First post!

spammers the lot of ye!!

true 80p. a worthy addition to boards.ie!

[Insane rant]

Quoted from that site Gone shootin posted:

"During the 20th century," writes Dr. Patrick Michaels, "we have already proceeded more than half way to doubling the natural carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. Here is what resulted: Life expectancy doubled in the free and developed world. The developing world is catching up as their emissions rise. Corn production per acre increased five-fold. The growing season in the coldest latitudes increased slightly, but enough to increase greenness by 10 percent."

That's one of the most stupid things i'v ever heard, ya he's right about life expectancy and production but that has more to do with advances in technology than global warming! Feckin eejit.

Warmer winters would mean longer growing seasons and less stress on most plants and wildlife, producing a substantial benefit for the global ecosystem. Finally, past warming has been accompanied by increased cloudiness, a phenomenon also predicted by most global climate models. This means a warmer world would probably be a wetter world, which once again would be beneficial to most plant and animal life.

It'd be wetter alright, with the feckin polar icecaps melted all but the highest peaks would submerged, oh but I’m sure they'd be fertile :rolleyes:

Vice President Al Gore claims that "hundreds of millions of people may well become even more susceptible to the spread of diseases when populations of pests, germs, and viruses migrate with the changing climate patterns." Gore has also claimed that global warming will cause floods, droughts, heavy rainfall, forest fires, retreating glaciers, and heavier snowfall.

Which we have seen, but I’ll admit the increased movement of ppl contributes to this also.

The latest research suggests that sea levels would decline, not rise, if temperatures rise, due to increased evaporation from the oceans and subsequent precipitation over land.

This doesn't deserve comment... :mad: :rolleyes:

Attempting to reduce emissions quickly requires retiring existing capital stock (tools, equipment, machinery) before the end of its useful life. Forcing more rapid technological change is possible, but it is costly.

At first it will seem that way, but whole new areas will open up in research and development of new technologies which will in turn require workers to implement and further develop.

Some environmentalists call for a "save-the-day" strategy to "stop global warming," saying it is better to be safe than sorry. Such a position seems logical until we stop to think: Immediate action wouldn't make us any safer, but it would surely make us poorer. And being poorer would make us less safe.

Researchers have found a close relationship between a nation's standard of living (its wealth) and many measures of public health and safety. Wealthier societies are able to invest more in things that ensure safety, such as guardrails on highways, vaccines against diseases, and safe drinking water. Simply put, wealthier is healthier.

I so want to kick this guys @ss. Under the current economic system what he says does make some sense, however the way which he implies it, that becoming cleaner will result in a catastrophic breakdown in our social structure is ridiculous and I dear say stupid.

CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades, meaning each year's emissions are only a small percentage of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Consequently, immediate large reductions in emissions have relatively small effects on concentrations of greenhouse gases.

I'm not sure what he's saying here, does he mean if we keep this up we're all fucked so what the hell lets keep it up n kill ourselves off quicker.

Whether emission reductions occur now or thirty years from now, they will have the same overall impact. If it proves necessary to make reductions, the cost of making reductions later, after new technologies now under development become available commercially and after current capital stock has come up for replacement, is likely to be much less than the cost of making reductions today.

Why would government’s bother investing in new technologies now if they knew they were under no pressure to do so? They wouldn't bother their holes, as long as the oil didn't run out they'd keep on using it. Introducing a time frame with which to reduce production of green house gases now we are encouraging the development of such technologies.

Carefully target investments where they are needed to accommodate climate change. For example, higher sea levels, should they occur, could be addressed by modest improvements to dikes and seawalls in some areas, and by relocating homes and businesses in other areas.

Ever hear that prevention is better than cure.

[/Insane rant]