http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Volcano/ http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html Interesting reading, while it appears that my initial evidence was false, there are HUGE repercussions to a single major volcanic event. 50% depletion of the Antarctic ozone layer after Pinatubo? CFCs can't pull that. My personal stance is that we can cause pretty nasty area effects (I've been to LA) but honestly I don't believe that the stuff we make will destroy the whole planet. The planet has its systems of checks and balances. However, since we can make it pretty nasty in areas, we ought to watch wtf we're doing. I support better power sources, but realize that they're not cheap or easy-most are far less efficient, or only work situationally located. Government subsidies could help, but honestly it's still cheaper to just use hydrocarbons. We recycle, mostly for the money, we use those low-power bulbs, we switched to LCDs, all that good stuff, to a nice energy savings, but we can't bend much further. I'd love a biodiesel car, but that's cause I could run on restaurant fryer leftovers, which means I could get paid to run my car. However, feasibility? Practically nil. Have to convert an existing car, can't take it to the shop, etc... I want viable alternatives, not crap.
thanks for the info as for converting a car to run on biodiesel.... you don't need to, if it is a regular diesel it will run perfectly with it... unless you have plastic tubes IIRC, but those are not present in modern diesels, even if you have an old one you can change the tubes and it will run on it.....
However, the production of said solutions will make more new jobs than are lost in the transition, especially in equatorial nations. Also, the initial investment can in most cases be paid off within the decade. Green energies can also be easily installed on the residential level, and the benefits are instantaneous. My next house will be 100% energy self sufficient. This is also beneficial for when the zombie hordes come.
ok you will have to forgive my spellng i suck at it always have the problem with gobal warming theroy and it is a therory at this point is that for evey therory that is out there on global warming there is is a theory that completly refuts it. so its hard to jump on anyones band wagon since neither side has any real proof of what they belive
Of course, however some of those theories are more realistic than others, and some are more easily backed up by mathematics and physics. Others are of course utter bollocks. But, lets completely disregard any and all theory. Lets ignore the feuding scientists, governments, average joes and rednecks. Lets ignore the IPCC reports (which are backed up by thousands of man-hours and some of the worlds most prominent researchers) and focus on the heart of the matter. Regardless of whether or not global warming is fact (there really is not much doubt left is there?) and certainly regardless of what is the cause of it. How can it hurt us and our civilization to develop and force the use of greener technologies? Surely everyone must see that cleaner air for everyone, fresh water and everything else which inevitably follow in the footsteps of envirnomentally friendly technologies, must be a good thing?
Not really. Western nations have economies that run on lots of energy. We do not have the technology to substitute those power sources with green ones yet --unless you count nuclear energy, which has a whole bunch of problems of its own. This is not just about loss of jobs --this is about a fairly fundamental shift in paradigms of what it means to have quality of life. As long as people think that owning lots of stuff, including 4x4 vehicles and SLI'd graphics are something to aspire to, we're in trouble. As long as people turn up the thermostat or switch on the airco rather than just pulling on/taking off that sweater, we're in trouble. I mean, digital photo frames: WTF? That's something you have to plug into a socket, right there. And what does it do that a framed (recyclable) paper picture can't? At the moment, green energy is expensive. We can afford to make your house self-sufficient because from our point of view it is not that much money. But not everyone has £5000,-- to £10.000,-- to blow. And if they do, they're more likely to think: 50" plasma TV than "cool, I can make my house long-term energy-efficient and save the planet to boot". People have no delay of gratification and that is why we're in the mess we;re in now. As technology progresses, it will get cheaper, but it will still demand a change in lifestyle and it would be better if we could meet it halfway. Price is determined by demand as well as supply. Of course. Global warming or not, there are many good reasons to switch to greener technologies.
if tomorrow solar panels were 2000€ and it could feed all my power needs i would jump aboard tomorrow.... are are not that far.... plastic solar panels are around the corner.....
The BBC had a thought-provoking article on this - how much airtime should the organisation give to minority views? Should viewers be advised that a spokesman is speaking for virtually nobody else, his case is against the international consensus, and besides he's on a grant from Exxon*? Too often a debate on TV can seem to be equal but opposing views, leaving people like flacowboy with a false impression of the relative strengths of the evidence, or worse, believing the more polished speaker. The press are often worse, an article written by one side with possibly a paragraph at the bottom from some other authority "invited to comment". A thin line between muffling dissent and publicity to nuts and vested interests. * Call me Mr Paranoid, but I have noticed, Nexxo...
Just wanted to add my two cents in here. This has been the most talked about topic at work for many many months now, and we just can't seem to figure it out. One of the biggest problems facing those who profess that global warming is happening and that we need to do something to stop it is simply that it is not affecting our lives. In the long run, if it is true, then yes it will have an impact on our lives. But as for now I have six feet ( ~2m for my friends anywhere outside the US) of global warming sitting outside my house. Now call me cynical and short sighted, but that is the most amount of snow I have seen fall here in the last twenty years. That may not be that long in terms of geological history but alot has happened around here in that time. The population in my area has more than doubled, minor streets are now major hi-ways, and an abundance of big diesel trucks and suvs. But the funny thing is, Im still freezing my little butt off in all but four months of the year. So with all these greenhouse gas spewing behemoths lurching around, why has it not impacted my life in the way that some scientists would have me believe? One more thing about this " science " that has "proven " global warming. All through my school years I had learned that the scientific process involved some things called hypotheses and control subjects. So applying that to our current situation, what are we to compare these current trends to? Saying that the earth is warmer now than it was during the ice age is kind of a no brainer, slap on the fore head, duh kinda thing. Are we to belive that the last century and a half of this worlds existence, and what we have done in that time has caused the ultimate downfall of this place we call earth? Give me a break.
