 Poster: A snowHead
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| These different faces of hunger overlap, but it is likely that more than a billion of the world's 5.8 billion people experience some form of hunger during the year. |
I don't argue about the figures, as I've seen figures myself which say about 23% of the worlds population, which is in line with the figures there (about 1.3 billion compared to 'more than a billion' in that report). So even though, statistically, most people aren't worrying about where the next meal is coming from, I don't think bare statistics tell the story correctly. The point is, with all the wealth and food produced in the world these days should 23% of the planet be skirting with death on a daily basis. I'd argue that the answer to that question is no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Lager wrote: |
| The point is, with all the wealth and food produced in the world these days should 23% of the planet be skirting with death on a daily basis. I'd argue that the answer to that question is no. |
I couldn't agree more, and am encouraged that things are moving in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
The study should give pause to critics of global-warming theories, Mr. Wolff said.
"If you're a greenhouse skeptic . . . then what you're looking for in the past is a time when carbon dioxide changed and temperature didn't change," he said. "The bad news is, we can't find any of them. So our expectation is that if you go into the future and keep pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the climate will warm. It's already 30 per cent higher than at any time in the last half-billion years." |
From a report on the British Antarctic Survey findings....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Just caught the end of an interview with him on Today, this morning. Didn't catch enough for any use. I think though that the whole programme can be listened to on the web - somewhere on the BBC site.
Anyway, here's a Swiss newspaper's article on th findings. Interesting to note the national slant. I wonder if other countries' newspapers have "French and European", "German and European", etc... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
skanky, they could be making the distinction that they are not part of the European Union??
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
True. But it does seem to a be a general newspaper trait (in my limited experience).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,000 years? Don't know if Glenshee and Glencoe can hold out that long before turning profitable...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
The BBC piece is interesting and well balanced. But i still do not completedly agree with all it says.
"There is great controversy as to whether human beings have changed the climate," said Professor McManus. "But there is no doubt about the fact that human beings have changed the Earth's atmosphere. The increased levels of greenhouse gases are geologically incredible." copletedtly agree
but the scientist quoted said:
"By understanding what greenhouse gases did to global temperature in the past, scientists might be able to predict the effect of humankind's enthusiastic CO2 belching" but he also said: "He added: "It is something of grave concern to someone like me, who sees the strong connection between greenhouse gases and climate in the past."
Now, from a methodological point, all they can show is that a certain climatic pattern and certain CO2 levels occured at the same time. What they cannot show is the CAUSE, that is they cannot show that the climate caused the CO2 levels or viceversa. And there always is the real posibility that a third, unknown factor caused the climate change and the CO2 levels.
From the first article:
The study should give pause to critics of global-warming theories, Mr. Wolff said.
"If you're a greenhouse skeptic . . . then what you're looking for in the past is a time when carbon dioxide changed and temperature didn't change," he said. "The bad news is, we can't find any of them. So our expectation is that if you go into the future and keep pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the climate will warm. It's already 30 per cent higher than at any time in the last half-billion years."
Actually, not completedly true. It is true that if we could find a period in the past when carbon dioxide changed and temperature didn't, then we would have a total rebutal of any theory that links CO2 and climate. The fact that there is some link between the two is still a very long way from showing causality. I suspect that the reporter slightly misquoted mr Wolff, so the piece would end in an "apropriate manner"
BTW, did you notice that on the same page apeared an ad for th Buick Randezvous? Talk about mixed messages!
I really think that we should broaden our search for means to controll the climate. I think that we should focus more on genral climate research instead of focusing on a single issue, no matter how politically apealing it might be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
