#41  
Old 06-17-2011, 12:33 PM
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-18-2011, 02:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocknblues81 View Post
Ok, if global warming is rapidly happening, how do you propose to fix this? Getting millions and millions to change their ways of living doesn't seem like a likely scenario.

How does that flow with what I said? My statement was that the root of the debate is old technology vs. new technology, and then you asked me about the sky falling.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-18-2011, 04:17 AM
Word, Mr. Postman.. it really doesn't help how many douchebags there are out there suppressing new tech. In a perfect world we'd all probably have pip-boy integrated exoskeletal spacesuits fueled by air or some shit if people weren't such big dick-holes about making money.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-18-2011, 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
How does that flow with what I said? My statement was that the root of the debate is old technology vs. new technology, and then you asked me about the sky falling.
It was a general question even though I understand why you might think it was a direct reply to you.

What is your stance post?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-19-2011, 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocknblues81 View Post
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110614...pphu-container

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...244234.htm?amp

Ladies and Gents, it looks like we're cooling off.

I knew Al Gore was full of shit.lol
It's ManBearPig fault for Global Warming oh wait, Global Cooling
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-19-2011, 12:46 PM
Here is another version of the article originally posted.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...nd-its-climate

Notice that the original article was cherry picked from different sources while this one only seems to be from a discussion with one guy.

Strange. It sort of gives the article a different feel.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-19-2011, 05:50 PM
The program I saw on the Science Channel this week painted a more dismal picture of global warming. Scientists are predicting that greenhouse gases will continue to heat the planet and melt polar caps and by sometime around the late 22nd century, many of our coastal states will be completely underwater.

http://science.discovery.com/stories/week/glaciers.html

To compound to the problem, emission of greenhouse gases has also contributed to the melting of permafrost regions, which contain more than twice the carbon emissions that we currently find in the atmosphere.

http://science.discovery.com/stories...ermafrost.html

Say what you will and make jokes all you want, but the problem is quite real. And it's only getting worse. Plenty of links below talk about this in depth.

http://science.discovery.com/search/...Global+warming
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-21-2011, 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocknblues81 View Post
It was a general question even though I understand why you might think it was a direct reply to you.

What is your stance post?
Whether it appeared to be a direct reply to me or not, it didn't flow with the discussion. To presume it was in some way addressing the last response given is more understandable than thinking it was a random question given without consideration, so thank you for acknowledging that I mistook your intent there.

I'm afraid however, that I cannot give you my more detailed understanding of climate change. This is because I am not confident that you are more interested in knowing what I think about it, and not looking to repeat your agenda.

Good luck to you in your quest!

Your friend in time,
The Postmaster General
DBNR
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-21-2011, 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Whether it appeared to be a direct reply to me or not, it didn't flow with the discussion. To presume it was in some way addressing the last response given is more understandable than thinking it was a random question given without consideration, so thank you for acknowledging that I mistook your intent there.

I'm afraid however, that I cannot give you my more detailed understanding of climate change. This is because I am not confident that you are more interested in knowing what I think about it, and not looking to repeat your agenda.

Good luck to you in your quest!

Your friend in time,
The Postmaster General
DBNR
Didn't I admit to my misinformation? Maybe you should give me a chance before completely writing me off.
I will not take back that I think Gore is a money loving bastard. But that goes for most politicians (right and left) methinks. Although I think the left side has a little more honesty.

While I don't know a lot about science it seems to me that Climatologist and the alike present a much more logical picture. My mistrust of political figures like Al Gore originally made me skeptical of Global Warming. But the evidence does look strong once you look past the obvious politics.

