| you_rock_my_socks06 20.03.2007 13:29 |
Ok first of all in the morning the weather was freezing, then in the afternoon it was kinda warm, then back to freezing now its bloody snowing! |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 20.03.2007 13:37 |
well it is still winter. nothing to do with global warming just a cold front from the artic with northerly winds which will make temperatures drop. put on a jumper and stop wingeing. |
| user name 20.03.2007 15:27 |
News flash: Every abnormality in the weather is not intrinsically attributed to global warming. |
| Mr.Jingles 20.03.2007 15:29 |
Farts cause global warming. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 20.03.2007 16:16 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Farts cause global warming.Then maybe you should stop eating beans then :-P |
| Deacon Fan 20.03.2007 19:38 |
I enjoyed the Al Gore movie. I believe most of the scientific facts are accurate.. there's just one major problem... Where is the proof that our CO2 is actually being trapped by the atmosphere and causing the increase? |
| Mr.Jingles 20.03.2007 19:54 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:Actually, it's dried fruit.Mr.Jingles wrote: Farts cause global warming.Then maybe you should stop eating beans then :-P Brings the Methane Mayhem in me. |
| user name 22.03.2007 16:09 |
Undetermined wrote: I enjoyed the Al Gore movie. I believe most of the scientific facts are accurate.. there's just one major problem... Where is the proof that our CO2 is actually being trapped by the atmosphere and causing the increase?Can you point me to some of these scientific facts without me having to purchase a movie to fund someone's political agenda? Are there environmental problems? Sure. Are most environmental issues rooted in politics, rather than the environment? Hell yes! Modern environmentalism is based on sensationalism and fear - not science. |
| Erin 22.03.2007 16:15 |
It's going to be near 90 degrees this weekend! Don't know if global warming is to blame, but woo hoo..time to break out the shorts! |
| brian-harold-may 26643 22.03.2007 16:44 |
sorry, dont believe we are attributing to it in a big way at all. just the earths natural cycle, nearly slipped into an ice age in the 70's. so i believe, im only 17. but looking at the facts, it doesn't appear that we are the major cause, just another way for the government to make money, i think we should worry less about co2 and more about north korea and nuclea weapons also the ocean emits more co2 than anything else on the planet. |
| Sherwood Forest 22.03.2007 17:37 |
don't believe it at all the Earth's weather has been up and down for such a long time. And i just saw an interview today with Al Gore and the interviewers really stuck it to him, they made him look like a FOOL. He actually said that if America was to cut back on fossil fuels and such causes of global warming then countries like China would follow our leadership. When we've been in competition with China for years to be the strongest nation. China would jump at the chance to be stronger than us, not yield and let their economy decline while ours does. Saying that though I do wish the U.S. would lay off the fossil fuels and the scare resources like that. But on the other hand, if it is true, which is possible, then we're all gunna die anyway, have a cigarette. *that was pretty unorganized but i hope you all can see what im trying to get* |
| wstüssyb 22.03.2007 18:13 |
I hope I dont see manbearpig running around my house soon. |
| user name 22.03.2007 21:11 |
I don't get where you guys get the idea that China is such a strong power. Despite having the largest population, I believe they aren't even ranked in the top 10 GDP's in the world. |
| deleted user 23.03.2007 03:39 |
It's bloody hot here.... |
| The prophet's song 23.03.2007 06:13 |
Sherwood Forest wrote: don't believe it at all the Earth's weather has been up and down for such a long time.I think it's more the fact that all the gasses and whatnot in the atmosphere are speeding the process up a bit too fast for most people's liking....or at least, that's what I pick out from it all. I do completley agree with your point that the earths weather goes up and down, we only need to look at the fact we were once all covered in ice to prove that. And by the way, I dunno if it's the same for all of you but have you ever noticed that the cars with bumper stickers like "save the environment" and "vote green party" are the most clapped out cars that billow out more black smoke than most others? I find that quite ironic :) |
| AspiringPhilosophe 23.03.2007 07:05 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I don't get where you guys get the idea that China is such a strong power. Despite having the largest population, I believe they aren't even ranked in the top 10 GDP's in the world.They might not even be ranked tenth, that's true. But they, with the US, compose the first and third ranked countries in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, because they don't have the technology to have cleaners on the smoke stacks at coal producing plants, etc. link |
| The Real Wizard 23.03.2007 15:00 |
I'll put in my two cents...
