an increase.

He, the paper was done by Professor Richard Lindzen, Dianna Cotter just did the news article. Even if in the longer span, it increased, the last few years had it decreased, doesn't that mean it's peaked and is dropping?

[warri0r45]

She said there's been a cooling trend as of the past few years, but that's all statistical nonsense. If you go back a few years and take a regression line, it shows a decrease in temperature; if you go back a bit more, it shows an increase.

He, the paper was done by Professor Richard Lindzen, Dianna Cotter just did the news article. Even if in the longer span, it increased, the last few years had it decreased, doesn't that mean it's peaked and is dropping?

 

Considering that a lot of the warming in the latter half of last century is only attributable to anthropogenic factors, and assuming we don't change the way we do things, it will get warmer.

 

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf

 

See figure 2.

 

You can break down any regression into bits and pick out increases or decreases. But did any of the decreases over the past century of warming signal the beginning of a downward trend? No, and given that we're party to blame (and assuming we don't do anything about it), that probably wont change any time soon.

[magekillr]

I'm still waiting for skeptics and deniers to show evidence that the scientific consensus is wrong. And yes, there is indeed a consensus.

 

In the meantime, I found this entry entertaining:

 

If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newtons private correspondence were compiled and published.

 

When you read some of these letters, you realise just why Newton and his collaborators might have preferred to keep them confidential. This scandal could well be the biggest in Renaissance science. These alleged letters supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists behind really hard math lessons suggest:

 

Conspiracy, collusion in covering up the truth, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

 

But perhaps the most damaging revelations are those concerning the way these math nerd scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence to support their cause.

 

Here are a few tasters. They suggest dubious practices such as:

 

Conspiring to avoid public scrutiny:

 

There is nothing which I desire to avoid in matters of philosophy more then contentions, nor any kind of contention more then one in print: & therefore I gladly embrace your proposal of a private correspondence. Whats done before many witnesses is seldom without some further concern then that for truth: but what passes between friends in private usually deserve ye name of consultation rather then contest, & so I hope it will prove between you & me.

 

Newton to Hooke, 5 February 1676

 

Insulting dissenting scientists and equating them with holocaust deniers:

 

[Hooks Considerations] consist in ascribing an hypothesis to me which is not mine; in asserting an hypothesis which as to ye principal parts of it is not against me; in granting the greatest part of my discourse if explicated by that hypothesis; & in denying some things the truth of which would have appeared by an experimental examination.

 

Newton to Oldenburg, 11 June 1672

 

Manipulation of evidence:

 

I wrote to you on Tuesday that the last leafe of the papers you sent me should be altered because it refers to a manuscript in my private custody & not yet upon record.

 

Newton to Keill, May 15 1674

 

Knowingly publishing scientific fraud:

 

You need not give yourself the trouble of examining all the calculations of the Scholium. Such errors as do not depend upon wrong reasoning can be of no great consequence & may be corrected by the reader.

 

Newton to Cotes June 15 1710

 

Suppression of evidence:

 

Mr. Raphson has printed off four or five sheets of his History of Fluxions, but being shewd Sr. Is. Newton (who, it seems, would rather have them write against him, than have a piece done in that manner in his favour), he got a Stop put to it, for some time at least.

 

Jones to Cotes, 17 September 1711

 

Abusing the peer review system:

 

only the Germans and French have in a violent manner attackd the Philosophy of Sr. Is. Newton, and seem resolved to stand by Cartes; Mr. Keil, as a person concerned, has undertaken to answer and defend some things, as Dr. Friend, and Dr. Mead, does (in their way) the rest: I would have sent you ye whole controversy, was not I sure that you know, those only are most capable of objecting against his writings, that least understand them; however, in a little time, youll see some of these in ye Philos. Transact.

 

Jones to Cotes, October 25 1711

 

 

Insulting their critics:

 

The controversy concerning Sr. Isaacs Philosophy is a piece of news that I had not heard of unless Muyss late book be meant. I think that Philosophy needs no defence, especially when tis attackt by Cartesians. One Mr Green a Fellow of Clare Hall in our University seems to have nearly the same design with those German & French objectors whom you mention. His book is now in our press & is almost finished. I am told he will add an appendix in which he undertakes also to square the circle. I need not recommend his performance any further to you.

 

Cotes to Jones, November 11 1711

 

Gravity does not extend so far from Earth that it can be the force holding the moon to its orbit; school students are increasingly reluctant to practice differential equations, that will only lead to the practice of more oppressive forms of higher math; the tide is turning against over-regulation, like Newtons laws of motion and Universal Gravitation. The so called Cartesian, skeptical view is now also the majority view.

