[COLOR="Yellow"]"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it."
"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."
"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 20 years, but eleven degrees colder 10 years after that...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."
Sounds scary. Too bad those predictions are from 1970 and 1975, respectively. Back then talking about an incoming ice age was all the rage and although a lot of those theories turned out to be completely wrong, the environmental hysteria continues today in the form of global warming. But is it the same catastrophe from back then? Is it a different catastrophe? Or is it the same catastrophe only this time it's really a catastrophe whereas 35 years ago it really wasn't that bad even though at the time they said it was?. . . It can get confusing, but the one thing I'm sure of is that there's some bullsh[COLOR="Yellow"]i[/COLOR]t here.
I'm not going to flat out say that global warming is a hoax or that it's not happening at all (although some scientists say exactly that). I can't bring myself to say that because i just don't know. I've looked at most of the facts and for every piece of evidence that disproves aspects global warming, there are also other pieces of evidence that suggest it' really happening.
Now, when i look at Al Gore and hear what he has to say, honestly, to me he sounds like a lying sack of sh[COLOR="Yellow"]i[/COLOR]t whose mansion consumes more energy in one month than the average American household in an entire year. That's what he sounds like to me a lot of times, but that's only a feeling and obviously i can't just make my mind up based on a feeling. There's a line between between being an environmentalist wacko and being reasonably concerned about the environment. And he, along with many others, crosses that boundary from time to time.
However, i can say that if an inevitable major climate change is coming, and the planet really is in jeopardy, we are not going to save it by driving slower/smaller cars and by buying carbon credits. That's clearly bulls[COLOR="Yellow"]h[/COLOR]it. Why can't we keep looking at the evidence until we have a better understanding of what's really going on with the environment and not scare people into changing they way of life over something that might not even be that serious?[/COLOR]
The reason we're lowering "carbon emissions" is actually so we stop using so much energy. Running out of fuel is a much more pressing concern than global warming, they just don't want to cause a panic.
We would never run out of fossil fuel, this is a lie.
I mean, come on.
And global warming is just an excuse to slap on some extra taxes to fuels.
We do not influence the world as much as we think we do.
Well, in about 20 years Niagara had only seen two tornadoes and already this summer we've seen five or six. So that right there is a pretty strange weather pattern. Whether it's due to global warming, idk. But the weather in general has been pretty ****ed up around here and it's both much hotter and colder than ever.
We do not influence the world as much as we think.
Whenever did nature become predictable?
We had a temperature high a couple of years ago-hadn't been seen for a 100 years.
Well, apparently it did happen.
So idk, I won't believe in global warming.
Not one that we have caused, anyway.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;868801]Wait, wait, wait. You do realise never is a really long time, right?
Well, yeah.
But we've explored like, what? 5% of the sea?
For us to deplete the fuels it'd take a long, long time.
Granted, they could get depleted, but I doubt it would happen.
I think we will find something more efficient before then.
[quote]And said fuels aren't a renewable resource, right?It takes a long ****ing time, but they can be renewed.
It had to get there in the first place.
lol, driving around using dead animals and plants as fuel. [IMG]http://vgchat.com/images/icons/icon14.gif[/IMG]
We'd go through it before the process could repeat itself.
Most likely, but eventually it would come back.
And like I said, I think we will find a more efficient fuel our stuff way before we deplete the fossil fuels.
Also, are we off track?
Fossil fuels regenate on a scale of millions of years. And it's not really physical depletion of fossil fuels that is the problem, it's consumption that makes further extraction of the fuels uneconomic. Sure, there may be trillions of barrels of oil under the deep sea floor, but there isn't any feasible method for extracting that oil, and even if there was, it would be hideously expensive, prohibiting use as a consumer fuel, among other things. So at this point, even if oil exists there, it basically is useless to us.
It doesn't really matter if oil is physically depleted or just economically unviable in certain regards, however. If either condition occurs, transportation as we know it will grind to a halt. Terrestrial power isn't an issue so much, as we could utilize some combination of wind/solar/nuclear/combustion to power our homes and cities, as well as things like trains.
Electric personal and commercial cars and trucks could probably be made to fill the gaps left by their fossil fuel counterparts. But flight would be very limited in a post-fossil fuel world. There really isn't anything on par with oil in terms of energy for the size, weight, and cost per unit. Until someone finds a substitute, there will be some serious problems with the 21st century way of life looming on the horizon.
[quote=mis0;868826]Fossil fuels regenate on a scale of millions of years. And it's not really physical depletion of fossil fuels that is the problem, it's consumption that makes further extraction of the fuels uneconomic. Sure, there may be trillions of barrels of oil under the deep sea floor, but there isn't any feasible method for extracting that oil, and even if there was, it would be hideously expensive, prohibiting use as a consumer fuel, among other things. So at this point, even if oil exists there, it basically is useless to us.
