|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
Polluters use the untenable global warming argument to shelf every environmental damage. Emission reduction having a negligible effect (even geologically) is by no account an excuse to continue as normal when the same practices that produce those emissions are still destroying other parts of the environment.
It's like a tug-of-war of the same political package. Environmentalists want the global warming issue to stop all pollution and polluters want the possibility of ineffectuality to keep lucrative practices intact. (This may have already been stated, but some of you occasionally have a case of the Tl;drs.) There's nowhere I can't reach.
LlooooydGEEEOOORGE
|
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
Ghost |
Where are all these criticisms coming from? The only ones I ever hear are from Crichton, that guy who typed 700% instead of 70% for icecap mass, and I guess Rush Limbaugh counts ("somehow we're warming up the ice caps even though our cars and smokestacks are here in America, hah-hah").
Someone's got link me up on the doubters news train, yo.
Could you explain the negative feedbacks? Most of what I've heard has been positive feedbacks. Which are "supposedly" what scare the scientists shitless.
etc. etc. until you weep for the baby owls or something.
...But I agree that Kyoto is bullshit
Bush was completely right to ditch Kyoto, unfortunately. No one is going to cut their air travel, which alone is almost enough to "fuck the planet" (if the enviros are right). The only reason part of Europe even got a good start was because they (stupidly) started building natural gas plants. They stopped doing it, so they're screwed. The other countries are even worse off. Enjoy paying "we failed, we suck" money to a stupid treaty instead of investing it in research or efficiency, suckers! What's that money going to go towards anyway? Most amazing jew boots |
I was speaking idiomatically. |
It's not saying that it isn't a bad thing, but I do believe there are more important things to worry about than Unnamed Bug being able to stick around.
Again, the biggest problem of warming is that people chose to live by the oceans because you can't move, you know, skyscrapers. And if humans never touched the air, the Earth would heat up naturally at some point. Maybe we accelerated it early. But the natural time for it would have come around eventually and we'd still be fucked. I'm not sure why you think that farmers are going to be in such trouble. Genetically-modifed crops can be (and not necessarily now, but soon) made to live in all kinds of climates. And if it becomes economically infeasable to grow, I dunno, bananas, then we'll start eating other, more adaptable fruits. Are you saying if the Earth heats up, there will be no crops which will be around? None that can adapt? Not to mention that people in Africa are starving now. Are you not worried about people eating now? You only care about crops when it might come close (yeah, right) to actually affecting you? So, you're not really worried about global warming, but local warming. See, this is the environmental lobby's problem: people like you. It's not as extreme as you say; calls of hellfire and brimstone is what led average Americans to not give any shit until very, very recently. It's not as extreme as the people who are crying for no change say; humans can and do need to act better. There needs to be a happy balance, so caving into this notion of fear of the world ending is incredibly dangerous. And the squeakiest wheel gets the grease: there are a fuckload more problems a lot more pressing than global warming, yet somehow people act like someone is raping their child. I didn't think much of Michael Crichton's book because I don't like being preached to and I just don't think it is good to only show one side of science. But the whole "state of fear" thing is real and, you, my friend, have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
and Brandy does her best to understand
Last edited by BlueMikey; May 7, 2006 at 12:58 AM.
|
For another keep-in-check mechanism, read up on CaCO3 production by Plankton (Foraminifera). I'd rather not copy and paste a lengthy glob on it =p As for plants, they can adapt to temperature change quickly. If not, mankind can always step in and do a little genetic work. But that's an extreme. Warming and Cooling trends have wiped dozens of species off the map before. They can adapt to very severe spikes. As shown in my earlier diagram, some temperature booms were very sharp. I could name a few more, but that's all I could toss out on the top of my head. There are many more, but that'd require a run on Google. And I'd rather not =I And I believe you mean plants which release O2. But I'm sure that's just a typo =o I weep for the owls ;_; I must go chain myself to an owl sanctuary. NOW. FELIPE NO
Hey, maybe you should try that thing Chie was talking about.
|
Plants can aspire CO2, and their decay also releases carbon in various forms. I think that's what Unfortunate meant.
