human's don't have enough hard, conclusive proof that humans are the main cause of global warming. we need more tests. we need more results.
there are theories to suggest it may be completely natural- we are coming out of an ice age, after all.
There are not credible theories that suggest we are not the cause of the issue.
There are oil companies that suggest that, but they are a bit biased for obvious reasons.
there are scientists who suggest that too, but when they do, they are immediatly written off as taking money from the companies. why does no one see how dangerous it is to not at least loook at what the counter-argument has to say; or at least how dangerous it is to blindly believe in one side of a theory?
I agree with your fundamental philosophy here, but when one side touts safety and practices that are responsible and good anyway, I tend not to care about the other side of the argument, the one that suggests no good alternative but "wait, wait, maybe it's not our fault!" In this case, I think it is more dangerous to entertain doubt about global warming - doubt that could delay action - than to simply go ahead and spend moderately on slowing the process as much as possible.
Then again, I think we should just dump all our money into space research and colonization technology, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
but the thing is, there isn't much we can do about it. solar power, wind farms, all that stuff isn't enough to power our countries, let alone with china and india becoming more and more industrialised. nuclear is pretty much our last resort, and that isn't a very good last resort at all.
human's don't have enough hard, conclusive proof that humans are the main cause of global warming. we need more tests. we need more results.
there are theories to suggest it may be completely natural- we are coming out of an ice age, after all.
There are not credible theories that suggest we are not the cause of the issue.
There are oil companies that suggest that, but they are a bit biased for obvious reasons.
there are scientists who suggest that too, but when they do, they are immediatly written off as taking money from the companies. why does no one see how dangerous it is to not at least loook at what the counter-argument has to say; or at least how dangerous it is to blindly believe in one side of a theory?
I agree with your fundamental philosophy here, but when one side touts safety and practices that are responsible and good anyway, I tend not to care about the other side of the argument, the one that suggests no good alternative but "wait, wait, maybe it's not our fault!" In this case, I think it is more dangerous to entertain doubt about global warming - doubt that could delay action - than to simply go ahead and spend moderately on slowing the process as much as possible.
Then again, I think we should just dump all our money into space research and colonization technology, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
I've simply been saying that we should not over react, and cripple the world economy over something that is very much in doubt.
I covered that with "moderately spend." I don't think anyone disagrees that we shouldn't throw all our money at global warming prevention methods. That would be absurd. Gore isn't even saying that, I'm positive, and I haven't seen the video at all.
However the moderate steps being taken are what we should be doing, with perhaps a little more emphasis and forethought, because they are good practices.
Thus, I could frankly care less if man is causing global warming or not. It's a fun little thing to debate about, I suppose, but in the end, it affects nothing, because we should and will continue to achieve more efficient and independent fuel sources and the like.
human's don't have enough hard, conclusive proof that humans are the main cause of global warming. we need more tests. we need more results.
there are theories to suggest it may be completely natural- we are coming out of an ice age, after all.
There are not credible theories that suggest we are not the cause of the issue.
There are oil companies that suggest that, but they are a bit biased for obvious reasons.
there are scientists who suggest that too, but when they do, they are immediatly written off as taking money from the companies. why does no one see how dangerous it is to not at least loook at what the counter-argument has to say; or at least how dangerous it is to blindly believe in one side of a theory?
I agree with your fundamental philosophy here, but when one side touts safety and practices that are responsible and good anyway, I tend not to care about the other side of the argument, the one that suggests no good alternative but "wait, wait, maybe it's not our fault!" In this case, I think it is more dangerous to entertain doubt about global warming - doubt that could delay action - than to simply go ahead and spend moderately on slowing the process as much as possible.
Then again, I think we should just dump all our money into space research and colonization technology, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
but the thing is, there isn't much we can do about it. solar power, wind farms, all that stuff isn't enough to power our countries, let alone with china and india becoming more and more industrialised. nuclear is pretty much our last resort, and that isn't a very good last resort at all.
there are scientists who suggest that too, but when they do, they are immediatly written off as taking money from the companies. why does no one see how dangerous it is to not at least loook at what the counter-argument has to say; or at least how dangerous it is to blindly believe in one side of a theory?
For simplicities sake, let us assume that Mr. Gore and the various climatologists are indeed wrong. The increase in temperature is not impacted at all by man and we are simply stuck between a rock and a hard place. Could you explain to me what there is to gain by not having a more efficient industry, not becoming less dependent upon foreign countries for fuel, and overall being a less polluted country? Why sustainability shouldn't be something that is automatically tied in to new designs and the thought processes designers use in their approach to new products? What is there to gain by continuing business as usual and risk the chance that Gore and all those scientists are right? Why the government should not be supporting changes in industrial paradigms that will ensure competitiveness with foreign companies already taking sustainability seriously?
because we don't have another choice. unless you feel like paving texas in solar panels to power america, and even that won't be enough in about 5 to 10 years. wind power, geothermal power, etc. are all too ineffective to keep this world going.
but the thing is, there isn't much we can do about it. solar power, wind farms, all that stuff isn't enough to power our countries, let alone with china and india becoming more and more industrialised.
Tell that to the LEED accredidation board and the most recent platinum rated building which is contributing energy back into the electrical grid.
nuclear is pretty much our last resort, and that isn't a very good last resort at all.
Only if you're paranoid. However, I do agree that it would be better to focus on non-nuclear methods of power since there's only so much uranium to go around.
there are scientists who suggest that too, but when they do, they are immediatly written off as taking money from the companies. why does no one see how dangerous it is to not at least loook at what the counter-argument has to say; or at least how dangerous it is to blindly believe in one side of a theory?
For simplicities sake, let us assume that Mr. Gore and the various climatologists are indeed wrong. The increase in temperature is not impacted at all by man and we are simply stuck between a rock and a hard place. Could you explain to me what there is to gain by not having a more efficient industry, not becoming less dependent upon foreign countries for fuel, and overall being a less polluted country? Why sustainability shouldn't be something that is automatically tied in to new designs and the thought processes designers use in their approach to new products? What is there to gain by continuing business as usual and risk the chance that Gore and all those scientists are right? Why the government should not be supporting changes in industrial paradigms that will ensure competitiveness with foreign companies already taking sustainability seriously?
because we don't have another choice. unless you feel like paving texas in solar panels to power america, and even that won't be enough in about 5 to 10 years. wind power, geothermal power, etc. are all too ineffective to keep this world going.
Ok, but now you're doing exactly what you are blaming others of. It may turn out that research will not turn up an effective alternate energy source. But how the hell do you know it won't?
human's don't have enough hard, conclusive proof that humans are the main cause of global warming. we need more tests. we need more results.
there are theories to suggest it may be completely natural- we are coming out of an ice age, after all.
There are not credible theories that suggest we are not the cause of the issue.
There are oil companies that suggest that, but they are a bit biased for obvious reasons.
there are scientists who suggest that too, but when they do, they are immediatly written off as taking money from the companies. why does no one see how dangerous it is to not at least loook at what the counter-argument has to say; or at least how dangerous it is to blindly believe in one side of a theory?
I agree with your fundamental philosophy here, but when one side touts safety and practices that are responsible and good anyway, I tend not to care about the other side of the argument, the one that suggests no good alternative but "wait, wait, maybe it's not our fault!" In this case, I think it is more dangerous to entertain doubt about global warming - doubt that could delay action - than to simply go ahead and spend moderately on slowing the process as much as possible.
Then again, I think we should just dump all our money into space research and colonization technology, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
but the thing is, there isn't much we can do about it. solar power, wind farms, all that stuff isn't enough to power our countries, let alone with china and india becoming more and more industrialised. nuclear is pretty much our last resort, and that isn't a very good last resort at all.
Colonize Mars. Spread to the skies.
Problems solved.
let's move the earth a couple hundred meters away from the sun.
because we don't have another choice. unless you feel like paving texas in solar panels to power america, and even that won't be enough in about 5 to 10 years. wind power, geothermal power, etc. are all too ineffective to keep this world going.
No, they are just fine and capable of keeping us going for a good long while. Especially BIPV's if you track their increasing effectiveness ahead a little while and start actually promoting their use, which is just what HR 5656 and new legislation being crafted is doing.
You're right, one really fucking big bunch of photovoltaics or whatnot in the middle of nowhere piping out electricity hundreds of miles to homes can't replace a coal powerplant in the same situation. I just don't see how or why we'd want to go that route even if it could; as though that methodology was efficient.
nuclear is pretty much our last resort, and that isn't a very good last resort at all.
Only if you're paranoid. However, I do agree that it would be better to focus on non-nuclear methods of power since there's only so much uranium to go around.
yeah, that's what I meant: nuclear is no better than oil when it comes to lasting fuel sources. and it's less efficient, too.
human's don't have enough hard, conclusive proof that humans are the main cause of global warming. we need more tests. we need more results.
there are theories to suggest it may be completely natural- we are coming out of an ice age, after all.
By the time we can say "humans are 100% for sure a major cause of global warming," it will be too late to do anything about it.
If humans are the cause of global warming then it is already too late to do anything about it.
Oh Yeah?
So I take it you've invented a machine capable of reclaiming several billion tons of CO2 and other GHGs? Because simply cutting emissions wouldn't do shit.
human's don't have enough hard, conclusive proof that humans are the main cause of global warming. we need more tests. we need more results.
there are theories to suggest it may be completely natural- we are coming out of an ice age, after all.
By the time we can say "humans are 100% for sure a major cause of global warming," it will be too late to do anything about it.
