Global Warming - Yes/No - Causes? - Page 2 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-07-2010, 10:59 AM   #21
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

Well, not like anybody cares to read my opinion, but here we go. Global Warming is bullshit, as stated above. Ever noticed that as soon as human intervention was proven false that they changed it to Climate Change? Of course during my massive post, someone else already mentions this... ha ha. FML

How much research do these ******* tree huggers do into the process of creating this so-called green energy? Last time I checked, recycling post-consumer products created more pollution than actually using and originally manufacturing said product. Go ahead and drive your Prius. I'll drive my polluting F250 SuperDuty around for 235K kilometers and still pollute less. Research has proven that the amount of pollution created to blast, mine, process ore, manufacture, transport and sell just ONE BATTERY is still more than to manufacture, build, transport, sell and drive for over 190K MILES a single V6 Toyota Camry. So hold your heads up high and punch yourself in the face a few times for being an ignorant assfuck. I won't even touch on the fact that the only part of those batteries that can be recycled is the plastic lid. But hey, they don't even disassemble that because it's hazardous to workers.

Oh, and whoever had the stupid idea of using space to dispose of nuclear/physical waste is a ******' retard. Sure, you can say, "Who cares? Nobody's using it. It's a HUGE space and we'll never fill it up. What else is it good for?" First, we thought the exact same thing about this **** rock that we live on right now. Why do you think this world has so many landfill sites? Why do you think there is so much water pollution? Because some retard had the exact same thought. The usable human space around this planet is very finite and it will fill up a lot faster than our naive minds think. That's a stupid idea. Just think of 100 years down the road what it will be like. Want to head out in to space for an exploration mission? Sorry, can't do that. We gotta clear you a path first through all the space junk the retards of the last 100 years have been putting up there. That's a temporary fix that will never work. Would you use masking tape to try and plug a hole in a fuel line?

It's already been proven that the human race had/has no direct impact on this planet's climate. Since the 1700's, this planet has been getting progressively warmer in some areas and progressively colder in others. Simple research into the matter will tell you so. Why is the media and user-oriented research only focusing on areas that are getting warmer? What about the places that are getting colder? The last time they took temperature readings from water-stationed beacons (I think it was in 2007) there were only two that showed an increase in temperature since this whole Global Warming thing showed its ugly head, which were right off the East Coast by Newfoundland. It's a money grab that targets the gullible, ignorant, naive people of the world. Unfortunately there's a lot of stupid people in this world. Oh, and what about these carbon credits? Anyone care to touch on this? Ha ha ha, this boggles my mind. Carbon credits...

I don't even know what else to say, my ADHD is getting the best of me. thagr81 has some good points.

The government controls the media and the media controls the masses. Do the math. Pull your head out of your ***. Move on.
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 11:00 AM   #22
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buffon01 View Post
^^ Well tell that to a society that indulges itself of ignorance. More people know where to rent 24" spiners than simple physics and chemistry.

Nuclear is and has been the way to go, but no one wants to deal with melting plants. (sarcams implied)
The only reason being they don't understand the difference and consequences of nuclear fusion and nuclear fission.
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 11:02 AM   #23
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wellford, SC
Posts: 1,704
Total Cats: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buffon01 View Post
^^ Well tell that to a society that indulges itself of ignorance. More people know where to rent 24" spiners than simple physics and chemistry.

Nuclear is and has been the way to go, but no one wants to deal with melting plants. (sarcams implied)
Agreed fully on the SIMPLE physics and chemistry aspect portion of this statement. I learned this information in two days in my Environmental Chemistry course in school. Most people see any type of science and just **** their pants and run away...

Sarcasm was picked up on... On that note, South Carolina is currently building a new nuclear power plant. w00t!
thagr81 us is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 11:08 AM   #24
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wellford, SC
Posts: 1,704
Total Cats: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-NA6CE View Post
What about the places that are getting colder? The last time they took temperature readings from water-stationed beacons (I think it was in 2007) there were only two that showed an increase in temperature since this whole Global Warming thing showed its ugly head, which were right off the East Coast by Newfoundland.
Agreed fully with your entire post man!!! The reasoning they use for the above quoted material is that it is due to the melting ice flow hitting those beacons.
thagr81 us is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 11:12 AM   #25
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thagr81 us View Post
Agreed fully with your entire post man!!! The reasoning they use for the above quoted material is that it is due to the melting ice flow hitting those beacons.
Bah ha ha ha, yes, because the current in the Ocean is that sporadic and unorthodox that it ends up EVERYWHERE. You know, this really wouldn't bother me this much if people weren't so inclined to plead ignorance and jump on the band wagon. *sigh*
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 12:04 PM   #26
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Livonia, Michigan
Posts: 5,684
Total Cats: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-NA6CE View Post
The only reason being they don't understand the difference and consequences of nuclear fusion and nuclear fission.
Exactamundo. Now go out, ask a random person, what the difference is??. The funny thing is that there's so much "concern" about "going green" and "polluting less", yet ignorance still surround the subject.

Anyone that has at least sat in a physics class will agree that nuclear power is the best source of energy nowadays; ossil fuels, wind and solar power are much more expensive and less efficient- somewhat like having a supercharger instead of a turbo

Also with all this bullshit laws that "everyone" should graduate highschool IMO lowers the stardard of education, because the system has to accomodate dumb *************. Thus leading to a society that growns more ignorant and stupid everyday.

Im moving to the rant thread lol
buffon01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 02:51 PM   #27
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
 
sixshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 15,678
Total Cats: 1,561
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thagr81 us View Post
On that note, South Carolina is currently building a new nuclear power plant. w00t!
Truly the best news I've heard all day. Nuclear is the way forward. And I hate that so many dolts pronounce it "new-cue-lar."

Global warming was always about money. This was freely admitted by many researchers over the last several years. A crisis always receives more funding than an anomaly. If you score hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional research grants for your university you get a big chunk of that as a professor. Shake your money maker.

Additionally, corporate tie-ins to news/media outlets corrupt any pretense of validity to reporting or documentaries. Did you know that the Discovery Channel, who for years has been running scary "documentaries" regarding the future of the planet, is owned by General Electric? General Electric is poised to make huge gains selling their expensive "green technologies" if only people are frightened enough to justify the exorbitant price tag. General Electric also owns NBC, CNBC, and the incredible MSNBC, all places where this green agenda is pushed. Do you remember the NFL football game when they did the halftime show and halftime report with most of the lights off to save energy? That was sponsored by the geniuses at General Electric's marketing department. I went along with the theme and shut off my ******* TV.

Always follow the money. The truth is usually buried under a pile of it somewhere.

P.S. The great lakes were carved out by glaciers that were several miles thick. I personally think the glaciers were done in by dinosaur farts and caveman campfires, but I can't prove it without some more research money.
sixshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 03:12 PM   #28
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wellford, SC
Posts: 1,704
Total Cats: 1
Default

Agreed on Nuclear Energy being the future. Duke Energy was actually planning to build two facilities right near my hometown of Gaffney, SC. w00t! However I found this website: http://www.bredl.org/nuclear/WSLee.htm ******* tree-humpers...
thagr81 us is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:06 PM   #29
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sixshooter View Post
P.S. The great lakes were carved out by glaciers that were several miles thick. I personally think the glaciers were done in by dinosaur farts and caveman campfires, but I can't prove it without some more research money.
Bah ha ha ha. Don't type that too large; the government might actually consider it.
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:17 PM   #30
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

BREDL: 5. Duke failed to show the plant could withstand the largest potential earthquakes.

Ha ha, persistent bastards, yeah? I like this one the best. How can you demonstrate the largest potential earthquake? I can think of a potential earthquake that would cripple an entire continent. Does that count?

And are they serious about the carbon footprint? Are they not watching the news coverage on the recent oil spill? I'm pretty sure that takes the cake.

Tree-huggers are the reason I took my cat out.
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:20 PM   #31
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 43
Default

I'm still confused as to whether some of you guys are claiming the fact that the planet undergoes temperature fluctuations, and the climate is changing is bullshit, or if you are still referring only to the media spin and what the government wants everyone to believe.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:25 PM   #32
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Livonia, Michigan
Posts: 5,684
Total Cats: 10
Default

I think both
buffon01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:31 PM   #33
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wellford, SC
Posts: 1,704
Total Cats: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NA6C-Guy View Post
I'm still confused as to whether some of you guys are claiming the fact that the planet undergoes temperature fluctuations, and the climate is changing is bullshit, or if you are still referring only to the media spin and what the government wants everyone to believe.
It is my belief that the planet undergoes temperature fluctuations... That's it and that's all. It's called equilibrium. All things try to rest at it, but usually fluctuate around it. While it is getting hot now, if equilibrium is still in affect (chemisty/physics says it will be), the planet will re-adjust by cooling off. Can anyone say Global Freezing? Maybe I should write a scientific article about it and start letting the grant money roll in... Hmmmmm.
thagr81 us is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:31 PM   #34
Elite Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Posts: 2,575
Total Cats: 11
Default

80% of France's power comes from Nuclear. Why cant we do it? And the people from before are right, every nuclear accident has been TOTALLY operator/human error. Read up on Chernobyl. The reactor itself tried to stop the accident 3 times if I remember right, but they wanted to stress test the reactor so they disabled the safetys so they could look all badass, and then it melted.

We need to find a way to create enough power with Fusion. I wrote a paper about it my freshman year, it is real neat stuff (tons of fuel, nearly 100% clean, it uses small amounts of fuel). only problem is how much energy it takes to sustain/start with current tech, and the heat generated.

If only the general public was not so stupid.
cardriverx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:35 PM   #35
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thagr81 us View Post
It is my belief that the planet undergoes temperature fluctuations... That's it and that's all. It's called equilibrium. All things try to rest at it, but usually fluctuate around it. While it is getting hot now, if equilibrium is still in affect (chemisty/physics says it will be), the planet will re-adjust by cooling off. Can anyone say Global Freezing? Maybe I should write a scientific article about it and start letting the grant money roll in... Hmmmmm.
OK, so you aren't arguing that "fact". So you just don't agree with the cause of it. Even though it is natural, the man made absolutely can't be helping matters. More greenhouse gas does equal more trapped heat, which moved the global temperature drop closer and closer, and possibly increases the severity of it when it does happen. So what is so bad about letting them continue with their little make believe story, which is actually to an extent driving change towards energy efficiency and cleaner energy, and changing the way that people think (in a mostly good way). Not to say that we can stop it, but we can at least not make it worse and help use up our planets resources and destroy it. Wow, I almost sound like a hippy, green person... though I'm not.

Also, I think volcanic activity plays a bigger part than anything in causing cold periods or ice ages. I'm not a geologist and don't really know volcanic records at all, but it seems over the last 100 years or so, we have been having an increase in big activity.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:36 PM   #36
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NA6C-Guy View Post
I'm still confused as to whether some of you guys are claiming the fact that the planet undergoes temperature fluctuations, and the climate is changing is bullshit, or if you are still referring only to the media spin and what the government wants everyone to believe.
The climate is changing, that much everyone knows. But, it's not due to human intervention/manipulation. We as a species do not possess the necessary technology to interfere with natural, global, climate change. Global Warming is the media spin that fucked everyone up the *** as far as carbon credits, pollution laws, CARB stickers and blah blah blah.
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:38 PM   #37
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wellford, SC
Posts: 1,704
Total Cats: 1
Default

Cardriverx:
The problem with nuclear energy is the same reason we call an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imagery) an MRI. When in fact that is not what it's true origin name is. In our Analytical Lab we have an instrument called an NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance). This does the exact same thing an MRI does at the hospital only the MRI is a little larger. If you were to call an MRI an NMR people would lose their ******* mind... Seriously, they would. Could you imagine someone suing a hospital because they were exposed to something with the word "nuclear" in it. However, the same person would most likely say, "Hell yeah doc. Let's take an X-Ray of this." Ignorance is bliss...

