Home Non Cigar Related
Options

Is it getting Hot?

VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
There will be a time, I believe with all my heart and soul, that generations in the future (if humanity is around that long) will look at the nay-sayers of this generation the same way we think of people who argued to the death that the earth was flat.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
«1

Comments

  • Options
    prosspross Posts: 874 ✭✭✭
    Since we just got 2 fricking feet of unexpected snow today, lets just agree to disagree....
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

    2006 was the sixth hottest year since 1850. The five hottest years in the last 150 years are in descending order: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

    Over the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.6° C or 1.08° F. Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 0.8° C or 1.44° F.

    Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

  • Options
    xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Oh noes!!11!! Global warming, predicted for at least the past 50 years is gonna kill us all! - this time is fo' realz yo, I promise!!111!!!one!!

    Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to enjoying the purr of my V8, 300 HP beauty. Maybe tonight I'll take a few cans of hair spray and just empty them into the air; it's been pretty cold here in FL the past week or two and I could use some warmer weather

  • Options
    fla-gypsyfla-gypsy Posts: 3,023 ✭✭
    I want pretend I know what happened 11k years ago. Yes it has been quite cool for Florida this past week.
  • Options
    VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    Yes because the tem-ps in FL and Texas over the last week are quite indicative of the world as a whole over the last several hundred years. Youre free to feel as you want, I just feel bad for the future because of the mistakes by the present.
  • Options
    Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭
    Whether your prediction here is right or wrong, there's a more fundamental problem with your post: you shouldn't look down on those who thought the world was flat. There was a time when all the evidence available pointed to a flat world. Those people would have been fools to believe the world was round (fools that happened to be correct, but fools nonetheless).

    There are enormous holes in the global warming/climate change story and a skeptically minded individual should not yet believe those theories to be correct. If you believe in global warming, you're essentially playing a bragging rights lottery right now--and hey, you might win--but you're still getting the wrong odds on your bet.
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • Options
    Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭
    JDH:
    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

    2006 was the sixth hottest year since 1850. The five hottest years in the last 150 years are in descending order: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

    Over the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.6° C or 1.08° F. Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 0.8° C or 1.44° F.

    Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

    Just a head's up, those measurements were taken differently and with different consistency and accuracy. It is equally likely that older measures produced underestimates and temps were equal as it is that they were both accurate and current temps are higher. I do appreciate that you seem to be presenting two sides of the story though, by saying it's not likely pollution(humans) as a cause.
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    Ken Light:
    JDH:
    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

    2006 was the sixth hottest year since 1850. The five hottest years in the last 150 years are in descending order: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

    Over the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.6° C or 1.08° F. Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 0.8° C or 1.44° F.

    Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

    Just a head's up, those measurements were taken differently and with different consistency and accuracy. It is equally likely that older measures produced underestimates and temps were equal as it is that they were both accurate and current temps are higher. I do appreciate that you seem to be presenting two sides of the story though, by saying it's not likely pollution(humans) as a cause.
    NASA is an organization of scientists, and I tend to listen to, and believe, scientific analysis. FYI - you misquote and therefore misrepresent the statement they made regarding pollution. They said that "it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution FROM URBAN AREAS". Most coal fired energy plants are not located in urban areas, and C02 emissions are not restricted to urban areas.

    The NASA scientists DID NOT say that "it's not likely pollution (humans) as a cause". You draw a completely different conclusion by twisting, or ignoring, what was said.

  • Options
    VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    Ken Light:
    Whether your prediction here is right or wrong, there's a more fundamental problem with your post: you shouldn't look down on those who thought the world was flat. There was a time when all the evidence available pointed to a flat world. Those people would have been fools to believe the world was round (fools that happened to be correct, but fools nonetheless).

    There are enormous holes in the global warming/climate change story and a skeptically minded individual should not yet believe those theories to be correct. If you believe in global warming, you're essentially playing a bragging rights lottery right now--and hey, you might win--but you're still getting the wrong odds on your bet.
    While your not totally wrong, "men of science" were saying HUNDREDS of years earlier the earth was round---there were just some doubting dunderheads who figured they shouldnt have to realize their view may be wrong.
  • Options
    Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭
    JDH:
    Ken Light:
    JDH:
    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

    2006 was the sixth hottest year since 1850. The five hottest years in the last 150 years are in descending order: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

    Over the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.6° C or 1.08° F. Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 0.8° C or 1.44° F.

    Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

    Just a head's up, those measurements were taken differently and with different consistency and accuracy. It is equally likely that older measures produced underestimates and temps were equal as it is that they were both accurate and current temps are higher. I do appreciate that you seem to be presenting two sides of the story though, by saying it's not likely pollution(humans) as a cause.
    NASA is an organization of scientists, and I tend to listen to, and believe, scientific analysis. FYI - you misquote and therefore misrepresent the statement they made regarding pollution. They said that "it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution FROM URBAN AREAS". Most coal fired energy plants are not located in urban areas, and C02 emissions are not restricted to urban areas.

    The NASA scientists DID NOT say that "it's not likely pollution (humans) as a cause". You draw a completely different conclusion by twisting, or ignoring, what was said.

    NASA's currently going out of business. That they would attempt to save themselves by cashing in on global warming funding is no surprise to me. I'd stop trusting them.
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    Vulchor:
    Ken Light:
    Whether your prediction here is right or wrong, there's a more fundamental problem with your post: you shouldn't look down on those who thought the world was flat. There was a time when all the evidence available pointed to a flat world. Those people would have been fools to believe the world was round (fools that happened to be correct, but fools nonetheless).

    There are enormous holes in the global warming/climate change story and a skeptically minded individual should not yet believe those theories to be correct. If you believe in global warming, you're essentially playing a bragging rights lottery right now--and hey, you might win--but you're still getting the wrong odds on your bet.
    While your not totally wrong, "men of science" were saying HUNDREDS of years earlier the earth was round---there were just some doubting dunderheads who figured they shouldnt have to realize their view may be wrong.
    ...nearly ALL of those "dunderheads" were in the religious community, basing their conclusions on religious dogma.
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    Ken Light:
    JDH:
    Ken Light:
    JDH:
    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

    2006 was the sixth hottest year since 1850. The five hottest years in the last 150 years are in descending order: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

    Over the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.6° C or 1.08° F. Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 0.8° C or 1.44° F.

    Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

    Just a head's up, those measurements were taken differently and with different consistency and accuracy. It is equally likely that older measures produced underestimates and temps were equal as it is that they were both accurate and current temps are higher. I do appreciate that you seem to be presenting two sides of the story though, by saying it's not likely pollution(humans) as a cause.
    NASA is an organization of scientists, and I tend to listen to, and believe, scientific analysis. FYI - you misquote and therefore misrepresent the statement they made regarding pollution. They said that "it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution FROM URBAN AREAS". Most coal fired energy plants are not located in urban areas, and C02 emissions are not restricted to urban areas.

    The NASA scientists DID NOT say that "it's not likely pollution (humans) as a cause". You draw a completely different conclusion by twisting, or ignoring, what was said.

    NASA's currently going out of business. That they would attempt to save themselves by cashing in on global warming funding is no surprise to me. I'd stop trusting them.
    Of course you would.

  • Options
    Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    Ken Light:
    Whether your prediction here is right or wrong, there's a more fundamental problem with your post: you shouldn't look down on those who thought the world was flat. There was a time when all the evidence available pointed to a flat world. Those people would have been fools to believe the world was round (fools that happened to be correct, but fools nonetheless).

    There are enormous holes in the global warming/climate change story and a skeptically minded individual should not yet believe those theories to be correct. If you believe in global warming, you're essentially playing a bragging rights lottery right now--and hey, you might win--but you're still getting the wrong odds on your bet.
    While your not totally wrong, "men of science" were saying HUNDREDS of years earlier the earth was round---there were just some doubting dunderheads who figured they shouldnt have to realize their view may be wrong.
    You're missing my point. My point is that if all evidence points to a flat Earth, one should believe the Earth to be flat until conclusive evidence points otherwise. Science has undergone numerous revolutions in the past and will continue to do so in the future. But, importantly, prior to the revolution, the information and theories were wrong, NOT the people who believed it. They were right to believe it!

    If you currently believe something in spite of conclusive evidence (the really inconvenient truth is that this is the case for man-produced, carbon-caused climate change), you are wrong, even if later on it turns out that your beliefs were true.
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    Ken Light:
    Vulchor:
    Ken Light:
    Whether your prediction here is right or wrong, there's a more fundamental problem with your post: you shouldn't look down on those who thought the world was flat. There was a time when all the evidence available pointed to a flat world. Those people would have been fools to believe the world was round (fools that happened to be correct, but fools nonetheless).

