# Why we're going to hell - Global Warming discussion



## Drew (Dec 14, 2006)

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/26/global_warming

Ok, more mainstream attention for global warming is good, right? 

Check out the second comment. 



> What in the world is wrong with you people????? God said there would never be a flood that would cover the earth again so why worry. Anyway another thing I don't understand is why people think the world has just stayed the same. HELLO! There was the Ice Age, huge craters, canyons that have been shaped by wind, blah,blah,blah!!! The earth has been changing since it was created I'm sure! SO to worry is such a waste of time!!! Our lifespan is only like up to 115 years if your very lucky so people just need to start obeying God and be grateful for the life he's given us. If we accept him we can live for eternity or we may choose to live this short life disobeying him and go to hell.



My god, you can't make shit like that up.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 14, 2006)

Oh, Jesus. In a discussion on global warming, people are talking about God and going to hell?

Here's one to throw in your mixer and see if it blends... how about taking care of God's creation? I think that would probably be in line with a Creator who commisioned mankind to be stewards of his Creation.


----------



## Ken (Dec 14, 2006)

Drew said:


> http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/26/global_warming
> 
> Ok, more mainstream attention for global warming is good, right?
> 
> ...



I don't think I've read anything in recent memory that was both insightful and garbage simultaneously. That quote was amazing to read, because I'm thinking "that's a good argument" then "Whoa, is this person an idiot?" and then back again.


----------



## Makelele (Dec 14, 2006)

I wonder why it's +10 degrees C in the middle of December in Finland if there's no global warming, and why are the summers so much warmer than they were before? Why are the hurricanes getting more powerful if there's no climate change? I bet it's the wrath of God, or alternatively the decreasing number of pirates that causes these things.


----------



## Rick (Dec 14, 2006)

Makelele said:


> I wonder why it's +10 degrees C in the middle of December in Finland if there's no global warming, and why are the summers so much warmer than they were before? Why are the hurricanes getting more powerful if there's no climate change? I bet it's the wrath of God, or alternatively the decreasing number of pirates that causes these things.



It's gotta be the pirates' fault.


----------



## jim777 (Dec 14, 2006)

God Damned Pirates!!


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

global warming is propaganda...we can barely predict the local weather, let alone the global climate... Chalk it up to mankind's pridefull arrogance and stupidity.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 14, 2006)

jim777 said:


> God Damned Pirates!!



Don't mess with pirates, Guybrush Threepwood will fuck you up.


----------



## noodles (Dec 14, 2006)

The idea that mankind can destroy the environment for life on earth is absolutely preposterous. Arrogance of the highest degree.

The idea that mankind can change the environment in such a way that life for us is difficult or impossible is totally plausible. We're on the way right now.


----------



## Drew (Dec 14, 2006)

Makelele said:


> I wonder why it's +10 degrees C in the middle of December in Finland if there's no global warming, and why are the summers so much warmer than they were before? Why are the hurricanes getting more powerful if there's no climate change? I bet it's the wrath of God, or alternatively the decreasing number of pirates that causes these things.



I want that coffee mug.


----------



## Makelele (Dec 14, 2006)

noodles said:


> The idea that mankind can destroy the environment for life on earth is absolutely preposterous. Arrogance of the highest degree.
> 
> The idea that mankind can change the environment in such a way that life for us is difficult or impossible is totally plausible. We're on the way right now.



That's what I think too. Life on earth has survived worse disasters than humankind, but it's completely possible for us to take out ourselves, and a large part of the "more evolved" species.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 14, 2006)

noodles said:


> The idea that mankind can destroy the environment for life on earth is absolutely preposterous. Arrogance of the highest degree.


Perhaps. Our nuclear weapons could sure as heck take a good crack at it. I've read that a full-scale war (certainly more unlikely nowadays than 20 years ago) could have consequences not seen since the KT Event. That killed off all land animals larger than a cat.


----------



## Nik (Dec 14, 2006)

I don't think we're the ones going to hell when it comes to Global Warming. At least, not as much as our kids, who are the ones who'll have to deal with this first-hand. People simply have too much of a live-now, worry-later attitude. Oh, and the whole belief in a rapture and whatnot amongst a large portion of the country isn't helping, either.

Very sad.

Although for some reason, climate change is having a positive effect where I live  I live in the Southwest desert in the U.S., and yet this summer was the wettest summer we've ever had. It rained like crazy every other day (and I'm not exaggerating, either). The desert literally turned green. Vegetation growing all over the place  It was also unusually cool--even though I live in the desert, we only had to turn on our air conditioner for 3-4 days this entire summer


----------



## eaeolian (Dec 14, 2006)

Briggs said:


> global warming is propaganda...we can barely predict the local weather, let alone the global climate... Chalk it up to mankind's pridefull arrogance and stupidity.



