|
Post by keyodie on Dec 29, 2008 19:32:08 GMT -5
|
|
Hravan
Journeyman
Life is a Musical
Posts: 106
|
Post by Hravan on Dec 29, 2008 21:35:45 GMT -5
OK, I know the whole thing was written as humour (and I will say I found it hilarious) but I'm going to have to address this point... Ahem.... the reason there is so many cattle around producing said methane is, now let me think here... ah yes! Because humans want to eat them! If we weren't farming them for meat/leather etc then they would not be around producing natural gases! *le gasp* So if everyone stopped eating beef/using leather/whatever else cattle are used for etc (and I'm not suggesting that it happens before anyone jumps on me) then no more cattle would be farmed and therefore no more cattle will be around producing methane. But if people start eating more beef using the logic of Ammy's post, then the demand for beef will go up, so more cattle will be farmed and more will be standing around farting. Yes, you do kill them, but even so while they are alive they're farting whereas if they were never there in the first place said farts wouldn't be produced. AND if people stopped eating beef (or most meat for that matter but mainly beef) then the demand for animal feed will go down. So therefore the destruction of the rain-forests for soya plantations (the majority of which goes to animal feed and vegetable oil) will be vastly reduced. Plus areas of the rain-forests are destroyed for cattle grazing. Oh dammit! Why isn't my sister home?! She keeps making comments whenever I eat tofu/drink soya milk about the destruction of the rain-forests because all us evil veg*ns want soya products. In reality most soya is for animal feed, vegetable oil and vast amounts of non-vegetarian specific things. I swear that at least 2 of out 3 labels I look at, vegetarian or not, have soya in the ingredients. And each time she's said it I've never remembered/never been bothered to tell her the above... Sorry.... got a bit distracted there... LT was right I do go wandery in my posts.. Anywho, I know the whole thing was suppose to be humorous but I had to address that point.... I don't actually know how I feel about global warming at the moment... What gets me is the destruction of the rain-forests and the habits of thousands of species. And then there's the whole other issue of human exploitation.... And I know it's not just cattle and soya that are destroying the rain-forest.. But in terms of global warming, the destruction of the rain-forests does have a huge impact. And it will keep on happening unless the demand for beef raised/soya grown on deforested areas goes down. And how to do that? Tighten up import laws so the source of all beef, imported live cattle and soya has to be declared so companies etc can opt-out of using rain-forest products. BTW: I'm not suggesting that everyone suddenly stops eating meat. Quite frankly I don't care if a person eats meat or not. It's a personal choice As for sources... Most of this is from my memory of articles I was given links to on a veg*n forum but I had to get my account banned as I was spending far to much time on there in the games section when I should have been doing school work so I can't go back and find them. But have just done a very quick google (it's 2:30 AM) and have found these. They're not neutral in the slightest I know, but they do go over a few of the things I mentioned in better detail. www.vsc.org/0902-environment.htm www.treasur.com/rain2.htmwww.saveourearth.co.uk/soe_rainf.php?id=2 - I like this site the best And I've just had a quick nose in my bookmarks and have found the full 408 page UN report into cattle rearing. www.biteglobalwarming.org/PDFs/UNGlobalWarmingReport.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Dec 30, 2008 15:22:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 30, 2008 15:40:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lady Dark Moon on Dec 30, 2008 18:47:39 GMT -5
Global Warming, as defined by wikipedia.org, is “the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation.” Sounds scientific, doesn’t it? Now, what this horribly vague sentence does not tell us is that the increase in Earth’s temperature is a mild and completely normal fluctuation. The Earth is constantly going to fluctuate through rotation, temperature, conditions, every physical property because it is a constantly moving, constantly aging thing. You’re sitting on proof of that - the continent you live on was proven to be part of one big continent however many millions of years ago. In a few years it will be ‘Global Raining’ or ‘Global Zen’ causing havoc everywhere there’s access to a tv or computer. The scientific truth of it is that greenhouse gases cause global warming. Some of these greenhouse gases naturally stem from respiration and volcanic eruptions. However, since the rise of industry, greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon dioxide, have shot up. So has the average surface temperature all over the globe. Coincidence? Decidedly not. Just refer to the graph keyo kindly posted. The recent rise in global temperatures surpasses any other fluctuation that's occurred before the rise of industry. In fact, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, most scientists now believe that global warming is almost certainly caused by humans. If global temperatures continue to rise at this pace, species might not be able to adapt quickly enough. So you're saying that polar bears and countless other organisms threatened by global warming (such as ocean algae, which happen to produce the majority of Earth's oxygen) don't contribute to the ecosystem? Yes, floods and hurricanes will intensify. Is this not cause for concern? You've forgotten to mention droughts in equatorial regions. Global warming could significantly reduce crop yields in countries already struggling to feed its starving populations. Also, higher temperatures benefit microorganisms that spread disease, such as malaria. I'm not sure what your point is here. We kill cows. We breed more cows. And more cows. And build cars and drive cars and work factories and populate the Earth and breathe more and fart more while we're at it. If we're stupid enough to go to war, thus destroying our own species and violating every imaginable law of successful evolution, we're stupid enough to destroy the planet. Let's face it. We suck at being friends with nature. Deforestation, desertification, pollution... you name it, we've done it. Global warming is definitely something we're capable of. EDIT - BD, my stupid computer freezes whenever I try to open your link.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 30, 2008 18:53:10 GMT -5
BD, I took a look at that article, but one thing that I kept noticing is "this year" or "the year 2008".
In any scientific experiment, multiple trials is essential. You cannot draw conclusions from a single trial, you must have a lot of data. You must make calculations. Just like in a scientific experiment, to make the assumption of global cooling, it must take years of observation and data.
I can make two statements: 1. According to years of observation and data, the global average temperature has been increasing. 2. According to data and observation taken from a single year, the global average temperature has been decreasing.
How exactly does this debunk the theory of man-made global warming?
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 31, 2008 1:29:48 GMT -5
I'll do a little research on this, and get more detailed information, couple quick points.
The idea that this is the sharpest rise in history is ludicrous. We've been through at least one major and one minor ice age, both of which ended, which required a sharper rise in temperatures than anything we've seen in the last century. Both of which happened long before industrialization.
As far as Global Warming being something we're capable of, all I have to say is now who is being arrogant? Do you honestly believe that we mere mortals are capable of having that large of an impact on a system so complex, so intricate and so vast as our global environment and climate? Give me a break. Carbon Dioxide has been classified as a green house gas, as has water vapor. Carbon Dioxide is exhaled by every mammal on the planet, and water vapor rises off every body of water on the planet, most especially when it's warm. In other words, greenhouse gases are a natural phenomena.
As for most of the scientists agreeing that global warming is man-made, this has been increasingly proven a falsehood in the past year, as more and more scientists have come forth to debunk the man-made global warming theories, and point out the flaws in the computer models that were used to support the theory. These scientist have included some of the original proponents of global warming.
Second, the idea that we are still in a warming cycle has been debunked, not on the study of one year, but on the study of more than a decade. The temperatures remained stable for about 8 years, and they have been declining for the last two. That is not to say we are in a cooling cycle. Simply that we are no longer in a warming cycle.
We do not suck at being friends with nature. Aside from the fact that we constantly strive for conservation, aside from the fact that our own self-interest and survival instincts require preservation efforts, the simple truth is, we are nature, as much as the tree, the air and the animals.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Dark Moon on Dec 31, 2008 11:54:04 GMT -5
I'll do a little research on this, and get more detailed information, couple quick points. The idea that this is the sharpest rise in history is ludicrous. We've been through at least one major and one minor ice age, both of which ended, which required a sharper rise in temperatures than anything we've seen in the last century. Both of which happened long before industrialization. www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc_fig1.htmlClimate change may be natural, but humans are certainly speeding the process. The cycle worsens. The oceans act only as a carbon sink when temperatures are cool. Industrial era onwards has seen a sharp increase in global temperatures, thus releasing more carbon dioxide from the oceans, which then get trapped in the atmosphere and exacerbate the temperature rise. How many forests have we cleared? How many ecosystems have we polluted? How many organisms have we put at danger of extinction or have already made extinct? Humans are the only species currently undergoing mass exponential growth, and we're the only species capable of environmental manipulation. Eventually the earth will bounce back and hit us in the face, but while we're at it we're certainly doing damage. Are cars and factories natural phenomena? How about the rate that we're combusting fossil fuels? Can you elaborate please? Eight years... two years... a decade isn't very long. Climate fluctuates. We've experienced a general warming trend and a huge increase in the last two centuries. As with any exponentially growing population, we'll peak and run out of food, space, water, then sharply decline and level out. Right now, as with all organisms, our natural instinct is to grow and spread until we can no longer grow and spread. What sets us apart from other organisms is that we manipulate our surroundings too quickly for them to recover in the short run, which leads to consequences in the long run.
|
|
sakaido
Journeyman
Ryuichi+Coffee=Best icon ever.
Posts: 111
|
Post by sakaido on Dec 31, 2008 13:09:50 GMT -5
Hmmm... Global warning is a just a guilt tool to use on stupid people who obviously haven't been noticing the slight increase in weather changes for years. It's just a cycle. It will go up and down, and then up and down again. Oooo, the world is a roller coaster. Penn & Teller made an episode about it for "Bullshit" Here's part of the episode. www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7YG3Bc34hg=]
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 31, 2008 13:33:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Dec 31, 2008 16:08:32 GMT -5
Look y'all,
I do not buy into this global warming is mans fault and we are evil and we will doom the earth unless we reduce our population by 90% and all go back to cave dwelling and burn only low carbon wood chips to warm our tofu BS.
However, you are welcome to believe what you want. Just as I would never let you change my mind about Jesus Christ being my savior, I would not expect me to be able to change your mind on your religion of global warming. All religions require a belief in something even when science can not prove it. Just as science has not been able to prove (or disprove) the existence of God, Big Al and his followers have not been able to prove that A) any climate change is anything other then a natural cycle, or B) Man has been causing the changes. But hay, I will continue to believe in God, you believe in Al. It's Cool.
I actually think that the whole global warming cult is just another attempt to control people, just as gun control is really people control. The same people in many cases who use selective or false data to promote gun control as a good thing and guns as evil are the same people who use selective or false data to promote the idea that humans are basically evil and we are to blame for everything bad. Do none of you find it odd that Big Al wants to fight global warming yet flys around in a privet plain? And that Diane Finestine thinks guns are evil and wants to promote all gun bans, yet she has a CWP and packs heat herself? At least Jesus walked the walk as he talked the talk. Are your saviors elitist or just hypocrites?
And by the way, do we not have more trees here in the US now then in the 1700s? Yes, I think we do. And is the biggest Green House Gas H20? Yes, it is. So like the song says, blame it on the rain.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Dec 31, 2008 16:34:19 GMT -5
Lady Dark moon has also pointed out the one of the differences between humans and the rest of Gods critters is that we manipulate our surroundings too quickly for nature to recover. What she did not say is that another difference is that we as a species can for see that happening and prevent it. And I am not talking about "seeing" global warming, but rather in the way we grow crops to protect the soil, and provide clean drinking water and good sewer systems for millions, along with reclamation systems for those sewer systems. Also, we manipulate nature in a positive way as well. Just as the beaver dam will produce wet lands for new and ever adapting wildlife, humans make artificial reefs, and man made lakes. Have you ever seen a farmers artificial bee hives, a secondary use for those field that feed their cows. It is good for us, (honey) it is good for the bee populations and good fore the flowers and clovers as well. Logging, that evil industry so many liberals want to destroy, insures a healthy tree population, and gets rid of the dead fall and underbrush that causes forest fires to burn so hot and out of control. When a hurrican wiped out so many pine trees in the south, it was the logging industry that cleaned them up, despite Canada threatening to sue for a NAFTA violation! And even in a City like New York, just look at how the pidgin population has thrived, along with some predatory birds such as hawks.
|
|
Hravan
Journeyman
Life is a Musical
Posts: 106
|
Post by Hravan on Dec 31, 2008 16:40:41 GMT -5
Who the hell is "Big Al"?
