Global Warming

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 545 Responses
  • bliznutty0

    typical global warming fear mongering:

    It turns out that finding solutions to global warming may be more than a global environmental priority; it could also be a matter of national security. According to a report by the Military Advisory Board, a group of retired general officers from all branches of the U.S. military, there is a clear link between climate change and terrorism.

    Global warming will lead to droughts, more frequent and severe hurricanes and storms, and rising sea levels that are predicted to destabilize many nations and to create as many as 50 million environmental refugees by 2010. People left homeless or plunged into poverty, hunger and disease by rising temperatures and other effects of global warming are likely to be susceptible to extremist ideologies.

    • I heard your anarchy face mask is made of hemp.DrBombay
    • They're spinning it to sound like a threat. Unfortunatly people will be victims of man made climate changeeieio
    • Or you're spinning it. People in severe situations have nothing else to do but survive not be extremists.eieio
    • people's environments degrading their living conditions? they are getting angry? NO FUCKING WAY.spifflink
  • lowimpakt0

    no raf - you presented a conspiracy theory - i questioned the logic behind it so now it is up to you to defend and prove it.

  • lowimpakt0

    also Raf - one of the places where you can find information on product pulled from the market is Rapex - http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/dy…

    * not to be confused with the anti-rape device :)

  • raf0

    You raise a valid question lowimpakt: why are "they" banning a good product which offers light which is relatively similar to natural light and promote one that:

    a. is highly toxic, brings biohazard risk to your home and guarantees environmental pollution,
    b. produces unhealthy, unnatural type of light,
    c. is only more efficient under certain conditions?

    How do they get away with claims of these being environmentally friendly?

    How can you put the safer, incandescent bulb alongside poisonous stuff like "cadmium, lead, hexavalent chromium" is also beyond my understanding.

    Who wins due to incandescent bulb ban? Only corporations which invested in CFL technology. They are sure to have removed competition from incandescent light bulb makers from less developed countries. It is a market worth fat billions, everyone owns more than one light bulb.

    • you'rfusing yourself. "They" arn't environmentalists they'er businesses finding ways of pushing new productseieio
    • eieio, I believe he's referring to gov as 'they'.. follow?mathinc
  • GeorgesII-1

    blast from the near past.
    For those who have a short memory of the clinton/GORE era, I didn't see the Gore from the past fight much to save the environment when he was a vice president, actually he didn't do much, not even help sign the kyoto treaty, I find it hard taking advice from someone who is so double face.

    I won't even paste the some quote from this article, I don't have the courage to discuss this issue anymore. In my little, I find that I do much to help fight pollution, I ride a bike to station, never owned a car, carefully divide all my wastes (plastic, carton, glass, metal, etc), my appartment is really low in energy loss.
    but I won't take advices from Al fuckn Gore, just google "al gore house energy consumption" and see for yourself how you're being fooled by the same people who advices to consume late. I'm still waiting for bono to arrive in concert by bike, lol.

    anyways, just read the damm thing
    When Al Gore was Veep (2007)
    http://www.counterpunch.org/stcl…

    • i agree - why does everyone obsess about gore? who cares about gorelowimpakt
    • He's a douchebag, but also almost single handedly responsible for bringing Global Warming to the masses.designbot
    • umm not really, but ok. if you really believe that get out of the way and let the adults talk.spifflink
  • eieio0

    Don't listen to people who are trying to get you to buy more products the real secret to change is in reducing and recycling.

    • Reducing = YES.
      Recycling = only slightly better than not.
      joeth
    • from the landfill aspect of it, it is very importante.DrBombay
    • landfiills smand fills reducing reduces energy consumption as welleieio
  • lowimpakt0

    as I said raf - let me know when you have proof of people suffering ill health from cfl's - especially considering that most people have a mini toxic lab under their sink and don't worry to much about that.

    i could spend a long time talking about the toxic impacts of formaldehide (in particleboard or chipboard) or the toxic effects of other solvents people regularly use in their home.

    have you ever heard of off/out-gassing?

    as for CFL's in the developing world - I haven't seen any evidence of market dispacement but I know that in poorer economies people have less money to spend on electricity and will often be living with distributed energy systems so lightbulbs that are cheaper to run and don't waste 90% of their energy as heat are a good thing.

    • Heat from light bulbs is not wasted energy, I could use some now.raf
    • hot whiskey?lowimpakt
    • will it reach cold feet?raf
  • version30

    chemicals pollutants: bad.

  • designbot0

    And now for a brief intermission, Al Gore's Carbon Footprint:

    Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

    he average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

    Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

    Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

    Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

    In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.”

