BF2S Forums Glaciers

The Earth and Sun have a complex interaction, at regular times the Earth and Sun go into cycles of warming and cooling.  This is easily viewable on most climate graphs over the last few hundred thousand years.  Our problem is that, except really early in its life, the Earth has too much greenhouse gas accumulated.

Greenhouse gases add to the warming, so even if the Sun and Earth are on a warming trend, we are compounding the issue by belching all the shit in the air.  Simple fact, we need Hydrogen fuel cells as soon as possible.  We blame industry for our plight but the amount of pollution off our daily commutes is far more than most factories spew out in a day.  And if you believe Jeremy Clarkeson we can blame cows as well.

The worlds biggest threat is the Atlantic conveyor off the coast of Greenland.  I really think we will see an ice age "surge" decimating the EU and western Asia within the next 20 years.

Last edited by ReTox (2008-01-22 09:38:34)

/debate

We have been monitoring temperatures for 150 years, the earth has had an appreciable atmosphere for 3.5 billion years, thats .000004% of history, and we somehow think we have seen it all, and know exactly how it all works...

Tehremos wrote:

ok so there are people against the global warming thing, but doing the things they ask of you actually saves you money, so i see no reason not to

i'm all for 'reduce, reuse, and recycle' but when powerful people start proposing new taxes on virtually all of our activity under the assumption that our activities are inherently damaging and that we each owe something to the commons to recoup, i become concerned because this simply begs for corruption and violates our basic freedoms of enterprise if it is mistakenly applied. the powerful institutions of today built their power on burning fuel. if you let them now declare a moratorium on this, then any group or individual that doesn't already have next generation technology on hand is pretty much not allowed to develop and become independent while the large corporations that gained their wealth with pollution will have all the money to invest in new techs that the whole world could use, but will never be able to buy as their productivity is externally impeded. its kind of sickening how much these so called "environmental policies" actually serve to preserve or perpetuate profound worldwide wealth disparities and the power of specific global organizations like the UN. this is a big part of nuclear non-proliferation. we are meant to see it as protection from nuclear conflict (which would be in almost nobodies interest: enter our fear of "terrorists"), but it serves equally to prevent the third world from obtaining cheap energy and independence from international politics. other than the issue of global warming, the largest issue in environmentalism is land preservation (ie, IMF, WB, and UN buying up the worlds land for "protection").

i think its very sad. i completely identify with the average environmentalist in values, yet few of them realize how at least financially, their movement has been completely bought out by the interests of the banks and multinational corporations that would like our efforts to improve the planet to come in the form of regular payments and the willingness to be displaced.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-01-22 10:57:17)

SenorToenails wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

this is a big part of nuclear non-proliferation. we are meant to see it as protection from nuclear conflict (which would be in almost nobodies interest: enter our fear of "terrorists"), but it serves equally to prevent the third world from obtaining cheap energy and independence from international politics.

Actions are misinterpreted, but the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty does not prohibit the use of nuclear power by other countries.

but it has served to SIGNIFICANTLY impede the development of nuclear programs. u couldnt decide to set up a reactor in your backyard. and i dont refer to the treaty alone but to nuclear politics that have discouraged developing countries from going nuclear. 85% of the nuclear power presently in production is owned by north america and western europe.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-01-22 11:24:07)

Tehremos wrote:

ok so there are people against the global warming thing, but doing the things they ask of you actually saves you money, so i see no reason not to

How do carbon credits save me money?


Why is it that normally green/liberal politicians oppose any new reactors. Why is it that so called liberal champions of the environment fight simple change such as windmill farms if it's in their eye site?

topal63 wrote:

ATG + "global warming" = OMG! = and/or LOL! , double

I am thinking the nature of a man and his inability to understand an issue/phenomenon, is more cyclical & natural than the confused-assumption that the recent anthropogenic global warming trend is cyclical & purely natural.

You make a rather weak kneed attempt to paint me as ignorant.
I see your statement as incredibly arrogant, and par for the course in humans, from a  anthropological point of view, in that you assume your version of truths and understandings are axiomatic while all dissenting views are uninformed or confused.

You sir, sound like an idiot.

Last edited by ATG (2008-01-22 17:30:08)

Okay.

We only contribute a small amount of CO2 - what is it, a couple of percent?

But:

1. CO2, like CFCs, hangs around. It accumulates over time and the amount of crap we've put up in the last 100-200 years... is a lot.
2. It only takes a little bit of a change to fuck the earth's climate. We're not talking a 20 degree increase here. We're talking 2 degree increase, but that's enough to do a fair bit of damage. So a if we get a 5% increase in the amount of trapped infrared, that could mean bad, bad things.

How do carbon credits save me money?


Why is it that normally green/liberal politicians oppose any new reactors. Why is it that so called liberal champions of the environment fight simple change such as windmill farms if it's in their eye site?

Both are very good questions. The second one in paticular. I can understand - but don't agree with - the environmental movement's absolute opposition to nuclear power (which will change), but saying windmill farms are an eyesore? Give me a break, stop whining, and shut the fuck up I say to them.

As to the first one. Carbon credits should not be interpreted as a one-hit-fix to all CO2 problems. In my opinion, BEFORE you go carbon-creditting or offsetting, you do the simple stuff. Stuff like turning off the TV PROPERLY, not leaving it on standby. Turning off lights when you're not in the room. Walking, instead of driving, the 200 metres to the shops to buy a bag of chips. Then you can move onto bigger stuff: Getting energy efficient cars and appliances.

Then, if there's stuff that's unavoidable, like business travelling or something, THEN you go to carbon offsetting if you wish. But you would have already made a substantial difference without it.

ATG wrote:

lol, but...



Look at the historical spikes in temperatures and ice packs.


Up and down like a rollercoaster.

Why?

They have no fricken idea. The only thing they can say for sure is that during NONE of the spikes were there man made engines spewing pollution.


Here is where the green crowd fails in their sales pitch;

Nobody wants a polluted planet. If they stopped the sky-is-falling running about flapping their arms, and concentrated on lowering pollution across the board, and make that their pitch, the populations of the world will get on board.

Al Gore is a ridiculous pos. Whenever he gets going on about carbon credits and whatnot I just want to roll down my car window and chuck my bag of Cheese Doodles on the ground. Just to spite him.

QFT