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Dec 31, 2008 16:51:47 GMT -5
A Hint, Al is a former vice President of the US under Clinton. Now he sells carbon credits.
|
|
Hravan
Journeyman
Life is a Musical
Posts: 106
|
Post by Hravan on Dec 31, 2008 17:01:48 GMT -5
Do you mean Al Gore the guy who ran for president ages ago and lost? What the hell has he got to do with global warming?
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Dec 31, 2008 17:10:12 GMT -5
You are kidding right? This is a dose of my sarcasm back at me right? Al Gore is the biggest promoter of the religion of global warming. He won a Nobel peace prize for spouting his BS. Like the internet, he invented the whole global warming debate. It used to be global cooling, then it was the threat of a global population bomb. Then came Al, and it is all about global warming. How cen you talk about global warming with out a hat tip to Al?
|
|
Hravan
Journeyman
Life is a Musical
Posts: 106
|
Post by Hravan on Dec 31, 2008 17:30:32 GMT -5
The only thing I know about Al Gore is that he ran against Bush for president and he lost. Never heard of him since. "Like the internet, he invented the whole global warming debate" Huh? The one thing I do know is that Al Gore definitely did not invent the Internet. How can he have invented the whole global warming debate? I would have thought that the stuff the scientists started publishing would have started the debate. And if he was really so important then I would have had to quote him in all the essays I've had to write about global warming/climate change (which are two separate things btw) or I would have come across him in the sources I read for said essays but I've never have. He was just the guy who lost the presidential race a few years back. I think it was 2000 but I can't really remember as I was about 9/10. Surprisingly, here in the UK we listen to what the scientists say not what some celebrity says. BTW: Global warming isn't a religion. It's like calling the theory of evolution a religion. Religion = a belief and worship in a higher power. From wikipedia: "A religion is a set of stories, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to an ultimate power or reality" A belief in global warming isn't a religion. Please don't be so pathetic as to refer to it as that. And don't say the word cult....
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 31, 2008 18:13:33 GMT -5
The only thing I know about Al Gore is that he ran against Bush for president and he lost. Never heard of him since. "Like the internet, he invented the whole global warming debate" Huh? The one thing I do know is that Al Gore definitely did not invent the Internet. Actually, we're are in total agreement with you on the whole internet deal. However, Al Gore would beg to differ with you, as he did at one time, claim to have invented the internet. I believe he was part of the teams at one of the colleges that initially created the internet, and therefore felt it was his keen intellect and great academic acheivements that should be credited with the invention. Kidding aside, BD is being a little sarcastic here. Al Gore is a joke amongst most conservatives, and here in the states is one of the most hypocritical promoters of major economic and environmental policy changes the "stop global warming". He is the creator and promoter of the greatest Global Warming scam of the last decade, "An Incovenient Truth," in which doctored photographs of polar bears sitting on an ice flow, which they do quite frequently, are represented as being proof that the polar bears have been endangered by glaciers melting and stranding them in the middle of the ocean. I'm assuming someone failed to mention to him, as well as the millions who bought into that image, that polar bears swim, quite well, and spend a good deal of their lives in the arctic waters. Another lovely bit of cinematic propoganda from that film was the shot of a glacier calving, a sure harbinger of doom to the world. The problem? If was a CGI lifted from the movie The Day After Tomorrow. These, and all the other lies perpetrated in the film are dismissed as mere dramatization because it's important for people to focus on global warming, and the only way to do that is to scare them with exaggerations. Meanwhile, back on the ranch, or the multi-million dollar home in TN, Mr. Gore is one of the largest consumers of energy in the country, he flies his private jets around the world, and dismisses the hypocracy as okay because he's buying carbon credits, from the company he owns and makes money from. And, meanwhile, the policy changes he's peddling will make him a very rich man, above the