Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MaxPower
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 15:20:00 -
[1]
Doesnt actually exist. Its a scam to get multi billion pound grants to count trees, perform pointless experiments, allow the government to add huge petrol tax's, and give scientists something to do.
m'kay?
|
Jernau Gurgeh
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 15:27:00 -
[2]
Whatever you say, Dubya.
There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not. |
Zarik Wan
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 15:42:00 -
[3]
thanks, thats just relieved all my paranoia about the world coming to an end because of it. ----------------------------------------- Irish or living in Ireland, check out: |
jbob2000
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 15:47:00 -
[4]
Could be true...
but i remember having ****loads of snow in december. Havent gotten any snow yet >.<
|
Gift
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 15:52:00 -
[5]
I don't think we have enough data to conclude anything.
|
MaxPower
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 15:54:00 -
[6]
Your welcome On average, the world is cooler now than it was in the 30's.
So Carbon dioxide the problem? I think not. We should all drive tractors for a year to prove my theory!
Some places may have risen, eg nyc has gone up on average by about 7 degrees due to population and heat produced warming houses business premises etc...but the rest of the world balances it out.
|
Jernau Gurgeh
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 15:54:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Gift I don't think we have enough data to conclude anything.
The Gulf stream losing something like 30% of its energy is enough data as far as I'm concerned.
There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not. |
MaxPower
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 15:57:00 -
[8]
Wet?
|
Gift
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 15:57:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Originally by: Gift I don't think we have enough data to conclude anything.
The Gulf stream losing something like 30% of its energy is enough data as far as I'm concerned.
Here is my problem with that theory, what was the status of the gulf stream 100,000 years ago?
|
Jernau Gurgeh
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 15:59:00 -
[10]
Originally by: MaxPower Your welcome On average, the world is cooler now than it was in the 30's.
So Carbon dioxide the problem? I think not. We should all drive tractors for a year to prove my theory!
Some places may have risen, eg nyc has gone up on average by about 7 degrees due to population and heat produced warming houses business premises etc...but the rest of the world balances it out.
There's plenty of evidence that not only is the world warming up, but also that there's a parallel process of "global dimming" going on that partial counteracts it.
There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not. |
|
Jernau Gurgeh
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:00:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Gift
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Originally by: Gift I don't think we have enough data to conclude anything.
The Gulf stream losing something like 30% of its energy is enough data as far as I'm concerned.
Here is my problem with that theory, what was the status of the gulf stream 100,000 years ago?
You mean during an ice age?
There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not. |
MaxPower
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:01:00 -
[12]
Edited by: MaxPower on 05/01/2006 16:01:23 yeah i should have rephrased better, i meant the "carbon dioxide being the cause of global warming" theory
But its more interesting leaving it like i said it lol. should get more peoples opinions on the subject.
|
Jernau Gurgeh
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:03:00 -
[13]
Originally by: MaxPower yeah i should have rephrased better, i meant the "carbon dioxide being the cause of global warming" theory
As far as I'm aware the only scientists who still doubt the effects of carbon dioxide upon the atmosphere are funded by either the US government or the oil industry.
There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not. |
Gift
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:05:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Originally by: Gift
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Originally by: Gift I don't think we have enough data to conclude anything.
The Gulf stream losing something like 30% of its energy is enough data as far as I'm concerned.
Here is my problem with that theory, what was the status of the gulf stream 100,000 years ago?
You mean during an ice age?
Sure, what was the status? or 300,00 years ago? or 500,000 years ago? What was it's "energy" status then?
|
MaxPower
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:07:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Originally by: MaxPower yeah i should have rephrased better, i meant the "carbon dioxide being the cause of global warming" theory
As far as I'm aware the only scientists who still doubt the effects of carbon dioxide upon the atmosphere are funded by either the US government or the oil industry.
Then why has the world, on average, cooled down since the 30's?
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:16:00 -
[16]
Originally by: MaxPower
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Originally by: MaxPower yeah i should have rephrased better, i meant the "carbon dioxide being the cause of global warming" theory
As far as I'm aware the only scientists who still doubt the effects of carbon dioxide upon the atmosphere are funded by either the US government or the oil industry.
Then why has the world, on average, cooled down since the 30's?
Because you're making that up
P.S. Carbon dioxide levels have doubled since the pre-industrial era. Are you all saying that it magically doesn't do anything?
Denying global warming is like denying the Holocaust. The evidence is plainly obvious. But its the idiots who preach destruction and death to humanity from global warming that make its proponents look stupid.
The species that will be hurt most by global warming is us. To be exact, a lot of oceanfront property is going to be lost very soon. In other words, start investing in inshore lands and hope that the waters rise enough that your house will be beachfront - Proud member of the [23].
The Tachikomas are DEAD! Click sig for video.
|
Shinar
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:18:00 -
[17]
There is no real way ANYONE can know for sure, one way or another. We do not have enough data to confirm or deny a global warming/cooling trend or not.
For all we know this could be a natural "warm" cycle of the earth. Perhaps in a couple hundred years we will know for sure.
Shinar
PS: I also never deny the emission might have something to do with it. My point is: We don't know for sure. Shinar |
Neon Genesis
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:20:00 -
[18]
Wasn't it something like 50 years ago we believed just as strongly that a layer of dust was going to do a similar thing?
I agree with gift, we assume alot.
There, i just contributed nothing to your thread |
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:23:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Shinar There is no real way ANYONE can know for sure, one way or another. We do not have enough data to confirm or deny a global warming/cooling trend or not.
For all we know this could be a natural "warm" cycle of the earth. Perhaps in a couple hundred years we will know for sure.
Shinar
PS: I also never deny the emission might have something to do with it. My point is: We don't know for sure.
Going by ice cores, its highly unlikely this is natural. It has happened far faster than the natural cycles, which have 10,000 year+ cycle times.
The main reason that I cannot cover my eyes and be blind to it is that we have stuffed the atmosphere with methane and carbon dioxide, and basic physics says that the earth must warm up.
Global Warming is one of the most misunderstood ecological issues. People confuse it with the ozone layer (which has nothing to do with it--in fact, CFCs cause global cooling). People also fail to realize that the warming is the AVERAGE of the whole earth--individual areas may warm 5 Celcius or cool 8 Celcius, a much more dramatic effect.
Finally, I don't understand what most of the worry about it is. Sure, we should attempt to stop it in its tracks, and stop pumping crap into the atmosphere, but there's no reason to doomsay. If all else fails we can stymie it with chemicals. There are all sorts of chemicals that reflect solar rays and would easily cool the planet a few degrees. - Proud member of the [23].
The Tachikomas are DEAD! Click sig for video.
|
Noden Vorpalstar
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:28:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
As far as I'm aware the only scientists who still doubt the effects of carbon dioxide upon the atmosphere are funded by either the US government or the oil industry.
It never ceases to amaze me how quick someone will always be to blame the US on some problem of the world. Overlooking completely the advances to society we have given, or the people we help.
The US has drastically cut emissions by 48% since 1970.
I'm not saying that Global Warming isn't a problem, I'm saying that people need to stop pointing the blame at one source.
-------------------------------------- US Army Photos 2005 Soldiers Creed |
|
Rodj Blake
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:30:00 -
[21]
OK, let's assume for a moment that CO2 does cause global warming and we do nothing to counteract it.
What happens? We're stuffed is what happens.
Now let's assume the opposite. CO2 doesn't cause global warming but we cut our emissions, invest in green energy etc. What happens? The richest people on the planet have to give up a little of their wealth.
Which scenario would you all prefer to be in?
Dolce et decorum est pro imperator mori |
MaxPower
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:31:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Because you're making that up
Spoilsport! lol
let me see if i can dig something out to show it
|
Jernau Gurgeh
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:32:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Noden Vorpalstar
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
As far as I'm aware the only scientists who still doubt the effects of carbon dioxide upon the atmosphere are funded by either the US government or the oil industry.
It never ceases to amaze me how quick someone will always be to blame the US on some problem of the world. Overlooking completely the advances to society we have given, or the people we help.
The US has drastically cut emissions by 48% since 1970.
I'm not saying that Global Warming isn't a problem, I'm saying that people need to stop pointing the blame at one source.
I'd like to see you back up that figure.
The fact is that the US has 5% of the World's population, but accounts for over 20% of it's carbon dioxide emissions. It also refused to sign up to the Kyoto agreement, and refuse to accept that carbon dioxide is even a problem.
Does that answer your question?
There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not. |
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:32:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Noden Vorpalstar
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
As far as I'm aware the only scientists who still doubt the effects of carbon dioxide upon the atmosphere are funded by either the US government or the oil industry.
It never ceases to amaze me how quick someone will always be to blame the US on some problem of the world. Overlooking completely the advances to society we have given, or the people we help.
The US has drastically cut emissions by 48% since 1970.
I'm not saying that Global Warming isn't a problem, I'm saying that people need to stop pointing the blame at one source.
That's another problem with the issue. People who argue about it don't understand who's responsible and it turns into a US bash fest.
While it is embarassing that we did not accept the Kyoto protocal (which 150+ other nations did), the United States is not nearly the worst of the problem. Developing nations are building thousands of coal power plants with no sort of scrubbers to remove CO2 and other poisonous chemicals. Within 30 years, I wouldn't be surprised if more than half the greenhouse gases came from developing nations. - Proud member of the [23].
The Tachikomas are DEAD! Click sig for video.
