Copenhagen climate summit: US rules that greenhouse gases endanger human health

YOUTUBE?!? Cretin.

Well, yes. Very large majorities believe that AGW is happening.

Feel free to continue pretending to be "unbiased" by providing some alternative data.

Denying global warming is like denying the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening. It's there, and it's there to stay. The question is, how much of global warming is man-made, and how much is a natural occurance? However, I think that doesn't even matter. Money spent on lowering carbon emissions, lowering resource consumption, and increasing efficiency is money well spent. Regardless of the question if it has any effect on the climate or not. Earth's resources are not unlimited, so it's reasonable to minimize resource consumption while maximizing the effects of using those resources.
Let's take oil: it's going to run out sooner or later. When it's clear when this will be, the price of oil will skyrocket, and the prices of products that require oil will also rise drastically. You don't have to look far to see the results of industries with a lack of forethought: GM has driven itself into bankrupcy and has lost its status among the world's largest and best-equipped auto makers, while Toyota has gained more and more market share with fuel-efficient cars.
Other examples are indium or platinum. We have to use those resources wisely and efficiently, because indium will run out in the near future, and platinum will follow. So using all those resources wisely and reducing their consumption, while increasing their efficiency is not only ecological, it's economical.
We just don't have enough resources on Earth to expand our consumption. Unlimited economical growth is only possible when resource consumption is constantly reduced and made more efficient.

Didn't notice the link in my post then, retard?

Obviously thrift in anything is a virtue, but my objection is that this is being done by a small international cabal of leaders who don't necessarily even listen to their own people. These "acceptable standards" of consumtion are being set by essentiallt the nobility of the Earth telling the little people how much they'll be allowed to consume. If these measure were put to a vote, even in congress, I *might* consider supporting the notion of Copenhagen/Kyoto protocols.

And such things can be handled in the marketplace. As soon as wind/solar/nuclear energy is cheaper than oil, people will use it. Same with metals. Sooner or later, we'll invent a different component system that won't require rare metals, and failing that, we can all melt down our iPods into the component materials and reuse the paladium and irridium.

We do, however have space, the moon, mars, and so on. You don't think there could be more materials in space?

Not according to my link, which you're the third person in a row to ignore.

At this point, there will have been enough carbon released into the atmosphere to cause a massive amount of warming.

Most of those people are believers because they've been fed crap by scientists with leftist agendas and politicians with leftist agendas and media with leftist agenda.

A perfect example is this:

Of course this completely ignores the fact that male polar bears will kill cubs including their own which is why female polar bears keep all males (including the father) away from their cubs. It also ignores the fact that when a male polar bear gets the chance he will kill the cub to force the female to go into heat so he can impregnate her and continue his line instead of the father of the cub he just killed.

It also ignores the fact that Polar bears get their food from the water and actually need less ice. Too much ice or ice too thick prevents them from getting their food. It also ignores the fact that they are strong swimmers and have no problem jumping in the water to swim long distances.

So there is no cannibalism going on.

And Polar bear numbers are increasing.

Going by what Reuters wrote you'd think polar bears were starving to death thanks to global warming.

I wondered who would be the first to mention space.

How far off being able to mine resources from Mars do you think we might be?

How much do we know about what mining resources from the moon would do to the Earth-moon relationship?

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. (The number of declining populations has increased from five at the group's 2005 meeting.)

Some members of the press take advantage of the complexity by stating that "polar bears are not in trouble—their numbers have doubled since the 1960s." That's a disingenuous statement, of course. It is true that polar bear populations rebounded after over-hunting was restricted, but that situation has nothing to do with the threat polar bears now face: the loss of the sea ice habitat essential to their survival.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/[/quote]

Good job pulling the first link off google.....

You're like a trained seal for global warming. Can you play horns to?

yeah like I'm going to believe that....

People who believe in Global warming are notorious for suppressing information....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

So let's get this straight. I've given you a piece from an organisation concerned with the subject and you've given me the notorious anti-climate chnage commentator Chritopher Booker?

Good lord you fucking chav.....

Dr.Mitchell Taylor says Polar bears are not declining in numbers.

This is the guy who was barred from going to Copenhagen because of his views on global warming.

I think I'll trust this guy more then the first link off of Google that you posted.

Um. Let's summarise.
1. He does think there is a problem with polar bears in the arctic because of warming.
2. He doesn't believe in man-made climate change.

Now which of those two things were we specifically discussing. Oh yes, whether there was any threat to polar bears.

And... chav?

Hey cunto, what are you disagreeing with there? Let's hear it, if you've got it you fucking slime-brained knob jockey.

I didn't want to call you a git. That's too American.

Oh and way to totally ignore what he's saying.

Spin...spin....spin....

Who the fuck are you to be demanding explanations when you do the same fucking thing you fucking slime-brained knob jockey?

http://www.wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=1900656&postcount=6

Don't whine over rep with no comments when you don't do it yourself.

how am I ignoring what he's saying? he said:

"Yes. I’m quite worried about the future of the polar bear but not because I believe anthropogenic carbon dioxide is going to cause uni-directional climate change. I’m worried because the last ten years have seen a warming trend in the Arctic that has already impacted a couple of populations, and I don’t think we really understand the root cause for that warming yet."

that is pretty much exactly what I said he said.

No it isn't.

It's not a repwhine you flat-topped prick. It's a does-this-fucker-have-anything-interesting-to-say-or-is-he-just-a-straight-forward-wanker whine.

Well then enlighten me genius!

Yes it is cuntochav. (hey i like that.... )

You're demanding an explanation. Do you put comments in your reps? All of them? Do you rep and then post a comment in the thread itself?

Obviously you don't so shut the fuck up telling others they need to comment in either rep or the thread itself.

^ uh no. I take it no explanation of your 'point' regarding the polar bears is forthcoming?

Is it possible to enlighten a fanatic other then shooting them in the face?

No.

We, normal rational thinking people, all know you're a loon on the subject of global warming. Fifty years from now when the rest of the world is laughing at the stupidity of people like you, you will still be saying global warming is real and it's going to kill us all!!!!!!!

Fine so it goes:
1. Make a point "And polar bear numbers are increasing"

2. Have point refuted "scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision"

3. Post something that doesn't support your initial point and then refuse to explain "That has caused difficulties for at least two populations, and we know of nutritional effects in two others. Other populations don’t appear to be affected or at least are not as affected. They are still abundant and productive. So the effect has been different among the world’s 19 populations."

Just so long as I know for next time.

Point wasn't refuted but you're not capable of overcoming your addiction to a scientific fraud to understand that.



They have support groups for people like you? Perhaps we can have a charity drive if the NHS won't pay for it.

The quotes are there for you to deny point blank.

maybe you have just expressed yourself badly?

I know it's hard for you to understand how #3 totally wrecks your #2.

of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision"

difficulties for at least two populations, and we know of nutritional effects in two others. Other populations don’t appear to be affected or at least are not as affected. They are still abundant and productive. So the effect has been different among the world’s 19 populations."

And you see how that is a difference in detailed opinion. Neither supports your blanket 'THE NUMBERS ARE INCREASING' schtick.