Say good bye to Greenland!

Yeah we own that island.. for now atleast..

For the topic, denmark and EU has desided that within 2015 everything poluting has to be reduced with 15 or 20% if i remember correct.

And theres something else, i dont really remember.. it might be cars on water.. not sure

But in my opinion its already to late.
But then again, would it have happend anyways without the humans polution the planet? That is one big question i think we will not know for VERY long.

Global warming has happened on the planet for a looong time. Before humans as well. So has global cooling.

Greenland, Iceland and even Antartica had warmer climates in the past long before the industrial revolution. Global Warming, like global cooling, is a natural process. It includes many factors and most are beyond the control of humans including the biggest culprit, the sun. While I agree that a reduction of polutants in the air, the soil and water is very very important but the global warming is nothing more than bad science and a media blowing things out of proportion.

Global warming is most definitely NOT bad science, I cannot believe you think that. The planet is warming very greatly, and humans are definitely contributing gretaly to this (although there may be natural inputs as well). There is basically zero disagreement on this point. If you disagree you might as well go join the flat earth people.

Your second point though is exactly right its possible negative effects are rediculously blown out of proportion by the press and scientists. The former to sell ads, the later to make their grant proposals sound vital and important. It is not at all clear whether the net impact would be positive or negativwe, just that it would be different.

Higher sea levels would be very costly, but would mean more rainfall, which would generally be good. Some places which rely on glacial meltwater would be screwed. A lot of land in the northern hemishpere which is semi-useless now in canada and Russia would become more useful.

Anyway, if you want to be a conservative, you can make good anti-reacting to global warming arguements, no need to be an ignorant fool and pretend the science is other than it is.

I think global warming is a combination of natural factors and manmade ones that amplify the situation. The natural ones alone may not have been that bad, but when magnified by human's additions, it's not good.

That said, I expect governments to do little or nothing about it.

Sigh... I'll miss Greenland....

OMG, your right... i just read in a danish newspaper, that the G8 meating in germany. They agreed on that they will skip the reducment of population of 50% instead of 2015 to 2050.

As Thrawn2787 said, Mankind is stupid

London and many other cities are already using electric tram systems and hydrogen buses, currently the UK is on target for its pollution reduction deadline, unlike some *glares at France, Spain, Germany and Italy*.

Sigh, it seems strange that, since shunning the Kyoto agreement, Bush is only now talking about climate change, and not only that, he's actually preaching to us about it when we've all already signed the Kyoto agreement, ignorant fool.

That said, the UK took some persuading, but at least we signed in the end.

So, resorting to name calling? How about why would you consider it bad science? Because the science being used does not take into account other signs of warming in our own universe. When science only focuses on a narrow view and does not look at the big picture then that is bad science.

From the Times:
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Yes it would. But it would take several more (carp, I forget the term for ten years. O-well.) [sets of ten years] for global warming to happen. Humans are making it much worse and faster.



But some places in South America and Europe (I think like in Spain or Italy or something) would get less water. Thats where alot of America's imported food comes from too.



Your exactally right, Yarlen. You can expect the next President of the US to be democrat (just like when members of congress where being voted for. Most of them where democrat because of.... I won't metion names.)



BTW: For those of you who don't know, Earth has been in a "freak" condition for as long as humans have been around, Earth is usually alot hotter (like when the dinosaurs were around). But at this rate, humans will make it too hot for humans. And too dry in some areas, too wet in some.

New York city will be flooded, most of Florida, so will the area around Bejing. Refugees are going to be everywhere. Less land and more people = bad news.


Ironically, global warming may cause an Ice Age in Europe. That might cause World War III (just like in Battlefield 2142. But I have a feeling it would happen before that).

Time to start moving parts of the population to a new planet!   

So basically: party like there's no tommorow!

oddly enough, the kyoto agreement has many loopholes conviniently placed around European and pan-asian needs. interesting? I dont think so...
for instance, the numbers already fit many european union countries, but countries with excessive cuts needed (like america) would have to pay a penalty to... guess who? the EU.
it also means other countries (like iceland) can increase their emissions. pshhaw.

the kyoto agreement is not shunned because of its rediculous mandates. its shunned because it allows countries labeled as "developing" (*cough, china india Iraq Iran Saudi Arabia Pakistan Africa in general cough*) to be exempt from the mandates. as a result its basically demanding we tie our feet while the less developed countries get to pay drastically reduced prices for oil that they are going to burn up at a similar rate. the kyoto agreement wouldnt have accomplished much anyhow.

there are mitigating arguements, but its pretty much undeniable that we are having an effect. its only a few more decades until CO2 levels have doubled from pre-industrial levels, and for that to happen in only a bit over a century is rediculous.
but

there is a point here.
droughts and heat-waves are not symptoms of global warming, neither is an increase in hurricaines. global warming is far too slow for us to have such an acute and immediate effect.

note how lots of Florida is already technically below water, what do we do? build levees!

WW3? i dont think its ever gonna happen. But since you said it, who do you think will vs who?



Haha then we destroy that one too. But hey, there are so many planets who cares?

OMG reading SentientSchematicsofNinjas's posts are like reading the bible, they are sooo long and boring (j/k)



so are you saying that the increase of this, is just a coincident?



And when they break, all hell break loss. Ppl are just crasy to move such places, that are in the danger zone.

Hehe, Multianna, gotta be careful bringing up the bible in a funny way. Some people might get all upset....which actually will just further entertain us.

As for Schem, who do you think will fight who in WWIII? Will the Ethiopians kick Italy's ass again?

Man, Italy is one interesting country. At the start of WWI, they were allied with the Germans. They immediately switched alliances and attacked the Germans...which resulted in a humiliating Italian battlefield defeat.