The Kyoto protocol is such a load of crap because it's only used by first world countries... so since China and the majority of South America and Africa are all exempt, we're not accomplishing too much.
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Are there environmental problems? Sure. Are most environmental issues rooted in politics, rather than the environment? Hell yes! Modern environmentalism is based on sensationalism and fear - not science.Truer words have rarely been spoken. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 23.03.2007 15:13 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: I'll put in my two cents... The Kyoto protocol is such a load of crap because it's only used by first world countries... so since China and the majority of South America and Africa are all exempt, we're not accomplishing too much.did the yanks sign the agreement?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Are there environmental problems? Sure. Are most environmental issues rooted in politics, rather than the environment? Hell yes! Modern environmentalism is based on sensationalism and fear - not science.Truer words have rarely been spoken. |
| Killer Queenie 23.03.2007 16:30 |
Global warming is a load of bollocks. My dad was listening to the radio and some scientist said that global warming is a load of crap and the governmant is just using it as an excuse so they can get votes to get into parliament - well the English government I think... Anyways, apparently it is like the ice age - the southern hemisphere will start getting the rain and the northern hemisphere will get the sun - it's just nature taking it's course. Well that is apparently what a scientist said... *shruggs* |
| user name 23.03.2007 17:09 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:I was only referring to what Sherwood was saying. Any time someone in the States is worried about losing worldwide political power to a country like China, they really don't know what's going on.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I don't get where you guys get the idea that China is such a strong power. Despite having the largest population, I believe they aren't even ranked in the top 10 GDP's in the world.They might not even be ranked tenth, that's true. But they, with the US, compose the first and third ranked countries in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, because they don't have the technology to have cleaners on the smoke stacks at coal producing plants, etc. link |
| The Real Wizard 24.03.2007 00:55 |
joxerthemighty wrote: did the yanks sign the agreement?Umm... kinda... link Turns out I was wrong about Kyoto... apparently the majority of the world is in on it. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 24.03.2007 07:15 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Umm... thats what i thought...joxerthemighty wrote: did the yanks sign the agreement?Umm... kinda... link Turns out I was wrong about Kyoto... apparently the majority of the world is in on it. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 24.03.2007 14:19 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:So, in reality no.joxerthemighty wrote: did the yanks sign the agreement?Umm... kinda... link Turns out I was wrong about Kyoto... apparently the majority of the world is in on it. The president can sign whatever he wants in the way of international agreements. But it's not binding to the US until it's ratified by congress. Since it hasn't been ratified, then the US doesn't consider it binding, even though the signature is there. Meaning, we don't follow it. |
| I♥The80's 24.03.2007 14:28 |
This clip is related to Al Gore's movie.... link |
| user name 24.03.2007 15:10 |
Personally, I think the United States has a pretty rational argument for not being bound by such an international protocol. Also, on a side note, recycling - who'd have thought it was so utterly wasteful and pointless? Hell, I never did. But it is. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 24.03.2007 16:35 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Personally, I think the United States has a pretty rational argument for not being bound by such an international protocol. Also, on a side note, recycling - who'd have thought it was so utterly wasteful and pointless? Hell, I never did. But it is.By any chance, is this the same argument against the US being subject to international law? |
| user name 25.03.2007 01:48 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:International politics is a complicated issue, and it's never very cut and dry. For now, we'll focus on the Kyoto Protocol.