Global Warming- Correct me if I'm wrong

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

As I understand it:

Yes, it is occurring and likely influenced by mankind.
Alternatively, the effects have been greatly exaggerated with the "hocky stick" graph which extrapolates data that has turned out to be largely incorrect and thus hidden from public view whenever possible (Carbon and heat levels were thought to increase exponentially but in the last ten years, carbon levels have continued to increase while general heat has not).

The entire issue has been used to push political agenda, products and even attempt to create a second (green) energy industry conglomerate circle jerk. Basically "Certain people" weren't cool enough to join the "cool kid's club" that is big oil, so they made their own club, pouring billions of dollars into projects that inevitably fail and laundering the money back into their own hands or affiliated parties.

Not to mention so many of the things they are attempting to push as eco friendly are horrible inefficient and in some cases considerably worse in many aspects. Take for instance, electric cars: The process of extracting and refining the copper, along with the transportation to various construction facilities and finally their disposal a few years down the road is hardly helpful with all the emissions from large scale transportation to the chemicals required for refinement which eventually must be disposed of as well.

The worst and most incriminating element yet is how scientific process has basically been utterly rejected where global warming is considered. IE anyone who dissents, attempts to disprove or otherwise disagrees is shouted down.
Contrary to the very nature of science where the constant exchange of ideas and attempts to improve upon conventional knowledge or revise theories when disproved.

So what did I miss?

siomasm:
As I understand it:

Yes, it is occurring and likely influenced by mankind.
Alternatively, the effects have been greatly exaggerated with the "hocky stick" graph which extrapolates data that has turned out to be largely incorrect and thus hidden from public view whenever possible (Carbon and heat levels were thought to increase exponentially but in the last ten years, carbon levels have continued to increase while general heat has not).

Yes. It is real, and it is influenced by mankind. The preferred term is climate change however, though global warming is close enough since the overall trend is a warming one.

The entire issue has been used to push political agenda, products and even attempt to create a second (green) energy industry conglomerate circle jerk. Basically "Certain people" weren't cool enough to join the "cool kid's club" that is big oil, so they made their own club, pouring billions of dollars into projects that inevitably fail and laundering the money back into their own hands or affiliated parties.

Any issue will be used to push an agenda. This does not invalidate the science.

Not to mention so many of the things they are attempting to push as eco friendly are horrible inefficient and in some cases considerably worse in many aspects. Take for instance, electric cars: The process of extracting and refining the copper, along with the transportation to various construction facilities and finally their disposal a few years down the road is hardly helpful with all the emissions from large scale transportation to the chemicals required for refinement which eventually must be disposed of as well.

Some of that is due to profiteering (from those pushing an agenda as mentioned above). A lot is due to an over-emphasis of getting off of fossil fuels at all costs. A solution is declared "green" without considering the larger picture.

The worst and most incriminating element yet is how scientific process has basically been utterly rejected where global warming is considered. IE anyone who dissents, attempts to disprove or otherwise disagrees is shouted down.
Contrary to the very nature of science where the constant exchange of ideas and attempts to improve upon conventional knowledge or revise theories when disproved.

So what did I miss?

I think you'll find very few legitimate scientists actually questioning climate change. Besides--that is how science works. The peer review process is intended to tear bad papers to shreds. Creationists make the same claim, btw.

But there are scientists defending climate change in the same form creationists defend their own beliefs. Simply shouting down anyone who dares to oppose them without even humoring their own stance. Not to mention a number of incriminating emails supposedly hacked from the source, and their own inconsistencies with project data compared to actual data (Carbon levels and heat levels).

They assumed more carbon = more heat, which has not proven to be the case due to a lack of substantial change in the last few years, as I understand it.

Just a few bits of information.
CO2 levels are still increasing however they have reached around 95% of their maximum absorbtion. However C02 poses another problem it makes water more acidic as it is absorbed by water and becomes H2CO3 to a certain degree.
When this happens fish and other aquatic life die because they can't function within their normal parameters.
Also as the acidic levels rise the risk of mathene deposits leaking from the sand in the seas.
Mathene however has FAR from reached its maximum absorbtion of heat. We keep pumping that out into the air.

Now one of the reasons why we have not seen such an increase in heat is because the sun has not been so active, which can be seen by how many solar spots it has, which have been very few over the last 10 years or so.

An "entirely different" problem is that we do not have umlimited resources, so we have to work as hard as we can to make them last as long as possible.

siomasm:
They assumed more carbon = more heat, which has not proven to be the case due to a lack of substantial change in the last few years, as I understand it.

