Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Tron5000]

Damn those greedy third world people, trying to get in on our action... What a shame!

The United States provides more aid, through federal and charitable means, than most other industrialized nations combined. Stop the hate, child.

 

[Carcharodon]

I don't see these "sources" of which you speak.

The ones you mentioned...e.g., volcanic activity, respiration, etc. Remember those?

 

[The Senator]

Here's the problem with this argument: While the Earth may have cooled one year, the temperature of the Earth still rose 100 years before it. One year isn't going to reverse the trend.

To put it in simpler terms, it's like this:

If I have five dollars, and I take one dollar away, I'm left with four dollars. But if I add another five dollars to the pot, and take away another dollar, I'm left with eight. The rate at which the money is coming in far exceeds the rate at which it is leaving. You wouldn't say you were losing more money than you were gaining with this trend, would you?

Even if the temperature falls one degree every hundred years, or even every other year, the Earth is still warmer than it was all those years before it. The damage has still been done. Species are still dying. Ecosystems are still headed towards total annihilation. Cooling one degree every so often isn't going to reverse what has already come before it. Yeah, the earth cooled one degree last year... but will that instantaneously bring back all the species and ecosystems which have been lost along with that temperature change? No, it won't. Unless the Earth starts cooling for a hundred years, the damage will still persist.

It took thousands of years for the Northwest Passage to form. It took one hundred years for it to subside. It's going to take a hell of a lot longer for that ice to form back to a fraction of what it once was. So this is still a problem which will take time and technology to solve.

 

[Tron5000]

Look, when human activity accounts for less than one-third of 1 per cent of all carbon in the atmosphere, yes, I believe my categorization of that as "insignificant" is on base.

The world has witnessed times when the carbon levels were over 3 times higher than they are today. There were no factories, no SUVs. Who caused that? This was before humans. The weather cycle has changed and will continue to change regardless of what humans do.

The other planets in our solar system our warming. Our sun (that big thing that heats all of the planets) is growing hotter. We don't control that. I don't think our Mars Rovers are putting enough CO2 into Mars's atmosphere to cause its temperature to rise.

Mother Nature doesn't care what we do. She'll warm, she'll cool, she'll kill us all when she wants to.

 

[Tron5000]

Species have faced annihilation since long before we were here. It's the natural cycle of things. Plants and animals have come and gone and humans had nothing to do with it. Granted, certain species have been eradicated due to man and his interaction with the world, going back to the beginning of time. But the weather patterns of the world, the warming and cooling cycles, are so complex that we are way too arrogant if we believe that we are causing them to, or can prevent them from, change.

And can anyone answer me this? If the world is getting too warm, then what is the ideal temperature? What are we aiming for here, where we'll save the world?

 

[Bubonic]

The United States provides more aid, through federal and charitable means, than most other industrialized nations combined. Stop the hate, child.

Reach back and tap yourself on the back.
There'd be no third world if it weren't for the colonial powers, and then the U.S. intervention in these countries after WW2.

Development is a scam.
Let us fill your country with all these technologies, in return you can use them to expropriate your raw materials, oh, and to pay off the favour, sell your livelihoods for dirt.

You guys flooded many countries with aid, true, so much so that you created a dependency.

Anyways back to the topic at hand, don't worry, despite your donations the underdeveloped countries have become progressively worse since WW2.

 

[Tron5000]

Reach back and tap yourself on the back.
There'd be no third world if it weren't for the colonial powers, and then the U.S. intervention in these countries after WW2.

Development is a scam.
Let us fill your country with all these technologies, in return you can use them to expropriate your raw materials, oh, and to pay off the favour, sell your livelihoods for dirt.

You guys flooded many countries with aid, true, so much so that you created a dependency.

Anyways back to the topic at hand, don't worry, despite your donations the underdeveloped countries have become progressively worse since WW2.

You're telling me without the "colonial powers" African nations would've found some way to become industrialized? To provide a commodity that is wanted by the rest of the world?

It's obvious you have an extremely anti-US bias, so I won't even bother trying to discuss that topic. But hopefully, if Hillary or Obama aren't elected, you can still come here for your health care when the lines get too long.

 

[chaseter]

There is proof that the global carbon cycle has been distrupted and that more carbon dioxide is in the air. Scientists all across the world recently released their findings at a global climate change summit in 2007 and predict the temperatures to raise an average of 2-3 degrees each decade. So, if nothing is done, the polar ice caps will melt, people of the Maldeves will die, precipitation patters will change, severity of storms will increase, tropical diseases will spread further north, and tropical hurricanes will increase due to the heat fluxuations. It's a fact that man is the cause of the influx of carbon dioxide and it's a fact that it is changing our environment.

Why risk not doing anything and something bad happening than doing something and preparing for something even if nothing happens.

 

[Carcharodon]

Look, when human activity accounts for less than one-third of 1 per cent of all carbon in the atmosphere, yes, I believe my categorization of that as "insignificant" is on base.

As would anybody with a general lack of understanding of the processes I've talked about (the carbon cycle).

You're missing the bigger picture here. We're interfering with an intricate natural cycle. And no, I'm not talking about climate.

Adding carbon dioxide and lowering the planet's ability to rid the atmosphere of it (deforestation, anyone?) is a bad combination. Period.

The world has witnessed times when the carbon levels were over 3 times higher than they are today. There were no factories, no SUVs. Who caused that? This was before humans. The weather cycle has changed and will continue to change regardless of what humans do.

Put this into context, though. When was this? What was the world like back then? The world has probably witnessed times where the carbon levels were far greater than 3 times higher than today...like during earth's extremely early periods.

The other planets in our solar system our warming. Our sun (that big thing that heats all of the planets) is growing hotter. We don't control that. I don't think our Mars Rovers are putting enough CO2 into Mars's atmosphere to cause its temperature to rise.

The atmosphere of Mars is > 90% CO2 as it is. Try again.

Mother Nature doesn't care what we do. She'll warm, she'll cool, she'll kill us all when she wants to.

Yeah. Humans have no moral obligation to maintain global health.

A bit contradictory, given what you said before about man's negative effects on our environment.

 

[Tron5000]

Look, I already told you that there were many things that man has done and continues to do that are harmful to the environment. I also said that we should invest in renewable resources. I think we should try to preserve things as much as possible, but not at the risk of destroying our economy. So your insinuation is false.

My statements are based solely in the context of global warming (the title, and point of, this thread). However, it is obvious that other agendas are at work here, so I'll let both of you guys just go ahead and think I'm an idiot. The evidence (yes, lots of it) is out there, whenever you choose to look for it. I'm not going to spoon-feed you.

 

[Bubonic]

You're telling me without the "colonial powers" African nations would've found some way to become industrialized? To provide a commodity that is wanted by the rest of the world?

It's obvious you have an extremely anti-US bias, so I won't even bother trying to discuss that topic. But hopefully, if Hillary or Obama aren't elected, you can still come here for your health care when the lines get too long.

Actually I'm saying that African nations and other colonized nations would have been better off from the get go if they'd never had the pleasure of being conquered, and would have probably evolved systems of market different then our own but still functional.

I'm not extremely anti-US, although I think it is healthy to point out its flaws. For all intents and purposes it may be the lesser of evils, but so far as the third world is concerned, it is just were it needs to be for Western interest.

So I was quite shocked when you theorized that part of the "global warming scam" was to redistribute wealth to these battered regions of the world.

 

[Carcharodon]

Look, I already told you that there were many things that man has done and continues to do that are harmful to the environment. I also said that we should invest in renewable resources. I think we should try to preserve things as much as possible, but not at the risk of destroying our economy. So your insinuation is false.

My statements are based solely in the context of global warming (the title, and point of, this thread). However, it is obvious that other agendas are at work here, so I'll let both of you guys just go ahead and think I'm an idiot. The evidence (yes, lots of it) is out there, whenever you choose to look for it. I'm not going to spoon-feed you.

Hey, I've already said that I'm not 100% convinced by the climate change argument. Take it or leave it, I guess.

My beef with you shifted when you said that our activities were insignificant. I'll call B.S. on that all day long.

 

[Carcharodon]

Just to toss another bit into the discussion:

http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm

The sun is getting hotter. The idea that this somehow disproves the greenhouse effect is bull****, however, and the article supports that point.

 

[Tron5000]

I didn't say our activities were insignificant. I said that the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by man is insignificant when you compare it to the overall amount, considering mankind's contribution accounts for 0.28% for all CO2. That's what I said, that's it. Don't make it more than it is.

 

[Ice-man]

Just to toss another bit into the discussion:

http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm

The sun is getting hotter. The idea that this somehow disproves the greenhouse effect is bull****, however, and the article supports that point.

Well the greenhouse thing is a factor but yea i didnt account for the sun getting hotter, i forgot our sun is in its last cycles, in about a billion years or less itl explode.

 

[The Senator]

Species have faced annihilation since long before we were here. It's the natural cycle of things. Plants and animals have come and gone and humans had nothing to do with it. Granted, certain species have been eradicated due to man and his interaction with the world, going back to the beginning of time. But the weather patterns of the world, the warming and cooling cycles, are so complex that we are way too arrogant if we believe that we are causing them to, or can prevent them from, change.

And can anyone answer me this? If the world is getting too warm, then what is the ideal temperature? What are we aiming for here, where we'll save the world?

If this was the sole work of Mother Nature, then why did the Earth suddenly start to warm at an exponential rate in the past sixty years? Yes, there is a natural cycle about these things, but that doesn't explain why the largest free-floating mass of ice in the world just magically evaporated into thin air. If it was a controlled, natural process, it wouldn't have happened in the course of a decade. Scientists would have been able to see this one coming, but the fact that they couldn't explains that there is some other phenomenon which is at play here.

Now, we can't fix what's already been started. But you can't argue that raising emissions standards and forcing companies to comply with those standards wouldn't benefit the environment in some way, shape or form. While some of these emissions may not be the sole contributor to a global effect, they have resounding local effects. Look at what's going on the Rust Belt. All those steel factories, coal and oil power plants, and other industries which have been emitting excessive carbon-based emissions has resulted in acid rain in the Northeast and localized pollution in the Midwest. We've seen lakes, ponds and rivers polluted to a point where they can't be turned around. We've seen species die or severely hindered because of these emissions and the dumping of toxic waste. Worst of all, there are entire communities in Ohio and Michigan where people are breathing in toxic fumes on a daily basis. That severely effects people's health. Why shouldn't we force companies to take a cleaner approach to disposing of their chemical waste if it will help stall some of the more immediate challenges we face?

If we were to cap carbon emissions, not only would these localized problems be stalled, but we could very well stall some of the adverse effects these industries have on the global environment. We have the second-highest amount of emissions in the world. We account for a significant percentage of global pollution. And while we can't fix everything on a global scale, we have the ability and the responsibility to clean up matters on a local stage. Common sense says that if you start fixing things locally, eventually it'll escalate to a much higher level.

 

[Carcharodon]

I didn't say our activities were insignificant. I said that the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by man is insignificant when you compare it to the overall amount, considering mankind's contribution accounts for 0.28% for all CO2. That's what I said, that's it. Don't make it more than it is.

The problem is that it isn't insignificant, even in that context, when you look at the bigger picture. That's my entire point.

You can look at the numbers and easily say that it's insignificant, but that reflects a much deeper lack of understanding of the processes that govern the earth's regulatory cycles.

 

[Danalys]

I didn't say our activities were insignificant. I said that the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by man is insignificant when you compare it to the overall amount, considering mankind's contribution accounts for 0.28% for all CO2. That's what I said, that's it. Don't make it more than it is.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

well i looked at the data in this link and that percentage doesn't really tell the whole story. if you look from the industrial revolution onwards, you see we've contributed 17% of the additional CO2 in that time.

 

[Zero_Vault]

I want the end to come.

I want the whole world to end, including me. Earth should die, and I want noone to live on it anymore.

Let it die peacefully and galantlly, people. Why prolong death, when you can embrace it? Let it die.

And it will, thank f**king God.

 

[Darthphere]

The global warming debate is ludicrous for one reason. Lets say Global Warming is one giant hoax, what is so wrong about searching for alternate energy sources? What is so wrong with using a little less electricity and changing the type of light bulb we use and saving some money in the process? What's so wrong about buying a hybrid vehicle and saving some money on gas? Whats so wrong with it?

 

[Tron5000]

The global warming debate is ludicrous for one reason. Lets say Global Warming is one giant hoax, what is so wrong about searching for alternate energy sources? What is so wrong with using a little less electricity and changing the type of light bulb we use and saving some money in the process? What's so wrong about buying a hybrid vehicle and saving some money on gas? Whats so wrong with it?

I don't have a problem with any of that. I believe we should conserve energy (it'll lower your bills...good reason right there). I believe we should invest in alternative, renewable sources of energy.

What I have a problem with is the fact that the people pushing the global warming hysteria are using fear-mongering to line their pockets, to stifle economic production, and to confiscate earned wealth and redistribute it to others. The carbon-trading and carbon-offset schemes exist purely to make people like Al Gore, lobbyists, and environmental lawyers very, very rich.

Plus, they just flat-out lie about the data, all to push a specific agenda of doom and gloom. They tell "normal" people to carpool, walk or ride a bike, while they fly around in personal jets. They talk to us about our "carbon footprints," yet believe that they can do whatever they want if they pay someone (like the company of which Al Gore is on the board and highly paid) to plant a tree in a forest somewhere. It's bogus, it's hypocritical, and it's a scam.

Save the planet. Fine. But don't do it through ******ing economic development and instituting wealth-distribution schemes. And don't point your finger at me and tell me I need to change my life when you won't make certain changes in yours. Al Gore's home uses up over 20 times the energy of an average American household, energy-saving light bulbs and all. You telling me he can't turn off some of the lights when he leaves the house?

What has Kyoto solved? Absolutely nothing. The major nations that signed on to Kyoto have all fallen far, far short of their goals (because matching the goals would result in the utter collapse of their economies). The result? Well, they're just highly "taxed," and that money is sent to other nations. Nothing, nothing is being solved by the Kyoto treaty. And I'm glad we didn't sign on to it, because it is impossible to live up to its standards.


Edit: BTW, the carbon offset firm part-owned and chaired by Al Gore is General Investment Management. And he doesn't buy "carbon offsets", he buys stocks. Dude's getting mad rich of this scam. Rich off the people that are actually falling for his nonsense.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

 

[Ice-man]

I want the end to come.

I want the whole world to end, including me. Earth should die, and I want noone to live on it anymore.

Let it die peacefully and galantlly, people. Why prolong death, when you can embrace it? Let it die.

And it will, thank f**king God.

"I have a suggestion to keep you all occupied... Learn to swim."

"I'm praying for rain
And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.
I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.
I wanna see it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in.
Watch you flush it all away."


trip out and listen to this song, Aenima by Tool.


its about him wanting the world to end cuz the guy in the story of the song cant take how life came to be.

 

[Memphis Slim]

Look, I already told you that there were many things that man has done and continues to do that are harmful to the environment. I also said that we should invest in renewable resources. I think we should try to preserve things as much as possible, but not at the risk of destroying our economy. So your insinuation is false.

My statements are based solely in the context of global warming (the title, and point of, this thread). However, it is obvious that other agendas are at work here, so I'll let both of you guys just go ahead and think I'm an idiot. The evidence (yes, lots of it) is out there, whenever you choose to look for it. I'm not going to spoon-feed you.

Give it up Tron....these guys are so fixed on this thing it's beyond understanding. Al Gore never accepted one debate on this issue. They chnged from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" so they could still say they were right! This earth is doing just fine. Gore needed a legacy....this is it. But this one is gonna blow up in his face.

 

[Tron5000]

The only thing blowing up is Al Gore's bank account. He'll never be president, but he is getting very, very rich.

 

[Memphis Slim]

Tron:
What has Kyoto solved? Absolutely nothing. The major nations that signed on to Kyoto have all fallen far, far short of their goals (because matching the goals would result in the utter collapse of their economies). The result? Well, they're just highly "taxed," and that money is sent to other nations. Nothing, nothing is being solved by the Kyoto treaty. And I'm glad we didn't sign on to it, because it is impossible to live up to its standards.

China is the biggest polluter of all. Do you really think they care about Kyoto??