-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Watch "Inconvenient Truth" in the theaters for free this Friday
Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Thanks for mentioning this.
This is why when I was on the volunteer facultly committee a few years ago for our university's Earth Day festivities, I was simply astounded by the booths put up.
Of them, only half had anything at all to do with saving the environment. The other half were booths about Mumia Abu-Jamal, ending the trade embargo on (communist) Cuba, Abu Gharib, Walmart, the war in Iraq (calling Bush the world's #1 terrorist), reparations for descendants of slaves, etc. Yes, there was even one there promoting the Workers Solidarity Alliance (an unabashadly pro-Communist group) selling t-Shirts with Che, Chavez, and Castro on them.
Of the booths that actually involved the environment, not a single one mentioned anything at all about China. Imagine that....
Yes the communist countries are the leading polluters. Some of the pictures from space are staggering. There is pollution. Some of the pollution is absolutly horrible. It is better to have less pollution. I ride a bike to work when I can. I try to grow organic food and compost and reuse nearly eveything. I hate waste. I find it silly to have to say these things but there are people who think people like me actually LIKE pollution. I don't like pollution I just like facts and dislike manipulation.
The point being. If certain people were really worried about the world environment the focus would be on communist countries but watermelons ignore that fact because the usual target is the evil U.S. Also the main argument I have is not global warming but are U.S. SUVs causing it. And even though there is little to no proof that humans are causing the global warming that, if it exists, could be just a small burp in the tempature timeline. It is unlikely american driving habits are a major issue. None of this changes the fact that we should all drive less and high gas prices are the obvious way to do that because capitalism is just human naturism. I would like to be off the oil economy also but wishing doesn't make reality. The most likely replacement curently is nuclear power. Possibly small nuclear stations located near each city. Generating electricity for household and electric car use and a pipe line through the city for the hydrogen the reactor could also produce. But that wont be practical until any terrorist leaning ideaologies is stamped out. 2 ideas that leftist leaning environmentalists won't accept.
The point being. If certain people were really worried about the world environment the focus would be on communist countries but watermelons ignore that fact because the usual target is the evil U.S. Also the main argument I have is not global warming but are U.S. SUVs causing it. And even though there is little to no proof that humans are causing the global warming that, if it exists, could be just a small burp in the tempature timeline. It is unlikely american driving habits are a major issue. None of this changes the fact that we should all drive less and high gas prices are the obvious way to do that because capitalism is just human naturism. I would like to be off the oil economy also but wishing doesn't make reality. The most likely replacement curently is nuclear power. Possibly small nuclear stations located near each city. Generating electricity for household and electric car use and a pipe line through the city for the hydrogen the reactor could also produce. But that wont be practical until any terrorist leaning ideaologies is stamped out. 2 ideas that leftist leaning environmentalists won't accept.
HeaterCore
Senior member
So, how about that deal?
Oh no, I read the entire thing, unlike you.
"The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says in their Hurricane FAQ that "it is highly unlikely that global warming has (or will) contribute to a drastic change in the number or intensity of hurricanes."[38]"
"The question then becomes: what caused the observed increase in sea surface temperatures? In the Atlantic, it could be due to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), a 50?70 year pattern of temperature variability. Emanuel, however, found the recent temperature increase was outside the range of previous oscillations. So, both a natural variation (such as the AMO) and global warming could have made contributions to the warming of the tropical Atlantic over the past decades, but an exact attribution is so far impossible to make.[37]"
All of this combined with the fact that we now know when ANY tropical cyclone exists (whereas before, we heard about it from fishermen, or reports of an entire island being wiped out) leads me to believe that we still don't know if GW is affecting (or at least seriously affecting the number/intensity of hurricanes).
And what the fvck do you think was so special about Katrina? There have been equally bad hurricanes in the past, it just so happened that this one fvcked up a heavily populated city that exists BENEATH THE GODDAMN SEA LEVEL.
It isn't even in the top 20 "deadliest Atlantic Hurricanes" list.
Would you then postulate that the Pleistocene "Ice Ages" were "self-correcting?"
Theories are just that... theories - possible reality constructs.
but one would have to be completely in the dark to think that population dynamics have no effect on the geosphere. These events aren't cataclysmic but the eventual effects could be dire.🙁
And to think that I went browsing through this thread to see if there were any new theater showings added only to find all this completely OT commentary by those who think they know something based upon a little bit of reading. Anyone here a geologist or geophysicist not employed by the petrol-chemical complex?
Sheez... Post new showtimes for those interested - or Lock this one up Wally 😉
GW *is* real, there is no "in case GW is real"... not only is *that* widely agreed upon, except by a minority of people with their own selfish agendas or in denial and refusing to acknowledge this for whatever other reasons (fear or whatever else), but there is also widespread agreement that the dramatic changes have been due to human activity.