Not necessarily. The greenhouse effect has more to do with the ozone than carbon. Carbon is the beginning of the greenhouse effect, not the end of it. An excess of carbon in the atmosphere depletes the layer of ozone at the top of the stratosphere (the ozone is made up of 03 molecules which are good at repelling UV rays. The air we breathe is 02, as our lungs cannot process 03). Other molecules which are common in pollution also deplete the ozone, but eliminating carbon emissions is an easy way to make sure the levels of those other molecules are lowered, as well. So it's not "carbon = more heat." It's "carbon = depleted ozone = less protection from UV rays = more heat."

Also, climate change is more than just "the earth is getting hotter." A change in climate screws with weather patterns, which in the short-term will be the kind of changes we will witness. Notice how hurricanes and tornadoes are getting more common and more powerful than they ever have been before? Notice we've had some freakishly warm winters and freakishly cool springs and summers? A change in overall climate could be a contributing factor in this.

A question that's more about the topic at hand here:

What's your point? Alternative energy shouldn't be sought after because you dislike the way people talk about it? Alternative energy should be sought after but discussed differently?

All you seem to be doing is complaining about people without any real clear point. It's like you're trying to dismiss alternative energy by changing the focus from it and onto something which isn't relevant to the situation.

Boris Goodenough:
However C02 poses another problem it makes water more acidic as it is absorbed by water and becomes H2CO3 to a certain degree.
When this happens fish and other aquatic life die because they can't function within their normal parameters.

Can't they just evolve to be able to live in that shit?

Shadowstar38:

Can't they just evolve to be able to live in that shit?

A few will, a lot will die which will lead to unbalance in the food chain, more death and so on and so forth.

Shadowstar38:

Boris Goodenough:
However C02 poses another problem it makes water more acidic as it is absorbed by water and becomes H2CO3 to a certain degree.
When this happens fish and other aquatic life die because they can't function within their normal parameters.

Can't they just evolve to be able to live in that shit?

Yes, but won't they likely die by the masses while that happens? Evolution takes time, and in the meanwhile, we'll have to deal with the consequences. I don't know how much the world is fed by the seas, but I imagine that it's more than could be comfortably slashes all of a sudden.

Lilani:

siomasm:
They assumed more carbon = more heat, which has not proven to be the case due to a lack of substantial change in the last few years, as I understand it.

Not necessarily. The greenhouse effect has more to do with the ozone than carbon. Carbon is the beginning of the greenhouse effect, not the end of it. An excess of carbon in the atmosphere depletes the layer of ozone at the top of the stratosphere (the ozone is made up of 03 molecules which are good at repelling UV rays. The air we breathe is 02, as our lungs cannot process 03). Other molecules which are common in pollution also deplete the ozone, but eliminating carbon emissions is an easy way to make sure the levels of those other molecules are lowered, as well. So it's not "carbon = more heat." It's "carbon = depleted ozone = less protection from UV rays = more heat."

Also, climate change is more than just "the earth is getting hotter." A change in climate screws with weather patterns, which in the short-term will be the kind of changes we will witness. Notice how hurricanes and tornadoes are getting more common and more powerful than they ever have been before? Notice we've had some freakishly warm winters and freakishly cool springs and summers? A change in overall climate could be a contributing factor in this.

Ironically I read another article that claims hurricanes have been less frequent than they have in the past :P
Though it is interesting to see the potential effects on our oceans, I do recall some were considering using a certain type of algae to attempt to counter this, though we understand so little of the ocean ecology we might end up doing more harm than good.

Tell me, where do you get your information on climate change?
Because media often care more about sensationalist headlines than actual science that is where most of the exaggeration is coming from.

I'm no expert on climate change but what i believe what scientists are quite concerned about is how quickly the climate is changing, rather than the fact it is changing at all. The Earth's gone from being covered in icecaps to having none at all. 100,000 years ago the icecaps extended to northern Europe and the Sahara Desert was a habitable savannah and i believe around 20 million years ago it was underwater. The thing is such changes took tens of thousands of years to occur, yet the climate appears to have warmed over the past two centuries at a pace which would usually have taken thousands of years at least.

Usually such rapid changes are due to sudden changes in solar activity but i believe the sun's solar activity currently doesn't appear to correlate with this rapidly warming climate. Which is why scientists point towards human activity as the probable cause of this climate change. We are still coming out of an iceage i believe, so the climate should be warming but no where near as quick as it has been doing in recent centuries.

siomasm:
Ironically I read another article that claims hurricanes have been less frequent than they have in the past :P
Though it is interesting to see the potential effects on our oceans, I do recall some were considering using a certain type of algae to attempt to counter this, though we understand so little of the ocean ecology we might end up doing more harm than good.

