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 (600 Views) | |
| The Evil Smurfs | May 29 2009, 10:50 PM Post #31 |
|
Blue Nazi Devil
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No idea where I picked it up from. Chances are, it just drifted over without any of the connotations. For what it's worth, "tawt" and "cunt" are considerably more... er... taboo? over here than over there. But, regardless, I'll simply stick with wonk. |
![]() |
|
| The Evil Smurfs | Jun 13 2009, 12:26 AM Post #32 |
|
Blue Nazi Devil
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Double post for great justice! Scientific consensus is overrated
|
![]() |
|
| Zarquon Froods | Jun 13 2009, 12:26 PM Post #33 |
![]()
Steamaholic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I've been waiting for this to come out, I'll have to sit down and read it while I'm off this week. This is how I see the whole global warming push. Warm year = global warming is stronger than ever and we're all doomed. Cooler year, or about average = Maybe this global warming thing isn't all we make it out to be. Case and point. This year's going to be about average and maybe a little above, just like last year. |
![]() |
|
| The Palentine | Jun 15 2009, 11:28 AM Post #34 |
![]()
The thinking man's pervert
![]()
|
I wonder how many of the Global Warming scientists were on the global cooling bandwagon of the 1970s. |
![]() |
|
| Kenny | Nov 23 2009, 10:24 AM Post #35 |
|
King of California
![]()
|
I wonder how many global cooling enthusiasts manipulated scientific data to peddle their junk science. |
![]() |
|
| Snefaldia | Nov 23 2009, 12:43 PM Post #36 |
|
No one's hotter than Bea.
![]()
|
I really don't understand opposition to cutting emissions or eliminating fossil-fuels. Why is it such a Bad Bad Thing that must be opposed? |
![]() |
|
| Cobdenia | Nov 23 2009, 02:34 PM Post #37 |
![]()
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's not about that per se - it is a good thing, for other reasons, even if one is not neccessarily convinced that we are a major contributor. The problem is that, at the moment, reduction neccesitates a reduction of living standards, reduction of industrial output, and the inherent economic problems, and issues of third world developement that such would incur. If there was a practical and real technological solution to the problem, people would be in favour - but the solutions proferred at the moment are neither practical, and in some cases (hybrid cars spring to mind here) farcical. Hydrogen fuel cells, for example, are sensible tech, it's not quite at the stage of developement where they are practical and cheap - even when they do get to that stage, it'll probably be 30 years before they become the majority form of personnel transport. Then one has to factor in the emmissions cost of a hydrogen infrastructure...well...it'll probably be fifty or sixty years before the carbon cost of cars starts to decline. And that's just one, fairly minor, example. Nuclear power? Once you factor in the mining and refining of the substances, the (excedingly high) amounts of concrete (which has a very high carbon cost of construction) to build and shield the thing, the limited life span, and the shitloads of concrete you need to render the thing safe, encasign and desposing of waste, transporting the fuel from the mines (mainly in Namibia) to the plants, the fuel also requiring encasing...it adds up to a an incredibly high carbon cost, which is often ignored because people only focus on the stuff coming out the top. If you were building a power station in West Virginia, it would be better to burn coal then use nuclear power. And if you think that nuclear uses a lot of concrete, wind power is worse, requiring more concrete per kilowatt produced due to the huge foundation sizes required (and the number you need to equal the power produced by a nuclear or coal station) is probably worse then nuclear. The environmentalists don't help, especially the wealthy ones. Living in a 17th century cottage and with a wooden fireplace, and driving a 1980's diesel, is better for the environment then building a brand new eco-freindly house and driving a Prius. This in all honesty causes the setting of targets to be pointless, and always going to be over optimistic, unless there is a serious reduction of choice, and massive changes to our lifestyle (by which I mean going back to the 1910's, where only the wealthiest could travel and afford cars and basically not live in shit, not a simple reduction of choice on how to power ones car). This doesn't mean we're fucked, of course, for we can't predict the future - there are some interesting technologies that I can see making a massive difference in the long run, and I think we will conquer the problem (if it is of our own making). But if we jump the gun, we're either definately fucked, or lying |
![]() |
|
| Iron Felix | Nov 23 2009, 04:27 PM Post #38 |
|
Time Magazine's Person of the Year
![]()
|
BUT IF WE DON'T TURN THIS AROUND IN 10 YEARS WE'LL ALL BE DEAD!!!! ![]() sorry, I had to do that.
|
![]() |
|
| Iron Felix | Nov 24 2009, 09:19 AM Post #39 |
|
Time Magazine's Person of the Year
![]()
|
The final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? |
![]() |
|
| Snefaldia | Nov 24 2009, 10:15 AM Post #40 |
|
No one's hotter than Bea.
![]()
|
I fucking despise pseudo-scientist editorials, especially when the writers make grandiose statements like "the earth is actually cooling" and expects everyone to believer it because he exposed some so-called conspiracy. Not even a shred of objectivity there. And those examples he picked! With the exception of the suggestion that a peer-reviewed journal be ignore for opposing viewpoints, the parts he cited did not suggest to me any sense of conspiracy or wrong-doing. The "Mike's Nature trick" has been explained as "a clever thing" in another article, so context will show the truth. People act like scientists don't make mistakes and aren't human. They make mistakes. But polarizing into anti-warming or anti-cooling is moronic. |
![]() |
|
| The Palentine | Nov 24 2009, 10:38 AM Post #41 |
![]()
The thinking man's pervert
![]()
|
I believe that there is global warming(and global cooling)....but humans can't do a damn thing to stop it, or contribute to it. It seems from what I read that periods of solar activity seem to be the main contributer. Some historians beleive that a period of global warming helped europe exit the dark ages, enabled the vikings to settle Greenland and North America, ect. And also remebeer the "little Ice age that lasted for a time periood in the late 1700s to mid 1800s. I still wonder how many of these climate scientists and their supporters(*Cough* Algore) have invested in carbon trading schemes, and other enterpises that will allow them to make a profit from global warming. |
![]() |
|
| Snefaldia | Nov 24 2009, 12:46 PM Post #42 |
|
No one's hotter than Bea.
![]()
|
Right, but the point is that there isn't enough evidence to show that the climate change i isn't anthropogenic yet- the hypothesis is that there is indeed global climate change, influenced by human actions. That's what the evidence shows right now. I thought we'd moved past this warming/cooling thing? The theory is one of anthropogenic climate change, plain and simple. The question is whether human activities are contributing in any significant way. Or am I being obtuse in some way? |
![]() |
|
| eco | Nov 24 2009, 05:41 PM Post #43 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Which can easily be turned around to ask how many of those who deny anthropoetcetc have financial interests in companies and entities that stand to lose from etc and so on. Anyway. Delingpole's an epic twat who manages the singly unedifying journalistic talent of being smug but not funny. Ugh. I know that's ad hominem. But he really, really, really is a twat. |
![]() |
|
| The Evil Smurfs | Nov 24 2009, 07:50 PM Post #44 |
|
Blue Nazi Devil
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What was that about proving a negative? |
![]() |
|
| Snefaldia | Nov 24 2009, 10:11 PM Post #45 |
|
No one's hotter than Bea.
![]()
|
I'm sorry, my word choice was poor. My meaning is that there is evidence of global climate change, whether it is cooling or warming. There is further evidence (though not conclusive) that indicates human activities are influencing this change. It is possible, however, that such climate change is not influenced by human activity; at this stage such a hypothesis is based only on historical evidence of warming and cooling periods. Basically: things are changing. The evidence suggests that humans are to blame, but it's not proven. The change could be in response to other things. Is that formulated more logically? |
![]() |
|
| 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