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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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!

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.

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???)

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.

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.

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.

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.