Last edited by rocknblues81; 06-21-2011 at 04:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-21-2011, 05:26 AM
Well, Global Warming occurs naturally, and you can't "fix" those kinds of things really. Though I know what you're getting at, and the obvious solution would have to be for humans to just die off completely. That, or we could all start using clean energy. Thus we live!
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-21-2011, 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Criminal Rock View Post
Well, Global Warming occurs naturally, and you can't "fix" those kinds of things really. Though I know what you're getting at, and the obvious solution would have to be for humans to just die off completely. That, or we could all start using clean energy. Thus we live!
Do you believe it's all natural or do you believe C02 is responsable in a large way?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-21-2011, 09:27 AM
If we were duped into believing global warming is false, I wouldn't care. I'm more interested in seeing people committed to saving the environment than feeling bad (if) that we were all lied to. People in droves are finally starting to think eco-consciously.

That being said, anyone who denies global warming is a Nazi.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-22-2011, 01:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocknblues81 View Post
Didn't I admit to my misinformation? Maybe you should give me a chance before completely writing me off.
I will not take back that I think Gore is a money loving bastard. But that goes for most politicians (right and left) methinks. Although I think the left side has a little more honesty.

While I don't know a lot about science it seems to me that Climatologist and the alike present a much more logical picture. My mistrust of political figures like Al Gore originally made me skeptical of Global Warming. But the evidence does look strong once you look past the obvious politics.
Al Gore kinda created a bandwagon, and whether or not his intentions were well spirited, as with many bandwagons there are those who are quick to jump on a lot of nonsense. They might not understand what is happening and have bad information, but are also on a vocal crusade.

On the other side, you have people arguing like we are impotent beings who are helpless to changes in the environment. Blah. The ice age will come and humans will be dead anyway.

My understanding is that while man may contribute to global climate change, we are not on the same page in regards to whether this events will become significant one, two or a hundred generations from now. There is even support to say that by the time it would happen, humans will be extinct and the process will work toward reversing, a process that alone could take generations to occur, or maybe it will happen instantly.

At the same time, I see no reason to not move in the direction of consumption/production of goods that will lessen the effect on the environment. I'm of the mindset of it ain't broke don't fix it, and there's a lot that can be fixed. Combustion motors are inefficient when compared to other innovations made since (more-or-less) the dawn of thinking man when combustion motors were made along with the wheel and probably designer sunglasses so you could cruise around picking up cavewomen.

There are a lot of other old technologies used that I break down in a similar manner. Along with that, there are more enviro-friendly goods that I don't like, but they are usually very small scale things like packaging - things that are instantly consumed.

I think the push against fighting for better consumption habits doesn't make any sense because at its root is the fight against innovation and technology. The workers should look forward to learning new skills on new machinery. By the time grandpa stopped being scared of computers, he wasted 20 years of long division in accounting, only to find himself seeing the wonders in how to make speedy burger orders.

Companies should be more eager to change models if it means longevity for their name. That's not the motivation by CEOs who want to cash out so their families can buy hamburgers from my grandfather.

Politicians are no different this way around than any other and as a general rule stay straight up with everyone because eventually everyone figures out what they've left out.

Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-22-2011, 03:37 AM
(from TIME)
Quote:
Tuesday, Jun. 21, 2011
A Scary Report Card on the World's Oceans
By Bryan Walsh

Work in environmental journalism for very long and you can eventually become inured to catastrophe. Every ecosystem is on the brink of collapse; every endangered species is just a few steps from extinction; every government decision to authorize an oil well or a coal mine is the one that will push carbon emissions over the edge. The language of environmentalism is the language of scarcity and loss, a constantly repeated message that we cannot continue living the way we are, or else. Sometimes the sheer, relentless doomsaying is enough to make you want to take a long, air-conditioned drive in a nice SUV.

But while news of the Earth's impending doom can sometimes seem exaggerated, there's one environmental disaster that never gets the coverage it really deserves: the state of the oceans. Most people know that wild fisheries are dwindling, and we might know that low-oxygen aquatic dead zones are blooming around the planet's most crowded coasts. But the oceans appear to be undergoing fundamental changes — many of them for the worse — that we can barely understand, in part because we barely understand that vast blue territory that covers 70% of the globe.

That's the conclusion of a surprising new report issued by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), a global panel of marine experts that met earlier this year at Oxford University to examine the latest science on ocean health. That health, they found, is not good. According to the authors, we are "at high risk for entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history." It's not just about overfishing or marine pollution or even climate change. It's all of those destructive factors working cumulatively, and occurring much more rapidly than scientists had expected. "The findings are shocking," said Alex Rogers, the scientific director of IPSO. "We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, our children's and generations beyond that."

What's particularly scary is that while we can be sure we're changing the ocean, it's not so easy to measure the extent of the damage or predict how it will unfold, simply because the observations are harder to make underwater than they are on land. (Human beings have explored just 5% of the total volume of the oceans so far.) It's not just a matter of taking bluefin tuna and other valuable species out of the oceans through industrial fishing. The more worrying changes are happening on a chemical level. The oceans have already absorbed more than 80% of the additional heat added to the climate system, and around 33% of the carbon dioxide we've emitted into the atmosphere. That's slowed down climate change on land, but it's also changing the pH levels of the water in ways that could have a bigger impact on sea life than a thousand factory-fishing boats.

Why is the rate of carbon being absorbed by the oceans so disturbing for marine scientists? Let's put it this way: right now that rate of carbon absorption is far greater than the rate seen some 55 million years ago. That was when the last globally significant extinction of marine species took place, when 50% of some groups of deep-sea animals were wiped out. We can try to restrict fishing, and we can work to protect sensitive coral reefs and other habitats for marine life. But if we can't figure out a way to curb global carbon emissions, we may alter the oceans beyond our ability to heal itself — at least in ways that will support marine life as we know it.

Despite the scary IPSO reports — and scores of others like it that have been published in the past — the oceans seem likely to continue to get less attention than they need and deserve. Maybe that's because we're fundamentally land-based creatures. Anyone can see a clear-cut rainforest and know that something was lost, but on the surface, a living sea and a dead one look much the same. We used to think the oceans were far too vast for mere humans to affect — but we should know that's not the case any longer. The Earth is often tougher than we think, but if we don't do something, we really do risk irrevocably altering the blue in our blue planet.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-22-2011, 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Al Gore kinda created a bandwagon, and whether or not his intentions were well spirited, as with many bandwagons there are those who are quick to jump on a lot of nonsense. They might not understand what is happening and have bad information, but are also on a vocal crusade.

On the other side, you have people arguing like we are impotent beings who are helpless to changes in the environment. Blah. The ice age will come and humans will be dead anyway.

My understanding is that while man may contribute to global climate change, we are not on the same page in regards to whether this events will become significant one, two or a hundred generations from now. There is even support to say that by the time it would happen, humans will be extinct and the process will work toward reversing, a process that alone could take generations to occur, or maybe it will happen instantly.

At the same time, I see no reason to not move in the direction of consumption/production of goods that will lessen the effect on the environment. I'm of the mindset of it ain't broke don't fix it, and there's a lot that can be fixed. Combustion motors are inefficient when compared to other innovations made since (more-or-less) the dawn of thinking man when combustion motors were made along with the wheel and probably designer sunglasses so you could cruise around picking up cavewomen.

There are a lot of other old technologies used that I break down in a similar manner. Along with that, there are more enviro-friendly goods that I don't like, but they are usually very small scale things like packaging - things that are instantly consumed.

I think the push against fighting for better consumption habits doesn't make any sense because at its root is the fight against innovation and technology. The workers should look forward to learning new skills on new machinery. By the time grandpa stopped being scared of computers, he wasted 20 years of long division in accounting, only to find himself seeing the wonders in how to make speedy burger orders.

Companies should be more eager to change models if it means longevity for their name. That's not the motivation by CEOs who want to cash out so their families can buy hamburgers from my grandfather.

Politicians are no different this way around than any other and as a general rule stay straight up with everyone because eventually everyone figures out what they've left out.

