Forum menu
It is the attitude of the self serving politicians who could effect changes. Now stop trying to manufacture an argument for the sake of it.
Self-serving politicians don't come into it. The whole worldwide democratic system is set up on 4-5 year cycles. Tackling climate change is a 100+ year project which will make living standards drop (you may have noticed some complaints about living standards recently).
Any party who tackles climate change will be kicked out in the next election. Self-serving or not, it just isn't possible.
You knew what I meant.
I do. It's clear you don't understand the magnitude of the problem, or even what the problem is.
Well, as long as we all acknowledge that there IS a problem - that's a start, right? 🙂
It's clear you don't understand the magnitude of the problem, or even what the problem is.
Only if you wilfully misinterpret what I write, which you seem to be keen on doing for some reason.
The effects of climate change won't wait until politicians wake up. The sad bit is that its those who've done the least to cause it that are likely to feel the worst of it.
It is true though that the problem will never be solved in our lifetimes no matter what is done......as there is still a big debate on what the actual cause of the problem is!
Plus we are such a small percentage of the planet that if we shut down tomorrow, no one would notice any effect.
Reckon 5thElefant has hit the nail on the head!
as there is still a [b]big debate[/b] on what the actual cause of the problem is!
er
no there isn't
zokes - Member
...I suspect that leaves me somewhat above the average.
I'd say it does.
Member of the ATA by any chance? I reckon it has the most practical approach on these issues for the non-scientist.
The reality is the first world has shat in its nest, and instead of fixing the problem has simply exported our pollution to 3rd world countries.
Anyone who has lived in the 3rd world out of the cities, eg African bush will have seen how little most people have to get by on. Even our poorest are incredibly wealthy and wasteful in comparison.
... as there is still a big debate on what the actual cause of the problem is!
Have a shufty at this if you're not sure.
Doom and gloom! And doom! With gloom!
We're lucky to not be sweltering all day every day in 2013
[img] 
[/img]
scare·mon·ger (skârmnggr, -mng-)
n.
One who spreads frightening rumours; an alarmist.
scaremonger·ing n.
Doom and gloom! And doom! With gloom!
As was said to you when you first raised this - the BBC reported what some scientists said. The clue's in the first line of that screen grab actually. I really don't understand quite why you're struggling to separate what someone told them and they reported from something they made up and reported off their own bat.
Also, returning to repost something that doesn't demonstrate your own arguments is a pretty ineffectual way of avoiding the questions I and others raised when you last spouted rubbish on the previous page. Either answer them or go away and stop being a tedious troll.
I wonder if it's the last time he'll bring it up. I doubt it somehow. "Sceptics" love a short term anomaly.
6079smithw you seem to have confused by how a reporter presents research to grab attention as apposed to what the research actually says .
Does your dictionary include a definition of the word "could"
I suggest you steer clear of the daily mail as their ability to scaremonger by miss presenting science is legendary.
that forecast wasn't even that far off.
2012 saw the area of arctic ice drop to 3ish million square kilometers. Which sounds a lot, but it's half the (1979-2006) average.
the summer-just-gone (2013) has seen the ice area 'recover' - it went all the back to 4.5ish million sqkm. Which is still waaay below the average.
anyone who thinks this year's 'recovery'* is a sign of global cooling has completely missed the point.
(it's not even a recovery, it's just not as spectacularly bad as last year)
[img] 
[/img]