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:34:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Originally by: Noden Vorpalstar
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
As far as I'm aware the only scientists who still doubt the effects of carbon dioxide upon the atmosphere are funded by either the US government or the oil industry.
It never ceases to amaze me how quick someone will always be to blame the US on some problem of the world. Overlooking completely the advances to society we have given, or the people we help.
The US has drastically cut emissions by 48% since 1970.
I'm not saying that Global Warming isn't a problem, I'm saying that people need to stop pointing the blame at one source.
I'd like to see you back up that figure.
The fact is that the US has 5% of the World's population, but accounts for over 20% of it's carbon dioxide emissions. It also refused to sign up to the Kyoto agreement, and refuse to accept that carbon dioxide is even a problem.
Does that answer your question?
Well there's some very, very obvious reasons for that figure:
1. We have nearly 1/3 of the entire developed world in our country. 300 million people.
2. We produce a huge portion of the world's beef. Producing beef means lots of cattle. Cattle produce methane. Methane is the second largest source of global warming, barely second to CO2.
Sure we could lower it further, but its not as if we are responsible for the entire world's problems. Stop turning this into a US bash fest, please. - Proud member of the [23].
The Tachikomas are DEAD! Click sig for video.
|
Jernau Gurgeh
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:36:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: Noden Vorpalstar
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
As far as I'm aware the only scientists who still doubt the effects of carbon dioxide upon the atmosphere are funded by either the US government or the oil industry.
It never ceases to amaze me how quick someone will always be to blame the US on some problem of the world. Overlooking completely the advances to society we have given, or the people we help.
The US has drastically cut emissions by 48% since 1970.
I'm not saying that Global Warming isn't a problem, I'm saying that people need to stop pointing the blame at one source.
That's another problem with the issue. People who argue about it don't understand who's responsible and it turns into a US bash fest.
While it is embarassing that we did not accept the Kyoto protocal (which 150+ other nations did), the United States is not nearly the worst of the problem. Developing nations are building thousands of coal power plants with no sort of scrubbers to remove CO2 and other poisonous chemicals. Within 30 years, I wouldn't be surprised if more than half the greenhouse gases came from developing nations.
That is a problem with Kyoto.
The thing to remember though is that it was only ever designed as a first step.
Hopefully, in another few years the richer nations will be fulfilling their obligations and a new round of talks can begin that will encourage China, India etc to curtail their emissions.
Even the longest of journeys starts with a single step.
There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not. |
Bhaal
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:52:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Bhaal on 05/01/2006 16:55:12
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Originally by: Gift
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Originally by: Gift I don't think we have enough data to conclude anything.
The Gulf stream losing something like 30% of its energy is enough data as far as I'm concerned.
Here is my problem with that theory, what was the status of the gulf stream 100,000 years ago?
You mean during an ice age?
The last large ICE age was 30,000 years ago. The cycle is around 60,000 years.
Right now we are at the high point of the warming cycle...
There was a mini ICE-Age from roughly 1300-1800.
We don't have enough data.
The chemical reactions are fact, we are polluting, we are contributing to a greenhouse affect. However, we don't really know what that contribution is doing in truth, as we only have about 100 years of good meteorological data.
We are talking of climactic changes on a 60,000 year cycle, and we only have a couple hundred years of data at most.
We don't have a clue tbh...
Both extreme viewpoints of the argument are wrong IMO...
------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE
My Hero
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:56:00 -
[28]
People also fail to realize that fast neutron reactors can use uranium 20 times more efficiently than current reactors, while being even safer than current reactors, by using the reaction product plutonium as a fuel also.
Yes, nuclear power 4tw. The greenies going against it are shooting us all in the feet. - Proud member of the [23].
The Tachikomas are DEAD! Click sig for video.
|
Psymon R
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:59:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Psymon R on 05/01/2006 17:00:09 One thing that I can see confusing a lot of people, well in the uk anyway, is that global warming could well make the UK climate a whole lot cooler!
All back to the gulf stream again... melting ice caps, dilute the gulf stream, and could well turn it off. The only reason that the UK is so warm (relative to other countries at similar latitudes) is the warmth of the gulf stream...
If we end up saying bye bye to that effect then the uk could easily descend into chaos... I mean it's daft enough the mess we get ourselves into with even the slightest amount of snowfall at the moment!
|
Noden Vorpalstar
|
Posted - 2006.01.05 16:59:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Noden Vorpalstar on 05/01/2006 16:59:19
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
I'd like to see you back up that figure.
This took me a little bit to find because I first read the information here ABC NEWS
This is a more reliable source than a news agency though US Air Cleanest Since 1970
At the same time though I did find this, and now I do agree that it is still a serious problem. US EPA Global Warming
-------------------------------------- US Army Photos 2005 Soldiers Creed |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |