Climate Change..We have to...

DMGIX · Mar 13, 2008

We have to try and keep CO2 levels down, or level at least.

As a world population we are increasing in numbers year on year..100 years ago there was 1 billion peeps in the world..now theres 6 billion, prediction say there will be 20 billion by 2050..this alone will affect co2 levels. But its not CO2 that gonna just be the end problem. The Earth is a well balanced Eco-System, changes, like in live itself have a chain reaction, CO2 is not the main problem, its just the slow start to a accelarating machine of releasing other more dangerous green-house gases such as Methane.
This is shown by not the melting of the ice caps, these are just the worlds cooling systems. It the melting of the permafrost and thawing lakes in Siberia. Once to get past a certain point their aint no going back.
The question is do you think as a race we could surive in these higher temperature? No one knows. The fact is the world is changing, we just dont believe it because we have never as a race experinence anything like it. It doesn't mean it cant happen, it will, just look at the periods the earth has already gone through before man.
The reason why we think its all false, also, is because we're being told by Governments that its true and Taxes will have to go up to combat it, without evidence of action. we can live and drive without burning oil, but there is just too much money is earned. (Im just waiting for Bush to call it the "WAR on Climate Change"-Dumb Fuck lol).
Educate yourself, i urge you watch the BBC Documentary "Earth-The Power of the Planet" ... :peace:

closet.cult · Mar 14, 2008

more religious propaganda from the Church of Environmentalism.

"change your ways now or the end of the world is at hand!!!"

p.s. - get informed of the earth's temperature history for the last few million years. our species and the ones that were before us all adapted and survived much hotter and much, much colder periods than today. you do agree with the evolution of man right? Well, we're here aren't we?

p.s.2 - 20 billion people by 2050 is a very old statistic. with current growth of smaller families worldwide it is projected to raised to 9 billion by 2050.

ViRedd · Mar 14, 2008

I particularly liked the part about raising taxes to combat global warming. Kind of like being forced to tithe to your church. :roll:

Vi

DMGIX · Mar 14, 2008

closet.cult said:
more religious propaganda from the Church of Environmentalism.

"change your ways now or the end of the world is at hand!!!"

p.s. - get informed of the earth's temperature history for the last few million years. our species and the ones that were before us all adapted and survived much hotter and much, much colder periods than today. you do agree with the evolution of man right? Well, we're here aren't we?

p.s.2 - 20 billion people by 2050 is a very old statistic. with current growth of smaller families worldwide it is projected to raised to 9 billion by 2050.

This aint propaganda at all MATE, and i never said of any sought that man wouldn't be able to evolve...sure we'll probably be able to survive, but what about other forms of live? will they? Probably, or maybe not, sure life goes on no matter what. or are you just selfish and only think about number one. This aint about rising temps as such, it about looking after every other living thing on the planet and we can live the same perfectly normal live without affecting the climate as much as we do...life CAN NOT evolve propaly if the climate changes to quickly, and were the hell did i say the world is at end? show me? go on...nah didn't think so MATE.
And were did you get this 9 billion crap from? Smaller families? Thats just the breakdown of the traditional nuclear family, doesn't stop everyone fucking like rabbits and have kids from different partners we are already on 6,679,532,264, thats a 679 Million increase in 7 Years, so according to your stats the world population is only gonna increase 2321milion 42 years, that an increase in 386Million every 7 Years. (Just so no confusion UK 1 Billion = 1000 Million...
1,000,000,000).
I know this is the worst senario, but change to fast = extiction, but that wont happen..i hope :s ahhh *hides lol

DMGIX · Mar 14, 2008

ViRedd said:
I particularly liked the part about raising taxes to combat global warming. Kind of like being forced to tithe to your church.

Vi

Hey i don't agree with raising taxes, i think that is totally wrong, that is just the tax man using it as propaganda trying to cash in. same with Fuel suppliers...also trying to cash in to. Disgusting, and the reason why most people laugh the issue off.
:peace:

medicineman · Mar 14, 2008

DMGIX said:
Hey i don't agree with raising taxes, i think that is totally wrong, that is just the tax man using it as propaganda trying to cash in. same with Fuel suppliers...also trying to cash in to. Disgusting, and the reason why most people laugh the issue off.

Why are we allowing the oil companies (a sure fire monopoly if ever there were) to make obscene profits at our expence. The "free market" in this case isn't free. How can free market proponents claim the oil companies are operating in a competetive market. They hold us hostage and bleed us to tears. If the oil companies are what free markets are all about then I say fuck free markets. We pay our taxes to protect the oil interests abroad and then they rape us again at the pumps. can anyone else see this quandry?

closet.cult · Mar 14, 2008

DMGIX said:
This aint propaganda at all MATE, and i never said of any sought that man wouldn't be able to evolve...sure we'll probably be able to survive, but what about other forms of live? will they? Probably, or maybe not, sure life goes on no matter what. or are you just selfish and only think about number one. This aint about rising temps as such, it about looking after every other living thing on the planet and we can live the same perfectly normal live without affecting the climate as much as we do...life CAN NOT evolve propaly if the climate changes to quickly, and were the hell did i say the world is at end? show me? go on...nah didn't think so MATE.
And were did you get this 9 billion crap from? Smaller families? Thats just the breakdown of the traditional nuclear family, doesn't stop everyone fucking like rabbits and have kids from different partners we are already on 6,679,532,264, thats a 679 Million increase in 7 Years, so according to your stats the world population is only gonna increase 2321milion 42 years, that an increase in 386Million every 7 Years. (Just so no confusion UK 1 Billion = 1000 Million...
1,000,000,000).
I know this is the worst senario, but change to fast = extiction, but that wont happen..i hope :s ahhh *hides lol

look, a few things. 9 billion is the current number projected by those who know, look it up on wiki. there are many reasons why people are simply not having large families anymore.

now, the propaganda part is the fact that you're spreading mis-information and you dont even know it because you're just repeating what other people have intentionally mis-represented.

the planet is currently under no such 'quickly changing climate'. in 100 years of burning fossil fuels the planet's medium temperature has increased less then 1 degree and some of that was natural, right? we are coming down from a little ice age 500 years ago, right? so how much warming has man really added?

no one, not even the pro-global warming people, say that warming is a danger right now. did you know that? all their talk is about a prediction of coming disaster in this next century. ALL the warming we see today (.6 degrees in 100 years) is within the natural variables of planetary climate change. and there has been NO warming for almost a decade.

i could go on and on but i wont. please read and educate yourself as to what the other scientists are saying about climate change. man has added VERY LITTLE to global warming. what we HAVE done is polute the hell out of our home. that is the real issue we should be focusing on.

closet.cult · Mar 14, 2008

medicineman said:
Why are we allowing the oil companies (a sure fire monopoly if ever there were) to make obscene profits at our expence. The "free market" in this case isn't free. How can free market proponents claim the oil companies are operating in a competetive market. They hold us hostage and bleed us to tears. If the oil companies are what free markets are all about then I say fuck free markets. We pay our taxes to protect the oil interests abroad and then they rape us again at the pumps. can anyone else see this quandry?

'allow' them to make profits. you vote with your wallet, so to speak. buy a 100% electric car and you wont pay at the pump. they're still burning oil at most electricity plants, but oh well.

if people really wanted to hurt the oil companies they would change they way they live to make a point. electric cars would be selling out and on waiting lists and then every car company would be producing more and more of them. (that's what a free market does. it can change a monopoly overnight by allowing people a choice; educated or thru propaganda)

but no one really wants to change. they just like to talk about change or it would have happened already. you dont really need Obama in office to buy an electric car, do you?

medicineman · Mar 14, 2008

closet.cult said:
'allow' them to make profits. you vote with your wallet, so to speak. buy a 100% electric car and you wont pay at the pump. they're still burning oil at most electricity plants, but oh well.

if people really wanted to hurt the oil companies they would change they way they live to make a point. electric cars would be selling out and on waiting lists and then every car company would be producing more and more of them. (that's what a free market does. it can change a monopoly overnight by allowing people a choice; educated or thru propaganda)

but no one really wants to change. they just like to talk about change or it would have happened already. you dont really need Obama in office to buy an electric car, do you?

Actually, the price of an electric car will buy a lot of gas for my gas guzzler. which is close to being paid for, It's not economically feasable for me. Maybe for my wife that drives a lot more than I, could benefit, and we'll look into that on our next car purchase. I use about 15-20 gallons a MO. not a major expense, even at 4-5 bucks a gallon. If I were rich, I'd just go down and trade my wifes car in, but we just bought it and we are upside down for 4 more years. She gets 20-25 MPG and it's an SUV, albeit a small one. I want Obama in office to see if someone that proposes change can really deliver. Most that have promised, have dissapointed. The other two nominees are repeats.

closet.cult · Mar 14, 2008

medicineman said:
Actually, the price of an electric car will buy a lot of gas for my gas guzzler. which is close to being paid for, It's not economically feasable for me. Maybe for my wife that drives a lot more than I, could benefit, and we'll look into that on our next car purchase. I use about 15-20 gallons a MO. not a major expense, even at 4-5 bucks a gallon. If I were rich, I'd just go down and trade my wifes car in, but we just bought it and we are upside down for 4 more years. She gets 20-25 MPG and it's an SUV, albeit a small one. I want Obama in office to see if someone that proposes change can really deliver. Most that have promised, have dissapointed. The other two nominees are repeats.

so it will cost YOU too much to make the changes you are demanding the whole world to make?

so have you considered the cost to the COUNTRY and world to make these changes?

once you look at it from this perspective it is a bit sobering. plus, it forces you to look deeper at what they are suggesting. Are we really heading toward a global catastrophy if we do not allocate funds WE DON'T HAVE to this dooms-day theory? as it turns out, there doesn't appear to be any danger. it's just alot of hype. and forcing countries to make changes that are economically irresponsible, baised on flawed, oversimplified data is begging for a financial disaster.

medicineman · Mar 14, 2008

closet.cult said:
so it will cost YOU too much to make the changes you are demanding the whole world to make?

so have you considered the cost to the COUNTRY and world to make these changes?

once you look at it from this perspective it is a bit sobering. plus, it forces you to look deeper at what they are suggesting. Are we really heading toward a global catastrophy if we do not allocate funds WE DON'T HAVE to this dooms-day theory? as it turns out, there doesn't appear to be any danger. it's just alot of hype. and forcing countries to make changes that are economically irresponsible, baised on flawed, oversimplified data is begging for a financial disaster.

I'm afraid the hype comes from the energy companies and quasi scientists that tell us everything is fine. just keep consuming at the present rate and we'll all live on this wonderful planet without consequences forever, Hype for sure. BTW my measley 15-20 gallons a month is less than a hybrid uses on a 50 mile commute daily, so my part is driving less. There are many, many 50+ mile commuters daily that get a lot less than 50 miles per gallon, so I'm one of the conservationalists comparitively speaking. would I like to get 50+ MPG, sure, but I need a truck (ex-truck driver you see), I just don't drive it very much. BTW do you use more than 20 gallon a mo.?

DMGIX · Mar 14, 2008

closet.cult said:
look, a few things. 9 billion is the current number projected by those who know, look it up on wiki. there are many reasons why people are simply not having large families anymore.

now, the propaganda part is the fact that you're spreading mis-information and you dont even know it because you're just repeating what other people have intentionally mis-represented.

the planet is currently under no such 'quickly changing climate'. in 100 years of burning fossil fuels the planet's medium temperature has increased less then 1 degree and some of that was natural, right? we are coming down from a little ice age 500 years ago, right? so how much warming has man really added?

no one, not even the pro-global warming people, say that warming is a danger right now. did you know that? all their talk is about a prediction of coming disaster in this next century. ALL the warming we see today (.6 degrees in 100 years) is within the natural variables of planetary climate change. and there has been NO warming for almost a decade.

i could go on and on but i wont. please read and educate yourself as to what the other scientists are saying about climate change. man has added VERY LITTLE to global warming. what we HAVE done is polute the hell out of our home. that is the real issue we should be focusing on.

Do really beieve wiki pedia? Its full of mis-information, even the CIA edit details that they dont want us to know (BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits') and they make edits for donations (BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits').

I agree change is not drastic enough to cause worry, but if things are not brought under control, note the main word being "CONTROL" that could change, maybe in 10 years, maybe 100 maybe more, like i said originally it about chain reactions, the more Co2 the warmer it gets the more methane get released from frozen decomposing organic matter. Its just common fuckin sense, or are you just to narrow minded to see that?

closet.cult · Mar 14, 2008

medicineman said:
I'm afraid the hype comes from the energy companies and quasi scientists that tell us everything is fine. just keep consuming at the present rate and we'll all live on this wonderful planet without consequences forever, Hype for sure. BTW my measley 15-20 gallons a month is less than a hybrid uses on a 50 mile commute daily, so my part is driving less. There are many, many 50+ mile commuters daily that get a lot less than 50 miles per gallon, so I'm one of the conservationalists comparitively speaking. would I like to get 50+ MPG, sure, but I need a truck (ex-truck driver you see), I just don't drive it very much. BTW do you use more than 20 gallon a mo.?

that's about what me and my co-worker use monthly in his '85 civic. we live down the street from each other and carpool.

but you know, no one is saying to keep up with our present wastefull, dirty technologies. technologies advance each year and will continue to get better with or without climate change legestlation. they will never build a power plant that INCREASES our polution and works LESS efficiently, will they?

the changes that you and WE ALL want are on the horizon and will get instituted. charging citizens another fake tax for using the only technology that society provides to us is a joke. these SOLUTIONS that the climate changers are suggesting give away their true intentions. RAISE TAXES.

DMGIX · Mar 14, 2008

for some reason the last post kep linkin to the same page...here the other... [BBC NEWS | Technology | Wiki boss 'edited for donation'

closet.cult · Mar 14, 2008

DMGIX said:
Do really beieve wiki pedia? Its full of mis-information, even the CIA edit details that they dont want us to know (BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits') and they make edits for donations (BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits').

I agree change is not drastic enough to cause worry, but if things are not brought under control, note the main word being "CONTROL" that could change, maybe in 10 years, maybe 100 maybe more, like i said originally it about chain reactions, the more Co2 the warmer it gets the more methane get released from frozen decomposing organic matter. Its just common fuckin sense, or are you just to narrow minded to see that?

enough with the name calling. i am OPEN mined enough to have research BOTH sides of the issue and reach a conclusion that most reach when they study BOTH SIDES of the debate. YOU haven't yet. it is obvious by the propaganda rhetoric you keep repeating.

by your reasoning, this planet should be a dead, lifeless lump of clay by now. becuase CO2 has been MANY times higher in the past than today and so has temperature. and the planet did not turn into a runaway greenhouse oven then, and it will not now. all the diversity we see today survived and flourished untill now, right? there are natural buffer systems in place which 'CONTROL' these things automatically. Like: more CO2 = bigger plants, which = more Oxygen, which balances out the extra CO2. do some research.

DMGIX · Mar 14, 2008

closet.cult said:
that's about what me and my co-worker use monthly in his '85 civic. we live down the street from each other and carpool.

but you know, no one is saying to keep up with our present wastefull, dirty technologies. technologies advance each year and will continue to get better with or without climate change legestlation. they will never build a power plant that INCREASES our polution and works LESS efficiently, will they?

the changes that you and WE ALL want are on the horizon and will get instituted. charging citizens another fake tax for using the only technology that society provides to us is a joke. these SOLUTIONS that the climate changers are suggesting give away their true intentions. RAISE TAXES.

See you just confirmed what i said earlier, you dont want to like what im saying because goverment and fuel companies are using it as propaganda to make loads of money,

closet.cult · Mar 14, 2008

DMGIX said:
See you just confirmed what i said earlier, you dont want to like what im saying because goverment and fuel companies are using it as propaganda to make loads of money,

you speak like a 15 year old. why dont do some more reading and less posting if you dont understand the subject matters.

DMGIX · Mar 14, 2008

closet.cult said:
enough with the name calling. i am OPEN mined enough to have research BOTH sides of the issue and reach a conclusion that most reach when they study BOTH SIDES of the debate. YOU haven't yet. it is obvious by the propaganda rhetoric you keep repeating.

by your reasoning, this planet should be a dead, lifeless lump of clay by now. becuase CO2 has been MANY times higher in the past than today and so has temperature. and the planet did not turn into a runaway greenhouse oven then, and it will not now. there are natural buffer systems in place which 'CONTROL' these things automatically. Like: more CO2 = bigger plants, which = more Oxygen, which balances out the extra CO2. do some research.

Sorry if i may of offened you that wasn't the intention. Im open minded. Im not saying it gonna happen, its a possibility you cant deny it. The main worry i think is if we kill off the ocean, when they die, we do. In reponse to plants getting bigger, the main souce of Oxygen comes from the oceans and mostly from algae which produces 330 Billion tons of Oxygen per year. So i dont think anything on land could help if the oceans become stagnant. This i do believe has happened before and has been the cause of mass extinction. Could what we're doing by not keeping emmision down affect the oceans? Maybe? I dont know. Is it a risk we want to take? It probably will happen no matter what we do but that time frame might be reduced significantly. It could be 100 years, 1000, or 10000 who knows. All im saying, why not reduce emmision, what harm will it do? and it won't effect us that much if at all. All you have to do is vote with your feet, mind we are controlled by the nanny state.

DMGIX · Mar 14, 2008

And also, aint we slowly destroyng the LANDS natural buffer system? Just a thought

medicineman · Mar 14, 2008

they will never build a power plant that INCREASES our polution and works LESS efficiently, will they?

Only it it would be cheaper to operate , like coal fired, and no government agencies held their feet to the fire, such as the bush regime that says, "damn the torpedos, full steam ahead", Coal fired electrical plants, the scourge of the nation, and bush's dream solution, what a fucking joke. Why not just go back to burning wood to heat our homes, killing whales to light our lamps, riding horses to work, what a neaderthal. Has anyone on this forum actually looked at what this cheap energy is doing to W.Virginia and ajoining states? Poisening everything in site. The water is undrinkable, even washing your clothes in it can give you cancer, strip mining the coal fields has become very profitable since Bush lowered the standards, like having to put it back like it was before the mining operation. Now there are just thousand acre sites all over the mid south that are wasted and poisoned beyond repair.

Climate Change..We have to...

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member