What are you doing against Global Warming

Dear Token,

What in god's name are you blathering about?

Love,
Whinehurst.

P.S. I am of the mind that all these hardcore environmentalists who are trying so hard to preserve the ecological status quo in the name of Mother Nature don't realize that Mother Nature has no need for ecological status quo. Mother Nature doesn't care if an ecosystem changes or not. Mother Nature's an uncaring bitch who'll kill a few hundred thousand living creatures with a hurricane and not even apologize. Nature's whole deal is to adapt to change.

And just because it might adapt an ecosystem that doesn't support humans, that doesn't mean it'll be a system that doesn't support life. My point is you can't change the fucking environment. You can't. Ever. It's gonna do what it's gonna do weather you like it or not. You can go cry to high heaven about the benefits of recycling pig shit, but in the end it won't do shit.

We are powerless to manipulate this planet. we are at the whim of nature. deal with it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Didn't anyone ever teach you how food gets to the grocery store?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Global Warming is a big crock . That is all I have to say about it.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Regardless of whether or not you "believe in" Global Warming (which is really asking whether or not you believe in SCIENCE), recycling and saving energy and such are all good ideas:

Fossil fuels are a limited resource. No amount of sticking your head in the sand (hur hur) will change that. The fact is there aren't any renewable sources of energy right now that look like they're able to meet the energy demands of our global economy. Conserving energy is just a smart thing to do, in light of that.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by ramoth

Regardless of wether or not you "believe in" Global Warming (which is really asking wether or not you believe in SCIENCE), ...

I beg to differ.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Gechmir

I beg to differ.

Request denied, in adequate information.

C'mon Gech.

How ya doing, buddy?

What do you want me to say? I've already attacked the issue on a fuckload of fronts. It's hardly an argument of believe in science or not. It's an amalgam of politics and science, creating a source for bias in research. I've read journals stating warming is happening and I've seen others that state it is NOT happening, making references to doctored data which was used to fuel the debate on the warming side of the aisle.

I'm sure the next line would be "find me a link to one". Well that ain't gonna happen. They're in the library stacks back at A&M, pertaining to masters and PhD research.

Inadequate information? Hey, I've got an idea -- read the thread =V Or peruse older global warming topics. I've said my piece in those on the science end of things. If you want, I'll start playing the record alllllll over again.

Most amazing jew boots

So I notice there's way too much high-fives going on in this thread. (and Gechmir mostly for himself)

There's nowhere I can't reach.

In the words of Stephen Colbert, "The consumers have spoken, and Global Warming is real." An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, Ann's an idiot, oh no! Am I doing anything about Global Warming? Not aside from wasting breath talking about it on the internets.

Also, in before infraction.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

What do you want me to say? I've already attacked the issue on a fuckload of fronts. It's hardly an argument of believe in science or not. It's an amalgam of politics and science, creating a source for bias in research. I've read journals stating warming is happening and I've seen others that state it is NOT happening, making references to doctored data which was used to fuel the debate on the warming side of the aisle.

I'm sure the next line would be "find me a link to one". Well that ain't gonna happen. They're in the library stacks back at A&M, pertaining to masters and PhD research.

Inadequate information? Hey, I've got an idea -- read the thread =V Or peruse older global warming topics. I've said my piece in those on the science end of things. If you want, I'll start playing the record alllllll over again.

I've got access to libraries that would have that same information. Care to cite some papers?

I'm not saying this to be a dick and challenge you, I'm just curious. And no, I didn't read the thread in depth, you're right. I skimmed over it but didn't see any links or anything, so I assumed it was all just talk.

Seriously though, cite some journals. I'll go look them up. Drop your citations or leave the thread forever.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Global Warming is happening, but I believe humans have little, if anything to do with it. That said, we certainly shouldn't be doing anything more to encourage it, and it's definitely not a bad idea to conserve nonrenewable fuel sources, and research renewable ones.

Just because we aren't responsible for the earth warming up doesn't give us free license to shit all over the environment.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I don't, and i don't think anyone else, want to give the impression that i'm actually trying to shit on the planet. i'm actually all for renewable/ ecofriendly energy sources. I'd be happy to see nuclear power brought back (which is remarkable safe and clean if handled properly), or in lieu of that i'd like to see wind farms start popping up. If i could afford to buy a car i'd get a hybrid or a diesel engine for biofuel.

But i'm for these things not because i want to save the planet, but because they all have that "the-future-is-now" vibe to me. And that's always cool.

Most amazing jew boots

Honestly, I challenge someone to present an argument against energy conservation and researching of renewable energy. Seriously. Try me.

The question of Global Warming is best left to environmental scientists, and all of the literature I've read on the subject (most of it in general textbooks, not papers since that's not my area of expertise) suggests that humans are contributing to changes in our environment, many of which could have detrimental affects to our civilization (rising sea levels are a danger to coastal cities, for example).

FELIPE NO

ramoth, nobody's making an argument against energy conservation and renewable energy. we're not Eco-Villains. We're just saying this doom-and-gloom attitude about the planet withering away if we don't act fast is bullshit.

and if you're going to demand people present solid evidence of their perspective, you gotta ante up first. that's how people make intelligent arguments.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by whinehurst

ramoth, nobody's making an argument against energy conservation and renewable energy. we're not Eco-Villains. We're just saying this doom-and-gloom attitude about the planet withering away if we don't act fast is bullshit.

and if you're going to demand people present solid evidence of their perspective, you gotta ante up first. that's how people make intelligent arguments.

But the "doom & gloom the planet is dying lol" attitude is not even what I'm talking about. Oil is a limited resource -- we only have so much, and we will eventually run out. Taking every step you can to conserve oil and switch to something else just makes sense, and anyone who doesn't see doing that as an urgent priority is vastly short sighted.

It's not the planet that's going to wither away if we fail to act now to reduce our dependence upon oil, it's civilization! As an engineer, this is the only course of action that makes a lick of sense to me. Anything else smacks of irresponsibility.

Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is a fairly widely accepted opinion that global warming and the activities of mankind are linked. I submit the existence of this very thread as evidence of that. If Gechmir is claiming otherwise he needs to ante up, not me.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

So, fair enough ramoth. as i said, i'm all for switching to alternate energy sources; nuclear, wind, puppy dog farts - whatever power companies want to come up with. Thought i don't have much say in what power companies use to make power.

Cutting to the chase, we're talking about cars here (at least that's the first thought on peoples' mind) and as it stands there's not a whole lot that can easily replace gasoline. First you need an alternate energy source that can (inexpensively) completely take it's place. Nothing like that exists. Or if you want to make a fuel out of lollipops and wishful thinking then you gotta have cars that run on it, which no one will buy until people start making lollipop gas, which no one will make until people use it - which is a catch 22.

I have to say labeling this as an "urgent priority" and having people respond in kind will only lead to more short-sighted decisions; you know, kludge fixes and band-aids. Not the long term, efficient, elegant solution we need. And since this global-warming hype has only been around since...El Nino, then we can't expect to see any workable solutions for another several years. Until then, we actually have enough oil.

Also: if it were widely accepted that global warming were linked to mankind's actions, then it wouldn't be a controversial subject. I submit the existence of this very thread as evidence of that.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by whinehurst

Thought i don't have much say in what power companies use to make power.

Actually, I believe in many states you can choose your electricity company and there's usually choices between different kinds generators. I know my school here made us switch to some green power company and we have to pay on average an extra $10 a month to cover the difference for our utilities. =\

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

as far as i am aware, in North Carolina, you get Duke Power. End of story. If there were alternatives, i'd look into it...but i don't think there are.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Oooh, I used to love these threads when they hit the political palace.

I don't believe in global warming. The planet is increasing in temperature, but since humans pollute they cause clouds to form. Clouds cause solar dimming which decreases temperature! SO POLLUTE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN OR WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE VERY HORRIBLY!!

Oh yeah, and the melting of the polar ice caps might not be that big of a deal. The increase in fresh water in the world's oceans might not cause the oceans to rise as much as some scientists forecast. Chemistry 101. Plus, there might be more oil underneath those icebergs! Burn baby, burn!

Originally Posted by ramoth

Honestly, I challenge someone to present an argument against energy conservation and researching of renewable energy. Seriously. Try me.

Too easy.

Until conventional sources of energy are exhausted there will be no spur to make researching or implementing more alternative sources of energy viable.

When the oil production of the US topped out in the late 1970's, and OPEC placed a oil embargo on the US this started a flurry of research into alternatives. Practically all of the alternative energy sources we have are a direct result of these two events.

I'm not too worried about industrial civilization. It'll sort itself out.

Originally Posted by ramoth

But the "doom & gloom the planet is dying lol" attitude is not even what I'm talking about. Oil is a limited resource -- we only have so much, and we will eventually run out. Taking every step you can to conserve oil and switch to something else just makes sense, and anyone who doesn't see doing that as an urgent priority is vastly short sighted.

