EVE Search - Global warming

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Global warming

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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
MaxPower	Posted - 2006.01.05 17:01:00 - [31] A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days. aha! wasnt the site i was looking for..but itll do for a start
Noden Vorpalstar	Posted - 2006.01.05 17:01:00 - [32] Originally by: Dark Shikari Yes, nuclear power 4tw. The greenies going against it are shooting us all in the feet. QFT -------------------------------------- US Army Photos 2005 Soldiers Creed
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.01.05 17:03:00 - [33] Originally by: MaxPower A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days. aha! wasnt the site i was looking for..but itll do for a start Regional temperature trends can't be used as evidence for or against global warming. Its like saying that there's no lightning because it hasn't hit your car yet. - Proud member of the [23]. The Tachikomas are DEAD! Click sig for video.
MaxPower	Posted - 2006.01.05 17:13:00 - [34] Yeah hence not being the site i was after. Cant find the one i want. Theyve only been able to 'accuratly' record temperature for around the last 70 years anyway. Anything before then is a guesstimate
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.01.05 17:16:00 - [35] Edited by: Bhaal on 05/01/2006 17:16:30 Humans started damaging & polluting the environment beginning in the mid 1930's. We are getting better and better at controlling & minimizing the damage industrialization causes. Planet earth has certainly withstood the damage for the last 70 years. 70 years from now the threat from humans will be a small fraction of what it was in the 30's-60's, and much less than even today. Earth can handle 140-200 years of this no problem, it's a minor blimp on the overall climactic radar screen. Species of plant & animal life will die off, but that happens all the time anyways, even b4 the industrial revolution. We'll be fine, just chill... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
MaxPower	Posted - 2006.01.05 17:18:00 - [36] Well.. to be honest we are apparently all goign to die froma n asteroid hitting the planet in 5 years time or soemthing anyway. Oh..and did you know they now think dinosaurs were killed by disease? Came in via a meteor.
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.01.05 17:23:00 - [37] Originally by: MaxPower Well.. to be honest we are apparently all goign to die froma n asteroid hitting the planet in 5 years time or soemthing anyway. Oh..and did you know they now think dinosaurs were killed by disease? Came in via a meteor. That asteriod is going to miss, by quite a bit too... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
MaxPower	Posted - 2006.01.05 17:31:00 - [38] Im going to stop posting now. Just seen how horrible my spelling was in that last post!!! I swear my left hand types quicker than the right....
Haldane IV	Posted - 2006.01.05 18:18:00 - [39] Leaving aside the concerns about security, waste disposal and fuel supplies, the problem of where the fuel for nuclear power stations would for many countries have to be sourced and procured, is the same as that for fossil fules (oil/gas), namely that many of the deposits are situate in areas that are less politically stable/favourably disposed to the West. Global warming arguments aside, although I understand why poorer nations destroy their ancient forrests for lumber production/grazing land to prop up their economies (assuming its not all just a few top dogs profiteering), it does make me sad to see those pictures of the effects of de-forrestation, albeit that in the greater scheme of things I suppose all is transient and the trees eventually will grow back and nature be restored(that gaia thing ). I have always thought the overall problem is demographics; too many people in the world, and too many people trying to scratch a living in areas with insufficient natural resources to support them.
Annie 46947	Posted - 2006.01.05 18:29:00 - [40] Originally by: MaxPower 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? I totally agree with this guy. Just like how in the 70s ( 80s) they decided we were going into nuclear winter because of pollution. yeah, **** on the tree huggers
Donna Darko	Posted - 2006.01.05 19:25:00 - [41] ALL OF YOU WILL DIE, MO'FOS! GAIA WILL TAKE YOU ALL, GAIA! GAIA! Naw, seriously, I used to care and try to recycle and stuff, but I gave up. There's no point for me to go through all the hoops and loops to "make a difference" when all my neighbors are coming out with even more trash, sort of like to cover up for my reduction. One thing's for sure, even if that asteroid doesn't hit us in 5-15 years (I can't remember exactly when it was due), I'll be dead long before the horrors predicted by the global warming fanatics come true. Just make sure your grandkids have properly closed their stillsuit before you send them out to school in the robobus (or something). ---------- Please fix the scan probes!!! (also included a guide to use them)
Annie 46947	Posted - 2006.01.05 19:27:00 - [42] recycling is for suckers. Watch penn and tellers bull****. Theres an episode pertaining to that.