It's pure arrogance of mankind to suggest that we play a big part in golbal warming. Climate change is a normal part of the earths cycls, and we simply havnt been around long enough to explain them...hell we still can't explain why the magnetic poles flip every now and again, that mankind's doing to? The fact of the matter is that there have been great warmings and freezings many times before, ice surverys suggest this and if thats not enough they have found vineyards in scotland that can be dated to the medeval period which would suggest that it was much much hotter then than it is currently (as records from that era also suggest). Scientists studying evolution (as I currently am) have recently come out in support of such an idea, explaining that different periods of climate change are nessicary to explain the exstinction and evolution of certain species. Not to mention the well know iceage of course. The logical conclusion would be that climate runs on some kind of cycle, and to think that mankinds short lived existence on this earth has any kind of lasting affect is preposterous. So why then the great lie? There are hundres of plainly obivous reasons.......The green indstry is the fast growing industry in this country, meaning big bucks.......any goverment to openly say it rubbish would be so unpopular they'd be out of power for a long time..........by leading by an apprent 'example' we can hopefully slow the ermerging economies of countires like India and China........It's popular!..........a good way to help solve road congestion.......possibility of furthur taxation and thus money....... On a different note: Global warming only exists within the discourse in which it is constructed. I wont go into this too much detail here, as discourse is a subject which the vast majority of people, however educated, simply dont get, but for those lucky few that have managed to get there heads round her they'll know that this entire argument dosnt matter or amke any sense either way. It works and serves a discernable and beneficial purpose but utimately it's just a construct of a version of reality.
You keep on going on about how DaveVader’s opinion is next to worthless compared to the opinion of all these supposed experts. But you have yet to point out any specific evidence, you are just taking it on principle that a) these people exist, and b) they are correct. Perhaps something substantial will help sway him?
I think if everyone lived their life in a way that they were prepared for a zombie attack, the world would be a much better place.
10 seconds on Google backs up my theory on Global Warming. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=481613&in_page_id=1811
Furymouse compact some of that snow and ship it to the north pole, i hear they are running out of it. as for we not impacting the environment with our negative actions....... and the conspiracy theory that going green is going to make stuff more expensive and the big cats will eat all the cake...... yeah.... right.... you mean that they will leave trillions of dollars of crude in the wells and start investing millions on going green...... Exxon and all of the fat cats are always buying or steeling patents for green or efficient stuff and locking them down..... blowing away laws that enforce efficient transports..... if we continue what we are doing now we are screwed (lung illnesses, allergies, death clouds..... etc ) and we will be continuing feeding the octopus, if we go green we lower health problems (like it is happening in Paris) and we feed small "indie" like companies and factories...... lets not go green for the environment, lets go green for our health and economy.....
As opposed to the ‘conspiracy theory’ that we all going to die a horrible self‐induced death? But of course you don’t subscribe to that…
if i was to be optimistic on the subject and consider that humans don't influence weather in any way and that these weather patterns are all natural and slowing down emissions would not slow down our.... hostile environment future...... i would still say GO GREEN, don't be lazy (as in do the same, don't evolve, wait for Darwin to get you from behind) and don't let what is happening in China happen to you, even if that does not influence the environment it does influence your health..... breathing pollution is not good for you....
Haha you might want to investigate your source before you post it. The authors behind that study are have made some wild claims in the past. Fred claims that there is a martian base on the moon Phobos, and Dennis Avery claims that organic food is far worse for you then those covered in pesticides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer http://ngin.tripod.com/averylies.htm
It was one example I found in about 5 seconds, you'll find hundreds of scientists claiming exactly the same thing, there have been a few on Newsnight on TV and everytime they get flamed.
bring on global warming, the sooner the better. It was minus freaken forty five around the plant this morning. I think i'll go crank up the heat a bit more. edit: yes i was being sarcastic.
This is my exact thought on the matter. Frankly there is so much we have yet to learn about the planet we live on and so few "grand cycles" in the climate under our belt to study. In addition, so much of what we theorize and believe at this point could very well be wrong as it is based on our context, not that of early earth life. To give an example, archaeologists in the 1800s found clay and stone figures fashioned in the shape of a rather large woman. Using their context of the time, the scholars proclaimed the figures were fertility charms. In the limited culture of that time, it made the most sense to them. As more evidence was gathered and in our cultural context, we now realize that most of those figures were representations of a female deity. We can perhaps apply this same logic to the earth's climate changes. In our short view of overall weather cycles, at various times it would make sense to declare global warming or global cooling as the case may be. Again, there is so much more we don't know than we do. Given this, what makes sense to me is the cycles will happen with or without us. We can easily be wiped off the face of the earth like chalk on a board. The cycles of climate and change would continue. Now what makes sense to me is to continue to gather knowledge, study and for other reasons (namely health of the population), limit what we know to be "toxic" to life on this planet. Whether overall temperatures and weather patterns move to a hot house or an ice age, the survival and continuation of "life as we know it" demands we apply our cumulative knowledge and know-how toward that goal. The people that have the knowledge, are healthy and survive over the next millennia will be the ones to "profit" anyway. I believe that we can rise above what we term as human nature when we focus on causes that are bigger than just ourselves.