In the grand scheme of things the individual does not matter. Are you seriously telling me that individuals can save more oil if they're more efficient, as opposed to say if efficiency on a industrialization level was stressed? Where do you think more waste occurs?

I was speaking idiomatically.

ram --
Was on edge last night; somethings went wrong and I was in a pissy mood, so apologies =O What set me off was the way you put it as "ignoring science". It's controversial for a reason, y'know Some are guilty of not researching properly (flaws in the knowledge/logical approach) or in the experiments/research itself is flawed, such as unforeseen variables. In science, logic is always questioned, but typically overwhelmingly correct knowledge is accepted based on fact. The Global Warming spiel going on right now has no solid, concrete proof or fact.

One thing that folks seem not to accept is that temperature is a constantly changing dynamic. If the shoe were on the other foot and we were trending toward cooler weather, another thing would be cooked up to pin on man-kind. Hate to sound like a wacko about this, but as soon as something changes, whether it be the weather or what-not, the first thought is "alright, whose fault is it this time?"

The CO2 theory has a number of flaws in its approach. The primary one? It is focused on Theory, and not actual observation or true science fact. Virtually everything the news has told us about GW is from a computer model, which are incredibly flawed. There are countless things left unaccounted for in these, such as cloud activity (ie: increased? Decreased? Consolidated? Dispersed? etc), sunlight effects are often dumbed down, heat flux, and humidity figures.

BILLIONS of dollars have been thrown in to this research for almost twenty years, yet there is no definitive, concrete proof. A few folks with the wrong ideas speaking quite loudly are misleading the whole debate. Someone coming in to Meteorology as a purist of sorts might've had a prof who told them global warming was the big-bad evil, engineered by CO2 strictly. Well, their eventual research won't be in questioning their professor's logic -- it'd be in further exploration of the field, such as designing a computer model that'll interpret "where we're headed", given the scenario and variables given by the mentor (which is more or less the same thing as picking at a fresh wound).

But enough of that. I guess I'll lob out those journals...

A&M's library cockblocks former students (and nonstudents) quite well from viewing abstracts, etc. online. Instead, I can only see title and author details. So I will use *full* journals/research from elsewhere. Hope there's not a problem with that:

Due to the large number of graphs and less rhetoric/equations, this is probably the clearest one.

Otherwise --
Nyoroo~n

Wrapping it up with a few news articles (not FoxNews or CNN here, folks):
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Other Views
High price for load of hot air | The Courier-Mail
cbs4.com - Wx Expert: People Not To Blame For Global Warming
RIA Novosti - Opinion & analysis - What climate changes does Antarctica predict?

GW is hardly "widely accepted". Maybe in the average person's eyes, yes, but not in the actual scientific field, itself (the most important part), and that's where the fight rages on. And as much as folks refuse to agree, grants are a substantial reason why scientists side with warming being man-made and caused by CO2. See the CBS4 link (People not to blame...) for a direct quote of this from a senior scientist.

But that is some formal evidence I base my stance on. Just laying it out like you wanted, no debating, etc about it asked or required.

On another note, I'm going to pivot and agree with you 100% on something -- I see one benefit to this warming scare: getting us off of oil. It'll get our hands out of a number of beartraps we're stick in. There is a lot of oil left, and technology costs are meeting the price per barrel, but we can't continue with this forever. Even after we've moved away from petroleum as a fuel source, we're going to need to find a means of reproducing plastic *without* petrol. And that'll be ugly in itself.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Watts

In the grand scheme of things the individual does not matter. Are you seriously telling me that individuals can save more oil if they're more efficient, as opposed to say if efficiency on a industrialization level was stressed? Where do you think more waste occurs?

Do you think it matters if you water your lawn during the middle of the day during a drought?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Do you think it matters if you water your lawn during the middle of the day during a drought?

Don't most cities fine landowners that waste water during a drought?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Well, if it doesn't make a difference what the individual does to conserve then why should the city fine them?

Not to mention instances where you're not on city/township water.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Well if you're not on city/township water I suppose it's just your problem now, isn't it?

Of course, I could only assume that Watts isn't arguing that we shouldn't bother conserving resources when experiencing severe shortages of it. (like your drought)

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Just got my basement insulated, gonna get a smartcar once the current one is paied off, and I am not having any children (Don't want any anyway)

Population is the core issue with global warming, I firmly believe that the one-child-policy should be enforced over the world, I know many people will disagree with me on that case but think about it, if the populaion was cut at least in half, we would not be eating up the planet's resouces as fast as we are now.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.