Noden Vorpalstar	Posted - 2006.01.05 19:49:00 - [43] Most of the Save the Earth stuff is all hyped up anyways to get you to be a sucker and donate your money. Sorry I'd rather give my money to the oil companies until they can make other fuel sources cheaper and more available. I believe this will happen eventually. For now. Down with Tree Huggers !! Besides there are actually more forests in the US now anyways. Why ? Because advances in technology allows us to grow 5 times more food on farm lands. There is no land fill problem. Another Fact is Landfill owners want your trash. Yes they have room for it, alot of it. Now if we could get people to put trash in the right place. The freakin garbage can. To get to the landfill then that would be a super improvement. -------------------------------------- US Army Photos 2005 Soldiers Creed
Jim'ard Stone	Posted - 2006.01.05 20:16:00 - [44] Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh Originally by: MaxPower Nuclear power 4tw! What a lot of people fail to realise is that there's only enough uranium in the world to supply the existing level of nuclear plants for about another 40 years. dude u can use alot of materials for nuclear power im sure of that. Hydrogen power is the super 4tw tho and there plenty of that
Dalieus Dakarn	Posted - 2006.01.05 20:58:00 - [45] Originally by: Noden Vorpalstar There is no land fill problem. Another Fact is Landfill owners want your trash. Yes they have room for it, alot of it. Of all the things I have a problem with in your post, this is the one I will quote. The "Landfill Problem" isn't that there isn't enough room for the trash. It's the fact that all the trash that is piling up in the landfills are polluting the soil and seeping down into the reseviours that feed towns and cities with their water supply. Yes, there is room for more trash, but centralizing trash into one spot isn't helping either. Dumping trash into the ocean is even worse. You know what? Something else. I don't like giving money to the oil companies. They are already operating on a 800% profit margin. Why give them any more? All those damn taxes that we have to pay for gas has more people quitting their jobs, because they can't afford to drive to work!!!! Technology is great. Yay for Hybrid Cars!!
Burga Galti	Posted - 2006.01.05 21:42:00 - [46] Edited by: Burga Galti on 05/01/2006 21:42:45 An interesting article can be found here Of particular note: Quote: Atmospheric carbon levels then are thought to have been about 2-3,000 parts per million (ppm), compared with almost 380 ppm today. **************** Pain is a way of knowing yourself; Death is the ultimate in self-discovery.
Noden Vorpalstar	Posted - 2006.01.05 21:50:00 - [47] Originally by: Dalieus Dakarn Yes, there is room for more trash, but centralizing trash into one spot isn't helping either. Dumping trash into the ocean is even worse. You have a point here about the ocean and the soil. Originally by: Dalieus Dakarn Technology is great. Yay for Hybrid Cars!! Yes yay for hybrid cars, and yay for alternate fuel sources, but show me that it is economically affordable right now. Rememeber there are alot of industries that use oil for more than than just fuel. Rememeber thats alot of peoples jobs. If we drop oil like that we will have even more problems with people not haveing jobs. So they need to be retrained. Who will pay for this? Not to mention the cost to make a total change over to alternate fuel sources, and hybrid cars. This does need to happen, but it will be a slow process. I'm not flaming you, just asking if you can show me there is an easy way or affordable way to do it faster than it's already being done. -------------------------------------- US Army Photos 2005 Soldiers Creed
Kusotarre	Posted - 2006.01.06 05:24:00 - [48] Like evolution, global warming has become a topic dominated not by interest in truth, or knowledge-based debate, but by political wedges. The amount of ignorance in this thread is amazing.
Jernau Gurgeh	Posted - 2006.01.06 09:42:00 - [49] Originally by: Jim'ard Stone Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh Originally by: MaxPower Nuclear power 4tw! What a lot of people fail to realise is that there's only enough uranium in the world to supply the existing level of nuclear plants for about another 40 years. dude u can use alot of materials for nuclear power im sure of that. Hydrogen power is the super 4tw tho and there plenty of that And where are you going to get the hydrogen from? There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not.
