dmarc117 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Problem down here is it doesn't get cold enough to see it anymore. well youre ok then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 We need to change the name of this thread. We will never notice global warming. Think "global weirding". If you do not believe this problem was created by man, you are practicing wishful thinking. If you do not believe this can cause major problems, you are practicing wishful thinking. If you don't believe in the effects of this, talk to someone form the Philippines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 We need to change the name of this thread. We will never notice global warming. Think "global weirding". If you do not believe this problem was created by man, you are practicing wishful thinking. If you do not believe this can cause major problems, you are practicing wishful thinking. If you don't believe in the effects of this, talk to someone form the Philippines. Cyclones , you there ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 We will never notice global warming. Think "global weirding". If you do not believe this problem was created by man, you are practicing wishful thinking. What caused texas to be under water a million years ago? CO2 is not pollution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) What caused texas to be under water a million years ago? CO2 is not pollution. 12+ billion are poisoning this planet every single day. That was not being done a million years ago. There are a lot more problems than C02. While I agree that Earth's natural process will ultimately take its own course and in most cases repair itself, I contend that what we are doing is far outside of that natural process. At no point in Earth's history has it had so much poision being pumped nonstop into its atmosphere. We are silly if we think that this isn't going to have some long-term effects, many of which are going to become actual problems sooner than later. If any of you have some time to kill, research what some of the experts think these long-term effects will be. Pretty eye-popping stuff. Edited January 23, 2009 by Seahawks21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 12+ billion are poisoning this planet every single day. That was not being done a million years ago. There are a lot more problems than C02. While I agree that Earth's natural process will ultimately take its own course and in most cases repair itself, I contend that what we are doing is far outside of that natural process. At no point in Earth's history has it had so much poision being pumped nonstop into its atmosphere. We are silly if we think that this isn't going to have some long-term effects, many of which are going to become actual problems sooner than later. If any of you have some time to kill, research what some of the experts think these long-term effects will be. Pretty eye-popping stuff. Are these the same "eggspurts" that were predicting the coming ice age 30 years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABearWithFurniture Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 its only bad in the winter when you can see it coming out "We look pretty sharp in these clothes (yes, we do) unless we get sprayed with a hose... It ain't bad in the day, if they squirt it your way 'cept in the winter, when it's froze... And it's hard if it hits on your nose (on your nose)" ~Uncle Remus~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 What caused texas to be under water a million years ago? Where are you getting your information? Now I'm no Texas Geology expert, but IIRC, its been at least 100 million years+ since much of any interior state has been below sea level. Also, IIRC, glaciers never got that far south. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 What caused texas to be under water a million years ago?CO2 is not pollution. Neither is oxygen, but if we pumped enough into the atmosphere it would burst into flame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 While I agree that Earth's natural process will ultimately take its own course and in most cases repair itself, I contend that what we are doing is far outside of that natural process. Hey, how is that ethanol thing working out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Neither is oxygen, but if we pumped enough into the atmosphere it would burst into flame. I don't know why you are changing the argument, your side claims Co2 increases the temps, while it is clear higher C02 levels follow the temps, same way they did when chicago was a lush, green jungle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I don't know why you are changing the argument, your side claims Co2 increases the temps, while it is clear higher C02 levels follow the temps, same way they did when chicago was a lush, green jungle. Who's changing the argument? You're implying that because it happens to occur naturally then it can never be bad. Pump enough oxygen into the atmosphere...or carbon dioxide and you f it up. Don't believe me? Go and try to eat a bottle of vitamins with iron and see how long you'll live. in short, your argument doesn't exist it's just so flat out wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 What do you exhale? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 What do you exhale? Why are you changing the argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Global warming = y2k scam nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Why are you changing the argument? Your side says our breath has destroyed the planet and we will all die in a couple years. I find that ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Your side says our breath has destroyed the planet and we will all die in a couple years. I find that ridiculous. Link please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Your side says our breath has destroyed the planet and we will all die in a couple years. I find that ridiculous. I don't exhale industrial pollution, although I think you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 12+ billion are poisoning this planet every single day. Did the earth's population double during my afternoon nap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I think the truth on the matter is somewhere in the middle. There's little doubt that as the human population sprawls across the earth, there will be negative effects on ecosystems and the whole planet. There's also no doubt that regardless of the point in time, our understanding science has been proven false at a later time. I am certain that there are other things (in addition, not exclusivity) that are causing the earth's temperatures to trend up. I think we should be wise on our approach to what we put into the environment. That analysis and behavior should be a continous process improvement. Followers of supreme idiot Al Gore that jump on trends like ethanol cause more harm than good - jumping at half-assed solitions like rabid dogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABearWithFurniture Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Did the earth's population double during my afternoon nap? Some of us were busy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 McBogg, westvagina and tank vs. everyone else on the planet? I think even timmay and CD would drive an electric corvette if you could get it to do a 7 second quarter mile without any body modifications. Seirously. If I could produce a base model electric motor that would give you 430 HP/ 424 lb.