| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Plaetean
Personal Vendetta
Vendetta Alliance.
   |
Posted - 2008.05.13 08:32:00 -
[91]
Yes, suprise suprise, just like the rest of politics, its a load of old tosh.
-----
|
Mr Friendly
|
Posted - 2008.05.13 10:35:00 -
[92]
 Originally by: 7shining7one7
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 12/05/2008 21:25:26
akiba, the video is general information about the study, not the study itself, not the tests and so forth, that's for scientific articles and the likes.
also the initial study was first proposed published in 1996 but nobody seemed interested in publishing it.
sorry? 12+ year old study on a dynamic field like climate?
utterly useless for anything (even if it showed you could save the planet by turning off a single lightbulb once a week)
dude...lol
Originally by: CCP Prism X
Also, posting in a Jenny thread.
|
KingsGambit
Caldari Knights
|
Posted - 2008.05.13 12:23:00 -
[93]
I love how they changed the term "Global warming" to "Climate change" to try and get people out of the mentality that it's a good thing ;-) i personally love the hotter Summers we get here in the UK now. I must admit I'm rubbish when it comes to the environment...drive often when I don't need to, forget to recycle things that could be and I have plenty of power hungry electronic gadgets. I would like to be less of an *offender* although I don't believe I'm a major polluter. I think however that it's the responsibliity of Industry to make the changes and the government to enforce them.
They want to tackle global warming, they NEED to make our electricity come from wind farms, hydropower, etc. At the moment, f.ex, in the UK you can get solar panels on your roof. They cost about ú8000m, but the government will subsidise this so the householder would pay ú6000. Now considering they produce about 25kJ and a small household uses perhaps 250kJ, you're effectively paying ú6,000 here to save 10% on your electricity bill, perhaps ú70 year. Now although I'm not an economist, spending ú6000 to save ú70/year is not particularly sensible financially, short of living in that place for 80+ years. I think it's the same with the cost of converting a car to electric...it costs so many thousands, that it's cheaper to simply continue filling up on expensive, polluting petrol.
These are the things that need to change. All the about changing to different light bulbs and not putting TV on standby is frankly bull***t. I'm not going to stop driving, using electricity or buying things, so what needs to happen is a huge shift at the top that means I (and the bulk of the populace) are driving cars that don't pollute, using electricity that isn't killing the ozone layer and packaging that is either recyclable or bio-degradeable, etc, etc.
-------------
|
Jakus Orellius
|
Posted - 2008.05.13 13:20:00 -
[94]
All I can say is, 1970s, Global "Cooling" scare. Where did that go exactly? And if I'm right we were still burning quite a lot of hydrocarbons then right?
|
Roxanna Kell
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.05.13 13:27:00 -
[95]
IMO, If Global warming was a lie, its a good lie. WHY?
Props:
more jobs
Less pollution wish reduces certain illness, Assuming cars are less polluting in the future.
Better environment in a nutshell
Cons.
Idiots full of smug who think they re better than everyone else just because they drive a hybrid.
Hybrid cars and less polluting cars are cheaper to run and don't pay congestion charge :)
Lots of tax payer money wasted into research that will reach to the same conclusion of bulls**t. Lets just accept that we need to be cleaner and less polluting and thats it, live a normal life.
Basically it has become a political game, and i want nothing to do with it.
Idiots who vote for green party, lol.
Quote:
There is no Dishonor in winning fools, so do it any way you can.
|
Akiba Penrose
Minmatar
PAK
|
Posted - 2008.05.13 15:04:00 -
[96]
It does seem like we have managed to save the ozone layer tho.
We where destroying it, and there is still a big hole in it over Antarctica.
After banning (restricting) the use of CPC gasses in the Montreal Protocol (1987) it seems to be reversing again. Last estimates was that it might be fully restored around 2065.
So it is possible to make a difference. Hopefully we will react in time again.
|
Akiba Penrose
Minmatar
PAK
|
Posted - 2008.05.13 15:59:00 -
[97]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/13/carbonemissions.climatechange
or maybe we'r allready to late,,
|
Jakus Orellius
|
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:43:00 -
[98]
Carbon Dioxide isn't that bad... for crap sake the World was "COOLING" only 30 years ago... when CFCs were used and emissions were rising. What's the big deal, lets go with the floooooow.
|
M00dy
Killed In Action
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.13 18:00:00 -
[99]
I wish this thread would have been locked on the first page. It's caused my man crush on Verone to be completely obliterated . 
Killed In Action
|
Great Artista
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.13 18:18:00 -
[100]
Good to see someone put all the facts together for a nice vid. Don't get me wrong, all this data has been out for at least a year, I would have appriciated this more if it came out a year or two ago.
But tell you what, for the first time in years I'm gonna CARE. I'll foward this to the newspapers, TV and other medias I know.
Maybe there is hope in humanity afterall. (Prove me wrong please.  )
_______
◕◡◕
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |