oops

10/10/2007 12:08:32 PM

^^explain whats happening on the other planets then....


explain the cyclical nature of the earths climate long before the industrial age..

10/10/2007 12:09:37 PM

yes i am sure liberal green-ass tree huggers may very well exaggerate the impending dangers and extent of global warming that is resultant of human activity.

what is worse is the close-minded rightwing conservative counter that the concept of global warming is complete bullshit. Do you have a PhD in chemistry, meteorology, or have done an advanced study in atmospheric dynamics. Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas along with water vapor that inhibits longwave IR radiation from escaping the atmosphere. Without the current concentration of CO2 and water vapor the current atmospheric temperature would be significantly cooler.

Humans through industrial and consumer applications utilize chemical reactions with one byproduct among many is Carbon Dioxide. Humans also cut down massive amount of forests terrain that acts as buffers for CO2 since trees through photosynthesis consume CO2 to make energy. Thus less trees equals less atmospheric CO2 being consumed.

Even if the extent of human induced global warming is just 5% and the other 95% is "global cycles" then humans still cause global warming. What is so fucking hard to understand. This stubborn idiocy is nearly as bad as religious nuts claiming their is no evidence to support evolution since some book written 2000 years ago says otherwise and b.c no one witnesses animals evolving on the micro time scale.

I have a friend who is a meteorology major yet since he was raised in a "very conservative" household clings on to his parents strict anti-global warming views even during his education on thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, atmospheric phenomenon, atmospheric chemistry, etc.

Quote :
"he fact that this was one of the hottest summers on record in NC has little to due with long term climate change and more to do with regional short-term variability in the weather."


I will agree with this.

10/10/2007 12:10:22 PM

Quote :

"How about the fact that this isn't the hottest year on record and we've been coming out of an ice age for hundreds of years."

Dude.
The last ice age was 10,000 years ago.
TEN THOUSAND.
Do you think Columbus sailed the ocean blue on an ice raft?

10/10/2007 12:11:23 PM

Quote :

"yes i am sure liberal green-ass tree huggers may very well exaggerate the impending dangers and extent of global warming that is resultant of human activity. what is worse is the close-minded rightwing conservative counter that the concept of global warming is complete bullshit. Do you have a PhD in chemistry, meteorology, or have done an advanced study in atmospheric dynamics. Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas along with water vapor that inhibits longwave IR radiation from escaping the atmosphere. Without the current concentration of CO2 and water vapor the current atmospheric temperature would be significantly cooler. Humans through industrial and consumer applications utilize chemical reactions with one byproduct among many is Carbon Dioxide. Humans also cut down massive amount of forests terrain that acts as buffers for CO2 since trees through photosynthesis consume CO2 to make energy. Thus less trees equals less atmospheric CO2 being consumed. Even if the extent of human induced global warming is just 5% and the other 95% is "global cycles" then humans still cause global warming. What is so fucking hard to understand. This stubborn idiocy is nearly as bad as religious nuts claiming their is no evidence to support evolution since some book written 2000 years ago says otherwise and b.c no one witnesses animals evolving on the micro time scale. I have a friend who is a meteorology major yet since he was raised in a "very conservative" household clings on to his parents strict anti-global warming views even during his education on thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, atmospheric phenomenon, atmospheric chemistry, etc"

explain whats happening on the other planets then....


explain the cyclical nature of the earths climate long before the industrial age..

it doesnt have to be a liberal/ conservative issue, and its not.


its a basic argument over whether or not humans are the ones causing it. i for one dont believe we are the source.

whatever happened to ACID RAIN OMG WE'RE GOING TO MELT?

10/10/2007 12:11:26 PM

all i know is cnn needs to quit with all their shit they do related with immigrants...they got lou dobbs on one hour and fucking rick sanchez a few hours later

10/10/2007 12:11:39 PM

yes the world is getting warmer

how, why and what are causing it are the debating points

long term and short term warming is also a debating point

considering methods and tools used for measuring temperature and climate have not only changed but have also become more objective in the last 20 years.

i would not run around yelling gloom and doom, nor would i sit here and proclaim that everything is peachy and do nothing.

a overall reduction in co2 emissions is on a whole, a good thing, elimination of them is unfeasible and will probably not happen for quite some time (read 100 years+)
only supercheap safe power generation could even come close to doing this.

more later...

10/10/2007 12:18:10 PM

darkone is the only person in the entire thread so far to use the term 'climate change' instead of global warming

yep...us scientists can tell who the other scientists are...the people who know climate change is something to study scientifically, not politically

but for the idiots saying "omg i hate the hippies exaggerating the effects" or "omg i hate the conservatives denying it exists"...just stfu...always trying to make a scientific issue into a political issue

10/10/2007 12:54:14 PM

Quote :

"[quote]Do you think Columbus sailed the ocean blue on an ice raft?"

this made me laugh.

