Al Gore wins the First Annual Fool-the-People Spoof Award for his misguided movie promoting panic about "global warming". While his cinematic hysteria played across California, complete with "the sky is falling" predictions, the State of California was experiencing the single largest DROP in average temperatures in 100 years! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333328,00.html In New York, scientists from different subdivisions of climactic study reached the same conclusions...global cooling is the future. Unfortunately, there are enough political imbeciles - those people married to the notion of global warming - that the scientists haven't received much media attention. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/12/four-scientists-global-warming-out-global-cooling-in/ What now? What will the ecofreaks do if their extremist "global warming" banner wilts in the cold of a frigid future? Will Al Gore pack on a few more layers of fat to insulate himself from both the growing cold and the biting contempt directed at him by future historians? Where will electric car drivers recharge their batteries when fossil fuel-based power plants are closed in favor of unreliable wind generation fields? Thank you Gore...you putz! As the world embarks on crusades against fossil fuels, hysteria driven by irrational fear of "global warming", those who listen to the climatologists - instead of Old Tubby's incessant drone of impending cataclysm - will begin stockpiling oak, walnut and other hardwoods to produce heat during the colder times ahead. Ahh, but there could be a good side...as the human race decays into countless gerbils running in mindless herds toward the cliffs above the ocean...some of us, those who listened to the facts, will huddle in the warmth of our metaphorical fireplaces, content to inherit the Earth from the pile of lemmings who followed Gore. Global warming is NOT real. It is a political agenda.
But, didn't you hear? Global cooling is a sign of global warming. Obviously! And just in case you're not up to date, here's a list of everything else caused by global warming. My personal favorite is the attribution of global warming to the downfall of the Green Bay Packers.
Don't forget, he took the initiative to create the internet also. Edited to add. Yes, I know that was a deliberate misunderstanding of something he said.
Ok then. Well, anyway. I'll be interested to see if this is a random one year event or if it stays colder or gets colder again next year. EDIT: I mean this year. Damn it's 09 already XD.
Regardless of the existence of global climate change, products with less harmful effects on the environment are beneficial to everyone. I think we all wish for cleaner cities and seas, more dense woodlands, and the continued existence of diverse wildlife. Using alternative energies allows us to forgo certain risks—such as oil spills during transportation. That said, we are uncertain of the effects of these new methods. If it takes a controversial idea to light a fire under the people and Congress, maybe it is not so bad. After all, if it turns out to be untrue, I'm sure no one has been spared experiencing the lies of government prior.
I agree with that. I saw this pretty cool article on this new kind of car that runs off compressed air. Apparently Mexico City bought a bunch of them and uses them as taxis hoping to reduce their smog level. Sounds like a good idea to me (especially since we aren't running out of air any time soon and I'm pretty sure it's cheaper than gasoline).
People in my area are making a big deal about how clean hybrid cars are. They conveniently avoid discussion about the terrible environmental effects of manufacturing large volumes of batteries and disposing of same after they have reached their maximum number of recharging cycles. "Clean"...what a crock of ****!
My position: Global warming is certainly a problem, although the effects are not entirely clear. The issue is complex and fairly ambiguous, but it doesn't follow that global warming is non-existent. The notion that we can alter the atmosphere's chemical composition without any effects is obviously absurd. The difficulty comes in separating legitimate skeptics from the oil company shills. If you really want to have a debate about the existence global warming, go for it. Post your arguments and sources. But be aware that mainstream scientists may debate specifics, but they're pretty clear on the fundamental shape of the problem. Lowering emissions is also a complex problem, with no clear outcomes. The fact that producing batteries results in pollution is a good example of this, as NaCL mentions. Ethanol production is another one. Another example: planting forests to offset carbon emissions in Canada may alter the earth's albedo, resulting in less solar radiation being reflected into space.
Let's keep it civil, folks. There are differing opinions on this subject, and those differences are not all based on ignorance or propaganda from special interests. If the discussion cannot be conducted without insulting differing positions, there will be further infractions handed out before the thread is closed.
last may i attended a HOBY conference in my area. everyday we had panels on different community issues. (ie. all day kindergarten, religion in schools, etc.) one day the panel topic was global warming. to be frank, i don't know what to believe. but, as the debater that i am, i pointed out something that i had been taught since fourth grade. ohio used to be covered by glaciers. obviously ohio is no longer covered by glaciers, or i would not be living in the lake erie region. could this have been caused by natural global warming? if global warming does exist, could it be natural once again?