IIRC, hurricanes may be more or less frequent overall, but certainly more are hitting the coasts and affecting us, which speaks something of the conditions of specifically costal waters.

Anyway, yes algae is certainly known to affect the temperature of water, but only because a layer of the stuff over the top of water blocks the sunlight to the waters below. This is why it's so dangerous to encourage in water. Many lakes are suffering from algae problems caused by man-made conditions (for example, an abundance of fertilizer washing into certain water sources), because not only does the algae block the sunlight which warms the water for other life to flourish, but also uses up a substantial amount of oxygen in the water, which chokes other life including fish. Unlike other plant-life, algae actually consumes oxygen. The Gulf of Mexico has a few "low-oxygen dead-zones," where certain species of algae have grown out of control and have depleted large areas of oxygen so that no fish or other oxygen-loving marine life can live there.

I would also question the kind of affect algae could have on the conditions of the oceans on a global scale. The amount of ocean that we have access to via shores is minute compared to how much ocean is actually out there. Only 30% of the earth's crust is land, and only a tiny percentage of that actually touches the ocean. The rest is wide-open ocean. It would have to be a strange sort of free-floating, deep-ocean algae if we were going to count on it to have any sort of noticeable effect on all oceans. The effects of algae are disastrous for the coasts they affect, but there is so much ocean out there the global effects would be negligible.

cahtush:
Tell me, where do you get your information on climate change?
Because media often care more about sensationalist headlines than actual science that is where most of the exaggeration is coming from.

Certainly not from them, mostly the interwebs. I try find the things that the media doesn't report on considering it's often more valid or at least controversial and thus generates more skeptical debate around the topic from both sides rather than a single source spouting their own perceptions on the situation.

@Lilani
The use of Algae was more for consuming carbon to reduce greenhouse effects rather than directly cooling. In that regard they have found some strains that would be quite useful in this regard, but would increase acidity of the water and have more profound effects we couldn't predict.

The science strongly suggests that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are causing the earth to increase in temperature, on a global scale. The earth is getting warmer and anyone who says otherwise hasn't looked at the data. Climate models are also constantly being updated to show either increases or decreases in the effects that certain factors have on cooling - scientific opinion is not being quashed and is actually quite fluid. As for 'green' products - yes, some of them are a niche market that are actually worse for the planet. Electric cars only really work if you run it on renewable electricity.

If you have valid evidence that shows global temperature rises are not due to greenhouse gases, and that the environment is not affected at all, please share it. I don't think you'll be able to find it.

Shadowstar38:

Boris Goodenough:
However C02 poses another problem it makes water more acidic as it is absorbed by water and becomes H2CO3 to a certain degree.
When this happens fish and other aquatic life die because they can't function within their normal parameters.

Can't they just evolve to be able to live in that shit?

Depends how fast it happens. It takes multiple generations to evolve. If the water becomes too acidic too fast then no possible mutation of fish can survive. If not a SINGLE variation can survive theres no selection. If you made the water slightly acidic over time so that the mutants could still survive then yes it would evolve. If you make it so no possible mutation in the current generation can save them theres nothing that can be done.

Frankly im inclined to accept gobal climate change is influenced by humans. A simple understanding of the carbon cycle will tell you that if we destroy the things that produce the carbon sinks (trees and rainforests) while simultaneously destroying already existing carbon sinks (Oil pockets) the amount of carbon in the atmosphere will increase and the % concentration of oxygen will thus decrease. Even if this doesnt have an adverse effect on heat the carbon levels in the atmosphere DO affect creatures and have lead to mass extinction events in the past. Its why insects in the past were so huge, the oxygen concentration was high (fun fact insects bred in an oxygen tank become MUCH larger over generations). The lower the oxygen concentration the smaller animals will need to be to survive. If the change is too radical natural selection wont be able to change the population fast enough.

So to be on the safe side i say we explore other energy options.

Esotera:

The science strongly suggests that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are causing the earth to increase in temperature, on a global scale. The earth is getting warmer and anyone who says otherwise hasn't looked at the data. Climate models are also constantly being updated to show either increases or decreases in the effects that certain factors have on cooling - scientific opinion is not being quashed and is actually quite fluid. As for 'green' products - yes, some of them are a niche market that are actually worse for the planet. Electric cars only really work if you run it on renewable electricity.

