Global Warming......

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

One of the useful things I noticed while watching the movie, the US is the only one that will get hurt by new CAFE regulations, namely, American automakers. Their counterparts overseas have no issue meeting the standards. I know they've got different needs/requirements from cars, like higher gas prices and smaller cities/roads, but still.

And I know some hybrids may actually create MORE emissions due to the processes required in manufacturing them. I won't buy one of those just to "feel green." If, however, I was loaded with cash, I'd be first in line for a Tesla Roadster

CAFE standards only apply to cars sold in the US

so the bolded makes me

if what you mean is that toyota will have an easier time meeting it than ford, well, that isn't necessarily true. ford has a very competitive car line overseas in terms of mileage.

also, toyota is just barely getting into full sized trucks. if they have any trouble at all keeping up quality control and performance with detroit in that market, they're going to lose that market. so it could cost them a lot.

My bad, I meant how automakers have absolutely no problem achieving a significantly higher average MPG for their vehicles. It was one of the pretty graphs Gore was using in his presentation

 

[SampSon]

There an article on here that covered a story on how schools in the UK could show this movie as long as they gave the students a list of the proven fallacies in the film.

There was also an article in numerous national newspapers last year. A group of the most 'prominent' scientists claimed that even if we stopped ALL carbon based consumption right this instant, we could not stop 'global warming'. I have it cut out and saved somewhere, mabey I can find it. I have (hopefully not had) a folder full of articles about global warming somewhere. It's great to see how many scientists out there that have differing opinions even though the 'entire' scientific community has signed and closed the deal on global warming, as if we know all there is to know already.

I'm not trying to defend or debunk global warming theories. I really don't care to get into arguments about it, just a waste of my time.
My opinion is that the theory of global warming is the essence of human arrogance.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: edro
Fact: If you don't think human effects (deforestation, CO2 output, overall waste) are negatively affecting the Earth, you are a moron.

When all else fails, call people names, right?

Man is but a pimple on the planet. The planet is far more resilient than the greenies give it credit for.

We are far more than a pimple. We are inadvertently Terraforming the atmosphere and much worse to the Land and Water simultaneously.

Life on earth has been doing that for 4 billion years.

We are not even a pimple on the planet. That's the volcanoes. We are dust. We are the dirt and the water.

We can cause entire species to go extinct or very nearly extinct from over hunting. We can deforest nearly an entire continent. We can change the course of rivers, make lakes with dams. Harm an entire ecosystem with toxic spills for decades if not centuries.

Why is it so hard to believe that the accumulation of all these things, and also the CO2 we are expelling isn't changing the environment?

What about the dust bowl? Think that was a naturally occurring event?

Also remember rising temperatures, or changing temperatures aren't inherently an issue. The issue is the speed at which they are changing, which is happening much more rapidly than ever.

Increasing CO2 levels will harm forests also. You're going to see a decline in the number of new trees that will live/grow, and an increase of the faster growing weeds and vines. On the east coast poison ivy is growing at record rates.

 

[FleshLight]

Originally posted by: SampSon
There an article on here that covered a story on how schools in the UK could show this movie as long as they gave the students a list of the proven fallacies in the film.

There was also an article in numerous national newspapers last year. A group of the most 'prominent' scientists claimed that even if we stopped ALL carbon based consumption right this instant, we could not stop 'global warming'. I have it cut out and saved somewhere, mabey I can find it. I have (hopefully not had) a folder full of articles about global warming somewhere. It's great to see how many scientists out there that have differing opinions even though the 'entire' scientific community has signed and closed the deal on global warming, as if we know all there is to know already.

I'm not trying to defend or debunk global warming theories. I really don't care to get into arguments about it, just a waste of my time.
My opinion is that the theory of global warming is the essence of human arrogance.

Global warming is caused by the reflection of long wave radiation by green house gases. CO2 is just one of the gases. However, CO2 and CH4 can be artly attributed to anthroogenic causes and that's why there's all this debate.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim


What about the dust bowl? Think that was a naturally occurring event?

Oh yes, because droughts NEVER happened before humans!!!

:roll:

What the fsck are they teaching in schools these days???

While the dust bowl is often thought to have been made worse by over farming, it was a NATURALLY OCCURRING drought that caused it.

Drought and dust storms were nothing new to the region. They occurred with some regularity. A period of unusual wetness that drove a population explosion between 1880 and 1930 meant far more people were affected than before (and even during this time there were a few lesser drought and dust storm periods). The coinciding with the Depression made it stick in memory far better than previous droughts.

Drought, agricultural crisis, or dust storms were NOTHNG NEW in the 1930s. This drought and these dust storms were certainly more severe than those that wracked the plains in 1879-1880, in the mid 1890s, and again in 1911. And more people were adversely affected because total population was higher. But what was most different about the 1930s was the response of the federal government. In past crises, when farmers went bankrupt, when grassland counties lost 20 percent of their population, when dust storms descended, the federal government stood aloof. It felt no responsibility for the problems, no popular mandate to solve them. Just the opposite was the case in the 1930s. The New Deal set out to solve the nation's problems, and in the process contributed to the creation of the Dust Bowl as an historic event of mythological proportions.

So tell us how a regularly occurring event was man made, when it was a regularly occuring NATURAL event that happened even before the evil, bad, nasty white man was here?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Engineer a plague
Wipe out 95 percent of humanity
.....
Profit!

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim


What about the dust bowl? Think that was a naturally occurring event?

Oh yes, because droughts NEVER happened before humans!!!

:roll:

What the fsck are they teaching in schools these days???

While the dust bowl is often thought to have been made worse by over farming, it was a NATURALLY OCCURRING drought that caused it.

Drought and dust storms were nothing new to the region. They occurred with some regularity. A period of unusual wetness that drove a population explosion between 1880 and 1930 meant far more people were affected than before (and even during this time there were a few lesser drought and dust storm periods). The coinciding with the Depression made it stick in memory far better than previous droughts.

Drought, agricultural crisis, or dust storms were NOTHNG NEW in the 1930s. This drought and these dust storms were certainly more severe than those that wracked the plains in 1879-1880, in the mid 1890s, and again in 1911. And more people were adversely affected because total population was higher. But what was most different about the 1930s was the response of the federal government. In past crises, when farmers went bankrupt, when grassland counties lost 20 percent of their population, when dust storms descended, the federal government stood aloof. It felt no responsibility for the problems, no popular mandate to solve them. Just the opposite was the case in the 1930s. The New Deal set out to solve the nation's problems, and in the process contributed to the creation of the Dust Bowl as an historic event of mythological proportions.

So tell us how a regularly occurring event was man made, when it was a regularly occuring NATURAL event that happened even before the evil, bad, nasty white man was here?

Jesus Christ!! You seem to have very little knowledge about soil science, which isn't made up for by your anti-government rant. The reason there were dust storms and such massive soil erosion was unsustainable farming techniques. In the natural state those were prairie lands, not deserts. It took the federal government stepping in and creating the Soil Conservation Service to change farming practices.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1583.html

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124
Of course, this movie is to be taken with a large grain of salt. Not as large as the 42 ton grain of rock salt for anything Michael Moore, but still, a large grain of salt.

How much of this shit is actually true? I mean, it was definitely an eye opener, but the world population tripled in less than a hundred years, we probably are running our resources a little thin.

It only matters if you think we can do something about it.

Which is an adorable notion that never fails to make me grin, much like I'm watching children talk about things they don't understand.

The question isn't whether or not we have enough resources, or whether or no we're going to overpopulate the planet, or whether or not the climate will experience an extreme shift. All of these are "when" scenarios, not "ifs". Stop worrying about them - they, like death, are unavoidable, and I can think of few things more useless than stressing over the inevitable.