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Personally, I think the United States has a pretty rational argument for not being bound by such an international protocol. Also, on a side note, recycling - who'd have thought it was so utterly wasteful and pointless? Hell, I never did. But it is.By any chance, is this the same argument against the US being subject to international law? First off, we can argue how the Protocol is bullshit. It assumes a correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Professional scientists can't develop conclusive opinions on the matter, so are we supposed to take the word of a bunch of professional POLITICIANS? You and I all know that that's a load of humbug. Now we can examine the role of the United States in this issue. That link that Sir GH put up surely says it all, so let me highlight a few points: A unanimous vote from 95% of the Senate stated that enacting a protocol that did not have binding targets and timetables for both developing AND industrialized nations would be harmful to the economy. Perhaps surrendering freedom for certain arbitrary political goals is commonplace around the world, but it is completely against the classically liberal foundation of our country. Of course, we shouldn't sacrifice freedom for things such as security (Republicans) or gun control (Democrats), but that's yet another fucking tirade I can go on about. The treaty is clearly flawed. Exemption for China and India? Bullshit. Is the option to not enact an arbitrary treaty actually no option at all? International politics is a lot like a pick up soccer game between youngsters. Now, if everyone had to play while carrying a cement block except for Ghandi and Bruce Lee, I don't think you'd get too many players. Especially when they find out that Ghandi hates black people. If you're going to get people to willfully sign a binding contract, you better be damned sure they're going to benefit from it, or at least practice your signature forgery skills. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 25.03.2007 11:22 |
Thanks MusicMan. What you said does have sound logic to it. But I think the problem the scientists are running into as far as not being able to have conclusive opinions about the issue is more about which amounts of which specific gases are the most harmful. The scientists who know that global warming is a reality are all in agreement that it's the bundle of gases collectively called "Greenhouse Gases" that is if not causing, then exacerbating the problem. Implementing something that would reduce the emissions has never been said to have been a bad idea, except by those who deny Global Warming in the first place...and they are getting smaller in number by the day. So a conclusion doesn't really need to be reached, if all are in agreement that limiting the emissions would be a first step, if not the final solution. As I pointed out with China earlier, they are the third largest producer, and I was unaware they were given an exception in the agreement. Yes, that is crap. I realize they probably argued that they need the time to build up the base economy under it to then switch over to the cleaner stuff, but that's a flawed argument because it assumes they will make a more expensive switch once they have the money for it. Why not start off with the cleaner burning stuff? I'm sure other countries who signed the protocol will help by providing aid, scientists and technology to do that. As far as hurting the US economy, I knew that was the main argument against it. First off, I may not know much about economics (I've never even taken a course in it) but I do know that the US economy, contrary to popular belief, could take the impact that the Kyoto Protocol would inflict. We are still an economic superpower, and could take a fairly significant hit before things started getting noticeably worse at any level. We are just spoiled babies who like it the way it is. Also, prioritize between having a strong economy as a country and having a functional planet to live on. Politics has never been a forward-thinking thing, which is unfortunate since that's one of the major job descriptions that politics has (in theory). Plus, I just don't buy the excuse that "International Law of any kind is a good thing, as long as the US doesn't have to follow it because we are a superpower and it will damage/tie the hands of us in some way." This is a self-centered and arrogant view to hold. The US is part of the international community, and therefore it should be held accountable to international laws and treaties (since we do have a voice in them). Also, one could make the argument that the US is the one nation that NEEDS to be held to these standards, since we are unarguably in the position to inflict the most damage on the world if we so choose. |
| user name 25.03.2007 16:56 |
link Yes, these scientists are small in number, but they provide incredibly valid points. Is global warming bad? So many people seem to exacerbate this issue. At most it would indicate a 10 degrees Fahrenheit increase by 2100, and at least a 2.5 degree increase. Is that really worth all the paranoia it's causing? Some scientists even believe that an increase in temperature can be BENEFICIAL. How much of the temperature increase can be attributed to greenhouse gases vs. solar variation vs. etc.? Even those scientists most certain that greenhouse gases play a role still have no idea. === So what exactly are we fighting for? Patrick Moore, one of the founders of GREENPEACE, has such to say on the issue: link === Another thing to note is that despite not actively enacting the Kyoto Protocol, the United States is still environmentally consciencious, and is doing its best to reduce emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. === You said the United States is an economic superpower and you're right. We have the largest economy in the world, with a GDP of $12 trillion. For a little perspective, Japan is second with $4.6 trillion, then Germany with $2.7 trillion, the U.K. with $2.1 trillion, and France with $2.0 trillion. Obviously enacting the Kyoto Protocol is not going to