 

Unfortunately weve a long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in classical mechanics, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

 

But if the Newton / Royal Society mail scandal is true, it is a blow to the Renaissance lobbys credibility which is never likely to recover.

 

http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/

[Rebdragon]

I dot get the point... are you trying to say that the suppression of dissenting views doesn't matter in any way whatsoever? I might be stupid for saying this, but I'm pretty sure the majority opinion I've heard is that were all full of [cabbage] and don't know what were talking about. I feel like you're under information bias, but I may be too. Either way this all feels stupid and useless. Were spending trillions to make the world a degree or two cooler. Which I guess if we don't do the world will be destroyed by mother nature, but then I don't know why the world isn't already destroyed since the heating up from the last cooling. It's all very confusing.

[RpgGamer]

Global Warming is happening. Al Gore was right in general, but his graphs and data were a bit skewed. None of his data ranged further than 650k years, which is pretty much nothing relative to Earth's existance. There's no denying that we humans have an effect on Earths temperature. But its really really insignificant. The famous "off the charts" graph that Gore used in "An inconvienient truth" didn't tell the whole truth. Yes there was an increase. But the graph was so far zoomed in that it made it look a hell of a lot bigger. If you took Earth's entire temperature timeline, it would barely show up as a blip, if that.

 

Global warming is real, but I don't think it matters much. Infact according to these guys, it's a good thing: www.C02isgreen.org

[SeanCalibur]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyTm_0D0uS8

 

A way to describe it to those not so "in the know" :)

[RpgGamer]

They actually use that clip in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" :lol:

[SeanCalibur]

They actually use that clip in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" :lol:

 

Yes i know :XD: It's because Al Gore plays as himself in Futurama, which that clip is from, occasionally.

 

I'm watching "An Inconvenient Truth" for the second time, in my AS Geography Class, and it still amazes me, the facts and figures on that film are astounding. I think it was the part about the Polar Bears that got a lot of controversy because they didn't actually drown? the polar bears they had found starved or something?...or so I've heard.

 

I've just been reading some newspaper articles about how a top leading research scientist, who was one of the main researchers promoting a cut down on CO2 in recent years, is saying that it is best if the global summit at Copenhagen fails, as we don't have a clear enough view on what we're trying to do, and that it would be best to start a fresh.

[Furah]

An online debate over global warming science has broken out after an unknown hacker broke into the e-mail server at a prominent, British climate-research center, stole more than a thousand e-mails about global warming research and posted them online.

 

Global warming skeptics are seizing on portions of the messages as evidence that scientists are colluding and warping data to fit the theory of global warming, but researchers say the e-mails are being taken out of context and just show scientists engaged in frank discussion.

 

TheClimate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is one of the United Kingdoms leading climate research centers and has been a strong proponent of the position that global warming is real and has human causes. The center confirmed the hack occurred in an e-mail statement to Threat Level.

 

We are aware that information from a server in one area of the university has been made available on public websites, the statement read. We are extremely concerned that personal information about individuals may have been compromised. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm what proportion of this material is genuine.

 

The stolen cache includes more than 1,000 e-mails and more than 3,000 documents, some containing code. They were posted anonymously to an FTP server in Russia. The hacker then posted a link to the 61-MB file of data on the blog Air Vent.

 

The hackers message that accompanied the link read: We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents.

 

The e-mails, which cover a decade of correspondence, are getting a lot of attention among bloggers who point to statements in them that they say suggest the scientists colluded and manipulated data to support their global warming viewpoints. The bloggers highlight a statement in one 1999 e-mail from Phil Jones, director of the research center:

 

Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline.

 

The comment refers to Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. Mann told Threat Level the Nature trick refers to a solution for displaying data that he and others used in a paper they published to get around a problem in the way that temperature data is traditionally displayed. The solution allows for better viewing and understanding of the data, Mann said, and pointed to a post on the RealClimate blog that his colleagues have made to explain the reference. That post also indicates that the hacker first tried to post the trove of stolen data to the RealClimate blog on Tuesday.

 

Another e-mail from Jones dated last year with the subject line IPCC and FOI is a request to Michael Mann, asking him to delete certain e-mails. Bloggers allege that Jones was trying to destroy data that had been requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Jones wasnt available for comment. Mann told Threat Level that he never deleted any e-mails and doesnt know the context under which Jones made the request.

