African Compensation
- Thread starter Pandalisk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm often impressed by the level of discussion on these forums, but not today ;-)
The basics of global warming "have been endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4] A small number of scientists dispute the consensus view." (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming). If you don't believe this statement, and therefore think there's a decent chance it's happening, you are probably in the USA, where the level of noise generated by the opposition makes it very hard to listen to the majority.
China has relatively low emissions per person currently: http://www.carbonplanet.com/country_emissions. They are no doubt doing their best to catch up, as they think that they've a right to pass through the "basic industrial" phase before having to move on to the "advanced industrial" phase the US & EU, etc, are in, where emissions can be controlled. Difficult call for me.
I don't think anyone is likely to give much more money to Africa because of this. However that doesn't mean we can't discuss whether this is another example of the developed world screwing the third world. I think it probably is, though there isn't necessarily a solution until all African nations get their governance sorted out.
And BTW, you do need Africa for mineral resources, if nothing else, e.g. roughly 49% of diamonds originate from central and southern Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamonds#Production). Need shouldn't really come into it though.
The basics of global warming "have been endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4] A small number of scientists dispute the consensus view." (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming). If you don't believe this statement, and therefore think there's a decent chance it's happening, you are probably in the USA, where the level of noise generated by the opposition makes it very hard to listen to the majority.
China has relatively low emissions per person currently: http://www.carbonplanet.com/country_emissions. They are no doubt doing their best to catch up, as they think that they've a right to pass through the "basic industrial" phase before having to move on to the "advanced industrial" phase the US & EU, etc, are in, where emissions can be controlled. Difficult call for me.
I don't think anyone is likely to give much more money to Africa because of this. However that doesn't mean we can't discuss whether this is another example of the developed world screwing the third world. I think it probably is, though there isn't necessarily a solution until all African nations get their governance sorted out.
And BTW, you do need Africa for mineral resources, if nothing else, e.g. roughly 49% of diamonds originate from central and southern Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamonds#Production). Need shouldn't really come into it though.
Doh.
Most times you want to know about something covered by a scientific field, you'd find out what majority scientific opinion is. That is until you get to climate change, when large tracts of the population think professional bullshitters like media personalities and politicians know more.
At any rate, no money should go to Africa for global warming. Their woes are corruption, tyranny and social disorder, and if they sorted them out they'd be able to help themselves.
Most times you want to know about something covered by a scientific field, you'd find out what majority scientific opinion is. That is until you get to climate change, when large tracts of the population think professional bullshitters like media personalities and politicians know more.
At any rate, no money should go to Africa for global warming. Their woes are corruption, tyranny and social disorder, and if they sorted them out they'd be able to help themselves.
No, Africa, I do not believe you get money from the rest of us because of planetary climate cycles.
Are they crazy?
Even if there were damages to this increase in average global temperature, I'd say the icy, snowy regions are the most deserving of compensation.
Even if there were damages to this increase in average global temperature, I'd say the icy, snowy regions are the most deserving of compensation.
I think that it should not have even come to this. Every star or bigwig talks all about helping Africa. You don't help an entire continent by having a bit of here and there. You take a tax from everyone and use it to not just supply them with water for a month or a Pepsi for a week. You build them a farm and hire a crew to teach them how to farm and ration shit.
You give them concrete apartments or houses. So yeah Africa has every right to want help. After all Africa must be last on pollution.
You give them concrete apartments or houses. So yeah Africa has every right to want help. After all Africa must be last on pollution.
Whats the point in sending money to Africa? Corrupt officials just take it.
At the end of the second world war, America created the Marshall plan that would rebuilt Western Europe. $13 Billion was given to Europe.
Apparently something like 15 marhshall plans have gone into Africa... So far.
Seriously though... whats the point in just throwing money to africa! The biggest three problems with Africa: Corruption, corruption, corruption. Sort that out and then maybe the world can help to rebuild the continent. - Then maybe money can be given to aid against global warming... maybe..
At the end of the second world war, America created the Marshall plan that would rebuilt Western Europe. $13 Billion was given to Europe.
Apparently something like 15 marhshall plans have gone into Africa... So far.
Seriously though... whats the point in just throwing money to africa! The biggest three problems with Africa: Corruption, corruption, corruption. Sort that out and then maybe the world can help to rebuild the continent. - Then maybe money can be given to aid against global warming... maybe..
At Current it amuses me of how little we know The Climate, you are putting down something as fact "It is not man made" while the other is saying (dont care what his name is) "It is man made" Nethier theroy is relevant as nethier can be said to be COMPLETE FACT, any comments saying "No/yes they should/nt because its not man made" and comments saying "yes/no they shoud/nt because its man made" are Fucking irrelevant and should be burned, as a current we do not know which is infact true, rather people pick the two most popular theroys, "Us" or "natural" and there are alot of theroys, and pick on they find most convincing, that is not something definate and set in stone, and likly it never will.Berethond said:
Actually, I think the mere "theory" is really, really relevant. Because if one of them is true, there's a massive global disaster about to screw up our planet.Pandalisk said:
I mean, it's nothing but theory whether some loonies will try to bomb the place you live. But sure as hell I'd like the intelligence services working to stop the possibility of it happening anyway.
wasnt saying the theroy wasnt relevant pay attention man, i said there are multiple theroys all coming towards the same point "This Plant Is Changing" for better or worse is a matter of opinion as is wether we should be combating it or not and how if you wish to, to combat it.Agema said:
my point was that since we dont know if we are infact causing it or not makes the argument the other two were having irrelevant
In short, i never said i didnt want intelligence services stoping Terrorists of a steriotypical race.
Mmmno. I know Eratosthenes presented the first mathematical model, and Magellan proved it by circumnavigating the globe, but my point stands, as in "assuming that a theory is incorrect because a previous theory on the same subject was found to be incorrect is rather silly". You said that global warming isn't real because inferior climate models of the past predicted cooling because they didn't factor in the El Nino events, had incomplete data on the albedo of atmospheric aerosols and so forth. The current models are more advanced and more reliable, although if anything they've tended to underestimate the changes we've already experienced therefore I fear that you, my friend, are the one with the bollock problem. ANYWAY...Berethond said:
To those who accept the word and the findings of the majority of the world's climatologists and choose to argue "it's our fault/it's not our fault", I have to ask... does it really matter? A few more mild winters and the glaciers will disappear almost entirely from the Himalayas, and about a hundred million people across China and India who depend on glacial meltwater to fill their rivers will suddenly have no water at all. Are we happy to let this happen, or are we as a race prepared to take steps to ensure that more people than anyone here has ever met or seen in their entire lives don't end up prematurely dead? Steps like... this?
[pdf warning]
http://www.ucar.edu/governance/meetings/oct08/followup/head_and_chairs/phil_rasch.pdf
Or has anyone else seen anything viable-sounding out there?
-Nick