Members Bassin' 'Round Posted July 29, 2005 Members Share Posted July 29, 2005 www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163999,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mudbass Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Hmmm...very interesting. Certain people are awfully determined to keep the research data away from scrutinizing eyes. Something stinks like a diaper full of trout! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Whatever, it came from Fox News. Everyone knows it's just pro corporate propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Originally posted by burdizzos Everyone knows it's just pro corporate propaganda. And CNN/Headline News/MSNBC isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Occam Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Weather is an extremely complicated thing to study and predict. It's very hard to find specific quid pro quo examples...there have been examples of the earth heating up and cooling down long before human's even existed but my feeling is to error on the side of caution. Don't put things into the environment that probably shouldn't be there and do the best job we can reasonably do with that and hope for the best 'til we know more about the nebulous systems that govern our weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cthulhu0 Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 is it better to err on the side of caution, and maybe reduce the amount of crap we pour into the atmosphere, or just give it a "well, i don;t personally see anything different, so it isn;t happening"? if we reduce our output and nothing happens, fine, we still end up with better quality of life. or we can stay the course and pay for it in spade. but who cares, cause we won;t be around to see the consequences of our own actions. everthing is turning to {censored}, and you want to put you head in the sand and claim some sort of liberal/hippy conspiracy to deprive you of your intrinsic right to piss on everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 I'm sorry cthulhu0 but I don't think the sky is falling. I'm not blaming it on any sort of conspiracy either. I think folks want to feel good by thinking they're doing something worthwhile and meaningful. That's cool with me. Folks are more than welcome to recycle, ride bicycles, and other such things. I just don't push it down my throat that I'm harming the environmen unless you've (meaning the doom-and-gloom crowd) got irrefutable scientific evidence to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thelurker Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 The problem for most of us is not that we wouldn't want cleaner air or water. The problem is there are people and groups intent on punishing prosperous nations through unilaterally binding resolutions. The U.S. and several Asian nations have released a plan to reduce emissions that WILL work, without crippling the nations involved. China and India look to gain the most ground in "clean technology". For the record, kyoto was DOA when, in 1998, the Senate voted it down 98-0. The Senate agrees to treaties, not the President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the_big_geez Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 The planet Earth has perpetrated more wickedness on herself than even the most imaginative writer could ever conceive, and all with no assistance from Man. The wickedness in she has failed has occurred exterrestially. 1. If four volcanoes were to erupt in the same week, the results would be catastophic to all mamilian life, most reptiles and fowl. And there's not {censored} all we can do to stop it. 2. If an asteroid of 1 cubic imle were to strike the surface of the planet, the results would be catastophic to all mamilian life, most reptiles and fowl. And there's not {censored} all we can do to stop it. 3. If the Vogon Construction Fleet wants to make way for an interplanetary bypass the results would be catastophic to all mamilian life, most reptiles and fowl. And there's not {censored} all we can do to stop it. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bassin' 'Round Posted July 30, 2005 Author Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Originally posted by thelurker The problem for most of us is not that we wouldn't want cleaner air or water. The problem is there are people and groups intent on punishing prosperous nations through unilaterally binding resolutions. The U.S. and several Asian nations have released a plan to reduce emissions that WILL work, without crippling the nations involved. China and India look to gain the most ground in "clean technology".For the record, kyoto was DOA when, in 1998, the Senate voted it down 98-0. The Senate agrees to treaties, not the President. Doomer & gloomers aren't particularly interested in even listening to any of this... Environmental problems/concerns are all the fault of the USA, generally, & the Republicans & President Bush, more specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members namlssboy Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 This is a stupid topic to even discuss, human existence is but a nailfile scraping on the timeline of earth and we are steadily destroying it. The tons of excess carbon, gases, and particulates we dump into our biosphere every day surely account for the rise in average glocal temperatures. There is proof: glacial recession, changes in sea surface temperatures, increasing thunderstorm activity, and the melting of our polar ice caps and ice shelves. One day we will have to face this head on and if something is not done now it will be a freaking catastrophe. Remember two things about our government: 1) it's based on a capitalist system and 2) it is never proactive, only reactive. If we don't act now and drastically cut out reliance on unrenewable fossil fuels and utilize widespread use of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power we might as well kiss our future generations goodbye. To ignore this problem, or to not attempt to help would be wholly selfish and repugnant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Originally posted by namlssboy This is a stupid topic to even discuss, human existence is but a nailfile scraping on the timeline of earth and we are steadily destroying it. The tons of excess carbon, gases, and particulates we dump into our biosphere every day surely account for the rise in average glocal temperatures. There is proof: glacial recession, changes in sea surface temperatures, increasing thunderstorm activity, and the melting of our polar ice caps and ice shelves. One day we will have to face this head on and if something is not done now it will be a freaking catastrophe. Remember two things about our government: 1) it's based on a capitalist system and 2) it is never proactive, only reactive. If we don't act now and drastically cut out reliance on unrenewable fossil fuels and utilize widespread use of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power we might as well kiss our future generations goodbye. To ignore this problem, or to not attempt to help would be wholly selfish and repugnant. 30 years ago it was global cooling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thelurker Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Man, talking about this is like being the host "Super Scary Friday Night Movies". Nobody is saying don't do anything. We're saying take sensible steps. You may be too young to remember the "Rainforest disaster". Everybody was tossing around a number of acres being destroyed per day. Sting was huge into this. When somebody finally sat down and did the math, they realized that, if the numbers were correct, we'd run out of rainforests two years earlier. Obviously, we hadn't, and haven't. Still, everybody in the "environmental movement" wants to insist on an iron fist, communist style takeover of everybody's way of life. I say, if they really wanted to make a difference, they should have taken all the money people were donating, bought the damn rainforest, put a fence around it, and tell people to stay the hell away from it! As for our government, the U.S. does more to reduce pollution output than any other country on the planet. We've now made a deal with China and India to give them that technology, so they don't make pollution worse as their economy's expand. Every "worker's paradise" on the planet is an ecological nightmare, using the worst methods to just try and keep up. As for particulates, gases and carbon, we can't touch the output of a volcano. Period. The rise in average global temperatures (an alarming 1 degree C!) is far more likely caused by variations in THE SUN than anything we're doing. Nothing on Earth is generating anything close to that kind of heat, which would be there whether we keep it in or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Perfessor Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Oh no! Not another Vulcan mind meld! AHHHHHH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fran da Man Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Originally posted by thelurker Man, talking about this is like being the host "Super Scary Friday Night Movies". Still, everybody in the "snip" wants to insist on an iron fist, communist style takeover of everybody's way of life. That sound chillingly like some current Administration, though i won't say no names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rippin' Robin Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Noting that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kaesh Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Hooray for Kyoto! Hooray for post-Kyoto! Hooray for central planning! Long live comrade Blair! May the light of his benevolent wisdom never stop shining on us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rippin' Robin Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Originally posted by Kaesh Hooray for Kyoto! Hooray for post-Kyoto! Hooray for central planning! Long live comrade Blair! May the light of his benevolent wisdom never stop shining on us! *shuts Stalinistic Applause Machine off* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Originally posted by Thunderbroom 30 years ago it was global cooling. Yes and 50 years ago there was no such thing as plate tectonic theory, no one could predict earthquakes or volcano eruptions and no one knew how caribou or sharks migrated. 45 years ago, medicine was jamming icepicks into the brains of women undergoing rough menopause. 15 years ago no one would ever need more than 640K of RAM. See what I am saying? The fact is that a {censored}load of real live research has gone into global warming over the past 10 years, and our understanding has improved by orders of magnitude since then. Global warming is a reality folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MrJoshua Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Originally posted by philthygeezer Yes and 50 years ago there was no such thing as plate tectonic theory, no one could predict earthquakes or volcano eruptions and no one knew how caribou or sharks migrated. 45 years ago, medicine was jamming icepicks into the brains of women undergoing rough menopause.15 years ago no one would ever need more than 640K of RAM.See what I am saying? The fact is that a {censored}load of real live research has gone into global warming over the past 10 years, and our understanding has improved by orders of magnitude since then. Global warming is a reality folks. It's the cause of global warming that's debatable, not so much whether it's happening or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Originally posted by philthygeezer See what I am saying? The fact is that a {censored}load of real live research has gone into global warming over the past 10 years, and our understanding has improved by orders of magnitude since then. Global warming is a reality folks. To quote the last line of this linked article: Do we take trillions of dollars that could be spent on issues such as poverty, to waste on a theoretical event that has not killed anyone and is unlikely to do so in the future, based on a virtual total lack of data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Global warming is happening. But, global warming being caused by the industrialized nations (mankind) IS, IN FACT, junk science. Global warming follows cycles just like everything else on the globe. Some scientists believe about every 20,000 years or so. These scientists are geologists and climatologists not meteorologists or environmentalists. Astronomers know the Earth wobbles like a spinning top. The complete wobble cycle is about 20,00 years or so. When the wobble is away from the Sun the Earth cools and when it is toward the Sun it warms. Do we contribute to atmospheric changes? Of course. Will WE be the cause of the ocean front property in Vegas from global warming? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cthulhu0 Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 yes, the world will go on after us. and the exact causes of global warming aren;t known. but maybe we should clamp down on dirty energy sources. ok, ignore global warming. pretend it either doesn;t exist or that its caused by natural events. the fact remains, we are spewing tons of crap into the air and water. we are over fishing, we are over growing, we are overflowing our enviroment. we are using up all of the natural resources we can as fast as we can. so if i make the arguement for tighter restrictions on pollutants on the grounds of quality of life, rather than on global warming, will you accept that? i'd rather live somewhere clean than in a cess pit, i don;t know about you. and this is not bushs fault. its not americas fault. this is humanities fault. tho bushco, being oil barons and war profiteers, are not exactly helping. barton asked for all the fundings of this study. Barton, an 11-term Republican from Texas, is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and one of the oil lobby's best friends on Capitol Hill. do you think he may have some bias? no... plus i hardly thing that this is the only study on global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J the D Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Good science stands up to peer review. Any scientist that is unwilling to allow competent scientists to review his work does not deserve to have his wirk published, referred to or even acknowledged. Statistical sampling typically requires sample sizes in excess of 60 items in order to be reliable. If he is using a single point of data for the 15th century his very methodology must be questioned. And before ya'll flame me please know that I am a believer in global warming. The polar ice caps are shrinking and average temps are going up causing extreme climatic swings. I just want us to use good science in determining solutions. It does not appear the "hockey stick" meets that criteria if it is not defensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Markee Posted July 30, 2005 Members Share Posted July 30, 2005 Thank you Hawkhuff, The one thing most fail to realize is that all life has cycles. To think that we as humans will live on forever as a species is ludicrous. In 1980, The Greenbank Institute put together a collection of scientists from different fields to study the feasability of interplanetary travel and all of the brains involved concluded that we as a species would ultimately snuff ourselves out before we could ever amass the technology and power source needed to conduct this activity. (Assuming all life forms evolve relatively close to our own it's not likely there are visitors from other solar systems.)To take these findings a step further, as long as we need to conduct experiments to find out what happens "after" we try something we are doomed to saw the branch on the tree side from which we sit. We are evolving faster than we can..... Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.