41 replies · 542 views
The earth's reserves of fossil fuels are finite anyways so, whether or not global warming is happening, it makes sense to find alternatives... give us a few more years of partying... even the sun is finite. The universe itself will burn out in a few billion years apparently...
If it is global warming, all I can think is that Nature has a way of suddenly putting things right. But not necessarily in a way that humankind will like. :(
James Thomas wrote: I never cease to be gobsmacked by such stupidity. Every time environmental issues are raised we have some moron telling us there is no evidence, without coming up with any evidence of their own. Wake up, one of your major cities was wiped out last year FFS.
The planet has been warming at an increased rate since the industrial recvolution and that rate is increasing. Weather is becoming more extreme, sea levels will rise, water will be scarcer, mass migration will take place from those places most affected, conflict will ensue.
And with a lying greedy arsehole in charge of the one country most capable of stopping this I think the result is inevitable.
And you are getting your wonderful information from????
First off, I never denied global warming is happening. I stated a simple fact that the science realm, in ozone layer and global warming, is infantile and has only been around for a little more than 50 years. Many times science has jumped the gun on issues (CFCs are a perfect example) and stating hypothesises and theories are "true" before actually proven.
Globalwarming is happening,and I am convinced we do have some impact, but I am not convinced that we have the impact that many are freaking out about. There are many natural causes that create global warming, not just human emissions.
I am for cleaner emission fuels and any other ideas to help us from hurting the enviroment, no matter how minimal it is.
I do find it hilarious that people actually point the finger at Bush, or any individual person, as if they are the cause and prevention of said global warming.
(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:
Ah, disavowal. What a wonderful thing. You not going to see "An Inconvenient Truth", then?
It's about the truth (global warming is very real), and how it's inconvenient (the planet is pretty much fucked).
I hear it's pretty good.
Not sure if I'll watch it....it's by Gore. If it is an ACTUAL documentary, then maybe....
But I have an inkling that is more like the garbage that Micheal Moore put out and is also more of a political ploy for the upcoming presidential election....but that's just a guess, as I haven't heard much (other than how much emissions he produced to promote the film).
EdelBrock wrote:
Many times science has jumped the gun on issues (CFCs are a perfect example) and stating hypothesises and theories are "true" before actually proven.
With regard to CFC’s :US Environmental Protection Agency
FFS case proven, the ozone layer has started to repair itself since action was taken and CFC's were banned.
EdelBrock wrote:
Globalwarming is happening,and I am convinced we do have some impact, but I am not convinced that we have the impact that many are freaking out about. There are many natural causes that create global warming, not just human emissions.
If you need help reading this please tell.
EdelBrock wrote:
And you are getting your wonderful information from????
The information is everywhere, an interest in the subject, an open mind, not coming from a self centred country and a degree in chemistry helps to understand these "difficult" concepts. Feel rest assured that I will bow to your knowledge/experience when it comes to guns and different ways of killing people.
Bush? Yeah, Kyoto was an anti American conspiracy wasn't it? Let's buy "carbon rights" from other countries so we can keep up an extravagant lifestyle. It is only right and proper that the US has the right to destroy Alaska because it "needs" the oil. It's only right that countries are invaded and people are needlessly killed because the US needs the oil.
Simple fact is that the only way forward is to change lifestyle and not to burn the fuel whether it is a fossil fuel or a bio fuel.
Something to think about:
How much of your life is dependent on oil? You only see petrol. What about the clothes you are wearing, the roads you drive on, the computer you are sat in front of, the pharmaceuticals you take, the chemicals you use in every day life? What happens when there isn't enough oil to produce them?
With regards to CFCs, the EPA jumped on that june bug real early when it was seen as a threat. It's science, however, is a THEORY stated as fact.
CFCs were first thought of as dangerous by two chemists in 1974. By 1979, the EPA (formed in 71, so it was a new govt branch) put it on their list as dangerous. The way these chemist theorized CFCs are dangerous is by a LAB experiment. NO CFC molecule has EVER been found inthe stratosphere. All that has been found is an increase in Chlorine. Chlorine, however can come from many places, but includes seaspray. This only makes sense that chlorine has been building with an increase of glaciers, increasing the salinity of the ocean. More seapray is thrown up, increasing chlorine, warms the planet, melts the glaciers, which in turn desalinates the water, equaling cooling of the planet since less chlorine in inthe stratosphere.