    • Always good for a laughdesignbot
    • //Great reason to fight against cleaner technologies.DrBombay
    • is this you trying to back up your point?lowimpakt
    • I knew you guys would get all uptight..haha. No, this is just pure comedy.designbot
    • hey look Gore's a hypocrite big fucking deal. In other news man made climate change is a fact of life, get used to it.eieio
    • But I wouldn't be surprised if some of you peeps on QBN were just as big of hypocrites.designbot
    • talk alot of shit and do nothing about it.designbot
    • peeps http://images.chron.…DrBombay
    • "But I wouldn't be surprised if some of you peeps on QBN were just as big of hypocrites."
      No shit
      GeorgesII
    • Rick isn't a hypocrite. He sits here all day trying very hard to improve his shitty life. :Dmathinc
    • So fuck you designbot!mathinc
    • how do you reconcile your credulity about religion and hocus pocus god shit, and suddenly you are very skeptical about this?spifflink
    • about this issue?spifflink
  • raf0

    I wasn't talking about developing world as a market for light bulbs. I was talking about so called 1-st world closing their market for traditional lightbulb makers.

    Why do you need a proof for ill-health? CFL contain mercury, incandescent bulbs don't. Both are in many places at home, both break at times, often in presence of children. What's to prove?
    Does the fact that "most people have a mini toxic lab under their sink" justify adding more toxicity (under the flag of environmental friendliness)?
    Water in many developed countries (including Ireland) is toxic, poisoned with fluoride (which is being gradually banned from toothpaste by EU). Does that justify forcing toxic light bulbs into the market?

  • DrBombay0

    If it were all profit motivated, wouldn't a lightbulb with a tenth of the lifespan actually be the better deal for the manufacturer? They are all made by GE, right?

  • raf0

    The government gives you instructions what to do in case of biohazard (a broken eco-friendly light bulb):

    http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spill…

    How come the old, un-eco-friendly light bulbs did not require such measures?

  • lowimpakt0

    raf - i pointed out that there are products in people's homes that are toxic - most homes have glass thermometers that have massively higher quantities of mercury in them - these can break?

    why no start a campaign against thermometers?

    why not campaign against people eating fish (as the highest source of ingested mercury) or high-fructose corn syrup?

    i find the whole logic of your conspiracy to be flawed and based on ideology rather than fact/logic.

    from wiki

    Causes

    The consumption of fish is by far the most significant source of ingestion-related mercury exposure in humans, although plants and livestock also contain mercury due to bioaccumulation of mercury from soil, water and atmosphere, and due to biomagnification by ingesting other mercury-containing organisms.[4] Exposure to mercury can occur from breathing contaminated air;[5] from eating foods containing mercury residues from processing, such as can occur with high-fructose corn syrup;[6] from exposure to mercury vapor in mercury amalgam dental restorations;[7] and from improper use or disposal of mercury and mercury-containing objects, for example, after spills of elemental mercury or improper disposal of fluorescent lamps.[8]

    Human-generated sources such as coal plants emit approximately half of atmospheric mercury, with natural sources such as volcanoes responsible for the remainder. An estimated two-thirds of human-generated mercury comes from stationary combustion, mostly of coal. Other important human-generated sources include gold production, non-ferrous metal production, cement production, waste disposal, human crematoria, caustic soda production, pig iron and steel production, mercury production (mostly for batteries), and biomass burning.[9]

    Mercury and many of its chemical compounds, especially organomercury compounds, can also be readily absorbed through direct contact with bare, or in some cases (such as dimethylmercury) insufficiently protected, skin. Mercury and its compounds are commonly used in chemical laboratories, hospitals, dental clinics, and facilities involved in the production of items such as fluorescent light bulbs, batteries, and explosives.[10]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mer…

    • in short - you're not weighing up the risk rationally.lowimpakt
  • eieio0

    OMG THE NAZIS ARE PRETENDING TO BE ENVIRONMENTALISTS ! END IS NIGH !

  • designbot0

    So for all of you folks who think the world is going to end if we don't do something about man made global warming....I am curious what you are all doing to help the situation? You have passion about this subject, obviously...but is that passion actually transitioning into making a difference? You get all uptight when I post Al Gores Carbon footprint information, but the fact is that he is the man who almost single handedly helped bring Global Warming into public awareness. So the fact that he himself does not practice what he preaches says A LOT.

    I fear that many of you here on QBN are no different than Gore. You speak big words on an internet forum but in real life you don't do shit. Words are meaningless without action, and even as a contender of man made global warming I am responsible with the way I live and how I impact the environment. Are you? I am honestly curious. If I knew you in real life and you really stood behind the words you spoke with actions, it would impact me even if we disagreed. I would probably find myself inspired by your actions and willing to follow you based on them alone. It would make words seem pretty meaningless. Nobody is for ruining the earth. But for those of you who are so adamant about this issue, your energy would be better invested in making a difference.

