Are you the self imposed moderator of this post or simply the "loudest drunk in the Bar"?
ad hominem and false dichotomy - good start.
You didn't even start this post.
not sure what your point is.
What, no date?
I'm going to guess that you are referring to me quoting post timestamps.
Just for clarity, at 18:41 (today) I posted:
What is the difference between "global warming" and "climate change?""Global warming" refers to the increase of the Earth's average surface temperature, due to a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. "Climate change" is a broader term that refers to long-term changes in climate, including average temperature and precipitation.
At 19:39 (today) you posted:
I kinda chuckle at the increasingly popular use of "climate change". So now it's climate change eh? What happened to just Global Warming?
You are asking a question that I just answered and I make that 57 minutes after my post, which indicates to me that you had not read with comprehension my post describing the difference between the two terms. You subsequently claimed:
The above posts you cite were written while I was writing my post.
Hence my polite enquiry as to whether it took you 57 minutes between starting your post and hitting 'submit', or the other conclusion is that you didn't read my post, almost immediately above your first comment, which is sloppy posting if so.
Oh, BTW regarding: "two posts above your own to answer your own question" There was no "question" to be answered. If you read a little more carefully, but down the shot glass and pause from your teenage antics you'd probably recognize that the only hint of a question was a rhetorical one. Try again, but slower this time.
Ignoring more ad hominem, you used a few question marks and granted you may have known these were rhetorical but we your audience didn't. My apologies.
Thank you for endorsing my point - a real point too!
I wasn't endorsiing your point - just acknowledging the beginnings of a point
My read of the context of your "right thing" is to employ rather large measures on "a governmental, national and international scale" to reduce CO2 emissions. (measures like Kyoto of course comes to mind, but feel free to enlighten)
In principle I'm not opposed to climate treaties but I fear their chances of achieving their aims are slim. India and China kept their distance from Kyoto and America didn't ratify. Getting an agreement on paper was a significant challenge - compliance would be an endless fruitless task.
The measures I refer to would be for developed countries, particularly America, to take the lead in developing an economically and environmentally sustainable model for producing clean power, energy efficiency and conservation of biodiversity. Where America et al lead, the rest will follow. A truly green America is worth Kyoto x 50.
If you'd like some homework to see why this is naive then perhaps you can research the relationship between economic effects of such proposed measures along with prosperity and its effects on the environment in developed and developing nations.
The 2006 Stern Report's main conclusion was that 1% of GDP invested now could be worth up to 20% GDP in the future. 700 pages - the most comprehensive and widely known economic report on climate change to date.
The draft report of the Garnaut Climate Change Review, a similar study conducted in Australia in 2008 by Ross Garnautbroadly endorsed the approach undertaken by Stern, but concluded, in the light of new information, that Stern had underestimated the severity of the problem and the extent of the cuts in emissions that were required to avoid dangerous climate change. - source Wikipedia
"Loudest drunk in the bar, put down the shot glass, easy on the ale"
You are bordering on being in breach of Rule 1.