57 replies to this topic

[Vortigern]

When did anyone here say we shouldn't be trying to develop clean fuel sources? Just because I accept the overwhelming logical and scientific evidence that global warming is not a man-made phenomenon, doesn't mean I'm demanding we burn all the coal, trees and oil we can get our hands on. Seriously, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, the millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions as well as other chemicals we've been pissing into the atmosphere, along with the destruction of the rainforest have completely fuck all to do with it. Makes perfect sense.

Actually, yeah, Caspa, it does. The amount of carbon dioxide humanity has put into the atmosphere is a trifling nothing compared to the amount poured out by volcanic activity, decaying leaves, animal waste and any number of other sources. Maybe there are some other environmental issues you can get worked up about, but this one just isn't real. The destruction of the rainforest isn't a good thing, granted, but it's got fuck all to do with global warming.

[Tom]

Thank you Vortigern, was just going to say that. Clean energy = good and reducing pollution = good but man made global warming = bullshit.

[Phil]

Great, the result is exactly the same either way then. Apart from the evil forces exploiting Greenpeace to create a "world government", that is

[CodeCat]

Calling global warming a lie is basically making a mess just to spite people.

[Nertea]

When did anyone here say we shouldn't be trying to develop clean fuel sources? Just because I accept the overwhelming logical and scientific evidence that global warming is not a man-made phenomenon, doesn't mean I'm demanding we burn all the coal, trees and oil we can get our hands on. Seriously, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Then why not, for the sake of us geography grad students, just agree?

I'm not advocating blind following of everything I've read that supports this (my research has nothing to do with climate), but wouldn't it be better for the development of energy if everybody thinks that this is a major problem? We all know that politicians never do anything that will disadvantage them in the slightest, so the only time we'll get any investment in clean energy or reducing toxic (not just greenhouse) gas emissions is when there is massive public support. Oil and gas are, after all, insanely profitable - why go through the mulibillion investment needed to develop fusion or nuclear or something when it's cheap? Therefore, why argue with the concept of panic and terror and all - this is the only way anything gets done in the West.

It's also a case of "what if we're wrong?". So, if all the climatologists and people who are supporting global warming are wrong, well, all is good, we won't all die. However, what if we're right? Then cutting emissions might help. I don't think we can actually stop the mess we've started, but we might limit its effects. Of course, this argument is a lot like the religious "what if you're wrong you'll go to hell" thing so I don't really like using it... but

I hate the 'green' craze as much as anybody, but there is potential for industrial growth in environmentall friendly industry, or just industry growth without increasing emissions too much. There's a garbage combustion company or something like that here in Vancouver that is turning record profits from selling their tech to other countries. Can you imagine the profits for someone who got an industrial scale fusion plant going? Or even selling the patent for that?

Actually, yeah, Caspa, it does. The amount of carbon dioxide humanity has put into the atmosphere is a trifling nothing compared to the amount poured out by volcanic activity, decaying leaves, animal waste and any number of other sources. Maybe there are some other environmental issues you can get worked up about, but this one just isn't real. The destruction of the rainforest isn't a good thing, granted, but it's got fuck all to do with global warming.

Alright, let me get a metaphor-thingy for you. You may have taken some chemistry at some point. You'll know that some reactions can't take place after a sertain acidity threshold. THey'll work fine at maybe pH 4, but go to pH 3 and they won't work. That's not a significantly large change in pH level, yet now the reaction breaks. Your 150 million tons to 9 million tons is somewhat like that - ecosystems tend to be rather finely balanced and are this small CO2 level change might be important.

I"m not saying here that that is exactly what's happening, as I don't know the science well enough, but it's something to think about.

[Casen]

I'm for alternative fuel sources for the simple fact that oil is a finite resource.

[Puppeteer]

Exactly what I alluded to, Nertea. Ignorance on behalf of the people, though you can view it as morally wrong to exploit, is promoting a greater awareness of the need for cleaner & renewable energy sources, as well as trying to limit our pollution. One example I can think of when people started to get their act together about pollution was after the Industrial Revolution, when the huge billowing London smog was a major issue. When presented with a near-crisis, the result can be phenominal and just the thing we need. The ends justifies the means, I suppose.

Heh, I like the idea of global warming as the prophecy of doom for the 21st century. That's how it's all going to end, in an ice age and with seawater submerging the whole world. And then the religious nuts will tell us all we deserved it. If they survive, that is.

Bishop: "What's this, rising sea levels!? Darn those homosexuels!"

[Vortigern]

trying to limit our pollution

I read that as 'trying to limit our population'. We should probably do something about that too, really. Like, fire China off into space in a big rocket ship and go live there instead.

Anyway, back to the point. Smog is nothing, it dissipates before the end of the day with no lasting damage more than the aesthetic, really. Beijing managed to clean theirs up for the Olympics. I was there in March, and it was pretty horrific, but by July it was nothing. It's a matter which has a really simple solution.

