Global Warming
- Started
- Last post
- 643 Responses
- _niko1
#1 cause of global warming: coal powered electricity plants.
#2 cars.I don't see any motherfucker that complains about global warming willing to live like a god damned Mennonite so either do something about it or STFU.
Not sure what the global numbers look like but I think we as a planet are taking strides in the right direction. This is Canada's electrical generation sources today and projected:
- all I want is the possibility to club a baby seal before they disappear :(
IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK!!GeorgesIV - not at all we've got plenty here, and there will be millions more once the polar bears are gone :)_niko
- That's what bothers me about smug cunts and electric cars. You're most likely burning coal to power that.ETM
- all I want is the possibility to club a baby seal before they disappear :(
- _niko0
I think people are taking this way too seriously, on both sides, the earth goes through warming and cooling periods naturally, we happened to be responsible for accelerating this current one probably but who gives a fuck? A lot worse has and will happen on its own (and we survived just fine).
We can blame cars or factories in China or farting cows, but I don't see anything being done about it (other than a lot of finger pointing and complaining) nor think there is anything that can be done about it.
- you don't seem to get it mate:
I just want to watch the whole world burnGeorgesIV - are you implying the world is older than 6,000 years?monospaced
- You and your witchcraft. Obama will drone you for spreading facts.Dillinger
- Food will disappear. It's a big deal whether it is human made or natural.freedom
- you don't seem to get it mate:
- _niko0
WTF is happening, temperatures have been getting colder over the past 20 years? what happened to global warming jesus fuck.
- It's the warming that actually brings the extreme and unusual cold.ETM
- When ocean currents get screwed up, everything goes out the window.ETM
- You are seriously retarded if this question is legitimatemarychain
- I like the screen glitchutopian
- dead serious, what's this world coming to when hipsters can't go out for a light jog without braining themselves?_niko
- I, for one, welcome this new, hipster injured world.ETM
- lol_niko
- hotroddy1
How do you explain the exponential rise in temp in last 40 - 60 years??? IT's that natural or b/c of industrialization!
WAKE UP !!!
- EXPONENTIAL?!detritus
- ice caps are melting exponentiallyhotroddy
- bwaaahahhhaaa, more like negligible rise in temp. It's like 2 degrees.monospaced
- Hombre_Lobo1
^also for anyone who suspects that documentary is just shite, it has some world renowned people talking.
the ex-editor of newscientist magazine, a couple of scientists who have received awards (some of which from NASA), some scientists who have worked with nasa,
Also has Piers Corben - English solar physicist who created a radical way to predict the weather in the 1980's, by looking at the sun, measuring sunspots and solar winds. Far more accurate than just looking at atmospheric earth changes.
One nice snippet fact about natural climate fluctuation - Vine street in london was so called vine street because it use to be covered in vines and lush greenery, this was due to the high temperatures found many years ago.
Also in the 1400's the thames river use to freeze over completely, and there was ice fairs, markets and events held on it. It doesn't freeze over today though.
- come on lobo, you're wasting your time, WE ARE AT FAULT, US HUMANS AND WE SHOULD BE PUNISHED /sgeorgesIII
- LOL georgeHombre_Lobo
- GET US!!!moldero
- 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.
- joeth1
350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere.
- 350 is a nice number, clearly not off the top of somebody's head.raf
- Yeah, major scientific organizations all across the globe are going with a number off the top of somebody's head.joeth
- still, wouldn't hurt go 350.akrokdesign
- utopian3
The richest one percent of the global population are responsible for the same amount of carbon emissions as the world's poorest two-thirds, or five billion people, according to an analysis published Sunday by the nonprofit Oxfam International.
While fighting the climate crisis is a shared challenge, not everyone is equally responsible and government policies must be tailored accordingly, Max Lawson, who co-authored the report, told AFP.
"The richer you are, the easier it is to cut both your personal and your investment emissions," he said. "You don't need that third car, or that fourth holiday, or you don't need to be invested in the cement industry."
"Climate Equality: A Planet for the 99%", was based on research compiled by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and it examined the consumption emissions associated with different income groups up to the year 2019.
It was published as world leaders prepare to meet for climate talks at the COP28 summit in Dubai later this month. Fears are growing that limiting long-term warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius could soon be impossible to achieve.
Among the key findings of this study are that the richest one percent globally—77 million people—were responsible for 16 percent of global emissions related to their consumption.
That is the same share as the bottom 66 percent of the global population by income, or 5.11 billion people.
The income threshold for being among the global top one percent was adjusted by country using purchasing power parity—for example in the United States the threshold would be $140,000, whereas the Kenyan equivalent would be about $40,000.
Within country analyses also painted very stark pictures.
For example, in France, the richest one percent emit as much carbon in one year as the poorest 50 percent in 10 years.
Excluding the carbon associated with his investments, Bernard Arnault, the billionaire founder of Louis Vuitton and richest man in France, has a footprint 1,270 times greater than that of the average Frenchman.
The key message, according to Lawson, was that policy actions must be progressive.
"We think that unless governments enact climate policy that is progressive, where you see the people who emit the most being asked to take the biggest sacrifices, then we're never going to get good politics around this," he said.