Some people claim it might be the end of the human race. Well, maybe. But we had a decent little run, even pulled off than moon thing and whatnot. I personally couldn't care less about when our species goes extinct, because once we're all dead, there won't be anyone left to care. I know it's always a horrifying prospect in movies, but in reality, the logic just doesn't fit. Well, maybe it does if you assume human nobility, but I don't know how someone can look around the world in which we live and say that the default position for homo sapiens is innate goodness.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim


What about the dust bowl? Think that was a naturally occurring event?

Oh yes, because droughts NEVER happened before humans!!!

:roll:

What the fsck are they teaching in schools these days???

While the dust bowl is often thought to have been made worse by over farming, it was a NATURALLY OCCURRING drought that caused it.

Drought and dust storms were nothing new to the region. They occurred with some regularity. A period of unusual wetness that drove a population explosion between 1880 and 1930 meant far more people were affected than before (and even during this time there were a few lesser drought and dust storm periods). The coinciding with the Depression made it stick in memory far better than previous droughts.

Drought, agricultural crisis, or dust storms were NOTHNG NEW in the 1930s. This drought and these dust storms were certainly more severe than those that wracked the plains in 1879-1880, in the mid 1890s, and again in 1911. And more people were adversely affected because total population was higher. But what was most different about the 1930s was the response of the federal government. In past crises, when farmers went bankrupt, when grassland counties lost 20 percent of their population, when dust storms descended, the federal government stood aloof. It felt no responsibility for the problems, no popular mandate to solve them. Just the opposite was the case in the 1930s. The New Deal set out to solve the nation's problems, and in the process contributed to the creation of the Dust Bowl as an historic event of mythological proportions.

So tell us how a regularly occurring event was man made, when it was a regularly occuring NATURAL event that happened even before the evil, bad, nasty white man was here?

Jesus Christ!! You seem to have very little knowledge about soil science, which isn't made up for by your anti-government rant. The reason there were dust storms and such massive soil erosion was unsustainable farming techniques. In the natural state those were prairie lands, not deserts. It took the federal government stepping in and creating the Soil Conservation Service to change farming practices.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1583.html

Did you read the first line of my post? Or did your jerking knee block that from your view?

I'm libertarian. I'm not anti-government. Quite the contrary.

The reason ANY of it happened was naturally occuring, and regular droughts. While stripping the land for cultivation may have made the dust storms worse, dust storms still happened prior to settlement in periods of severe drought as the native vegitation died out.

But don't let that stop you from blaming man for everything.

Farmers themselves, out of self preservation, would have figured out sustainable farming techniques sooner, rather than later. The idea that it took a nanny to keep them from ruining themselves is laughable. Or do you hoenstly think all private business would implode were it not for government intervention rather than government protection of individual rights and freedoms?

BTW, prairies and savannas are one step away from deserts, in case you didn't know.

 

[bigal40]

Originally posted by: SampSon
There an article on here that covered a story on how schools in the UK could show this movie as long as they gave the students a list of the proven fallacies in the film.

There was also an article in numerous national newspapers last year. A group of the most 'prominent' scientists claimed that even if we stopped ALL carbon based consumption right this instant, we could not stop 'global warming'. I have it cut out and saved somewhere, mabey I can find it. I have (hopefully not had) a folder full of articles about global warming somewhere. It's great to see how many scientists out there that have differing opinions even though the 'entire' scientific community has signed and closed the deal on global warming, as if we know all there is to know already.

I'm not trying to defend or debunk global warming theories. I really don't care to get into arguments about it, just a waste of my time.
My opinion is that the theory of global warming is the essence of human arrogance.

If you still have that, maybe could you upload a scan of it. I remember reading it once but can't find it anymore.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Then explain why the temperatures in 2007 all but erased "global warming". Why then are the Environmentalist nut jobs changing the terminology to "climate change" to account for the cooling trend the earth is seeing.

Fact: Temperatures were rising before the increases in carbon output.

Fact: The middle ages were actually warmer than it is today.

Fact: The earth was in a minor ice age from the end of the middle ages to 1850.

I could keep going, but these are just some of the inconvenient truths that the global warming crowd just keep ignoring.

These 2 statements cannot both be true, can they? The end of the middle ages would be... get ready for it... about 1850!

The Little Ice Age was roughly AD1350 or 1450 to AD1900. And the Medieval Warming period was ONLY for a few centuries prior to the L.I.A..

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Engineer a plague
Wipe out 95 percent of humanity
.....
Profit!

Profit for whom?

What if the vaccine for the select chosen ones fails to work in all the chosen ones with a 99.9% decimation of the population?

You think the lazy, rich, fat slobs used to slave labor to serve all their needs will want to go out and grow food to survive? Who is going to fix the Rolls Royce when the engine breaks down?

You get the idea.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: JS80
The problem with "changing our ways" for global warming is that people suffer, so no you're not only out a little time and effort.

Wow, great way of backing yourself up. People suffer? What people suffer from me reducing the amount of fuel I use and the waste I have? Who suffers from me saving money on my energy bills? The fuckers that have been raping us for decades on the same energy bills?

Once again your small mind is thinking micro vs macro. There are hundreds of millions of indians and chinese that want to live like us and they will need energy for that. So you are willing to keep them down and poor just so you can make yourself feel better? Typical selfish liberal.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..it's a great money making racket. It's the con of the century. the carbon-con.

You are wrong. The scientists who have predicted and given warnings regarding global warming aren't making money by doing so - they're government funded and will earn their salary so long as they submit research papers. If they submitted research papers stating that "all is well, we don't need to worry about CO2 emissions" they'd still make the same amount of money from the NSF.

What you're referring to is the people like Al Gore and others who publish books on the topic. They're not scientists. You can ignore everything they say and listen to the people who actually know what's going on (the scientists).

The concern is REAL. We need to cut back on carbon emissions.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Minjin
My school just had a very interesting lecture series related to this topic:

http://live.psu.edu/story/28241?nw=28

Follow the link and you can watch the lectures online. They are each about an hour long. Some are a little dry depending on your interest or education level. The global warming one by Dr Alley was excellent though. The solar one was very interesting, too.

"You can't say greenhouse gases will drive climate, it's never done so in the past."

ROFL! Someone needs to take a look at Venus. For every scientist they have on there denying global warming, there are 50 that confirm global warming.

 

[Insomniator]

I don't believe in any of it; the sun is giving off less heat and I believe I read that much of the Earth had record lows for average temperatures last year.

AND even if its allll true (which its not), its not like we are going to wake up tomorrow and stop driving cars. We are developing new technology to help the cause
but it doesnt matter how many BS peace prizes we give out, its not like the technology is gonna come any faster.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: edro
Fact: If you don't think human effects (deforestation, CO2 output, overall waste) are negatively affecting the Earth, you are a moron.

When all else fails, call people names, right?

Man is but a pimple on the planet. The planet is far more resilient than the greenies give it credit for.

We are far more than a pimple. We are inadvertently Terraforming the atmosphere and much worse to the Land and Water simultaneously.

Life on earth has been doing that for 4 billion years.

We are not even a pimple on the planet. That's the volcanoes. We are dust. We are the dirt and the water.

We can cause entire species to go extinct or very nearly extinct from over hunting. We can deforest nearly an entire continent. We can change the course of rivers, make lakes with dams. Harm an entire ecosystem with toxic spills for decades if not centuries.

Why is it so hard to believe that the accumulation of all these things, and also the CO2 we are expelling isn't changing the environment?

What about the dust bowl? Think that was a naturally occurring event?

Also remember rising temperatures, or changing temperatures aren't inherently an issue. The issue is the speed at which they are changing, which is happening much more rapidly than ever.

Increasing CO2 levels will harm forests also. You're going to see a decline in the number of new trees that will live/grow, and an increase of the faster growing weeds and vines. On the east coast poison ivy is growing at record rates.

Once again, all of this is as old as life itself. We are part of the earth, not separate from it. Life IS the environment.
That's the point you're missing. I am not arguing that we aren't changing the environment, but of course we are just as life ALWAYS has.
Don't come back to with this sh!t please, I'm not interested in your mysticism that humans are somehow separate and unnatural.