Global Warming

You should watch Mad Max, because you will stop worrying about the apocalypse. You will start to look forward to it. C'mon! Doesn't the post apocalyptic world look dangerous and fun?

[QUOTE=Capsulatedpoison;934772]You should watch Mad Max, because you will stop worrying about the apocalypse. You will start to look forward to it. C'mon! Doesn't the post apocalyptic world look dangerous and fun?[/QUOTE]

What? I didn't say anything about worrying about the apocolypse. In fact I said I don't think global warming has any potential of destroying our planet, it just happens. Atleast reply with something somewhat relevant please.

[QUOTE=Jack Parsons;934774]What? I didn't say anything about worrying about the apocolypse. In fact I said I don't think global warming has any potential of destroying our planet, it just happens. Atleast reply with something somewhat relevant please.[/QUOTE]

Fine... Jeez.

Why let the monsterously rich oil companies benefit from being a major cause in global warming? That is like putting a huge tax on cigarettes, so RJ Reynolds can put up more pro smoking billboards.

Sure, climate changes do happen naturally, but the rate has never been this rapid.

You know I always thought global warming was what happened in the summer. Though I also thought when a cloud when over the sun it was an eclipse. And that last fact is true.

[QUOTE=Capsulatedpoison]
Sure, climate changes do happen naturally, but the rate has never been this rapid.[/QUOTE]

Thats not true. Ugh, I didn't want to focus on this. You know what, scratch the thought I had earlier about using the economy there are way too many downsides to that, I was just thinking and wanted to see other opinions so I typed it out.

Temperatures have increased over the last century and especially the last 30 years, and many point to this as evidence of a dangerous human-induced warming. But temperatures have risen and fallen many times before that including a cooling period from the 1940s to 1970s that gave rise to a global cooling scare. History also shows a Medieval Warm Period (around 1100 to 1400, well before SUV-driving Americans could be blamed) and that had temperatures that rivaled or exceeded those of today.

SO, histoy itself shows that natural climate fluctuations are both [i]normal[/i] and [i]substantial[/i].

well in that case we should definately keep making Hummers and burning coal for electricity.

Relax, don't worry.

Maybe global warming is real, maybe not. Maybe we caused it, but I wouldn't bet on it. One thing to be sure of: if a politician has a solution, it's worse than doing nothing. I wouldn't let a politician, Republican or Democrat, untie me from the rails when a train is coming. They'd only find a way to make me wish the train had cut me to ribbons.

I want a more fuel efficient car because I now have to drive 60 miles a day to make 10% less than I once did, yet I have child support that doesn't quit. If gas was $5 a gallon, I'd be...well, I'd be working in a gas station, taking your money since I couldn't afford to drive to a better job.

As seen in Season 4 of The Wire:
[QUOTE]Bodie: He's a cold motherfucker.
Poot: It's a cold world Bodie.
Bodie: Thought you said it was getting warmer.
Poot: The world goin' one way, people another yo.[/QUOTE]

what's signifigant is the sea level rising 6 inches or so. it's the whole damn ocean, so that's a lot of water melting off of iceburgs. such dramatic changes in the global temperature will cause weather patterns to change and with any luck florida will wash out into the ocean and lots of folks will die. overpopulation is a problem. DON'T BREED!

[QUOTE=nosmartyr;974320]what's signifigant is the sea level rising 6 inches or so. it's the whole damn ocean, so that's a lot of water melting off of iceburgs. such dramatic changes in the global temperature will cause weather patterns to change and with any luck florida will wash out into the ocean and lots of folks will die. overpopulation is a problem. DON'T BREED![/QUOTE]

It's entirely possible that there are too many people, or that there's about to be. However, I think P.J. O'Rourke nailed it when he summed up various Malthusian theorists as 'Just enough of me, way too much of you.'

If you really believe in thinning the herd, why do we care if people have healthcare? We should be banning extraordinary measures for prolonging life. Euthanize anyone at the scene of an accident who can't walk away. Give cigarettes to kids with their school lunches, for real.

More than too much people, I think we have too much stupid, and a little stupid goes a long ways. Shark finning, for instance, is colossally wasteful and destructive. Can that shark meat, which would make the ship come back with fewer fins because they'd fill up on meat relatively quickly. Most shark species aren't any great delicacy to eat, but for someone in a famine ravaged reason, that's a ton of protein that could save lives.

There I go, looking to save the lives of these overabundant humans.

Global warming is very real and trying to deny it at this point is pretty much up there with claiming the Earth is flat. Catch a clue. Check out some of that footage of icebergs falling apart and get back to me. Or at least visit Florida soon. It aint gonna be there in a few decades...

i actually am of the belief that every year global warming brings the beach just a little bit closer, and thus it brings women in less clothes a little closer to my house every year. i dont care about icebergs. ice melts all the time, and the last time i checked the population in antarctica was only that of the scientists that are stationed there who have no way of supporting themselves without the aid of the world.

in addition, the vast mineral wealth underneath the glacier on the frozen continent would far outweigh the precautions that would be instituted to protect said layer of ice inhibiting our access and undeniable right to fresh and pristine natural resources.

if global warming wants to make it that much easier for the world to function with a shot in the arm to agricultural prospects (raising global temperature increasing the potential to yield and sustain seasonal crops), aid our recreational past-times, and to supply us as a race of humans an avenue of access to vast resources untouched by modern man, then who are we to stop it?

There is no such thing as an "undeniable right".

[QUOTE=Sexjohnson;983605]i actually am of the belief that every year global warming brings the beach just a little bit closer, and thus it brings women in less clothes a little closer to my house every year. i dont care about icebergs. ice melts all the time, and the last time i checked the population in antarctica was only that of the scientists that are stationed there who have no way of supporting themselves without the aid of the world.

in addition, the vast mineral wealth underneath the glacier on the frozen continent would far outweigh the precautions that would be instituted to protect said layer of ice inhibiting our access and undeniable right to fresh and pristine natural resources.

if global warming wants to make it that much easier for the world to function with a shot in the arm to agricultural prospects (raising global temperature increasing the potential to yield and sustain seasonal crops), aid our recreational past-times, and to supply us as a race of humans an avenue of access to vast resources untouched by modern man, then who are we to stop it?[/QUOTE]

Unless your idea of a perfect world is one where half the cities look like Venice and the other half the Gobe desert, global warming is not going to be good for anybody.

"An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including sea level rise, and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation resulting in floods and drought. There may also be changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Other effects may include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors."

i'm all for petrol and energy prices going up in order to conserve them, but then only the rich could use them which would be an absolute bitch. Also, that will never happen, one of the richest industries is oil, and i really dont think that oil tycoons want to be the only ones that can afford oil

I think everyone should watch the documentary "An Inconveniant Truth"
or .. just take a look at this website.. [url]http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/[/url]

The question is no longer "Is Global Warming possible?," or "Is 'Global Warming' really what is going on here?", but now the question is "What is causing it and how do we stop it?"

For my argument, I'll say the majority thinks that global warming isn't really hurting anything, and isn't really going to affect much in our lifetime. But if we have the chance to start working on saving things for our children/grandchildren's lifetime, why shouldn't we start before it's too late? Or at least set things up for them to start, teach them how to conserve energy?

And I agree, the only way we are going to get people to use less gas and less electricity, and in result, less energy, is to force prices up. That is inconvenient, of course, but the high prices would drive everyone to use less. Even the rich. The rich people are rich because they have more resources to invest, to grow interest, and make MORE money -- They wouldn't be to happy with having to use those 'extra' dollars for actual living cost, so of course they would cut back, too. Maybe not as much as the rest of us, but some is better than none.

