philologus
Subgenius
Originally posted by darthfoley
I imagine ED and Mr Laughyinthename feel the same way...
Nice one.
-Mr Laughyinthename
Firearms & co... hate or love them?
- Thread starter Tony Manero
- Start date
Nice one.
-Mr Laughyinthename
vincegamer
Active member
So what? Arsenic is a completely natural toxin and I still want nothing to do with it. Extinction is a natural process. Heck, it\'s possibly more common than not (i.e. more species have gone extinct than are living today).
I still don\'t want us to die out.
Odds say we will, no matter what we do. eventually.
It could be from a comet strike, it could be from a disease, it could be from nuclear annihilation, and those are just the things that could happen tommorow.
What if the next evolutionary step comes about, and proves to be a better breeder? Bye, Bye, Homo Sapiens.
I\'d say (and others) that the best chance lay in interplanetary colonization. Getting all of the eggs out of one basket, so to speak.
As for Earth, we adapt or we die out, just like every other species on the planet. That\'s what evolution is all about.
The universe sees us no differently than it saw the Dodo.
I haven\'t heard anybody here saying that we \'re special in any sense of the word....but what was your point in saying that, anyways?
that WAS the point...like any other species, we adapt or die out (although, wut with our suhpeerior thinkin and all, the biological evolution of our species has certainly slowed)
So why such a defeatist attitude? Ho-hum, we\'s all gonna die at some point, so why bother? why not? self-preservation is a pretty basic \"instinct,\" and as evolutionary byproducts, I see no reason why it\'s not reasonable to want to do something about a phenomena that could POTENTIALLY (show me a scientist who\'s crying out that we\'re all gonna die, and human-caused global warming is proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, and I\'ll show you a bad scientist) disrupt the livelihood of our species.
Like munkee said, we can keep on shuffling our feet until it\'s \"proven\" (and of ALL people, you as a scientist, should know that NOTHING is proven in science. Go into math or computer science if you want sheit like that), or we could just start taking reasonable steps towards the cutback of carbon emissions in case there\'s something to human-caused warming. start takin\' some measures to cut back on your footprint. it\'s really not THAT much of an inconvenience, and whether it\'s really a factor in stabilizing the climate or no, it\'s still a healthy excercise.
Peace, bother primate
EDIT: reading back on the thread, there are some misconceptions about \"science\" as a whole. I\'m surprised you\'re not bothering to correct \'em, Mr. Bsc. in Physics. (RESPECT to that, by the way, I couldn\'t handle physics as a degree. What\'d you specialize in?)
I didn\'t specialize. Specialization is the first step to becoming obselete, However, I lean heavily and work with particle physics, and Synchrotron Radiation, but I\'ve become more of an engineer designing, building, and maintaining a Sychrotron Ring.
It\'s not a defeatist attitude at all. I\'m just not sure that it is the right thing to do.
We may move towards greener power that\'s fine, but what then? What if the warming still continues?
Do you tell the billions of people whose taxes you took, the millions whose lives you irrevocably changed, the businesses that have been destroyed by taxes and sanctions, and simply say \"Oops, I guess we were wrong?\"
What if Global Warming continues to the point where people want to turn to science to do something about it?
We can launch solar shades, pump sulpher into the air, all kinds of wild ideas.
Do you really want to risk the only planet we\'ve got, that may be working as intended, to people who can\'t even remember to switch the damn distance from Metric to Imperial on the Mar\'s Lander?
Do you really want that kind of mistake on our planet\'s ecology?
Experiments that work 99.99% in the lab, have much, much higher rates of failure in the field.
So no, I\'m not defeatist, I\'m cautious, because I\'ve seen the results of bad science, time and time again, and I\'d rather see a warmer planet, than one screwed up beyond repair.
And to be honest, I\'m curious as to whether we will adapt, and whether or not the warming will be a boon, like the Medival Warming was.
No Such Agency
New member
Man this thread has gone all kinds of weird since I bailed out. lol
Honestly Dave, I gotta say I totally agree with you here.....say whaa?
I AM an advocate for change, but I totally agree that we shouldn\'t fuck around with our planet\'s biosphere any more than we already have (CFC\'s and suchlike...dare I say excess carbon throwin the whole equilibrium thing outta wack, too
) Like you said, piling more and more \"solutions\" like sulphur on one another is a risky business, and I don\'t think that\'s the way forward, eg. \"we fucked this up with technology, now how can we fix it with technology?\"
Gotta get back to the roots, man.