bankrupt our nation. We DO need to strike a balance between a strong country and a strong environment, and our country has been doing that very well over the past century. However, you have to consider that global warming isn't really going to make our planet dysfunctional. Therefore, you're really asking for a country and all its citizens, businesses, etc. to give up their liberty and economy for something about as uncertain as the lottery. === International law is just like any other kind of law. There are good laws and there are bad laws, and they are almost always politically fueled. However, international law is different because it is an agreement than a decree. We don't "agree" to pay our taxes. We fucking have to! Haha, so essentially, laws require consequences. Until the world is a little more united and shares the same ideals and beliefs, any kind of international "supreme law" is going to be borderline useless, and comparable to that pick up soccer game I mentioned before. To keep the debate focused, the Kyoto Protocol is an example of an arguably bad law. The United States is following its legal beliefs, much like Rosa Parks, and I happen to agree with the country on this point. Some other points...maybe not. But this thread is about global warming, so this is where I stand. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 25.03.2007 20:57 |
A 10 degree increase doesn't sound like much...but what about the polar ice caps? Ten degrees might be enough to cause something as small as a third of them to melt...well, if that happens, what do you think happens to the bodies of water that surround them? Not that I'm alarmist, believe me, I'm not. In fact, I don't think humans are responsible for global warming; I think we are exacerbating the problem yes, but I don't think we caused it. |
| user name 25.03.2007 21:17 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: A 10 degree increase doesn't sound like much...but what about the polar ice caps? Ten degrees might be enough to cause something as small as a third of them to melt...well, if that happens, what do you think happens to the bodies of water that surround them? Not that I'm alarmist, believe me, I'm not. In fact, I don't think humans are responsible for global warming; I think we are exacerbating the problem yes, but I don't think we caused it.But you see what I mean, now? Your opinion is pretty moderate, and there are opinions both professional and not that are more extreme, in both directions. From Wikipedia: "If all glaciers and ice caps melt, the projected rise in sea level will be around 0.5 m. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet would produce 7.2 m of sea level rise, and melting of the Antarctic ice sheet would produce 61.1 m of sea level rise.[3] The collapse of the grounded interior reservoir of the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea level by 5-6 m.[4]" "As most of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lie above the snowline and/or base of the permafrost zone, they cannot melt in a timeframe much less than several millennia; therefore it is likely that they will not contribute significantly to sea level rise in the coming century. They can however do so through acceleration in flow and enhanced iceberg calving." So how much do we have to worry about? Well, once again, it's a bit inconclusive... I just think at this point and time, the economy of both the United States and the world is more important than a problem that not everyone can even agree is a problem... === I don't think I am the only one who thinks the greatest priority of the world is to develop and industrialize the entire world, therefore creating wealth and resources for all. Then, when we can finally globalize the economies of the world, trade will be ubiquitous, and wealth will grow abundantly for everyone. |
| john bodega 26.03.2007 07:28 |
'So how much do we have to worry about?" I'm of the school of thought that 'we' won't have much to worry about. I'll be dead before the shit really hits the fan, if indeed it is going to. It's our kids and their kids and so on that we might give a bit of thought to... better to be responsible now and make frigging sure that we're doing the right thing. I think. "I don't think I am the only one who thinks the greatest priority of the world is to develop and industrialize the entire world, therefore creating wealth and resources for all. Then, when we can finally globalize the economies of the world, trade will be ubiquitous, and wealth will grow abundantly for everyone.' I think your heart's in the right place but I think it's a terrible idea if we go about it as irresponsibly as we have done up till now. I mean... wealth for everyone; if everyone has it, it's not wealth is it? (Just an inflation joke there, I get what you're saying). |
| FREDDIE'S_DARLING_xxx 26.03.2007 08:25 |
weather sux. global warming sux. life kinda sux 2. lol :D xxx |
| you_rock_my_socks06 26.03.2007 11:26 |
On GMTV they said that in 100 years the planet will be 3 degrees higher which will have devastating effects. Even though that doesn't sound alot but it is for the polar ice caps and the planet as a whole. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 26.03.2007 11:35 |
