Global warming...
- Started
- Last post
- 1,047 Responses
- skelly0
Liberalism?
to act onglobal warming we need progress and action, hardly cnservatism/liberali sm?
andy_qube
(Dec 12 06, 14:30)People turn it into a political issue. Funny, I thought the condition of the planet was independent of the two-party government of the United States, but it seems they're inextricably linked.
- emokid0
learn to swim
- mpfree0
but I can't help thinking this: where was he when this questions aroused?
Witt
(Dec 12 06, 11:59)He was too busy inventing the Internet.
k0na_an0k
(Dec 12 06, 12:22)HAHA
- lemmys_wart0
" There's scientists on BOTH sides that contradict each other... meaning - this is something the human race DOESN'T understand... but DOES see there is a need for conservation of the Earth and it's resources... "
^ bullshit pie.
nsf, penatgon, nasa, shell oil, stephen hawking and some 98% of climatogolists know this...
cliamte chage has happened. even if we halted co2 today, the effects (melting of the northern cap) of prior emissions will play out over decades.
fuck all this save the earth shit, your "mother" is a killer.
she does it with chaos.
know your history, learn how civilizations fall.
chaos (often fueled by climate).
increased co2 can bring it, and test the flexibility of our own civilization...
and we anit look'in so flexible right now, eh?
- spifflink0
its true. human caused global warming is not a 'theory' as previously stated. its a fact. good point about civilizations collapsing, lemmy. read 'collapse' by jared diamond. it talks about many huge civilizations, and small ones, that collapsed due mostly to environmentally charged reactions(war, disease, resource exhaustion). there isn't a debate on this.
- Jaline0
learn to swim
emokid
(Dec 12 06, 15:23)shit
- Mimio0
Spiff, some people don't care what Nobel Laureates have to say about civil economics, they'd rather spout off regurgitated bullshit from "scientists" puppeted by the oil industry relayed to them by Rush Limbaugh.
- mpfree0
Geochemical mass balances are used to estimate the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the terrestrial atmosphere in paleotimes. It some instances it appears that the partial pressure was much greater than anything we've seen as humans.
However, imo, there are far too many variables in the equation.
Everybody is guessing and using rhetoric to push their own agendas.
- lemmys_wart0
pentagon > ctrl-c
...that wasn't even a good try.
- mpfree0
Gore suggested that humans need to get rid of the internal combustion engine all together over the next 25 years.
Something along the lines of the car, a greater enemy to American civilization than all of the armies faced in wartime.
- blackspade0
regardless, ..the fact is that Greenland is melting, fast, now.
As well as a huge chunk of an antarctic peninsula that continues to melt and break apart by the year
...even if half of each of those masses of ice melted, water levels worldwide would rise enough to kill a shite-load of people.
global warming or no global warming.
In my home city there is currently a HUGE ice berg (from antartica) floating of the coast of the South Island of NZ. Never seen b4,
http://www.davidwallphoto.com/se…
explain that
- blackspade0
man http://www.ray-ban.com/ website sucks teh balls
- blackspade0
*ahhhh shit sorry *runs*
- Meeklo0
In my home city there is currently a HUGE ice berg (from antartica) floating of the coast of the South Island of NZ. Never seen b4,
www.davidwallphoto.com...
explain that
blackspade
(Dec 12 06, 20:41)damn!
- mpfree0
What about the hundreds of reputable climate scientists who have doubts about the theory?
Even so, let's say the global warming hypothesis is true. Does the answer require widescale changes in the economy, which could cost trillions of dollars?
A larger spenditure amount solution to a smaller amount problem?
- blackspade0
dude!
what use is the trillion of dollars if there's no earth or species to enjoy it with!??
Solving the problem would create jobs. It will require an entirely new way of thinking and acting
- spifflink0
hypothesis needs to be changed to fact.
in any case, yes creating a new and diversified economy NOT based entirely on cheap oil, and its subsequent and harmful release of carbon dioxide, and other harmful materials, will create a HUGE number of jobs.
on top of general health levels and cultural levels, there is much to be gained by putting forth a "spediture"(sic) of trillions of dollars towards environmental restoration and clean up programs. no matter what, global warming or no, our human project here on earth cannot be sustained as it is right now. something has to be done. trillions of dollars were spent on the war without anybody in the US administration batting an eyelash, but when it comes to environmental policies, they flail their arms around claiming its a liberal moonbat conspiracy to destroy the US economy.
- blackspade0
very well put spiff^
- TheBlueOne0
Everybody is guessing and using rhetoric to push their own agendas.
mpfree
(Dec 12 06, 20:27)And what 'agenda" is this exactly? Seriously..is "saving the ecosystem" a bad agenda? I mean, as opposed to the agenda of those who rape natural resources for their own profit...
You know, there's this whole fallacy of "balance" in the media. One side says 2+2=4 the other side says 2+2=6 and the media says, well, look let's just say that 2+2=5 and present a balance, and the doddering uneducated boobs just nod their heads going, "Gee, that sounds fair and balanced.."