English as a universal language

[Xest]

A yet another person who is convinced by the media's need for fear and the left 'enviromental terrorists' that there is such a thing as global warming. It does not exist and the evidence for it is alot more extensife then the evidence supporting the global warming theory.

No, the global consensus among the vast majority of scientists is that global warming IS happening, the reason for it is debateable, i.e. whether it's caused by us or whether it's just part of the earth's natural cycle but it is happening. Of course you're right that the media does sensationalise it, just as they do absolutely everything. I'm not sure where you got your information to claim that there's more evidence against global warming because that's completely wrong, did you mean to say there's more evidence against it being a human created problem as opposed to a natual phenomenon? If so then that depends entirely on which source you ask hence why it's impossible for us to tell either way. I think it's naive to beleive that we don't have some effect on the enviroment though hence we need to tidy our act up either way (the increased rate of kids with asthma for example has been proven to be directly attributable to pollution to some degree).

Seeing your example: It is funny that today the US Meteoroligy (spelling) lowered it's expectation from 9 hurricanes to 7 for this hurricane season. Furthmore katherina was only a big disaster because population has increased and the infrastructure was not up to date. Hence more destruction. FYI in 1936 there was a cat 4 hurricane who was alot more destructive. Katrina was only a cat 3

Again if the world is increasing in temperature on average, that doesn't mean there aren't still going to be periods of difference to the average so it's largely irrelevant what the hurricane warning stats are. Also, you're right that the category of the hurricane doesn't relate directly to the amount of deaths because there are other factors, however the problem with global warming and hurricanes isn't the strength of the hurricanes but the amount of them, when you have the amount they had last year there's a very high chance one of them is going to eventually hit somewhere you don't want or expect it to. Because of this global warming (again, I'm not suggesting here whether it's human induced or a natural phenomenon) does have a direct effect on the amount of hurricanes due to them thriving in the warmer waters.

[Gandelf]

I think in terms of places like Zimbabwe the problem is that it wasn't time for the empire to move on, there was no set time in history where the British empire needed to simply let go overall, different countries were ready to become independant at different times, there are places where the British should probably still be ruling to ensure transtition to a stable goverment instead of just pulling out when we did and leaving a horrific mess. Of course it's arguable that we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but after we were the above applies imo.

I don't think the blame can be placed entirely at the feet of the British. If I rightly recall my WWII history, one of the conditions of the Americans entering the war as our allies was that after the war, the British would commence the handing over of British colonies back to the indigenous races. I believe that Churchill tried to negotiate, so the Empire could be preserved, but the US presidency would not budge. That's why the Empire has been slowly dismantled. I think it's a fair price to pay, because without the US the war would have meant far worse for the British than a gradual handing over of sovereign territory to the indigenous races of the Empire.

I think it says a lot for the British that they stuck to their word and surrendered those territories that once allowed people to say, "The Sun never sets on the British Empire"

[Quinlan]

No, the global consensus among the vast majority of scientists is that global warming IS happening, the reason for it is debateable, i.e. whether it's caused by us or whether it's just part of the earth's natural cycle but it is happening. Of course you're right that the media does sensationalise it, just as they do absolutely everything. I'm not sure where you got your information to claim that there's more evidence against global warming because that's completely wrong, did you mean to say there's more evidence against it being a human created problem as opposed to a natual phenomenon? If so then that depends entirely on which source you ask hence why it's impossible for us to tell either way. I think it's naive to beleive that we don't have some effect on the enviroment though hence we need to tidy our act up either way (the increased rate of kids with asthma for example has been proven to be directly attributable to pollution to some degree).

Exactly that is what i ment. It is part of the natural cycle that has been going on ever since the climat stabalised on the eath. The influence of man on this is minimal and can basically be dismissed. The effect wont change the cycle for more then 5 years which is nothing on the scales we are talking about (10.000 years).

The astma partly has to do with more pollution but i read somewhere it is also greatly affected by the fact that youths nowadays are a lot less exposed to 'normal bacterias' etc. So they build up alot less immunity (partly genetic cause the same thing happened to their parents).

Again if the world is increasing in temperature on average, that doesn't mean there aren't still going to be periods of difference to the average so it's largely irrelevant what the hurricane warning stats are. Also, you're right that the category of the hurricane doesn't relate directly to the amount of deaths because there are other factors, however the problem with global warming and hurricanes isn't the strength of the hurricanes but the amount of them, when you have the amount they had last year there's a very high chance one of them is going to eventually hit somewhere you don't want or expect it to. Because of this global warming (again, I'm not suggesting here whether it's human induced or a natural phenomenon) does have a direct effect on the amount of hurricanes due to them thriving in the warmer waters.

What i was saying that they expect less hurricanes this year. Ofcourse that is just one year and far from a trend.

And yes the average temperature in the world has rissen in the points that are metered. But if you take out the metering points in the densly populated areas the average temperature has actually declined. The reason being that densly populated areas just generate more heat so that specific area is warmer.

Furthermore keep in mind that the average temperature (with densly populated areas included) only has risen .1 or .2 degrees since the 1850-ies.(if i recall right, could be 30-ies). That is far from the drama that is put out by the environmental groups etc.

Also the both icecaps combined have actually grown since the 1900. Only small areas have decreased and that is what the global warming activists focus on. And yes i am strongly opposed to it.

All in all man has done bad things to this world. But temperature and climat wise these are limited in the big spectrum.

[Lairiodd]

Also the both icecaps combined have actually grown since the 1900. Only small areas have decreased and that is what the global warming activists focus on. And yes i am strongly opposed to it.

That is one of the biggest uses of a "picture tells a thousand words" to tell a lie. It is a scene of the edge of the ice caps breaking up and falling into the ocean. From an image perspective, it "proves" that the ice caps are shrinking. It does this without words, however, it is a lie.

It happens even when the caps are growing and is in fact what causes icebergs. Rain falls on the ice and it pushes out to the edges which then melt.

[Maeloch]

Instead of moaning about the british empire, here's something. Name a political body (country/empire/whatever/something with policitcal clout not some liberal wet dream) that was running at the same time that was *less guilty* of genocide, oppression whatever.

[Ovi]

Instead of moaning about the british empire, here's something. Name a political body (country/empire/whatever/something with policitcal clout not some liberal wet dream) that was running at the same time that was *less guilty* of genocide, oppression whatever.

Very well phrased imo. That was pretty much the point I was trying to get across.

[Takitothemacs]

Instead of moaning about the british empire, here's something. Name a political body (country/empire/whatever/something with policitcal clout not some liberal wet dream) that was running at the same time that was *less guilty* of genocide, oppression whatever.

The Jedi?

Mind you they did try to oppress the sith...

[ambera]

Why should we only judge the British Empire by the standards of the time? The fact that evil and barbarism and sheer incompetence have been rife throughout history doesn't make it OK. If you only judge a thing or person by their own standards, you aren't really making a judgement at all.

I don't imagine that those of us talking about imperial guilt are actually walking about feeling burdened by what our forebears have done, moaning and whining and kicking the memory of the empire. What I, anyway, am trying to do is to acknowledge that it was in many ways a fuck-up, lessons should be learned, and cultural hegemony has been demonstrated to be a Not Good Thing, so let's not do that again.

[Xest]

Why should we only judge the British Empire by the standards of the time? The fact that evil and barbarism and sheer incompetence have been rife throughout history doesn't make it OK. If you only judge a thing or person by their own standards, you aren't really making a judgement at all.

I don't imagine that those of us talking about imperial guilt are actually walking about feeling burdened by what our forebears have done, moaning and whining and kicking the memory of the empire. What I, anyway, am trying to do is to acknowledge that it was in many ways a fuck-up, lessons should be learned, and cultural hegemony has been demonstrated to be a Not Good Thing, so let's not do that again.

I think Ovi's point is that the things we did wrong at the time weren't wrongdoings specific to the British empire, they were the norm then and hence to suggest that there is some link between the wrongdoings done at the time and the British empire (or British in general) is a fallacy. Instead to be politically correct people shouldn't say "The wrongdoings carried out by the British empire" they should say "The wrongdoings of the times" because the former infers that it's only the British that were responsible for said wrongdoings.

It's not to say that we shouldn't pretend bad things weren't done back then but to say that the bad things done aren't wholly the responsibility of the British.

[Ovi]

/Reply to Quin.


Lies, Damn lies & Statistics

I am not sure where your stats come from, but the bbc has
these stats.

That suggests a temperature rise of 0.6 degress since 1900, significantly more than your figures. They also comment that "average global temperatures have varied by less than one degree since the dawn of human civilisation, although they fluctuated much more before that." That makes the change look significant in terms of the rescent global climate.

The stats also show the ice caps are significantly thinner, where else would the water come from to raise sea levels by 10-20cm?


More Lies

Just because the media exaggerate & sensationalise does not mean it isn't happening. The phrase "no smoke without fire" comes to mind. The media may make mouuntains out of molehills, but the molehill normally exists in the first place.


The Truth

No one knows. Plain and simple. If someone had the proof to know, then we would all know. The statistics debate shows that we can't even agree on what has happened in the last 100 while we have been observing it, what chance do we have predicting what is going to happen?


Ostriches

However there is little doubt that we, have thrown and continue to throw significant amount of rubbish into the atmosphere. It doesn't take an environmental scientist to work out that changing the atmosphere will effect tour climate. Take a breath from a helium ballon and then talk, pretty big change for a relatively small amount of helium!

Just because you can't prove something isn't true doesn't make it false, that is a classic symptom of the Ostrich, burying it's head in the sand hoping that if it does nothing the problem will go away.

Whilst there is every lieklyhood that the natural chaging of the climate could be to blame, there is also the chance the the earth's natural change was to cooler, therefore hiding the extent of the problem even more.


My View

I personally think that Global warming is happening (not really much argument over that) and that we have certainly contributed, and continue to contribute, to it. How significant our contribution is has yet to be decided but I feel it is the main cause. Such a relatively large change in a small time-span to the climate starting just after Industrialisation is too muc hof a coincidence just to be down to the natural changes in Climate.