[whmurray]

Those 2 don't have to contradict each other..
You can have a clean environment AND more people, problem is people in general choose the easy way, which is normaly the not enviromentally friendly one..

Perhaps. However, my reading of history suggests that wealthy people and wealthy societies have more choices than the poor. Indeed, I think that is true by the definitions of wealth and poverty. As civilization has grown and matured, become wealthier and more sophisticated, we have both choices and the knowledge to make them that more primitive societies did not have. That is another way of saying that I believe wealthy societies make more responsible choices than poor ones.

For example, the birth rates at the end of the twentieth century are dramatically lower than at the beginning. Birth rates are lower in cities than in the country and lower in industrial societies than in agrarian ones. Demographers believe that by the middle of the century, population will peak and begin to decline.

What we call civilization is a measure of wealth. Cities are wealth and wealth is required to live in them. In the year 2000, for the first time in the history of the world, the number of people living in cities equalled the number living on the land.

It is my expectation that in the 21st century we will exploit computers and networks of computers, automation and robots, communications, nanotechnology, biotech, and other technologies not yet dreamed of, to become so wealthy that we will have more choices and make them better.

[ToolkiT]

"but you allready know that didnt you?

As for your knowledge of socialism, you clearly mix up communism and socialism."


I will repeat - what was written in that post was NOT MY TAKE ON SOCIALISM, it was PART of a news article which I didn't author - simply quoted. you are making comments regarding THAT author's view on socialism, not mine. shouldn't you see this simply by looking at the title and author of the quote therein?

the point of quoting this article was to centrally highlight the fact that global warming is mere speculation, not a conclusion based upon sound scientific proof.
period.

My appologies, it wasnt clear which bit was a quote and which was your..
So it is not you who is clueless, it is that author

[ToolkiT]

" gun-toting cowboys?"

- toolkit

I guess most of those non-americans are pretty ignorant, aren't they?

just when you think you've seen it all...unreal. this is a MOD talking folks!

Yes they are ignorant... just as your (authors) remark was.. that was the point
And this is ToolkiT the user speaking, not the Mod... but I'm starting to repeat myself here...

[ToolkiT]

Perhaps. However, my reading of history suggests that wealthy people and wealthy societies have more choices than the poor. Indeed, I think that is true by the definitions of wealth and poverty. As civilization has grown and matured, become wealthier and more sophisticated, we have both choices and the knowledge to make them that more primitive societies did not have. That is another way of saying that I believe wealthy societies make more responsible choices than poor ones.

For example, the birth rates at the end of the twentieth century are dramatically lower than at the beginning. Birth rates are lower in cities than in the country and lower in industrial societies than in agrarian ones. Demographers believe that by the middle of the century, population will peak and begin to decline.

What we call civilization is a measure of wealth. Cities are wealth and wealth is required to live in them. In the year 2000, for the first time in the history of the world, the number of people living in cities equalled the number living on the land.

It is my expectation that in the 21st century we will exploit computers and networks of computers, automation and robots, communications, nanotechnology, biotech, and other technologies not yet dreamed of, to become so wealthy that we will have more choices and make them better.

For all our futures childrens sake I hope you are right...

[treobk214]

"Yes they are ignorant... just as your (authors) remark was.. that was the point "

equally as ignorant is the claim that man is accountable for global warming! Im starting to repeat myself here as well.
I like how you divert attention AWAY from the topic of focus which is, may I remind you toolkit, ahem, the user, GLOBAL WARMING. not socialism.
you're confusing the issues of real importance here, aren't you?
ignorance is making false claims based on total lack of empirical evidence to support any conclusion.

the REAL example of ignorance here is the claim that global warming is our fault. a more subtle example is to confuse one person's understanding of socialism with anothers - especially when its obvious who the author is.

[clairegrrl]

So you agree with me. Cool.

We already have everything you want...I guess the lack of animals, glaciers and trees can be overcome by looking at pictures in books, but it isnt quite the same

[ToolkiT]

"Yes they are ignorant... just as your (authors) remark was.. that was the point "

equally as ignorant is the claim that man is accountable for global warming! Im starting to repeat myself here as well.
I like how you divert attention AWAY from the topic of focus which is, may I remind you toolkit, ahem, the user, GLOBAL WARMING. not socialism..

Ok once again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

Even the Bush gov. admits man-made pollution is largely to blame for global warming, if the experts agree, what makes you think otherwise?

And can I remind you that YOU introduced the socialism off topicness in this topic.

[Schmoozer]

We already have everything you want...I guess the lack of animals, glaciers and trees can be overcome by looking at pictures in books, but it isnt quite the same

Perhaps the question is how to preserve what we already have. Some beautiful existing landscapes could be changed over time due to global warming.

[treobk214]

"Even the Bush gov. admits man-made pollution is largely to blame for global warming, if the experts agree, what makes you think otherwise?

the MANY sources I've posted here earlier, toolkit, would tend to help influence my thinking otherwise.
did you not read them? maybe you should.
I will repeat AGAIN. the article posted highlighted the central focus of the dicussion - global warming and the lack of scientific proof supporting claims that we are directly responsible for it.
the tangential mention of socialism was part of the article, which YOU chose to emphasize. we are not arguing about socialism and who understands it, we are talking about the fact that global warming is speculation, toolkit. how many different ways do I have to paint this picture for you?

you chose to make the comments about socialism. the topic is global warming!

this was YOUR call, toolkit, not mine. read the other links, toolkit, you'll find other explanations for why this claim is bogus.
you're stuck on this whole argument on socialism though so I doubt you'll check into it.

[ToolkiT]

do you mean your aliens and evil socialist cause global warming stories are more convincing than than a 268-page report submitted to the United Nations, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)?

[treobk214]

show me, toolkit, where in that 268 page report to the "UNITED NATIONS" ( the very mention of this group severely discredits the issue) that scientific evidence PROVES, toolkit, NOT SPECULATES, that mankind is ENTIRELY accountable!

find me the evidence in this report to the "UN", that there is irrefutable evidence. then we'll talk. deal?

[ToolkiT]

show me, toolkit, where in that 268 page report to the "UNITED NATIONS" ( the very mention of this group severely discredits the issue) that scientific evidence PROVES, toolkit, NOT SPECULATES, that mankind is ENTIRELY accountable!

find me the evidence in this report to the "UN", that there is irrefutable evidence. then we'll talk. deal?

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...ent/index.html

[clairegrrl]

Some beautiful existing landscapes could be changed over time due to global warming.

And maybe they wont.. Earlier in the thread we talked about events that happened millions of years ago...what time frame are you thinking about?

[clairegrrl]

how many different ways do I have to paint this picture for you?

I brought the paint and brushes

[ToolkiT]

very mature clairegrll

[clairegrrl]

what...that painting idea??

[treobk214]

What's Likely but not Certain?
Figuring out to what extent the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times is responsible for the global warming trend is not easy. This is because other factors, both natural and human, affect our planet's temperature. Scientific understanding of these other factors – most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols – remains incomplete.

toolkit, that very site states that the proof is not 100% possible.
what else can I say? while we can certainly do what we can regarding the environment, there is no absolute proof that it is enitirely our issue.

[ToolkiT]

What's Likely but not Certain?
Figuring out to what extent the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times is responsible for the global warming trend is not easy. This is because other factors, both natural and human, affect our planet's temperature. Scientific understanding of these other factors – most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols – remains incomplete.

toolkit, that very site states that the proof is not 100% possible.
what else can I say? while we can certainly do what we can regarding the environment, there is no absolute proof that it is enitirely our issue.

Finally you are starting to talk resonable things. And yes there are other factors who make this thing a very complex issue indeed.
I haven't found the report the EPA submitted to the UN yet (not sure if it is available online at all)
But judging by the article (which I btw find a lot more trustworthy than the links you provided) it seems they discovered some more evidence to what most scientist allready were claiming..
Sure there is a small chance they are all wrong, but for now I take it they are on the right track.

[clulup]

Read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. It is just possible that someone is yanking your chain. You may wish to let go of the chain.

Please, whmurray, don't make a fool out of yourself by pretending that you derive your knowledge of the world from novels.

Let me guess: you oppose genetic engineering because you learned from Jurassic Park that genetic engineers make dinosaurs...

[Schmoozer]

And maybe they wont.. Earlier in the thread we talked about events that happened millions of years ago...what time frame are you thinking about?

I obviously do not have a time frame, but my hunch is that global warming speeds up the erosion process.