    • is this you backing up your point?lowimpakt
    • yo dbot! when that article came out gore was in the process of installing a number of energy efficient...sigg
    • I feel I am making several good points here...the main being to speak with your actions. Especially in regards to things you are passionate about.designbot
    • products to the home. solar, appliances, windows... robots.sigg
    • Especially in regards to things you are passionate aboutdesignbot
    • hey sigg, I don't doubt it. Seems like a moot point though. The way he speaks he should be living in a grass hut.designbot
    • I dont have a car, take the bus to work, walk most other places. compost, recycle an pay extra to get energy from green sources versus coal plants.DrBombay
    • sources versus coal plants.DrBombay
    • If I could afford it I would trick this joint out solar, but can't swing it right now.DrBombay
    • the stories of the guys selling power back to the grid fascinate me.DrBombay
    • you are making a lot of assumptions to make yourself feel better it seems.spifflink
  • ukit0

    I don't own a car. Is that good enough?;)

    • haha...well hello ukit :) You are on a good start.designbot
    • We have 1 car for my family of 4...which is about as good as it gets here in the urban sprawl :)designbot
  • jimzyk0

    that actor guy from that shit programme got mercury poisoning.
    entourage,
    not sure of his name,
    but he was super infected with mercury after eating fish for over 20 years and no red meat,
    he will explode soon enough and create a massive hole in the ozone layer shaped like the word entourage.

    its true i saw it on the wikipedias.

    • jimzyk watches jonathan wossraf
    • chuwww!
      you must watch woss too!
      jimzyk
  • scarabin0

    *pops in to see what's so goddamned interesting about this thread*

    *finds nothing, leaves*

    • you just expelled .002 microns of carbon in doing that you ass. YOU LOVE POLLUTION DON'T YOU!sigg
    • turn off your computer to curb your carbon footprint, lolGeorgesII
    • yes and stop breathing so much!sigg
    • every time you post on QBN, you kill another polar bear.designbot
  • joeth1

    @designbot
    I agree that we have to back up our words with actions. Change isn't going to happen from just the top down or the bottom up. It has to come from everywhere.

    We also need to put things in perspective. Some people recycle and use a reusable bag and think they're doing good, but really aren't doing shit.

    The bigger things I'm doing...
    -Purchase renewable energy (bills actually went down went I started watching consumption as well)
    - Work from home.
    - Live in a small place near walkable, bike-able, public tranist-able things. Suburbs are car hell.
    - Rarely fly (once or twice a year)
    - Only eat meat about every other day. Almost never beef.
    - Eat mostly local and organic
    - Don't buy anything unless I'm going to get a lot of use out of it for a long time.
    - Support environmental policies and volunteer in the community.

    And a lot of smaller things, some of which can be found on here... http://www.50waystohelp.com/

    I wouldn't expect everyone to do all of these things. I'm passionate about this, but there's a lot of shit I wouldn't do either. Find the things that work for you. Often times you'll find that they save you money and make you healthier/happier, which just makes sense.

    • Btw, it's impossible for anything to be 100% green or sustainable. Still worth trying.joeth
    • +1designbot
    • Would you renounce beer if zombies attacked?GeorgesII
  • ukit0

    I'm definitely not set in stone on this issue (and the reason I don't own a car isn't really because of global warming, although I like to think it helps a little to pollute less).

    What annoys me about this is people on the other side don't seem to care about the facts. I totally realize there are a minority of actual, credible scientists who don't think the global warming over the past 100 years is caused by humans.

    Just like there are a minority arguing an alternative to pretty much any scientific theory. But no one in this thread has posted any of those arguments.

    Instead, you just jump on the first thing you find that agrees with your point of view, no matter how ridiculous it is.

    Then basically saying, well, OK, the majority of scientific organizations in the world say it's true, but, on the other hand, some ex-insurance agent turned meterologist in Oregon says it's not, so it must be 50/50.

    This is a recipe for stupidity and the ability of powerful interests to deceive people by throwing money at a problem. Because it means that cheering on your side has become more important than actually looking at the facts. And if this isn't true, then someone explain to me why almost every single Republican out there, is a global warming denier.

    • well said.joeth
    • I think an important point of all this ukit, is just because someone is skeptical or opposed to man made global warming does not mean that they are against protecting the environment.designbot
    • does not mean that they are against protecting the environment. So in the end, it seems like a moot point.designbot
    • bravoMilan
    • No, they just think money is more important.DrBombay