Whether the end result is going to be global warming or cooling, the fact is we are starting to experience global climate change. This is not unheard of. The planet goes through warming and cooling cycles. I don't care if we all end up sweating in bikinis or huddling down in parkas. While the cycles of warming and cooling are natural, they can also be affected by what we do to the planet. We as a species affect the environment and will have to live with the changes we have made. I think it is good to move away from fossil fuels to alternative, renewal energy sources. Burning of fossil fuels creates pollution and will eventually run out. While our current hybrid cars are not yet a perfect alternative as far as the waste they eventually leave behind, but they are a step toward away from the old fossil fuels. They are a step towards positive change. I think that trying to be friendlier to our planet is a good thing not because of the fear of global warming or global cooling, but just because it is something we should do.
The real solution to the issue of human energy consumption is a combination of conservation and solar power. Conservation means homes, businesses and transportation that reduce energy demand by at least 90 percent. For example, concrete homes built mostly under ground in Arizona require less than 10% of the energy to heat and cool than conventional wood frame structures build above ground. When solar cells are placed above the "house", the property can actually become a net energy exporter, rather than consumer. Same goes for structures in cold climates...homes should be built mostly underground with the only windows facing south to receive winter sunlight for heating. Energy efficient technology is being used in Greenville, Kansas to reconstruct their business district after that terrible tornado. Their new business parks are being built with concrete to withstand a future category 5 tornado. The buildings employ underground heat exchange technology along with solar panels and battery storage systems to reduce their energy need to almost zero most of the year...and this is with two story above ground buildings! If I had my way, I would also do away with transcontinental air travel in favor of high speed rail. Electromagnetic trains could cross the country at over 300 mph and carry more passengers than a typical airliner. A non stop "flight" from New York to Los Angeles (2600 miles) would take about 8 hours and cost less due to the higher load capacity per trip. This infrastructure would initially cost a lot to build but would pay for itself for centuries to come. It might leave our children free from concern about OPEC while depriving some terrorists of funding. Also, in this time of economic depression, why not put those millions of people without jobs to work building this cross-country, high-speed rail...create jobs, stimulate the economy and ensure the future for our children, all at the same time. High speed rail between ALL major cities and light rail within the cities. Finally, I am hoping controlled fusion will become a reality. A lot of fossil fuel dependence will end right there. Until then, I will steadfastly fight against politicians like Al Gore who use public hysteria and distorted science to further their own need to be "important" and wield some kind of power over the public. Like I said, the present "global warming" scare is not a scientific fact, it is a political agenda.
My thought on global warming: Climate change exist....global warming may not. If global warming exist then the dinosaurs must have been driving a lot of cars, Egyptians were driving their non fuel efficient cars as well in the ancient times.
Actually, I heard the Egyptians fed their horses too much barley resulting in massive fart-fed global warming.
I don't think we do effect the environment, not that much any way. For instance did you know cow flatulence produces more green-house gasses then all the cars in the world? (Making nacl horse theory a very plausible explanation) As to whether the world will get cooler or warmer? Beats me. All i can say is that it will do it with no relevance to what we do, because the world is very big and we are very small and pretending we have any influence on it is just pure hubris. That being said i still think fossil fuel is an outdated source of energy and will be replaced by solar power since it will run out soon. Personally I always thought using solar collectors in orbit around earth is a brilliant idea. O and i like hybrids, but only because fuel is so expensive here so they save a lot of money.
I know this. That is why I said they are not perfect. It is step forward in that it is getting people comfortable with the idea of a car that isn't completely dependent on fossil fuels. That I think is a good thing and a step in the right direction. One our biggest problems is our dependence on fossil fuels. The hybrid batteries are a mess, true. But, it is still progress.
Bottom line, global warming or not, the stuff that people say causes it is bad for everyone. Does anyone else see the irony of a guy driving his asthmatic son to the emergency room in a giant SUV? There was a time when asthma was not nearly as common as it is now. Whether it's related or not for sure, I don't know, but there was a noticable increase in learning disabilities in a First Nations community right after a factory was built way too close to them. Often learning disabilities are a result of damage to the brain, and who knows what kind of damage factory chemicals can cause? (this is going from memory, but I might be able to dig up the actual articles about this particular event). I personally have also noticed a higher rate of such issues in communities with a lot of factories compared to those that don't.