Also, has anyone ever checked out [url]www.blackle.com[/url] ? It's google with a black background. They claim that it conserves energy with LCD monitors (which is the majority of monitors these days) because the black background doesn't light up the bulbs. After a few discussions with friends, it probably doesn't save that much energy because the site still has to ping [url]www.google.com[/url], but if enough people become aware of it, and start using it, maybe google will offer the black background as an option one day. Think of how many people use the google search engine every day, or have it as their homepage, or check their gmail SEVERAL times a day. I know I look at google's page at least 20 times a day.

Again, I feel that something is better than nothing.

Now obviously, I've digressed from the original topic, but you should bookmark blackle. At the very least it's a good conversation starter for people looking over your shoulder while you search something.

[QUOTE=Jack Parsons;934771]
Global warning is a serious problem.You say that the Earth will heal itself because such climate variations are normal.That they happend before,you're right the last one happend with the industrial revolution,and you mentiond the one in the middle ages but they where not spontanious .I know about 2 ,one was because a volcano eruption and all the ash prevented the sunlight to enter the atmosphere and a lot of pepole died of starvation and very cold temperatures.
You also sed something about rising the costs of electricity,gas and fuel
in my oppinion that is not a solution because our socity is very connected to everything i mean one thing leads to another you can not rise the costs of petrol when pepole have to go to work, you can't rise electrycity costs without riseing salerys .Pepole have evolved very much and nobody will ever want to return to the dark ages just to save the planet.

There's a problem with viewing environmental questions soley on the consumption side. It assumes resources are consumed without producing anything. Which is not true.

It's why Malthusian theories have never proven true. But they have appeal for people who want to believe they are in the end times. And there's always a fraction of society that thinks that. Even though it's never turned out to be true...

[URL=http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf]Summary for Policymakers[/URL] (PDF)

You see this? This is a mere 18 pages summary. This ain't some bullshit little memo. This is what they give out to people in charge of making policies. They present this stuff to Presidents, Prime Ministers, and other leaders around the globe. This is a worldwide consensus of over 130 countries with 2500+ scientists and hundreds of authors.
[URL=http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html]
IPCC WG1 AR4 Report[/URL] (much more thorough than the summary)

Quite frankly I don't give a shit if someone repute whether or not it "exists".

Read the data. Not the shit PR stuff from the big oil and "analysts" on Cable News. Real this stuff, and *THEN* if you still want to deny global warming, that is your choice.

You're so certain, [URL=http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm]yet[/URL]...

[URL=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/14/161152.shtml]Like you've closed your mind.[/URL]

[QUOTE=Zaki;1000668]Real this stuff, and *THEN* if you still want to deny global warming, that is your choice.[/QUOTE]

I'll accept data on a 1 to 2 degree average temperature rise. I will not agree that it is caused by humans.
The sun has more to do with our distance from absolute zero than anything else.

[QUOTE=Chixulub;1000991]You're so certain, [URL=http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm]yet[/URL]...

[URL=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/14/161152.shtml]Like you've closed your mind.[/URL][/QUOTE]

That newsmax article is old (2002). Much new data has come out since then. I never even look at it as global warming. I look at all the stupid things we do to poison ourselves, from CFCs to high fructose corn syrup, depleted uranium dumps and coal emissions, humans are destroying their bodies and homes for the sake of convenience. They're just dumb and unnecessary things. There's always a better way to do things, and it annoys me when profits stand in the way of progress. US Auto is a dying industry, yet Japan and other forward-thinking manufacturer's thrive. Yet US Auto claims making changes (increased mileage, lower emissions) would be cost restrictive, and they're shriveling up. I know there are other factors (import tariffs, etc) but nobody overseas WANTS our crappy cars.

We're not doing anything to the earth that it cant handle on its own. Like George Carlin said, its just going to brush us off the way it did to the dinosaurs.

As for the plan to pump up the prices of electricity so that we wont use it, so we'll start using an alternative the way they are with gasoline i think is pretty clever.