you_rock_my_socks06 wrote: On GMTV they said that in 100 years the planet will be 3 degrees higher which will have devastating effects. Even though that doesn't sound alot but it is for the polar ice caps and the planet as a whole.its just speculation.it could do this,it could that.climate changes all the time even the scientists agree on this.i wouldnt lose any sleep over it.the earths temperature has swayed to and fro for thousands of years. |
| sparrow 21754 26.03.2007 15:17 |
joxerthemighty wrote:its a part of life. as you said. its really nothing to fret too much about, we just wont be living the life we know now, if anything. were humans, we adapt, we've done it for millions of years. same for the animals, they adapt, its survival of the fittest. yes some may become extinct or endangered, it sucks, but again, its a sick sad part of life.you_rock_my_socks06 wrote: On GMTV they said that in 100 years the planet will be 3 degrees higher which will have devastating effects. Even though that doesn't sound alot but it is for the polar ice caps and the planet as a whole.its just speculation.it could do this,it could that.climate changes all the time even the scientists agree on this.i wouldnt lose any sleep over it.the earths temperature has swayed to and fro for thousands of years. like you said, the earth has changed for many years, were just the ones thats have to put up with the change. some is really just sped up by us, but a healthy amount is just nature taking its course. |
| user name 26.03.2007 16:48 |
Zebonka12 wrote: 'So how much do we have to worry about?" I'm of the school of thought that 'we' won't have much to worry about. I'll be dead before the shit really hits the fan, if indeed it is going to. It's our kids and their kids and so on that we might give a bit of thought to... better to be responsible now and make frigging sure that we're doing the right thing. I think.But the thing is, will any shit hit the fan? Nobody knows yet. We can all agree that global warming isn't going to turn the world into a global wasteland, but what will it do? We don't know yet, nor do we know if abating greenhouse gas emissions will do much, if anything about it. But you're right, we better be damned sure we're doing the right thing. The problem is that we don't really know what that is right now. Zebonka12 wrote: "I don't think I am the only one who thinks the greatest priority of the world is to develop and industrialize the entire world, therefore creating wealth and resources for all. Then, when we can finally globalize the economies of the world, trade will be ubiquitous, and wealth will grow abundantly for everyone.' I think your heart's in the right place but I think it's a terrible idea if we go about it as irresponsibly as we have done up till now. I mean... wealth for everyone; if everyone has it, it's not wealth is it? (Just an inflation joke there, I get what you're saying).Haha, well, you get what I'm saying, but I'm sure that some people don't. Whenever two commodities are traded willfully, or a commodity for a service, etc., wealth is therefore created. Therefore, in a free market, every single trade creates wealth. That is because whenever a person or entity willfully engages in a trade, it is because he values the thing he is trading for more than what he is giving up to obtain it. Therefore, the more free trading in the world, the more total wealth will be created. The ideal would to be a completely globalized economy with complete information, where we can maximize wealth. Another thing is quality of life. Quality of life is increasing consistently. We have it better now than we did 20 years ago, and better then than we did 20 years before that. Regardless of inequality, or whatnot, the poorest person now still has a much higher quality of life than the wealthiest person 100 years ago. This is a direct result of the constant increase in wealth, as well as advances in science and technology which are prevalent in a free market society. Also, I might note that the past century or so has seen more corporate social responsibility than ever before. In fact, a lot of environmental issues are completely fabricated. Did you know that there are three times as many trees in the United States today as there were in 1920? There is no tree crisis, and no reason to "save the trees" by recycling. In fact, recycling anything other than aluminum has a NEGATIVE impact on the environment. ==== We all want to save the world, and preserve it for future generations. However, we can't buy into the environmental hysteria that is perpetuated by politicians looking for an easy vote. Remember, if you don't buy into fear and sensationalism of terrorism that is constantly presented to us, then you shouldn't buy into the fear and sensationalism of environmentalism. We all need to think critically on all issues. We can't get sucked into mindless groupthink, and we should take everything our politicians say with a grain of salt. They're not necessarily lying to you, but they're just like you and me: gullible. |
| The Real Wizard 27.03.2007 03:02 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Did you know that there are three times as many trees in the United States today as there were in 1920?Sure, but the demand for paper these days is much more than 3x of what it was in 1920. In fact, recycling anything other than aluminum has a NEGATIVE impact on the environment.This is quite the statement. Could you elaborate on it? Being a relatively green person, I'm genuinely interested. |