Tricky Trixy	Posted - 2006.01.06 10:30:00 - [50] Edited by: Tricky Trixy on 06/01/2006 10:33:33 I read a great book about all this a while ago. While it may have been fiction it was based on alot of fact and had a great bit at the end giving all the papers and refereances for you to go look at and make ur own mind up. Personally I belive that we don't have enough info to accurately perdict what is going to happen. I also belive very strongly that we have all our eggs in one basket so to speak. We are all on this one ball of land and water and its only a matter of time till something is gonna come and threaten our extinction (seen people mention that asteroid think it supposed to pass very close to us in 2019 so we gotta while to live ) We need to get out there and settle on other planets basically. As for rubbish I had this wonderful idea when i was younger of shooting it at the sun. Now at the mo its not possible but if we ever develop space elevators we could take rubbish up into space and then shoot it at the sun, but hey we shall see. And finally I love how everybody, the government included (in the UK at least) raves on about Nuclear power ie fission power. This is not the way forward, its dangerous if a power plant goes up, it produces alot of waste products which are very hard to get rid off. Now personally i belive that the government and oil companies need to look at FUSION power. This can produce a lot more power compared to nuclear and if a FUSION power plant blows sure it will go with a mighty bang but there will be no radiation. And were are getting somewhere with this as an experimental FUSION plant is being constructed in France so I hope this goes well and we see more of these springing up. For more info on FUSION power see here: Fusion Info And here is info about the plant being built in France: French Fusion Plant ----- Trixy says "Keep ur friends close but ur enemies even closer" -----
The Sloth	Posted - 2006.01.06 10:33:00 - [51] Originally by: MaxPower A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days. aha! wasnt the site i was looking for..but itll do for a start "The truth is, someday humans may be able to take tropical vacations at the North Pole - and it will be perfectly natural. Yet our world is being flooded with the dire predictions of Global Warming." Quote taken from the above, right-wing lobby group's link. I had to laugh. Anyway, Australia (where I live) has just recorded its hottest year on record. Have a look at the trend over the past couple of decades. The fact is that you can not deny that global warming is happening. What is however debatable, is whether it is purely a natural phenomena or has human-kind got their hand in it? In my opinion, you would have to be pretty naive to believe that all of these emissions that we are making would not have at least some effect on the environment. I personally find it quite sad that the two most polluting countries in the world (per capita) Australia and the USA are the only two developed nations in the world not to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Simply because the leaders of these countries value the economy more than the environment (as is highlighted by the link MaxPower provided.) Please flame away - it is getting hot anyway! The Sloth.
Annie 46947	Posted - 2006.01.06 11:00:00 - [52] Edited by: Annie 46947 on 06/01/2006 11:01:18 Hydrogen powered cars scare me. In a world where idiots think cellphones/make-up application/driving are all meant to be simultanious ventures have a car with is effectively a bomb on wheels is a ****ing scary idea. Yall only think gasoline is bad news. Wait till granny in her new hydrogen powered car -her green jeans hippy son got her- plows into another car at 30 miles an hour. Ever seen that video of the Hindenburg? What gas was it filled with again? Not to mention filling stations. Yeah, I wanna handle high pressure hydrogen ( which has a VERY VERY small structure - IE- LEAKS VERY EASILY) jesus christ... this just ain't meant to be people.
Jernau Gurgeh	Posted - 2006.01.06 11:12:00 - [53] Edited by: Jernau Gurgeh on 06/01/2006 11:13:15 Originally by: Annie 46947 Edited by: Annie 46947 on 06/01/2006 11:01:18 Hydrogen powered cars scare me. In a world where idiots think cellphones/make-up application/driving are all meant to be simultanious ventures have a car with is effectively a bomb on wheels is a ****ing scary idea. Yall only think gasoline is bad news. Wait till granny in her new hydrogen powered car -her green jeans hippy son got her- plows into another car at 30 miles an hour. Ever seen that video of the Hindenburg? What gas was it filled with again? Not to mention filling stations. Yeah, I wanna handle high pressure hydrogen ( which has a VERY VERY small structure - IE- LEAKS VERY EASILY) jesus christ... this just ain't meant to be people. I believe that hydrogen powered cars utilise fuel cells rather than simple tanks. The problem is in generating the hydrogen in first place. There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not.
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.01.06 11:21:00 - [54] Originally by: Annie 46947 Edited by: Annie 46947 on 06/01/2006 11:01:18 Hydrogen powered cars scare me. In a world where idiots think cellphones/make-up application/driving are all meant to be simultanious ventures have a car with is effectively a bomb on wheels is a **ing scary idea. Yall only think gasoline is bad news. Wait till granny in her new hydrogen powered car -her green jeans hippy son got her- plows into another car at 30 miles an hour. Ever seen that video of the Hindenburg? What gas was it filled with again? Not to mention filling stations. Yeah, I wanna handle high pressure hydrogen ( which has a VERY VERY small structure - IE- LEAKS VERY EASILY) jesus christ... this just ain't meant to be people. Gasoline powered cars scare me. In a world where idiots think cellphones/make-up application/driving are all meant to be simultanious ventures have a car with is effectively a bomb on wheels is a **ing scary idea. Yall only think cars are bad news. Wait till granny in her new gasoline powered car -her green jeans hippy son got her- plows into another car at 30 miles an hour. Ever seen that video of the exploding gasoline truck? What liquid was it filled with again? Not to mention filling stations. Yeah, I wanna handle gasoline( which has a VERY VERY small structure - IE- LEAKS VERY EASILY) jesus christ... this just ain't meant to be people. - Proud member of the [23]. The Tachikomas are DEAD! Click sig for video.
Noden Vorpalstar	Posted - 2006.01.06 11:24:00 - [55] I think in this thread we have come to an agreement that Yes there are environmental problems out there we need to be aware of, and need to something about. Let's face it though the only way to combat the problem is for modernized nations to be at the forefront of fixing the problems. If not then it's never going to get done despite anything anyone has said here. On that note if you look around the internet there are several websites that give "so called data" either claiming to prove or disprove the global warming idea. It's the same thing with any issue or topic. If anyone here can show credentials that they are educated in such matters then I'd like to see them, and would like to hear their points of view on the subject. We can point the blame at whoever we want, but that's solving nothing either. Anyone can point the blame to anyone on any number of problems in the world. Global warming and the environment being just one of them. I'm not an expert on this subject, and I highly doubt anyone else here is. I might be wrong, and I'd gladly take back that statement if anyone proves they are. thanks for reading -------------------------------------- US Army Photos 2005 Soldiers Creed
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.01.06 11:26:00 - [56] To the people saying that there is no proof linking carbon dioxide to global warming: Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Dolce et decorum est pro imperator mori
vanBuskirk	Posted - 2006.01.06 11:44:00 - [57] 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. Sure. Wait and see. In a couple of hundred years we'll know. Wait until we manage to kick Earth into a runaway greenhouse. Hot and dry for the next billion years. Yummy. Of course, 400 deg C and 90 atmospheres of pressure might just be a little too warm... ---------------------------------------------- "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." ----------------------------------------------
Gariuys	Posted - 2006.01.06 12:04:00 - [58] I don't know, I agree with the people saying we don't have enough data. But something fishie is going that noone can deny. The weird weather, and weirdness in nature, with trees, either blosseming in the incorrect season, or not losing their leaves, birds laying eggs more then they should and in the wrong seasons again. Lotsa stuff that indicates that something isn't like it should be in nature. ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool
Annie 46947	Posted - 2006.01.06 12:15:00 - [59] Gasoline isn't that flammaable, and it doesnt leak easily. I'm that jerk everyone likes to scowl at that sits and smokes while fueling up. OK, its safe .. enough. Haha, barrring human stupity like smoking while filling up ;) its pretty proven stuff. Suggesting it's a small molecule is just silly. But sure, I see your point. Though by comparison to hydrogen it's the safest stuff in the world. Like running your car off beach sand.
Voculus	Posted - 2006.01.06 13:18:00 - [60] Quote: 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. I hate to respond with chest-thumping, but this kind of misleading rhetoric begs it. Did you ever wonder why we use that power? Let me give you a rundown: The United States leads the world in wealth, military might, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, science, aeoronautics, computers, agriculture, and host of other vital contributions that raise the quality of life not just in the West, but throughout the entire world. Do you think we burn coal just to watch it? No, we produce electricity with it, and more cleanly than any other country on earth, I might add, to heat peoples' homes, so they can go to work for places like Intel and AMD.
