Global Warming - Yes/No - Causes?
05-06-2010, 10:03 PM
#1
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,642
Total Cats: 36
Global Warming - Yes/No - Causes?
I have an opinion on this but its not really the most informed.
So people who have some hard facts come on in.
From what I can see:
Yes the planet is warming up. But I see no proof thats its the result of cars, planes, or cow flatulence. I see some logic to the idea that its a natural cycle that we cannot do much about anyway. I also see a lot of people drinking the koolaid on this one.
But like I said I dont really know a whole lot in that regard.
So hit my ignorant *** with some facts. Or not. Whatever.
So people who have some hard facts come on in.
From what I can see:
Yes the planet is warming up. But I see no proof thats its the result of cars, planes, or cow flatulence. I see some logic to the idea that its a natural cycle that we cannot do much about anyway. I also see a lot of people drinking the koolaid on this one.
But like I said I dont really know a whole lot in that regard.
So hit my ignorant *** with some facts. Or not. Whatever.
Reply
0
0
05-06-2010, 10:23 PM
#3
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
I do think it is a natural cycle, that is absolutely proven, but I still don't think that is an excuse to continue business as usual. We do still need to change our energy usage habits, and go to cleaner energy/transportation. It surely can't be helping nature. That said, I'm not a green freak or anything, but I do think change is needed, so why not use global warming as an excuse.
Reply
0
0
05-06-2010, 11:49 PM
#7
Ok, let me rephrase that. "global warming" as propaganda to sell prius and **** like that with the intent of "going green" is nothing but marketing.
Like it was mentioned before, the Earth has gone, and will keep going, with this weather fluctuations- Note that climate shifts were also recorded well before the industrial revolution.
EDIT: Not long ago I've heard on the radio that the lead scientist in charge of the study of climate shift as a result of human interaction with the enviroment concluded that we are not the main cause for the such weather changes.
Also has anyone read "Save the planet, eat your dog"
Like it was mentioned before, the Earth has gone, and will keep going, with this weather fluctuations- Note that climate shifts were also recorded well before the industrial revolution.
EDIT: Not long ago I've heard on the radio that the lead scientist in charge of the study of climate shift as a result of human interaction with the enviroment concluded that we are not the main cause for the such weather changes.
Also has anyone read "Save the planet, eat your dog"
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 12:01 AM
#8
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
So to follow up, what do you think about the "green movement"? Surely no one is against clean energy and cleaner running transportation. I often hear the same complaints about the marketing scheme, but never hear anyone actually say what they think about the message, or meaning of the "go green"... thing. It pisses me off that they treat people like they are stupid (and most of them are, they just take the bullshit they are fed and believe every word of it) and lie to us, but recently I have realized there is really no point to be upset about it. In the long run it's a good thing, though I think the urgency they are pushing is a bit far, and stressful on our current way of life. Eventually we have to accept new means of producing energy, and try to forget about fossil fuels, and this little media driven movement is helping to push that, so whatever.
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 12:18 AM
#9
I agree that going green is better than "let's pollute". However at times it seems that is misused to make those less informed believe the world is going to literally lit up if you drive a V8.
Also, looking at new ways of energy production? I think we're gonna have to wait till oil runs out and the big money ballerz (Bush
) have no more business in the industry. Then we can use nuclear power, but remember nuclear power is EVIL
Also, looking at new ways of energy production? I think we're gonna have to wait till oil runs out and the big money ballerz (Bush
) have no more business in the industry. Then we can use nuclear power, but remember nuclear power is EVIL
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 12:22 AM
#10
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
I agree that going green is better than "let's pollute". However at times it seems that is misused to make those less informed believe the world is going to literally lit up if you drive a V8.
Also, looking at new ways of energy production? I think we're gonna have to wait till oil runs out and the big money ballerz (Bush) have no more business in the industry. Then we can use nuclear power, but remember nuclear power is EVIL
Also, looking at new ways of energy production? I think we're gonna have to wait till oil runs out and the big money ballerz (Bush
) have no more business in the industry. Then we can use nuclear power, but remember nuclear power is EVILSomewhat related. I had an EXCELLENT idea a few nights ago. Why not just put nuclear waste into orbit until we think of a better way to dispose of it... fine idea until the primitive methods we use (rockets) blows up on launch and spreads it everywhere, or the storage container/ship malfunctions and it burns up in orbit and spreads fallout all over the globe. In my defense I was a bit out of it, and realized my severe flaws right away.
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 12:34 AM
#11
Sadly I agree. I don't see us breaking away from our current usage habits. Nuclear is really THE ONLY way for the US and most of the modern world to go. Anything else would simply take too many plants to support the huge demand for energy that most of the modern world creates. Nuclear isn't dangerous, as any disaster that has ever happened was gross human error (dumb ***** turning off valves to try and boost output a little, ect.) and has become much more efficient with being able to recycle fuel. But like you said, it won't be happening any time soon. The people in power like to talk big and make up nice stories, but they all know they are full of ****.
Somewhat related. I had an EXCELLENT idea a few nights ago. Why not just put nuclear waste into orbit until we think of a better way to dispose of it... fine idea until the primitive methods we use (rockets) blows up on launch and spreads it everywhere, or the storage container/ship malfunctions and it burns up in orbit and spreads fallout all over the globe. In my defense I was a bit out of it, and realized my severe flaws right away.
Somewhat related. I had an EXCELLENT idea a few nights ago. Why not just put nuclear waste into orbit until we think of a better way to dispose of it... fine idea until the primitive methods we use (rockets) blows up on launch and spreads it everywhere, or the storage container/ship malfunctions and it burns up in orbit and spreads fallout all over the globe. In my defense I was a bit out of it, and realized my severe flaws right away.
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 12:47 AM
#12
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
I just don't see how people think we are going to be able to keep up with demand with wind or solar. At least not realistically and affordable. According to the handy dandy wiki, the US now employs roughly 100 plants for 20% of our needs. With wind, you would have to blanket the country with turbines, just not going to happen. Eventually we will HAVE to go nuclear whether people like it or not, it just has to happen.
But related to the topic of global warming, nuclear is about as clean as you can get.
AND, another after thought. I love that a lot of the other modern nations are using nuclear, and building more all the time (China) and yet lately the US has been really falling behind on "leading the way" in this respect, in more than just energy. We used to be pioneers and forged the way, now we play it safe and follow other people, and don't risk anything, yet we continue to lose everything.
Last edited by NA6C-Guy; 05-07-2010 at 12:58 AM.
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 08:57 AM
#15
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,642
Total Cats: 36
Where is all this data I haer so much about that makes me such a regressive ***** for being skeptical? I am serious here, is there some USGS data or Oceanic/Atmosphereic data or NASA or what? I can do a Google search and get the phone book, so I guess I am being a science newb and asking for help narrowing it down.
For instance, I have seen the graph below a few zillion times now. But it does not talk about the heat island effect, or what causes the trend. Frankly if there was not a half degree fluctation per century I dont know how ice ages would happen. Say the average temp in Kansas is 50 degrees F right now, and in an ice age its 15 F. Say ice ages happen every 10,000 years (by the way this is 100% out of my *** hypothesis) to go from 50 to 15 at .5 degrees per century, you need 7000 years, and thats assuming a linear scale when it seems to me that you would likely have a more sine wave function type of deal. Arent we just about due for another climate shift according to the geological record?
For instance, I have seen the graph below a few zillion times now. But it does not talk about the heat island effect, or what causes the trend. Frankly if there was not a half degree fluctation per century I dont know how ice ages would happen. Say the average temp in Kansas is 50 degrees F right now, and in an ice age its 15 F. Say ice ages happen every 10,000 years (by the way this is 100% out of my *** hypothesis) to go from 50 to 15 at .5 degrees per century, you need 7000 years, and thats assuming a linear scale when it seems to me that you would likely have a more sine wave function type of deal. Arent we just about due for another climate shift according to the geological record?
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 09:47 AM
#19
With me being a chemist I can vouche for this being a bunch of crap.
Reason number one: temperatures from around the world were not recorded until later in history and they base all of their data on the periods that were. That's like looking at the stock market after it started to pick back up and saying things are awesome! Get real...
Reason number two: some of the scientists openly admitted that they left data out of their reports to make the theory of 'Global Warming' seem more plausible. Being in the science field this is utter bullshit and really pisses me off to no end. So since they admitted this they changed their theory to 'Global Climate Change'. Weak...
Reason number three: the media is a lot of peoples only source of information as they would rather use the internet to look up ****. The media is going to tell you what someone else wants them to tell you, end of story. If this is your only source of information, you need to pull your head out of your *** and learn some facts for yourself. Read a report....
Reason number four: where the **** is the sun in all of this? Most people don't understand that there are cosmic radiation waves that come off from the sun and strike all planets throughout the solar system. This happens in cycles... Guess which one we are currently in?
Reason number five: The hole in the O-Zone layer is there, however, cosmic ray do not make direct contact with this area. That and UV radiation is what the O-Zone protects us from. Neither make direct contact so the ill effects are minimal. If you ever hear someone saying the O-Zone layer is growing, kick them in the crotch. Seriously... There is a reason it is only over the poles. Anyone know the reason? I do....
That's enough for now... This 'fairy tale' has pissed me off to no end and will continue to do so until the mass majority of people stop buying into it. I'm just glad to see that all you guys are educated enough to make your own opinions on things and not listen to the media for everything. Kudos.
Also, Nuclear Energy FTMFW!!!
Reason number one: temperatures from around the world were not recorded until later in history and they base all of their data on the periods that were. That's like looking at the stock market after it started to pick back up and saying things are awesome! Get real...
Reason number two: some of the scientists openly admitted that they left data out of their reports to make the theory of 'Global Warming' seem more plausible. Being in the science field this is utter bullshit and really pisses me off to no end. So since they admitted this they changed their theory to 'Global Climate Change'. Weak...
Reason number three: the media is a lot of peoples only source of information as they would rather use the internet to look up ****. The media is going to tell you what someone else wants them to tell you, end of story. If this is your only source of information, you need to pull your head out of your *** and learn some facts for yourself. Read a report....
Reason number four: where the **** is the sun in all of this? Most people don't understand that there are cosmic radiation waves that come off from the sun and strike all planets throughout the solar system. This happens in cycles... Guess which one we are currently in?
Reason number five: The hole in the O-Zone layer is there, however, cosmic ray do not make direct contact with this area. That and UV radiation is what the O-Zone protects us from. Neither make direct contact so the ill effects are minimal. If you ever hear someone saying the O-Zone layer is growing, kick them in the crotch. Seriously... There is a reason it is only over the poles. Anyone know the reason? I do....
That's enough for now... This 'fairy tale' has pissed me off to no end and will continue to do so until the mass majority of people stop buying into it. I'm just glad to see that all you guys are educated enough to make your own opinions on things and not listen to the media for everything. Kudos.
Also, Nuclear Energy FTMFW!!!
Reply
0
0
