The fresh water i was referring to was not melting ice.

well well well, what i dont get with some people is this; its so easy to fact-check over the internet at least if you are semi intelligent.

and posting links to articles etc etc without fact checking is kind of stupid, or at the very least only concerned with what they believe to be true and not about the actual truth.

to deny climate change / global warming is to me the same as saying we can clearly see that the sun revolves around the earth.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

what is often sprouted by "deniers" is that carbon levels lags behind 800 years to warming. aka the earth is slightly warmer year x, and the carbon levels rise x+800 years. this is actually what is really scary about global warming. when temperatures rises more carbon is released into the atmosphere - causing more warming.

and the very sad fact is that most people are only concerned with confirming their own world view and use any means to do so. i am far more interested in the reality we live in and not only what i think is correct.

70 metre flood is not going to happen, if you think it is, start building an arc.

and on what grounds do you know the future good sir?

i would say it is highly unlikely that the water level would increase by 70 meters, and who mentioned anything about floods at all?

if the ice caps melt it would not be a flood as you seem to claim, the water level would rise slowly.

by the flood statement i get the feeling that science is not something you understand very well. nor that thinking is something that comes naturally to you.

and if i believed that the water level would increase by 70 meters i would certainly not build a friggin arc that is a horribly stupid idea, i would buy a house that is say 100 meters above sea level. far easier solution to that hypothetical problem.

You think a 70 metre sea level rise would not effect a house 100 metres above sea level and try to call me an idiot?

This post was edited by Lifebane99 on May 30 2013 04:01am

I feel like this statement is completely biased and lacks compelling facts in order to support it. I can see how you may be compelled to believe that people are making profit off of technologies that are in concern with climate change, but does that make climate change non-existent? One thing I would do is I would look at the affects of climate change, and see if they do exist. A loss or extinction in diversified species would definitely follow if climate change was on its way, so check maybe research. Most of the research will point to human interactions with the world as the underlying cause, this may be - if this is so than the technologies that are trying to restore climate are benefiting the ecosystem directly, while benefiting themselves and creating jobs? To be honest I really disagree with your statement because of lack of facts supporting it and the amount of facts that contradict it.

E* Also if we rely so heavily on our ecosystem, (which relies on our climate to function properly) than why is it wrong to invest into technologies to help?

This post was edited by Noobtard on May 30 2013 04:09pm

Thread can be closed, serious approach to jsp etc.