WELCOME TO AO, MORTAL!! ![]() You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Global Warming; OH NOES!!!!!!!!!11!1 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 21 2009, 04:50 PM (599 Views) | |
| Zarquon Froods | May 21 2009, 04:50 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Steamaholic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Like I said, I've been watching the house and senate debates over the past couple of days. I saw the house pass the credit bill yesterday with the gun amendment attached. What was shown last night was the Energy & Commerce sub-committee meeting on amendments to the "Cap and Trade" bill which essentially will tax all industries that produce CO2, and from what I gather, will establish a market for the trade of the gas. What I'm finding interesting is the Democrats are absolutely failing to compromise on this. The outcome from this is probably going to be a spike in energy cost in the US, at the very least, if not around the world. As I watched BBC's world news tonight, they did a story on it. I started getting ill. Why? Because the entire premise of drafting this bill is global warming and how we're polluting the atmosphere with CO2. As of late there have been several articles that are claiming the data saying man-made CO2 is the culprit for climate change is inaccurate. The main reason they are wrong is because they do not take into account water vapor, which all studies done that include it claim it accounts for nearly 99% of greenhouse gases. CO2 accounts for 3%. But, when you take out water vapor and only count CO2, it makes CO2 look to be the most significant contributor when in actuality it makes up roughly 3% of the atmosphere. Wow, I been saying that for years. The fact is since the dawn of the industrial era to now, makind's contribution of CO2 is minute at best. The other fact that shocks me is they only count man-made gases and not those that occur naturally which you really can't do anything about. So why am I writing this? Cause I'm fucking pissed off!!!! Ever since Al Gore first brought global warming to the front I've called bullshit. And now they've virtually brainwashed everyone into thinking man is evil for destroying the Earth and have the public rallied behind them to save it from the evil industries. It's bloody madness, and instead of giving the companies time to convert to cleaner systems, they want the changes now which is going to cost enormous amounts of capital which is going to come from who? The government? Fuck no, the consumer. Way to go Al Gore, you're about to fuck us all over. I hope you spent your daddy's oil money well on coming up with this bullshit idea. Again, sorry guys I'm just livid about the whole thing. |
![]() |
|
| Cottia | May 21 2009, 11:03 PM Post #2 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You might want to read this: Link |
![]() |
|
| Zarquon Froods | May 22 2009, 08:04 AM Post #3 |
![]()
Steamaholic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I always thought it was funny how you don't hear much about it when the temperatures are normal. Like this year, the temperatures have been at normal or below for the better part of the year so far and global warming has been brought up very scantly. Last year when we had a hot and dry summer, however, that's all I heard about. Like I said, they're looking at the data wrong. They're only using recorded data and not looking at the large scale record. There are some scientist that are prediciting a mini-ice age in the next decade. I'm curious to see how that plays into the whole global warming scenerio. I've already heard one argument that was to the effect of glabal warming can also cause a climate shift and cause global cooling. :rolleyes: |
![]() |
|
| The Palentine | May 22 2009, 08:19 AM Post #4 |
![]()
The thinking man's pervert
![]()
|
Good Gravy Man!!!!!!! Thinm of the poor polar bears stranded on melting ice!!!!!! Yeah, the whole idea is bullshit, but people buy into it because the schools no longer teach critical thinking. I feel lucky that I had a teacher in High School that encouraged critical thinking and encouraged us to question and find information on our own. Then in college another professor prefered to teach by a modified Socratic method. His classes were Bioble classes, but he taught by exegesis, or looking into what the text meant to the early christians, and only after understanding how they interpreted the text, we can see how we should apply thwe text in our lives. I'm thankful for this professor, because he taught me to ignore emotion and personal feelings when researching a subject, and rely on facts. The problem with the global warming pap being taught is it relys on emotions. After all who doesn't want to save animals and proterct the enviroment. Unfortunately junk science was used to model the problem, and a lot of the reseachers have vested intrests in promoting catastrophe. After all if there is no global warning, then there is nore more government grants, and some of these acedemics would actually have to get a real job and work for a living. I figure the debate on CO2 os just part one of legalizing abortion and euthanasia on demand. Humans exhale CO2, so therefore we are the problem and must be eliminated(note: this is only a personal crazy theory I have with no basis in fact, but it follows some of the twisted logic I've read of moonbat web rantings. ).