These measures could include, for example, a tax on flying more than ten times a year, or a tax on non-green investments that is much higher than the tax on green investments.
While the current report focused on carbon linked only to individual consumption, "the personal consumption of the super-rich is dwarfed by emissions resulting from their investments in companies," the report found.
Nor are the wealthy invested in polluting industries at a similar ratio to any given investor—billionaires are twice as likely to be invested in polluting industries than the average for the Standard & Poor 500, previous Oxfam research has shown.
- grafician0
"Ocean waters off Florida topped 100 degrees Fahrenheit (37.8C) for several hours on Monday, potentially setting a new world record with temperatures more commonly associated with hot tubs"
- neverscared0
Gulf stream could collapse as early as 2025, study suggests
The Gulf Stream system could collapse as soon as 2025, a new study suggests. The shutting down of the vital ocean currents, called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc) by scientists, would bring catastrophic climate impacts.
https://www.theguardian.com/envi…
- this is gettin better day by day .. hip hip hooarayyneverscared
- keep taking shorter showers and turning everything off and we'll be fine. It's all our fault otherwiseIanbolton
- a few climate bods are highlighting some errors in the guardian article
https://threadreader…Fax_Benson
- utopian3
The Earth has not experienced anything like it since instrumental measures of air temperatures began in the 1850s, the World Meteorological Organisation revealed last week. "We are in uncharted territory and that is worrying news for the planet," said Professor Christopher Hewitt, the WMO's director of climate services.
- utopian3
The planet probably just had its 2 hottest days ever as scientists grapple with ‘truly unreal meteorology and climate stats for the year’
- Khurram0
to be fair, raf is also a man paranoid about the adding of fluride to our water supply... which is why he only ever drinks malt licquor
- and you are happy to have flouride in your drinking water? If so, you sir, are a fucking moron.set
- Luckily for him there's no water fluoridation in UK as far as I remember. London tap water tastes like shit though:)raf
- fuck you set, twat face. I'm more than happy, it protects my teef.Khurram
- Ah I see, keep on being a moron then son. All the best, Set.set
- Yep, you shouldn't ingest fluoride.Mimio
- Khurram0
raf said: "b. produces unhealthy, unnatural type of light,
c. is only more efficient under certain conditions?"more elaboration on such wild statements, please.
- If you can't even be bothered to do your own research then you are not worthy of any respect in a debateset
- I've heard a lot about CFLs, never that they can be less efficient than incandescent.joeth
- They are more efficient in long intervals, but take more energy when starting up, up to 40 minutes.raf
- ie. in a bathroom: you come in, light on, take a dump, light off – this light bulb took more power than incandescentraf
- set, shhhhh! grown-ups are talking.Khurram
- 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
- lowimpakt0
ok - lets see.
first on the list.... Timothy F.Ball
ex-head of "Friends of Science". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fri…
Friends of Science has been criticized as an Astroturfing organization[4][5] with close links to the oil and gas industry.[6] Their funding sources are unclear; MP John Godfrey said, "Financial links between the petroleum industry and climate change skeptic groups in the United States are well documented... We need more transparency about who is behind this campaign in Canada."[7] They themselves say their "efforts to bring balance to the climate change debate are being restricted because of our lack of funding. We have mostly relied upon the good nature of our members, with some contributions from Charitable Foundations. There has also been some funding from “big oil”. But they seldom smile on us. They appear to believe that marketing is more important than historical climate information...Your support is essential for getting things done! Without it, we will probably have to shut down operations within the year."[8]
Funds do not come directly from industry donors but are instead solicited for the Calgary Foundation, a charitable funds administrator which maintains a policy of not disclosing the identity of donors. The donations are then passed on to the Science Education Fund, an account at the University of Calgary set up by Prof. Barry Cooper. In the final step, the Science Education Fund uses those funds to support the activities of the Friends of Science.[9] Friends of Science does not disclose details of their funding sources, though Cooper has stated that their funds are "not exclusively from the oil and gas industry."
- bliznutty0
global warming blog...
it snowed this past weekend in denver.. loveland ski resort down the road had its earliest opening day in 40 years.. they are still doing coat programs in every major U.S. city for people because its cold in the winter. very fucking cold.. in fact i'm cold now.. why are you guys screamng global warming trying to pick my pocket?
- DrBombay0
I work with this guy that is a stereotypical republican. He brags about the lack of decent fuel mileage his SUV gets. He actually likes pollution. He brags about not sorting his trash, recycling is stupid and a waste of time, etc.
Pretty much anything you can imagine this guy has said.
- Not saying all republicans are like that but this guy is a fucking dick.DrBombay
- but in fact with all of your statements here you ARE saying that all republicans think like that. therefore,sigg
- you lump everyone who doesn't share your viewpoints into that category. because you are simpleminded.sigg
- Your reading skill are way off. READ THE FIRST LINE. he isn't talking about all republicans.akrokdesign
- I just said I didn't think that, tree stump head. Stop trying to start arguments.DrBombay
- from this experience maybe next time just say he's a dick rather than a republican.airey
- his views are what make him a dick.DrBombay