If you have valid evidence that shows global temperature rises are not due to greenhouse gases, and that the environment is not affected at all, please share it. I don't think you'll be able to find it.

Hey I got graphs too!
Apparently this was hacked (likely released from someone with morals)from climatgate. This is from 2009 mind you, but there's been quite a scandle pertaining to the fudging up (in other words, modifying or simply making up) numbers pertaining to the hockey stick graph.

Does that mean this one is right and yours is wrong? Not necessarily, but consider throwing graphs around means precious little. And no one is debating whether or not humans are effecting climate change, more of the degree and if we could really do anything to stop it within reason.

On the other hand I would love to see any significant advancements in alternate energy, but currently it seems like legitimate attempts at advancement are far and few between those looking to get some green for being "green" or in some cases just straight up being used to launder money via grants to companies that fail and disappear months later.

There's no need to shove out half-baked and largely useless systems which do nothing but get certain people tax-breaks or more gov't funds, or penalize those who refuse to pay out the arse for inefficient and largely pointless technology.

Stop fiddling about with solar and wind and get down to the fusion! I demand a future powered by neon technology things!

siomasm:
So what did I miss?

The part where you ask a question relating to what you wrote.

Mostly correct. It is occurring, it is influenced in some way by human factors, but predictions as to the amount of change in global temperature or sea levels over the immediate future tend to be incorrect. This is because of something called the initial condition uncertainty--where meteorological phenomena can interfere in the short-term with our predictions--because of the scenario uncertainty--where climate models rely on specific assumptions about CO2 levels over the long-term--and finally the structural uncertainty--our understanding of climate systems. I would suggest having a read of Nate Silver's book "The Signal and the Noise" which treats this and other topics that are based on predictions.

I'll try to explain the basics I guess. The capacity of various gases to affect the energy entering and leaving the atmosphere is referred to as radiative forcing. A major fraction of the trapped heat is transferred to the ocean and raises its temperature as well, although the ocean has a large heat capacity. This retention is what makes the earth habitable.

The way factors like wind, clouds, ocean currents and albedo affect the climate system makes it far too complex however to test climate change in a conventional laboratory. Instead scientists use computer simulations and models to test how the earth systems work.

One example I can think of is that winds are caused by air flowing from high pressure to low pressure. The melting of the polar ice caps could result in the "slowing down" of winds as it is, causing dry spells to become droughts, and turning a rainy season into a flooding. Systems like the Jet-stream, the ocean conveyor belt could also be changed or in the worst case scenario for the ocean conveyor belt, completely stopped.

The ocean conveyor belt transports heat around the globe. One of it's functions is that it transports from the tropics to the northern part of the Atlantic ocean, releasing it into the atmosphere and thereby warming Europe and adjacent landmasses by 10C (18F). After which it cools, sinks and flows to the tropics again. The cooling water sequesters some of the C02 from the atmosphere deep into the ocean.
One of the theories is that with freshwater melting off the Greenland ice sheet, the conveyor belt could be weakened or even shut down in a short a period as a decade. This will feed a feedback loop where less Carbon is absorbed, which only further weakens the conveyor belt. Not to mention that Europe and north America will have a sudden decrease in temperature. (Which is why it's called climate change, not global warming).

I don't think there's alot of arguments against anthropogenic climate change. Solar variations, which may account for an increase in the ultraviolet range of light, is only a very small part of the solar spectrum. Across the eleven year solar cycle, it varies less than 0.1% and even during the "ice age" of 1750, solar output climbed no more than 0.12%. It's likely that greenhouses gases wields more influence than the total solar output in driving the last fifty years of warming.

We know the climate of different geologic eras, like the hadean, archaean, proterozoic and et thanks to radiometric dating. While there's a natural variation in climate, it's nothing like the "hockey stick" graph. (Why is it even called controversy?). I did think that the whole "controversy" about this graph was blown out of proportion.

EDIT: Brian Fagan's book on the way climate change has influenced human civilization is interesting. It explains the way the old Egyptian kingdom collapse and how drought destroyed the kingdom of Ur.

Based on the title of this thread, I figured there was an absurdly high chance that many of the responses would be focused on the 'correct me if I'm wrong' part. I'd like to know what the point of the OP is here. He doesn't seem like an outright denier

Shadowstar38:

Boris Goodenough:
However C02 poses another problem it makes water more acidic as it is absorbed by water and becomes H2CO3 to a certain degree.
When this happens fish and other aquatic life die because they can't function within their normal parameters.