    There are enormous holes in the global warming/climate change story and a skeptically minded individual should not yet believe those theories to be correct. If you believe in global warming, you're essentially playing a bragging rights lottery right now--and hey, you might win--but you're still getting the wrong odds on your bet.
    While your not totally wrong, "men of science" were saying HUNDREDS of years earlier the earth was round---there were just some doubting dunderheads who figured they shouldnt have to realize their view may be wrong.
    You're missing my point. My point is that if all evidence points to a flat Earth, one should believe the Earth to be flat until conclusive evidence points otherwise. Science has undergone numerous revolutions in the past and will continue to do so in the future. But, importantly, prior to the revolution, the information and theories were wrong, NOT the people who believed it. They were right to believe it!

    If you currently believe something in spite of conclusive evidence (the really inconvenient truth is that this is the case for man-produced, carbon-caused climate change), you are wrong, even if later on it turns out that your beliefs were true.
    You are ignoring the historical facts of record that indicate that the majority of those opposing the scientific conclusions that the earth is round, and not flat, did so because they believed, on un-scientific religious grounds, that the earth was the center of the universe. Remember what happened to Galileo? Remember a little thing called the Inquisition? You are overlooking the influence of the Church, and the widespread fear of any opposition to the religious dogma of the Church, which sought to crush scientific reasoning in favor of religious dogma.

  • Options
    SleevePlzSleevePlz Posts: 6,249 ✭✭✭✭
    Obviously, people aren't going to agree about whether or not global warming exists and if it is caused by Man. What I don't understand, is why people are so opposed to making changes just in case global warming is real and we are a major cause of it. Worst case, we reduce emissions and various harmful pollutants in our atmosphere and make the world a better place (unless you like breathing the air in NYC/LA). I truly believe in erring on the side of caution. Yeah, it will cost a little bit, but I think it's worth it.
    LLA - Lancero Lovers of America
  • Options
    RainRain Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭
    SleevePlz:
    Obviously, people aren't going to agree about whether or not global warming exists and if it is caused by Man. What I don't understand, is why people are so opposed to making changes just in case global warming is real and we are a major cause of it. Worst case, we reduce emissions and various harmful pollutants in our atmosphere and make the world a better place (unless you like breathing the air in NYC/LA). I truly believe in erring on the side of caution. Yeah, it will cost a little bit, but I think it's worth it.
    Hit it on the head bro.
  • Options
    xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    SleevePlz:
    Obviously, people aren't going to agree about whether or not global warming exists and if it is caused by Man. What I don't understand, is why people are so opposed to making changes just in case global warming is real and we are a major cause of it. Worst case, we reduce emissions and various harmful pollutants in our atmosphere and make the world a better place (unless you like breathing the air in NYC/LA). I truly believe in erring on the side of caution. Yeah, it will cost a little bit, but I think it's worth it.
    Because all the solutions that environmentalists are pushing are extremely expensive, and require trillions of dollars.

    You wanna increase your AC temp, bike to work, or put on an extra sweater in the wintertime? Go ahead, it's your house, do what you want. But keep your hands out of my pockets and stop using my tax dollars to pay for jokes like Solyndra or A123.

    But of course, that sort of thing isn't enough for the environmentalists, always clamoring for more subsidies, more grants, more Gov't handouts. Half a billion dollars here, a couple hundred million there; what's a few more billion among campaign bundlers, eh?

    Now excuse me while I go crank up my heater. Global warming is supposed to take effect one of these decades, but the weather in the North and South US never got the memo.

  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    SleevePlz:
    Obviously, people aren't going to agree about whether or not global warming exists and if it is caused by Man. What I don't understand, is why people are so opposed to making changes just in case global warming is real and we are a major cause of it. Worst case, we reduce emissions and various harmful pollutants in our atmosphere and make the world a better place (unless you like breathing the air in NYC/LA). I truly believe in erring on the side of caution. Yeah, it will cost a little bit, but I think it's worth it.
    "...What I don't understand, is why people are so opposed to making changes just in case global warming is real and we are a major cause of it. ..."