It doesn't really matter if oil is physically depleted or just economically unviable in certain regards, however. If either condition occurs, transportation as we know it will grind to a halt. Terrestrial power isn't an issue so much, as we could utilize some combination of wind/solar/nuclear/combustion to power our homes and cities, as well as things like trains.
Electric personal and commercial cars and trucks could probably be made to fill the gaps left by their fossil fuel counterparts. But flight would be very limited in a post-fossil fuel world. There really isn't anything on par with oil in terms of energy for the size, weight, and cost per unit. Until someone finds a substitute, there will be some serious problems with the 21st century way of life looming on the horizon.
Hence lowering energy consumption being a method of stalling for time until the boffins figure out cold fusion/carbon nanotubes (two humanity-saving technologies, either one would do).
Waaay too many factors for anyone to accuratelly perdict the future without fossil fuels ( which is usually true for any perdictions, really), but it's safe to say it'll be slower. Jobs will be lost, and other jobs will be gained. Physical labor could have a come back. Food will cost more, possibly lowing obesity rates, contributing to lower health care costs. Lots of **** could happen.
With transportation becoming expensive, I bet a trend of town enconomies would begin diverting back to localization instead of global expansion, leaving the global industries for just the elites. Walmart would still be ****ed though, considering their strategies of keeping as little in warehouses as possible would start backfireing from transportation costs. SORRY ROGER!
Old business practises everywhere would have to come back. Basically, we'd have to work as though there was no highway. Not for everything, obviously, just that would be the goal of keeping any medium sized businesses alive. Compared to how things are going now, It's exactly how Mis0 put it: Everything to a hault.
your siggy 100000000000/10
yeah global warming is bull****. they use scare tactics to draw out money for "research" but there really isnt anything critical or anything that even comes close to critical. I heard somewhere that scientists have found a solution something concerning global warming, something about putting lemon juice in the sea.... and of course a joke about the sea tasting like lemonade was made.
I remember seeing a video on global warming... I'm going to look for it hopefully I can find it, and I'll post it up.
Global warming is real. The average global temperature is on the rise, you can't deny that. It just may or may not be as serious as some scientists claim.
Temperature is always changing, like in the first post we were about to have an Ice Age, and now the worlds gonna melt, looking at temperature from the past the earth has been much colder and much warmer than it is today.
I dont think its as serious as some scientists claim.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;869045]Global warming is real. The average global temperature is on the rise, you can't deny that. It just may or may not be as serious as some scientists claim.
Global warming may be real, but it is not something we have caused.
Temperatures rise in big cities, not in the world.
State of Fear is a really good read about this!
It pretty much said what I already believed.
[quote=ExoXile;869051]Global warming may be real, but it is not something we have caused.
Riiight. "We can't possibly effect the earth because it's so big" argument is a little old. It's just as likely we're causing global warming than if we weren't. Either way, we should still do something just to save energy.
iir the term global warming actually implies human influence, whereas some other word is used for rising temperatures without the influence of humanity.
I doubt global warming is bull****. I do, however, doubt that we're the cause of it. We may be helping, but we sure as hell ain't gonna be able to stop it.
Hell, just screw the car, take a walk whenever you can and you can rest peacefully when the world ends. Helps your image, saves you a ****load of money you'd spend on gas, AND, if things are really as bad as the extremists claim, you don't have to fear fierce retribution from them.
Although things have really gone too far around here. Our emissions equals about a fart in space. But hey, why just ***** and say "omgz i dun care" when we can, perhaps, if the Kyoto Protocol is successful, avoid further pollution of our air and waters.
I'm still down for saving the envoirnment, I just think that global warming is not as bad as some scientist have claimed.
and the getting out of the car and walking thing isnt bad, too many fat people that dont excercise, that need to.
Like Aioros' post says, some years ago they thought we were tumbling into an ice age. I'm not sure how long we've been keeping track of the weather and how it changes, but I think it's safe to say that those records are way too new to say that these changes are unnatural. Not to mention us as a species. SOMETHING caused the last ice age to end, after all.
And from a health perspective, maybe a little terror is a good thing. Overweight IS becoming a larger problem, so it wouldn't really hurt if they got out and walked a little.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;869388]iir the term global warming actually implies human influence, whereas some other word is used for rising temperatures without the influence of humanity.
Global warming is supposed to imply human influence, climate change is the neutral observation that the climate is...changing. I don't really understand why "global warming" implies we have something to do with it, probably a political thing.
[quote=Speedfreak;869576]probably a political thing.
It is, I would say.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;869388]iir the term global warming actually implies human influence, whereas some other word is used for rising temperatures without the influence of humanity.
well this is wrong.
[quote=Speedfreak;869576]Global warming is supposed to imply human influence, climate change is the neutral observation that the climate is...changing. I don't really understand why "global warming" implies we have something to do with it, probably a political thing.
media thing, but still wrong about human influence being attatched to Global Warming.
The difference between Global Warming and Climate Change has nothing to do with humans having influenced it; That's more like Greenhouse gas emissions.
Global Warming — An overall warming of the planet, based on average temperature over the entire surface.
Climate Change — Changes in regional climate characteristics, including temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind, and severe weather events.
And how about this new term: "Global Climate Change".
[quote=Iron Koala;869616]
Global Warming
Of course it has. Then there was an ice age. iir we're still coming off it.
[quote=ExoXile;869779]This is not true, since it's actually just major cities that have risen in temperature.
And they only publish the cities that have had a rise in temperature.
Not to mention they don't go too far back, because you know;
It's been warm before!
The temperatures on avg of all regions when added together has a net gain, with most of the surplus being outside of cities. You really think scientists over looked city temperature's being 2 or more degrees higher on avg.? niiice...Even if this is part of a cycle, that doesn't change the fact it's getting warmer, so saying it's not getting warmer AND it's gotten warmer before is just one big rhetorical **** up on your part( or numbers, whichever one of you is doing the thinking for the other). And as for where the temperature is changing the most, It's a lot of unpopulated areas... didn't know there were so many cities in the North pole, but I guess the Swedapoohs are more "on-the-ball" than most when it comes to knocking down mainstream fear tactics.
I'm all for knocking down CO2's influence on global warming, but if you're going to deny "climate change" or w/e silly label you're more comfterble using, then be a little more factual than just using youtube responses to Al Gore movies. Seriously, wtf?! It's like a video game forum debate in here.
It's pretty straightforward, really. Exo seems to think we can't have an impact on our planet. I disagree; since the industrial revolution, we've dramatically increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, along with several others. As the concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, it is reasonable to expect to see some manifestation of these changes. Earth is a system. Changes to one part should result in changes to others.
[quote=Iron Koala;869950]You really think scientists over looked city temperature's being 2 or more degrees higher on avg.? niiice...
Just shut it.
Look it up yourself.
New York is actually 4 degrees more than average.
As for the icecap's melting, the antarctic peninsula has been melting, but it always has.
While Antarctica is actually growing.
Just, don't make it come off as I'm just saying this.
I've actually looked most of this up.
Not to mention the insignificance of a 100 years in this, the temperature would rise around 0,4celcius.
And it has only risen that much, GLOBALLY for the last 100 years.
Except in the cities.
I know that carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide can cause breathing problems in the city. I believe there is a link to some car accidents to the lack of oxygen from the carbon gases taking up most of the air and causing tiredness or commonly known as 'falling asleep at the wheel'. Such popular fuel as diesel and unleaded can become dangerous like cancer from smoking cigarettes. There is no going back to carbon-emitting fuel once they are replaced by cars powered by hydrogen or electric. The hunger for new improvements on these new awkward fuels are always on the industry's mind.
:cool: :mad:
Well, I dunno. You always hear rumors about someone coming up with a great invention that'll help the environment, but the oil companies just buy it up and shred all the research. Could just be a load o' crap, or it's the pretty face of capitalism showing.
[quote=ExoXile;870065]Just shut it.
No, you shut your ****ter on your face. :mad:
seriously though,
I'm not going to go point to point with you on this, since you seem to think you're an expert. Self proclaimed experts with blinders on are no fun to argue with.
As for conspiracies: doesn't matter. Either it's a bunch of bull **** people want to believe, or it's a bunch of bull **** oil companies will kill you for knowing. Just sounds like trouble to me.
[quote=Iron Koala;870397]
I'm not going to go point to point with you on this, since you seem to think you're an expert. Self proclaimed experts with blinders on are no fun to argue with.
I'm no expert.
I just use a little logic with a bit of knowledge.
My opinion isn't absolute.
But I do think I am right.
Global Warming unquestionably exists. It has been scientifically verified that fossil fuel emissions do have an impact on the ozone layer, and IN THEORY could impact the global climate. The real question is not whether global warming exists, but rather how severe is it? Scientists often exaggerate and I do believe that it is becoming a social norm to buy into the environmental hysteria. Nevertheless, the amount of fossil fuels and carbon emanation could be significantly decreased if we did adapt to alternative energy solutions.
I believe that becoming involved in the “green” movement is extremely rewarding but we must do it for the right cause. There are indeed too many bogus organizations and shams that will use the “global warming crisis” for profit, and invest in their personal business by relieving people of their daily guilt.
Also an interesting fact; only 3% of carbon emissions annually are caused by humans. The other 97% are caused by decaying plants, volcanoes, and forest fires.
That’s doesn’t mean that nothing can be done. A lot can still be done; we just need to be wise about it.
I think the dinosaur extinction happened when the huge asteroid hit Earth, the extreme heat released from the force must have penetrated the center of the planet, releasing more heat to trigger a multitude of volcanoes worldwide, resulting in global warming and carbon dioxide and monoxide poisoning. Mother Nature is not experienced to stop the planet from this quick microwave asteroid disaster. I don't think global warming is dangerous yet if nature is slowly avoiding such danger. So if there is more heat, nature would fight back by giving more cold weather like tornadoes and cyclones.
:cool: :mad: :rolleyes:
or, you know, an ice age
There's a lot of physical evidence to suggest an asteroid killed the dinos, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that the same asteroid is responsable for our current global warming. Earth got warm, then got cold shortly after. It got so cold that there was a massive extinction, which pretty much breaks the illusion mother nature will protect us. Mother Nature always wins, but 50 million years is a long fukken time to wait for it to clean itself.
The holy bible mentions the release of Satan again to challenge Christians living today to never lose faith no matter what athiest scientists say. According to one clever believer, only one Ice Age happened in the past. I think many theories made by athiests in the field of science such as archaeologists are "got to imagine something if I'm going to get paid to survive". You don't get paid to study without getting on your hands and knees with tools to find out if anything written by past archaeologists are true.
[URL="http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/ice_age.html"]http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/ice_age.html[/URL]
:eek: :cool: ;)
The holy bible also has two stories on how the world was created, claims the world is only 5000 years old or something like that, and that we'll forever burn in hell if we go against this so called benevolent ***.
Bringing religion into this discussion is pretty pointless.
[quote=misogenie;871580]"got to imagine something if I'm going to get paid to survive".
"got to promise something if I'm going to get paid to survive".
~ Priests of all religions.
I'm with Mr. Numbers.
um, misogenie is trolling, guys. He/she isn't serious. I figured the blatant scripture quotations out of context in any discussion and boldface font would give that away, but it seems you kids never cease to surprise me.
You, however, BJ, always surprise.
[quote=Bj Blaskowitz;871882]um, misogenie is trolling, guys. He/she isn't serious. I figured the blatant scripture quotations out of context in any discussion and boldface font would give that away, but it seems you kids never cease to surprise me.
It's called troll baiting. I want to see where he/she will take it. But you never surprise me. If there's ever any room to call someone stupid, you're right there to say it.
in b4 ****ty retribution.
But before this turns into a ****storm, may I suggest that we return to topic?
aw numbery man, you're just saying that because you know I was talking to you.
williskoalaman, you know better than to feed the trolls. That's why I chastise ya, son
You know, contradicting everyone does not make you cool, BJ.
Nor smart.
But then again, neither am I.
you want me to cup their balls, too?
I understand this new guy is your relative or something, but lay off and quit being such a wiener. If someone posts something with which I agree, I will say so, but as such, most of the "arguments" have been pretty retarded, one-sided arguments. i miss the old days. We had good arguments then. Hell, I even miss raptor and altinure disagreeing with me all the time. You remember Arwon, right? I used to nod my head at everything he said. It just takes a certain. . . je ne sais quoi (french for "not being a retard") for me to agree with someone. I'll try to sugarcoat it for ya from now on.
but I do agree you're neither cool or smart. I agree! I agree! Yay!
But I sure am pretty!
And yeah, remember Arwon.
You gotta pretty mouth.
I believe that the topic has since changed to exoxile and his pretty mouth. Stay on topic, prz.
Global Warming? More like Political Propaganda. It's convenient this little issue came to a head when 'denying the terrorist warfront' became an issue. Think about it. The potential for a Grand Scale disaster such as a global ice age is pretty luminous when juxtaposed with a war that turned stomachs across the nations. It's just another ploy the government can use to A) keep us distracted and B) make us hate a nation we should have kept our noses away from.
And should 'global warming' actually be happening, it's just a natural process the Earth will undergo several times throughout its lifespan [albeit emissions probably don't help to hinder such a happening].
[quote=Iron Koala;871389]There's a lot of physical evidence to suggest an asteroid killed the dinos, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that the same asteroid is responsable for our current global warming. Earth got warm, then got cold shortly after. It got so cold that there was a massive extinction, which pretty much breaks the illusion mother nature will protect us. Mother Nature always wins, but 50 million years is a long fukken time to wait for it to clean itself.
Mother Earth was going through puberty then, becoming cold and angsty. Nows shes in Menopause, becoming moody, *****y, and hot headed :).
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;893692]That's greatly sped up in the past twenty or so years.
No.
This is to ExoXile... what other reason could be coursing global warming if we arent doing it :o i cant think of any others who could do it
...long term cyclical heating and cooling periods? you know, like the ones that caused ice ages? Or were those caused directly by all the gas guzzling SUVs that mammoths are known to have driven