Can't they just evolve to be able to live in that shit?

You understand how evolution works right? If we change the climate to a degree over a short period of time to where life isn't supported, then life dies. Evolution isn't a freaking superpower that kicks in for the protagonist right in the nick of time to save the day.

siomasm:
Does that mean this one is right and yours is wrong? Not necessarily, but consider throwing graphs around means precious little. And no one is debating whether or not humans are effecting climate change, more of the degree and if we could really do anything to stop it within reason.

Means little to those that don't understand the data, but that's not the same thing as saying comparing graphs is useless. As for 'if we could really do anything to stop it within reason', I would say that when faced with the chance of making this planet uninhabitable, everything is within reason.

Jux:

You understand how evolution works right?

Judging by the responses I'm getting, not in the slightest.

So, wait... You don't like the idea of a lot of "alternative energies" because they're inefficient?

You realize what they are "alternative" to, right??

The death of the planet.

Kaulen Fuhs:
So, wait... You don't like the idea of a lot of "alternative energies" because they're inefficient?

You realize what they are "alternative" to, right??

The death of the planet.

tbh anyone who supposedly takes on the mantle of a side that contains the internal combustion engine really shouldn't bring up "efficiency"...

We don't need to be as concerned as we are about CO2 emissions. See, there's an incredibly easy solution to the CO2 problem that's being ignored because it's not profitable.

Plants absorb CO2, that's a basic fact. And while people like to go on about deforestation reducing the level of CO2 absorbed and converted into oxygen by plants, they ignore the fact that 70% of the earth's surface is covered in water. Plants, you see, doesn't just mean trees and leafy things like we think of. The world's oceans are teeming with plant life that sequesters huge amounts of carbon dioxide (phytoplankton, algae, ect...). But in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, the water contains very little iron, which is essential to plant life. A series of tests conducted by various scientific groups since the 1980s has proven that dumping iron into the ocean can initiate huge plankton blooms (seen naturally after volcanoes as well, as aerosolized iron particulates fall into the ocean). Many kinds of plankton use the captured carbon to form their "skeletons" of calcium or sodium carbonate. When the blooms die off, these skeletons sink (over geological timescales producing layers of limestone) and essentially leave the carbon they've absorbed in an inert form at the bottom of the sea.

Shadowstar38:

Jux:

You understand how evolution works right?

Judging by the responses I'm getting, not in the slightest.

This is a simplification, but evolution is basically the change in a species' inherited traits from generation to generation. If you change the ecosystem to the point where nothing in the current generation is able to sustain or pass down their genes, you don't get evolution.

Now, will the world end if we keep fucking it up? No, the world will probably end when the sun turns into a red giant and incinerates everything. Until that point, bacteria, at the very least, will survive despite how badly we screw things up, so life will go on.

But that doesn't mean we'll survive as a species. How is this all connected to climate change? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming This is a pretty good summary.

Specifically relating to acidification of water:

Acidification of the oceans. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water by reacting to make H2CO3 - carbonic acid, causing great damage to fish stocks and coral reefs. Note this is not a consequence of warming: it is a consequence of the forcing agent, CO2. To make matters worse, this acidification appears to have been an important factor in the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event - the most severe extinction Earth has ever known - and possibly every extinction other than the Cretaceous.[14]

So your thesis is that climate change is a myth orchestrated by a shadow cabal of rogue scientists funded by bitter energy investors attempting to dupe taxpayers into propping up failed energy ventures.

Seems legit.

Edit --sorry captcha error--

whoops wrong place

Lilani:

siomasm:
Ironically I read another article that claims hurricanes have been less frequent than they have in the past :P
Though it is interesting to see the potential effects on our oceans, I do recall some were considering using a certain type of algae to attempt to counter this, though we understand so little of the ocean ecology we might end up doing more harm than good.

IIRC, hurricanes may be more or less frequent overall, but certainly more are hitting the coasts and affecting us, which speaks something of the conditions of specifically costal waters.

Anyway, yes algae is certainly known to affect the temperature of water, but only because a layer of the stuff over the top of water blocks the sunlight to the waters below. This is why it's so dangerous to encourage in water. Many lakes are suffering from algae problems caused by man-made conditions (for example, an abundance of fertilizer washing into certain water sources), because not only does the algae block the sunlight which warms the water for other life to flourish, but also uses up a substantial amount of oxygen in the water, which chokes other life including fish. Unlike other plant-life, algae actually consumes oxygen. The Gulf of Mexico has a few "low-oxygen dead-zones," where certain species of algae have grown out of control and have depleted large areas of oxygen so that no fish or other oxygen-loving marine life can live there.