Why is this problem* here in the first place, and how can we take viable preventative measures to to stop it from occuring again? Relying on the power of science and technology to save us from what WE CAN CHANGE OURSELVES ( ie. emissions) is rather inefficient, and kinda irresponsible, especially with the limited knowledge of the whole that we have. That\'s why the only way I see avoiding any unforeseen environmental consequences is simply cutting BACK on what excess we\'re already adding to the atmosphere, rather than layering on more. Although, of course, there\'s your point that that\'s not entirely viable. Call me naive, but I believe we can still all make personal differences. No matter how big, it\'s good to be aware. Many of the steps to reducing carbon emissions correspond to reducing you r ecological footprint as well, which is a good thing to do as a globally aware citizen either way (whether or not, once again, human-caused global warming is a major concern anyhow)
And as for the big players, corporations and suchlike, it\'s rather complex, and I\'m honestly nowhere close to being up on economics. I believe there is a way, although it would probably call for compromise on their part. Slooow and steady is the key here, I think. Obviously drastic cutbacks could have huge consequences for global economies. Although, we might all live long enough to see if more of the predictions of the global-warming theory hold up later in this century, in which case, it might be too late for anything BUT drastic action.
*for all naysayers, official \"scientific\" terminology goes; we think human caused global warming is a problem. It is our best guess based on what evidence we have available at the current time and could very well change with new data. There are no absolutes in biological/chemical science, that\'s the point. We don\' know nothin\'
Talion
New member
I agree the world is in a continuous state of Flux, but i also firmly believe that Humans are msking the situation a million times worse.
You talk about this happened in the past maybe it\' the wrold natural cycle. Theat utter bull.
Us humans are pumping out millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere the last couple of times this wasn\'t happening.
We are cutting down vast swaythes of foreest the last couple of times this wasn\'t happening either.
None of these things are natural cycle of life. Reducing Co2 emissions, recycling finding more natural ways of creating energy is better for everyone on the long run. Those countries who refuse to do try and help, are blind to the real world. Or are more concerned with the money in their pockets than the planet we live on.
You talk about this happened in the past maybe it\' the wrold natural cycle. Theat utter bull.
Us humans are pumping out millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere the last couple of times this wasn\'t happening.
We are cutting down vast swaythes of foreest the last couple of times this wasn\'t happening either.
None of these things are natural cycle of life. Reducing Co2 emissions, recycling finding more natural ways of creating energy is better for everyone on the long run. Those countries who refuse to do try and help, are blind to the real world. Or are more concerned with the money in their pockets than the planet we live on.
YEP! My thoughts exactly. Don\'t get bent outta shape, just take a breath and do something small to help. If we all did that, it wouldn\'t take long to determine if there was a cause/effect
....
..I was thinking NASA could do their part by launching the leftwing extremists into space.:idea:
If the temperature starts going down, the data would support it was all their fault in the first place.
Originally posted by Rodnik
....
..I was thinking NASA could do their part by launching the leftwing extremists into space.:idea:
If the temperature starts going down, the data would support it was all their fault in the first place.
One could very well say it is their fault. If one believes that CO2 emissions cause Global Warming, then the people you should be angry at are the ones who have been holding up Nuclear Power for decades, the very same people who are screaming for it now.
Which is kinda my whole point.
Those environmentalist groups that fought tooth and nail against nuclear power since the sixties are the same groups that are calling for nuclear power now, the same groups that are pushing the Global Warming cause.
They were wrong then about the safety and cleanliness of nuclear power, and continued to push their agenda, despite the facts. They very well could be wrong now, because they don\'t have all the facts.
vincegamer
Active member
Nuclear has a whole set of different pollution problems.
However, to say it\'s the \"same\" people for it that were against it assumes a) that the same organizations have switched sides and b) that the same people run those organizations.
b is almost certainly not true, and a has yet to be demonstrated.
Even if so, people have been known to change their stand based on new information (current president excepted).
However, to say it\'s the \"same\" people for it that were against it assumes a) that the same organizations have switched sides and b) that the same people run those organizations.
b is almost certainly not true, and a has yet to be demonstrated.
Even if so, people have been known to change their stand based on new information (current president excepted).
Talion
New member
How can you compare technology of the Sixties to now?????? Nuclear power stations are going to be safer now than before, becuase technology has improved 10 fold. In the past it was a new technology now it\'s not.
Thats like saying a Modern car is just as safe as a car made in the sixties. When they\'re a lot safer.
Nuclear power does have the problem of Nuclear waste, once this is sorted then, it\'s the cleanest mass producer of energy
I work with Radiation, trust me, the technology has not come that far in the last 40 years.
As to cars, I\'ll make you a wager. I\'ll drive a 68\' Chevy Impala, when they were still made with steel, and you can drive a 2007 Honda Civic, which seem to be made of aluminum foil. we\'ll drive at 45 mph and have a head on collision. I\'ll wager that I\'ll come out alive and in far better condition than you will.
Orb
procrastinator
Honda Civic Crash tests
Dave....cars today are made with safty in mind......but then you\'ll probably say you refute my comment and that it\'s a left wing site. I have absolutely no idea about the car you drive, except that it probably guzzles gas and cr*ps out more carbon emmisions than a small town (tongue in cheek comment, just in case).
BTW, I\'m a geologist; yes, there have been loads of glacial periods and inter glacials during the \"ice age\" we are in, the temperature fluctuates like no ones business.
We are more than like still in the ice age, it hasn\'t ended.
However, our ability to measure the exact rate of temperature change of these dramatic changes of temperature are not exact enough to say that the rate of change experienced today are comparable.
Bottom line is we can\'t say for certain, but to say what mankind is doing has no effect is foolish and narrow minded. Surely if we can do something then we should? Regardless of old arguments etc. So what if organisations have changed their minds......Governments do all the time.
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
Momentum... the impala is far heavier and because of that it will continue forward while the tiny car will have to be peeled of its grill.
A comparable car or a crash into a tree will of course be safer today, so it doesn\'t advance any point though. Building a car out of steel is not a good idea as you want the car to break to pieces instead of you.
As for nuclear power. I\'m not sure what happens in U.S. But I can\'t mention one environmental group in Sweden that have changed opinion in nuclear power. The general public have switched some though, they can\'t remember the fear that\'s all. There are several ways in which nuclear technology pollutes as vincegamer mentions. In constructing nuclear powerplants they do make thicker walls now...
A comparable car or a crash into a tree will of course be safer today, so it doesn\'t advance any point though. Building a car out of steel is not a good idea as you want the car to break to pieces instead of you.
As for nuclear power. I\'m not sure what happens in U.S. But I can\'t mention one environmental group in Sweden that have changed opinion in nuclear power. The general public have switched some though, they can\'t remember the fear that\'s all. There are several ways in which nuclear technology pollutes as vincegamer mentions. In constructing nuclear powerplants they do make thicker walls now...
philologus
Subgenius
I think trees grow better when they\'re not covered in glacial ice sheets. Isn\'t Co2 tree food. It\'s photosynthesis fuel, which means more oxygen right?
Talion
New member
Your point beinging?
Yes you\'ve got the photosynthesis bit right, but how can the trees take in the Co2 when they\'ve all been cut down.
Hence more Co2 in the atmosphere, hence the destruction of the ozone layer, hence the world warming up = Global warming.
Or are we now going to deny there\'s a hole in the Ozone layer.
Dude, you\'ve got your scientific theories completely messed up and are showing how very little you know.
CFC\'s are being blamed for the hole in the Ozone Layer, not CO2. The earth produces far more CO2 than man does. Although, there are some scientists that believe the hole in the Ozone Layer is a natural recurring phenomenon, that may have been the kick start to evolution on this planet, causing mutation by letting more cosmic radiation through. The problem with the Ozone Hole theory is we do not know when the hole developed, or even if it had been there the whole time, we also do not know whether it was shrinking before we cut down on CFC emissions, it very well may have been self correcting like much of nature is.
CO2 is one of the \"Greenhouse Gases\" which some scientist believe, in abundance will cause a greenhouse effect causing warming.
Just recently scientists found out that living trees give off far more methane than dead trees, against previous theories taught as fact. Methane is a \"Greenhouse Gas\".
So since trees give off more \"greenhouse gases\" alive, rather than dead, one could call for the elimination of all trees to combat global warming. It\'s the same thing as calling for cutting all CO2.
It\'s never that simple.
All the while, most scientist are ignoring how water vapor interacts with the whole theory of Global Warming. Water Vapor is a \"greenhouse gas\" that is 99% created by the earth, and affects the warming most directly through cloud cover, by absorbing heat and reflecting radiation back into space.
A scientist in Sweden has proven that CO2 is one of the building blocks of cloud cover, which in turn helps cool our planet.