As for An Inconvinient Truth, thats just biased data, you have to look for objective information on the matter if you want to take a side.
Because really it feels like Al Gore is just screaming and hollering about ManBearPig
:smashfrea

I clicked on an Inconvienant Truth the other day to check it out. I turned it on right at the point where he was saying how they can take ice samples and tell you what the temperature was when it was frozen. I said to myself" No shit sherlock, it was 32 degrees farenheit!" and turned the channel.

Well the problem with really raising the prices for electricity is that people (nowadays) really depend on it in their everyday lives. Which is kind of sad I guess. People can definitely decrease the consumption radically if they are more aware and try more to do so, but also then you can't just sky-rocket electricity prices.
Now the gas prices thing I really agree with, but what government will do that? Gas is an incredible source of income for a hell of a lot of companies!
I have to disagree with you on the whole fact that the population boom and mass starvation has led to nothing. Those are two very big problems (that are still increasing and becoming worse). Especially the mass starvation thing I see a lot of stuff about it and I personally work with a group that collects for countries which if you read about you'll feel really depressed because of what they're going through. Both those problems are still there, people have just gotten used to them.

Ah, good 'ol Global Warming.

Climate change is obviously natural. We're dealing with an extremely complex system that cannot, in total, be understood.

That being said, we have enough experts throughout the world who specialize in specifics, small portions of the big ecologic pie.

Car emissions don't get sent up into the sky and warm the earth. It's not a simple cause/effect. When the emissions mix with the atmosphere, chain reactions alter other chain reactions. It's extremely convoluted.

The problem is, while the earth/sun do go through cycles, the things we're polluting the atmosphere with alter how extremely things are affected. For instance, White ice (icebergs, sheets of snow, north pole, south pole, etc) reflects radiation, helping to prevent additional heat. The more ice that melts, the less is reflected. Instead, it's absorbed by the ocean, warming it.

The warmer the ocean gets, the more ice that melts, the less radiation is reflected, warming the ocean further.

Videos like "The Great Global Warming Swindle" are refuted by the experts, dissected and explained. Most 'professionals' who argue against global warming can be found to have been employed with the companies who stand to lose money over a change of policy.

If anyone wants to review some really dry science and find answers to all the common arguments, check out this site: [URL=http://www.realclimate.org/]http://www.realclimate.org/[/URL]

All the professionals who contribute are climatologists who aren't interested in winning the argument, just getting the science right and fairly portrayed.

I'd love for global climate change to be a hoax. With the evidence out there though, I can't possibly believe that.

It's true that the Greening Earth Society, for instance (who argue that carbon emissions are a good thing and that global warming would be good if it happened but that it probably isn't happening), are funded by the Western Fuels Association, which is to say Big Coal.

It's also true that Al Gore is famously invested up to his disingenuous eyeballs in companies that will only be profitable if we legislate a 'carbon restricted future.'

Remember the hole in the ozone layer? That was a pure hoax, by the way. Every winter the ozone over Antarctica thins out because there's no sunlight to split O2 into O3 and when two ozone molecules hit they become three regular oxygen molecules because ozone is fundamentally unstable. And as far as mutant sheep in Australia because of it, that's bullshit too, because at it's worst the 'thinning' exposed the penguins of Antarctica to UV exposure on a level of a cloudy day in Chicago.

So why were we told CFCs had to be banned? Why was there bipartisan support for the ban? Because DuPont couldn't make as much money off Freon, which was old and could be cloned by anyone, as they could from the replacement, which they hold patent rights to. Even though the replacement has just as much chlorine and would be just as destructive to the ozone layer if you could get these heavy molecules up there in any quantity (which you can't), even though the replacement is inferior in every real sense, it was hugely profitable for the Montreal Protocol to be implemented five years early.

DuPont gave a big, fat contribution to the Republican National Committee shortly before the first Pres Bush moved ban on production up by five years in the U.S. Wonder why...

My point is, just because the coal and oil boys hire scientists to say coal and oil cosumption is harmless, it doesn't mean another group of scientists haven't been coopted by someone just as bad.

