18 May 07
Originally posted by artplayerI hope all of this hype about global warming is correct. That way I won't have to see another *u****g thread about global warming.
The Earth is our home, and in my opinion we're obligated to take care of it. As far as I know Global Warming is becoming a fairly pressing issue, and if we don't address it our home could suffer some pretty significant consequences.
If you're interested, here are some things you can do to help prevent Global Warming:
- use alternative fuel sources ...[text shortened]... anks redhotpawn community, anything you can do to help address this issue would be awesome 🙂
18 May 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfLook carefully at the web site you offer. See what evidence that is given to prove that variations in solar emissions are not a major factor in temperature changes here. I don't see anything other than the statement that they cannot account for the observed changes. The charts seem to indicate otherwise, but they are not sufficient alone. I have an educational and work background in science and technology. Maybe I'm missing something, so let me know.
http://tinyurl.com/26kftk
19 May 07
Originally posted by artplayerin a nutshell global warming is caused by corporation, and if you can force them to make some billlion dollar cutbacks by reducing the pollution they cause, than great. bottom line....it isn't going to happen.
The Earth is our home, and in my opinion we're obligated to take care of it. As far as I know Global Warming is becoming a fairly pressing issue, and if we don't address it our home could suffer some pretty significant consequences.
If you're interested, here are some things you can do to help prevent Global Warming:
- use alternative fuel sources ...[text shortened]... anks redhotpawn community, anything you can do to help address this issue would be awesome 🙂
19 May 07
Originally posted by bot 6In a nutshell, you are an uninformed nut. 95% of 'greenhouse gases' are from nature. Autos and power generation cause a good part of the 5% that can be directly attributed to human activity. If the corporations follow your prescription, they should shut down a number of power plants (or start up new nuclear units) which will either make energy more expensive or less available. You can help by not driving anywhere.
in a nutshell global warming is caused by corporation, and if you can force them to make some billlion dollar cutbacks by reducing the pollution they cause, than great. bottom line....it isn't going to happen.
If you have some free time, look into the connection between global temperature change and human activity. Try to find some direct scientific correlation.
I will predict that ten years hence, this subject will be looked at in a very different light.
19 May 07
Originally posted by jebrydzaginwell here's the kicker everyone.. this was on ABC news not 5 months ago a special news broadcast.
In a nutshell, you are an uninformed nut. 95% of 'greenhouse gases' are from nature. Autos and power generation cause a good part of the 5% that can be directly attributed to human activity. If the corporations follow your prescription, they should shut down a number of power plants (or start up new nuclear units) which will either make energy more ex ...[text shortened]... I will predict that ten years hence, this subject will be looked at in a very different light.
Global warming is inevitable, humans yes are indeed accelerating the process with our greenhouse gasses. Every step we make is irreversible. It all simply leads to another iceage. In the norther polar region Im sure from high school you all know of the frozen flora and fauna that are protected there by our national parks. At this current time only 3% of this magnificent green vegetation has dethawed from global warming. This flora produces 35% more emissions than all the humans combined on the planet as it's root system stems for thousands of miles across the arctic region. At this current juncture with the 3% that has already thawed, in the next 5 years another 10% for a total 13% of these plants will have dethawed themselves creating even MORE greenhouse gasses and will spell out the next iceage soon to begin feeling its effects in the next 10 years.
Humans and farting livestock are the cause of the thawing plant life only so soon. If not for humans, it may have take another 10,000 years for the next iceage but I never claimed to be good at math. But I will say this, the greenhouse effect is an exponential factor. We gave it the jump start now we shall finally reap our rewards for not being so readily wanting to pile into a clown car to get to work. What it all comes down to is, we only have today so make the best of it. You may want to start brushing on your arctic survival tactics and perhaps rent The Day After Tomorrow a couple times to get a good glimpse of what it just may be like if we're lucky.
19 May 07
Originally posted by winslowIf it wasn't on 5 months ago then when was it on??
well here's the kicker everyone.. this was on ABC news not 5 months ago a special news broadcast.