| user name 27.03.2007 03:53 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:The trees from which paper is derived is sustainable because for every tree that is logged, another (or many others) is/are planted in their place. That is why every decade, the United States' tree population grows.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Did you know that there are three times as many trees in the United States today as there were in 1920?Sure, but the demand for paper these days is much more than 3x of what it was in 1920.In fact, recycling anything other than aluminum has a NEGATIVE impact on the environment.This is quite the statement. Could you elaborate on it? Being a relatively green person, I'm genuinely interested. As for recycling: link Essentially, it takes more energy to recycle products than it takes to dispose of them in landfills. Despite popular belief, we are NOT running out of landfill area, and we probably never will. I don't mean to step on anybody's toes, but I feel that these are important things to consider. Recycling is perhaps one of the largest social movements in the country, and it's such a shame how inefficient it is. I always believed in recycling, and it took a lot of sources to tell me I was wrong before I believed it. In college, my roommate and I now have two garbage cans, instead of dedicating one of them to recycling. However, we will always recycle aluminum, since aluminum costs more to produce than to recycle (as opposed to everything else). |
| john bodega 27.03.2007 07:50 |
"Did you know that there are three times as many trees in the United States today as there were in 1920? There is no tree crisis, and no reason to "save the trees" by recycling. In fact, recycling anything other than aluminum has a NEGATIVE impact on the environment." Indeed? I don't know how it is in your part of the world... part of the trouble where I live is that people basically went 'lets replace the trees!!' and created a monoculture. They didn't really make an effort to replenish the old ecosystem - rather they just went and put down one kind of tree... kinda irresponsible! "But you're right, we better be damned sure we're doing the right thing. The problem is that we don't really know what that is right now." It's kinda hard to figure it out.... basically, the climate has always been changing, and always will. It makes it very tricky for us to figure out how much of the change is due to human intervention. I can't honestly believe that a few hundred years of industrial activity is having no effect at all. But the question is, of course ; how much effect, and if we cut it down, are we actually going to stop anything bad from happening?? "However, we will always recycle aluminum, since aluminum costs more to produce than to recycle (as opposed to everything else)." Interesting. I didn't know that. |
| thomasquinn 32989 27.03.2007 08:24 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:You are one embittered bastard.Undetermined wrote: I enjoyed the Al Gore movie. I believe most of the scientific facts are accurate.. there's just one major problem... Where is the proof that our CO2 is actually being trapped by the atmosphere and causing the increase?Can you point me to some of these scientific facts without me having to purchase a movie to fund someone's political agenda? Are there environmental problems? Sure. Are most environmental issues rooted in politics, rather than the environment? Hell yes! Modern environmentalism is based on sensationalism and fear - not science. Gore isn't even RUNNING for any office, and, NEWSFLASH: you can watch the movie for free in a great many cinemas. |
| thomasquinn 32989 27.03.2007 08:28 |
People who don't believe humans are a cause of Global Warming are a-scientific, completely senseless and pose a grave danger. During the last few years, several extremely careful, extremely complete surveys have been released, many respectable scientists have looked into it, and all have come to the same conclusion: We are as near to certain as is scientifically possible that mankind is greatly accelerating global warming. If you refuse to believe it, you are 1) in denial 2) pose a (potential) threat to the world 3) need to get an education |
| AspiringPhilosophe 27.03.2007 13:01 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: People who don't believe humans are a cause of Global Warming are a-scientific, completely senseless and pose a grave danger. During the last few years, several extremely careful, extremely complete surveys have been released, many respectable scientists have looked into it, and all have come to the same conclusion: We are as near to certain as is scientifically possible that mankind is greatly accelerating global warming. If you refuse to believe it, you are 1) in denial 2) pose a (potential) threat to the world 3) need to get an educationI was gunna call you out on this, but then I saw that you did say "a" cause of Global Warming, not "the" cause. Even the extremist scientists who tout global warming admit that humans aren't the soul cause...they are just greatly accelerating the problem. So, you are safe on that count. But, do you really need to place a value judgement on everyone all of the time? You do realize how uneducated and fanatical you look when you start slamming people who don't believe the exact same things you do and make judgements about their worthiness to live or their education. (This puts you close to the terrorists and fascists you denounce so much) You may want to try taking a chill pill. People are different, people think differently and in different ways about different things, and we will NEVER get to a point where everone agrees with one thing. Ever. So relax! |
| The Real Wizard 27.03.2007 14:07 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: The trees from which paper is derived is sustainable because for every tree that is logged, another (or many others) is/are planted in their place. That is why every decade, the United States' tree population grows.Fair enough, but can you say the same thing for the Brazilian rainforests? As for recycling: linkOuch... This is something I'll have to consider! So, what's next... home-filtered water gives you cancer? |
| user name 27.03.2007 15:34 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Meh, what doesn't give you cancer?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: The trees from which paper is derived is sustainable because for every tree that is logged, another (or many others) is/are planted in their place. That is why every decade, the United States' tree population grows.Fair enough, but can you say the same thing for the Brazilian rainforests?As for recycling: linkOuch... This is something I'll have to consider! So, what's next... home-filtered water gives you cancer? Anyway, from what I understand, the major (or perhaps sole) source of paper in the United States is from secondary forests (the ones we replenish). As far as paper production elsewhere, I'm not sure. Rainforest destruction is a cause for some alarm, but from what I understand, the major cause of it is this: poor people of the world need arable land to cultivate, and thus turn to rainforest land to feed themselves and their communities. This leads to an even bigger issue of world hunger, which is the primary factor in this. Hopefully, through science, we will one day be able to feed the entire world through genetically modified crops. Hopefully, in this respect, Greenpeace (who is against the genetic modification of foods) does not get their way, and therefore cause millions or billions of people around the world to suffer through starvation. link |
| user name 27.03.2007 15:36 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:I was referring to all acts of environmental hysteria being geared toward forwarding someone's political agenda somewhere. I wasn't particularly referring to Gore, as I am even rather fond of him.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:You are one embittered bastard. Gore isn't even RUNNING for any office, and, NEWSFLASH: you can watch the movie for free in a great many cinemas.Undetermined wrote: I enjoyed the Al Gore movie. I believe most of the scientific facts are accurate.. there's just one major problem... Where is the proof that our CO2 is actually being trapped by the atmosphere and causing the increase?Can you point me to some of these scientific facts without me having to purchase a movie to fund someone's political agenda? Are there environmental problems? Sure. Are most environmental issues rooted in politics, rather than the environment? Hell yes! Modern environmentalism is based on sensationalism and fear - not science. On a side note, it seems a great many cinemas is apparently none at all... And seriously, I'm not even going to respond to YOU calling someone an embittered bastard. Hahaha! |
| user name 27.03.2007 15:44 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: People who don't believe humans are a cause of Global Warming are a-scientific, completely senseless and pose a grave danger. During the last few years, several extremely careful, extremely complete surveys have been released, many respectable scientists have looked into it, and all have come to the same conclusion: We are as near to certain as is scientifically possible that mankind is greatly accelerating global warming. If you refuse to believe it, you are 1) in denial 2) pose a (potential) threat to the world 3) need to get an educationThis is absolute bullshit, and it's non-objective, "believe what you hear as long as it's supported by your political bias" people like you that are completely senseless and pose a great danger. As of now, there are three undeniable truths: 1) We (you, the entire scientific community, or anyone else) do not know how great the human influence on global warming is. 2) We do not know what the effects of global warming will be, or whether they will be good or bad. 3) We do not know to what extent these effects will be. Patrick Moore (not Brian May's buddy - rather, a founder and former member of fucking Greenpeace) has even said on the issue: "It's become so complicated, there's so much snake oil around the whole subject... the best comment that was ever made was by Michael Crichton in his book State of Fear: 'I am certain there is too much certainty in the world'. And I am certain that he is right." He has also said: "I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is the romanticization of peasant life. And the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world. The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries. I think it's legitimate for me to call them anti-human." link Scientific Evidence > Consensus Opinion 'nuff said. |