 

Bloggers allege that an e-mail from Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, suggests that reality contradicts scientific claims about global warming:

 

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

 

The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we cant. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

 

But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point hes making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.

 

It says we dont have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators that global warming is continuing, he says.

 

Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context.

 

Theres nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax, he told Threat Level. Theres no funding by nefarious groups. Theres no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [united Nations] telling people what to do. Theres nothing hidden, no manipulation.

 

Its just scientists talking about science, and theyre talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way.

 

Trenberth agrees.

 

If you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists, he says. The unfortunate thing about this is that people can cherry pick and take things out of context.

Thought this might be an interesting read. I'll let people make their own conclusions on this one.

 

I'm still waiting for skeptics and deniers to show evidence that the scientific consensus is wrong. And yes, there is indeed a consensus.

Wait, a consensus on global warming? I think not, it's just the non-popular views are suppressed as much as possible.

[warri0r45]

Of course there's a consensus. Just about every major scientific body will agree that we're contributing to global warming. Any suggestion that there's some sort of conspiracy covering up dissent is just a massive cop-out.

[RpgGamer]

They actually use that clip in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"

 

Yes i know It's because Al Gore plays as himself in Futurama, which that clip is from, occasionally.

 

I'm watching "An Inconvenient Truth" for the second time, in my AS Geography Class, and it still amazes me, the facts and figures on that film are astounding. I think it was the part about the Polar Bears that got a lot of controversy because they didn't actually drown? the polar bears they had found starved or something?...or so I've heard.

 

I've just been reading some newspaper articles about how a top leading research scientist, who was one of the main researchers promoting a cut down on CO2 in recent years, is saying that it is best if the global summit at Copenhagen fails, as we don't have a clear enough view on what we're trying to do, and that it would be best to start a fresh.

 

You realize how scewed that data is right? The graphs are of very poor quality (bad science). Sample size, repeatablility, scale. All of these things were missing from the presentation. I'm not saying Al is wrong, because Global Warming is defiiniatly happening. I just don't think it matters. But I definiatly don't think that we should embrace it (like certain right wing Republicans)

[Youmu]

Even if global warming isn't real, people should not abuse resources on Earth. The planet would be sucked dry and we all would die.

 

I've seen a documentary about how global warming is false, and it was pretty interesting. Never knew about stuff like how it was even warmer before than it was now, and how the temperature is actually decreasing after that period. I forgot what the documentary was called though.

The main factor of evidence used to prove global warming is a diagram or graph representing a HUGE rise, like a hockey stick, in amounts of carbon dioxide, or temperature or something, I forget now, but the main piece of evidence supporting global warming, or how the media portrays it, was horribly biased, I'll back that up later, but yeah. heehee.

Oh yeah, that graph. I find it hard to believe that the CO2 would be rising that much, because it clearly is impossible.

 

Just because there is a bigger rise in CO2 does not mean the trend will continue.

 

And I now remember the name of the documentary that counters "The Inconvenient Truth". It's "The Global Warming Swindle".

[Hamtaro]

While I agree that there's no plausible evidence to support human caused global warming, I still believe we need to conserve the limited natural resources we have.

 

Besides, cows (6M worldwide in 2005) produce more methane gas (which would theoretically raise the temperature more than Carbon Monoxide/Dioxide) from belches than cars (600M worldwide in 1997) can produce carbon monoxide. Essentially, McDonalds has done more to stop global warming than Al Gore.

 

To whoever said it is not a natural cycle, how exactly did they grow grapes in Scotland in medieval times? I don't think there were any cars/factories back then, but correct me if I'm wrong, of course :roll: . Also, please shovel my driveway and plow the roads this coming winter. I'm not a fan of all the snow that falls in Michigan, especially when everyone in Michigan sucks at driving as it is.

 

As far as I'm concerned global warming would be a good thing. Why? Shorter winter (my personal favorite), disease is not as easily spread (people will be outside for more than walking to/from your car!), less automobile accidents related to ice on the roads, longer farming season (more food for the starving), decrease in child obesity (kids will actually go outside and get exercise during the winter months), not having to get up at 5:30 to shovel 6-12 inches before school (or work for some of you), and lastly we will be able to look back at the fear mongers (and clips from the Day After Tomorrow used in Gore's "documentary") and laugh.

 

"But the arctic will melt." Why wouldn't be be able to find a way to harness all of that FRESH water? Certainly we can't give it to people in Africa who have no clean water...

