QueenZone discussion #1072818

Micrówave wrote: "We are all seeing rather less of the Sun." Well, here in Texas there's been more Sun and warm weather this winter than in the last 50 years. So great. Global Warming. Global Dimming. Hole in the Ozone layer. You keep believing that and keep buying into the companies that are making zillions because of some scientist's opinion that day. I hope to leave this world a little filthier and used up anyways. I didn't have an Ipod, Cell Phone, or the internet when I was a kid. Things are tough all over.

.....ASSDUDE...... wrote: I think The New Foo's album is pretty good. Most new music these days just comes and goes, some bands who are great dont even get a shot, but who know's what there ambition is.. Im mean, if all EMO's dont like conformity, why do they all dress the same?

ThomasQuinn wrote: Because your kind of people remind me that, when mankind finally DOES become extinct, that will be a GOOD thing.

HistoryGirl wrote: They are just now figuring this out? I would think it would be fairly common sense to anyone. I mean, you burn coal and things, which releases the particles into the air, and they are just now thinking that "Gee...maybe they are blocking out the sun's rays because they are in the way?"

Micrówave wrote:

HistoryGirl wrote: They are just now figuring this out? I would think it would be fairly common sense to anyone. I mean, you burn coal and things, which releases the particles into the air, and they are just now thinking that "Gee...maybe they are blocking out the sun's rays because they are in the way?"

Ok HistoryGirl, but the common sense also says we've been doing this for thousands and thousands of years... "destroying" the earth in some form or fashion. Here are some things that nobody is doing anything about: 1. Dinosaurs. They caused more destruction on this planet but were allowed to roam free with no restrictions for "thousands and thousands of years". Now, they are a source of oil. 2. The Space Program. Do you know how much trash is orbiting the Earth and flushed out into space? We're talking about the Landfill to end all landfills. And we've been shooting things up there for many years now. 3. Brad Pitt More and more wasting goes on with the promotion of this guy's agenda that could be better spent recycling things worth while. Have you seen the houses in New Orleans that big Brad is building? Houses right next to areas that haven't been cleaned up and aren't going to get cleaned up for another two years. Why not clean up the city first? Use some of that money paid to finance Brad to do that. Point is, we've become a society that wants to show that we're doing something for our future. In reality, recycling is NOT cost effective yet, and we should be concentrating on getting that done instead of wasting and throwing away money to do little or no good. How bout you guys read the latest issue of National Geographic or some other credible news source (You listening Font Color Quinn)??? Instead of your source being "common sense" or "scientists say". That's because we haven't proved a hole in the ozone layer exists. We just tell everybody it's there and just going to get bigger unless you buy these more expensive environmentally friendly products (that are usually housed in something that ISN'T RECYCLABLE!!!)

YourValentine wrote: 2. it does not affect our generation, so why should we drastically change our economy and our life style just to preserve the planet for future generations when we don't change our life style to stop hunger and misery in this world today

YourValentine wrote: I don't think anyone with a normal IQ still says that global warming is not happening or that it's not man-made.

<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: You're right though, the human race is doomed. We really are such an arrogant, naive and flawed species.

<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:

<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: You're right though, the human race is doomed. We really are such an arrogant, naive and flawed species.

Isn't it presumptuous to assume that a simple increase in temperature is sufficient to doom the human race? The earth changes all the time. Those that can adapt live, and those that cannot die. Then the earth populates itself once again. I'll put my money on the human race when it comes to a small temperature increase. Now, nuclear war? Maybe not so much.

<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote:

<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:

<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: You're right though, the human race is doomed. We really are such an arrogant, naive and flawed species.

Isn't it presumptuous to assume that a simple increase in temperature is sufficient to doom the human race? The earth changes all the time. Those that can adapt live, and those that cannot die. Then the earth populates itself once again. I'll put my money on the human race when it comes to a small temperature increase. Now, nuclear war? Maybe not so much.

I wasn't exactly reffering to global warming to our downfall, it was just me showing my infinite pessimism towards the human race :)

YourValentine wrote: I think there is not much use in discussing the issue with people who keep telling us there is no "proof"..... I am really surprised there are still people who deny it.

The temperature is rising so the Earth is going to implode

Global warming is destroying the Earth and THAT IS A FACT.

Micrówave wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: Because your kind of people remind me that, when mankind finally DOES become extinct, that will be a GOOD thing.

Wow. So what are you? Are we conversing with a higher life form here on Queenzone? You've been following me, haven't you, Font Color Quinn? link

.....ASSDUDE...... wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

.....ASSDUDE...... wrote: I think The New Foo's album is pretty good. Most new music these days just comes and goes, some bands who are great dont even get a shot, but who know's what there ambition is.. Im mean, if all EMO's dont like conformity, why do they all dress the same?

I can't even say what I did about Microwave about YOU, sadly. Your importance in the universe would rank about the same as a random dustspeck in a mostly abandoned and slightly ghetto-like backwater of the galaxy.

oh really.... is that a fact??? I must be important to you to make such an absurd comment like that T.Q. and whats this you say to Microwave??? what a big load of sucking ass... I maybe a dustspeck in a mostly abandoned and slightly ghetto-like backwater of the galaxy, but that ranks much higer and than any of those whimps such as your self who spend all there time sucking ass and sucking up to people to make friends and get some where in life... get a back bone you looser.

ThomasQuinn wrote: It is positively man-accellerated.

YourValentine wrote: The "simple increase of temperature" has serious consequences: draught, erosion, rising of the sea level, floods which lead to hunger, homelessness, poverty etc.

HistoryGirl wrote: So, some would ask, why bother? To which I pose a question in response: Why not? What harm is there is becoming more environmentally conscious?

Micrówave wrote: However, the gravity argument holds little gravity. Primarily for the fact that it doesn't take a scientist to prove gravity exists. Simply take an apple and let go. Bam! You're Isaac Newton.

Raf840 wrote: If Gravity is so easy and obvious, tell me the reason why Gravity is the only thing stopping quantum physics scientists from making a single theory explaning everything, as they simply can't "explain" Gravity like they did with the other forces.

pow wow wrote: Also Bush could do with a word of advice form Schwarzenegger.

Music Man wrote: The actual debate is the degree to which changes in temperature are affected by human action, and what human actions affect these changes to what degree.

HistoryGirl wrote: A lot of people are campaigning for green houses, green cars, all this kind of thing (the new Education Building on my university campus is a green building), but for the most part things like Hybrid cars and what not haven't really taken hold yet.

YourValentine wrote: "The actual debate is the degree to which changes in temperature are affected by human action, and what human actions affect these changes to what degree. One must consider what gas emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect, and also their sources (what percent is natural vs. what percent is man-made). One must also consider what actions contribute to these specific emissions" Well, yes but all this has been discussed for over 30 years now. Even if you don't "believe" in man-made global warming, there simply has to come a time when the USA joins the rest of the world in their efforts to save this planet for future generations. The USA is not only the biggest consumer of energy, they are also the most influential power in the world and as long as they do not support the CO2 reduction there is no hope. Even if you don't believe in man-made global warming you have to admit that resources on this planet are limited and if you look at the growth of population and the economic development of huge countries like India and China you don't need to be Einstein to realise that there has to be a change if we want to preserve our industrialized civilisation. There are more cars in Germany than the whole African continent, how can we expect to survive if China and India and other countries move into the same direction? We cannot bomb half the planet back to Stone Age and we cannot attack more Middle East countries to get a hand on their oil. The only way is to develop clean industries and to do it fast and on a global scale. Just look at the agonising US car industry, there is virtually nobody on the whole world who wants these hopelessly outdated, old fashioned cars because fuel is so much more expensive everywhere else. Look at modern alternative energy production like wind energy, solar energy, tidal power plants etc. These technologies are developed in Europe and Asia - not in the USA whose short sighted policy is very 19th century to be honest. It's not only about giving up some luxury habits, it's also about future technologies and huge markets for these technologies. Please don't think that European governments are made of green utopists (although they really leave much to desire), they are just not the puppets of the oil industry.

Micrówave wrote:

Raf840 wrote: If Gravity is so easy and obvious, tell me the reason why Gravity is the only thing stopping quantum physics scientists from making a single theory explaning everything, as they simply can't "explain" Gravity like they did with the other forces.

I can't. I'm not a quantum physics scientist, but I know that the mass of the object has something to do with it. Maybe TQ (Caspar) can fill us in on that and explain the other forces.

Raf840 wrote: So, if you accept Gravity without understanding it completely, how can you refuse to accept the theories about the future of our planet without understanding them? If you read a bit about the so called "M" Theory, you'll figure out that it's much easier to accept and understand human-caused global warming than Gravity.

Research by marine scientists reveals that it was a time of mass destruction as whole communities of animals were wiped out by ice sheets scouring the sea floor. In the past it has been thought that these ecosystems somehow dodged extinction by recolonising from nearby habitats that escaped obliteration. But researchers at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOC) and the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) reveal a bleaker scenario. Dr Sven Thatje, an ecologist at NOC has been working with geoscientists, Dr Claus-Dieter Hillenbrand and Dr Rob Larter at BAS examining one of the harshest environments on Earth - the Antarctic seafloor. Writing in the October issue of Trends in Ecology & Evolution the scientists provide new evidence that suggests that seafloor organisms were either erased by the advance of ice sheets across the Antarctic continental shelf or starved to death as links in the food chain were broken by the permanent ice cover. There would have been no refuge for shallower living animals further down the continental slope, as huge sediment slides would have buried them. Typically these ecosystems would have been made up of sponges, urchins, sea fan corals, and starfish. Dr Thatje said: 'We show that during ice ages seafloor organisms emigrated to the deep sea - below the effects of the sediment slides and ice. From there, organisms may have invaded open marine shelters of the Antarctic shelf, which were not affected by the advance of ice masses. Or these animals may have recolonised the Antarctic shelf from the deep-sea during the warm period following each ice age. 'Either way it is an impressive feat against the odds as the extreme cold means that these animals respond much more slowly to the destruction of their habitat than elsewhere in the oceans. They have lower metabolic rates that lower their growth and reproductive rates. Elsewhere in the oceans, a brisingid starfish would reproduce annually and live for ten years. In the Antarctic these starfish can reach 100-years-old but reproduce only once every ten years. This means that full community recuperation takes up to hundreds of years.'

Micrówave wrote: I think it's a little easier to comprehend that than a "theory" that humans are warming the Earth. There's a study that methane gas released by cows is causing JUST AS MUCH DAMAGE!!! So we should stop eating beef and obliterate a species from the planet then, too!

Micrówave wrote: So, you don't think the human race, as a whole, can't adapt? These fish did.

@ndy 38 wrote: Well the polar bears, the penguins etc are certainly not adapting to changing enviroments.

<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: The fact that they are migrating doesn't exactly mean they're adapting does it?

<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: It is estimated that by 2050 the population of polar bears will be slashed by over 60%, due to unsuitable warming....to me that is not 'adapting.'

Micrówave wrote:

Raf840 wrote: So, if you accept Gravity without understanding it completely, how can you refuse to accept the theories about the future of our planet without understanding them? If you read a bit about the so called "M" Theory, you'll figure out that it's much easier to accept and understand human-caused global warming than Gravity.

Raf, are you telling me that you don't accept gravity either? (Or are you a quantum physics scientist?) Then how do you explain why we just don't simply float away?

Micrówave wrote: I think it's a little easier to comprehend that than a "theory" that humans are warming the Earth. There's a study that methane gas released by cows is causing JUST AS MUCH DAMAGE!!! So we should stop eating beef and obliterate a species from the planet then, too! I simply don't believe everything I read. So far, from what I've been able to research, I have found only theories. So how have you been able to dismiss all those theories as false and jump onto this one so easily?

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: What will you do with your incredibly powerful car when you're in bed dying because of a tropical disease, facing lack of food and medicines, and watching on the news that enemy troops are moving to your city?

<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: You see i don't understand that, isn't that contradictory to the statistic showing that the growing percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is in conjunction with the growing human population on earth?

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: What will you do with your incredibly powerful car when you're in bed dying because of a tropical disease, facing lack of food and medicines, and watching on the news that enemy troops are moving to your city?

Micrówave wrote: Ok. I found it!!!! Proof that HUMANS AREN'T CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING. It's a nice 234 page study. link

<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:

<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: You see i don't understand that, isn't that contradictory to the statistic showing that the growing percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is in conjunction with the growing human population on earth?

There is a golden rule among scientists that goes as follows: Correlation does not imply causation. This is, in fact, the foundation of all modern science. The statistic you provide is especially questionable for a few reasons, including the fact that the human population is and always has been constantly increasing. Therefore, you could essentially correlate _any_ constant increase or decrease directly to human population growth. Assuming global warming is inevitable, I truly do not think we have much to fear. The doomsday scenario that has been planted in our minds is largely sensational and minimally scientific.

Micrówave wrote:

<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: It is estimated that by 2050 the population of polar bears will be slashed by over 60%, due to unsuitable warming....to me that is not 'adapting.'

Source? And I thought the globe was "warming". What you're saying is going against the grain of this thread. I would say that's further proof that global warming isn't affecting the polar bears... they're all for it!!!

<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: Valid point indeed. It's more of a theory than a statistic, which to me seems logical because both graphs that i've seen look like they fit together. But i plead ignorance in this case since my knowledge is limited towards science.

YourValentine wrote: What exactly is proven here?

<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: All this global warming chit chat is forcing me to watch 'An Inconvenient Truth.' I've never seen it before so i hope it's worth watching.