Quote :

"explain the cyclical nature of the earths climate long before the industrial age.. it doesnt have to be a liberal/ conservative issue, and its not. its a basic argument over whether or not humans are the ones causing it. i for one dont believe we are the source. "

you should change your username to Mr CANNOTFUCKINGREAD .

I clearly stated that i thought the effect of human induced global warming was exaggerated.
I then CLEARLY presented my thoughts that climatic cycles are part of the reason for recent
increased temperatures. The issue of global warming is not black v. white.

humans cause global warming v. earth natural cycle.

Kinda like how the issue regarding human mental development nature v. nurture is not an excluse either or.
Many variables contribute to global climate. Blindly blowing off any human effect on global climate due to global warming
illustrates your complete ignorance and stupidity.

I guess if cancer rates in a town triple over four years and 5 years ago a factory started dumping toxic sewage into a river
that is part of the same water table as the town's water supply you would argue that the factory absolutly is not a factor in cancer rates.
Maybe more people started smoking or an influx of cancer prone people moved to town but attributing 0% of the increase cancer rate to the factor
is using your logic that humans do not impact global climate through release of a gas that scientifally has been proven to act as a "green house" gas[/quote]

10/10/2007 1:03:55 PM

the main reason your analogies here are so terrible is because you assume incorrectly that we know so much about climate change and the processes that have driven the earth for the last 4 and a half billion years, as well as we know say, a water can put out a housefire, or drinking toxic waste is bad for you...clealry you already have your mind made up and clearly your mind is not a scientific one

also a little fun fact for everyone...greenhouse effect =! global warming

10/10/2007 1:06:27 PM

btw i'm 100% down for global warming. i hate cold weather and 85 in October is fine by me. So lets start cranking out that CO2 like the aliens did in that movie where the aliens secretly running around earth building factories whose sole purpose to raise the earth's global temperature so that they can invade.

10/10/2007 1:07:45 PM

10/10/2007 1:07:57 PM

oh shit TreeTwista10 is here. The god-like omniscient TWWer is knows all regarding any matter political, scientific, social, or relgious.

[Edited on October 10, 2007 at 1:23 PM. Reason : thanx TT glad you have my back]

10/10/2007 1:13:15 PM

what the fuck does this topic have to do with politics or religion?

Quote :

"all omnipotent "

also I think you meant omniscient

either way you wouldnt need the 'all' prefix since the 'omni' prefix means 'all'

[Edited on October 10, 2007 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2007 1:17:41 PM

I'm confused because I find myself agreeing with TreeTwister. What the fuck?

10/10/2007 1:22:10 PM

dunno...i got an NRC degree so based on your username, i'm sure we studied some of the same curriculum...unlike all the people who want to make this a political issue

10/10/2007 1:23:52 PM

I am not even arguing for global warming. I just think it is ignorant that some find it completely ridiculous and impossible that humans can have any no matter how minute' impact on the environment. Just like how I think the tree hugging hippies preaching hell and brimstone over global warming with cities flooding over and a 20* global temp jump unless we all start riding our bikes to work and become vegetarians

10/10/2007 1:30:05 PM

well then you stir an argument that humans also have no positive impact on the climate.


i mean people hunt animals, animals produce large amounts of c02...

10/10/2007 1:53:55 PM

Clearly Bambi produces as much CO2 as your 12mpg 5.7L Chevy Tahoe per hour.

Also the Woody the Woodpecker who died when his tree habitat was chopped down produced my CO2 thru respiration then CO2 absorbed by a 200 ft tree through photosynthesis.

[Edited on October 10, 2007 at 2:08 PM. Reason : l]

10/10/2007 2:05:25 PM

maybe not on an hourly basis, but who drives their car 24 hours a day?

and im sure there are more deer, moose, buffalo, etc. than there are combustion engine cars.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_526912.html

[Edited on October 10, 2007 at 2:16 PM. Reason : ;]

10/10/2007 2:07:24 PM

:carlface:

10/10/2007 2:10:31 PM

sweet, so shooting squirrels form the front porch with the pellet gun is helping the environment!

10/10/2007 2:13:33 PM

an argument also could be made that bald people like arab13 and chance help to reflect the heat of the sun.

10/10/2007 2:14:06 PM

Quote :

"sweet, so shooting squirrels form the front porch with the pellet gun is helping the environment!"