At the start of WWII, they were once again allied with the Germans (man, don't those Germans ever learn?). Halfway through the war, they realize they are going to probably lose. So what do they do? They switch sides AGAIN! And AGAIN they get an immediate beat down by the Germans.

At the end of the war, Germany is cut up into zones and there is talk of turning the entire country into pasture land. Italy, however, is such a joke that the Allied powers don't even think of trying to punish them. What is the point, even the Ethiopians can put the Italians in their place if they ever decide to act up.

Haha. I don't get why people associate the Italians with the Central powers. They we with the allied powers for more of the war. In my social studies text book it said that Musolini (One or two L's?) was killed by guerrillas, and my teacher said some kids (from a different class) thought he was killed by monkey guerrillas! That would've been funny.



Prolly who ever gets it the worst vs. Africa. They need to get a better climate so, why not invade the poor afriacans? That or (sorry that I keep bring the game up, but it is plausible) Russia vs. The EU over who controlls Africa, like in Battlefield.


EDIT: Or is it two S's?

isnt it a laugh that all of the "World" wars happened in a tiny percentage of the world between a few small countries?
well, then we came in and wipped the floor...

hah, no.
you're talking about the gulf streams. yes, they could move, but it doesnt mean that there'll be an ice age, nor does it mean that battlefield 2142 will come true.

its psychology and technology. coincidences I dont believe in.

hey, at least adress the fact that it was in a hurricaine.

duh, Britain and Germany will fight, France will whine and petition endlessly, get invaded, switch sides. America will then invade, re-take and re-switch France again, Britain which was originally losing will thank their lucky stars for us (again) and we will force the Germans back into submission
sound accurate?

I dont believe in world wars, they are just a couple of countries fighting who demand the help of other countries, who dont do much except skirmish around one anothers. and then America comes in and the war ends in a few short years.

you have to admit, Italy was facing one of the greatest military forces in the world with their petite fighting force. even Russia was barely standing against Hitler's waves.
of course... nothing beats the way the French lost WWI (non-swiveling turrets??? WHAT???)

As far as I'm concerned, America and a few other countries are already fighting WW3. Whats the definition of a world war? Probably fighting something or someone around the globe. We fought Communism around the planet, and now we are fighting Terrorism around the planet. Seems like a World War to me. Plus, they way it looks now, There will be much more fighting.

there isnt one, its just a rather egotistic name for a relatively big war, fought in a continent that thinks its more than it is. there has never been a "world war" and I highly doubt there'll ever be.

that was the cold war...

I seriously doubt it. even rebels have to have a cash flow.

LOL. The Maginot Line!!

Heh, doubt all of that. The EU will likely stick together, they're already pooling military resources bit by bit. I also doubt there will be much whining and petitioning. Most laymen dont actually know the true breakdown of military power between the world powers. The EU as a force, technically have the larger military or comprable to the US atm, overshooting it by a few percentage points. People, North Americans mostly from my experience, still see them as a weak military power. They actually are not, but lack any credible deployment capability even of a small force. So, Europe getting invaded is not likely to be done, but they also wont be invading anyone . Deployment capability though, is for the large part just equipment, which can be built if someone is willing to pay, but the EU is not (so far, they prefer healthcare, education and economic reinvestment). But there is an increase annually as the EuroForce or EuroCorps, are growing. Eitherway, the ones to look out for are China. They have enough reserve funds to buy a military the size of the US and more, or will within 15 years. They'll have to anyway though, to make up for the lack of decades of training but by 2035-40, estimates have them outshooting the US in manpower, and equipment and it's possible in technology if things keep going the way they are.


A good part of the country was already being occupied by Allies by that time, I believe it was battlegroups from Canada, Britain and the US... Italy alone didn't do much facing against Hitler's waves either.

I wonder what kind of person I am , because I care more about Sim City being messed up than I do about Greenland...

The fun thing about reality is, that it doesn't care about humans.

Climate change won't stop because people deny it.

-----

Large scale change in our planets ecosystem will be bad for us humans. Our current system of agriculture is adjusted for a certain climate and won't be stable if there are large changes.

So, if we won't do anything about it (and I'm quite sure that we won't do anything or enough) we will have an increase in the average temperature overall. This will be bad news for all of us, even for the deniers, which then probably will finally accept.

And last but not least: Saying that thousands of scientists are lying or distorting the facts is quite stupid and shows little understanding how the subculture of academia works.

its my abridged version of WWII.

it really has nothing to do with the fact that its 20 different countries. (watch the sarcasm dribble!)
EU cannot be considered a consolidated fighting force, coordination is already quite funny, they fight over who gets the greenest zones, who has to pay for what etc. look at the US military, even that in all its glory, is underconsolidated. I cant see a veritable multi-nation military, its quite inviable.

China has an extensive military, but they arent going to be doing any invading either. in all laughable truth, a lot of untrained men do not an army make. simply creating a big force isnt going to be worth the money put in, and by my aptly-named large-force principle (this is a joke, I dont know the actual principle) a larger force becomes inherently harder to control due to random fluctuations in interpersonal actions. i.e. your better off with a significantly smaller force if you can control it.
and I seriously doubt military technology is something we need to worry about, of all people.

yes, but to say that there isnt significant propoganda going around is equally as bigotted.

true enough, but as all things we can adjust faster than things change.
what we should be worried about is not our agriculture, but the ambient environment.

And for whom would this propaganda be beneficial? Who gets an advantage from this?

Don't tell me it's the scientists themselves, for this would mean a conspiracy of thousands of scientists working together to mislead the public, or at least to distort the facts, which is something every good scientists hate.



Actually, no. Climate change over decades instead over millennia would be something which we would be hard pressed to cope with. It would perhaps be possible in the industrial countries, but in the 3. world, where it currently not really works, it would be even worse.