We are in trouble

I suppose it would depend on what they said.

"Gee, it's getting cold and I had to turn the electric blanket up a notch".

 

Is Merkl anti-climate change?

 

Bush: "And finally, we had a meaningful and long discussion on climate change. And once again I assured Angela that I care deeply about the issue; that the United States is willing to be an active participant and try to come up with solutions that bring comfort to people around the world; that it is possible to have the technologies necessary to deal with this issue without ruining our economies. It's hard to deal with the climate change issue if you're broke. It's easier to deal with the climate change issue if you've got the revenues and finances that enable you to invest in new technologies that will change how we live, and at the same time enable us to grow our economies, and at the same time enable us to be good stewards of the environment."

Merkel: "We then obviously also discussed the issue of the upcoming climate conference in Bali. And I think that this is a very good chance of turning this conference into a success. There are a lot of things where the U.S. and the European Union share views, where we are at one, and where I think that possibilities for cooperation may unfold. There are still — there are also areas where we do not completely agree yet, where there are differences of opinion, but I think that this is a very crucial time to really set the agenda for a post-Kyoto regime. And we do hope and we will do everything we can in order to turn this conference in Indonesia into a success."

Text of Bush and Merkel's remarks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 10 2007, 10:56 PM) [snapback]537889[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

 

What is the problem with the dialog? It looks like its being at least somewhat productive.

 

My problem with the dialog is Bush mentions "growing" our economies. I do not like that word growth when he uses it. Everytime I've heard him use it, it invloves natural resource depletion. I wonder what is going to happen when everyone wakes up and realizes that our consumption rates put a permanent cap on the level of comfort and security the rest of the world can accomplish. IE, those in developing countries will never live as we do because we are using THEIR resources to support our lifestyles. Add more people via exponential population growth and you only exacerbate the problem. Sure the planet can support another 2 billion humans, but what about the 2 billion that are already below the poverty line and living off of less than $2 per/day and do not have access to clean drinking water and sanitation? Grow our economies indeed. Maybe we should be thinking in terms of sustainable economies of scale.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Nov 11 2007, 12:01 AM) [snapback]537932[/snapback]</div>

True. It's a much better dialog than what we saw in his father regarding Al Gore.

"This guy is so far out in the environmental extreme, we'll be up to our neck in owls and out of work for every American. He is way out, far out, man." - George Bush 1992

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 11 2007, 12:40 PM) [snapback]537962[/snapback]</div>

This is what I hear:

"We'll support programs dealing with global warming as long as we don't have to change and it doesn't cost anything."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 11 2007, 01:06 PM) [snapback]537978[/snapback]</div>

yeah that's what i heard also..









_____________________________
guys i'm looking for BMW Spoiler, BMW Car Cover and BMW Radiator Hose.

 

I guess the way Im starting to careless about GW, with all the hyper-active people going on & on about it. Hell I should be dead by the time it may or may not affect the planet....... Soooooo I guess who cares..
Ive looked into the topic one side says its real and its our fault / one side says its real but its just a normal cycle that the planet is going through... and both side say the other is wrong... I say I could care less at this point.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 13 2007, 09:28 AM) [snapback]538942[/snapback]</div>

I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cheminee @ Nov 10 2007, 07:51 PM) [snapback]537865[/snapback]</div>

trouble?? or is it just political pandering??

i think the latter. then again what would prompt this stance?

how about good old Al Gore?

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2007/11/gore_qa

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 13 2007, 12:28 PM) [snapback]538942[/snapback]</div>

That's the problem...no one is sure...or at least they can tell you they know for sure but wouldn't be truthful at that point!

 

"Just an example: One doctor says you have developed a disease, and in fact you are showing minor symptoms of this disease. The doctor says you can start treatment that will halt the progress of this disease through your body. But the treatment is expensive.

You go to another doctor who says he is not sure you have a disease. It could be just stress, or diet related. Maybe it's just you are reaching a certian age. He says you should just wait and see if it gets any worse because the treatment costs so much and you wouldn't want to waste your money.

One year later, your symptoms have turned very major, so you go back to the first doctor to begin treatment. He examines you, and tells you that it is too late- the disease has spread throughout your entire body now, and the treatment will not be of any help. It is simply too late.....

What's the moral of this story?"

Well isn't that a nice analogy which can be used for a whole bunch of situations -- I don't think it is relevant to this one as warming is unlikely to "kill" us down the road. If you insist on using that analogy, then we better start putting in a whole lot more money and effort into stopping an asteroid from hitting the Earth, because that event is only a matter of time...5 years, 15 years, 150 years, 1500 years...no one is sure.

The fact of the matter is the Earth appears to be in a warming trend. What is the cause? Is the primary cause mankind? Is it a natural progression of the Earth's warming and cooling cycles? Is there one primary cause or is it a lot of little things adding up? No one knows for sure.

If you take the advice of people who believe this is a global calamity waiting to happen, then you need to significantly reduce the economic activity of the entire world. People need to fly less, drive less, buy carbon credits, we need less oil and coal plants, but we can't have nuclear either. Some would argue that there is a political agenda in all of this, I'm not sure I agree with that, but I can understand the arguement.

Technology, like hybrids and other alternative fuels are what we need to move to because they solve a 2 fold problem. If there is a man made global warming problem, then it goes to addressing that issue. However, the more pressing issue in terms of a threat is the limited amount of natural resources we do have and our dependance on Middle East oil. That is a much greater threat to global economic stability and national security for nearly every nation on the planet.

My primary reason for driving a Prius is because we need to reduce our dependance on oil -- it is also an added bonus that it a better car for the environment.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Washington1788 @ Nov 14 2007, 08:33 AM) [snapback]539467[/snapback]</div>

Your anlogy doesn't work because like many economists, you did not include all of the other degredation that goes along with "growing an economy" in the traditional (current) way. Reducing oil consumption is one arguement but what about all of the other effects of our economy on the natural world and the trillions of dollars of other resources on which we depend and cannot furnish ourselves? I'm not slamming your whole reply because I do agree with it in some terms but for others my point is a very important one. You cannot solve 11 out of 12 problems and expect everything to be ok.

On this point, I just read a paper (Le Quere, C. 2007) on CO2 uptake in oceans and how they think that we may be reaching the equilibrium threshold much sooner than expected and the ocean will go from being a net CO2 sink to a CO2 source. If this were to occur it will produce even more CO2 than it already does and futher force the climate in a warmer direction. I still need to work this through in my head to see how Henry's Law will apply but this seems like it would be a really nasty positive feedback loop. HERE is a blub on the subject from RealClimate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Washington1788 @ Nov 14 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]539405[/snapback]</div>

Thank you, I rest my case.... But there are others on PC who will say its all true, they are known as Sheeple. They choose to have the mind set that if your not of the same party or belief system they are, then your wrong....

I heard it said the sky was supposed to fall due to humans pumping their poisons into the air.....

I do believe in reducing the amount of emissions examples: LA, NY, smog related.

But to say that hair spray or freon caused the hole in the ozone layer?.. :blink: :huh: :lol:

People laugh at those who beleive in GOD, and how silly the idea sounds (well mirror please) I think 80% here take it to the extreme and it falls back on a FEAR based topic that sounds too real and could very well become a reality. It still seems like the issue is mostly a natural occuring event. (but those that may think this way are the blind ones)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cheminee @ Nov 14 2007, 11:29 AM) [snapback]539414[/snapback]</div>

The moral is progress!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 14 2007, 09:03 AM) [snapback]539486[/snapback]</div>

When was the last time you took chemistry?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 14 2007, 01:08 PM) [snapback]539490[/snapback]</div>

Hmm back in 1987 it was..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 14 2007, 09:17 AM) [snapback]539493[/snapback]</div>

LOL, that was awesome.

Here is basic view of how the reactions take place "ARTICLE".