BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-21-2009, 08:02 PM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
dan_smee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 12,824
Local Time: 10:47 PM
he hums in the office. Doesnt write much if at all. After the bushfire relief gigs this year that will be it for the oils I tihnk. I always knew if he was in a good mood because he would sing danny boy as he walked past my desk.
__________________

__________________
dan_smee is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 08:03 PM   #62
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_smee View Post
the hardest thing most callers had trouble with was the term global warming. I genuinely had people call me and say "Peter Garrett is a lier, he is full of shit because it is the middle of summer and it is 12 degrees."

First line of that article and I didnt bother with the rest. Just because it is called global warming doesnt mean your temperature will rise. Fuck
Sorry got distracted... yeah, when people start talking about record lows as a reason not to believe the earth is changing then I just have to laugh them off, they're ignorant.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 08:05 PM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
dan_smee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 12,824
Local Time: 10:47 PM
People can choose to not believe in what they want, but it is hard to ignore the evidence.
__________________
dan_smee is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 08:48 PM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
But why are you basing your beliefs on Prince Charles and Alarmists? You are taking the extreme and doing the opposite extreme... how is that logical? The majority are not alarmist and agree on a lot of common ground, why do you choose to ignore them?
Am I supposed to be in the middle of every argument? What you call extreme I don't.

President Obama Would Like To See Increased Use Of Nuclear Power - Nuclear Power Industry News

Finally Obama is trying to work on some of those grey cells in his head.

Quote:
"There's no reason why technologically we can't employ nuclear energy in a safe and effective way. Japan does it and France doesn't does it and it doesn't have greenhouse gas emissions, so it would be stupid for us not to do that in a much more effective way,"
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 08:58 PM   #65
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Am I supposed to be in the middle of every argument? What you call extreme I don't.

President Obama Would Like To See Increased Use Of Nuclear Power - Nuclear Power Industry News

Finally Obama is trying to work on some of those grey cells in his head.
I was talking about the concept of if global warming in caused by man or if it's a hoax...

Not whether nuclear is the way to go or not, personally I'm not completely against nuclear.

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 09:21 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I was talking about the concept of if global warming in caused by man or if it's a hoax...

Not whether nuclear is the way to go or not, personally I'm not completely against nuclear.

I wasn't aiming the post at you just in general. Obviously it would be nice to have energy that doesn't come from Saudi Arabia for security reasons. What it does to C02 emissions I still think is negligible either way. Most C02 in the atmosphere is from natural causes.

If the WH pushes for cap and trade at least nuclear power wouldn't devastate the economy as badly as solar power and windmills. It would still increase prices but not as much.

On another side topic: This just makes me laugh (especially the ironic title of the movie):

YouTube - An Inconvenient Question: The Age of Stupid NYC Premiere
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 02:29 AM   #67
Refugee
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,059
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
...using the current fuel we have (including nuclear) will probably be necessary because we need TIME before we can find a renewable source.
I don't think the saviour of humanity lies in technology. History shows again and again that technological breakthroughs take time (often, 30 to 50 years) to be proven safe, to become efficient, and to be properly harnassed for maximum benefit without danger.

There are already plenty of renewable resources on Earth. We don't need to make any. Wood, for example, is a renewable resource. The problem with forestry is that it is mismanaged by corrupt capitalists in the unstable parts of the world, or parts of the world where a few wealthier nations have huge influence over poorer, corrupt ones (such as where I live). The resources we already have are enough, but they need to be managed properly by responsible, public-directed government.
__________________
65980 is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 12:02 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65980 View Post
I don't think the saviour of humanity lies in technology. History shows again and again that technological breakthroughs take time (often, 30 to 50 years) to be proven safe, to become efficient, and to be properly harnassed for maximum benefit without danger.

There are already plenty of renewable resources on Earth. We don't need to make any. Wood, for example, is a renewable resource. The problem with forestry is that it is mismanaged by corrupt capitalists in the unstable parts of the world, or parts of the world where a few wealthier nations have huge influence over poorer, corrupt ones (such as where I live). The resources we already have are enough, but they need to be managed properly by responsible, public-directed government.
BTW I'm sure C02 is released when wood is burnt. Clean coal, nuclear and natural gas burn better. The "act now" attitude of the alarmists is the problem. Act now with what? Solar, & wind power? What a joke!
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 12:41 PM   #69
Refugee
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,059
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Trees filter CO2 out of the air. In other words, we cut the trees down, plant new ones, burn the ones we cut down, and the new trees will filter the C02 out of the air for us... for free! An amazing, God-given, natural renewable resource.

But, as long as governments and private industries are allowed to buy and sell timber to whomever's buying, this perfect natural method is fucked up.

There are other already-existing renewable resources besides wood, obviously. I just mention that one example since it's simple.
__________________
65980 is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 12:43 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Poll: Americans' belief in global warming cools | ajc.com

WASHINGTON — The number of Americans who believe there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming because of pollution is at its lowest point in three years, according to a survey released Thursday.

The poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People&the Press found that only 57 percent believe there is strong scientific evidence that the Earth has gotten warmer over the past few decades, and as a result, people are viewing the problem as less serious. That's down from 77 percent in 2006.

The steepest drop occurred during the last year, as Congress and the Obama administration have taken steps to control heat-trapping emissions for the first time. The drop also was seen during a time of mounting scientific evidence of climate change — from melting ice caps to the world's oceans hitting the highest monthly recorded temperatures this summer.

The poll was released a day after 18 scientific organizations wrote Congress to reaffirm the consensus behind global warming.

"The priority that people give to pollution and environmental concerns and a whole host of other issues is down because of the economy and because of the focus on other things," said Andrew Kohut, the director of the research center, which conducted the poll from Sept. 30 to Oct. 4. "When the focus is on other things, people forget and see these issues as less grave."

Despite misgivings about the science, half the respondents still said they supported limits on greenhouse gases, even if it could lead to higher energy prices. But many of those supporters have heard little to nothing about cap-and-trade, the main mechanism for reducing greenhouse gases favored by the White House and central to legislation passed by the House and a bill the Senate will take up next week.

Under cap-and-trade, a price is put on each ton of pollution and businesses can buy and sell permits to meet emissions limits.

Other results of the survey also suggest that it will be tough politically to enact a law limiting emissions of global warming pollution. While three-quarters of Democrats believe the evidence of a warming planet is solid, and nearly half believe the problem is serious, far fewer conservative and moderate Democrats see the problem as grave as they did last year.

Regional differences were also detected. People living in the Midwest and mountainous areas of the West are far less likely to view global warming as a serious problem and to support limits on greenhouse gases than those in the Northeast and on the West Coast. Both the House and Senate bills have been drafted by lawmakers from Massachusetts and California.

Earlier polls, from different organizations, have not detected a growing skepticism about the science behind global warming.

Since 1997, the percentage of Americans that believe the Earth is heating up has remained constant — at around 80 percent — in polling done by Jon Krosnick of Stanford University. Krosnick, who has been conducting surveys on attitudes about global warming since 1993 was surprised by the Pew results.

He described the decline in the Pew results as "implausible," saying there is nothing that could have caused it.

--------

Why do all these people hate science? They probably think the earth is flat, too, and that the moon landing never happened.
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 12:54 PM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65980 View Post
Trees filter CO2 out of the air. In other words, we cut the trees down, plant new ones, burn the ones we cut down, and the new trees will filter the C02 out of the air for us... for free! An amazing, God-given, natural renewable resource.
I think thats a little simplistic. Just by burning the trees we've cut down, we've already got a net increase in CO2. Its not like the trees are hanging around dormant waiting for CO2 to filter for us. Added to that the fact the the new trees planted are smaller than the ones cut down and the net CO2 in the atmosphere is again increased. I get what you're saying, I just dont think its as free and simple as you state
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 02:12 PM   #72
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post

The poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People&the Press found that only 57 percent believe there is strong scientific evidence that the Earth has gotten warmer over the past few decades, and as a result, people are viewing the problem as less serious. That's down from 77 percent in 2006.
Was this really how the question was framed? So 43% not only believe that man has nothing to do with it they actually believe it's not even occuring? Where the hell did they poll these folks? A tea party?

Even those that don't want to admit man plays a role in the warming will admit there are warming periods.

Another reason why polls blow.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 02:16 PM   #73
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
BTW I'm sure C02 is released when wood is burnt. Clean coal, nuclear and natural gas burn better. The "act now" attitude of the alarmists is the problem. Act now with what? Solar, & wind power? What a joke!
No the problem are those that fall for junk science because they don't want life as they know it to change.

The joke is that time you posted a source that you thought was backing up your claim yet it admitted solar was working and cheaper in some parts of the country, that was funny.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 10:50 PM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
No the problem are those that fall for junk science because they don't want life as they know it to change.
If you can't see the contradiction between a "stimulus" plan to boost the economy and increasing energy taxes (which will do the opposite) then you need to learn some economics. You're also going to have to be more specific about those changes, because politicians love to point at energy companies as a straw man when they supply what EVERYONE (including you) wants in energy. What are these changes? Lightbulbs and Prius's aren't going to cut it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
The joke is that time you posted a source that you thought was backing up your claim yet it admitted solar was working and cheaper in some parts of the country, that was funny.
You're going to have to remind me because solar power is subsidized. I remember posting a Spanish study talking about increases in energy costs. What you have to realise is that solar power has to be consistent in order for it to work and wind power has to as well. Since neither are consistent because sunlight and wind aren't consistent enough to power the world, it's not going to replace coal, gas, oil and nuclear. Being cheaper in one part of the country is hardly enough. Many countries have less sunlight than Spain or Nevada and not consistent enough wind. I don't mind shutting down coal plants when there is a real replacement, but I'm still waiting.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 11:26 PM   #75
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
If you can't see the contradiction between a "stimulus" plan to boost the economy and increasing energy taxes (which will do the opposite) then you need to learn some economics. You're also going to have to be more specific about those changes, because politicians love to point at energy companies as a straw man when they supply what EVERYONE (including you) wants in energy. What are these changes? Lightbulbs and Prius's aren't going to cut it.
Once again, not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about those that deny the science BECAUSE of the economics. Wake up!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You're going to have to remind me because solar power is subsidized. I remember posting a Spanish study talking about increases in energy costs. What you have to realise is that solar power has to be consistent in order for it to work and wind power has to as well. Since neither are consistent because sunlight and wind aren't consistent enough to power the world, it's not going to replace coal, gas, oil and nuclear. Being cheaper in one part of the country is hardly enough. Many countries have less sunlight than Spain or Nevada and not consistent enough wind. I don't mind shutting down coal plants when there is a real replacement, but I'm still waiting.
You posted a study about Austrailia that completely contradicted the point you were trying to make, it was quite humorous.

What's wrong with different areas of the world harvesting different forms that are indigenous to the areas? It's going to be a slow process of course, but we've been dragging our feet long enough. If we all thought like you we'd drag them for another 100 years or so...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2008 International Conference on Climate Change purpleoscar Free Your Mind 19 04-17-2009 07:56 PM
New York Times: Cool the Hype MaxFisher Free Your Mind Archive 17 03-18-2007 06:09 PM
If You Wear A ONE White Band.... Jamila Free Your Mind Archive 18 05-27-2005 07:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com