laws he's seeking to create, while limiting the rest of the masses, which is the intent. Try looking up some research on the other side of the issue. The opposing view point does not get as much media attention, because it doesn't fit the message that humans are a plague on the planet, and should be at least limited, if not obliterated, before we destroy all the pristine wonderful lands that house the rats, gophers and ferrets of the world. There are actually quite a number of scientists who say that man-made global warming is bull-shit, based on faulty computer models that are designed to show a specific outcome rather than any kind of actual projection of what might happen. Actually, both theories you mentioned, the way they are currently taught and followed, fall very neatly into the definition of religion that you quoted there. The ultimate reality being that there is man-made global warming that we can actually control, or that there is nothing more to life on this earth than an accident of molecules coming together. There is no PROOF that either of these things are true. There is simply observations that have been interpreted as such, much of which was subsequently debunked as incorrect as science advanced. And yet, it's stated as fact, until you get into the details (read some of the links Keyodie posted), where it is filled with maybe, possiblys, perhapses, and other such suppositions. This is where science goes off the rails into people making so called facts fit their theories instead of coming up with theories to fit the facts. And what causes most of us less refined folks, who rely on common sense to make our decisions, to question, and even yes ridicule the pontificating intelligentsia who try to cram their liberal positions down our throats based on junk science. A cult is a group of people who follow a leader, or leaders, with blind faith that what they are being told is true, without questioning the foundation of the "facts" they are being given. That fits pretty well too.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Dec 31, 2008 18:26:52 GMT -5
Cult-cult-cult-cult, oh and...cult. I kinda don't like being told what not to do. Now that I got that out of my system, I would respond to Hravan, but Ladytera already beat me to it.
|
|
Hravan
Journeyman
Life is a Musical
Posts: 106
|
Post by Hravan on Dec 31, 2008 18:36:02 GMT -5
Try looking up some research on the other side of the issue. The opposing view point does not get as much media attention, because it doesn't fit the message that humans are a plague on the planet, and should be at least limited, if not obliterated, before we destroy all the pristine wonderful lands that house the rats, gophers and ferrets of the world. There are actually quite a number of scientists who say that man-made global warming is bull-shit, based on faulty computer models that are designed to show a specific outcome rather than any kind of actual projection of what might happen. What I meant (I didn't explain myself properly) is that if a celebrity or high profile person starts preaching at us about the climate etc we tend to ignore them. Actually, the press usually vilifies them. Now if a scientist came out and said something regarding the climate (whether for global warming or against it) we normally give them some time. That's what I meant. And I have looked up the other side mainly because I am on the other side I don't believe that this climate change we're going through is fully down to man. I do think some of what we've done has had an impact, but I do know about all the fluctuations the earth's climate has gone through.... Hell, in the Middle Ages they grew grapes for wine as the climate was a lot warmer (the Romans had tried but failed as it was too cold), then it decline because we entered in a mini ice-age here and then around the 1950s the climate had warmed up enough again so wine producing was revived... (I went into the shop for Europe's most northern vineyard the other day... got a nice load of history from there ) And I'll address the rest of your post tomorrow as it's nearly midnight here so the fireworks will start soon so I need to be with the dogs to calm them down. EIDT: Oh and that internet thing is just stupid. In that case my physics teacher invented the World Wide Web as he met Tim Berners-Lee while at Oxford and has stayed friends ever since... Good gods... I'm liking this Al Gore guy less and less every minute... And about the word "cult" I'm probably over sensitive about it... seeing as I've hours of lectures about how tarot reading, wicca (even though I have no interest in wicca), paganism even working with crystals is a cult....
|
|