some people watch the movies and admit their is some relevance to reality...while also not criticising the news.....don't generaliseNot-That-Bright said:I find it interesting that people are willing to watch a movie like that, that had 'scientific' basis and call it truth while they watch the news and say how bias and wrong their stories are.
yeah and if the whole of Australia gets flooded, we'll all live on Ulurujoujou_84 said:its a simple solution...........we'll just become eskimos
Okay lets just continue to destroy everything then. Lets all go back to sleep. Better to sidestep the problem at hand and release propaganda instead.Not-That-Bright said:I'm paraphrasing... full article page 49 of The Bulletin - "False Prophets, Bad Economics"
Basically the kyoto protocol would demand the biggest international financial commitment in history. However it compares the total costs of potential damage with the marginal costs of slightly ameliorating the problem.
Even if every industrial country met the kyoto goals of reducing carbon emissions 30 percent by 2010, the impact would be tiny. By 2100 that would have postponed global warming by a mere six years.
It makes no sense. The best estimates of the cost of implementing Kyoto run between $150 billion and $350 billion a year. The best estimates of the damage from global warming reach about $500 billion anually in 2100.
And it's not paying $150 billion to avoid $500 billion.. we still have to pay the $500 billion only six years later. The Protocol is a deal of we pay $150 billion a year for 100 years to postpone payment of $500 billion anually starting in 2100.
mr EaZy said:nice one.
(didnt know u could do that )