That's actually mostly unrelated to environmental factors (far as I know. I don't really study this stuff I just read the articles I come across on the internet and the doctors office so I'm not an expert). It's actually connected to genetics and that the general population of the first world nations is getting older and having children at older ages. Once most people had kids in their early to mid twenties, now it's far more common for a first child to be born in the mid thirties to the late forties! There is a major correlation between the age of the parents and the chances of birth defects. Also of note is that the gene pool in Europe and the United States is shrinking in size (this concerns the white population only, and does not take into account immigrant gene pools and I don't think those of African American decent were mentioned in the article I read), boosting the chances for defects. Now I'm not say environment can't cause genetic and birth defects cause they do. It is true that areas with a lot of factories are much more likely to have these things, and it is likely that pollution has probably helped it along, but it's not a primary cause. The primary cause is mostly population related.
Well, why are there massive herds of cows? What are these cows eating? How much CO2 does it take to feed these cows? People in the First World eat enormous quantities of meat nowadays, which means there are massive herds of cows, all producing methane. Not only that, but those cows are raised using carbon intensive systems. They eat grain. Grain that is grown using lots of oil, and hence also produces lots of emissions. Sorry, but you can't fob this one off on the cows. They're only there because people love their steak. 6.7 BILLION people? That's 6 700 000 000 people. All of them using energy and creating pollution every day. Sit down and seriously think about that number. The UN and US Census Bureau project 9 billion people by 2047. That's 9 000 000 000 people, all still using energy and creating pollution every day. Nearly one and a half billion people live in the first world* and consume enormous amounts of resources. A billion people in China are getting on the consumer train, and another billion people in India aren't far behind. Finally, I refer you to the notion of ecological footprint. The notion that we can consume and pollute without limit and avoid the consequences is hubris. Seriously, you're in denial. *The US, Europe and Japan have about 1.3 billion people. Of course, plenty of people live comparable lifestyles in developing nations, which I expect would bring the world number of people living first world lifestyles to well above 1.5 billion.
They are there because we eat them, but my question to you is: are cows the only animals with flatulence? My dog can attest to the fact that they are not. There is deer flatulence, cat flatulence, bird flatulence, chimp flatulence, horse flatulence, tiger flatulence and even fish flatulence (probably). If cows alone make as many green-house gasses as every car in the world how much does the entire animal kingdom make? If you crunch the numbers you might start thinking that a mass production of corks is needed. Yes, 6.7 BILLION people don't affect the world all that much. Beacuse the world is big. 9 billion isn't enough either, but i'd say it's a very optimistic view, beacuse with all the wars plagues natural disasters and other sum such it's not even sure we as a species will make it passed this century. and even if we do, the pollution would probably go down since 3rd world countries are the ones with the highest birth rate and over population will probably put to shambles what little infrastructure they already have. On the other hand 1st world populations will probably go down, since American and European man aren't doing enough of the horizontal mamba (shame shame double shame). So while the population will effectively increase, the amount of humans with the ability to pollute will decrease. Not that it matters, even if it will increase the world is still big. Don't frown miss's brown. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk But seriously, it's a big world, and it's in orbit. The orbit shifts driving us closer or further from the sun, making it colder or wormer. The earth has had 6 ice ages that we know of, it's not a stable planet. Sure it has been for the passed one hundred years or so, but in geological terms that's not even worth mentioning. I think it's more important for us to understand our place in the world and prepare for the environment to change on us, not think that we change the environment. And i'm not saying we can do whatever we want and expect no consequences, i'm sure we do effect the environment, but not anywhere near the degree that is talked about in global warming. I'd like to remind you of an ancient Jewish story. There was once a child that did not know to read and write, his father was a great rabbi but no matter how much he tried he could not teach him how to read. At his 13'th birthday he had to go to temple and read the torah, to his fathers surprise he read his passage perfectly. When he asked him how he did this the child answered that he snuck to the temple heard the prayer and learned it that way. on the next Sabbath he went to temple again, and this time he was asked to read a passage he has never heard before, not knowing what to do he whistled and then fled the temple. This (as far as i know) is the oldest documentation of dyslexia. It's several centuries old, long before the industrial revolution. Never in the story is dyslexia mentioned but it's easy to understand now with the knowledge we have that this is what stopped the boy from reading. the end is rather happy, the boy is accepted despite his difficulty and asked to come and whistle every Sabbath to open the lords gates to the congregation, but the idea of oral teaching, as far as i know, was never brought up. this i suppose, is my roundabout way of saying dyslexia is fairly new, we haven't been aware of it for a long time so we have no idea whoever learning disabilities are really rising or if we are just starting to notice them. The same can probably be said about cancer, and many other sicknesses such as asthma, that in olden days would probably just be mentioned as the boy being sickly, much the same way dyslexia would have been mentioned as the kid being dumb.
Global Warming is not real? No Wai! How is that possible? Al Gore said it's true and he's never ever wrong.