-ft. torque that could be recharged overnight you'd be interested, right? Let's say some capitalist genius offers after-market kits could up that to 550/523. Let's even throw in a nice tax credit if you convert. Heck most people I know that own Corvettes wouldn't even have a need for overnight recharge capacity becuase they'd never subject their babies to daily driving anyways. You guys aren't married to gas. Even if you don't accept the fact that buringing fossil fuels are bad for the environment, there's no denying that we have to buy our oil from the enemy, that we will never be able to meet our own demand and that eventually the planet will run out of oil. I also happen to believe it is killing our planet but you can throw that argument out if you like. At some point, there will not be enough oil to meet the demands of Russia, China and America to name a few. That should prove to be the bad kind of interesting. I'm not a fan of ethanol but that does not mean that because one idea turned out to be a bad one you give up. I suppose it does if your desire to get America running on renewable energy is driven more by profit that a desire to what is right. I am positive there is money to be made in converting America to renewable environmentally firendly energy in the future. Until that starts to happen; however, either my government needs to step-up and assist in the process or it needs to simply begin issuing mandates. I'd prefer assistance to mandates but even Arnold has seen this as such a pressing matter that he's issuing mandates, short-term economic impacts be damned. Unless you are going to argue that America is simply incapable of converting to environmentally responsible forms of renewable energy I cannot see any argument against it. Legalize pot, legalize prostitution, leave Iraqis to fend for themselves like any American whose been laid off over the last 8 years and quit subsidizing Exxon and you've probably generated trillions if you are worried about short -term costs, which I'll admit I don't worry about anyways. I think we are capable of doing it once we decide to make it our priority. If tank is right and ethanol is the Bunker Hill of the conversion to renewable energy, then keep in mind he's siding with the British. Those helium filled wind generators on DIscovery Project Earth seemed very promising but those guys need federal money to help. I'm no where near as environmentally friendly as I would like to be so I'm not preaching to anyone. I can't even break the habit of leaving the water running while I brush my teeth. But anyone who thinks getting America off fossil fuels is a bad idea is flat out ignorant. It isn't even an environmental issue, the fact that it will probably have quantifiable, positive impacts on the environment is simply a bonus. We like to think we are the best civilization this planet has to offer. It'd be nice if we'd start acting like it by doing something for the planet. We should be embarassed that we are not leading the world in converting to renewable enrgy in terms of technological development, implementation, compliance with international treaties and as an advocate for the conversion. But we are not, we don't even f*cking claim to be. Most likely I'll be dead of old age before fossil fuels create an environmental or global economic or global military catastrophy. So that makes this issue about the most important thing in the world to me, the future of my two daughters and the kids they'll probably have. I'm never going to be able to do a draft with my future son-in-laws (or daughter-in-laws, the girls are too young to tell right now) if they are fighting the Chinese Army for control of Iran's oil fields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Those stupid cars in the Antartic! South Pole - In 2008, scientists from the British Antarctic Survey reported a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica [the same place the one degree Fahrenheit warming has been reported]. The volcano beneath the ice sheet "punched a hole right through" due to its heat and force. This geologic event (a volcano) may prove to be the source of the recent warming seen in West Antarctica in what has otherwise been reported as a 50-year cooling trend seen in East Antarctica. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 If I could produce a base model electric motor that would give you 430 HP/ 424 lb.-ft. torque that could be recharged overnight you'd be interested, right? You need to quit thinking like it is 1962. Electric cars are not the answer. Agam Energy Systems -- which has developed a piston-less turbine engine, featuring a new kind of compressor that the company hopes will revolutionize the automotive industry. Consumes 1/5 of the fuel, releases 1/10 of the emissions Agam's turbine engine could be fitted into a regular car with some gear modifications, such as a Toyota Camry, and offer 100 miles to the gallon, the company boasts. This compares to about 21 miles to the gallon of today's average car. Road efficiency in cars is about 10 percent, says Spottheim, while Agam's engines promise 55% efficiency. And of course Agam's engine is good news for the environment too: It consumes about the fifth of the petrol of a piston-based engine, and emits one-tenth of the CO2 fumes that contribute to global warning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Hydrogen is the future of automobiles. I'm sold on this. We will be filling up with a cannister of water. Water. I apologize for the incorrect population number. I had heard 12 billion a few weeks back. Should have checked first. Ok ok ok ok. For the non-believers.... Weather patterns around the world are changing, and very drastically in many places. Is it your contention that this is a natural process and that the earth and the life on it is not in danger directly from these weather patterns? I believe the biggest issue is the smog. If we keep abusing fossil fuels like we have been, most major cities will become trapped under dense smog in the next 20-30 years. Whether or not we caused this problem, we now find ourselves in charge of curbing it. I don't want to live in smog when I'm 80 years old. Nor do I want my grandchildren having to grow up breathing it. Okay, sorry to change the subject. As you were Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.