Global Warming... [must read]

[warri0r45]

Eh, if its not overstated, then hot damn, looks like I get to prove all those conservative idiots wrong. Environment > oil.

 

 

 

 

 

Heheh, good thing I'm fine with all of humanity being wiped out; it's not like we don't deserve it. :| :mrgreen:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and by the way, it is a proven FACT that global warming is caused mainly by humanity's love of fossil fuels. Not by 'natural warming processes'. Not by terrorists or aliens. Not by volcanoes. Not by anything but our own selfish species. The rise in global temperature/CO2 levels match almost exactly the timeframe of the industrial revolution...

 

 

 

No.. It's only still a theory, I believe.. Is one of those theories that's virtually impossible to test realistically. The only way we would be able to test it is if we

 

A) took humans off the planet for a few centuries or so and see if the planet cools or

 

B) Find a habitable planet with a balanced climate, dump humans on it, and see what happens.

 

 

 

The timeframe of the Industrial revolution is certainly evidence, but not enough to prove the theory I'm afraid(Forgive me if I'm wrong)

 

 

 

Point one is that theories don't turn into facts. They are models of explanation. Theoretical concepts are in our minds and they merely reflect reality. It's the facts that are real, known and/or measurable data which give weight to a theory and are evidenced to support it. Fact also implies another level of certainty, to the extent where you could use it as implication for the certainty of a theory while technically it's not, nor will it be a fact - it merely means all the facts gel with it perfectly.

 

 

 

Take the orbit of earth around the sun for instance. It's theoretical, yet people take it as a fact. Now I'm not saying the same level of certainty can go for man made global warming, yet all the facts do indeed support it where as alternate ideas - solar irradiation for example - can not support the facts to the extent where reports document that the most recent global warming trends can only meaningfully be thrown in with the man made warming theory being the major cause.

 

 

 

The large scale tests you suggest are obviously not going to happen, as are many such adventurous tests. This does not mean, however, that the theory being tested can not be meaningfully supported by test and data.

[andy_matthews]

So the world's fu*ked in 2010?

 

 

 

Best Guaduation evar. 8-)

 

 

 

May be the "best graduation" for you...but this doesn't mean I get to graduate if the world supposed ends. I am quite tired of topics of global warming. If the world ends, wow. Back to the Middle Ages, or not. Say we do go back to that time. If all our technology is lost, we still have the KNOWLEDGE to create the technology.

[Bballchamp23]

And that towns such as New York, New Orleans, and Las Vegas are already doomed to drought and increased water levels

 

 

 

Heh.

 

I was SO going to post that :lol:

 

 

 

I graduate in 2012 :(

 

Maybe my graduation will cause the world to end!? :P

[SanFranciscoGiants]

I cannot begin to comprehend the amount of ignorance in this thread. Not only by the people commenting but also by the original poster.

 

 

 

Have any of you taken ANY science classes or read any scientific journals? Then it should be clear that global warming is in fact happening. Stop saying its over hyped. You make yourself look like an ignorant fool.

 

 

 

The original poster is beyond comprehension. Multiple typing errors combined with run-on sentences and lack of paragraphs have given me a migraine i will not soon lose. Not to mention lack of evidence and sanity.

 

 

 

I hate tip it. But instead of leaving, i will critique people until the cows come home.

 

 

 

You're the one being ignorant, my friend. I don't see anyone that is denying global warming completely. They're just satating that this post is way over-hyped, and some things are untrue. And indeed, some of the things in the post are very exaggerated; the ocean's not going to rise 20 feet in three years, that's almost impossible. Don't get me wrong, I do beileve that global warming is occouring, just not to the extent that is being explained in this post. (I'm sorry if I'm reiterating anything that anyone has said in this post already)

[arizark]

Seriously, who's mule account is this?^ It's like someone made an account just to post conspiracy information, but not get ridiculed for doing it relentlessly :-k .

Probably Al Gores >.>

[malo2]

Seriously, who's mule account is this?^ It's like someone made an account just to post conspiracy information, but not get ridiculed for doing it relentlessly :-k .

Probably Al Gores >.>

if this forum where any more popular, I wouldn't be surprised.

[arizark]

least we arn't being warned of manbearpig yet...

[mixand]

least we arn't being warned of manbearpig yet...

 

 

 

oh man where have i heard that before?!

[cryztalwing]

Ok I am going to post this becuse this has to do with the post I made the other day. I stumbled upon something I had to share .