Uh, saying that "Global Warming", i.e. the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere is rising, is propaganda is ridiculous. The global temperature *is* rising. The cause of the rise is what's disputed. The fact that it's been generally trending upwards since (at least) the 19th century isn't.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 14, 2006)

^ Climate change linked to global warming can have some very positive effects.


The issue is, these effects are VERY unpredictable, and really show a system in a state of rapid flux. The biggest problem with global warming is at what point will the system stabilize again?

The history of human civilization for the last 10,000 years or so has been predicated on a nearly constant climatic state, which has been the dominant model since the last ice age. What happens when a constant like that changes? Growing patterns? Temperature? Sea levels? Ice sheets?

Global warming could ironically lead to another ice age. It's kind of all up in the air, since conditions liek this are nearly unprecedented.


----------



## Chris (Dec 14, 2006)

Global warming = longer bikini season.

I'll happily die young if it's T&A the whole way there.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 14, 2006)

Briggs said:


> global warming is propaganda...we can barely predict the local weather, let alone the global climate... Chalk it up to mankind's pridefull arrogance and stupidity.



That's funny. I just did a Academic Search Premier search for peer reviewed journals on the subject of Global Warming being propaganda. Funny. Nothing turned up.  In fact, all I saw from the scientific journals was that 1) global warming is real, and that b) humans are likely driving it (C02 emissions being the biggest culprit).

The science is out there, and easy to find.


----------



## Leon (Dec 14, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> The history of human civilization for the last 10,000 years or so has been predicated on a nearly constant climatic state, which has been the dominant model since the last ice age. What happens when a constant like that changes? Growing patterns? Temperature? Sea levels? Ice sheets?



how constant is constant? ice core samples are about as good as we can get, and they only work for local temperatures where the ice is located. i'm of the camp that thinks this could be a more interesting subject if there were more evidence, more data, less wacko's running around like chickens without heads!


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

eaeolian said:


> Uh, saying that "Global Warming", i.e. the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere is rising, is propaganda is ridiculous. The global temperature *is* rising. The cause of the rise is what's disputed. The fact that it's been generally trending upwards since (at least) the 19th century isn't.



Propaganda, it is. 

As ridiculous as it sounds, lobbyists and legislators use this "global warming" coined phrase to sign into law (ie: california greenhouse bill [Schwarzenegger]), rules applied to something mankind can't control. Then, when global cooling happens, they all wasted california taxpayers time and dollars.

ref: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/27/tech/main2042162.shtml

and: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700174.html


----------



## playstopause (Dec 14, 2006)

Briggs said:


> Propaganda, it is.



Some politicians might use this as a lever, but saying global warming is propaganda is just stupid.
That's 2 different things.



Nik said:


> People simply have too much of a live-now, worry-later attitude.



The core of the problem imo. Some will pay the price for the lazyness of others (a big part of them being big-ass corporations).

We might joke and all about it (if everyone on earth doesn't have a quick brutal wake up call, that's all that's gonna be left to do).
I try to do my efforts on a small scale:
i recycle lots of stuff
i try not to throw 10 garbage bags per week out there
i bought the less gas consuming car i can afford
i walk whenever i can
i don't heat my house when it shouldn't be, i turn off lights, etc.

But you know what?
I see both my neighbors who are doin' just the opposite and it just makes me very angry. We all need to put a BIG effort. Otherwise, it's an already lost battle.

Honestly, this whole thing makes me very sad.
We're just stupid (who think they're smart) bugs on a giant rock.
That's all we'll ever have and still, we're unconsciously throwing it to garbage. We've just found the limit to out smart-asses ways and life is gonna take the means to put us back where we belong.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 14, 2006)

Leon said:


> how constant is constant? ice core samples are about as good as we can get, and they only work for local temperatures where the ice is located. i'm of the camp that thinks this could be a more interesting subject if there were more evidence, more data, less wacko's running around like chickens without heads!



http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/rapids/4233/icecore.htm
_At 3200 metres altitude, the highest point and probably the centre of the Greenland inland ice, the Greenland Icecore Project (GRIP), an international scientific cooperation, worked there from 1989 to 1992 to unlock the archive. In four summer campaigns they succeeded to make a 3029 metres deep drill in the icecore down to the bedrock.

On the image you can see what data the icecore research gives us. The lower part shows the temperature changes of the last 50,000 years. 10,000 years ago the "warm"-age started (the intermediate ice age), in which the temperature are relatively stable, i.e. we have a relatively stable climate at present._







Here's another. Hmmm, data obtained from all over. Why, they're remarkably CONSTANT! 

