Have you used Expedia recently? They now offer to buy "green credits" along with tours and entertainment at your destination! I wonder how many people fall for that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

So now wee have green market in addition to grey market. Nice.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

it's better than black or blue:)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

I wonder why 'warming' side is louder for you. In academics, I believe so. Otherwise, I do not see that anyone would do anything significant about this. In academia, though, they are using real data to show the recent trends, and this is quite assuring. I saw the data, too. Moreover, you do not want to play with a chaotic system, which is highly sensitive to inputs. This is the best described by:

лучше перебдеть, чем недобдеть

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Наши ресурсы ограничены. Пока что, говорят, они уходят в основном в карман Гору. Но, конечно, многим хочется поучаствовать.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

well, I do not know much about Gore's budget and resources you are talking about. I know about data, that's it. If we talk about how real the hypothesis about global warming and greenhouse gases, this is one thing. If we talk about where money goes, that's another. Separate flies from meatballs.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I am afraid the balls are made from the fly meat.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I do not think we are really looking for truth here. I think that you watch a TV and approximate how much money Gore's pocket has. However, this has nothing to do about the greenhouse gases hypothesis.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I think we are playing with metaphors.

I also think that we more or less know all the main arguments from both sides, and we can hardly think of new arguments that would sway us this way or that way.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Сколько людей Вы готовы уморить голодом ради гипотез, убедительных менее чем полностью?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

sorry I cannot reply in Russian.

are you kidding? are you a scientist to talk about validation of this hypothesis? did you look at this hypothesis seriously, or you just speculate here? I also have no idea why you talk about hunger.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Нет, я не ученый что бы обсуждать методологии проверки климатологических гипотез. Я, как бы так выразиться, озабоченный гражданин, не уверенный в том что эти гипотезы в достаточной степени подтверждены что бы на их основе проводить политику радикального сокращения выбросов CO2.
Что же касается голода, то радикальное сокращение выбросов CO2 означает столь же радикальное сокращение производства и потребления, несовместимое с сохранением нынешнего населения Земли: сокращение уровня выбросов CO2 до уровня 30 - 40 - х годов прошлого века неизбежно предполагает и сокращение население до сравнимого уровня, пару - другую миллардов надо куда - то деть. Самый простой способ это дать им умереть от голода в ходе сокращения производства, но, вероятно, можно измыслить и другие способы.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, I do not agree with both. First, either you approach the hypothesis scientifically, or do not approach it at all. Second, about consumption, etc. -- there are technologies to make energy in other ways that just to burn something, the problem is oil/gas lobby. They have money to tell you that there are no other ways. Another thing is that sooner or later oil is gone, and the population will face the same problem, but it will be kinda late.

But going back to the hypothesis andd what Cema said -- those who support it are louder. Well, I do not think anybody hears them. This is a simple example -- consider LA, interstate, rush hour. What will you see? You will see 6 lanes of packed cars with 1 person per a car, and 1 lane HOV, which is not even full. So, who is louder here?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Перебдение в данном случае очень недешевый проект. Поэтому более применима другая пословица: семь раз отмер, один раз отрежь.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Стал читать про модели. Враньё началось почти сразу:

"And let's face it, every year that goes by with an ever increasing global mean temperature trend is one more year of success for the climate models that tell us this will continue to happen until CO2 concentrations stop rising. As well, the predicted acceleration of the rise is also apparent, though to be fair decades will need to pass before confirmation of this is unarguable."

В реальности, температура уже 10 лет не растёт. Дальше уже и читать не интересно.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

На самом деле, интересно всё прочитать и проверить.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Интересно, но нереально. Это всё довольно тонкие материи. Требуется довольно таки существенная трата времени и интеллекта на то, чтобы в эти дела вникнуть, если ты уже и так не профессионал. Я пока такого знаю ровно одного, но он, объективно говоря, редкая птица.

(Reply to this) (Parent)