My grandfather	Posted - 2006.01.06 13:38:00 - [61] Originally by: Voculus Quote: 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. I hate to respond with chest-thumping, but this kind of misleading rhetoric begs it. Did you ever wonder why we use that power? Let me give you a rundown: The United States leads the world in wealth, military might, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, science, aeoronautics, computers, agriculture, and host of other vital contributions that raise the quality of life not just in the West, but throughout the entire world. Do you think we burn coal just to watch it? No, we produce electricity with it, and more cleanly than any other country on earth, I might add, to heat peoples' homes, so they can go to work for places like Intel and AMD. uhm... no. The world leaders in all that stuff are, as we speak, Canada and the scandinavian countries. All of them burn harldy any fuel. Most of their energy comes from nuclear plants and hydro energy. And about the vital contributions, every country in the world can say that. Example: no airplane in the world would fly if it wasn't for Belgium
Voculus	Posted - 2006.01.06 14:00:00 - [62] Quote: And about the vital contributions, every country in the world can say that. How do you figure? What has Saudi Arabia done, recently? What has France done, recently? Quote: Example: no airplane in the world would fly if it wasn't for Belgium I'll admit, I'm stumped. What exactly did Belgium do in regard to airplanes?
Orrin Danestarr	Posted - 2006.01.06 14:38:00 - [63] Global warming is probably attributed to the cyclical climatological changes that continously occur thorughout the world for the last 3 billion years. As far as the carbon dioxide output, a single volcanic eruption puts out more co2 and a host other gases (greenhouse) than the entire human population does or has to date. Incidently, anyone checked the earths orbital distance to the sun lately??? "Imagination is the key that unlocks the door." - ME
Kusotarre	Posted - 2006.01.07 04:28:00 - [64] Learn RealClimate.org is a great site full of strictly non-partisan information of the science of global warming (except for this one time some US sentaors made outrageous and incorrect statements that were debunked on the website). Everyone should keep in mind that climatology is of course a very, very complex science. No layperson can fully appreciate the intracacies of what is known, disproved and hypothesized. This is a science that, unlike biology and physics, must be learned in it's entirety in order to be understood very well. I don't understand it all. However, to make a possibly fallacious argument from authority, I will point out that the vast majority of non-think-tank-associated scientist feel that global warming is a very serious and real phenomenon. This isn't part of a natural cycle. This is human caused. If you have questions, ask them intelligently and politely on the Realclimate.org forums, and you will likely recieve responses from accredited and published scientists. Don't inform yourself, educate yourself. Please.
Noden Vorpalstar	Posted - 2006.01.07 04:49:00 - [65] Kusotarre, This is exactly what I wanted to see. Something more educational, and more informed than most of the other sites on the topic out there. Truth about the other sites is most are either posted from "save the earth groups", governments, the news media, or random people posting what they think is right on their blog based on what they've heard from other sources. And you can find in those types of sites all sorts of evidence to either prove or disprove it. I've only briefly looked over, the site you linked, but I like how it is information from actual science and gathered information. So again thanks for posting something useful and educational. -------------------------------------- US Army Photos 2005 Soldiers Creed
Julietta	Posted - 2006.01.07 05:17:00 - [66] Originally by: Voculus Quote: 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. I hate to respond with chest-thumping, but this kind of misleading rhetoric begs it. Did you ever wonder why we use that power? Let me give you a rundown: The United States leads the world in .... ... pretty much everything, and we know that. THAT'S EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. Unless you're going to argue that other people in the world don't have the right to live as well as Americans live, then we're going to end up with all the countries of the world polluting at the rate the USA does currently; which is a total of five, six, maybe seven times as much as we're seeing now. The environment just won't stand for that. So, you've got two choices. Either the USA admits that its lifestyle is not sustainable for the entire world, and cuts back; or, the USA admits that its lifestyle is not sustainable for the entire world, but doesn't give a monkey's because the USA is doing just fine and to hell with everyone else. Which camp are you in?
Annie 46947	Posted - 2006.01.07 08:06:00 - [67] TO HELL WITH EVERYONES ELSE! ..oh wait, did I say that out loud?
Annie 46947	Posted - 2006.01.07 08:28:00 - [68] Originally by: Psymon R Edited by: Psymon R on 05/01/2006 17:00:09 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 I hope to god you are kidding.
Kaeten	Posted - 2006.01.07 08:47:00 - [69] we have the technology to change how we change the arth, electric cars etc. etc., but nothing is happaning so it probably is a scam or else there would be some big changes, it's that or the leaders of the world want to ahve fun before they die and don't give a cra about the future of earth. Latest Movie: RKK - Meatshield
Atom HeartMother	Posted - 2006.01.07 17:27:00 - [70] im not going to bother commenting on this thread even thae white house has said global warming is happnig

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.