|
![]() |
|
| Cobdenia | May 22 2009, 11:34 AM Post #5 |
![]()
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My own opinions on this pretty much follow, I think, that of most here. Global warming is happening, but it is probably mostly natural - I wouldn't go as far as to say it's junk science, but there is some flawed reasoning, and it does strike me as somewhat politically conveniant (1970: "We should stop this pollution!" "Why?" "Erm..."; 2010: "We should stop this pollution!" "Why?" "Because we'll die!") Plus the fact that earths tempratures have risen and fallen several times makes me sceptical that this is all humankinds fault - unless someone proves that wooly mammoths had factories. However, it isn't just whether it is happening, or who is to blame, that is debatable, but also the consequences, and the best course for reducing such. It's sort of: Is the climate on earth changing: Almost certainly Are we to blame in some way: Probably Are we to blame for the majority: Probably not Is this going to be bad: Fuck knows Could a change in temperature cause the ice caps to melt? Yeah. But it might not. It could also, equally, cause vast areas of arid land to become usuable for food production. As well as possibly causing massive death the the eradication of Norfolk and Holland, it could possibly cause the greatest global economic boom in history. It could kill, it could save. It is that part of the theory that I have most problems with...please, stop making shit up. The natural response is that "well, we should prepare for the worst if it's 50/50". But even then, there's probably a few threats with a higher risk which we don't prepare for, and none of those the consequence of which could be to lose out on possible benefits, and indeed any cuts we make are likely to be pointless and not have any effect if we are indeed the instigator of calamity. Simply put, if it's a choice between perhaps losing Fiji over a long period of time, or living in a shack wearing a goatskin, well, sorry Fiji - serves you right for not living on a hill. Frankly, all of this is the modern political equivalent of the removal of iron posts in Britain during the war to make tanks. They were never used to make tanks, it was just an elaborate propaganda exercise. This is the same. We charge you all more and in return we give you a warm fuzzy feeling of dogoodery. This does not mean that in some areas cut's shouldn't be made - we are running out of oil, and I think that most people agree that such should occur on a sustainability argument. The one thing that get's me, though, is hyprocrits who drive hybrids, because even on a sustainability or a climate change perspective, this is a complete waste of time. They are less efficient then a diesel, and vastly more polluting to produce: nickel mining isn't exactly undertaken by rainbows, nor is the refining, nor is the manufacture of cells from the refined nickel, nor is the transportation required to move these bits over the world. Then you have to factor in it also has the construction pollution costs of a normal car - it has a regular petrol engine too, afterall, and you have a lot of shit. Seriously, if someone you knows has a prius, call them a dick who hurts the environment then explain that'll it'll take 10 years of owning such to begin for their to be emmisions benefits over a Range Rover, and around 50 for it to be better then a second hand diesel hatchback (you remove the entire pollution from production from the equation, afterall, if being second hand over new), then watch them cry as there world shatters. Battery cars of obviously a waste of time, when you factor in the production emmissions and the fact that electricity doesn't grow on trees, and that it takes, what, half a day to charge and it only goes 50 miles (thereby rendering cars actually pointless), and all your left with is modern petrol/diesel (the latter does have other problems, especially with regards fumes) or HFCs, which course do have real benefits in the sphere of sustainability, and I'm pretty much in favour for that reasons, though there are issues at the moment. |
![]() |
|
| bloodstone kay | May 22 2009, 12:42 PM Post #6 |
![]()
|
Even if CO2 emissions are to blame, reducing emissions in the developed "west" would be mostly countered by the increased emmisions from developing countries such as china and india. |
![]() |
|
| Zarquon Froods | May 22 2009, 01:59 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Steamaholic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I've seen studies to the effect of what Cob has said and he's pretty much nailed it. People don't take into account the amount of polution it takes to make an "eco friendly" vehicle. They are driven by the fact that it's a "green" car and it's got lower emissions. How much lower? Only enough to say it is. That's got to be one of the biggest problems I have with the recent legislation on fuel efficient cars. I know oil is dwindling, and we need to be looking at alternatives, but lets be honest here, the hybrids and eco cars don't exactly replace the fossil fuel burners equally. Now, I don't defend GM for making their big SUV's or Chrysler for making....well total pieces of shit, but I think they saw the flaws with these flex fuel and hybrids and stayed away from them cause it would have likely taken them under trying to fund the research. Ethonol, which was going to save us and ween us off fossils was a bust, not to mention using food sources and a means of energy is a bad idea. Biodiesel was the same way, though it's a lot easier to make than everybody lets on. They wouln't let ethanol die so they've tried to make some suppliers make blends with it. If you ask me the only true form of eco friendly fuel we have is hydrogen which is rediculously easy to make, and can also be self-sustaining if done right. Yet, nobody is pushing it. Sure it's more volotile than gasoline, that's why you want it. The people against it say it's too dangerous to store. Well so is uranium, and it takes a lot less uranium to kill a person than hydrogen. Anyway, the way I see it is we're told we need to go green, yet we only need to go green the way they're telling us to go green because they sit in a room and wank each other off coming up with these schemes since afterall, they're getting shit loads of money to come up with something. |
