andrewk529
New member
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&source=hp&q=warmest decade&aql=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
you should see plenty of articles returned from the query including the nytimes article i mentioned above.
Last edited:
End Earth Hour 2010
- Thread starter Beaun
- Start date
- Status
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&source=hp&q=warmest decade&aql=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
you should see plenty of articles returned from the query including the nytimes article i mentioned above.
heatdissipation
New member
seriously, youre comparing apples to guitars here.
Lateralus
Member
We landed on the moon!!??!
@andrewk529
I wasnt sure if you had one in particular or not. When I hit the "Im feeling lucky" option on google it said something along the lines of it being removed or no longer existing.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid this is the simplest truth on the topic of global warming: It makes a great hot-button issue to rile up voters.
One side spins it as "We've got to save people around the world, now and in future generations, from the consequences of our addiction to fossil fuels and our short-sighted insistence on maintaining the status quo at all costs." Who doesn't want to make the world safe for their children and grandchildren? People come out and vote.
The other side spins it as "We've got to save ourselves, as individuals and as a free society, from destructive over-regulation of industry and meddlesome interference by big government." Who doesn't want to be free? People come out and vote.
Edit: The title of this thread (End Earth Hour) gave me two unlikely ideas for what it might be about:
1) We don't need no stinking Earth hour, let's put an end to this observation; or
2) For one hour, think about ways to end the Earth. The Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, runaway reactions from the Large Hadron Collider, full-scale thermonuclear war. Any of these would be great.
Last edited:
Beaun
It's pronounced Bone
Am I?
I'm simply using your "proof" of googling something to prove a point. Your argument was that there are so many hits on Google for this that your viewoint has to be true. If global warming is fake because there are 2.5M hits on Google, then we must never has landed on the moon because there are even more hits on Google.
heatdissipation
New member
Then google "bigfoot, loch ness monster" .
.
I thought the latest word was that the icecaps have expanded? Does a glass of ice water get more full when the ice melts?
Last edited:
Beaun
It's pronounced Bone
You dont understand what I'm saying and are only proving my point. This post has gone way off of where it started and is not meant to be a discussion of if climate change exists.
The water in the arctic icecap is not in the sea like an ice cube is in a glass of water, it's on land. The analogy would have to be "does a glass of water get more full if you add more water".
It doesn't matter how many Google hits you get when you enter "global warming is real" or "global warming is not real". More Google hits does not make something more true.
I'm still in favor of observing "End of the Earth Hour". I'll huddle under the covers in my bed for an hour and worry about a grey goo nanotech apocalypse.
I'm still in favor of observing "End of the Earth Hour". I'll huddle under the covers in my bed for an hour and worry about a grey goo nanotech apocalypse.
Lateralus
Member
Lol I just watched something on that about a month ago. Pretty interesting stuff.
The icecaps don't reside in the ocean, but on land. The water contained in them is not currently displacing ocean water, but it will once it melts and moves down to the sea. It will raise sea levels. The amount of ice in greenland actually deforms the earths crust, compacting it.
As to proof of climate change (not global warming) simply go to the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/ its scientifically proven, and there's no liberal vs. conservative view point- its multinational.
As to it being a host, or favoring the conservative side, most everything suggested to combat climate change IMHO would have not drastic impact on our lives, and would simply involve people being healthier for themselves and more conscious of the environment.
Well, it has also been scientifically disproven at least as many times. Isnt it a bit pretentious to believe we can effect the temperature of the globe, we dont even occupy 75% of it? The globe has been changing temperatures for billions of years, maybe life would be better for the globe if we could grow bannanas in Canada (how many could be fed then?).
There are plenty of "scientific" reports PROVING that the ice caps are expanding, i.e. more ice less water.
Climate "change" is the new catch phrase when they discovered they couldnt tax us for global warming because it wasnt.
Do I believe less contaminate pollution is better, of course. Is CO2 a contaminate, lol. Not when cows are the biggest offenders.
Really how could anyone in this hobby buy into this? We spend exorbitant amounts of energy running our systems, completely uneccessary. So, if you were not allowed by the government to participate in your hobby anymore, would that effect you drastically?
andrewk529
New member
bigfoot isn't real!?!?
If you saw a picture of me, you would take that back....
candeewolf
New member
I would much rather have "Earth Year" or "Earth Decade" rather than people thinking they've done their part by turning off lights for one hour. Its kinda like a parent letting their kid watch 8 hours of television a day, but one day out of the year they make them go outside and play and think they are doing a good job.
heatdissipation
New member
Thank you, I was beginning to think I was the only one on here that didnt buy into the new catch phrase of climate change.
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
Financial Panth
New member
This concept reminds me of the emails that advocate not buying gas for a day.
I guess it makes people feel better but in reality does nothing.
As for GW being real, I think scientists have a lot to explain before anyone takes it seriously again.
I guess it makes people feel better but in reality does nothing.
As for GW being real, I think scientists have a lot to explain before anyone takes it seriously again.
Beaun
It's pronounced Bone
The not buying gas for a day is silly, because you are going to have to get gas the next day anyways. You cant go back in time and turn your lights on for that hour.
You must be talking about the "scandal" of the "scientists" who forged data. If you were involved in climate change science then you would have already known about this group of people. It was well known that they were political and that their data was suspicious. Also, they were publishing in a journal that most of the climate community had already dismissed as being a terrible "peer review" journal. It only became of interest in the news when the emails were found. It wasnt anything new to the people who are in this field of study, just dosnt make the news till it's a "scandal". This was an extremist group that were more interested in getting a political agenda across than getting to the truth of the science, science and politics almost never mix.
I'd like to amend that to "Science and politics almost never mix well." Politics will co-opt just about anything to drum up votes, from science and architecture to literature and theology. Science works best when it leaves politics to the politicians, but scientists have political affiliations like anyone else, and sometimes individuals cross the line.
andrewk529
New member
since you clearly have zero concept of logical principles, i'll attempt to make one point at the high school level. coal,oil and other hydrocarbons used to be living organisms ( think dinosaurs and extinct plant life). These animals died and over time their bodies decayed. The carbon in the dead animals was derived from our atmosphere( the air you breathe). this is called the "carbon cycle"
the carbon deposits from the dead organisms are sequestered ( you might have to look that big word up). when the carbon that is sequestered by the dead organisms is stored in deposits as oil or coal and is reintroduced into our atmosphere ( driving a gasoline powered car)..we have??? Bing! that's right GLOBAL WARMING. ill explain how carbon directly enhances the heating of the earth with pictures if you still are unable to grasp this simple concept.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