Saps FTW!!!!

next time a hippy bitches about me running over a squirrel i will say i am doing my part to help the environment by eliminating a CO2 producer

10/10/2007 2:52:26 PM

^ kill termites or eat more beef...it'll be more effective

oh, and

Quote :

"Fox News are known for their objective reporting and complete lack of any political agenda"

[Edited on October 10, 2007 at 2:53 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2007 2:53:23 PM

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22562480-662,00.html

Quote :

"MORE kangaroos should be slaughtered and eaten to help save the world from global warming, environmental activists say. The controversial call to cut down on beef and serve more of the national symbol on our dinner plates follows a report on curbing greenhouse gas emissions damaging the planet. Greenpeace energy campaigner Mark Wakeham urged Aussies to substitute some red meat for roo to help reduce land clearing and the release of methane gas. "It is one of the lifestyle changes we can make," Mr Wakeham said. "Changing our meat consumption habits is a small way to make an impact." The eat roo recommendation is contained in a report, Paths to a Low-Carbon Future, commissioned by Greenpeace and released today. It also coincides with recent calls from climate change experts for people in rich countries to reduce red meat and switch to chicken and fish because land-clearing and burping and farting cattle and sheep were damaging the environment. They said nearly a quarter of the planet's greenhouse gases came from agriculture, which releases the potent heat-trapping gas methane. Roughly three million kangaroos are killed and harvested for meat each year. They are shot with high-powered guns between the eyes at night. Australians eat about a third of the 30 million kilograms of roo meat produced annually. The delicacy is exported to dozens of countries and is most popular in Germany, France and Belgium. The Greenpeace report has renewed calls for Victoria to lift a ban on harvesting roos for food. Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia spokesman John Kelly said roos invading farmers' crops were already being illegally shot. "They are being culled and left to rot," Mr Kelly said. Kangaroo meat sold in Victoria is imported from interstate. Australia's kangaroo population has halved to 25 million in the past five years as the drought has taken a toll on breeding and the animals' food sources, Mr Kelly said. Under a quota system, 10 to 12 per cent can be killed for the meat and leather industry. Aerial surveys estimate their numbers."

fucking kangaroos

10/10/2007 4:07:37 PM

dont give a fuck,

wear shorts

if shit hits the fan

colonize space

10/10/2007 4:59:48 PM

^ I think addressing climate change is a little more economically feasible that colonizing space.

10/10/2007 5:02:02 PM

Not necessarily. Reforming our world the way environmentalists want us to in order to cut down on fossil fuel burning would completely annhilate the economy. We'd push ourselves back a thousand years technologically and life would change... a lot. Wind/water/solar power cannot and will not support today's industry.

10/10/2007 9:09:18 PM

I don't see how it's even a god damn debate.

Everything on the Earth is setup in a balance, food chains, eco-systems, etc etc.

Not to sound like a hippy but this is just stating the truth. Trees are not here for us to cut down. Fossil Fuels are not in the ground for us to burn up. Entire forests and eco-systems are not put there for us to destroy and kill thousands of animals and now species; which in turn affects food chains, causing more damage.

Minerals, metals, precious stones are not in the ground for us to mine.

We take this damn approach that it is our right to take it all and use it for our selfish greed.

Don't get me wrong here, I understand life would probably suck ass without this greed and we would not advance as a civilization; at least no where near the rate we have and are still progressing. But we must accept the consequences;(opinion portion starting) yes we are probably fucking shit up royally; we better just hope that our technology increases faster than we fuck more shit up. What I mean by this is that we better invent some newer, cleaner ways to do things in order to replenish what we have taken and give back what we have taken to get where we are. It's this god damn greed that's the reason we haven't done this as well. Fucking oil companies. For years they have bought up any clean energy technologies and tucked them away in the back room, using their surplus of money to shut the inventors up. At least now people are starting to pay attention, however little attention it may be.

10/10/2007 9:56:15 PM

i think we cause more problems putting out forest fires than cutting down trees.

10/10/2007 9:57:47 PM

nuclear power ftw

10/10/2007 9:58:51 PM

^^ i agree, forest fires are a natural occurance, at least when they are caused by lightning.

^ and definitely, at least as a very good substitute until we can support fully clean energy.

Why the hell are people still afraid of nuclear power? IT IS SAFE!

[Edited on October 10, 2007 at 10:00 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2007 9:59:19 PM

^x5 Nice assumption without a shred of data. Typical of a bias wingnut.

[Edited on October 10, 2007 at 10:19 PM. Reason : To Mr. French Fried Taters]

10/10/2007 10:08:52 PM

what assumption?

10/10/2007 10:14:32 PM

this guy already cured it:

10/10/2007 10:55:07 PM

^^i assume youre talking to slingblade.

i dont see anything wrong with his posts.

10/10/2007 11:00:17 PM

Ok smart ass, what do you suppose we support our industies with when you take away coal and oil power? How will we make transportation when the environmentalist nazis take away all non-hybrid cars? How will we dispose of said cars? How will your trash be taken away every week with that diesel garbage truck to take it away? Which water dam will we use to deliver power to farmers in Kansas? You say we can use wind power? What will we use to keep the windmills at idle speed when winds aren't powerful enough?

The only way I can add data to that post would be to invent a what-if machine from futurama and pull statistics from a hypothetical future where al gore wins.

Nuclear power is a good alternative to coal/oil but for some reason environmentalists don't like the idea despite advances in safety in dealing with nuclear waste over the years.

10/10/2007 11:57:22 PM

Quote :

"Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. 'Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,' he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. 'The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,' Nghiem said. The Arctic Ocean's shift from perennial to seasonal ice is preconditioning the sea ice cover there for more efficient melting and further ice reductions each summer. The shift to seasonal ice decreases the reflectivity of Earth's surface and allows more solar energy to be absorbed in the ice-ocean system."

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

Sounds like "unusual winds" have caused the melting--not global warming. I suppose much of the winds could have come from the mouths of global warming alarmists, but that would be speculation.

10/11/2007 12:01:08 AM

^^ You presume to know what environmentalists (another word that you are trying to make a pejorative) want and would do with the world and by calling them nazis only makes your point that much more laughable.

[Edited on October 11, 2007 at 12:05 AM. Reason : .]

10/11/2007 12:04:20 AM

Quote :

"Ok smart ass, what do you suppose we support our industies with when you take away coal and oil power? How will we make transportation when the environmentalist nazis take away all non-hybrid cars? How will we dispose of said cars? How will your trash be taken away every week with that diesel garbage truck to take it away? Which water dam will we use to deliver power to farmers in Kansas? You say we can use wind power? What will we use to keep the windmills at idle speed when winds aren't powerful enough? The only way I can add data to that post would be to invent a what-if machine from futurama and pull statistics from a hypothetical future where al gore wins. Nuclear power is a good alternative to coal/oil but for some reason environmentalists don't like the idea despite advances in safety in dealing with nuclear waste over the years."

You kinda answered your own question.

50 years from now people will likely be driving electric cars with advance batteries powered by a combination of nuclear power plants and renewable energy sources. This will happen regardless of whether "Environmentalist Nazis" have their way.

The reality is that fossil fuels are not sustainable, and they are gonna become prohibitively expensive in the future. Fossil fuel power plants will be supplanted by nuclear plants, hydroelectric, wind farms, etc, and internal combustion engines will be supplanted by electric motors and batteries.

[Edited on October 11, 2007 at 12:06 AM. Reason : 2]

10/11/2007 12:05:47 AM

Yeah i'm sure its going to happen but the technology simply is not there right now and al gore needs to shut his pie hole. I'm not ditching my truck until he cuts down just a little bit. If he used, say, 10 times more electricity than the average american instead of 20... i'd think twice.

10/11/2007 12:12:48 AM

Yeah, why bother doing something environmentally conscientious simply because one other human being doesn't fit your ideals.

10/11/2007 12:20:11 AM

Because the technology is not there right now, period. Hybrids are barely better than economic gasoline powered cars. Look for the EPA ratings to change soon, by the way.

10/11/2007 12:24:54 AM

Quote :

"^ and definitely, at least as a very good substitute until we can support fully clean energy. "

its carbon free, thats clean enough

10/11/2007 12:26:00 AM

Until I see hard evidence about us significantly changing the global weather patterns I really could care less about carbon free. Besides, when you plug your electric car into the power grid... keep in mind that grid links up to a coal power plant.

10/11/2007 12:27:50 AM

If you haven't seen hard evidence linking humans to climate change then you are either:

A) Too stupid to understand the scientific arguments, observed correlations and mountains of scientific data
B) Not looking
C) Have your head up your ass

B & C are kind of related.

[Edited on October 11, 2007 at 12:42 AM. Reason : 1]

10/11/2007 12:41:14 AM

Until I see (and believe) hard evidence about us significantly poisoning our food chain by dumping mercury in our lakes I really could care less about mercury controls.

Until I see (and believe) hard evidence about us having any serious impact on non-human species populations I really could care less about deforestation and habitat loss.

Until I see (and believe) hard evidence about someone being able to walk on water and raise the dead I could really care less about the second coming of Jesus.

10/11/2007 12:41:26 AM

I hope you get mercury poisoning from eating fish you fucking prick

don't bring mythology like religion into a discussion of actual, tragic occurences

yes we are poisoning water with mercury
we dump it and its eaten up through the food chain into large predator fish which we eat

probably won't matter though
we'll overfish our waters first, maybe

seriously, you think you're so fucking smart
you know so much about the world

bitch, you play World of Warcraft

[Edited on October 11, 2007 at 1:06 AM. Reason : tell me about the real world you fantasy faggot]

10/11/2007 1:05:30 AM

Right.. you want to bring credibility to an argument... start talking about the apocolaypse. Really strengthens your argument.

10/11/2007 1:09:29 AM