I would also question the kind of affect algae could have on the conditions of the oceans on a global scale. The amount of ocean that we have access to via shores is minute compared to how much ocean is actually out there. Only 30% of the earth's crust is land, and only a tiny percentage of that actually touches the ocean. The rest is wide-open ocean. It would have to be a strange sort of free-floating, deep-ocean algae if we were going to count on it to have any sort of noticeable effect on all oceans. The effects of algae are disastrous for the coasts they affect, but there is so much ocean out there the global effects would be negligible.

This is a common misconception. Anthropogenic climate change is mostly due to the increased absorption of infrared energy, not UV, into the atmosphere. Ozone depletion is, for the most part, a separate problem from climate change. In fact, if UV is allowed to pass through the stratosphere instead of being absorbed by ozone, then the energy (and thus heat) absorbed by the atmosphere is lessened. It is the heat content of the atmosphere and oceans that determines most of the changes in climate.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what-does-ozone-hole-have-do-climate-change

OT: As for those hacked emails, there were two main parts to that controversy: One, that there was a discussion of manipulating the data that was spun as an attempt to deceive, and two, that the dissenting opinion of another scientist was dismissed with a fair amount of ridicule, which was spun as ostracism of hypotheses that conflict with the current consensus.

For the first part, I can tell you as a scientist that any dataset can be presented in a nearly infinite number of ways, and that how you present the data will make the difference between it communicating useful information or communicating nothing. There are also statistical procedures for converting datasets from their raw form into a modified set that is more informative than the raw data. Some of the simplest include things like filtering and smoothing, which removes minor variations from chaotic sources in order to emphasize the larger-scale patterns. Film-grain removal for photographs is a visual version of this process. In fact, Adobe Photoshop's Gaussian Blur and High Pass filters are exactly the same as some of the most common data filters, just in a visual medium. In the natural sciences, especially in ones as chaotic as meteorology and climatology, there are very few datasets that are best presented in raw form. Some show no useful information at all without some form of statistical analysis. Anyone training to be a scientist will take many classes that deal with this subject, but to the layperson it is easy to make this look like deceptive massaging of the data.

As for the second part, many scientists have little patience for people who do shoddy or dishonest work; it wastes time and when it gets into the news, it causes the credibility of all scientists to suffer. This is why academic dishonesty is punished so severely in academia whereas in other disciplines, such as business or politics, the same behavior is expected or even encouraged. The disdain you see in those emails is the privately (or so the authors thought) expressed contempt for a scientist who's work had been repeatedly discredited. The person in question was making requests that the authors felt would only consume time and resources that the authors didn't have, without producing any meaningful results at best and producing intentionally misleading information at worst. While this is not a thing to be done lightly, the person in question had done a poor enough job in the past that the authors' actions or inaction concerning him were warranted, and their tone appropriate considering the private context that it was supposed to remain in.

Shadowstar38:
Can't they just evolve to be able to live in that shit?

That would be like asking us to just evolve and deal with a daily dose of arsenic.

The real issue with the whole climate change debate is what to do about it, assuming climate change is due to humans. The solutions are mostly terrible. That's the problem. The scientific argument should be left to the scientists. The "solutions" debate is what I care more about. A lot of people like Al Gore and Obama don't like to talk about the solutions they want. Because they know most people will spit in their face for even suggesting them.

psijac:
Zimmerman was on the phone with the police. Because you only get the audio people fill in with their own imagination what happened. It breaks against Zimmerman if you are sensitive to races issues. Trayvon however never called the police so you get to project onto him complete innocents, despite his dealings in drugs and burglary and suspension from school for fighing

look at 1:30
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-9-2012/the-splice-channel

I think you're in the wrong thread.

Kaulen Fuhs:
So, wait... You don't like the idea of a lot of "alternative energies" because they're inefficient?

You realize what they are "alternative" to, right??

Things that currently have been shown to be feasible.

Sticking the label "alternative" in front of something does not mean it's better for the environment, nor does something not having that label mean it's environmentally unfriendly.

thaluikhain:

Sticking the label "alternative" in front of something does not mean it's better for the environment, nor does something not having that label mean it's environmentally unfriendly.

Not inherently, no, but is that not often the case? Burning of fossil fuels, and all the destruction that goes into obtaining them, and whatnot?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked