Talk:World's biggest polluters won't cut back on fossil fuel

Nice article. Nyarlathotep 15:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

More economic?

The Australian PM says it's more economic to stick with fossil fuels.

Financially economic? Environmentally economic?

Or, more pertinent than (though related to) those two, economical in terms of survival; that is to say, we as a species win.

To oversimplify some more:

this planet is our habitat. If we kill our habitat, we will DIE-aiieeee! [Dilbert-style Tarzan/ninja screams]

featured

To feauture or not to feature. Vote over here. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Explain the caption source pls

"Economic growth and pollution is said to be the major cause of climate change"

What is the source of this? This doesn't even begin to make sense. The major causes of climate change in the past have been dramatic events like meteorite impacts or geological events. In fact, since the beginning of the industrial revolution it's relatively safe -- albeit subjective as all statistical inference is -- to say that there has been little climate change at all. A recent study even suggests that forests can be major produces of greenhouse gases.

Gday anonymous commentor, the final sentence in the article says: Many scientists say global warming is melting glaciers, raising sea levels and will cause more intense storms, droughts and floods. Current levels of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years, research from Antarctic ice cores shows. Please feel free to edit the caption if you like! cheers, elliot_k 08:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove The Bad Pictures

Would an admin mind removing the frames for deleted pictures? --Thunderhead - (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, plus a few other minor details. Archivers please check the diff. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)