 

 

 

After watching a trailer for Microsofts new game "mass effect" One of the female characters says in a sympathetic tone about her people.

 

 

 

"its illegal for parents to have more than one child" and "if our population grows too much it strains our resources to breaking point"

 

 

 

you might not think this is important but if you knew that Bill and Melinda gates donated millions to a company called Planned Parenthood which are involved with the "one child" policy in China you would probably think twice.

 

 

 

It now seems like microsoft are starting to put subliminal messages into these games to mentally condition the populous for when they phase it in into western countries, such has America.

 

 

 

go to 1:06 to hear the comments

 

 

 

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/24962.html

[Sportzmaniac36]

don't worry, the devil will return and destroy the world in 2008 anyway.

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton!

[Unoalexi]

Ok I am going to post this becuse this has to do with the post I made the other day. I stumbled upon something I had to share .

 

 

 

After watching a trailer for Microsofts new game "mass effect" One of the female characters says in a sympathetic tone about her people.

 

 

 

"its illegal for parents to have more than one child" and "if our population grows too much it strains our resources to breaking point"

 

 

 

you might not think this is important but if you knew that Bill and Melinda gates donated millions to a company called Planned Parenthood which are involved with the "one child" policy in China you would probably think twice.

 

 

 

It now seems like microsoft are starting to put subliminal messages into these games to mentally condition the populous for when they phase it in into western countries, such has America.

 

 

 

go to 1:06 to hear the comments

 

 

 

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/24962.html

 

 

 

A)This has nothing to do whatsoever with the thread

 

 

 

B)Still don't get why a one child policy is a bad thing

 

 

 

C) This is not new. We all know that Bill Gates is on a quest for world domination. :roll:

 

 

 

D)Games do not brain wash people! Otherwise, we would as be running around killing people in the 'wilderness' with scimitars painted red like dragon..

 

 

 

E) This is obviously not Al Gore's mule. This is Jack Thompson's.

[JeremyM]

So the world's fu*ked in 2010?

 

 

 

Best Guaduation evar. 8-)

 

 

 

This is going to be some prom!

[Gilformen]

lovestock... must be harrased by creditors, so now he's turned prophet and doomed the planet so theyll back off...

 

 

 

seriously, for all our technilogical advances in the past hundred years, nobody can just say, 'oh yes, by the way, the earth is past its tilting point, we are all going to die in five years.' you know how many other people have claimed the world is ending? lots. and you know what? we're still here! i say, lets wait until 2012, then if we're still ok, we tar and feather the guy and stick him in an insane asylum....

 

 

 

*continues ranting*

 

for gods sake, everyone and their public image consultant support measures to stop global warming. i say, if someone really has guts, why dont they read up on the idea, form their own opinion, and say to heck with it if the evidence cant be found?

[cryztalwing]

More news about the One-child and Two child Policy's, now a De-Facto Two Child Policy Urged in Australia. ya Australia.

 

 

 

See were the global warming issue is heading?

 

 

 

[hide]COUPLES who have more than two children should be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions, a medical expert says.

 

 

 

The report in an Australian medical journal called for parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800.

 

 

 

And couples who were sterilised would be eligible for carbon credits under the controversial proposal.

 

 

 

Perth specialist Professor Barry Walters was heavily critical of the $4000 baby bonus, saying that paying new parents extra for every baby fuelled more children, more emissions and "greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour".

 

 

 

Instead, it should be replaced with a "baby levy" in the form of a carbon tax in line with the "polluter pays" principle, he wrote in the latest Medical Journal of Australia.

 

 

 

"Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being," said Prof Walters, an obstetrician at King Edward Memorial Hospital.

 

 

 

Sustainable Population Australia suggested a maximum of two, he said.

 

 

 

By the same reasoning, contraceptives like diaphragms and condoms, as well as sterilisation procedures, should attract carbon credits, the specialist said.

 

 

 

"As doctors, I believe we need to think this way," he wrote in a letter to the journal.

 

 

 

"As Australians I believe we need to be less arrogant.

 

 

 

"As citizens of the world, I believe we deserve no more population concessions than those in India or China."

 

 

 

Garry Eggers, director of the NSW Centre for Health Promotion and Research, agreed with the call, saying former treasurer Peter Costello's request for three children per family - "one for mum, one for dad and one for the country" - was too single-minded.

 

 

 

"Population remains crucial to all environmental considerations," wrote Professor Eggers, a leading advocate of the personal carbon trading debate.

 

 

 

"The debate (around population control) needs to be reopened as part of a second ecological revolution."

 

 

 

Family groups rejected the calls, saying larger families used less energy than smaller ones and should not be penalised.

 

 

 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22899785-2,00.html[/hide]

[warri0r45]

More news about the One-child and Two child Policy's, now a De-Facto Two Child Policy Urged in Australia. ya Australia.

 

 

 

See were the global warming issue is heading?

 

 

 

[hide]COUPLES who have more than two children should be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions, a medical expert says.

 

 

 

The report in an Australian medical journal called for parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800.

 

 

 

And couples who were sterilised would be eligible for carbon credits under the controversial proposal.

 

 

 

Perth specialist Professor Barry Walters was heavily critical of the $4000 baby bonus, saying that paying new parents extra for every baby fuelled more children, more emissions and "greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour".

 

 

 

Instead, it should be replaced with a "baby levy" in the form of a carbon tax in line with the "polluter pays" principle, he wrote in the latest Medical Journal of Australia.

 

 

 

"Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being," said Prof Walters, an obstetrician at King Edward Memorial Hospital.

 

 

 

Sustainable Population Australia suggested a maximum of two, he said.

 

 

 

By the same reasoning, contraceptives like diaphragms and condoms, as well as sterilisation procedures, should attract carbon credits, the specialist said.

 

 

 

"As doctors, I believe we need to think this way," he wrote in a letter to the journal.

 

 

 

"As Australians I believe we need to be less arrogant.

 

 

 

"As citizens of the world, I believe we deserve no more population concessions than those in India or China."

 

 

 

Garry Eggers, director of the NSW Centre for Health Promotion and Research, agreed with the call, saying former treasurer Peter Costello's request for three children per family - "one for mum, one for dad and one for the country" - was too single-minded.

 

 

 

"Population remains crucial to all environmental considerations," wrote Professor Eggers, a leading advocate of the personal carbon trading debate.

 

 

 

"The debate (around population control) needs to be reopened as part of a second ecological revolution."

 

 

 

Family groups rejected the calls, saying larger families used less energy than smaller ones and should not be penalised.

 

 

 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22899785-2,00.html[/hide]

 

 

 

We have the baby bonus to add to our growing economy. A restriction on the bonus would halter that plan and would probably be pretty significant for where Australia is currently heading and how we're growing both population wise and economy wise.

[Polnar]

Lovestock, one of the men to originally introduce the idea of global warming, has recently come out with a new statement. Before his beliefs were that we were on a tilting point but would have another 50-100 years to correct ourselves, now he thin,s otherwise. His newest comments have strucken fear amongst the scientist population as a whole, and because of so few believe him. His new theory, is that we have surpassed the tilting point and are now on a collision course which will hit in 2012. His belief is that by 2010, about 40-60% of the current population will have been whiped out as the sea level will rise over 20 feet, and heavy rains, bigger storms, and more droughts hit the human race. Of course, he also found tyhat in 2012 we will hit solar cycle 21, which will of course speed up the process of global warming drastically and predicts that 13 years from now, in 2020, the human race will be back into the middle ages. "This is the end of times, not the world, but the end of the world as we know it," he claims in an interview. He has also stated that nearly all attempts will be futile. Swithcing to hybrids will do nothing, cutting down on power plants will do nothing, using windmills will do nothing. His claim is that we should no longer prevent global warming, but get ready for it by enforcing northern towns which will be greated by millions of immigrants, especially in Europe as he says that nearly 60% of Europe will be truend into a new seharra desert. And that towns such as New York, New Orleans, and Las Vegas are already doomed to drought and increased water levels. His propsed reaction to at last slow the process is to use nuclear power, and immediatly shut down all other power plants immediatley. He also says we should stray from natural foods and use such foods as "Quarn", a bioengineered fungus that is edible. He also boasts at how computer models are wrong, due to the fact they are based off the creators opinions instead of the past actions of the world. His biggest fear next to global warming though, is simply the aftermath. As he says, the end of times will put us in a new stone age, all techs, knowledge, etc. will be lost. So, he fears of the warlords and anarchy that will happen afterwars and the wars and tribes that will come after the climax as Earth enters yet another Ice Age. Finally he stated, "This is not so much a wayt for mother nature to kill off a dominant species, bu to put it back in its place."

 

 

 

Yeah, right. Climate change is something that has occured throughout the life of our planet. There is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it. One of the main reasons for climate change is the way the earth moves around the sun. Around every 20,000 years the earth moves from a circular to an oval orbit causing longer winters and colder temperatures. During an Ice Age sea levels drop dramatically as the thickness of ice caps and ice sheets increase. The extra 'white' of snow and ice causes more radiation and heat to be reflected, resulting in a vicious cycle of decreasing temperature.

 

 

 

When Mount St. Helens erupted it released more carbon monoxide than the human race has produced in its time on the planet. Conservation is important because of the need to conserve resources, decrease pollution, and protect rainforests etc, not to prevent climate change, which is utterly inevitable. GF Al Gore.

[warri0r45]

Lovestock, one of the men to originally introduce the idea of global warming, has recently come out with a new statement. Before his beliefs were that we were on a tilting point but would have another 50-100 years to correct ourselves, now he thin,s otherwise. His newest comments have strucken fear amongst the scientist population as a whole, and because of so few believe him. His new theory, is that we have surpassed the tilting point and are now on a collision course which will hit in 2012. His belief is that by 2010, about 40-60% of the current population will have been whiped out as the sea level will rise over 20 feet, and heavy rains, bigger storms, and more droughts hit the human race. Of course, he also found tyhat in 2012 we will hit solar cycle 21, which will of course speed up the process of global warming drastically and predicts that 13 years from now, in 2020, the human race will be back into the middle ages. "This is the end of times, not the world, but the end of the world as we know it," he claims in an interview. He has also stated that nearly all attempts will be futile. Swithcing to hybrids will do nothing, cutting down on power plants will do nothing, using windmills will do nothing. His claim is that we should no longer prevent global warming, but get ready for it by enforcing northern towns which will be greated by millions of immigrants, especially in Europe as he says that nearly 60% of Europe will be truend into a new seharra desert. And that towns such as New York, New Orleans, and Las Vegas are already doomed to drought and increased water levels. His propsed reaction to at last slow the process is to use nuclear power, and immediatly shut down all other power plants immediatley. He also says we should stray from natural foods and use such foods as "Quarn", a bioengineered fungus that is edible. He also boasts at how computer models are wrong, due to the fact they are based off the creators opinions instead of the past actions of the world. His biggest fear next to global warming though, is simply the aftermath. As he says, the end of times will put us in a new stone age, all techs, knowledge, etc. will be lost. So, he fears of the warlords and anarchy that will happen afterwars and the wars and tribes that will come after the climax as Earth enters yet another Ice Age. Finally he stated, "This is not so much a wayt for mother nature to kill off a dominant species, bu to put it back in its place."

 

 

 

Yeah, right. Climate change is something that has occured throughout the life of our planet. There is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it. One of the main reasons for climate change is the way the earth moves around the sun. Around every 20,000 years the earth moves from a circular to an oval orbit causing longer winters and colder temperatures. During an Ice Age sea levels drop dramatically as the thickness of ice caps and ice sheets increase. The extra 'white' of snow and ice causes more radiation and heat to be reflected, resulting in a vicious cycle of decreasing temperature.

 

 

 

When Mount St. Helens erupted it released more carbon monoxide than the human race has produced in its time on the planet. Conservation is important because of the need to conserve resources, decrease pollution, and protect rainforests etc, not to prevent climate change, which is utterly inevitable. GF Al Gore.

 

 

 

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estamated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced.

 

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

 

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ©, rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.

Compared to man-made sources, though, volcanoes' contribution to climate change is minuscule, Gerlach said.

 

 

 

Mount St. Helens produces between 500 and 1,000 tons a day of carbon dioxide, he estimates.

 

 

 

Nothstein, of the state energy office, says the Centralia coal plant puts out about 28,000 tons a day. Statewide, automobiles, industries, and residential and business heating systems emit nearly 10 times that amount.

 

 

 

On a global scale, the difference is even more dramatic, said Gerlach, who often gets calls from power-plant operators and oil-company executives who believe nature is just as responsible for global warming as man. His answer always disappoints them.

 

 

 

"I tell them the amounts don't even come close and I usually never hear from them again."

 

 

 

Worldwide, people and their activities pump 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, he said. The total from volcanoes is about 200 million tons a year ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[Kalphite]

Meh. I heard of something like this before, but I thought the guy's name was LoveLock, not LoveSTock. I still think he's exaggerating.

[dsk803]

hes full of it