If humans are the cause of global warming then it is already too late to do anything about it.
Oh Yeah?
So I take it you've invented a machine capable of reclaiming several billion tons of CO2 and other GHGs? Because simply cutting emissions wouldn't do shit.
You realize that the problem is not "OH SHIT WE ARE DYING RIGHT NOW" or "no problem at all," right? It's a sliding scale. We can move the potential disaster down an inch on the scale if we start paying attention.
So I take it you've invented a machine capable of reclaiming several billion tons of CO2 and other GHGs? Because simply cutting emissions wouldn't do shit.
You mean, we still have CO2 in the atmosphere from dinosaur farts however many billions of years ago? I'll be damnded. Next you're going to tell me that all those CFC's we didn't pump into the air these last few decades have done less than shit as well.
because we don't have another choice. unless you feel like paving texas in solar panels to power america, and even that won't be enough in about 5 to 10 years. wind power, geothermal power, etc. are all too ineffective to keep this world going.
No, they are just fine and capable of keeping us going for a good long while. Especially BIPV's if you track their increasing effectiveness ahead a little while and start actually promoting their use, which is just what HR 5656 and new legislation being crafted is doing.
You're right, one really fucking big bunch of photovoltaics or whatnot in the middle of nowhere piping out electricity hundreds of miles to homes can't replace a coal powerplant in the same situation. I just don't see how or why we'd want to go that route even if it could; as though that methodology was efficient.
because we're going to run out of coal and oil at some point, and if people are concerned that coal and oil are contributing to global warming, then they will want something recyclable. which is unavaliable, at the moment.
nuclear is pretty much our last resort, and that isn't a very good last resort at all.
Only if you're paranoid. However, I do agree that it would be better to focus on non-nuclear methods of power since there's only so much uranium to go around.
yeah, that's what I meant: nuclear is no better than oil when it comes to lasting fuel sources. and it's less efficient, too.
We should switch to nuclear just to get rid of the uranium deposits which can be used for bombasticity.
human's don't have enough hard, conclusive proof that humans are the main cause of global warming. we need more tests. we need more results.
there are theories to suggest it may be completely natural- we are coming out of an ice age, after all.
By the time we can say "humans are 100% for sure a major cause of global warming," it will be too late to do anything about it.
If humans are the cause of global warming then it is already too late to do anything about it.
Oh Yeah?
So I take it you've invented a machine capable of reclaiming several billion tons of CO2 and other GHGs? Because simply cutting emissions wouldn't do shit.
because we don't have another choice. unless you feel like paving texas in solar panels to power america, and even that won't be enough in about 5 to 10 years. wind power, geothermal power, etc. are all too ineffective to keep this world going.
No, they are just fine and capable of keeping us going for a good long while. Especially BIPV's if you track their increasing effectiveness ahead a little while and start actually promoting their use, which is just what HR 5656 and new legislation being crafted is doing.
You're right, one really fucking big bunch of photovoltaics or whatnot in the middle of nowhere piping out electricity hundreds of miles to homes can't replace a coal powerplant in the same situation. I just don't see how or why we'd want to go that route even if it could; as though that methodology was efficient.
because we're going to run out of coal and oil at some point, and if people are concerned that coal and oil are contributing to global warming, then they will want something recyclable. which is unavaliable, at the moment.
The sun is recyclable, it just takes being crushed into a singularity while the universe collapses into the start of another big bang to be recycled. As per other methods, I'm afraid I don't see your point. Steel recycles something like 80% of old parts as an industry and that could be improved even more by designing things for disassembly. Or do you mean to imply that we'll run out of sand or portland cement at one point?
human's don't have enough hard, conclusive proof that humans are the main cause of global warming. we need more tests. we need more results.
there are theories to suggest it may be completely natural- we are coming out of an ice age, after all.
By the time we can say "humans are 100% for sure a major cause of global warming," it will be too late to do anything about it.
If humans are the cause of global warming then it is already too late to do anything about it.
Oh Yeah?
So I take it you've invented a machine capable of reclaiming several billion tons of CO2 and other GHGs? Because simply cutting emissions wouldn't do shit.
You realize that the problem is not "OH SHIT WE ARE DYING RIGHT NOW" or "no problem at all," right? It's a sliding scale. We can move the potential disaster down an inch on the scale if we start paying attention.
but if the countries involved in the kyoto traty actually did meet their targets, the fall in average yearly CO2 in the atmosphere is something like 1.7%. I don't know, I'm looking it up. it's a pretty pathetic number though.
because we don't have another choice. unless you feel like paving texas in solar panels to power america, and even that won't be enough in about 5 to 10 years. wind power, geothermal power, etc. are all too ineffective to keep this world going.
No, they are just fine and capable of keeping us going for a good long while. Especially BIPV's if you track their increasing effectiveness ahead a little while and start actually promoting their use, which is just what HR 5656 and new legislation being crafted is doing.
You're right, one really fucking big bunch of photovoltaics or whatnot in the middle of nowhere piping out electricity hundreds of miles to homes can't replace a coal powerplant in the same situation. I just don't see how or why we'd want to go that route even if it could; as though that methodology was efficient.
because we're going to run out of coal and oil at some point, and if people are concerned that coal and oil are contributing to global warming, then they will want something recyclable. which is unavaliable, at the moment.
The sun is recyclable, it just takes being crushed into a singularity while the universe collapses into the start of another big bang to be recycled. As per other methods, I'm afraid I don't see your point. Steel recycles something like 80% of old parts as an industry and that could be improved even more by designing things for disassembly. Or do you mean to imply that we'll run out of sand or portland cement at one point?
but I was talking about running out of fuel, and other recycliable fuel methods are innappropriate at the moment. not steel, or whatever.
When I again hear the complaint that atheists act like they are superior to fundies, I will smile and think of this story. We are superior, and it's a great feeling.
And yeah, outfitting residences with their own solar panels would be relatively simple if the feds made a concerted effort. Once people realize they can get money from the electrical company by putting juice back in the grid, it becomes much easier to convince them to convert.
Spaten Optimator on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
yeah, that's what I meant: nuclear is no better than oil when it comes to lasting fuel sources. and it's less efficient, too.
I'm pretty sure we have, like, thousands of years of fissable material usable for nuclear power. I mean, when you say it's not a long-term solution, just how long-term are you talking?
When I again hear the complaint that atheists act like they are superior to fundies, I will smile and think of this story. We are superior, and it's a great feeling.
And yeah, outfitting residences with their own solar panels would be relatively simple if the feds made a concerted effort. Once people realize they can get money from the electrical company by putting juice back in the grid, it becomes much easier to convince them to convert.
No you aren't. In fact, saying that you are superior to fundies is mostly why you aren't.
I'd rather have a retardedly naive, foolish, misguided fundie friend than a pompous ass who thinks his illogical philosophy is the most logical shit on the planet.
because we don't have another choice. unless you feel like paving texas in solar panels to power america, and even that won't be enough in about 5 to 10 years. wind power, geothermal power, etc. are all too ineffective to keep this world going.
No, they are just fine and capable of keeping us going for a good long while. Especially BIPV's if you track their increasing effectiveness ahead a little while and start actually promoting their use, which is just what HR 5656 and new legislation being crafted is doing.
You're right, one really fucking big bunch of photovoltaics or whatnot in the middle of nowhere piping out electricity hundreds of miles to homes can't replace a coal powerplant in the same situation. I just don't see how or why we'd want to go that route even if it could; as though that methodology was efficient.
because we're going to run out of coal and oil at some point, and if people are concerned that coal and oil are contributing to global warming, then they will want something recyclable. which is unavaliable, at the moment.
The sun is recyclable, it just takes being crushed into a singularity while the universe collapses into the start of another big bang to be recycled. As per other methods, I'm afraid I don't see your point. Steel recycles something like 80% of old parts as an industry and that could be improved even more by designing things for disassembly. Or do you mean to imply that we'll run out of sand or portland cement at one point?
but I was talking about running out of fuel, and other recycliable fuel methods are innappropriate at the moment. not steel, or whatever.
At the moment...okay so I guess we should have never attempted mechanization since a horse could outrun the earliest incarnation of a steam engine. We should have been happy with the '68 NPT and not pushed for reductions in ballistic missles or test bans or anything. I mean, Kyoto will hardly do anything if people can meet it's difficult standards and then what? It's not like you can go above and beyond what an old treaty asks of you. That would take, like, a new treaty. Like that's a possible path to follow, making a new treaty and improving things even more. Everybody knows our universe exists in a kind of stasis with nothing ever changing. Ever.
Oh, and steel and concrete are practically the only materials being used en masse in geothermal or tidal or wind energy. Unless you think we're going to run out of sand, portland cement, and rocks there isn't really much threat to their recyclability so I have no idea where you're coming from with that.
When I again hear the complaint that atheists act like they are superior to fundies, I will smile and think of this story. We are superior, and it's a great feeling.
And yeah, outfitting residences with their own solar panels would be relatively simple if the feds made a concerted effort. Once people realize they can get money from the electrical company by putting juice back in the grid, it becomes much easier to convince them to convert.
HR 5656 and a new bill being drafted (I forget the number, but it's sponsored by my Rep, Judy) that is providing either federal subsidies for energy efficient buildings or funding for renewable energies in order to make them more cost effective. There also needs to be a federal mandate that the power companies pay out when you rotate the meter backwards. I think it's currently a state by state thing.
human's don't have enough hard, conclusive proof that humans are the main cause of global warming. we need more tests. we need more results.
there are theories to suggest it may be completely natural- we are coming out of an ice age, after all.
By the time we can say "humans are 100% for sure a major cause of global warming," it will be too late to do anything about it.
If humans are the cause of global warming then it is already too late to do anything about it.
Oh Yeah?
So I take it you've invented a machine capable of reclaiming several billion tons of CO2 and other GHGs? Because simply cutting emissions wouldn't do shit.
You realize that the problem is not "OH SHIT WE ARE DYING RIGHT NOW" or "no problem at all," right? It's a sliding scale. We can move the potential disaster down an inch on the scale if we start paying attention.
No, that is not how it works, at least not with the premise the "sky is falling" people are working from. The earth doesn't warm as GHGs are put into the air. The rate at which it warms is what increases. If you stopped emitting any GHGs at all, the earth would continue to warm at the same rate. Granting the premise of the "sky is falling" crowd, if the earth continues to warm, then the climate will reach a point of no return, at which positive feedback loops, like increased water vapor, decreased amount of ice, etc, further accelerate warming. Of course, this ignores the counter balances in the climate, negative feedback loops if you will, like increased cloud cover from all the extra water vapor.
human's don't have enough hard, conclusive proof that humans are the main cause of global warming. we need more tests. we need more results.
there are theories to suggest it may be completely natural- we are coming out of an ice age, after all.
There are not credible theories that suggest we are not the cause of the issue.
There are oil companies that suggest that, but they are a bit biased for obvious reasons.
there are scientists who suggest that too, but when they do, they are immediatly written off as taking money from the companies. why does no one see how dangerous it is to not at least loook at what the counter-argument has to say; or at least how dangerous it is to blindly believe in one side of a theory?
No, there are no scientists who suggest that whose results are not dependant upon funding from interested parties.
human's don't have enough hard, conclusive proof that humans are the main cause of global warming. we need more tests. we need more results.
there are theories to suggest it may be completely natural- we are coming out of an ice age, after all.
By the time we can say "humans are 100% for sure a major cause of global warming," it will be too late to do anything about it.
If humans are the cause of global warming then it is already too late to do anything about it.
Oh Yeah?
So I take it you've invented a machine capable of reclaiming several billion tons of CO2 and other GHGs? Because simply cutting emissions wouldn't do shit.
You realize that the problem is not "OH SHIT WE ARE DYING RIGHT NOW" or "no problem at all," right? It's a sliding scale. We can move the potential disaster down an inch on the scale if we start paying attention.
No, that is not how it works, at least not with the premise the "sky is falling" people are working from. The earth doesn't warm as GHGs are put into the air. The rate at which it warms is what increases. If you stopped emitting any GHGs at all, the earth would continue to warm at the same rate. Granting the premise of the "sky is falling" crowd, if the earth continues to warm, then the climate will reach a point of no return, at which positive feedback loops, like increased water vapor, decreased amount of ice, etc, further accelerate warming. Of course, this ignores the counter balances in the climate, negative feedback loops if you will, like increased cloud cover from all the extra water vapor.
So wouldn't halting the outpour of GHGs now make it stop accelerating, and just continue to warm at a set pace?
I don't see how that's a negative as opposed to it speeding up the rate at which it warms.
Also, saying that there's no point in doing anything because stopping carbon emissions etc would do nothing is plain dumb.
Some of the changes that harm the earth the most are frighteningly minor. Tiny changes to the major underwater currents of the planet can cause massive climate shifts. The melting of single icebergs of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic (which can be as big as cities or countries by the way) can flood entire cities or countries.
If a big enough chunk of ice falls from a glacier off Greenland it could take a nice chunk of Western Europe for a fucking laugh. If we start soon enough and slowly begin restoration processes we can, very slowly, halt the problems. But massive changes have to take place and until someone has the balls to start making small changes the big ones will never happen.
it's not even like this shit could happen in 50+ years, it could happen right fucking now and millions of people could be raped. Hurricanes like catrina can actually be caused by these global warming and emission problems, you do know that right?
It is never ever a bad idea to stop polluting or fucking up the planet. What's the point in trying to keep the economy stable if there's not going to be an economy in a couple of years. Go silently but comfortably is it?
If you believe global warming does not exist, you are stupid. If you do not believe we have something to do with it in some way, you are ignorant. There is a lot we don't know, but the climate is changing (climate- not just temperature), and we are not helping.
fuck you.
science is supposed to be about finding a theory and trying to disprove it- now tell me where you have seen the other side of the argument. in scientific terms, of course, not these psychos who think god fucks around with the speed of light to show us the stars.
tell me where you have seen the evidence agianst global warming- it exists, you know. don't be so one sided.
I haven't read anything compelling yet, but I'm completely open to it. I would love to see a competent argument against it, and I would be very thankful if you linked me to one.
If you believe global warming does not exist, you are stupid. If you do not believe we have something to do with it in some way, you are ignorant. There is a lot we don't know, but the climate is changing (climate- not just temperature), and we are not helping.
fuck you.
science is supposed to be about finding a theory and trying to disprove it- now tell me where you have seen the other side of the argument. in scientific terms, of course, not these psychos who think god fucks around with the speed of light to show us the stars.
tell me where you have seen the evidence agianst global warming- it exists, you know. don't be so one sided.
I haven't read anything compelling yet, but I'm completely open to it. I would love to see a competent argument against it, and I would be very thankful if you linked me to one.
Does he mean "evidence agianst global warming" as in "scientifically it could be proven that global warming doesn't exist and that humans are not a part of the globe slowly gaining temperature"?
That's quite hard to back. Naturally every planet warms over time as the gases cycle and then the planet will transform into a dwarf or... fuck i'm not explaining this shit you know that bit.
Yet, we are exponentially speeding up this warming process and making the world uninhabitable. If we took enough time we could probably even think of a way to stop natural warming if we had another couple of hundred years on the subject and enough scientists doing work on it. Problem is, people are just too unwilling to either believe it, or care. It's sad.
I'm probably going to go into genetic research or ecological research after University, plainly because genetic research could lead to saving lives and forming cures, aswell as giving more understanding towards the life on this planet and how we are linked etc. Also, Ecological research could lead me to global warming, greenhouse effect problems or items effecting the deepwater currents of the Ocean that are probably one of the most important effectors on our planet.
I'm not saying i'm all high and mighty i'm just saying fuck anyone who doesn't care about this shit.
If you believe global warming does not exist, you are stupid. If you do not believe we have something to do with it in some way, you are ignorant. There is a lot we don't know, but the climate is changing (climate- not just temperature), and we are not helping.
fuck you.
science is supposed to be about finding a theory and trying to disprove it- now tell me where you have seen the other side of the argument. in scientific terms, of course, not these psychos who think god fucks around with the speed of light to show us the stars.
tell me where you have seen the evidence agianst global warming- it exists, you know. don't be so one sided.
I haven't read anything compelling yet, but I'm completely open to it. I would love to see a competent argument against it, and I would be very thankful if you linked me to one.
Does he mean "evidence agianst global warming" as in "scientifically it could be proven that global warming doesn't exist and that humans are not a part of the globe slowly gaining temperature"?
I'd settle for anything that puts any of it in doubt. And I mean, if it's out there it's out there...but I haven't seen it yet.
I don't think it's THERE IS NOTHING WRONG or IT'S ALL OUR FAULT. The truth, as usual, is going to be a middleground. But science is saying we're overdue for an iceage, and everyone knows we're pumping tonnes upon tonnes of gas into the air...it's not really an obscure leap of logic (the kind of thing that we'll call silly in 50 years), it's...kind of obvious.
We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?
I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!
We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.
You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...asshole.
So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.
Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.
I don't think anyone's claiming that Global Warming is going to suddenly cause the Earth to stop spinning or plummet into the Sun or something.
I think the crux of the argument is that eventually it's going to kill a hell of a lot of things here: including, but not necessarily only, us. When people use the term, "Saving the Planet", they don't mean ensuring that the physical integrity of the Earth stays strong. They mean saving all the living things on the planet as well. But hey, if the prospect of billions of living things dying elicits nothing more than a "meh", then I'd dare to call you the arrogant one.
I don't think anyone's claiming that Global Warming is going to suddenly cause the Earth to stop spinning or plummet into the Sun or something.
I think the crux of the argument is that eventually it's going to kill a hell of a lot of things here: including, but not necessarily only, us. When people use the term, "Saving the Planet", they don't mean ensuring that the physical integrity of the Earth stays strong. They mean saving all the living things on the planet as well. But hey, if the prospect of billions of living things dying elicits nothing more than a "meh", then I'd dare to call you the arrogant one.
Until such time as humanity cares about something more than their immediate interests(and by immediate, I mean the things that will directly affect them or their families), humanity as a species is most likely doomed. The planet will move on.
Also, saying that there's no point in doing anything because stopping carbon emissions etc would do nothing is plain dumb.
Some of the changes that harm the earth the most are frighteningly minor. Tiny changes to the major underwater currents of the planet can cause massive climate shifts. The melting of single icebergs of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic (which can be as big as cities or countries by the way) can flood entire cities or countries.
If a big enough chunk of ice falls from a glacier off Greenland it could take a nice chunk of Western Europe for a fucking laugh. If we start soon enough and slowly begin restoration processes we can, very slowly, halt the problems. But massive changes have to take place and until someone has the balls to start making small changes the big ones will never happen.
it's not even like this shit could happen in 50+ years, it could happen right fucking now and millions of people could be raped. Hurricanes like catrina can actually be caused by these global warming and emission problems, you do know that right?
It is never ever a bad idea to stop polluting or fucking up the planet. What's the point in trying to keep the economy stable if there's not going to be an economy in a couple of years. Go silently but comfortably is it?
If an iceberg melts, the sea level goes down... good job.
Also, Katrina was not unusually powerful: it hit category 5 for a short time, but had mellowed out to category 4 when it hit, and then calmed even further to category 3 for much of the time it was hitting N.O.;it just hit New Orleans dead on. thats all.
Posts
Oh Yeah?
but the thing is, there isn't much we can do about it. solar power, wind farms, all that stuff isn't enough to power our countries, let alone with china and india becoming more and more industrialised. nuclear is pretty much our last resort, and that isn't a very good last resort at all.
I covered that with "moderately spend." I don't think anyone disagrees that we shouldn't throw all our money at global warming prevention methods. That would be absurd. Gore isn't even saying that, I'm positive, and I haven't seen the video at all.
However the moderate steps being taken are what we should be doing, with perhaps a little more emphasis and forethought, because they are good practices.
Thus, I could frankly care less if man is causing global warming or not. It's a fun little thing to debate about, I suppose, but in the end, it affects nothing, because we should and will continue to achieve more efficient and independent fuel sources and the like.
1) We aren't sure that humans cause GW.
2) It's too late.
Colonize Mars. Spread to the skies.
Problems solved.
because we don't have another choice. unless you feel like paving texas in solar panels to power america, and even that won't be enough in about 5 to 10 years. wind power, geothermal power, etc. are all too ineffective to keep this world going.
Tell that to the LEED accredidation board and the most recent platinum rated building which is contributing energy back into the electrical grid.
Only if you're paranoid. However, I do agree that it would be better to focus on non-nuclear methods of power since there's only so much uranium to go around.
Ok, but now you're doing exactly what you are blaming others of. It may turn out that research will not turn up an effective alternate energy source. But how the hell do you know it won't?
let's move the earth a couple hundred meters away from the sun.
No, they are just fine and capable of keeping us going for a good long while. Especially BIPV's if you track their increasing effectiveness ahead a little while and start actually promoting their use, which is just what HR 5656 and new legislation being crafted is doing.
You're right, one really fucking big bunch of photovoltaics or whatnot in the middle of nowhere piping out electricity hundreds of miles to homes can't replace a coal powerplant in the same situation. I just don't see how or why we'd want to go that route even if it could; as though that methodology was efficient.
yeah, that's what I meant: nuclear is no better than oil when it comes to lasting fuel sources. and it's less efficient, too.
So I take it you've invented a machine capable of reclaiming several billion tons of CO2 and other GHGs? Because simply cutting emissions wouldn't do shit.
<img src="http://card.mygamercard.net/gelsig/Akula765.png" border=0>
</a>
You realize that the problem is not "OH SHIT WE ARE DYING RIGHT NOW" or "no problem at all," right? It's a sliding scale. We can move the potential disaster down an inch on the scale if we start paying attention.
You mean, we still have CO2 in the atmosphere from dinosaur farts however many billions of years ago? I'll be damnded. Next you're going to tell me that all those CFC's we didn't pump into the air these last few decades have done less than shit as well.
because we're going to run out of coal and oil at some point, and if people are concerned that coal and oil are contributing to global warming, then they will want something recyclable. which is unavaliable, at the moment.
We should switch to nuclear just to get rid of the uranium deposits which can be used for bombasticity.
Do tell do tell.
The sun is recyclable, it just takes being crushed into a singularity while the universe collapses into the start of another big bang to be recycled. As per other methods, I'm afraid I don't see your point. Steel recycles something like 80% of old parts as an industry and that could be improved even more by designing things for disassembly. Or do you mean to imply that we'll run out of sand or portland cement at one point?
but if the countries involved in the kyoto traty actually did meet their targets, the fall in average yearly CO2 in the atmosphere is something like 1.7%. I don't know, I'm looking it up. it's a pretty pathetic number though.
but I was talking about running out of fuel, and other recycliable fuel methods are innappropriate at the moment. not steel, or whatever.
for the last 700,000 years we have been in a geological ice age characterized by retreating and advancing glacial ice.
exactly. we've left it too late, but we still need to be sure before people start claiming it as the honest truth.
EDIT: soory for the quadruple post. edit button lol
And yeah, outfitting residences with their own solar panels would be relatively simple if the feds made a concerted effort. Once people realize they can get money from the electrical company by putting juice back in the grid, it becomes much easier to convince them to convert.
No you aren't. In fact, saying that you are superior to fundies is mostly why you aren't.
I'd rather have a retardedly naive, foolish, misguided fundie friend than a pompous ass who thinks his illogical philosophy is the most logical shit on the planet.
At the moment...okay so I guess we should have never attempted mechanization since a horse could outrun the earliest incarnation of a steam engine. We should have been happy with the '68 NPT and not pushed for reductions in ballistic missles or test bans or anything. I mean, Kyoto will hardly do anything if people can meet it's difficult standards and then what? It's not like you can go above and beyond what an old treaty asks of you. That would take, like, a new treaty. Like that's a possible path to follow, making a new treaty and improving things even more. Everybody knows our universe exists in a kind of stasis with nothing ever changing. Ever.
Oh, and steel and concrete are practically the only materials being used en masse in geothermal or tidal or wind energy. Unless you think we're going to run out of sand, portland cement, and rocks there isn't really much threat to their recyclability so I have no idea where you're coming from with that.
HR 5656 and a new bill being drafted (I forget the number, but it's sponsored by my Rep,
No, that is not how it works, at least not with the premise the "sky is falling" people are working from. The earth doesn't warm as GHGs are put into the air. The rate at which it warms is what increases. If you stopped emitting any GHGs at all, the earth would continue to warm at the same rate. Granting the premise of the "sky is falling" crowd, if the earth continues to warm, then the climate will reach a point of no return, at which positive feedback loops, like increased water vapor, decreased amount of ice, etc, further accelerate warming. Of course, this ignores the counter balances in the climate, negative feedback loops if you will, like increased cloud cover from all the extra water vapor.
<img src="http://card.mygamercard.net/gelsig/Akula765.png" border=0>
</a>
No, there are no scientists who suggest that whose results are not dependant upon funding from interested parties.
So wouldn't halting the outpour of GHGs now make it stop accelerating, and just continue to warm at a set pace?
I don't see how that's a negative as opposed to it speeding up the rate at which it warms.
Also, saying that there's no point in doing anything because stopping carbon emissions etc would do nothing is plain dumb.
Some of the changes that harm the earth the most are frighteningly minor. Tiny changes to the major underwater currents of the planet can cause massive climate shifts. The melting of single icebergs of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic (which can be as big as cities or countries by the way) can flood entire cities or countries.
If a big enough chunk of ice falls from a glacier off Greenland it could take a nice chunk of Western Europe for a fucking laugh. If we start soon enough and slowly begin restoration processes we can, very slowly, halt the problems. But massive changes have to take place and until someone has the balls to start making small changes the big ones will never happen.
it's not even like this shit could happen in 50+ years, it could happen right fucking now and millions of people could be raped. Hurricanes like catrina can actually be caused by these global warming and emission problems, you do know that right?
It is never ever a bad idea to stop polluting or fucking up the planet. What's the point in trying to keep the economy stable if there's not going to be an economy in a couple of years. Go silently but comfortably is it?
Does he mean "evidence agianst global warming" as in "scientifically it could be proven that global warming doesn't exist and that humans are not a part of the globe slowly gaining temperature"?
That's quite hard to back. Naturally every planet warms over time as the gases cycle and then the planet will transform into a dwarf or... fuck i'm not explaining this shit you know that bit.
Yet, we are exponentially speeding up this warming process and making the world uninhabitable. If we took enough time we could probably even think of a way to stop natural warming if we had another couple of hundred years on the subject and enough scientists doing work on it. Problem is, people are just too unwilling to either believe it, or care. It's sad.
I'm probably going to go into genetic research or ecological research after University, plainly because genetic research could lead to saving lives and forming cures, aswell as giving more understanding towards the life on this planet and how we are linked etc. Also, Ecological research could lead me to global warming, greenhouse effect problems or items effecting the deepwater currents of the Ocean that are probably one of the most important effectors on our planet.
I'm not saying i'm all high and mighty i'm just saying fuck anyone who doesn't care about this shit.
I don't think it's THERE IS NOTHING WRONG or IT'S ALL OUR FAULT. The truth, as usual, is going to be a middleground. But science is saying we're overdue for an iceage, and everyone knows we're pumping tonnes upon tonnes of gas into the air...it's not really an obscure leap of logic (the kind of thing that we'll call silly in 50 years), it's...kind of obvious.
My digital art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=8168
My pen and paper art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=7462
Quite a funny guy, with some very unvalid arguements.
I think the crux of the argument is that eventually it's going to kill a hell of a lot of things here: including, but not necessarily only, us. When people use the term, "Saving the Planet", they don't mean ensuring that the physical integrity of the Earth stays strong. They mean saving all the living things on the planet as well. But hey, if the prospect of billions of living things dying elicits nothing more than a "meh", then I'd dare to call you the arrogant one.
THAT is Carlin's point. And it's damn true.
If an iceberg melts, the sea level goes down... good job.
Also, Katrina was not unusually powerful: it hit category 5 for a short time, but had mellowed out to category 4 when it hit, and then calmed even further to category 3 for much of the time it was hitting N.O.;it just hit New Orleans dead on. thats all.
<img src="http://card.mygamercard.net/gelsig/Akula765.png" border=0>
</a>