I tried to watch inconvenient truth but i couldn't, too boring, i just think people need to move away from the coasts, the earth is changing, it's what it does and there are too many people on it

I drive twice as much as I need to just to spite my hippie, hybrid-driving neighbor. I've tripled my toilet paper usage ever since Sheryl Crow made the "one square" push. I don't recycle. I have a massive herd of methane-farting livestock. At night I shelter them in an enormous warehouse, which I keep brightly lit with industrial halogen lamps, energy-gorging bulb factories I leave on twenty-four hours a day.

I poach baby polar bears.

With the exception of the polar bear part, I think you're an idiot.

We all should make the world a warmer place.

Hugs and rainbows and sprinkles for everyone.

i like a good warm mid-century fdawkls rn

It's too $%#@ing cold in the winter. I wish global warming did exist, so it would be warmer.

Anyways, on a more scientific note, while scientists have acknowledged increaded carbon emissions as possibly having an impact on our climate, it is inconclusive as to what that affect will be. The Earth is more likely to overcompensate and overcool than to warm. Human beings are morons for thinking they can even affect the climate in the least. There's 999,999 factors involved, we're not a pile of Jesuses able to transcend nature.

I hate when people use the argument that humans can't affect the planet - there's 7,000,000,000+ people on this planet, and we're paving everything, we're moving and shuffling and destroying everything. If we all disappeared tomorrow it would take a million years for the earth to revert back to the way it used to be. And yeah, earth goes through warming and cooling cycles but human-caused global warming is intensifying a pre-existing condition. Just because we didn't start the process doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to it.

My arguement has always been......

So you dont believe in global warming? Well thats fine, but dont you want to live on a clean planet? One free of smog? One free of oil? One where you can take your child to a river and its clear?
You may not belive in global warming but being good stewrad of the Earth is all our reponsibilties.

"We do not own this land, we are merely borrowing it from our children"

I like you, Ross. You say some good things.

[QUOTE=Giggan;1058678]It's too $%#@ing cold in the winter. I wish global warming did exist, so it would be warmer.

Anyways, on a more scientific note, while scientists have acknowledged increaded carbon emissions as possibly having an impact on our climate, it is inconclusive as to what that affect will be. The Earth is more likely to overcompensate and overcool than to warm. Human beings are morons for thinking they can even affect the climate in the least. There's 999,999 factors involved, we're not a pile of Jesuses able to transcend nature.[/QUOTE]

What's Jesus got to do with the taste of oranges?

Oranges taste like Jesus?

Jesus tastes like orange?

I saw Jesus' image in an orange!

This thread has finally become interesting.

[QUOTE=xec8;1058772]This thread has finally become interesting.[/QUOTE]

Pelt the unbeliever with oranges!

[QUOTE=Mr. Brown;1058757]What's Jesus got to do with the taste of oranges?[/QUOTE]

A better question would be what does Jesus have to do with oranges?

And with X-Billion people, the only major issue is the real estate one. We're running out of room, not air, sea, etc. At least not yet. The environment, wars, and whatnot take car of that. Keep China in mind, with in some towns, a 20:1 boy-girl ratio. They're going to be decimated times 20.

And global warming has little or nothing to do with pollution in general, such as dumping oil in rivers. That's direct effect versus a theoretical indirect effect. One causes immediate harm, the other may cause harm, according to Al Gore. I didn't say emissions don't exist, just that there's no proof of what effect they'll have.

There's blind environmentalists and blind anti-environmentalists. There are logical points and illogical points.

An elementary question would be: "Orange?"

[QUOTE=nathaniel parker;1001378]I clicked on an Inconvienant Truth the other day to check it out. I turned it on right at the point where he was saying how they can take ice samples and tell you what the temperature was when it was frozen. I said to myself" No shit sherlock, it was 32 degrees farenheit!" and turned the channel.[/QUOTE]

I think you've said the only truly intelligent thing on this board.
I am delighted!