- 07-30-2006, 02:12 AM
Anyone read the newest issue of National Geographic? WOW is it good, apparently we need to lower the amount of carbon in the air by 70% to restore the balance in the atmosphere. And for those of you that think "oh yeah who cares?" well you better start carrying because we will see all of the negative effects in OUR life time not our kids or our grand kids life times. In 2005 alone their was 16 hurricanes! 4 of which were devastating. Reading this article has REALLY opened my eyes to how bad we have let it get. We have only thought about what will grow the economy and not about the consequences. Well as it is here in Canada we are already seeing the changes, our winter this year was pathetic and today it was 45 degrees outside with the humidex! We so we are getting less and less snow and hotter and hotter summers. So what does this mean? Well the lakes will dry up and pests that normally die in the winter will survive, i'm already seeing WAY more flies and hornets. The polar icecaps are melting so that sets off a chain reaction all across the world, something melts in one place and we have a Tsunami in another. We are actually going to have to change our lifestyles, build more windmills to generate power, use more hydrid cars, make ourselves less dependant on cars, by from local markets and not rely on eating things like oranges in the winter. I just thought i'd make you guys aware of this, because now it's REALLY got me thinking.
- 07-30-2006, 02:17 AM
a while ago I was at the movies and as the previews were playing, one of them was Al Gore's doc on Global Warming.. near the end of it I heard some older, moustached jackass mutter "Bull****"... It made me want to drop kick him in the nuts... the ignorance of people... Proven facts, before their eyes... and they mutter "bull****"...
- 07-30-2006, 03:08 AM
Chaps...we've hit this subject quite a few times. Search it up. As part of my Honors Majors Biology II course I was required to do a symposium on Global Warming based off of research found in a book called State of Fear by Michael Chricton. He provided sources for all of his materials and he provides a damn good case.
Any retort of his book involved "he has no credibility" or "he's an idiot" b/c that's the best anybody has against the information he provided. In short, with just the information you'll find in that book you'll probably conclude that Global Warming is not only blown way out of proportion, but even something we shouldnt be concerned about. In addition to that, most green movement postulations are overblown, wrong, or dangerous. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the green movement has been one of the largest disasters for human life (yes, human life) of the past century! The world-wide [near] banning on DDT, a pesticide that is "common knowledge" dangerous but laboratory proved safe, has resulted in MILLIONS of deaths per year in 3rd world countries b/c it was the only good line of defense to mesquito-born malaria we know of! Just recently, a couple years back, South Africa finally said F U to the world and started using DDT again b/c they had a 50 fold increase in deaths after it was removed from the country. The worst it has been proven to do is bioaccumulate in some animals, such as fish
Read the book or get the audio CD's.
07-30-2006, 03:15 AM
07-30-2006, 03:18 AM
Image:Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carbon Dioxide Levels over the past 500 million years (familiar life supporting years. I'm not talking about chemo-synthetic bacteria living in the harshest imagineable climate here...).
07-30-2006, 03:20 AM
07-30-2006, 03:22 AM
Also, make sure whatever data you're looking at is RAW DATA. The green movement people tend to add "adjustments" to their numbers and multipy adjustment factors through their equations etc.
07-30-2006, 04:38 AM
The Day After Tomorrow, is a movie that i liked talks about it in hollywood way but the visualization was out of this world, worth watching in my opinion
07-30-2006, 05:12 AM
07-30-2006, 05:47 AM
Actually I think the greater arguement right now isn't if there is or isn't global warming but if we're a large enough cause that reducing our pollution output would actually have an effect.
Personally, I think the reductions should be pursued for a couple reasons. a) The planet is staying the same size while the population grows. b) While the planet may be fine the people will still suffer. c) Which suffers more from being wrong?
Our 'science' has changed 180 degrees many, many times over. I think putting trust into the safer of the two if we were to be wrong would be the best bet.
Solar Variation Theory
Just posting some oposing views/theories
07-30-2006, 06:25 AM
b) Not necessarily. Increased CO2 production and temperature may have minimal effect on weather, but it will definitely be favorable for crop growth.
c) We'll suffer from "precautionary measures". What the green hippies are asking for would call for a drastic overhaul of our world and would ruin lives across the globe. EVERYTHING would change. We're moving toward energy efficiency anyway withotu the intervention of the green freaks...and at a reasonable pace. The hippies are trying to force it on us right away and that's prob not a great idea.
07-30-2006, 06:46 AM
07-30-2006, 11:24 AM
I love that book, State Of Fear. It really makes you think twice about some of the rubbish you hear on the news.
07-30-2006, 04:57 PM
07-30-2006, 07:06 PM
Duh!! You must have missed the news in the Politics section... Mikey is definitely part of the "5" global clearing houses of everything we see and read and know. In other words, he is part of the Illuminati !!Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
BTW, that is a very well argued post of yours.
07-30-2006, 08:38 PM
It just baffles me when I can walk into D.C. and barely breath or see on a smog heavy hot day but leave the city and be fine and people will argue we have no effect on the earth's natural process. I guess nature just tends to do this in heavily populated areas.
07-30-2006, 08:43 PM
I"m feelin it this summer here in Ontario, Canada, you walk out the front door and it's hard to breathe and you instantly feel wet from the humidity. I've talked to a guy from Jamaica and Barbados and they both said this summer has been worse than anything they ever experienced. I can handle heat, just dry heat i hate this humid crap, makes your feel gross.
It's nice to see everyone is realizing that things have to change, apparently you all were WAY more aware of it that I was. I new it was getting bad just not HOW bad. Apparerently Bush is going to have a plan to cure global warming, ready in 6 months. Hopefully his many advisors and daddy will be doing the thinking for him on this one.
07-30-2006, 08:45 PM
07-30-2006, 10:22 PM
That's not the point. Industry does have an effect especially if you take an incredibly small sample, like right where it's centered, and postulate on that. The point is what is the effect of human industry on global climate, if it is at all measurable in the aggregate, and then once we know that (which we still don't) what can and/or should be done about it? There have been short lived hot and cold patches as well as long lived hot and cold periods. Deserts were once oceans, jungles are now grass lands and glacier covered dirt is now arable soil. The world didn't end because of those changes, and the challenge is to take with a grain of salt the natural human tendency to see pattens and deep meaning in shifts of the weather, tossed chicken bones and teas leaves alike. Especially when there is, once you research it, a long history of Chicken Littles claiming the imminent end of the world unless the rest of the population defers to them and allows them, in their infinitely enlightened and far visioned disposition, to run every single aspect of the rest of the world's lives.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
There hasn't been a single generation in history that didn't have its doomsayers claiming we are all going to starve, melt, freeze, be damned or turned to dust presently unless we allowed them to run our lives. Those of us in this day and age just need to educate ourselves so that when the Chicken Littles cloak their claims in 'science' - science always being mistaken as a set of "facts" rather than a process of inquiry by the Chicken Littles and their dupes alike - we can be as skeptical as we need to be so we don't fall for what is and always has been through history the biggest line of **** anyone ever cut up and tried to convince someone else to snort.
07-31-2006, 01:26 AM
I couldn't care less about the global repositioning of the jetstream or any other crap really. I care enough about those incredibly small areas that are effected. I'm not a doomsayer either. I just want gradual changes over time that will slow the results you see in populated cities because as we continue to grow on this planet we're going to have a lot more of those example places.
07-31-2006, 01:32 AM
As long as I get snow in the winter and a tan in the summer, I could care less. Look at the Japanese, they have crazy population density, and pretty bad polution but they live FOREVER.. which means .. nothing.
07-31-2006, 01:41 AM
I believe global warming to be a "gross exaggeration almost at the point of a myth, but not quite", so this is simply a corrective statement: pollution in one place doesn't mean it'll have no effect. Where the pollution is taken to, by jetstreams and such, is where the effect will be felt. So, you can pollute like crazy in Place X and never feel it while Place Y could feel it all and never pollute.Originally Posted by Skyblue
07-31-2006, 01:43 AM
We definitely can have an effect on "air quality" that can effect our health and the health of other life. But,that's not the argument hereOriginally Posted by Jayhawkk
07-31-2006, 01:47 AM
LOL...that's what all of my opponents say at the end of our global warming arguments especially after I show them the raw data on global temperatures over the past 100 years. lol.Originally Posted by Ubiquitous
if anybody has State of Fear on hand, there is a link to those numbers courtesty of NASA I believe. I made my grandma read the book after she came over talking about global warming she's got like 40 pages left (of 700).
07-31-2006, 01:58 AM
Too many scientists on both sides of this particular arguement and me without my degree in this field can only go with what seems like the best arguement. My side has the benefit of having no bad side effects if we're wrong
07-31-2006, 02:44 AM
Just making a small update:
Solar Activity & Temperature over time.
Courtesy of Standford Uni: Global Warming & Solar Variability
Notice the correlation? I didnt know we were responsible for variations in solar output, too...damn humans
I'll try to address the "so many scientists on both sides of the issue" thing later. I had, a while ago, some good statistics from a poll that reviewed the scientists who produced peer reviewed global warming research. Pretty good stuff...
07-31-2006, 02:46 AM
07-31-2006, 02:46 AM
Damnit...I just looked for 30 minutes. I'm done. It was in "state of fear" in the bibliography, but I gave it to my grandma to read
07-31-2006, 02:50 AM
07-31-2006, 02:54 AM
Jayhawkk has a small peepee and doesn't know anythign about global warming
Last edited by kwyckemynd00; 07-31-2006 at 05:39 AM.
Similar Forum Threads
- By mrcoolboy15 in forum General ChatReplies: 62Last Post: 02-16-2007, 10:10 PM
- By size in forum PoliticsReplies: 22Last Post: 01-02-2007, 05:49 PM
- By QUICKRYDE in forum PoliticsReplies: 70Last Post: 10-10-2005, 08:49 AM
- By kwyckemynd00 in forum PoliticsReplies: 29Last Post: 09-06-2005, 06:49 PM
- By darius in forum General ChatReplies: 16Last Post: 01-25-2005, 02:28 AM