![]() |
|
| Cobdenia | May 22 2009, 02:28 PM Post #8 |
![]()
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Indeed; there are currently issues with hydrogen, mainly concerning the storage and infrastructure, but neither of these are unassailable, in my opinion. Just needs more research. However, even focussing on cars is a bit of a waste of time. Personal vehicles are a small fraction of a small section of oil users and greenhouse gas polluters. Incidentally, I think the terms "Greenhouse effect" and "Climate Change" aren't helping. They were called The Rudyard-Wyznyjytski-Ortingdon effect and possible shifts in the metereological-oceanographical phenonomen, no-one would care. Because no-one could pronounce them. |
![]() |
|
| eco | May 23 2009, 05:12 PM Post #9 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I respect you guys and everything but... You're wrong. The end. Deal with it. |
![]() |
|
| The Evil Smurfs | May 24 2009, 12:07 AM Post #10 |
|
Blue Nazi Devil
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not trying to pick on you, eco, but you've brilliantly illustrated the biggest problem with supporters of anthrogenic global warming. The vast majority of retorts against "deniers" that I've seen have been of the "shut up, you're wrong" or "the science is settled" or "you're just denying reality you reactionary conservocreep". Global Warming really is starting to take up the mantle of being a religion. Or cult. |
![]() |
|
| eco | May 24 2009, 02:16 AM Post #11 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry all, that was an unnecessary and unpleasant post. Nothing to do with being part of a 'cult'; just weary and exasperated. No defence for being so snarky though. |
![]() |
|
| Zarquon Froods | May 24 2009, 08:01 AM Post #12 |
![]()
Steamaholic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'd actually like to hear some solid fact backing up your claim other than what you've said. The Earth IS warming, I don't dipute that. It's warmed and cooled for the last 600,000 years. What I'm disputing is how much of the blame is being put on man and why all these theorist have doomsday scenerios set up for 5 years from now if we don't change. |
![]() |
|
| Greenland | May 24 2009, 08:52 AM Post #13 |
|
post plz k thnx lol
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well sadly I think it comes down to "we won't know until it's too late". A little depressing really. |
![]() |
|
| Allech-Atreus | May 25 2009, 09:19 AM Post #14 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I certainly believe the scientific evidence for global climate change, but I'm not one of those people who buys into the global warming bit. Sure, the whole Al Gore bit is overplayed and probably wrong-headed. But the science does show there's a significant amount of climate variation that is linked to human activity. Now, I'm not one of those people clamoring for the destruction of the industrial world and a return to the trees- although I'm sure that would be very pleasant until November- but I do believe there is a lot more our society could be doing to reduce our impact on the environment, reduce our use of natural resources, eliminate chemical and man-made pollutants, and generally live better without spewing much of anything, let alone carbon, into the air. Bottom line is we cannot continue on the same path we have been for the past hundred-odd years, and in my estimation the push for energy efficient, renewable resources, and "green" resources cannot come quickly enough. My name is A-A, and I'm believer in sustainable living. |
![]() |
|
| Zarquon Froods | May 25 2009, 03:07 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Steamaholic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree totally, what I'm having a problem with is this use of scare tactics that are being used to force us into these green energies before they are ready. A couple years ago, everyone was looking at biodiesel, then that fizzles out. Next they said Ethanol would take the place of gasoline in 5-10 years, that one went bust. If they would take the money they've spent on these bogus ideas and concentrate on the one that every should be able to see as the best alternative, hydrogen, we'd all be driving hydrogen cars by 2015. Same thing with industries. The coal energy business has said they can come up with the clean coal tech within the next 20 years. Reason, because it doesn't exist at the moment and it's going to take a large effort to make the technology to signifcantly reduce emissions. However, environmentalists wont hear of this because they want it wiped off the face of the planet ASAP. Which, coincidentally, they aren't being consistant with their arguments. They've even gone after nuclear power because of harm to the environment. I live roughly 20-30 miles from the Sharon-Harris nuclear power plant in central NC. I can literally go out in one of the fields here and see the cooling tower. The only bi-product from nuke power is steam, and I see it all day long. If they do anything, they help the environment because they have to build large lakes to cool the cores, and they stock the lakes with marine life to keep the waters clean. There are literally hundreds of fishermen that come from all over to fish in that lake, and I've yet to hear of a 3 eyed fish. So, I'm all for going green, but I don't like the way they're forcing it on everyone. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |

WELCOME TO AO, MORTAL!! 



![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





).


11:15 AM Jul 11