So you live next door to me.
This means that you should know that snow in late April is common.
It's snowing right now and nobody's surprised.
But WHERE WERE YOU AT CHRISTMAS, WHERE THERE WAS NOT A SLIGHT HINT OF SNOW,
INCONCEIVABLE FOR DECEMBER?
Partying, I know. Like everybody else.
Welcome global warming. If Gore wasn't such a fuckhead and the Nobel
wasn't a giant farce, I'd rest my hope in his vacuous and
horribly government-masonry driven theories.
hellish pit imp (76.79.238.*) on Sunday 20th April 2008, 09:29:53 (#63865)
0 (0)
it's, "horribly vacuous and driven by psuedo-masonic,
governmental theories", which is oxymoronic, we don't listen
to any of those fuckers anyway.
besides, don't you guys still have a KING that has been guilty of
human rights violations for DECADES, and has made Norway a safe haven
for some of the worst ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, while QUEEN Sonja receives
an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters?
Trelt on Saturday 19th April 2008, 16:12:23 (#63818)
Go to school and learn before you ramble. Where I live, you can get all
four seasons in one day, it's awesome. We've gotten 4 inches of
snow in the middle of June.
Funny, that year was around the peak time of a global cooling period.
Popular science is what gets funding, and catastrophes sell well. If
you're not holding the line, you may be shunned by fellow community
members. Believing that science is above politics, bureacracies, and dogma
is naive at best.
I'm waiting to see what happens in 10 years before I sit in one camp
or the other. There have been a lot of failed hype-theories in the past
that have gone nowhere. A lot of these "record breaking" weather
phenonmena seem to be more because we've only had decent
record-keeping for the past 100 years, not because it's bucking a
trend.
What I think is interesting is that even if global warming/cooling has
little to do with the impact humanity has made, IT WILL,
EVENTUALLY.
And in the extreme long-term, well, we're going to get an iceage
anyway. Buckle up and knit your children haz-mat suit warm jumpers,
they will need them.
Yeah, but that's extreme long-term. These scientists yammer
on about oceans rising by some amount in 100 years. One hundred
years? Shit, if we don't have the technology to deal with
it by then, we're doomed anyway.
Inevitable or not, people somehow think they live in a
never-changing world, when they don't. Furthermore, some
folks think they somehow have "rights" to carry on with
their lives without having to adapt. Governments shouldn't
have to compensate people whenever their straw houses get blown
down by a big bad wolf.
I agree on the concept but the way you put it is too
absolute - if someone's straw house gets blown away
it's their fault for building with straw, yes? Sure,
fine, this point is inarguable.
But down the other road lies stagnation - if everyone built
with bricks that would build up too much reliance on the
availability of bricks. What if something nuclear in the air
had an effect on bricks, and all of a sudden
everyone's home was blown down.
The metaphor doesn't carry itself well, I'll grant
you (because bricks are awesome), but my point is that
stagnation is what kills species - so it's better to
compensate individuals after the fact than think we can plan
for ALL eventualities.
It's just a shame the fact that the compensation is
THERE breeds such a wasteful mindset, really.
Okay, so we'll strike a compromise: you can't
adapt to something you're never exposed to in the
first place. Therefore, give people the benefit of the
doubt--the first time--but expect them to use that
experience to learn.
i spent the better part of the day floating around in my little orange boat
(journal entry pending)
in the global warming thing...
there are too many people on the global warming bandwagon who are selling
ethanol and bio-diesel as solutions. maybe my chemistry is a little rusty,
but the last time i checked, this shit makes carbon dioxide too.
in addition...
househols consume far more energy for heating and airconditioning than what
would be saved by driving some little POS hybrid around... but i don't
hear ANY environmentalists suggesting that we turn our air-conditioners
off.
i don't know. environmentalists are politicians, and politicians lie.
In Australia there is restrictions on how much you can use
air-conditioners in summer. It's bloody hard to enforce, but most
government facilities turn their air-con's off when they're
required, and many large corporations that claim to be
"green" do as well.
There are LOTS of environmentalists suggesting that we turn our
air-conditioners off and limit our gas/electric heaters as well. Why
you haven't heard them I've no idea.
I do like to keep my house a bit chilly during the winter (and
just put on a sweat shirt), which saves energy, but a lot of
these "cost-saving" measures can actually do more harm
than good.
For example, it can cost more to bring a building up to a certain
temperature, than to maintain it. I can understand shutting off
the AC at night, when it'll be naturally cool, but the
temperature should remain cool to ensure proper energy use. I
believe this is a reason many of the buildings here feel
"over-cooled"--some energy accountant has done the math
and has figured out the optimal working environment +
energy-saving temperature beforehand, and it gets applied across
the board.
Better "green" alternatives are to plant grass/trees on
roofs, or allow workers to work from home, etc. but those
non-traditional methods may not be well-adopted.
All of the people that rant about water shortages and spiking CO2
levels never (or very very rarely) mention the true problem
There are too many fucking humans on this rock.
Converting O2 to CO2 with every Breath, removing a certain amount of
water from the water cycle by virtue of being 94% water or something,
and just in general turning everything we touch to shit.
But, governments NEED more people to pay more TAXES. The only
government that promotes population control in any way is China; and
that was purely to stave off starvation.
So, politicians and the government bodies that they perpetuate to
'help' us perpetuate a ridiculous scheme of Global Warming
to frighten us, but at the same time reward us for breeding to keep
those tax dollars coming.
And, since you asked, I am childless and staying that way.
There's a flaw in that logic though... the places which have
the highest birthrates are those which are often the most poor,
and the least taxable. Conversely, the places with the highest
taxes--for example, many countries in Europe--have declining
birthrates. As people are more educated, they are more inclined
to have something else to do besides having children, in addition
to having the facilities to prevent births.
That leads to the core of the problem: we try to avoid
nature's way of pruning out large populations--with disease,
starvation, wars, etc. Instead we try to apply
"morality" and "rights" to all people, trying
to prevent "humanitarian" situations. We never succeed
though, because the hard issues, like forcing people to act in a
certain way, gets in the way. Things like food aid and
ceasefires only stall the problems temporarily, allowing it to
mature further.
I do wish we'd send over 'vasectomy in aerosol
form' along with the free rice or whatever.
I had a conversation with a religious relative the other day
and they were going on about the great work that their
buddies were doing in Africa, in particular that they had
just bought mosquito nets for everyone because malaria was
so bad there. "Now they won't all b dying of
malaria"
I said "What, so they can all starve to death
later?"
His wife, unable to control it, gave one hysterical whoop of
laughter.
Little baby jesis cried over the look the man gave me.
That's hilarious, because it's obvious that
his wife sees right through it, and that religious
relative is probably the kind who likes to preach about
his own good works for the benefit of others. Those
are the best conversations, especially when other
people, like the wife, are thinking the same thing.
I really love the wife, she's a pragmatist,
and I've known her for decades. She's
almost left him several times over his getting run
over by people because he's wanted to help
them for god.
He's the kind of guy who means well, but ends
up getting fucked in the ass over and over again
by people who take advantage of him or his family.
The sad part is that his family gets fucked too.
Trelt on Sunday 20th April 2008, 01:09:10 (#63845)
In my opinion it's not what were doing right now that affects global
warming, but more of a what-if situation. If that what-if happens there
will be no going back, or at least, it will be very hard to fix. So why
not try a little, a little from billions is quite a lot, to chill in the
winter, and sweat in the summer, and maybe walk around a little bit instead
of drive everywhere. I know that I'm keeping my car, and I'm
going to keep using my computer and TV, but just making some small efforts,
like recycling can do a lot of good. You're right, who knows, but
that's exactly why we should be wary of what effects we have on our
planet.
Recycling is a load of bollocks. Sorry to say it so rudely, but:
a) It burns more energy to recycle than it does to create something
new;
b) It's not the materials that we're lacking, it's the
energy, we need to use less of it; and
c) Having the illusion that we can recycle everything forever gives us
the mindset there's nothing wrong as long as we recycle.
Trelt on Sunday 20th April 2008, 05:29:50 (#63850)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but:
a) It actually costs 66% to make stuff from recycled goods
than to make from raw. Paper, plastic, and metal all take less
energy to recycle and reuse that to mine, harvest, and create
them from raw materials;
b) Estimates say that oil, which is the source of all plastic,
polyester, and pretty much anything else made from hydrocarbons,
is going to dry up within 50 years or so; and
c) I never said that we can recycle everything forever, and yes,
of course, there are still tons of things wrong even though we
recycle.
I've got no idea where you pulled that
66% from, but I've gone off and done some
research:
a) Only when you're taking into account the monetary
value of the cost of recycling - which is the only one
that's directly reportable, it's difficult to
measure any of the other possible effects.
b) Erm, dunno what I meant with this one, I must have been
high, or stupid. I MEANT: oil and fossil fuels == energy,
which we are short on. Which is retarded, as energy ==
energy, not anything else.
c) Glad you agree.
“I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source
of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal
run out before we tackle that.” -- Thomas Edison, 1931
a) The main intuitive argument for recycling is that you can
reuse the resources without having to acquire new ones. The
belief is that resources are saved, and that by recycling,
the recycler will receive some sort of discount or monetary
benefit for their work. This is not so. The fact of the
matter is that the goods recycled are worth little, and more
importantly, the extra cost to sort, haul, and reuse
goods--which are often contaminated and low-grade (such as
plastics or paper)--often outweighs the cost of pure
disposal. I know for a fact that my recycling service
doesn't even bother with glass, because it is heavy,
breaks (and therefore results in contaminated, low-grade
colored glass), and can be dangerous for sorters.
b) Oil is used today because it is a cheap and plentiful
energy resource. When or if it dries up, we'll simply
switch to some other source. Plastics can be made from
other hydrocarbon sources, many of which are in development
today (fructose-based, etc.). If worst comes to worst, we
can mine our own landfills.
c) Recycling is nice, but reusing is better. Instead of
believing in the myth that recycling is a cost-saving
measure, do your part by reusing goods, as it provides an
immediate benefit, rather than a contrived one.
I know for a fact that my recycling service
doesn't even bother with glass
Quite so. I've seen a recycling truck pick up
normal rubbish and vice-versa far too many times to
believe that my 'contribution' is being put
to good use.
Truth is: Global warming happens every couple of 100k years due to natural
reasons... our few exhaust fumes dont do shit about that
So I keep driving my hummer
Globes are Warming.........just not here