So you think it's mostly political wrangling? Environmentalism vs. Oil. It's possible. I've never been into politics myself. Never have. Never voted or backed any politician... But when you start talking about the end of us being near, I obviously start to look more closely. Before, I always looked at politics as wrangling. Notice that I almost never post in the politics section. There has been a reason for that.

From what I gather from the "believers" is that the CO2 gets caught up in the air and works somewhat like a blanket of some sort,and it traps heat and sends it back down toward the ground. I slept during science, so you can correct me if you wish.

From the other side, it seems that they say it's totally harmless and we should eat, drink and be merry and of course use our computers, cars, and cell phones as much as we want/can.

One thing is for sure, liberals are fired up. If I had to classify myself, I'd be more of a liberal at heart... But sometimes liberals can be more passionate and sometimes irrational. Liberals can be forceful, and that doesn't go well with most people. When you talk down to people they almost never listen, and sometimes Liberals can be their own worst enemy because of that. I see some of it happening right now on this very issue. The liberal/environmentalist know everything, and if you don't agree, then you're a clueless idiot. Naturally, this fails to change any viewpoints.

Last edited by rocknblues81; 06-22-2011 at 09:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-22-2011, 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavy Load View Post
It's really no different than conservatives who shove religion down everyone's throat and think science should be ignored, because THEY are the crazy ones.
There is a lot of corruption on both sides. The bottomline for us is that for the most part we just got to get by the best we can in a system built on greed. Really, what happens is both side expose each other, but most people just pick a side. For the most part it works in the concept of us need a good guy vs. the bad guy mentality.

Politics is about money and power and both sides fight over it. As long as there is money there will be greed. Liberals might "mean well" a little bit more, but the greed is clearly there as well. Control is an issue also. Of course Science shouldn't be ignored. But a lot of it needs funding also... When you got millions and billions of bucks going around people get corrupted. It's human nature. Money is security to us.

Last edited by rocknblues81; 06-22-2011 at 08:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-23-2011, 03:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocknblues81 View Post
So you think it's mostly political wrangling? Environmentalism vs. Oil. It's possible. I've never been into politics myself. Never have. Never voted or backed any politician... But when you start talking about the end of us being near, I obviously start to look more closely. Before, I always looked at politics as wrangling. Notice that I almost never post in the politics section. There has been a reason for that.

From what I gather from the "believers" is that the CO2 gets caught up in the air and works somewhat like a blanket of some sort,and it traps heat and sends it back down toward the ground. I slept during science, so you can correct me if you wish.

From the other side, it seems that they say it's totally harmless and we should eat, drink and be merry and of course use our computers, cars, and cell phones as much as we want/can.

One thing is for sure, liberals are fired up. If I had to classify myself, I'd be more of a liberal at heart... But sometimes liberals can be more passionate and sometimes irrational. Liberals can be forceful, and that doesn't go well with most people. When you talk down to people they almost never listen, and sometimes Liberals can be their own worst enemy because of that. I see some of it happening right now on this very issue. The liberal/environmentalist know everything, and if you don't agree, then you're a clueless idiot. Naturally, this fails to change any viewpoints.

I don't know man, are you asking my views on politics in general or what I know about global warming. I'm not digging much into the science, because I can see first-hand the effects of consumption habits. To me, it's instinctive to believe we should make the most sustainable products possible. I don't know if the two sides are as clear as you are making it out to be.

I'm not following the stereotyping on liberals thing so much. Everyone talks down to me.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-23-2011, 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
I don't know man, are you asking my views on politics in general or what I know about global warming. I'm not digging much into the science, because I can see first-hand the effects of consumption habits. To me, it's instinctive to believe we should make the most sustainable products possible. I don't know if the two sides are as clear as you are making it out to be.

I'm not following the stereotyping on liberals thing so much. Everyone talks down to me.
I'm talking about how they relate to each other on the topic of Global Warming. But if you're not really following any the Global Warming stuff then the debate is basically pointless.

Last edited by rocknblues81; 06-23-2011 at 08:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump