Leaderboard

Global warming... sick of hearing about it, but how about a non BS version?

the earth has always had ups and downs in temperature. mini ice ages have been happening for millions of years. they can be several thousand years apart. to say "it's hotter than it was 100 years ago..." doesn't mean a whole damn lot to me. i don't believe in global warming, and even if i did it wouldn't make a difference. even if we are part of the problem and know it we can't stop it now. we can all drive prius cars and plant a tree, but the damage done won't be slowing down.

try telling a third world country that's trying to get on it's feet "sorry, you can't use coal anymore to produce electricity. come up with several million dollars and we'll show you how to produce clean energy though!" yeah, not going to happen.
 
and Jay, that is the root of the problem, we cannot deny them what we have, or what we went through, Plus, what if we did run out of energy, and fertilizers, would in 200 years it all be ok?
 
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

To me it's pretty simple. Either it's real or it's not. We can try to do something about it or not. If it's real and we don't do anything then... bad stuff happens. What's the worst that will happen if we try to do something about it and it's not real?
 
Jusatele said:
and Jay, that is the root of the problem, we cannot deny them what we have, or what we went through, Plus, what if we did run out of energy, and fertilizers, would in 200 years it all be ok?

thats a really good point, too. how long would it take with clean energy for the environment to return to normal? or no energy being produced at all?

and to kind of clear up what i said... it's not that i "don't believe" in global warming. there's no doubt that mean temperatures are increasing. but i'm not 100% convinced that we are the entire problem and that it's not just another climate fluctuation.
 
evidence_CO2.jpg
 
I think the energy thing is minor, it is the clear cutting of forest and the paving over of land that upsets the natural balance. We do not allow rivers to flow, we dam them, and on and on and on till we have deserts growing where once were fertile land, and mass erosion where once were forest. Our population means we have to farm more and more land with chemicals both to increase production that polute our waterways, but pesticides that also kill a huge amount of stuff we do not want to kill.
that is the true harm, the way we destroy the land by strip mining and stuff.
 
GoDrex said:

Why all the fuss about CO2? that graph says nothing other then an increase in that time period. It says nothing about the amount of CO2 previous to that, when you go back far enough it becomes 20 or so times more concentrated in our atmosphere then it is presently.
 
let us euthanize enough of the worlds population to get it back into 1950s level , I will let you pick each person to off.
 
back2thefutre said:
I wonder if GW has an effect on guitar tone?

Yes.  Temperature is a variable in the ohm value of copper wire.  It has more or less resistance at different temperatures.  Basically, at different temperatures, the output of pickups changes.
 
Super Turbo Deluxe Custom said:
back2thefutre said:
I wonder if GW has an effect on guitar tone?

Yes.  Temperature is a variable in the ohm value of copper wire.  It has more or less resistance at different temperatures.  Basically, at different temperatures, the output of pickups changes.
Yes, but how much does Global Warmothing effect tone? :sign13: :party07:
 
Tone is subjective.  For some it begins and ends with pickup output and their characteristics.  Others, it's the amp, which is also full of copper wire.  Heaters in tubes may not have to work as hard, then again playing a tube amp in the heat....some amps don't like it.

Tone is nothing more than values of resistors, capacitors, and wires....and wood.  All those change with temperature.
 
clewnii said:
Here you go:

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8[/youtube]

I tend to not really listen to journalists or politicians, especially when they bring in religion in their speech... no offense to anyone.
 
I gave the guy a chance, 25 minutes in. he's full of it. he never gets to his points. his audience is entirely complacent, ignorant and prideful and the only things that even sound like facts are his twisted up numbers on how not being christy has caused millions of deaths.

Liars and manipulators. how often they seem to speak about god.

I'm sure Jesus is THRILLED.
 
I posted what the topic asked for, a link to a "non-BS version" or at least good quality BS ;) from the
other side of the spectrum. A different perspective. A different perspective is always valuable wether you
agree or not.
Im not religious and no I do not think some of his referenses to chrisitany early on in the presentation
"tainted" what followed it, he is clearly not trying to tell you a Creationist fairytale or anything like that.
He is just trying to show you what the UN et al. has done to "prove" their point and why - if you adhere
strictly to the scientific principle - they can be proven to have perpetrated lie after lie after lie. Did some
people really miss the whole Climategate scandal?
And the only "solution" that has come out of all this "climate science"-business? CO2 credits? If thats
not a sign of a fashist plot then im a hallucinogenic Toad.

Come lick my lovepump  :eek:

ALL of that^^^ however, doesnt have to mean that there is no such thing as global warming, eh, or "Climate
Change" as they say these days.


I will leave it at that.
Carry on if you want, Im out.
 
2 points:

1.  The earths climate is always changing, and always has been over it's 4.5 billion years of existence.  Us humans do not know all the factors that effect the climate, so to make a conclusion based on limited data is foolish.

2.  That being said, the old phrase "you don't $h!t where you eat" comes to mind.  Regardless of how much of the earth's climate is a result of human actions, I believe that we need to use common sense and minimize the amount of pollution in general. 
 
GoDrex, that's a cool graph but I'm really curious how they figured that out. It seems kinda far-fetched to assume to know CO2 levels 400,000 years back. Once you get back 15,000 years or so it's a lot of guess work and one scientist's guess validating another scientist's guess. It gets kinda circular. Unless whoever found this graph has some voodoo-magic technology nobody else knows about.  :glasses9:
 
Justinginn said:
GoDrex, that's a cool graph but I'm really curious how they figured that out. It seems kinda far-fetched to assume to know CO2 levels 400,000 years back. Once you get back 15,000 years or so it's a lot of guess work and one scientist's guess validating another scientist's guess. It gets kinda circular. Unless whoever found this graph has some voodoo-magic technology nobody else knows about.  :glasses9:

Just because you don't understand how they do it doesn't make it far fetched. You just think that NASA is making it all up, or that they're stupid? Ever heard of ice cores?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
 
Back
Top