Edited for other replies while typing the one above:

The majority of the greenhouse gases (Carbon Dioxide) are trapped over the arctic circles where UV and Cosmic rays/energy do not have direct contact. This minimizes their effect on the region. Will it make a difference? Maybe, but I doubt you could measure it... Want to stop Greenhouse gases? Stop breathing or destroy a civilization... Seriously, it will cut down on it quite a bit. I do however think it is good that they are looking for new ways to make cleaner energy, but solar, wind, and electric are not the way to go and never will be.
thagr81 us is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:40 PM   #38
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NA6C-Guy View Post
OK, so you aren't arguing that "fact". So you just don't agree with the cause of it. Even though it is natural, the man made absolutely can't be helping matters. More greenhouse gas does equal more trapped heat, which moved the global temperature drop closer and closer, and possibly increases the severity of it when it does happen. So what is so bad about letting them continue with their little make believe story, which is actually to an extent driving change towards energy efficiency and cleaner energy, and changing the way that people think (in a mostly good way). Not to say that we can stop it, but we can at least not make it worse and help use up our planets resources and destroy it. Wow, I almost sound like a hippy, green person... though I'm not.
Greenhouse gas, really? Can you find any scientific proof that hasn't been perverted or fabricated by the government to prove that? Anything I find still hasn't been able to definitively prove that Greenhouse gases are to blame for anything or that they even successfully trap in heat.
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:44 PM   #39
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-NA6CE View Post
Greenhouse gas, really? Can you find any scientific proof that hasn't been perverted or fabricated by the government to prove that? Anything I find still hasn't been able to definitively prove that Greenhouse gases are to blame for anything or that they even successfully trap in heat.
It has more to do with the overall albedo of the planet, which is basically its reflectivity. More so than the actual capability of the gas to trap and hold heat. At least that is what I think. Maybe there is a less media hyped word for greenhouse gases. I honestly think the planets temperature cycles are too complex for most people to even grasp. You have atmospheric albedo, albedo of surfaces on the planet (light vs dark colors), out gassing from volcanic activity, actual ash and particles in the atmosphere from volcanic activity, other **** I know I'm leaving out. It all adds up to a very complex cycle. Change just one of those and you can really mess up the stable cycle the earth has kept. Which is why I think it's important to stop dumping pollutants into the atmosphere, even if by itself it's not that dangerous. In the grand scheme of things that we don't understand, who knows what kind of havoc it could cause.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:46 PM   #40
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NA6C-Guy View Post
It has more to do with the overall albedo of the planet, which is basically its reflectivity. More so than the actual capability of the gas to trap and hold heat. At least that is what I think. Maybe there is a less media hyped word for greenhouse gases.
Sure, but there is still no scientific proof that Greenhouse gases contribute to any sort of temperature fluctuation.
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Low oil pressure after 1.8 swap and new turbo setup JesseTheNoob DIY Turbo Discussion 15 09-30-2015 03:44 PM
Now shipping NC MX-5 (2006-15) Precision Sliding Seat Mounts FAB Fab9 Tuning - Miata Performance Parts 0 09-11-2015 01:02 PM
Problems (Still) with the MSNS running very rough. Marc D MEGAsquirt 9 01-22-2008 03:36 PM
I need help with C++ miataspeed1point6 Insert BS here 28 08-12-2007 12:52 AM
My car hates the cold... Braineack General Miata Chat 10 12-09-2006 02:47 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:49 PM.