Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/27102006/323/global-warming-cost-20 -percent-gdp-british-cabinet-told.html Quote: Global warming could cost 20 percent of GDP, British cabinet told LONDON (AFP) - Lack of action by the world over climate change could cost countries up to a fifth of their gross domestic product, a former World Bank chief economist told the British cabinet, The Independent reported. Nicholas Stern told Prime Minister Tony Blair and his cabinet colleagues on Thursday, in a preview of a report he is due to deliver on Monday on the economic consequences of climate change, that it would cost the world one percent of its annual GDP to fight off global warming. Doing nothing, however, would cost between five and 20 times that amount. The contents of Stern's report, commissioned by the British finance ministry, have been kept secret since being revealed to the world's environment ministers at a conference in Mexico earlier this month. "He left no one in any doubt that doing nothing is not an option ... And he stressed that the need for action was urgent," an unnamed civil service source told the newspaper. The Independent said that the finance ministery hoped Stern's report would turn the tide of public opinion in the United States, and dispute the American government's assertion that cutting carbon emissions was bad for economic growth. "Its biggest impact could be on public opinion in America, which is like turning around a tanker," an unidentified official said to the newspaper. Meanwhile, The Financial Times reported on Friday that the report would propose a large expansion in the market for trading carbon emissions in an effort to slow the growth of emissions around the world. Big polluters would be able to cut emissions to the level of credits they held, buy new credits in the market, or earn new credits by investing in carbon-efficient technologies in developing countries. Keep saying it's a natural cycle, Bush!
While I do believe that it's a natural cycle, you can't deny that 99% surely the cycle has been skewed by humans.
Why do people always deny that it's a natural cycle? It's been proven several times. The North and South poles have switched positions several times over the course of the world's existence. Climates warm up and cool down. Plus, Global Warming has yet to be widely accepted by scientists. Last I knew, most scientists didn't believe in Global Warming.
It is like my father said, you can sit down all the scientists who do believe in Global Warming and none of them would even agree with each other. The whole "Global Warming" thing is just stupid.
j_ball430 wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 15:47 Why do people always deny that it's a natural cycle? It's been proven several times. The North and South poles have switched positions several times over the course of the world's existence. Climates warm up and cool down. Plus, Global Warming has yet to be widely accepted by scientists. Last I knew, most scientists didn't believe in Global Warming. Yup, keep saying that! As long as not all scientists agree we must just take the chance and hope the ones saying it will not happen are right! And if they aren't... oh well, we took the shot. You're playing Russian roulette.
Goztow: Dave Anderson It is like my father said, you can sit down all the scientists who do believe in Global Warming and none of them would even agree with each other. The whole "Global Warming" thing is just stupid. Sure, taking precautions wouldn't hurt anything if Global Warming is just bullshit. However, dumping taxpayer money into research and other advances is a waste of money when something isn't proven.
And if/when they do prove it, everyone will wish they had put more money into it sooner... any word on how long before we can terraform mars so we have somewhere to go once we have fucked up this planet?
Conspiracy Theory Alert: Whose to say that Earth wasn't already the back-up planet to our ecological distruction of Mars?
warranto wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 13:01 Conspiracy Theory Alert: Whose to say that Earth wasn't already the back-up planet to our ecological distruction of Mars? Thats awsome. Post count= +1
j_ball430 wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 17:22 Goztow: Dave Anderson It is like my father said, you can sit down all the scientists who do believe in Global Warming and none of them would even agree with each other. The whole "Global Warming" thing is just stupid. Sure, taking precautions wouldn't hurt anything if Global Warming is just bullshit. However, dumping taxpayer money into research and other advances is a waste of money when something isn't proven. How is taking care of the environment ever a waste of money? Even if it wouldn't do a thing to global warming, it would at least make the air you breath a bit purer, hence less deseases, hence less health care, hence less money wasted on that. You knew that health care is the biggest part of most government's budget? The ROI is positive in the long run, no matter how you turn it.
It doesn't matter, it's a natural event. There is nothing that can be done about it, so we should sit here and do nothing. The same can be said for any natural "thing", be it disease, rain, flooding, wind. Why bother putting research into preventing something (or at least lessening the impact of it)that will just happen anyways?
j_ball430 wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 09:47 Why do people always deny that it's a natural cycle? I swear you somtimes argue just to hear yourself talk.
Until more scientists agree upon it, my opinion stands.
Which credible scientists don't believe in it?
Oh and. "Most scientists believe that humans and their machines are mainly responsible for the 1.4 degree Fahrenheit rise in the world's average temperature in the last 100 years. Most Americans think otherwise. Last Wednesday, a group of 18 climate scientists, including two Nobel Prize winners, submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court declaring that they're 99 percent certain that "greenhouse gas emissions from human activities cause global climate change, endangering human health and welfare." Work time.
j_ball430 wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 10:22 ...dumping taxpayer money into research and other advances is a waste of money when something isn't proven. I'm not getting into the debate, but I was just wondering: how else do you prove something other than dumping money into research?
SpyGuy246 wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 18:13 j_ball430 wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 10:22 ...dumping taxpayer money into research and other advances is a waste of money when something isn't proven. I'm not getting into the debate, but I was just wondering: how else do you prove something other than dumping money into research? There's a reason why I added "taxpayer" in front of that.
Steven Wright It's like my dad said, "If worse comes to worse, we're all screwed".
So if they don't use taxpayer money, what money will they use? It's not like people donate money to the NSF.
warranto wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 16:04 It doesn't matter, it's a natural event. There is nothing that can be done about it, so we should sit here and do nothing. The same can be said for any natural "thing", be it disease, rain, flooding, wind. Why bother putting research into preventing something (or at least lessening the impact of it)that will just happen anyways? Nothing that cant be done about it`?... thats just fucking stupid. You can stop flooding if you build sea defences but as sea defences cost alot of money and the idiots building them never build them high enough or good enough they fail like what happend to that yank city... When you build shit you pay for it in the end.
warranto wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 17:04 It doesn't matter, it's a natural event. There is nothing that can be done about it, so we should sit here and do nothing. The same can be said for any natural "thing", be it disease, rain, flooding, wind. Why bother putting research into preventing something (or at least lessening the impact of it)that will just happen anyways? Reducing the massive amounts of crap we pump into the atmosphere would be a start. People don't realize that money won't matter if we don't have a planet that can support human life.
Quote: The same can be said for any natural "thing", be it disease, rain, flooding, wind. Why bother putting research into preventing something (or at least lessening the impact of it)that will just happen anyways? If disease is a natural cycle, then why the hell are we putting all that tax payer's money into AIDS research?
Goztow wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 15:06 j_ball430 wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 15:47 Why do people always deny that it's a natural cycle? It's been proven several times. The North and South poles have switched positions several times over the course of the world's existence. Climates warm up and cool down. Plus, Global Warming has yet to be widely accepted by scientists. Last I knew, most scientists didn't believe in Global Warming. Yup, keep saying that! As long as not all scientists agree we must just take the chance and hope the ones saying it will not happen are right! And if they aren't... oh well, we took the shot. You're playing Russian roulette. we suvived the last ice age. we are easily capible of suviving this one.
help-linux wrote on Tue, 31 October 2006 13:33 Goztow wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 15:06 j_ball430 wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 15:47 Why do people always deny that it's a natural cycle? It's been proven several times. The North and South poles have switched positions several times over the course of the world's existence. Climates warm up and cool down. Plus, Global Warming has yet to be widely accepted by scientists. Last I knew, most scientists didn't believe in Global Warming. Yup, keep saying that! As long as not all scientists agree we must just take the chance and hope the ones saying it will not happen are right! And if they aren't... oh well, we took the shot. You're playing Russian roulette. we suvived the last ice age. we are easily capible of suviving this one. We also survived the world wars, that doesn't mean we don't need to do everything we can to stop it from happening again!
Goztow wrote on Tue, 31 October 2006 07:53 help-linux wrote on Tue, 31 October 2006 13:33 Goztow wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 15:06 j_ball430 wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 15:47 Why do people always deny that it's a natural cycle? It's been proven several times. The North and South poles have switched positions several times over the course of the world's existence. Climates warm up and cool down. Plus, Global Warming has yet to be widely accepted by scientists. Last I knew, most scientists didn't believe in Global Warming. Yup, keep saying that! As long as not all scientists agree we must just take the chance and hope the ones saying it will not happen are right! And if they aren't... oh well, we took the shot. You're playing Russian roulette. we suvived the last ice age. we are easily capible of suviving this one. We also survived the world wars, that doesn't mean we don't need to do everything we can to stop it from happening again! Indeed, if we put enough money into stopping this, we can save our world, but I fear that mankind is too stupid and slow... so much talking and little action...
To quote all those who quotes me, and attempted to prove me wrong: Thank you! That's exactly the point I was trying to prove. I just went about it in a way that others would "discover" it, rather than me just pointing it out.
Money is expandable, Earth isn't. (EDIT: I'm not sure if expandable is the right word/term :\)
IWarriors wrote on Tue, 31 October 2006 15:07 Goztow wrote on Tue, 31 October 2006 07:53 help-linux wrote on Tue, 31 October 2006 13:33 Goztow wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 15:06 j_ball430 wrote on Mon, 30 October 2006 15:47 Why do people always deny that it's a natural cycle? It's been proven several times. The North and South poles have switched positions several times over the course of the world's existence. Climates warm up and cool down. Plus, Global Warming has yet to be widely accepted by scientists. Last I knew, most scientists didn't believe in Global Warming. Yup, keep saying that! As long as not all scientists agree we must just take the chance and hope the ones saying it will not happen are right! And if they aren't... oh well, we took the shot. You're playing Russian roulette. we suvived the last ice age. we are easily capible of suviving this one. We also survived the world wars, that doesn't mean we don't need to do everything we can to stop it from happening again! Indeed, if we put enough money into stopping this, we can save our world, but I fear that mankind is too stupid and slow... so much talking and little action... ah, but milions died in each war. it be like that in the ace age.
worse case scenario is, that events have already been put into motion, that make ice age inevitable. so instead of trying to prevent it, why dont we prepare for it; to hopefully lower death counts.
the17doctor wrote on Thu, 02 November 2006 17:09 worse case scenario is, that events have already been put into motion, that make ice age inevitable. so instead of trying to prevent it, why dont we prepare for it; to hopefully lower death counts. I think if we put our minds and technologry to it, maybe we could stop the ice age, I have no douths that in a few 1000 years, we have would have taimed our world.
You can not prevent mother natures wrath. Ever.
Dave Anderson wrote on Fri, 03 November 2006 20:51 You can not prevent mother natures wrath. Ever. Of cause you can, only human knownage holds us back. People said, you couldnt fly and that if you went faster then 100mph, you would die.. they was proven wrong. You say we cant, but history will always prove you wrong in the end. To think otherwise is small minded.
You can prevent massive damage from mother nature, yes. You can prevent harm done to you by mother nature, yes. You can prevent buildings from being destroyed by mother nature, yes. But you can not prevent from mother nature creating things like tornado's, hurricanes, title waves, etc. The day humanity can control nature is the day humanity decides to play God. Do I believe humanity can do it? Maybe, I guess it is possible. Do I think humanity will do it? No. Humanity will have destroyed itself by the time it we discover anything remotely close to manipulating nature.
If we can break it, we can fix it. Or we should be able to .
Dave Anderson wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 01:08 You can prevent massive damage from mother nature, yes. You can prevent harm done to you by mother nature, yes. You can prevent buildings from being destroyed by mother nature, yes. But you can not prevent from mother nature creating things like tornado's, hurricanes, title waves, etc. The day humanity can control nature is the day humanity decides to play God. Do I believe humanity can do it? Maybe, I guess it is possible. Do I think humanity will do it? No. Humanity will have destroyed itself by the time it we discover anything remotely close to manipulating nature. Thats a good reply and am in a way gotta agree with most of that. I think in time you can do anything... but with so much shit in the world... it be a very long and painful road.
IWarriors wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 06:55 Dave Anderson wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 01:08 You can prevent massive damage from mother nature, yes. You can prevent harm done to you by mother nature, yes. You can prevent buildings from being destroyed by mother nature, yes. But you can not prevent from mother nature creating things like tornado's, hurricanes, title waves, etc. The day humanity can control nature is the day humanity decides to play God. Do I believe humanity can do it? Maybe, I guess it is possible. Do I think humanity will do it? No. Humanity will have destroyed itself by the time it we discover anything remotely close to manipulating nature. Thats a good reply and am in a way gotta agree with most of that. I think in time you can do anything... but with so much shit in the world... it be a very long and painful road. It is rather unfortunate that humanity will not make it to see those days, in my opinion. The manipulating nature thing brings up another good topic as well. "Imagine what humanity would use nature for if we really could manipulate it". Aside, to backup my opinion, I personally think we will run out of resources or be so devastated from war that we won't have the money or technology for those kinds of things anymore.
Dave Anderson wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 01:08 You can prevent massive damage from mother nature, yes. You can prevent harm done to you by mother nature, yes. You can prevent buildings from being destroyed by mother nature, yes. But you can not prevent from mother nature creating things like tornado's, hurricanes, title waves, etc. The day humanity can control nature is the day humanity decides to play God. Do I believe humanity can do it? Maybe, I guess it is possible. Do I think humanity will do it? No. Humanity will have destroyed itself by the time it we discover anything remotely close to manipulating nature. What would controlling nature have to do with "playing god"? God doesn't control nature...You know that, right?
Actually I don't, because there are no references in the Bible directly saying that God does, or does not control nature. (As far as I have read, anyway. I do not want to get into a religious discussion about that either). My personal opinion is that he does not, but what I meant by humanity "playing God" was by humanity manipulating something that God created, like cloning or toying with DNA.
Dave Anderson wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 10:30 Actually I don't, because there are no references in the Bible directly saying that God does, or does not control nature. (As far as I have read, anyway. I do not want to get into a religious discussion about that either). My personal opinion is that he does not, but what I meant by humanity "playing God" was by humanity manipulating something that God created, like cloning or toying with DNA. NOTE THE USE OF THE SUBJUNCTIVE INDICATING A CONDITION CONTRARY TO FACT.
And this is why I usually don't post in response to topics like this. There is always someone posting a useless response trying to prove something that doesn't matter. Unless it is someone like JBall, I like getting into discussions with him.
Dave Anderson wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 07:52 IWarriors wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 06:55 Dave Anderson wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 01:08 You can prevent massive damage from mother nature, yes. You can prevent harm done to you by mother nature, yes. You can prevent buildings from being destroyed by mother nature, yes. But you can not prevent from mother nature creating things like tornado's, hurricanes, title waves, etc. The day humanity can control nature is the day humanity decides to play God. Do I believe humanity can do it? Maybe, I guess it is possible. Do I think humanity will do it? No. Humanity will have destroyed itself by the time it we discover anything remotely close to manipulating nature. Thats a good reply and am in a way gotta agree with most of that. I think in time you can do anything... but with so much shit in the world... it be a very long and painful road. It is rather unfortunate that humanity will not make it to see those days, in my opinion. The manipulating nature thing brings up another good topic as well. "Imagine what humanity would use nature for if we really could manipulate it". Aside, to backup my opinion, I personally think we will run out of resources or be so devastated from war that we won't have the money or technology for those kinds of things anymore. We will run out of the old resources, but new ones are always being designed, for power we can use the sea or the wind, nucler power stations, the list is endless. I think old Earth has enough resources to last for a very long time, enough and more to land on mars and start living there etc. Am sure we find a way to live, humans have shown time after time we are good at adapting to where we live.
I think it it would be the most neat thing in the universe to see people being able to live on Mars. Some day Earth is going to run out of room for everyone, I mean, we can only build structures so high, and then we will have to start looking into other areas of living area. Under sea? Other planets? Underground? You brought up a good point of view there. And yeah, I do agree that we will use up the old resources and develop new ones. Hopefully though, the new resources developed in the future can do us the same good as the resources we have now. As to humans adapting to their environment, evolution theories are going to go berserk.
Dave Anderson wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 16:07 I think it it would be the most neat thing in the universe to see people being able to live on Mars. Some day Earth is going to run out of room for everyone, I mean, we can only build structures so high, and then we will have to start looking into other areas of living area. Under sea? Other planets? Underground? You brought up a good point of view there. And yeah, I do agree that we will use up the old resources and develop new ones. Hopefully though, the new resources developed in the future can do us the same good as the resources we have now. As to humans adapting to their environment, evolution theories are going to go berserk. Well most scientists agree that human kind must expand and explore to survice, if we stay on Earth we will die, we must move out and live on other worlds if the human race is gonna live. One day we do but not in our live times, though I would like to see man land on mars for the first time, Nasa wants to do that in the next 20-30 years I heard?
No idea on that one. I would hope to see that too, though.
Dave Anderson wrote on Sun, 05 November 2006 17:53 No idea on that one. I would hope to see that too, though. If these forums are still here when that happens and I hope they are, cause renegade is the pwnage... I can just see now the fights we will have weaher was the mars landing a hoax... lol
I'm a scientist and I think Global Warming is complete croc. Then again I guess I could be classified as anti-enviroment but based on current eveidence I would say that spending money on preventing global warming is throwing money away.
A caldera in Yellowstone National Park could blow away everything in a 500 mile radius too. You people worry too much.
Have Generations before us bothered with Global warming and tried to fix it? NO! Are Generations after us likely to fix it? No! Live life and enjoy it while you can. Scientists and Politicians can make any figure tell lies. They just have never seen it happening and cannot explain it so it has to be "Global Warming" caused by us, you and me. Its never caused by the larger companies because they will tell them where to go as a shutdown or reduction in output will make a decline in that companies wealth.
Don't worry about global warming, I have good faith in Korea, i'm sure they will cure the problem with nuclear winter. =P
Reborn wrote on Wed, 08 November 2006 08:07 Don't worry about global warming, I have good faith in Korea, i'm sure they will cure the problem with nuclear winter. =P Good point but they lack the long range missiles to hit anything worth hitting.
We will all be dead because of World War 3 or the Nuclear War.
Ooh, ooh, I wanna contribute!
Bump Interesting topic (once again) about Global Warming. http://www.livescience.com/environment_ap_clouds_warming.html
Global Dimming is another issue, Global Dimming is helping us by reflecting 10% of the sunlight back out, therefore making it less warmer (or hotter.. whichever one you prefer) on this planet. But it has it's own problems as well, such as polluted rain, and less rainfall (cause rainfall needs sun for it to rain, don't know why, I saw a movie on it)
Quote: Global Dimming is another issue, Global Dimming is helping us by reflecting 10% of the sunlight back out, therefore making it less warmer (or hotter.. whichever one you prefer) on this planet. But it has it's own problems as well, such as polluted rain, and less rainfall (cause rainfall needs sun for it to rain, don't know why, I saw a movie on it) Yeah, the moisture on things evaporates. Becomes cloud. And when there is a big enough build up of moisture on a certain point it will begin to rain. Without heat from sun rays it would slow the evaporation rate down.
We are all going to die one way or another. Cause of the approaches we can take to reduce Global Warming or Global Dimming will kill us. Don't forget, 3 Billion years ago, the average temperature was hotter then, then it is now. So I am trying to figure out, how did the heat die down when it was so hot. Maybe the movie "The Day After Tomorow" has some tight proof of how the planet can cool itself down without global dimming. We better find life on Mars, or else we are done for. P.S., if there are clouds on Mars, then it must mean there is water there?
SeargentSarg wrote on Tue, 28 November 2006 14:26 Global Dimming is another issue, Global Dimming is helping us by reflecting 10% of the sunlight back out, therefore making it less warmer (or hotter.. whichever one you prefer) on this planet. But it has it's own problems as well, such as polluted rain, and less rainfall (cause rainfall needs sun for it to rain, don't know why, I saw a movie on it)
U927 wrote on Sun, 12 November 2006 00:03 Ooh, ooh, I wanna contribute! Me and the other 16 Pirates are very sorry that we couldn't have done more
If only Internet pirates were counted in those statistics...
Goztow wrote on Sun, 03 December 2006 04:38 If only Internet pirates were counted in those statistics... Leave my programmer out of this!
My Two Cents... I DO beleive in Global warming-but I beleive its not as big as some people say it is. I think some people really over do it on the "WE'RE GOING TO DIE IF WE DON'T STOP!!". My other opinion here is that people are spending WAYY to much time saying "HERE IT COMES" then "How can we fix it?" Instead of pointing the finger-if we're really going to worry bout it, then we should at the very least fine some type of way to fix it!
If evolution is true then maybe global warming is the next phase of evolution and we should embrace it, not fear it. If creation is true, which is what I believe, then the resources on this planet were put here for us to use.
They found frozen water in 2000 on mars. But latly evidence I think it was in the news last week showed a flowing river with water. As for people who think Mars will be impossible.. well, along time ago the earth wasnt a hostile place to be so who knows
One day, I seriously think we will be on Mars, and using its resources.
Conspiracy theory: I think you mean returning to Mars once things have settled enough that we can live there again!
warranto wrote on Thu, 14 December 2006 15:35 Conspiracy theory: I think you mean returning to Mars once things have settled enough that we can live there again! and to back up your theory. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/rocks_fromspace_991108.html
What do you mean once Mars settles? What wrong with it?
Heh, I didn't intend for this to get into a serious discussion. I was referencing the idea that the reason there is evidence of water and rivers is that it was once habitable, and "we" ruined it, causing it to get into the state it is now. By settling, I mean acquiring the ability to sustain life (even by assisted means)