Global Warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Page 2 of 7 First 1234 ... Last

  1. Pay attention to who published the article...:

    http://news.aol.com/story/_a/climate...00010000000001


  2. Quote Originally Posted by AJC408 View Post
    -----------------
    Did you find that on youtube? Anyways, your logic can be used for almost anything. What if the killer bee's come and we do nothing? What if it's fake? bahhhh anyways man-made global warming is a fairy tale use by environmentalists to shut down the oil industries
    Did you say youtube? What impact do you think this would have on the environment...

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDHT0hBgVOw&feature=re lated"]YouTube - Water Car Inventor Killed... Full Story[/ame]

    If global warming was really that serious, why wasn't this technology exploited decades ago? You can find an endless number of average Joes on youtube making Meyers cells literally in their back yard. It seems a Japanese company is even planning to market one soon. Another guy in Australia offers a 5 hr class that walks you though the process of converting your gas engine to water for less than 1500 bucks! Oil is a limited resource and getting less and less cost effective to extract I'm sure. Do you really think the big energy companies don't already have uranium dealers, or water cartels (or whatever the next big fuel source will be) on the pay role?

    The guy who designed this 'carbon free' vehicle signed a contract with the DOD after rejecting an OPEC bribe to shut up. He mysteriously died of food poisoning the very next day, quite tragic. The message seems fairly clear. The government doesn't give a sh!t if people play with this technology, but you dare not commercialize it!

    It's safe to say that big money calls the shots, regardless if the globe is warming or cooling. That's my point. Now be a good boy and go put your recycling can out by the street so you can feel like your saving the environment.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by futurepilot View Post
    (Option A)

    Lets say that global warming is real, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something useful, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.

    Lets says its real, we do nothing to stop it, end result: The world falls into utter chaos, due to mass starvation, floods, governmental collapse.

    (Option B)

    Fake, do nothing about it: The world continues to pollute itself, making more and more land/water uninhabitable.

    Fake, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something usefull, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.
    I prefer facts to justify tyrannical policies, not faerie tales. Read Algore's quote above and you see where my skepticism comes from. I remember learning in school 20 years ago that New York would be underwater today. Hmmm.

    How can we lose by believeing in it?
    We can lose in many ways:

    -Hindering future technological developments
    -Victimizing businesses that create jobs and therefore hindering economic growth
    -Government curtailing of civil liberties in the name of "the environment
    -Banning flat panel TVs that aren't environmentally friendly (actually in the legislative body of California)

    The potential government abuses are endless.

  4. I didn't read the entire thread but I dont understand why this is debated.. okay fine I get that the earth goes the climate change and it is inevitable, fine. I get that it isnt man made and infact due to natural climate changes, fine. Those are good points but not points against it.
    Where are the articles that show pollution isnt adding on the the problem??? Man might not be directly causing it, but we sure aint helping delay it much.. Why not make companies more fuel efficent? why not make more hybrid cars? where is the downside? Yes climate change is coming and yes ice caps are melting and whatever else is happening as a result of this. We might not be able to stop it from coming but we can delay it instead of helping speed it up... Don't you think?

    and rob you state how our it is being exploited, okay so I guess that might be a downside but hey free market, if you can get enough people to believe in the crap you are "selling" and sell it right?

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    To relate it to terms liberals use and understand, by creating a panic, similar to post-9/11, Government uses their new found power to strip individual liberties, property rights, and build bigger government. Government as an institution stands to gain the most from "climate change", yet they're the ones funding the vast majority of the studies.
    how is this hyped up? cuz of the oil crisis? I didnt think that was govnt funded.. isnt that speculators for the oil companies predicting that one day we might run out of oil so sell high now?? Or most likely a fear of Obama and his speeches of alternative fuel so lets get all the money we can now, it has happened before they raise the prices we start talking hybrid and the prices fall back down and everyone forgets about it, but I am getting off topic I dont see how this relates to global warming
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  5. Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    I didn't read the entire thread but I dont understand why this is debated.. okay fine I get that the earth goes the climate change and it is inevitable, fine. I get that it isnt man made and infact due to natural climate changes, fine. Those are good points but not points against it.
    Where are the articles that show pollution isnt adding on the the problem??? Man might not be directly causing it, but we sure aint helping delay it much.. Why not make companies more fuel efficent? why not make more hybrid cars? where is the downside? Yes climate change is coming and yes ice caps are melting and whatever else is happening as a result of this. We might not be able to stop it from coming but we can delay it instead of helping speed it up... Don't you think?
    So you want the government to engineer and mastermind the economy, just in case the voodoo *may* be true?

    Why not have the government raise my kids for me just in case I *may* be negligent some day?

    Why not have the government design my diet and workout for me, just in case I *may* be doing it wrong?

    The US was founded on INDIVIDUAL liberties and extremely limited government invention. This is an excuse to undermine the foundation of our free society and create an environment of autocratic government rule.
    •   
       


  6. undermine the foundation of society??? Why i think that is a stretch there.. okay let me try and re-explain my view on this..

    there is articles and graphs posted above(which I didnt read cuz im lazy ) and they show that global warming is real and is coming and we can stop it, true?

    they also show that this has been occuring forever now and isnt man made, true?

    okay both those facts are cool with me, I didnt kno that before, but how does that negate the fact that our pollution is contributing to this effect?? Are there studies that carbon pollution has 0 effect on our enviroment? the carbon emmisions has 0 effect on our bodies?

    why is it bad to reduce something that is harmful? the examples you say above about the diet and children are way off.. that is our govnt specalating, I dont think it is a guess that carbon gasses are effecting our world and bodies so why not try and reduce it?

    *side not* I did learn that we werent actually causing it from this thread as I was always under the belief that this was our fault guess not
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  7. Quote Originally Posted by raginfcktard View Post
    oh christ here we go...

    graph of CO2 in ice cores over 650,000 years of greenhouse gasses...see the trend



    ...another of glacial cycle

    Glacial cycles (sry wouldn't embed the image)

    earth has tendency of repeating itself...humans have little impact on earth as a whole but have caused localized problematic areas. nothing we can to do stop it! we need to focus on living in the future rather than trying to fix the present!
    I agree with you, but, how does a scientists really know the actual climate that was over 650,000 years ago? In my opinion, I dont think the trends we see can really be observed to that extent of time. Furthermore, I think that a "fact" like that is probably based off the same tools global warming alarmists use in their studies... computer models based of speculation of current trends...

    I could be wrong, just a thought though =]

  8. Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    ... I dont think it is a guess that carbon gasses are effecting our world and bodies so why not try and reduce it?
    You're right. It certainly doesn't hurt anything to try and reduce it. Who knows, it might even help. If the government says it's important to reduce carbon emissions, then citizens have no choice but to trust it's somehow for the best.

    Nobody listens or cares anyway, and at this point that's probably for the best. Henceforth, I officially giving up on politics Josh.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    You're right. It certainly doesn't hurt anything to try and reduce it. Who knows, it might even help. If the government says it's important to reduce carbon emissions, then citizens have no choice but to trust it's somehow for the best.

    Nobody listens or cares anyway, and at this point that's probably for the best. Henceforth, I officially giving up on politics Josh.
    But it does hurt to reduce emissions. Government is trying to enact a cap and trade system. Who do you think is going to regulate how many emissions businesses are going to be able to emit? The Government. Energy fuels the economy, but if government puts regulations on energy, who controls the economy now? Good bye capitalism. Hello Socialism!

    It WILL cost the US to reduce emissions, that's not exactly where we need to be spending our money with trillions in IOU's! =[

  10. Quote Originally Posted by AJC408 View Post
    But it does hurt to reduce emissions. Government is trying to enact a cap and trade system. Who do you think is going to regulate how many emissions businesses are going to be able to emit? The Government. Energy fuels the economy, but if government puts regulations on energy, who controls the economy now? Good bye capitalism. Hello Socialism!

    It WILL cost the US to reduce emissions, that's not exactly where we need to be spending our money with trillions in IOU's! =[

    socialism??? wow that is a stretch there.. how did you get it there, im interested in ur reasoning for that?''

    Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    You're right. It certainly doesn't hurt anything to try and reduce it. Who knows, it might even help. If the government says it's important to reduce carbon emissions, then citizens have no choice but to trust it's somehow for the best.

    Nobody listens or cares anyway, and at this point that's probably for the best. Henceforth, I officially giving up on politics Josh.
    and i;m not saying that its bad just cuz the govt says so, its far from that especialy cuz i dont believe nor trust the govt for jack **** especially even more since 9/11 i subscribe to the theories of loose change so I am definetely not saying to trust them that its bad cuz they say so... i am saying it is bad.... because it is bad
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  11. Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    undermine the foundation of society??? Why i think that is a stretch there.. okay let me try and re-explain my view on this..
    No, its not a stretch at all. Imagine the locomotive never being invented because it caused pollutants and they couldn't afford the taxes on it. Imagine the assembly line and automobile never be made because it caused pollutants and they couldn't afford the taxes on it.

    This is central planning by government for the economy. Sounds a little like Soviet Russia to me.

    there is articles and graphs posted above(which I didnt read cuz im lazy ) and they show that global warming is real and is coming and we can stop it, true?
    No, it shows that we're in the middle of an ice age and its about ready to get a lot colder rather than hotter unless there's a hell of a lot more CO2 emissions.

    they also show that this has been occuring forever now and isnt man made, true?
    Yes, hence the dinosaur and woolly mammoths.

    okay both those facts are cool with me, I didnt kno that before, but how does that negate the fact that our pollution is contributing to this effect?? Are there studies that carbon pollution has 0 effect on our enviroment? the carbon emmisions has 0 effect on our bodies?
    If we are in the middle of an ice age, we want as much global warming as possible so Chicago and London aren't under a sheet of ice again.

    why is it bad to reduce something that is harmful? the examples you say above about the diet and children are way off.. that is our govnt specalating, I dont think it is a guess that carbon gasses are effecting our world and bodies so why not try and reduce it?
    It isn't *bad* to reduce CO2 emissions, what is bad is government central planning a countries economy. Its been shown to not be as effective as a free market economy. Hence China's rise to prosperity in the last 20 years.

    *side not* I did learn that we werent actually causing it from this thread as I was always under the belief that this was our fault guess not
    Yeah, that's what I was taught my whole life as well. There's very few legitimate sources of information the average person will ever hear on non-PC viewpoints in general. This is just one example.

  12. don`t be afraid, we are doing just fine!

  13. I`m worried about our children and future generations

  14. Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post

    why is it bad to reduce something that is harmful?
    Human flatulence contains Methanol, a known green house gas. Guess you won't mind if the government institutes a "Fart Tax" on you, based on the "maybe" tenuous evidence?

    By extension, how much more would you like to have to pay for your essential goods (food, clothing, shelter, etc.) because the increased regulations (again, a tenuous connection) are instituted "just in case". Can you afford another, say $200 a month? $300?

    I guarantee you one thing....eventually all cost increases are passed directly to the consumer, one way or another.
    Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
    Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless

  15. I read an article that I cant find now that was saying Australians are going to need to pay money to have more than one child.

    I mean after all, children exhale carbon dioxide which is a green house gas! haha ridiculous! (if someone can find this post, post it!) =]

  16. I just opened a diet pepsi...yep CARBONATED!!!!!

    /evil...EVIL!!!!
    Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
    Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless

  17. Quote Originally Posted by dsade View Post
    I just opened a diet pepsi...yep CARBONATED!!!!!

    /evil...EVIL!!!!
    You always wanna be something noble when you grow up... a doctor or a preacher, or something like that. But now I see, I should have been a lawyer or a tax collector!!

  18. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas. Are they going to try and reduce that, too?

  19. Quote Originally Posted by HardTrainer View Post
    Big energy companies have a lot to gain from arguing that there is no global warming.
    Actually it's big oil and energy companies that have the majority of investments in alternative energy develpment, so they stand the most to gain financially should restrictions raise fossil fuel prices and pour government development money into alternatives.