    Follow the money. There are a lot of very powerful corporations that do not want to spend money as you suggest, and they are mostly behind the opposition to the scientific evidence behnd climate change.

  • Options
    xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Ken Light:
    Vulchor:
    Ken Light:
    Whether your prediction here is right or wrong, there's a more fundamental problem with your post: you shouldn't look down on those who thought the world was flat. There was a time when all the evidence available pointed to a flat world. Those people would have been fools to believe the world was round (fools that happened to be correct, but fools nonetheless).

    There are enormous holes in the global warming/climate change story and a skeptically minded individual should not yet believe those theories to be correct. If you believe in global warming, you're essentially playing a bragging rights lottery right now--and hey, you might win--but you're still getting the wrong odds on your bet.
    While your not totally wrong, "men of science" were saying HUNDREDS of years earlier the earth was round---there were just some doubting dunderheads who figured they shouldnt have to realize their view may be wrong.
    You're missing my point. My point is that if all evidence points to a flat Earth, one should believe the Earth to be flat until conclusive evidence points otherwise. Science has undergone numerous revolutions in the past and will continue to do so in the future. But, importantly, prior to the revolution, the information and theories were wrong, NOT the people who believed it. They were right to believe it!

    If you currently believe something in spite of conclusive evidence (the really inconvenient truth is that this is the case for man-produced, carbon-caused climate change), you are wrong, even if later on it turns out that your beliefs were true.
    I'd save your breath. Global warming is more of a religion at this point than science, the Lefts only recognized religion, complete with tax exempt status, politicians paying tithes in the form of taxpayer monies, the gospel thumpers like JDH and Vulchor preaching damnation to the unbelievers, and the corner crazies, letting everyone know the world will soon end unless they send in those checks.

    You're right about NASA, to a T. One of the first things they ever taught me in college when I was studying the sciences with an eye on post-grad school, was to inflate the effects of your research to the maximum believable level; "stretch it to the brink, and then pull it back just a hair" was what they told us. The more dire consequences meant more funding from the very small pool of Fed and private grants and a very large number of other researches trying to get funding. The high priests of NASA know this just like any researcher does, you make more by preaching the gospel of doom and gloom; there's no money to be made in preaching a 2 degree celsius rise over 100 years.

    JDH:
    "...What I don't understand, is why people are so opposed to making changes just in case global warming is real and we are a major cause of it. ..."

    Follow the money. There are a lot of very powerful corporations that do not want to spend money as you suggest, and they are mostly behind the opposition to the scientific evidence behnd climate change.

    lol, this is just too cute. I forgot there used to be ritual lashings of the unclean. Those evil corps don't want their money frittered away on campaign donors like Solyndra, so they must be punished for their opposition to the new religion. Follow the money - if the peons won't willingly part with their change, it will be taken

    If you actually followed the money, you'd see the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars being pumped into these "green" energy companies, or you'd take a long hard look at Al Gore - his sale of Current was only the latest sell-out; he's made millions being on the boards of green companies and steering Gov't patronage their way.

    But of course, let's pile on those evil oil companies, nevermind the man behind the curtain steering your taxpayer dollars to political campaign bundlers and donors

  • Options
    VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    I wont respond to Macro as his ideas of warming his house, using his SUV, ect. are cute and funny but more of an ad hominem attack on a view than anything soundly based. He, like many Americans and MANY Right wingers believe their actions happen in a bubble and should be left to consume everything and anything as they want-----this is fine, but it doesnt leave for any open discussion.

    I like your point Sleeve alot. Not to mention the money that can be made in these new "greener" energies and business. Again, if we break it down here all the global warming/green movement is trying to say is less polution, more reuse of things, more recycling.....all seem pretty damn good to me in a world approaching 7 billion homosapiens.
  • Options
    RainRain Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    I wont respond to Macro as his ideas of warming his house, using his SUV, ect. are cute and funny but more of an ad hominem attack on a view than anything soundly based. He, like many Americans and MANY Right wingers believe their actions happen in a bubble and should be left to consume everything and anything as they want-----this is fine, but it doesnt leave for any open discussion.

