Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

One year to save the planet


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

World leaders must agree a deal to tackle global warming within the next year or risk losing our way of life as we know it, Ed Davey, the energy secretary has warned ahead of major international negotiations in Lima.

About 9,000 politicians, diplomats and non-governmental organisation delegates will descend on the Peruvian capital over the next two weeks for the UN's annual climate change talks, intended to thrash out key details to enable a global deal by an agreed deadline of next year's summit in Paris.

http://www.telegraph...avey-warns.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oh god, more hysteria from the climate change industry. Does Ed Davey, the EnergySecretary have any qualifications to qualify him to spout such hysteria?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god, more hysteria from the climate change industry. Does Ed Davey, the EnergySecretary have any qualifications to qualify him to spout such hysteria?

yes, he is a liberal.

Edited by danielost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHile a good many is focused on the human problem and rightly so ~ far too many is ignoring the human problems accumulating that is killing the very little habitable environment we have left ~ not every inch of this planet can sustain life ... as least life as we are accustomed to these days ~

~

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah. Let the earth go through its cycles. Even if we did contribute. We just had a ice age for chrimeny sake.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell? We should be actively cloning the weather before its too late...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god, more hysteria from the climate change industry. Does Ed Davey, the EnergySecretary have any qualifications to qualify him to spout such hysteria?

Sounds like panic to me.

I have been reading up on ecosystem collapse. CO2 levels at the peak of the PT extinction were only a little above what they are now. Also, things seem to be moving a little faster than I thought. At the current rate, we should be looking at ecosystem collapse in about 150 years (That's my great-great grandkids' time.) - that is, if we do nothing. That's not something we need to panic over, but we shouldn't just sit by and do nothing, either.

That the earth is warmer than a century ago, that CO2 in the atmosphere is higher and that humans are the cause IS settled science (except for a few who are NOT ecologists), whether the right wing likes it or not. The questions that remain are: what does this mean for life? and, what can we do about it?

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like panic to me.

I have been reading up on ecosystem collapse. CO2 levels at the peak of the PT extinction were only a little above what they are now. Also, things seem to be moving a little faster than I thought. At the current rate, we should be looking at ecosystem collapse in about 150 years (That's my great-great grandkids' time.) - that is, if we do nothing. That's not something we need to panic over, but we shouldn't just sit by and do nothing, either.

That the earth is warmer than a century ago, that CO2 in the atmosphere is higher and that humans are the cause IS settled science (except for a few who are NOT ecologists), whether the right wing likes it or not. The questions that remain are: what does this mean for life? and, what can we do about it?

Doug

+

it is not settled science that humans are the cause of this. it is speculation. as you said there has been times when the co2 levels were higher than they are now. those weren't man caused time periods. almost any science dealing with life is speculation not proven. is man contributing to climate change, yes. is man causing climate change, no. nature is quite capable of causing climate change all by itself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is not settled science that humans are the cause of this. it is speculation. as you said there has been times when the co2 levels were higher than they are now. those weren't man caused time periods. almost any science dealing with life is speculation not proven.

I'm talking about THIS time. If CO2 levels were still around 300 ppmbv the globally averaged mean temps would be about 1.6 degrees centigrade lower than they are now.

is man contributing to climate change, yes. is man causing climate change, no. nature is quite capable of causing climate change all by itself.

The climate varies naturally. But the increase in global temps is not a normal cyclical process. It is something new. I'm not talking about NORMAL variation; I'm talking about ABNORMAL variation. If the climate were operating normally (based on the last 30 years of the 19th century), we would have seen three to five instances of 30-below temps in Oklahoma during the 20th century. We had one such occurrence (1931).

The climate can and does vary all by itself. But that's not a reason to pretend we're not the cause of the INCREASE in temps.

And one other thought: does it matter whether we're to blame or not when the resulting ecosystem collapse kills us off?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.