I admit I am a flat earther.
But have any of you Global Warming believers ever considered where our world would be today if we didn't have oil, natural gas and coal to power the world?
Do you know that a big chunk of the continental United States was covered with ice at some point many many years ago? Long before Al Gore invented the internet I might add.
Do you folks really want to live like Ted Kaczyncski?
I run hills all the time. The Earth is therefor not flat.
You mean Greenland will get as warm as it was in 1000AD when the Vikings could farm there?
Those Vikings must have been driving an awful lot of 4by4s to produce that sort of global warming.
1. The ice sheet in Greenland has nothing to do with recycling.
2. Ice ages and warming ages move in 20,000-30,000 year cycles and have for millions of years. We are in a warming trend. Half of Florida will wind up being underwater in 500 years. And that is OK. In another 20,000 years, America will extend all the way to the continental shelf.
Walt George wrote:
You mean Greenland will get as warm as it was in 1000AD when the Vikings could farm there?
Those Vikings must have been driving an awful lot of 4by4s to produce that sort of global warming.
No. No. No. You've got it all wrong. It was a natural warming trend then. Now it's because of man. Please support my green companies and Obama's higher gas prices.
Okay, smarta*s. So, man has nothing to do with the current warming? Get your head out of your a*s.
Moron Alert wrote:
Yeah, I know. Because the earth, ocean and atmosphere are not made up of chemicals and physicists really have no understanding of processes involved in thermal retention.
wow thanks for the info I guess we don't need to produce any more science majors since any scientist will do
Look, there are morons and there are MORONS. Just going by the first sentence of your post you are clearly one of the latter. Only problem is that the rest of your post gets even worse.
"When your own research appropriates your funding what do you think the answer is going to be?" Yes, the world of science is absolutely filled with conspirators and has no means of error correction.
I've heard the word consensus regarding climate change more than at an occupy wall street rally general assembly. Consensus on inconclusive data is not science. Just look at the recent himalayan glacier data to come out and new data sets that show the earth has been cooling in he last 15 years. The answer has to be AGW or you lose your job.
"ball of fire"??? OMFG!
yeah you know that thing that gives us light. I heard it also provides heat but the UN discounts solar activity for any temperature variances.
"climategate"??? Are you being serious here? You think that a few emails among a few researchers written in bad taste out of tens of millions of emails and tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers among tens of thousands of researchers is evidence of some grand conspiracy?!?
oh yeah just some bad apples that disseminated tampered and wholly fabricated data sets and models that other researchers used along with the UN IPCC
Well, it is quite plain why you would never be able to be a scientist when you think of that as meaningful evidence. Try not letting the bitterness you feel from being rejected by science and math color your perspective of the work being done by those far more capable than yourself.
of course because I disagree with you I must be of below average intelligence and incompetent. Actually I went to school for mechanical engineering and rather enjoy math although my lucrative career path has not followed my degree. My brother is actually a meteorologist who does long term forecasting for the US Navy and he will tell you that even with a masters and 10 years on the job he would not sign on to the IPCC report because he thinks anyone besides a climatologist signing it cheapens and reduces the legitimacy of the report which already has credibility issues.
I would say please try thinking rather than just repeating talking points of those who luxuriate in their ignorance but I suspect that you are not capable.
thanks for the tip but I actually think a lot about the environment and pollution as I'm a vegetarian, recycle and compost 90% of my garbage, drive a small 4cyl car and ride my bike, own a small "green" home and I'm very energy conscious. The icing on the cake I'm not a republican or conservative. U mad bro?
In actual fact thanks to the ice-core samples taken in Greenland, we know that man has little to do with global warming - and the future is very uncertain, whatever man gets up to.
The ice-core samples showed that in the last 100,000 years, the earth climate has been nothing like as stable and tranquil as we have experienced during the last 10,000 years of man’s civilisation.
Even as recent as some 12,000 years ago, the earth began to warm, from yet another cold period - and quite rapidly as well.
But then, abruptly, plunged back into bitter cold for a thousand years or so, know as the Younger Dryas.
At the end of this thousand year onslaught, average temperatures leaped again, by as much as 4 degrees Celsius in twenty years!
The equivalent of exchanging the climate of the Scandinavia to that of the Mediterranean in just two decades.
And some local changes were even more dramatic, changing by as much as 8 degrees in 10 years.
With a global population of 7 billion - we simply couldn’t handle those sorts of temperature variations now.
And the alarming thing is - we have no idea what caused these wild variations and there is no reason why the earth shouldn’t simply revert back to another ice-age at any given time.
Then why care about our carbon emissions at all?
observer of things wrote:
But have any of you Global Warming believers ever considered where our world would be today if we didn't have oil, natural gas and coal to power the world?
Its called Climate Change and its proven. Its the impact of humans on climate change that's controversial.
If cold water negate the effect of the Gulf Stream Western Europe will get a little chilly.
Oh My God!! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!!
Nothing stupider than a bunch of letsrun morons debating science.
We live in a consumption and production society that is driven by fordism. You can consume less, produce less, and certainly earn less, that is the only way to have less emissions. So by all means due your part. Of course, as I have said before, not enough data exist to determine if global warming is occurring.
insider trading wrote:
No Way wrote:You're not totally wrong, but for a few examples:
It takes 4% as much energy to recycle aluminum as it does to make aluminum from ore.
For steel it is 30-40% depending on the type of steel.
Plastic (making new plastic accounts for approx 10% of our oil consumption) is in the 10% range depending on the type.
Yes the trucks that haul those materials pollute, but so do the one hauling the raw materials. The difference is the HUGE energy savings.
Curious if you could cite your stats. I was under the impression that recycling metal was worth it (especially aluminum), but that it was not worth recycling paper or plastic.
To answer a couple of questions, here is an article that compares the energy savings of recycling compared to landfilling many materials:
http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/Energy%20Savings.pdfHere are two articles where I got my stats from:
http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/182/1/Recycling-energy-savings.htmlhttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/recycling/4291576Here is a source that the first article references:
http://www.recyclemetals.org/about_metal_recyclingHere is an EPA article specific to plastic:
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/ghg/f02023.pdfKeep in mind that by recycling, which leads to less energy use and lower use of virgin materials, we're keeping the price of these items down as well as the price of energy.
All of those articles, if you read them, take into the account the cost of transporting and sorting the materials as well.
drunk wrote:
We live in a consumption and production society that is driven by fordism. You can consume less, produce less, and certainly earn less, that is the only way to have less emissions. So by all means due your part. Of course, as I have said before, not enough data exist to determine if global warming is occurring.
Global warming IS occurring. But there isn't enough evidence that it is caused by man. The thing we don't know is whether the current warming trend going to be sustained because possible contributing factors haven't been removed yet. I don't believe a chicken little approach such as "don't you think we should do something?" is credible, however. Mostly because it is so incredibly tied to money and markets who benefit from the change in behavior. That is what makes me suspicious.
A bump for the evening crowd (hopefully you are a bit more sensical). Thank you.
Just don't talk. That should go a great ways! :)
Sorry man, I've killed a couple of these threads by bringing in fact and reason. Here's a bump for you.
gis wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46704609/ns/us_news-environment/#.T19XQfWjlTYHave a care. Thanks.
Honestly, I really don't think anyone gives a f*ck.