[Rob38]

Anyway, back to the point. Smog is nothing, it dissipates before the end of the day with no lasting damage more than the aesthetic, really. Beijing managed to clean theirs up for the Olympics. I was there in March, and it was pretty horrific, but by July it was nothing. It's a matter which has a really simple solution.

There solution was to shut down the entire city for about a month before and during the Olympics. Just felt like that needed to be pointed out.

[Vortigern]

The solution is to make everyone find an alternative means of getting around. Force them to do so and people really will come up with something. Cycling, public transport, walking, it's all good. They shut down Beijing, but they could do that any time, just chuck out everyone who wants to drive and tell them to change their ways or get the fuck out.

[Mastermind]

The solution is to make everyone find an alternative means of getting around. Force them to do so and people really will come up with something. Cycling, public transport, walking, it's all good. They shut down Beijing, but they could do that any time, just chuck out everyone who wants to drive and tell them to change their ways or get the fuck out.

They didn't just shut down the roads, they also shut down industry, blew up factories, and did a whole lot of other stuff that you can't do normally. It's just not that simple or easy.

[Alias]

That doesn't halt the fact that alternate transportation is a step in the right direction.

[some_weirdGuy]

Why do people keep insisting global warming isn't being effected by us?
we are causing the green house effect to become worse. Not only with CO2, but with the many other gasses that are being released.

Smog is nothing, it dissipates before the end of the day with no lasting damage more than the aesthetic, really.

Really? the smog doesn't dissipate, it gets blown to some other area nearby. I went to California, you could see the smog across the sky, the only clear part you could see was directly above you, and even at night you could see it in the air...

and vort, i didn't think you would be one of the people saying global warming is a lie... i thought you were... smarter then that.

Why would all those scientists and stuff lie? what possible reason would they have for telling us we are causing global warming to become worse when we are not?

[Hostile]

Why do people keep insisting global warming isn't being effected by us?

Climate is changing and becoming warmer, but not due to mankind. So there...

There is nothing wrong with the planet, the planet is fine. It's the people that are fucked...

[Mastermind]

So, the 27 gigatons of CO2 (thanks Wikipedia) that we're pumping into the atmosphere every year is having absolutely no effect on the climate of the planet at all? How about the fact that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 25% higher than it was in 1850? Even if it's a complete coincidence, there's nothing wrong with a little doomsday pressure to get us to clean up our act a bit.

[Romanul]

Maybe.

Thought,honestly,I can EASILY say tought that the weather is changing in some way.Maybe not global warming,but,here,summers are bit-by-bit becoming like hell.

I mean,last year,in one of the days,there were 45 degrees Celsius,but there was such an lack of water,that it felt like 52 degrees.

God,I feel lucky that I have an air conditioner...

[Puppeteer]

That's not the issue Romanul, duh we know climate change is happening it's what's causing it which is the debate.

I read that as 'trying to limit our population'. tongue.gif We should probably do something about that too, really. Like, fire China off into space in a big rocket ship and go live there instead.

I heard that if every person in China jumped on a chair at the same time, a tsunami would engulf the west coast of America gotta love those funny rumours.
And Smog isn't nothing. In 1952 it was reckoned that 4000 died from it

[Vortigern]

and vort, i didn't think you would be one of the people saying global warming is a lie... i thought you were... smarter then that.

I never said global warming was a lie. I said it wasn't caused by mankind, which it isn't. The possible influence of the actions of mankind on the climate is minuscule. Mastermind, as for your 27 gigatons of CO2, compare that to the 150 gigatons from animal waste, and god only knows how much from decaying plant and animal matter. (A little clue: it's well over 150 gigatons.)

Seriously, the world is coming out of a little ice age, and is due a major ice age again soon enough, as in within the next century or two. Global warming, historically, comes before intense global cooling. It's a part of the natural process. Did you also know that the magnetic poles will invert at some point in the near future? The world is a very odd place, but that's just life. These things happen.

I agree that using global warming as a threat to the ignorant to reduce pollution and develop renewable fuel sources may be a good thing, but refusing to acknowledge that the possibility of it being rubbish is even possible is pure folly.

[Mastermind]

Okay, sure animals produce a lot of waste, but how much of that is then converted back into Oxygen by forests that we're slashing and burning, or limestone that we're heating up to create concrete (which releases a lot of CO2), or any of the many other ways we're messing with the carbon cycle? We're not just producing a lot of CO2, we're destroying the ways that nature uses to control it. So, I'd say our net impact on the carbon cycle is a lot bigger than just the 27 gigatons of CO2 we produce.

[Vortigern]

I already mentioned somewhere the deforestation is a bad thing. I don't know what else to say about it, because I live in Sheffield, not the Amazon rainforest. And I know nothing whatsoever about how concrete is made, so meh. Maybe we'll do some lasting damage, but I don't honestly care that much. I'll be long dead by the time it has any noticeable effect. Call me a bastard if you like.