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png

The science is pretty definitive, and easy to obtain.


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

playstopause said:


> Some politicians might use this as a lever, but saying global warming is propaganda is just stupid.
> That's 2 different things.



propaganda: Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.


----------



## playstopause (Dec 14, 2006)

Briggs said:


> propaganda: Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.



Ok, well. Can you clarify your point?

Are you saying politicians are using global warming as propaganda or that (the idea of) global warming is propaganda in itself?


----------



## Makelele (Dec 14, 2006)

Briggs said:


> propaganda: Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.



Promoting some cause in this case equals saving humankind and the ecosystem, so, I'd say it's quite good "propaganda".


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

playstopause said:


> Ok, well. Can you clarify your point?
> 
> Are you saying politicians are using global warming as propaganda or that (the idea of) global warming is propaganda in itself?



Warming or cooling, can't be propaganda by nature of the definition of propaganda.

however, coined phrases can be propaganda.



Makelele said:


> Promoting some cause in this case equals saving humankind and the ecosystem.



I wouldn't bet my life on it.


----------



## Nik (Dec 14, 2006)

Briggs is right to some extent - Global Warming in itself cannot lead to the extinction of the human race. For example, the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs led to a global warming effect thousands of times more extreme and drastic than what we have now. Yet life survived. And humans are much more intelligent and resilient than anything there was back then.

I'd be more worried about humankind going extinct because of _implications_ sparked by global warming.

For example, global droughts diminish the water supply in already drought-stricken places. People are forced to compete for these lessening water supplies, and this could easily spark regional conflicts. Thus, humankind going extinct because of implications caused by global warming is perfectly plausible. That's where I disagree with Briggs.

People aren't saying that it's gonna get hot and people are just gonna go extinct because of the hotness. It's all the issues that stem as a result of that.


----------



## Leon (Dec 14, 2006)

Bob, that's a geocities site (with no citations to any studies), and a site called globalwarmingart.com. that's not science, that's the public .

got anything with an ___.edu/~scientist/research/ ?


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

Nik said:


> Thus, humankind going extinct because of implications caused by global warming is perfectly plausible.



Sure, but I wouldn't call it global warming, I would call it global heating


----------



## Drew (Dec 14, 2006)

Leon said:


> how constant is constant? ice core samples are about as good as we can get, and they only work for local temperatures where the ice is located. i'm of the camp that thinks this could be a more interesting subject if there were more evidence, more data, less wacko's running around like chickens without heads!



You're right, of course, Leon, that what we really need here is a ton more research. 

However, as an American citizen, the extent that I can directly get involved (aside from doing what I personally can to minimize energy use and greenhouse emissions) is to make sure my government is prepared to research the trend and supply those studies and that data we're looking for. Which brings me to the fundamental (in my eyes) issue here- every single time an american delegation in recent memory has taken part of a discussion on greenhouse emissions, their party line has been "we need to stop having these meetings because 'talking is not a solution.'" 

Talking isn't a solution, but ignoring the 800-pound gorrilla in the room isn't either. In the meantime, until we have more data, there is a demonstratable upward trend in global temperatures dating from the industrial revolution that's beginning to have serious effects on the global environment. If all we have to keep this issue alive are wackos, then I'll take the wackos. 

I'll also be right next to Chris in a lawn chair, beer in hand, oogling the bikinis. Hey, if we're stuck with warming global temperatures, we might as well enjoy the ride, right?


----------



## eaeolian (Dec 14, 2006)

playstopause said:


> Some politicians might use this as a lever, but saying global warming is propaganda is just stupid.
> That's 2 different things.



Ding ding ding! Just because someone misuses the results doesn't mean that it's not happening.

Leon, I'm kind of with you on the longer-term analysis, but IIRC the ice cores match up well with the period that we have other data available for, so they're probably the best tool we have at the moment.


----------



## Drew (Dec 14, 2006)

Briggs said:


> propaganda: Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.



I just saw this. 

Um, I'm all for circular logic myself, bro, but when the information is a trend of increase in global temperatures that correlates exactly to increases in the presense of "greenhouse gasses" in the atmosphere, and when that "some cause" is trying to not artificially raise global temperatures by decreasing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, that's awfully circular. 

I mean, that's like saying promoting the use of condoms to stop the spread of AIDS is prophganda because there's a correlation between increased condom use and decreased instances of AIDS, and you're trying to stop the spread of AIDS.