    I like your point Sleeve alot. Not to mention the money that can be made in these new "greener" energies and business. Again, if we break it down here all the global warming/green movement is trying to say is less polution, more reuse of things, more recycling.....all seem pretty damn good to me in a world approaching 7 billion homosapiens.
    This I agree with. I try to do the little things...IE turn of lights in a room nobody is i, turn off the ac/heat if I'm not gonna be home, try to recycle. Not making a huge differance, but we have to start somewhere.
  • Options
    jgibvjgibv Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭✭✭
    YES! It is ...

    And most of the agriculturally productive areas of the US are experiencing long-term (greater than 6 months) drought conditions. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

    (Wise) farmers are changing their crop rotations, planting methods, etc. to reduce soil loss, but not all farmers are doing it....
    It hasn't become that bad, yet .... but just wait a few years and see what happens if these unpredictable weather patterns continue, and if farmers continue to use the same planting methods ---- the rich top soil will be lost and the great plains and midwest will look like it did during the dust bowl in the 30s......

    I really hope I'm wrong .... and someone can bump this post in 5 years and point and laugh at me.....

    * I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *

  • Options
    Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭
    SleevePlz:
    Obviously, people aren't going to agree about whether or not global warming exists and if it is caused by Man. What I don't understand, is why people are so opposed to making changes just in case global warming is real and we are a major cause of it. Worst case, we reduce emissions and various harmful pollutants in our atmosphere and make the world a better place (unless you like breathing the air in NYC/LA). I truly believe in erring on the side of caution. Yeah, it will cost a little bit, but I think it's worth it.
    LoL ok then quit smoking those cigars and pumping smoke into the air then. It probably doesn't matter, but....who knows????? Dun dun DUNNNN...
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • Options
    xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Vulchor:
    are cute and funny but more of an ad hominem attack on a view than anything soundly based. He, like many Americans and MANY Right wingers believe their actions happen in a bubble and should be left to consume everything and anything as they want-----this is fine, but it doesnt leave for any open discussion.
    It's rather hard not to be sarcastic or mock, when you have so much material to work with

    Half a billion dollars to Solyndra? $250 million to A123 shortly before it was sold to the Chinese? Should I go into the fact that most of the recipients of the new "green" grants are almost all huge political campaign donors? Do I even need to mention Climategate and the data fudging?

    But hey - ignore all that. It feels better to pat yourself on the back for sending in that check or toting around one of those reusable grocery bags (never mind how much oil and petrochemicals it took to produce), or driving that Prius (just ignore those huge batteries and what it takes to produce them), or keep believing in ethanol (despite the evidence that it produces more pollution and consumes more resources to produce than gasoline), or, in the case of eco-terrorists, just burn those SUV's because it feels like the right thing to do (nevermind the fact that burning them produces more pollution than the SUV would've ever produced over its entire life span).

    Evidence doesn't matter - just so long as you follow the tenets and dogma of the new religion, you too can pat yourself on the back and feel morally superior to all those peons and flat-earthers who "just don't get it"
    Vulchor:
    Again, if we break it down here all the global warming/green movement is trying to say is less polution, more reuse of things, more recycling.....all seem pretty damn good to me in a world approaching 7 billion homosapiens.
    If that's all the environmentalists were saying, no one would really care or pay much attention. But it's not; when you've got the Gov't subsidizing, and handing out as much taxpayer money as they can to every project that calls itself "green", you've gone beyond just recycling and reusing, you've started to dip your hands into my pocket, which I don't much appreciate.
    Vulchor:
    I wont respond to Macro as his ideas of warming his house, using his SUV,
    Oh, you do me far too little credit. I drive a Porsche image

