Global Warming

[Freak Out]

Again, why would this generation of humans destroy the oceans that they depend upon for survival? It makes no sense.

Greed. Ignorance. Slovenliness. Not necessarily in that order.

I can see the NYT headlines now: "Slovenliness Destroying Earth's Oceans"

Lol.........GQ would run it.

[red]

It was something I read a long time ago so no, I don't have a link. But I do have these:

http://www.physorg.com/news3694.html

http://timlambert.org/2005/06/pearson-claims-that-undersea-volcanoes-cause-global-warming/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Volcano/

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/665

http://bioresonant.com/news.htm

When you get done reading those contradictory articles on the effects of volcanoes, maybe then you'll get it. I doubt it though. (You do know that search engines return more then two links right? That you have to read more then the first thing you see to get a clearer picture of the truth right?)

Also, if this is the only thing I said that was inaccurate in the face of the other evidence that I have provided then you my friend are a hypocrite, just like every other left wing nut job. You pick one thing out of a pile of evidence and repeat it like a parrot until someone believes you on the whole pile. Face it, you're wrong. Global warming is more than likely a natural phenomenon according to ALL of the contradictory scientific evidence out there.

Why we are on the subject of fact, my analogy with the 20 oz,. glass of water went WAY over your head. Evidently to you, an ice cap with the same volume of ice, whether short, tall, fat or skinny, is somehow a different volume of ice. You went to a public school I bet. I would ask for a refund on that Physics class...

Facts are Facts whether you chose to believe them or not.

Don't let reality interfere with your logic my friend, then what would you have to scare people with?

what the fuck is your problem?

i questioned one of the things you claimed was a fact. and asked for a link so i can read more.

and you thrown a little fit

you go around this entire site and act like a complete fucking asshole about everything to everyone

what the hell is your problem?

i have read what you've given, and i've given sites that condradict those specific ideas. yet you ignorned what i wrote i searched for a little over an hour using a few search engines to find some things that back up your side, and found very little. thats why i asked for links

you yourself are completely unwilling to have a real discussion about this. you just want to have an all out bitch fest like you try to do in every other thread

go to JSO with the rest of the asshole that aren't willing to discuss anything

i won't look at your links, you lose. i tried to be civil and have a decent debate. but you had to act like a complete idiot. you didn't want to talk about anything, you just wanted reason to throw a fit

[Partial]

Merlin's a whiney bitch Red. Simple as that.

[red]

thanks for the backup partial

well i read your 5 articles, and i'm really not sure what the hell you were trying to prove with them

http://www.physorg.com/news3694.html

talks about how two guys researched the Pinatubo eruption, and have said that scientists have to redo their models because they currently think that volcanoes impact temperature for longer then they saw in that eruption

http://timlambert.org/2005/06/pearson-claims-that-undersea-volcanoes-cause-global-warming/

this ones tuff to read because you really can't tell who's saying what, or even what the hell they are trying to prove. this article is just blasting a guy who thinks underwater volcanoes cause global warming. they also say an architect wrote a book on underwater volcanoes doing more damage then humans. to me this one is killing your stance more

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Volcano/

another Pinatubo article talking about how volcanos lower the earths temp for a few years. still nothing about them doing more damage than humans

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/665

this one talks about how we could use made made volcanoes to help slow down the effects of global warming to buy us a few more years

http://bioresonant.com/news.htm

this one is warning us that if we don't do something to fix global warming now, the earths core will overheat and the planet will explode

-----------------

nothing in any of those came anywhere close to proving your "fact" that one volcano pollutes more then everything man has ever done

were you just trying to waste my time with those?

[rdanomly]

The irony doesn't come in until the second page..

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/garden/15snow.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

"As global warming continues to wreak havoc with the weather, snowmakers impose a nostalgic order — albeit one that does nothing to help the situation, since snowmaking runs on electricity (and water, of course, one and a half to six gallons a minute, depending on the size of the machine). Charles Santry, president of Snow Economics, said his Backyard Blizzard Sport machine, which has a 1.5 horsepower engine, can use up to 1,650 watts. A clothes dryer guzzles more power, but snowmaking is certainly not going to win any green awards."

[mraynrand]

Mt. St. Jelens produced almost 1 billion kg of CO2 over a four month non-eruption period. The 'yearly average CO2 emissions' from volcanic activity is a long term average that was a cumulative average obtained by helicopters measuring CO2 levels over/near volcanoes, so it's very limited and subject to large error and I think doesn't really account for major eruptions. I have yet to find a source that can reliably convince me that any of these guys know what any of these massive volcanoes actually emitted as far as CO2 is concerned.

Clearly, the emission of dust, sulfer, and other particles from single eruptions had significant cooling effects (up to 1C for a year). Presumeably settling of particulate matter allowed temperatures to climb back up. CO2 has a residence time of about 100 years but I'm not certain of all the facors that go into that calculation. You have to realize that scientists are making all sorts of assumptions about how much CO2 will be absorbed/converted to solid mass by plants here and in the amazon, absorbed by the oceans, converted to other chemicals, etc.

Any prediction for the future must rely on limited entry variables and cannot account for any unforseen changes in politics (allowing the biliding of nuke plants, for example), technology (e.g. development of cheap fusion, solar, improved efficiencies reducing emissions and increasing gas milage), demographics (e.g. slowing population growth in industrialized nations).

[Kiwon]

Again, why would this generation of humans destroy the oceans that they depend upon for survival? It makes no sense.

Greed. Ignorance. Slovenliness. Not necessarily in that order.

Or maybe misguided environmentalists.........

Tire reef off Florida proves a disaster (AP story)
-- Fort Lauderdale

"A mile offshore from this city's high-rise condos and spring-break bars lie as many as 2 million old tires, strewn across the ocean floor — a white-walled, steel-belted monument to good intentions gone awry.

The tires were unloaded there in 1972 to create an artificial reef that could attract a rich variety of marine life, and to free up space in clogged landfills. But decades later, the idea has proved a huge ecological blunder.

Little sea life has formed on the tires. Some of the tires that were bundled together with nylon and steel have broken loose and are scouring the ocean floor across a swath the size of 31 football fields. Tires are washing up on beaches. Thousands have wedged up against a nearby natural reef, blocking coral growth and devastating marine life.

"The really good idea was to provide habitat for marine critters so we could double or triple marine life in the area. It just didn't work that way," said Ray McAllister, a professor of ocean engineering at Florida Atlantic University who was instrumental in organizing the project. "I look back now and see it was a bad idea."

In fact, similar problems have been reported at tire reefs worldwide.

"They're a constantly killing coral-destruction machine," said William Nuckols, coordinator for Coastal America, a federal group involved in organizing a cleanup effort that includes Broward County biologists, state scientists and Army and Navy salvage divers.

Gov. Charlie Crist's proposed budget includes $2 million to help gather up and remove the tires. The military divers would do their share of the work at no cost to the state by making it part of their training.

A monthlong pilot project is set for June. The full-scale salvage operation is expected to run through 2010 at a cost to the state of about $3.4 million.

McAllister helped put together the ill-fated reef project with the approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He helped raise several thousand dollars (the county also chipped in), organized hundreds of volunteers with boats and barges, and got tires from Goodyear.

Goodyear also donated equipment to bind and compress the tires, and the Goodyear blimp even dropped a gold-painted tire into the ocean in a ceremonial start to the project.

The tire company issued a press release at the time that proclaimed the reef would "provide a haven for fish and other aquatic species," and noted the "excellent properties of scrap tires as reef material."

It was a disappointment, just like other tire reefs created off coastal states and around the world in recent decades.

"We've literally dumped millions of tires in our oceans," said Jack Sobel, an Ocean Conservancy scientist. "I believe that people who were behind the artificial tire reef promotions actually were well-intentioned and thought they were doing the right thing. In hindsight, we now realize that we made a mistake."
(break)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070217/ap_on_sc/tire_reef_blunder&printer=1;_ylt=ApKdBszSySMv9KHRccD4BGNxieAA

.................................................. .....................................

Sorry, guys, good intentions don't cut it or undo the 35 years of damage done by environmentalists to marine life. All these experts, all these volunteers, all these scientific theories were wrong, wrong; that's wrong as in W-R-O-N-G.

But, wait, suddenly everyone is so much smarter this time around in understanding the causes and implications of global warming? Me don't think so.

I respect everyone's opinion, pro or con, and I note that there is scientific support for both sides. But I'm not willing to wreck the world economy on the basis of hysteria, much of which is religiously and politically motivated. Scientists make mistakes all the time because (gasp) they are human.

Now to my pro-GW friends, two simple questions:

1. Do you really believe the world will be a "frying pan" in 9 years (Al Gore's prediction) or that the natural resources of earth will be exhausted by 2050 assuring the death of mankind?

2. If so, how does that belief practically change your life? Please answer honestly. I am interested in your perspective.

[HarveyWallbangers]

(It's not actually falling...more like opening up with giant holes in it....)

That whole hole in the ozone layer theory has been refuted, IMHO, by non-partisan scientists (well, as non-partisan as I could determine). Notice that isn't much of a talking point anymore. Just like Global Cooling.

[MJZiggy]

I was being facetious...

[mraynrand]

Remember when Ted Kennedy tried to start his own tire reef? Problem was he forgot to remove the tires from the car before tossing them in the water.

[Kiwon]

Remember when Ted Kennedy tried to start his own tire reef? Problem was he forgot to remove the tires from the car before tossing them in the water.

Nailed it, mraynrand. High five.

My favorite anti-Ted Kennedy 1980 presidential campaign bumbersticker, "Better Dead than Ted"

[BallHawk]

It'll be interesting to see if the G-8 Summit will have any affect on the US' continued freeze to do little about global warming. Hopefully, people like Blair will be able to convince Bush to do otherwise. I don't forsee it, though. We, as Americans, can be so stubborn sometimes.

[Rastak]

Remember when Ted Kennedy tried to start his own tire reef? Problem was he forgot to remove the tires from the car before tossing them in the water.

Nailed it, mraynrand. High five.

My favorite anti-Ted Kennedy 1980 presidential campaign bumbersticker, "Better Dead than Ted"

Yea, but when he bought that floating car, you have to admit it showed some intelligence.....also the life raft in the trunk....

[Merlin]

Convince Bush? How about the Global Warming lunatics step down off of their high horses and start wearing fig leaves and living out doors, hunting and gathering? I mean really, show me the proof that man had anything to do with climate change? C02 levels? It's a myth, there is no correlation between the "global warming" and man made CO2 levels. In fact, mans contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is less then one half of one percent of the total! AND scientists don't even think CO2 is the issue! EVEN THOSE WHO PREVIOUSLY STATED IT WAS.

Face it, the planet warms and cools on it's own. Trying to control it is ridiculous. Controlling pollution is a great idea but don't go running around saying the sky is falling while you are living indoors, wearing your $100 Nike's driving your bullshit "hybrid" car with all of the fossil fuels it "saves" when in reality it costs a lot of fossil fuel to produce a battery that allows your car to get no better mileage then a car that doesn't have that technology. Better yet, take your $8 a gallon corn based ethanol (you do know corn is subsidized by TAX DOLLARS) and shove the whole cob up your ass.

You friggin liberal tree hugging idiots are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to planet. You couldn't go one day without using something that isn't made from fossil fuels, man made, or harmed the environment. When you can do that, then come talk to me.

[Zool]

Convince Bush? How about the Global Warming lunatics step down off of their high horses and start wearing fig leaves and living out doors, hunting and gathering? I mean really, show me the proof that man had anything to do with climate change? C02 levels? It's a myth, there is no correlation between the "global warming" and man made CO2 levels. In fact, mans contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is less then one half of one percent of the total! AND scientists don't even think CO2 is the issue! EVEN THOSE WHO PREVIOUSLY STATED IT WAS.

Face it, the planet warms and cools on it's own. Trying to control it is ridiculous. Controlling pollution is a great idea but don't go running around saying the sky is falling while you are living indoors, wearing your $100 Nike's driving your bullshit "hybrid" car with all of the fossil fuels it "saves" when in reality it costs a lot of fossil fuel to produce a battery that allows your car to get no better mileage then a car that doesn't have that technology. Better yet, take your $8 a gallon corn based ethanol (you do know corn is subsidized by TAX DOLLARS) and shove the whole cob up your ass.

You friggin liberal tree hugging idiots are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to planet. You couldn't go one day without using something that isn't made from fossil fuels, man made, or harmed the environment. When you can do that, then come talk to me.

Holy crap. Good thing you dont call people names. Someone might get offended.