Global warming is inevitable, humans yes are indeed accelerating the process with our greenhouse gasses. Every step we make is irreversible. It all simply leads to another iceage. In the norther polar region Im sure from high school you all know of the fr ...[text shortened]... ter Tomorrow a couple times to get a good glimpse of what it just may be like if we're lucky.
The problem is not emissions, the planet itself emits more CO2 by far than humans. The biggest interference we have is chopping down the Amazon forest by millions of sq miles/year. That forest is the CO2 regulator for this planet. But this planet has its own levelling attributes to keep the balance aside of that. And by the time this planet becomes inhabitable the sun will have swallowed it up anyway, so who cares? I don't cos I'll be long dead. Life will find a way of longing for itself!
19 May 07
Originally posted by mikelomnot to bicker but.. I think I said that we do not make half as much greenhouse emission as the vegetation itself somewhere in my statement. And your addition is correct we are only making it worse by chopping down our greenhouse gas filters (trees).
If it wasn't on 5 months ago then when was it on??
The problem is not emissions, the planet itself emits more CO2 by far than humans. The biggest interference we have is chopping down the Amazon forest by millions of sq miles/year. That forest is the CO2 regulator for this planet. But this planet has its own levelling attributes to keep the balance aside ...[text shortened]... way, so who cares? I don't cos I'll be long dead. Life will find a way of longing for itself!
19 May 07
2 edits
In 1967 a brilliant young scientist began exploring the idea of transforming Mars into a habitable planet. After much research and data mining on the planet scientists have discovered that Mars is a huge chunk of C02 and ice among many other common elements found here on earth. 1 pod out of 3 has already landed on the planet next to be followed up with the 2nd in 4 more years when Mars comes closer in orbit. On the 3rd and final jump, the pod will carry the astronauts on their 6 month journey to Mars at which point they will spend the next 10 years of their lives terraforming Mars by creating greenhouse gasses (since we're so good at doing that) by setting up greenhouse emitting factories to heat the atmosphere to warm the planets surface to thaw the ice hidden in the rocks and below the surface of Mars. By emitting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere this will create a warming effect on the planet thus reinstating the ozone layer by beefing up the planets atmosphere with gasses to trap the heat. In the next 30 years Mars will begin bringing settlers to Mars in addition to plant and animal life to begin inhabiting the planet.
19 May 07
This is so surreal. What a dream it would be to be able to live on Mars, and just in time to escape the devastation of our planet! What is obvious is that despite the natural occurences it would be ridiculous to just say "oh well, we're screwed anyway." We've got to try, nothing is beyond reach if we really shoot for it. For the moment, even if it's all we can do we have to clean up our own mess. I have great confidence that the human civilization can pull it together if we try hard enough. It's the attitude that one person doesn't make a difference that's going to get us screwed. All we have to do is chip in a shread of effort as individuals and we can perform miracles, that's my opinion.
19 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by artplayerInteresting to see how far this has gotten off track 🙄 Profit and corporate greed are insidious corruptors of febrile minds. Apologists even seem vaguely sane and thoughful.
This is so surreal. What a dream it would be to be able to live on Mars, and just in time to escape the devastation of our planet! What is obvious is that despite the natural occurences it would be ridiculous to just say "oh well, we're screwed anyway." We've got to try, nothing is beyond reach if we really shoot for it. For the moment, even if it's all we ip in a shread of effort as individuals and we can perform miracles, that's my opinion.
The following is an excerpt from the conclusion of Malthus' "Essay on Population" published in 1798:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html
"Locke, if I recollect, says that the endeavour to avoid pain rather than the pursuit of pleasure is the great stimulus to action in life: and that in looking to any particular pleasure, we shall not be roused into action in order to obtain it, till the contemplation of it has continued so long as to amount to a sensation of pain or uneasiness under the absence of it. To avoid evil and to pursue good seem to be the great duty and business of man, and this world appears to be peculiarly calculated to afford opportunity of the most unremitted exertion of this kind, and it is by this exertion, by these stimulants, that mind is formed. If Locke's idea be just, and there is great reason to think that it is, evil seems to be necessary to create exertion, and exertion seems evidently necessary to create mind.
The necessity of food for the support of life gives rise, probably, to a greater quantity of exertion than any other want, bodily or mental. The Supreme Being has ordained that the earth shall not produce good in great quantities till much preparatory labour and ingenuity has been exercised upon its surface. There is no conceivable connection to our comprehensions, between the seed and the plant or tree that rises from it. The Supreme Creator might, undoubtedly, raise up plants of all kinds, for the use of his creatures, without the assistance of those little bits of matter, which we call seed, or even without the assisting labour and attention of man. The processes of ploughing and clearing the ground, of collecting and sowing seeds, are not surely for the assistance of God in his creation, but are made previously necessary to the enjoyment of the blessings of life, in order to rouse man into action, and form his mind to reason.
To furnish the most unremitted excitements of this kind, and to urge man to further the gracious designs of Providence by the full cultivation of the earth, it has been ordained that population should increase much faster than food. This general law (as it has appeared in the former parts of this Essay) undoubtedly produces much partial evil, but a little reflection may, perhaps, satisfy us, that it produces a great overbalance of good. Strong excitements seem necessary to create exertion, and to direct this exertion, and form the reasoning faculty, it seems absolutely necessary, that the Supreme Being should act always according to general laws. The constancy of the laws of nature, or the certainty with which we may expect the same effects from the same causes, is the foundation of the faculty of reason. If in the ordinary course of things, the finger of God were frequently visible, or to speak more correctly, if God were frequently to change his purpose (for the finger of God is, indeed, visible in every blade of grass that we see), a general and fatal torpor of the human faculties would probably ensue; even the bodily wants of mankind would cease to stimulate them to exertion, could they not reasonably expect that if their efforts were well directed they would be crowned with success. The constancy of the laws of nature is the foundation of the industry and foresight of the husbandman, the indefatigable ingenuity of the artificer, the skilful researches of the physician and anatomist, and the watchful observation and patient investigation of the natural philosopher. To this constancy we owe all the greatest and noblest efforts of intellect. To this constancy we owe the immortal mind of a Newton.
As the reasons, therefore, for the constancy of the laws of nature seem, even to our understandings, obvious and striking; if we return to the principle of population and consider man as he really is, inert, sluggish, and averse from labour, unless compelled by necessity (and it is surely the height of folly to talk of man, according to our crude fancies of what he might be), we may pronounce with certainty that the world would not have been peopled, but for the superiority of the power of population to the means of subsistence. Strong and constantly operative as this stimulus is on man to urge him to the cultivation of the earth, if we still see that cultivation proceeds very slowly, we may fairly conclude that a less stimulus would have been insufficient. Even under the operation of this constant excitement, savages will inhabit countries of the greatest natural fertility for a long period before they betake themselves to pasturage or agriculture. Had population and food increased in the same ratio, it is probable that man might never have emerged from the savage state. But supposing the earth once well peopled, an Alexander, a Julius Caesar, a Tamberlane, or a bloody revolution might irrecoverably thin the human race, and defeat the great designs of the Creator. The ravages of a contagious disorder would be felt for ages; and an earthquake might unpeople a region for ever. The principle, according to which population increases, prevents the vices of mankind, or the accidents of nature, the partial evils arising from general laws, from obstructing the high purpose of the creation. It keeps the inhabitants of the earth always fully up to the level of the means of subsistence; and is constantly acting upon man as a powerful stimulus, urging him to the further cultivation of the earth, and to enable it, consequently, to support a more extended population. But it is impossible that this law can operate, and produce the effects apparently intended by the Supreme Being, without occasioning partial evil."
As a bit of an aplologist, himself, for the landowning aristocracy of his times, Malthus would undoubtedly see Global Warming as a great thing, urging us on to conquer nearby planets and pollute them, too 🙄 ... in the name of God, in his case...
Stephen Hawking has suggested as much, just recently 😀 Optimists are everywhere funded by institutionalized greed and the ruling classes. Who butters their bread? What else can they do?
Get used to it. Most of us are simply cannon fodder for the wars that allocate resources and the profits they generate for the wealthy. If our wealthiest individuals could live longer they might take a more reasoned view of the future. They can't... so they don't 😞 Pity...