"But sea levels will rise." See above.

 

Bring on the warm :thumbup: .

[magekillr]

Potholer54 destroys the conspiracy argument:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=sub

 

Love. It.

 

While I agree that there's no plausible evidence to support human caused global warming

 

Your evidence for this? Or do you just say things without having evidence?

 

To whoever said it is not a natural cycle, how exactly did they grow grapes in Scotland in medieval times?

 

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/vineland-was-full-of-grapes.php

 

As far as I'm concerned global warming would be a good thing. Why? Shorter winter (my personal favorite), disease is not as easily spread (people will be outside for more than walking to/from your car!), less automobile accidents related to ice on the roads, longer farming season (more food for the starving), decrease in child obesity (kids will actually go outside and get exercise during the winter months), not having to get up at 5:30 to shovel 6-12 inches before school (or work for some of you), and lastly we will be able to look back at the fear mongers (and clips from the Day After Tomorrow used in Gore's "documentary") and laugh.

 

I guess regional drought and food shortages aren't on your list of top concern? Not to mention the amount of civil war and terrorism that will plague the South Asian and Middle Eastern region, as well as Africa. If there is a World War III, it will be in that region involving Pakistan and India, and it will be over water. These two countries are nuclear. Perhaps you should look at the world around you, and notice that crops don't do as well in your own backyard in Iowa with warmer climate.

[cryztalwing]

Back in August they snub FOIA requests to see the data, now in the climategate emails it looks like they instructed fellow scientists to delete incriminating emails subject to FOIA requests

 

http://gnosis474.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-gate-is-your-fight.html

 

 

Not about the e-mails but rather the Codes

 

 

Climategate Computer Codes Are the Real Story

 

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-computer-codes-are-the-real-story/

[Pirate_Felix]

Fake my [wagon], melting glaciers? Proven with our own eyes.

[Grim_]

While I agree that there's no plausible evidence to support human caused global warming, I still believe we need to conserve the limited natural resources we have.

 

Besides, cows (6M worldwide in 2005) produce more methane gas (which would theoretically raise the temperature more than Carbon Monoxide/Dioxide) from belches than cars (600M worldwide in 1997) can produce carbon monoxide. Essentially, McDonalds has done more to stop global warming than Al Gore.

 

To whoever said it is not a natural cycle, how exactly did they grow grapes in Scotland in medieval times? I don't think there were any cars/factories back then, but correct me if I'm wrong, of course :roll: . Also, please shovel my driveway and plow the roads this coming winter. I'm not a fan of all the snow that falls in Michigan, especially when everyone in Michigan sucks at driving as it is.

 

As far as I'm concerned global warming would be a good thing. Why? Shorter winter (my personal favorite), disease is not as easily spread (people will be outside for more than walking to/from your car!), less automobile accidents related to ice on the roads, longer farming season (more food for the starving), decrease in child obesity (kids will actually go outside and get exercise during the winter months), not having to get up at 5:30 to shovel 6-12 inches before school (or work for some of you), and lastly we will be able to look back at the fear mongers (and clips from the Day After Tomorrow used in Gore's "documentary") and laugh.

 

"But the arctic will melt." Why wouldn't be be able to find a way to harness all of that FRESH water? Certainly we can't give it to people in Africa who have no clean water...

"But sea levels will rise." See above.

 

Bring on the warm :thumbup: .

Theres a couple of things wrong with this.

First off shoveling 6-12 inches of snow is exercise maybe not enough but it still is exercise

Secondly those few shorter winter months would have an adverse effect on other places

Thirdly There is no way we could direct billions of gallons of then SALT WATER without spending very likely trillions of dollars on it.

Fourth If all of that dense cold water came down it could disrupt the gulf stream. While that may seem like nothing bad to you it will sure [bleep] up a fair chunk of europe.

Fifth There would be a shortage of housing when places like Bangladesh and parts of southeast asia flood due to that inconsequential rising sea level.

Sixth While you may not care about others that change in climate may bring more snowfall to Minnesota.

[Zimbu]

Besides, cows (6M worldwide in 2005) produce more methane gas (which would theoretically raise the temperature more than Carbon Monoxide/Dioxide) from belches than cars (600M worldwide in 1997) can produce carbon monoxide. Essentially, McDonalds has done more to stop global warming than Al Gore.

 

There are over 1 billion cows in the world and cars produce quite small amounts of carbon monoxide.

 

Wait, a consensus on global warming? I think not, it's just the non-popular views are suppressed as much as possible.

I haven't noticed any articles in peer reviewed journals with high impact factors that would downright deny global warming. I've also talked to some people researching the climate cooling effects of aerosol nanoparticles at my university and they think there is consensus on global warming. I'd like to know what makes you think that there isn't a consensus, because I'm clearly missing it.

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist

I stopped reading at "As the graph seen below shows, when charted for the years between 2002 and 2009".

 

Climate change is happening. doesn't mean that humans are the cause of it. As my friend the fsm says, its not the increase of cars that have led to global warming, its the decrease of pirates!

If you can disprove the effect of humans on climate change, then you should do it. The Nobel prize comes with a nice chunk of cash and you would have a place in history similar to James Clerk Maxwell for proving a popular scientific idea wrong.

 

Apparently the Sahara desert is growing. Less land for Africans = less Africans able to live there.

Not to mention that the rising temperatures will increase the length of droughts and decrease food production on a continent where starvation is already a huge problem...

So, are we going to give medicine and food to Africans today, helping them live and reproduce, so that their children can suffer through the same poverty, disease and starvation that we tried to save their parents from? Really, the ones we helped are likely to live long enough to have MORE children to suffer...

Oh, and of course there's the issue of warlords confiscating supplies which were meant for the general population, only making their regimes stronger.

 

Maybe we should stay out of Africa and let the Africans handle it? I don't think they'd mind if we managed to make the world a few degrees cooler if it meant stopping the growth of the Sahara and more seasonal temperatures for growing crops.

 

Oh, and anyone who thinks that global warming = more cropland farther towards the poles- ecosystem growth doesn't work that way. It's a very slow process to naturally develop soils into sustainable fertile land.

 

Also- no-one argue with Saruman, he's an expert (he got a 98)

You would be surprised of how climate change seems to be effecting the Sahara desert. Here's a quick read (yeah, I know National Geographic isn't a good source of information, but mleh): http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

 

Also, there are factors effecting the size of the Sahara desert that are completely unrelated to climate change, such as the deforestation near the southern part of the desert.

My favourite scientist, Kary Mullis, pretty much thinks global warming is bogus based on the fact that he thinks scientists are misinterpreting their results. I remember him talking about the fact that the temperature measuring instruments are all in or close to cities, and those cities are always in expansion, adding more cement which sucks up more energy from the sun, making it hotter. Something like that. He's a brilliant guy, and that argument alone (which I only vaguely remember it's arguments) makes me weary about the legitimization of global warming.

I'm fairly certain that trained climate scientists are aware of the fact that cities create their own microclimates because of asphalt and other heat absorbent surfaces considering that I've read about it in my high school ecology text book.

 

Edit: Yep, I still come off like a condescending [bleep] whenever I'm responding to climate change/creationism/AIDS denialism/conspiracy theory threads on internet discussion forums.

[RpgGamer]

Fake my [wagon], melting glaciers? Proven with our own eyes.

 

 

I don't have any sauce for you, but for all the glaciers that are melting in the world, the glaciers in Antarctica are actually growing. People are forgetting that Nature is always in perfect balance. Even if we screw with it, it'll rebalance out afer awhile. If it gets real bad, the human race will die out, and the world will start again from whatever era began life on Earth. But that's worst case scenario. And even if that does happen, I expect that the human race would jsut evolve back into existance after a long period of time, but better.

 

For instance, right now there is an increase in CO2 levels. How did nature handle that? There's a surplus of phytoplankton this decade. Why? Increase of CO2. Y'know what phytoplankton does? It feeds off of CO2. The world is still in balance. We're gonna be just fine.

[Alg]

Gaia Hypothesis, right?

Or am I just making up names?

 

That's another thing that's odd about it. There are a select few examples that are always used for glacial melts. There are more than those few though.

[_NaDIaleIGHlordess1_]

"Is one huge lie."

 

That's what I keep hearing. :blink:

[cryztalwing]

According to China, you should get ready for a One-Child Policy. The Chinese government delegation at the Copenhagen climate change conference has argued that the Communist dictatorships one child policy should serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation. And one of Labour's leading advisers in The U.K. agrees with this.

 

 

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm

[RpgGamer]

EPA just passed a law (or bill, i forget) that allows them to regulate C02 emmisions.

 

I lol'd at their stupidity.

[Guy]

It is real. If you don't believe it's real, you're in denial, and you're really not helping us combat the truth of climate change and save our planet. There is no reset button, this is the only one we have.