So make no mistake about my previous statement. It was not to imply that there is any doubt about the existence or cause of global warming, but instead it was targetted at the aforementioned minority with blinders on.
surely those 100s of millions of people who remain in poverty in developing nations, as well as those who remain in poverty in OUR OWN country (thanks to another GW, and trust me HE is quite real, unfortunately), would love better quality of life and a higher standard of living. And to give them a shot at this, and their children and THEIR children a shot at this for generations to come, the prudent thing to do WOULD in fact be to take greater care and err on the side of caution, ESPECIALLY in this case, where there IS widespread agreement that global warming IS real, and even widespread agreement that it is caused by human activity and not just a cyclical natural occurence.
It comes down to this: we have only ONE inhabitable planet with only a certain level of "unintentional" harm it can be subjected to that it is able to counter by its own natural mechanisms before serious and possibly irreversible consequences are felt by its inhabitants for well after you and I are dead, leaving such concerns to our children and their children. When you consider the life and death ramifications for the billions of people on this earth, erring on the side of caution would indeed be prudent. You're talking about improving quality of life and gaining a higher standard of living vs having a chance to live at all.
This isn't a video game, you can't just hit 'reset' and start over. Let's not be shortsighted by simply looking into the future of our lifetimes or even our childrens' lifetimes, but centuries ahead. We have a system that has worked and improved our quality of life for hundreds of years, and it's the best that we know/have today, but that does not mean that there are not superior alternatives to come which will enable us to not only improve quailty of life and lift 100s and millions in developing nations out of poverty, but also be more earth-friendly so that life can be preserved and sustained at all.
People do things they know deep down is wrong every day. They suspect the foods they eat may not be so good for them and may even shorten their lives, they know that smoking can cause cancer yet continue to do it anyway, they know there's a day of reckoning for trillions of dollars of national debt but tell themselves that day is down the road and hopefully can be avoided by some miracle and so they keep spending today, they know that a hurricane will strike New Orleans one day soon and the results will be devastating but can't be bothered to take the necessary preventative measures because it may or may not happen and may or may not be devastating (sound eerily like the attitude the minority with blinders on takes about global warming?), and knowing all of this what they do is ignore what they know deep down or come up with rationalizations for what they do (or don't do) in order to not have to deal with those things head on and hope for a miracle.
Most people don't choose to look beyond the end of their own nose when it comes to important issues and making wise decisions (i.e., unless peeps are freezing or starving to death...they take no notice until it's too late).
Take the U.S. national debt for example. In 1980 (before Ronny Raygun was elected), the debt was at ~$980 billion ($980,000,000,000). Now it's at what...~$8 trillion ($8,000,000,000,000) and rising rapidly which does NOT include what the treasury borrows from the social security trust fund [SSTF]). So in 26 years, the debt has increased MORE than 10x. In the month of May 06 alone, the U.S. treasury paid a staggering $20+ billion ($20,000,000,000) in interest payments just to service the debt (which doesn't include any money borrowed from the SSTF).
Do MOST peeps care or even believe this DRAG on the country will ever cause them harm?
These same peeps can't even keep their credit card balances in control let alone worry about the nation's credit card.
Headed for a break down of this country's economy and not too many peeps give a rip.
curtisfong
Member
getting back on track, watched this in downtown LA friday night... the director was there, LA's mayor was there and Al Gore spoke a bit. Then Gore introduced Jon Bon Jovi and Richie Sambora and they played 4 songs. it was a sweet performance 🙂
JimKiler
Diamond Member
SUV's are nice target to the environmentalist groups. In fact there is no regulation to pollution on commercial vehicles. Construction equipment that is on 8 hours a day and we all see the smoke coming out of those tailpipes.
Also boats have no environmental controls on pollution. US Today did a story on that a few years back.
Environmentalists like to make us feel guilty for our SUV's even if they are contribute less than boats and commercial vehicles.
OK, I tried to find an article I read a couple of months ago about a good link between Earth's temperature variations and solar particles and Earth's magnetic field, but could not find it. Instead, I found these:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020731080631.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main...l&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/sun_weather_010828-1.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
This one contains a great quote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6270
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358953.stm
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=294
I know some of these are a bit on the older side, but at least they present another side of the debate that no one really talks about much, and to me, makes a good argument about the causes of global warming.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020731080631.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main...l&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/sun_weather_010828-1.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
This one contains a great quote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6270
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358953.stm
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=294
I know some of these are a bit on the older side, but at least they present another side of the debate that no one really talks about much, and to me, makes a good argument about the causes of global warming.
This thread not being locked is proof that god has abandoned us to Al Gore and his evil minions.
I don't understand why people are so upset about global warming, something interesting on a planetary scale is about to happen and we get to see it. Change is good isn't it?
I don't understand why people are so upset about global warming, something interesting on a planetary scale is about to happen and we get to see it. Change is good isn't it?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