    What exactly do 'hippies' have to gain from arguing that it does exist?
    Millions in research grants, endowed chairs, trips to Brazil and other tropical locations for Earth Summit day and what not, appointed government positions, not to mention an excuse to advance every hair brained moronic leftist economic agenda they want.

    It may not be as certain a scientific fact as gravity, death or taxes. But when organisations like the American National Academy of Sciences are supporting it, and nobel prizes are being given out for climatology work, you have to admit it's slightly more than speculation and wishful thinking. No?
    No. Because what is not publicized is the rather large and growing portion of scientists who are finally fed up with all the "the debate is over" BS and who are signing off the alarmist sheet and moving to skeptic. Nor can you look to political organizations like the NAS or the IPCC for true science. There are already IPCC reviewers coming out and saying their views were distorted or misrepresented in the released summaries and reports. Many of the 'scientists' involved in climate research, especially those involved in determing past temperatures, are less that open when it comes to their methods and raw data, actively denying to share it with anyone who might be critical. The reasons why are clear; whenever they do or someone finds out and gets the infor public, it's loaded with errors. Michael Mann's hockey stick is one example.

    You should also check out Anthony Watt's work on documenting surface temperature sites. The org that maintains the network, the acronym escapes me, refused to do a review of sites, so Watt did it on his own. He's been finding temperature sensors next to AC condensors, in the middle of blacktop parking lots, mere feet away from car engines, and even hanging above BBQ grills for God's sake. You should also check a recent book on the subject, Red Hot Lies by Christopher Horner. The 'environmentalists' in the NAS panel weren't elected, they snuck in through a technicality and proceeded to dominate NAS panels and appoint like minded people to positions, quashing any and all skeptics they could. It shows how skeptical one must be when 'science' and politics are mixed.

    Point being, until a world wide audit is done on surface stations to ensure they conform to standards or accurate measurement, and then that data is squared with the satelite record, and until all data and methods are released regarding past temperature records for review and replication, and until all computer code is released so people can examine those methods, this 'science' is worth ****. Perhaps NASA can explain why their 'correction' method for UHI almost always seems to lower past temperature and keep constant or even raise current temperatures? Perhaps the dendro climatology community can explain why it continues to use problematic tree ring chronologies after being advised not to? Perhaps Ken Briffa can explain what this anthropomorphic forcing is that allows him to use tree rings as past temperature proxies while completely ignoring their divergence from satelite and surface readings in the present? It's questions like those, to which there may be reasonable answers but which remain unanswered, that properly lead to skepticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by futurepilot View Post
    (Option A)

    Lets say that global warming is real, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something useful, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.

    Lets says its real, we do nothing to stop it, end result: The world falls into utter chaos, due to mass starvation, floods, governmental collapse.

    (Option B)

    Fake, do nothing about it: The world continues to pollute itself, making more and more land/water uninhabitable.

    Fake, and we do everything we can to stop it, end result: We've gained a more environmentally aware society that has put R&D money towards something usefull, creating a more sustainable lifestyle.

    How can we lose by believeing in it?
    Because option A leaves out the several trillion in opportunity costs that go along with believing and 'doing something!' about it. The way you phrase the option entirely begs the question. A more sustainable lifestyle? If it's not true our lifestyle is sustainable as it is. And where does that R&D money come from? Is the government going to just print it or take it directly in taxes? What does that do to the pool of loanable funds backing capital accumulation and increased productivity and wealth for the private sector? You do realize 'doing everything we can to stop it' means ditching your modern lifestyle and wearing a loin cloth and living in a cave, correct? Unless of course the greenies are becoming more friendly with nuclear power and continuing fossil fuel use, because both are necessary to fuel our economy if we are to bring solar, wind, and other alternatives into play. That doesn't just happen over night, and it doesn't happen period if we cripple our current structure of production which is exactly what nitwits like Al Gore are suggesting. Many times its not the global warming hysteria that's the problem. Assume it's true for a moment. That still leaves the plans to 'do something!' about it for review, most of which read like they were pulled directly out of the Communist manifesto, or at the very least as if they are being proposed by people who never got past high school economics class, and didn't do to good in that one to boot.

    Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    undermine the foundation of society??? Why i think that is a stretch there.. okay let me try and re-explain my view on this..
    It's not a stretch, it's reality. It's very much the way the PATRIOT Act passed here in the US. Interest groups like the cops and FBI and what not who were begging for expanded powers for years capitalized on the panic of 9/11 and got an abomination passed. Similarly radical lefties like Paul Ehrlic who have been predicting one disaster after another for the last forty years and, despite being constantly proven wrong, using those dire predictions to try and push through the same tired old socialist policies that they've always wanted in place are now using global warming, the ultimate buggaboo, to try and push their same old agenda.

    okay both those facts are cool with me, I didnt kno that before, but how does that negate the fact that our pollution is contributing to this effect?? Are there studies that carbon pollution has 0 effect on our enviroment? the carbon emmisions has 0 effect on our bodies?
    Bodies I don't know about. Environment yeah. If you parse through the bull**** in the IPCC reports all the dire predictions are based on positive feedback mechanisms existing and dominating the climate, with actual contribution of CO2 being relatively negligible. The problem is assuming a long term stable system like the climate is dominated by positive feedback mechanisms is, in a word, stupid, because such a system does not lend itself to stability. A system dominated by negative feedbacks does. So what they are essentially arguing is that a system dominated by positive feedback mechanisms has just barely managed to stay stable for Christ knows how many millions of years, and it's our miniscule contribution to CO2 and other GHGs which is barely noticable next to the naturally occurring amounts, that's going to finally engage those positive feedbacks to the tipping point and send our climate spiralling out of control. Or, if you would, imagine a cat sleeping in the center of a room filled with set mouse traps. What they are saying is that even though nature has trotted elephants through the place and not woken up the cat, one little human fart is going to send kitty sky high and when he comes down all hell is going to break loose.

    why is it bad to reduce something that is harmful?
    Because harm can only be judged in comparrison to gain, and can only be eliminated at a cost which might not be worth it in the end.

    socialism??? wow that is a stretch there.. how did you get it there, im interested in ur reasoning for that?'
    Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. The ultimate means of production is energy. Cap and trade policies are basically government rationing of energy resources. Hence: socialism, more along the Nazi model than outright direct nationalization of the businesses. It's also doomed to fail because of the Prisoner's Dilema. The scheme only works if everyone plays by the rules, but the incentive is to inflate the number of pollution permits and this will happen until, as it has every time it's been tried, the market for permits simply collapses because they have no real value anymore.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    I will pimpsmack you hippies!
    Rock on CDB!

  21. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    You do realize 'doing everything we can to stop it' means ditching your modern lifestyle and wearing a loin cloth and living in a cave, correct?
    "Resident Paranoid Extremist"

  22. CDB thanks for the post... so i didnt have to do it

  23. most of the worlds climatologists agree that we have a detrimental effect on temperature...and even if we didnt, error on the side of caution. i cant think of a single reason to NOT act, even if it isnt a true phenomenon. the only things that would come from changing how we power the world, would all be positive. the only people who would have a problem are christian nut jobs who love oil (for some wierd reason, i still cant figure out)

  24. Quote Originally Posted by DT5 View Post
    most of the worlds climatologists agree that we have a detrimental effect on temperature...and even if we didnt, error on the side of caution. i cant think of a single reason to NOT act, even if it isnt a true phenomenon. the only things that would come from changing how we power the world, would all be positive. the only people who would have a problem are christian nut jobs who love oil (for some wierd reason, i still cant figure out)
    You should start from the beginning of this thread and read what's been said. It's clear that reacting is going to be detrimental to the economy and could even take a hold of our freedom.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-02-2007, 06:49 PM
  2. Global Warming
    By CHAPS in forum General Chat
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 08-22-2006, 10:02 PM
  3. Global Warming Causes Stronger Hurricanests
    By QUICKRYDE in forum Politics
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 10-10-2005, 09:49 AM
  4. Debate on the existance of Global Warming
    By kwyckemynd00 in forum Politics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-06-2005, 07:49 PM
  5. Global Warming Countdown Catastrophe
    By darius in forum General Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-25-2005, 03:28 AM
Log in
Log in