Vegetation sequestering is one of the largest sinks of carbon as are producers of carbonates. The effect and scale to which they can offset the increasing output of carbon in the atmosphere is still under investigation. Still, people need to approach this issue with a clear head and not be swayed by those who wish to manipulate you emotionally, whether it is the doomsday prophets or the people who think it is inconsequential. If one is steered by either complacency or panic, nothing good will come out of it. It would be interesting to see what GFF thinks of Peak Oil. I wonder if a thread should be made for that. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
I lean more towards the alarmis state of mind myself, but it is interesting to hear soem of these arguments people are making. What's frustrating is that everyone seems to be acknowledging the problem to one degree or another, but to the best of my knowledge no efforts are being made to research alternatives. Alternative fuels, yes, but not alternative combustion engines, for instance. Funding is being spent on reduction instead of on ideas for prevention/human accommodation. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Maybe we need a new thread on the topic. It was quite a good read =) How ya doing, buddy?
Hey, maybe you should try that thing Chie was talking about.
|
I know Al Gore is not a fearmonger. From what I read, he is on the mindset of for there to be any reliable and workable solutions to solving any environmental problems, there must be an economic reason for doing so, which is a point we're getting to. For example, enough research has been done by companies now that they know they can save money finding ways to create less waste, as disposing of waste is becoming increasingly expensive. And that is kind of the problem. I wish technology was advancing faster, but how much money has GM poured into trying to get hydrogen fuel cells to work (maybe as much in advertising as in actual R&D, but still)? I heard on NPR Friday that most experts think we are still 20 years away from having reliable fuel cells on the road, and that is after a good solid 10 years of working at it. Edit: I just watched the trailer for the Al Gore movie. It does seem to use fear as the major motivator, which I don't appreciate, but from what I hear of the film, that isn't the case at all. How ya doing, buddy?
and Brandy does her best to understand
Last edited by BlueMikey; May 7, 2006 at 01:08 PM.
|
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Just so you know, "derivative hydrocarbon based substances" ARE organic. Organic means anything made of carbon.
The only difference between "organic" fertilizer (shit) and "artificial" fertilizer is their effectiveness. Fertilizers are generally composed of 3 main elements (correct me if I'm wrong), and they include nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. None of these is organic (because they're not CARBON), but they are all definitely the same fertilizer. Essentially, man-made fertilizers are the same as the manures used in chemical composition, only more effective (considering that farmers are able to feed a good portion of the world, this isn't a long-shot). Go Fritz Haber! Next, some could argue that the main reason pesticides are "bad" is because insects can develop resistances. Silent Spring and all that is an argument for another day, though. By the way, I speak of organic strictly from the chemist's point of view. The other definitions you might find are derived colloquialisms to me. In terms of that...hey! You want something that's organic AND all-natural and low in fat? Potassium Cyanide! So, remember, without fertilizer we'd pretty much be up a shit-creek. Manure is effective, but not on a grand scale (look how much more expensive organic food is, when all food is organic). Not all additives are out to kill you (and many many carcinogenic substances are only so in HUGE amounts), and Fritz Haber saved us all from Malthusian wastelands! Then he weaponized poison gas How ya doing, buddy?
Returned
|
This probably belongs in a Peak-Oil or a permaculture related discussion, but one glaring difference is how sustainable our current farming infrastructure is given the rising of energy prices. If it isn't sustainable in such an environment, it does not matter how much more effective it is. It will just be more expensive. If people cannot afford it, they'll just starve. They're better off growing their own food. So it's not necessarily the better option when speaking from that aspect eh? Since natural gas is a major component in the production of our fertilizers/herbicides/pesticides. Yet another nonrenewable hydrocarbon resource which we only have so much of.
I'm not the one that said that there would be a famine if we had to grow our food organically.... I just questioned the sustainability of our current food growing paradigm in the face of rising energy costs. Which is in no way related...... right?
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Well, his contribution to science far outweighs his contribution to human death
By the way...potassium is also inorganic. All fertilizer is basically inorganic since they're not really made of carbon. The fertilizer that is chemically manufactured is the exact same nitrate and phosphate (etc) that comes from biological sources Last note on chemistry, if it's carbon-containing, it's organic. If it has no carbon, it's inorganic. Both are devastatingly important to life sustenance, and fertilizer, no matter where you get it, is inorganic. Honestly, given your point about famine, it seems like a lose-lose situation if peak oil should strike us suddenly (which is somewhat absurd). We could no longer transport the industrial fertilizer and big farm-grown food to everybody. And people still would not have enough land to grow their own food. Famine would probably erupt either way...but it is nice to note that making nitrogen-based fertilizer, in my understanding, takes no hydrocarbon fuel aside from that it requires through heating. So we could find an alternate mode of transportation to get food and fertilizer to and fro. Of course, that disregards the need for fuels for machinery and all that, but I'm a student of chemistry! I don't think on the grand scale! Hope I enlightened! FELIPE NO
Returned
|
But what I meant in that post was that Whitecrab had a real penchant for discussing the topic. Didn't mean it like "he's a fan of that theory" =p Hubbert's Point was for the US and predicted peak oil accurately. It was distributed to a worldwide scale and will possibly hold true. But there are always variables =d What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Hey, maybe you should try that thing Chie was talking about.
Last edited by Gechmir; May 8, 2006 at 04:28 PM.
|
In general, people are downplaying Global Warming waaaaay too much.
In the Alps, there are now resort type condos where 600 metre deep glaciers were in 1911. If people want to dispute Global Warming, then they are idiots. Not too far from now, we will will have ICE FREE summers in the Arctic Ocean. Something that until recently was not even considered. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
lazy bum |
I've found a nice little video about this topic.
Honestly, this is what i call brainwashing of the people. http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/l...h.wmv/play.asx There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Props also for this thread in general. I'm going to a discussion about global warming tomorrow and this thread has been pretty informative. It seems as though alternative fuel sources have become a high priority among automobile manufacturers. As soon as a market puts a demand on a technology, R&D kicks it into high gear. I'm curious as to the emissions laws in other countries outside of the United States. From what I know, it seems as though the US has very strict emissions laws comparative to other countries. I know for example, that Japanese cars that are imported (and I don't mean something like a Toyota that you'd buy at a dealership here) will not pass US emissions unless they undergo some modification. Granted the US does it's fair share of polluting through auto emissions... but then again, we are the 3rd largest nation in population, and the wealthiest. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
Plus, bear in mind pollutant levels in Japan. In some regions, elderly folks have to have air-tanks with them to breathe through (supposedly). I recall reading an article or two in the past that mentioned this. The US has much higher level activity in some hotspots, like LA, New York, and Houston. Gotta keep emissions tightly constrained for such situations.
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Hey, maybe you should try that thing Chie was talking about.
|
I was speaking idiomatically. |
Mexico City's air is thin, hence booths and tanks for breathing. That's due to elevation. Pollution isn't a gigantic problem over there, I don't think...
How ya doing, buddy?
Hey, maybe you should try that thing Chie was talking about.
|
Japan and Mexico City both have oxygen booths, which is more for an oxygen high than anything.
FELIPE NO
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
Asthma is a physical difficulty in breathing due to breathing passages closing up/narrowing and what-not. COPD is caused by smoking and also was caught by coal miners quite regularly. Hypoxemia is what is experienced in Mexico City due to high elevation. Japan is much smaller than the US, but it growing tremendously in urban areas. There isn't much land, and there isn't much room for trash. As a result, they burn their trash. A LOT of their trash. Lots of what they burn aren't things you want to be breathing. This is a growing problem A site on the topic: http://web-japan.org/factsheet/pollution/other.html For older generations, there were cases of arsenic poisoning.
http://www.sg.emb-japan.go.jp/JapanAccess/pollute.htm Another site on random air pollution topics: http://www.riskworld.com/Profsoci/sr...2/Ps6ae203.htm The US has its air pollution problems, but for starters, it has the EPA which is rather stringent on its regulations. Japan is a looser. Secondly, the population density in Japan is larger. People are packed closer together. As a result, one small region's difficulty spreads quite a ways. You have folks from the previous two generations and people of this generation developing respiratory difficulties due to various pollutants. The pollution isn't reducing swiftly even though Japan is pushing for hybrid technology and what-not for fuel conservation and cleaner burning. Air is still rather dirty to breathe and a good junk of elderly cannot handle it. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Hey, maybe you should try that thing Chie was talking about.
Last edited by Gechmir; May 26, 2006 at 09:00 PM.
|
"From what I know, it seems as though the US has very strict emissions laws comparative to other countries."
How can you argue against strict polution control when it only brings you back to an example of why strict controls are good? I hear that emission laws vary quite a bit from region to region in the US as well, such as California and Florida having considerably more strict regulations. I'd be most interested to hear what you learn about how it stacks up to other similar nations. I've always been given the impression that they lag behind places like Britain, France, Canada, Germany, etc. But if this is exageration or propaganda, that'd sure be interesting. Jam it back in, in the dark.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|
We all know that global warming is now happening, it is obvious with the warming temperatures in Nunavut.
I personally believe that it is too late, there is no way that billions of people are going to stop their current energy consumption within a few years. There's nowhere I can't reach. |