It's no doubt that things like coal technology leave a lot to be desired in China, but it has sped up renewable energy programs for a number of years. Statistics in 2005 showed that out of $38 billion spent in renewable energy development worldwide, China led the way with $6 billion investment, excluding spending on its large hydropower projects. On average, China's renewable energy development is growing at an annual rate of 25 percent over the past few years. Renewable energy is expected to account for 16 percent of China’s total energy supply by 2020, up from 7 percent in 2005.
lol. Ozone holes are primarily caused by ODS's such as CFCs. Not traditional carbon emissions. For the sake of argument though: OZONE HOLS: DOIN QUITE WELL, AKSHUALLY
I won't commit to arguing this. The IPCC and most every major study I can think of disputes your assertion, but from a policy standpoint it's immaterial. Highly likely.
1. Not sure i understand this. Why would the degree of contribution to the problem by man be immaterial to policy? I'm thinking if natural forces are so overwhelmingly causing the warming then our policies become irrelevant. Where am I missing it? 2. Highly likely is highly depressing. And if that's the case, then doesn't THAT affect policy? If the best minds are telling us it's inevitable, what are we saving?
I was going to make the same point but to follow. The PRC are very aware of the potential problems of Global Warming and they are experiencing many of the problems regarding a heavily coal dependent energy infrastructure right now. That is why they have taken the lead in renewable and low emmission technology.
From the standpoints aforementioned regarding cleaner air, less environmental destruction, better health, etc. They are not.
The diminishing of the Ozone layer has been slowed and is possibly being repaired because things like CFC's and other long lasting ozone destructive compounds have been phased out. Its precisely that we were afraid of what might happen if the Ozone layer was signifigantly degraded why things are better now.
And we acted by banning most CFCs, using an international approach. It worked. Anyone wanna draw the comparison for me? Anyone? Bueller?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4887709.ece Too much ozone 'puts lives in danger' !!!!
From the article: [rquoter]Ozone forms a protective layer that helps to block ultraviolet radiation high in the atmosphere, but at ground level it is a significant pollutant and a contributor to global warming. [/rquoter]
And in terms of skin cancer in Australia, incidence still rose about 75% in the latter 20th century. The hole affecting Australia is still there, and cancer rates have not fallen too much, from the most recent studies I'd read. I love the ozone references -- like it's not enough to ignore science on one topic, so someone proves they ignore it on another topic. Just awesome. I'm surprised some of these guys don't stick forks in light sockets to prove how wrong and political the scientists are.
Using the Gomer Pyle analogy would seem to make Sam Sgt. Carter. We also know that, even though Gomer was a hayseed, things generally worked out his way by the end of the show.
Your telling me that you believe scientists discover a hole in 1985, surmised in the next couple of years that humans created it, we legislated a "fix" and now everything is better in 20 years time? I really hope our world is not so fragile and easy to manipulate that a bunch of 80's hair bands with too much Aqua Net can destroy our atmosphere. If you told me that the changing hair styles and a move to hair gell fixed our atmosphere I would be just as sold.
The first step that we, as humans, should take to solve global warming is to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint. So please, if you support stopping the oceans from rising and temperatures from rising, please unplug your computer for life. Just think how many tons of coal you personally are responsible for consuming through all of your time online. It's shameful, and it must stop now. This is your final warning before all of us are consumed by a gigantic fireball and acid rain.
LOL, I put him on ignore the first day I joined. Anyway, you are right to question this Global Warming charade. You are incorrect on one major point though. The Earth is not warming- it is cooling. The only proper way to measure temperature change now is by measuring ocean temperature (the land based data collection stations are flawed by improper gauge placement). The Earth has been cooling for over 8 years now. Al Gore may have an Oscar, a Nobel Prize, and 100 million bucks, but I don't know how he will explain his lies (yes, I meant to write lies) to future generations that will face starvation as crops yields decrease and population increases. When considering the IPCC's computer model forecasts, it is garbage in and garbage out. NASA was even caught by bloggers MANIPULATING code that falsely stated that 1998 was the warmest year of the 20th century. NASA was forced to admit that they were wrong, and the warmest years of the 20th century were in the 1930s. The best theory about global warming and cooling was done by the Scandinavian scientists that tie warming trends to sunspot activity. Right now, sunspot activity is at one of the lowest points ever recorded, and that is why all the Global Warming protests are getting canceled due to snow and ice. Don't let the bullys get you down. Greenland got it's name for a reason. The Earth was warmer than it is now during the Middle Ages when the Vikings first visited that island, and humans survived the warming and cooling trends just fine.