  • Options
    VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    My wife is a Porsche woman-----stay away;)
  • Options
    SleevePlzSleevePlz Posts: 6,249 ✭✭✭✭
    Ken Light:
    SleevePlz:
    Obviously, people aren't going to agree about whether or not global warming exists and if it is caused by Man. What I don't understand, is why people are so opposed to making changes just in case global warming is real and we are a major cause of it. Worst case, we reduce emissions and various harmful pollutants in our atmosphere and make the world a better place (unless you like breathing the air in NYC/LA). I truly believe in erring on the side of caution. Yeah, it will cost a little bit, but I think it's worth it.
    LoL ok then quit smoking those cigars and pumping smoke into the air then. It probably doesn't matter, but....who knows????? Dun dun DUNNNN...
    Now that you have your smartass response out of the way, do you have an intelligent response to my opinion? There is a reason I don't usually waste my time with these posts. Thanks for reminding me to not waste my time with them in the future.
    LLA - Lancero Lovers of America
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    SleevePlz:
    Ken Light:
    SleevePlz:
    Obviously, people aren't going to agree about whether or not global warming exists and if it is caused by Man. What I don't understand, is why people are so opposed to making changes just in case global warming is real and we are a major cause of it. Worst case, we reduce emissions and various harmful pollutants in our atmosphere and make the world a better place (unless you like breathing the air in NYC/LA). I truly believe in erring on the side of caution. Yeah, it will cost a little bit, but I think it's worth it.
    LoL ok then quit smoking those cigars and pumping smoke into the air then. It probably doesn't matter, but....who knows????? Dun dun DUNNNN...
    Now that you have your smartass response out of the way, do you have an intelligent response to my opinion? There is a reason I don't usually waste my time with these posts. Thanks for reminding me to not waste my time with them in the future.
    Yes, it usually is a waste of time trying to discuss some issues with a few of the folks on this forum. My Dad told me that anyone who argues with a Jackass only makes himself look bad. I need to remember that more often.
  • Options
    phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭
    SleevePlz:
    Obviously, people aren't going to agree about whether or not global warming exists and if it is caused by Man. What I don't understand, is why people are so opposed to making changes just in case global warming is real and we are a major cause of it. Worst case, we reduce emissions and various harmful pollutants in our atmosphere and make the world a better place (unless you like breathing the air in NYC/LA). I truly believe in erring on the side of caution. Yeah, it will cost a little bit, but I think it's worth it.
    This is the thing. I mean I'm not expert but would you or anyone care to start their car and suck in the fumes while locked in the garage? Would anyone like to live near a coal plant? Would anyone be fine with swimming in oil? Or bathing in nuclear waste? I mean come on!!!! Whether or not we are the main cause for quickening warming isn't really a problem, the problem is these things are toxic and not good for us plain and simple. Also it is know that massive amounts of CO2 will disrupt the climate and cause warming (thus terraforming) and some have made this example for warming mars.

    Sure some will say that ... oh these scientists are just trying to push their agenda and what not but really? Why? I mean what are they getting out of it? In terms of money, the ones pushing against all these "green" energies are the ones who make the money off of the bad types of fuel. So tell me again who is more likely to have the best interests of us at heart? If people would actually stop listening to the one's who pump all the money into the system and benefit from continued usage of these toxic fuels and listen to actual scientists who don't have an interest other than making our planet better we would be much better off.

    And if that is not good enough look at it this way. Whether it be coal, natural gas, or even nuclear it is all heavily subsidized from the govt, our taxes. And a lot of the times the govt has to "insure" them as insurance companies won't Take nuclear, the govt (our taxes) take all the risk on them and not to mention our lives, but the private companies get all the rewards and also don't even make them safe. So I don't know about anyone else but I would rather have energy that doesn't pollute, is safe, doesn't run out, and in the long run cheaper than what we have.

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/terraforming2.htm
  • Options
    Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭
    SleevePlz:
    Ken Light:
    SleevePlz:
    Obviously, people aren't going to agree about whether or not global warming exists and if it is caused by Man. What I don't understand, is why people are so opposed to making changes just in case global warming is real and we are a major cause of it. Worst case, we reduce emissions and various harmful pollutants in our atmosphere and make the world a better place (unless you like breathing the air in NYC/LA). I truly believe in erring on the side of caution. Yeah, it will cost a little bit, but I think it's worth it.
    LoL ok then quit smoking those cigars and pumping smoke into the air then. It probably doesn't matter, but....who knows????? Dun dun DUNNNN...
    Now that you have your smartass response out of the way, do you have an intelligent response to my opinion? There is a reason I don't usually waste my time with these posts. Thanks for reminding me to not waste my time with them in the future.
    I just don't take this stuff so seriously, sorry. But c'mon, where is the line drawn? When is "just in case" not a reasonable enough justification?
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • Options
    VisionVision Posts: 7,926 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I am not taking a side on this one..... I just want you all to google search "volcanos cause global warming" For every 50 saying they do... You can find 50 that say they dont.... both from "scientific" communities. I guess I am just saying who can you trust.....??
Sign In or Register to comment.