The problem with CFCs fitting the picture is that first, they are HEAVIER than air. It was theorized that they didn't decompose chemically easily and that they rode a current that to the Antartic and went into the stratosphere. EPA jumped at the theory. Later, around 1999, there was a bacteria that was found that decomposed the CFC molecule to be rendered harmless. That was not in the original equation, and later many scientists stated that CFCs were NOT the problem (I'll hunt for the article I have around the house).
So why does the EPA still have this on their website? Billions of dollars were spent because of the EPA's laws. The EPA first stated that all CFCs had to be taken off the market in 1979, so aersol cans were then put with compressed air. Air condidtioners / freezers were not a simple solution. The only other compound known that had similar qualities to CFC refrigerant is propane, which is highly explosive of course (and is a leading cause to 3rd world country in home fires and explosions as many of them use it for their refrigerants). The industry, as a temporary fix, put out HCFCs (hydrochlorofloracarbons) as the added hydrogen was to lessen the "destruction" of the CFC molecule. CFC refrigerants stopped production. It wasn't until around 1998 that a refrigerant without CFCs was introduced. HCFCs stopped production. Now CFC, HCFC, and the new systems are incompatible to each other. So as these old systems require new refrigerant (which should theoretically be never, as it is a closed system) the limited supplies of the old refrigerants drives the prices astronomical. Everyone will be required to change their a/c, refrigerator, freezer, etc. to new systems.
So all this hupla cost the manufacturers billions to change everything and in expedideted research. It required the installer and repairer to purchase many more tools (as the same ones can't be used), and it has cost the homeowner billions of dollars (since they can either pay a person who is qualified and licesed to work on CFC/HCFC systems and astronomical prices, or pay for completely new systems for their homes). If the EPA was to come out and let the truth out, there would be many pissed off people out there.
The truth being that it is a THEORY, not a proven fact, as they wield around with reckless abandon.
As for people not using any fuels, and going back to the days of nuts and berries....well that's just ridiculiuos.
arent we ignoring the REAL issue here?
fuck the planet. Its fucked anyway. Dont cows farts hurt the planet more than cars?
the problem with California and the rest of the US is you think a good car is a fast car in a straight line.
Over here a good car is a fast car that goes around corners...fast.
Gimme a Golf Gti before a 5 litre Chevvy anyday.
I'll be smug knowing I'm driving a more environmentally friendly car as I lose it on a corner and wipe out 16 kids waiting for the bus. 
I can’t stand it any longer….
Diamond White wrote: The State of California is suing the motor industry for making cars.
Er, no. The State of California is suing the motor industry for “their ongoing, substantial contribution to the public nuisance of global warming.”
EdelBrock wrote: Freaking left-wing liberals at their finest! Considering CA probably uses more gas than 1/2 the other states combined, seems a bit contradictory. So these people that are sueing (good ol' greenpeace),
Er, no, it’s not Greenpeace, it’s the Attorney General of the State of California.
what do they get around in? I bet they have been using automobiles! Maybe they should sue themselves for their part in global warming. Damn left-wingers.
The suit is directed at the automobile industry because the auto industry has “refused to act” to curb carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, the auto industry is currently suing the State of California to overturn California global warming regulations. The Attorney General’s lawsuit is a warning shot across the auto industry’s bow, so to speak: If the auto industry won’t comply with California’s regulations (enacted after the utter failure of the Bush administration to take the initiative on global warming), they can expect to be hauled into court for their contribution to the public nuisance of global warming.
EdelBrock wrote: CA is a VERY liberal state. The only way for a Republican to become governor was to have a liberal bankrupt the state kicked out of office and be a middle-of-the-ground type Republican.
If the Legislature holds the purse-strings, how does the Governor “bankrupt” the state?
EdelBrock wrote: And those that support it: Friends of the Earth's Climate Justice Programme and Sierra Club......Greenpeace organizations.
In what way are they "Greenpeace organizations"? Are you suggesting that ALL environmental organizations are “Greenpeace organizations”? Are you suggesting that there is something particularly distasteful about Greenpeace?
EdelBrock wrote: I've heard, but not sure, that some countries left/right wing are slightly different than the US.
The U.S. “left” would be center to center-right in any other developed country on the planet. Only in the U.S. could the center-right be considered “left” and the right be considered “center.”
****reread my last postand I may have written it bad, Gray Davis was the liberal governor that was impeached for almost bankrupting the state... thus is how Arnold got into office
That’s very interesting. When was he impeached?
Hint: He wasn’t impeached, he lost a recall election, and his troubles began when Enron created a phony energy shortage that cost the state a fortune (and don't forget to thank conservative Republican Governor Pete Wilson for the deregulation of the energy industry that led to the phony shortage), and peaked when the expected tax revenues to cover mandatory state expenditures evaporated when the dot.com bubble burst. But if you want to go on believing that Gray Davis was impeached for bankrupting the state, you go right on believing that. You can file it, along with your belief that a centrist like Davis is a liberal, with all of your ideas on science…
EdelBrock wrote: There is absolutely no balance in California politics. It slants EXTREMELY to the left.
You might want to review what I said above about left/right politics...
The problem I have with this court case is:
- Alot of taxpayer dollars are going to be wasted needlessly for this bogus case.
How do you arrive at your conclusion that A) tax dollars will be “wasted”, and B) the case is “bogus”? What should the Attorney General be doing, if not representing the public interest?
EdelBrock wrote: I'm not so sure that "nothing" is being done about it. There simply aren't any alternative fuels that would have a great enough impact to replace gasoline. If people didn't care about the enviroment, and need to be "made aware" as you are stating, then why are hybrids in such popular demand that they can't build them fast enough?
Never seen the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car” then? I thought not…
Doctor? wrote: Then again, Global warming is only a threat to Human civilization, not as the treehuggers would have you belive, to the whole planet. They forget that this Earth has been all covered in ice and had bleak arid deserts as far North as Siberia. Unless we actually manage to boil the oceans off, we'll only hurt ourselves. Same goes for all human threats to "nature"....we'll fuck ourselves up a treat, maybe even by letting off all our nukes or those nice diseases the US make and store in leaky bunkers. But within an eyeblink ( a million years or so), Nature will be back on form, and wont have us to piss her off.
The only idea dumber than that we could save the planet, is that we could do the buger any real harm in the first place.
That would be news to E. O. Wilson. It’s more on the order of tens of millions of years for a complete recovery, and it’s the other species that will die off first—not “human civilization”—paving the way before us…
EdelBrock wrote: First off, I never denied global warming is happening. I stated a simple fact that the science realm, in ozone layer and global warming, is infantile and has only been around for a little more than 50 years. Many times science has jumped the gun on issues (CFCs are a perfect example) and stating hypothesises and theories are "true" before actually proven.
You betray a complete lack of a grasp on even the rudiments of science. A theory is not mere speculation:
A theory is the best explanation, supported by testing of the theory, for an observed phenomena, and remains the best explanation until another, better theory, supported by testing of the theory, replaces it. A theory doesn’t become “true” after being “actually proven”; it remains a theory. A hypothesis, on the other hand, becomes a theory if the hypothetical explanation is supported by testing it.
Globalwarming is happening,and I am convinced we do have some impact, but I am not convinced that we have the impact that many are freaking out about. There are many natural causes that create global warming, not just human emissions.
And yet if you follow the graph James Thomas has so kindly provided, you can see that global warming has a direct correlation with the industrial age, above and beyond the background level of natural causes.
I do find it hilarious that people actually point the finger at Bush, or any individual person, as if they are the cause and prevention of said global warming.
Bush dragged his heels for years, refusing to even acknowledge that global warming was occurring, despite the global consensus of actual experts on the subject, until what, last year? And what has he done to curb emissions of carbon dioxide since he finally admitted that the experts know what they’re talking about?
EdelBrock wrote: With regards to CFCs, the EPA jumped on that june bug real early when it was seen as a threat. It's science, however, is a THEORY stated as fact.
As is all science.
CFCs were first thought of as dangerous by two chemists in 1974. By 1979, the EPA (formed in 71, so it was a new govt branch) put it on their list as dangerous. The way these chemist theorized CFCs are dangerous is by a LAB experiment. NO CFC molecule has EVER been found inthe stratosphere. All that has been found is an increase in Chlorine. Chlorine, however can come from many places, but includes seaspray. This only makes sense that chlorine has been building with an increase of glaciers, increasing the salinity of the ocean. More seapray is thrown up, increasing chlorine, warms the planet, melts the glaciers, which in turn desalinates the water, equaling cooling of the planet since less chlorine in inthe stratosphere.
Er, no. CFCs are implicated in ozone depletion. Carbon dioxide is implicated in global warming. Two different, entirely unrelated issues. Ozone depletion leads to increased UV levels here on Earth; global warming leads to climate change.
And remarkably, the ozone layer has begun to recover since the implementation of the Montreal Protocol. I say "remarkably," because if ozone depletion was caused by "seaspray," one would expect there to have been ozone depletion continuing after CFCs were banned. Oh, that's right, the chlorine caused global warming, which melted the glaciers and cooled the planet, which restored the ozone layer.
Your "science" is a crock.
Incidentally, your "theories" on species were equally specious. I just couldn't be arsed at the time to keep responding to your dead wrong science in the Bruno the Bear thread.
So why does the EPA still have this on their website?
The Montreal Protocol. Not as glamorous as a paranoid right wing conspiracy theory, I know, but then you know what Occam's Razor says... No, I don't suppose you do.
The truth being that it is a THEORY, not a proven fact, as they wield around with reckless abandon.
Perhaps you should go explain science to the scientists; they don’t seem to have the same grasp of it that you do…
Nice, try debunk many things at once so the person can't reply to them all. Interesting how you can mix "rants" and factual talking and act as if there are the same. A little much to answer all at once, so I'll only hit a few.
Davis - It might has well been impeachment...they recalled the election because he lied on many occasions, was under investigations for illegal use of campaign money, was raising taxes to new high levels, added with the enery crisis and mismanagement. It was impeachment through voters. Recall elections don't happen that often.
CA Politics - Now you are going to tell me that there is a balance of left wing and right wing here? That liberals don't control the state, and don't dominate it? That there is another way into politics other than to bend to liberal thought?
CFCs - (First you are right when I slipped up on my own conclusion of global warming with this, but the rest is not from my own conclusion, but based on facts). Show me one article that says "theory" in it when it comes to someone talking about how CFCs are destroying the ozone....here's a clue....they don't. Find any article and they describe it in VERY vague terms....why??? Because if it was described on how it was found and the "hypothosis" was arrived it would show what I described. People act and talk about CFCs now as a definate, when it is far from it. And by the definition you supplied, it doesn't even deserve to be considered a theory.
Alternative energy - So the theory is that GM+ others killed it's own concept car? Why because electricy has been tried as a motor since the advent of automobiles but is not as dependable? Spare me. Show me one fuel or alternative that is capable to take over right now.
And when it comes to California's emissions laws, might as well state that by the year 2007 every Iraqi must live in peace and all will be supplied with an alternative vehicle ....or else! Stupidity that could only come from the liberals of this state. And yes, it is a waste of my money.
I am still confused as to why we should care. The Earth will continue even if we warm her 20 degrees. We'll be fucked, not the planet.
This planet has withstood....asteroid impacts, comet impacts, coronal mass ejections, nearby ( within 500,000 Lyrs)gamma ray bursts, volcanoes turning the whole atmosphere to co2 and sulphur aerosols, and even being hit by something the size of MARS FFS......and here comes man, so arrogant he thinks HIS inventions are more threatening to her than all that 
This is all about selfishly saving our own arses.
Mind you, that's not to say we shouldn;t be making an effort, get rid of coal and oil, get hydrogen powered cars and nuke powerstations ( nuke energy being totally benign, the radiation released even during an accident like chernobyl, goes into the environment....where it came from....Uraniam is not imported, it occurs naturally on earth, all we do is move it and occassional re-concentrate it. And don;t take my wrd for it, that's the view held by the geezer, who's name escapes me, who created the gaia hypothesis that (quite correctly) governs so much environmental thought.
Doctor? wrote: I am still confused as to why we should care. The Earth will continue even if we warm her 20 degrees. We'll be fucked, not the planet. This planet has withstood....asteroid impacts, comet impacts, coronal mass ejections, nearby ( within 500,000 Lyrs)gamma ray bursts, volcanoes turning the whole atmosphere to co2 and sulphur aerosols, and even being hit by something the size of MARS FFS......and here comes man, so arrogant he thinks HIS inventions are more threatening to her than all that
This is all about selfishly saving our own arses.
Mind you, that's not to say we shouldn;t be making an effort, get rid of coal and oil, get hydrogen powered cars and nuke powerstations ( nuke energy being totally benign, the radiation released even during an accident like chernobyl, goes into the environment....where it came from....Uraniam is not imported, it occurs naturally on earth, all we do is move it and occassional re-concentrate it. And don;t take my wrd for it, that's the view held by the geezer, who's name escapes me, who created the gaia hypothesis that (quite correctly) governs so much environmental thought.
um yes ,we should selfishly care about the survival of our species and in return that of current life forms on earth.
yes the planet will go on without us, but really.
It is a bit strange I have to say. Surely the problem isn't with the producers of the cars, but with the people who drive them so much? Sue the drivers, I say. Or raise petrol tax 1000%. Anyway, maybe this case has little chance of being succesfull and its really just a publicity stunt to draw attention to the issue?
You can't educate pork. 