----------



## Leon (Dec 14, 2006)

there are plenty of scientists working on this already. we don't need the wacko's to keep the hunt alive.

imagine this... you're working really hard and diligently on some financial task, say, figuring out the profits of a company (i don't know much about finance ). when you start your study of the company, you find a few receipts (of thousands) that point to the company having good profits. someone who knows nothing about finance, and who doesn't want to spend the time to help you with the work, runs out of your office to the newspaper, declaring record profits for said company. and even if you come across more papers showing profit declines, they won't care, they've already got their answer.

_that_ is how i feel about 90% of people who talk to me about global warming. they read bits here and there available to them in the popular media, and are instantly experts on the workings of the planet, and feel the need to spread their secondhand knowledge like wild fire.

don't get me wrong, i think it's cool when someone is interested and genuinely excited about science. i'm just sad that it's usually the popular pseudoscience that makes the rounds of the available media sources; meaning, TV. but anyways, i'm ranting about misconceptions of science in general 

bottom line: there is a burden of proof in science. the question is, "how much proof do you need before you can reach a reasonably accurate conclusion?"


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

Drew said:


> greenhouse gasses



ah, another political catch phrase

does anyone really know what greenhouse gas is?

maybe a trip to the wiki is in order:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas


----------



## Buzz762 (Dec 14, 2006)

Drew said:


> http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/26/global_warming
> 
> Ok, more mainstream attention for global warming is good, right?
> 
> ...




I hope I'm reincarnated as a fish.


----------



## Drew (Dec 14, 2006)

Briggs said:


> ah, another political catch phrase
> 
> does anyone really know what greenhouse gas is?



Actually, yes, I do. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas



> Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gaseous components of the atmosphere that contribute to the "greenhouse effect". Although uncertainty exists about exactly how earth's climate responds to these gases, global temperatures are rising. [1] Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases. [2]
> 
> Other greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons (see IPCC list of greenhouse gases).



Seriously dude, you can not believe that human activity is having a role in raising global temperatures if you want to, but if you want to debate it you're going to need to do something a little more substantial than writing evidence off as "prophaganda" and simply not believing in something because it's a "political catch phrase."

A catch phrase it may be, but it's a fuck of a lot easier to say "greenhouse gas" than it is to say "a mix of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons." 


EDIT - ok, edit that in after I post it. Nice.  Either way, I trust we agree that "greenhouse gasses" are, in fact, real now, and that increased concentrations will lead to rises in global temperature?


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

Buzz762 said:


> I hope I'm reincarnated as a fish.



he he he , maybe I can consult with you on what type of fish to be reincarnated to.

I suggest a top tier predator like a mako shark or something


----------



## playstopause (Dec 14, 2006)

Briggs said:


> ah, another political catch phrase





By what politician?


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

serously, if you want to eliminate greenhouse gasses... you might as well eliminate all life on this planet, since anything that lives and breathes, produces "greenhouse gasses"

that should take care of it


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 14, 2006)

Leon said:


> Bob, that's a geocities site (with no citations to any studies), and a site called globalwarmingart.com. that's not science, that's the public .
> 
> got anything with an ___.edu/~scientist/research/ ?



Gimmie a break, dude!  Shoot the messenger, right?

How about from NOAA's own website on paleoclimatology?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html
http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb3/pb33/kihzhome/kihz01/fig2_en.html

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/lgm_oz.html

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/climate_patterns/
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/030417/paleoclimate.shtml
http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/Modelling/Paleo/periods.html
http://earth.unh.edu/esci765-865/Petit et al 1999.pdf
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/381.htm
http://www.ccrc.sr.unh.edu/contributions/10000.html

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...es&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=30&client=firefox-a

http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/AxfordHigh-amplitudeAt.html
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...es&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=18&client=firefox-a

And, a good one with all kinds of articles from climate scientists.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=2

There's a wealth of information out there, using all kinds of methods, to document paleoclimatic fluctuations, especialy in interglacial periods, and that also document the relative stability (until recently) of the current interglacial, the Holocene.

Next time, look for yourself. You're the scientist.  Just scan the research databases. The best info isn't published on the web. It's in the journals. You know this!  If you want the web, you're going to tend to get summaries without (as many) citations. 



Briggs said:


> serously, if you want to eliminate greenhouse gasses... you might as well eliminate all life on this planet, since anything that lives and breathes, produces "greenhouse gasses"
> 
> that should take care of it



Patently untrue. Plants take in carbon dioxide (a green house gas) and produce oxygen. Which is NOT a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Creatures that breathe do produce carbon dioxide, but the amount is miniscule compared to the C02 produced by our modern combustion machinery and power generation.

This argument was silly, Briggs. C'mon, bro.


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

playstopause said:


> By what politician?



leftist politicians


----------



## playstopause (Dec 14, 2006)

Briggs said:


> serously, if you want to eliminate greenhouse gasses... you might as well eliminate all life on this planet, since anything that lives and breathes, produces "greenhouse gasses"
> 
> that should take care of it



I think everyone is refering the % of greenhouse gasses that is caused by HUMANS. That is what is unbalancing the natural greenhouse gasses.


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> This argument was silly, Briggs. C'mon, bro.



ok you got me, save the plants!!!


----------



## Drew (Dec 14, 2006)

Briggs said:


> serously, if you want to eliminate greenhouse gasses... you might as well eliminate all life on this planet, since anything that lives and breathes, produces "greenhouse gasses"
> 
> that should take care of it



Ok, are you just fucking with us, or are these your serious beliefs?  

You remember the Oxygen Cycle from middle school earth science? Plants take in CO2 and release O2. Animals take in O2 and release CO2. They balance each other out, and the give and take this produces serves as a check on each side.

Where we're going wrong here is modern industrialization is dumping unheard-of ammounts of CO2 into the atmosphere as well as a whole slew of new non-naturally-occuring chemicals that also create a "greenhouse effect," so that the O2 cycle is being skewed in favor of CO2 in amounts that plants can't keep up with, because another sideproduct of industrialization is we are clearcutting forests and urbanizing the global landscape (an increase in supply coupled with a decrease in the ability to metabolize the supply), as well as having whole new elements added to the picture.

But I think you're just fucking with us and playing devl's advocate, aren't you?


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 14, 2006)

Nah, kill everything. \m/


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

Drew said:


> But I think you're just fucking with us and playing devl's advocate, aren't you?



yes, I have been known to do such things 

I like to challenge and to be challenged



Metal Ken said:


> Nah, kill everything. \m/


----------



## Makelele (Dec 14, 2006)

The increased temperatures caused by the increase of CO2 also causes enormous amounts of methane to be released from the seas, as the seas can't hold as much gas, and from frozen swamps in Siberia. This continues to fuel the greenhouse effect.

Briggs- Stop being a troll


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

enormous amounts of methane happens when one ingests too much mexican food. We need emissions checks for humans 



Makelele said:


> Briggs- Stop being a troll



I had no idea I was being trollish, thanks for the info.


----------



## Makelele (Dec 14, 2006)

Makelele said:


> Briggs- Stop being a troll


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

Makelele said:


>



he he, who's the troll now?


----------



## playstopause (Dec 14, 2006)

Briggs said:


> enormous amounts of methane happens when one ingests too much mexican food. We need emissions checks for humans
> :



Well, you know what?
I've read a study in a serious local newpapers that gasses produced by cows is becoming the number 1 cause of "bad greenhouse gasses" before cars (in our country, the great land of farmers, etc.).

We're just too much mass-producing cows and having them eat stuff they wouldn't eat normally.
Bizarre.

Look at this! Just found it:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/07/21/cow.methane.enn/index.html

What would happen if they'd eat tacos?


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

playstopause said:


> Well, you know what?
> I've read a study in a serious local newpapers that gasses produced by cows is becoming the number 1 cause of "bad greenhouse gasses" before cars (in our country, the great land of farmers, etc.).
> 
> We're just too much mass-producing cows and having them eat stuff they wouldn't eat normally.
> ...



too funny.........clean the air, eat more cows...

medium rare ribeye, anyone?


----------



## Drew (Dec 14, 2006)

That's actually true, Mr. A French Name, and one of the few justifications for a vegetarian diet I actually buy (that it takes like 40 pounds of grain and god knows how much potable water to produce 1 pound of beef, and in the process massive amounts of methane are released into the atmosphere). 

And Briggs, come on man, if you want to play Devil's advocate then I'm cool with that, but _argue_, don't just make smart-assed one-liners.


----------



## playstopause (Dec 14, 2006)

Briggs said:


> too funny.........clean the air, eat more cows...
> 
> medium rare ribeye, anyone?



Let's kill 'em all and have the biggest BBQ EVER!!!


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

Drew said:


> That's actually true, Mr. A French Name, and one of the few justifications for a vegetarian diet I actually buy (that it takes like 40 pounds of grain and god knows how much potable water to produce 1 pound of beef, and in the process massive amounts of methane are released into the atmosphere).
> 
> And Briggs, come on man, if you want to play Devil's advocate then I'm cool with that, but _argue_, don't just make smart-assed one-liners.



better a smart-ass, than a dumb-ass

oops, was that a one liner? he he he


----------



## Drew (Dec 14, 2006)

Briggs said:


> better a smart-ass, than a dumb-ass
> 
> oops, was that a one liner? he he he



 

Pass the ribeye, sir.


----------



## eaeolian (Dec 14, 2006)

Briggs said:


> he he he , maybe I can consult with you on what type of fish to be reincarnated to.
> 
> I suggest a top tier predator like a mako shark or something



Nah, then you get mercury poisoning (from being at the top of the food chain) or are "accidentally" killed by fishermen.


----------



## Mastodon (Dec 14, 2006)

This is just based on what I've watched on Discovery channel...but I think the poles reversing their polarity is a much bigger threat.


----------



## forelander (Dec 14, 2006)

Now that's gonna be fun.


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

forelander said:


> Now that's gonna be fun.



yeah..... yeah!! 

the earth is going to reverse gravity and everything is going to like.... fly off into space..........he he........ it's going to be like.. the coolest thing ever! (Beavis voice)


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 14, 2006)

Wait, we don't have to worry. i was listening to Rush today, and he said the Liberal Media made up global warming. We can close the thread now!


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

Drew said:


> Pass the ribeye, sir.



a ribeye, and an imperial stout for you, sir


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 14, 2006)

Oh man I do hate getting in on a thread late but as always I got things to say. 

I'm with Leon in that we need more science to totally understand why the Earth is getting warmer. Meteorology and well science itself is very young compared to the Earth so we in fact have very little data to go on. SO we need to do more research. 

That being said the Earth is getting warmer. Why is the big question. But it is getting warmer and we need to be concerned. A major shift in climate could prove lethal to some or a large part of the ecosystem. That's never good. 

Pollution needs to be eliminated. Not specifically because of global warming but because the only people that benefit from it are the rich assholes who live far away from the land, water and air they pollute. Pollution makes no sense. We should move to eliminate as much as we are able to as soon as possible. 

The preacher who linked faith in Jesus to global warming is a douche bag. Logical Christians believe that God in his infinite wisdom and love gave us this precious green-blue ball and we ought to take care of it. It is the only place we can live. Illogical Christians apparently believe that if you don't have faith in Jesus, the Jesus is going to jump in his Hummer and drive around and speed up global warming or something.


----------



## Briggs (Dec 14, 2006)

ohio_eric said:


> Pollution makes no sense. We should move to eliminate as much as we are able to as soon as possible.



it also, makes no sense....the fact that we have all the "clean air fuel" we need if we could only, buy one of these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGj3qXH12-E

I blame the U.S. patent system


----------



## Nik (Dec 15, 2006)

Briggs said:


> it also, makes no sense....the fact that we have all the "clean air fuel" we need if we could only, buy one of these:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGj3qXH12-E
> 
> I blame the U.S. patent system



Many carmakers (BMW comes to mind) have developed hydrogen-powered cars. That's not the problem.

The problem is that hydrogen blows up. Spectacularly. No one has developed a safe way of dealing with hydrogen.

That, and I'd imagine that big oil companies would play a much bigger part in suppressing research into alternative fuels than the U.S. patent system


----------



## Briggs (Dec 15, 2006)

Nik said:


> No one has developed a safe way of dealing with hydrogen.



The funny thing is, we don't have do deal with the storage. A water tank stores hydrogen at twice the amount of oxygen....H2O (2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom) What we need is electrolysis* for the hydrogen extraction..... That requires electricity.

ref: http://www.estesrockets.com/rockets.php?level=hp

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 15, 2006)

Nik said:


> That, and I'd imagine that big oil companies would play a much bigger part in suppressing research into alternative fuels than the U.S. patent system



I think thats the biggest part of it.


----------



## Briggs (Dec 15, 2006)

Nik said:


> That, and I'd imagine that big oil companies would play a much bigger part in suppressing research into alternative fuels than the U.S. patent system



on the other hand, there is a good chance "big oil" has bought, and is sitting on the patents.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 15, 2006)

Briggs said:


> on the other hand, there is a good chance "big oil" has bought, and is sitting on the patents.



That sorta thinking is totally correct. 

Who Killed the Electric Car


----------



## Briggs (Dec 15, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> That sorta thinking is totally correct.
> 
> Who Killed the Electric Car



thanks for this! I've never seen it


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 15, 2006)

It's very cool. I've uh.. aquired it. Great viewing.


----------



## Briggs (Dec 22, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> It's very cool. I've uh.. aquired it. Great viewing.



Nice flick, just watched it with my parents.

Thanks again 

I can't believe they killed the ev-1


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Dec 22, 2006)

Briggs said:


> Nice flick, just watched it with my parents.
> 
> Thanks again
> 
> I can't believe they killed the ev-1



My pleasure.

Yep. The auto industry has a long history of implicit and overt collusion with Big Oil. They're usually the ones to fight increased fuel economy standards. You should read a bit of how they helped undermine public transportaion, especially in Midwestern cities.



Her's some more interesting Global Warming related news.

* Climate Change vs Mother Nature: Scientists Reveal That Bears Have Stopped Hibernating*
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1221-01.htm

Some excerpts from the article -
_ Bears have stopped hibernating in the mountains of northern Spain, scientists revealed yesterday, in what may be one of the strongest signals yet of how much climate change is affecting the natural world.

In a December in which bumblebees, butterflies and even swallows have been on the wing in Britain, European brown bears have been lumbering through the forests of Spain's Cantabrian mountains, when normally they would already be in their long, annual sleep.

*Spanish meteorologists predict that this year is likely to be the warmest year on record in Spain, just as it is likely to be the warmest year recorded in Britain (where temperature records go back to 1659). Globally, 2006 is likely to be the sixth warmest year in a record going back the mid-19th century.*

Mark Wright, the science adviser to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in the UK, said that bears giving up hibernation was "what we would expect" with climate change.

"It does not in itself prove global warming, but it is certainly consistent with predictions of it," he said. "What is particularly interesting about this is that hitherto the warming has seemed to be happening fastest at the poles and at high latitudes, and now we're getting examples of it happening further south, and heading towards the equator._


I keep thinking of this Christmas season here in Toledo. We have had roughly 3 weeks of 40-50 degree (F) temperatures here. Very, very unusual. I can remember as a kid, every Christmas break, we'd be out building snowman, or playing on the frozen ice in puddles and ponds in our neighborhood. Nothing like that this year. In fact, it's 54 degrees right now.

This isn't right.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Dec 31, 2006)

noodles said:


> The idea that mankind can destroy the environment for life on earth is absolutely preposterous. Arrogance of the highest degree.
> 
> The idea that mankind can change the environment in such a way that life for us is difficult or impossible is totally plausible. We're on the way right now.


Ever heard of eco systems? Ever heard of balance? The idea that mankind, through using the earths resources at a rate that will result in most of it being depleted, coupled with greed and self preservation does very much mean that noone is really willing to hurt themselves to extend the quality of life for generations to come.

Climate change IS happening, i don't have to be smart to realise that winters are devoid of snow, and that summers are warmer than even 7-9 years ago. There's hardly ever any snow here now, be lucky if it snows once, if at all. And then, no snow in sweden this year, now that's abnormal, it really is.

Mankind CAN cause enviromental change by using up vast amopunts of fossil fuels, overfishing and destroying coral reef and sea based ecos systems, cutting down forests and the amazon to replace it with places to herd beef so some fat overweight fuck can stuff his face with macdonalds.

All these things add up to unnatural changes in the ecosystems, and the greater planetwide ecosystem as a whole.

The bit that people DON'T want to accept, is that to stem this change, this self induced end of days as it were (this is the beginning, warning signs) that people are going to have to give up luxuries. Large companies are going to lose a lot of money, and that, in essence, will be the main counteracting force to common sense.

There's no point trying to do much after it's all gone wrong is there?



Briggs said:


> global warming is propaganda...we can barely predict the local weather, let alone the global climate... Chalk it up to mankind's pridefull arrogance and stupidity.



So you believe everything said to the contrary? If it was propaganda, then why have successive reports into global warming, scientific studies, all been quashed by the white house? Why have they strong armed them into not publishing through threats of cutting funding? Because it does not suit the current goverments agenda, that's why.

I bet that 100-130 years ago you'd be dismissing darwin's theory of evolution as propaganda as well, or applauding the hanging of copernicus for claiming the earth is round.



Briggs said:


> propaganda: Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.





Briggs said:


> serously, if you want to eliminate greenhouse gasses... you might as well eliminate all life on this planet, since anything that lives and breathes, produces "greenhouse gasses"
> 
> that should take care of it



It's not greenhouse gasses that are the problem, but that there is an imbalance, too much green house gas compared to what the global ecosystem can process, it's all a balancing act, and if one thing goes out of balance with nothing to compensate it, then it tips us towards an unknown, or, as it stands, what we are predicting will happen. 

You can't eliminate these gasses, as we would all die, the point is, that unless these are brought back to a balance, then we will also die out, and fuck with the planet. It's like signing the death warrant for not just our own species, but others that inhabit this planet. -> You do know there will most likely not be any polar bears soon due to their natural habitat dissapearing?



I am serioously tired of a lot of people pretending that their life isn't fucking it up for everyone in the long run, we're all doing it, we're all responsible, and yet, we all need to change.

not only that, but it's time the human race, just possibly, stopped looking at the short term gain, their next fucking SUV are large stupid car that they don't need and look at their kids and think about what world they will inherit.

Burying your head in the sand and crying wolf about propaganda isn't going to solve this, only actually facing up to the fear that for the greater overall good that each individual may just have to give something up, something which runs against the grain in human thought.


----------



## omentremor (Dec 31, 2006)

The consideration that global warming isnt real shocks me. I thought it was stupidly obvious to everyone. Here in Australia Much of the sealife is complete out of time. The temperature has fucked the times they breed. Same for many birds. The Caterpillars havent yet hatched, because they are confused, leaving the birds without food. Its everywhere. ANd considering the amount of pollution being pumped into the atmosphere is it a surprise?

On cars its pretty funny that Henry Ford initially designed the T to run on ethanol and was forced into using petrol.


----------



## skinhead (Jan 3, 2007)

Man here on monday was 45º celcius!

I drinked a lot of juice and sleep with A/C, if not the hottnes can kill you, and i don't want (the last part was joking).


----------



## mefrommiddleearth (Jan 3, 2007)

/\fucking hell thats warm damn thats the sort of temperatures that result in a bloody massive exist stage left for the old and the sick hell probably for everyone without aircon


----------



## Mr. S (Jan 3, 2007)

great post there 7DT, i completely agree with what you said, i dont get when people just deny global warming IS happening and IS affecting the world we live in, when nature starts to suffer we should take it as a sign that things are about to get worse suck in our pride and do something about it.

who gives a shit if the cost is great, hell who even cares if it bankcrupts large buisnesses and nations, its our doing, its our responsibility to sort this out. 

this planet is so unquie and beautiful and its the only one we have, lets try to make sure our kids can inherit it in one piece


----------



## Briggs (Jan 3, 2007)

7 Dying Trees said:


> Burying your head in the sand and crying wolf about propaganda isn't going to solve this, only actually facing up to the fear that for the greater overall good that each individual may just have to give something up, something which runs against the grain in human thought.



Even if global warming was a reality, I doubt we could do anything about it.

It may very well be part of the earth's natural climate.

Can we control weather now? lol


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 3, 2007)

noodles said:


> The idea that mankind can destroy the environment for life on earth is absolutely preposterous. Arrogance of the highest degree.



I dunno man, i think a society that can create THIS can pretty much destroy an environment for life on earth pretty quickly.


----------



## Briggs (Jan 3, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> I dunno man, i think a society that can create THIS can pretty much destroy an environment for life on earth pretty quickly.



nuclear weapons could do some damage, yes?


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 3, 2007)

Briggs said:


> nuclear weapons could do some damage, yes?



pretty much.


----------



## Mr. S (Jan 3, 2007)

Briggs said:


> Even if global warming was a reality, I doubt we could do anything about it.
> 
> It may very well be part of the earth's natural climate.
> 
> Can we control weather now? lol



well its kind of past the point of no return at the moment because of our inability to tackle the situation so no we cant really do much about it now but it would help if we did something to alleviate the problem we could probally lessen the effects.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 3, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> Nah, kill everything. \m/



        

Leave it to Ken to make Global Warming metal.


----------



## forelander (Jan 5, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> pretty much.




The Tsar bomb was actually one of the cleanest nukes ever created. At least according to that wiki article.


----------



## Briggs (Jan 5, 2007)

I'm sure, this thing has something to do with some warming too:







I feel warm just looking at it


----------



## Lozek (Jan 5, 2007)

Looks like LA agrees:

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is suing six car manufacturers for selling products which contribute to global warming and damage the environment of California.

The state is seeking recompense for past and future damage being done to the its environment and water supply.

California is taking the action against Chrysler, General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. The car makers are accused of making and maintaining a public nuisance by producing vehicles which "collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide".
The complaint notes that 289m tons of carbon dioxide are emitted by vehicles produced by the six manufacturers each year in the US. This represents nine per cent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions and some 30 per cent of emissions in California.

Lockyer said in a statement: "Global warming is causing significant harm to California's environment, economy, agriculture, and public health. The impacts are already costing millions of dollars and the price tag is increasing. Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming, yet the federal government and automakers have refused to act. It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis."

Full story Here


----------



## Briggs (Jan 5, 2007)

Global Warming Public Nuisance Complaint

On September 20th 2006, Lockyer filed a lawsuit against what his office refers to as "the big six automakers" for their alleged contributions to the global warming problem. Initial reaction was mixed, with some environmental groups being supportive, and an auto industry trade calling it a "nuisance suit". A similar suit in New York had been dismissed by a federal court and is now on appeal.

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Lockyer


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 23, 2007)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/index.html


----------



## playstopause (Jan 23, 2007)

"The future is bleak", scientists said.


----------

