FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Nighteye

Joined: Apr 19, 2004

Posted: Sep 21, 2006 - 10:23

GrinningD wrote:

Well I'd quickly just like to say that I am another person against the 'man is behind global warming' nonsense that so regularly appears in our news. That's just being arrogant, much along the same lines as 'God created the Earth for mankind' and 'Humans are the only intelligent life in the galaxy.'

Actually i think you are the arrogant one, if you really think man has got nothing to do with our current climate changes. And i really cant see any connection at all with those two statements u mention, and the theory man is messing with the planets normal climatic cyclus.

Mr_Launcher

Joined: Dec 27, 2003

Posted: Sep 21, 2006 - 10:59

Macavity wrote:

Global Warming is largely beside the point. The various toxic emmisions we produce are not good for us. Who cares about the long term effects, lets do what we can to keep the air and water clean, as long as no one starves as a result.

But global warming is said to be caused by CO2 emissions, which is totally harmless to humans (after all, that's what we breathe out). So it's highly important to know whether CO2 emissions cause a climate change or not. Because if it doesn't, we shouldn't waste a cent trying to minimize emissions of it.

Slick

Joined: Jul 03, 2004

Posted: Sep 21, 2006 - 11:00

To think that mankind could really influence something as complicated, everchanging, and long-lived as the Earth's climate over the course of a hundred years, who knew!

_________________
Some people get "it", and others don't. How about you? Do you get "it"?

Slick

Joined: Jul 03, 2004

Posted: Sep 21, 2006 - 11:03

Oh yah, aren't we all supposed to have flying cars by now, I'm pretty sure 1950's people "knew" we would have them by now. Just think what people in 2050 will be laughing about that we in the year 2000 "know" will happen in our future. LOL

_________________
Some people get "it", and others don't. How about you? Do you get "it"?

Wizard

Joined: Jul 09, 2004

Posted: Sep 21, 2006 - 11:08

Do some research for yourselfs rather than absorbing the media - then post a comment

_________________
"As long as one person lives in darkness then it seems to be a responsibility to tell other people."

daylightdancer

Joined: May 06, 2006

Posted: Sep 21, 2006 - 11:18

GrinningD wrote:

Well I'd quickly just like to say that I am another person against the 'man is behind global warming' nonsense that so regularly appears in our news. That's just being arrogant, much along the same lines as 'God created the Earth for mankind' and 'Humans are the only intelligent life in the galaxy.'

I'm not sure where you're from; otherwise I'd tailor this example geographically. If you look at the landscape around and compare it to how the landscape was 400 years ago (or even 200 hundred years ago in many countries), you would see exactly how much impact humans can have on their environment.

The point is, no one really knows for certain how much of current climate change trends are indirectly caused by human activity (except that some of it is). Also, no one really knows what effect it will have. But looking at past human impact on the environment, it is better to assume the worst and act accordingly, rather than assume the problem will a) go away b) doesn't really exist or c) will solve itself (current government thinking in most countries).

All attempts to provide alternatives to human activity indirectly causing global warming fall down on the simple fact that a) human activity produces large quantities of gases involved in the greenhouse effect b) the greenhouse effect is an observable phenomena c) the effect of adding additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is also observable (both in the atmosphere of Venus and also in lab experiments).

Moreover, to the guy who said he'd like it to be warmer in Sweden, bad news. One of the major current changes in the world's weather systems is the slowing down of the Gulf Stream. Current estimates suggest it will stop altogether within the next century. For us in the UK, that means we get the climate of Canada (on the same latitude). I dread to think what it means for Scandinavia.

StarBreeze

Joined: May 17, 2005

Posted: Sep 21, 2006 - 11:27

Well. I ll speak from the view of a Chemist. I have studied chemistry for a lot of years. I did specialized in Radiation Spectroscopy, Masses, and Atmosphere Chemistry.

Whoever says that men is not changing the composition of the planet atmosphere is just blind/stupid/etc. That change on the composition of the atmosphere (increase of CO, CO2, SO3, and many other things that you will never know) leads to changes in its characteristics, that involves its behaviour with sun radiations.

Now, a small class about spectroscopy. Light = radiation.

After clearing this (mwhaha), I ll tell you that the amount of CO2 has, of course, produced the greenhouse effect, increased the heat in the planet, and all the stuff. Closing your eyes to this and believe what goverment people says is pretty stupid. Have you seen a cow waiting to be sacrificed? Smile

Why is the USA government against the Kyoto policy? Why is the USA goverment trying to suffocate the voices that say that they are behaving madly about this?

Does anyone remember what the agent orange? It produced CANCER.
What about Uranium bullets? Same answer.
And DDT, CFCs (oh wait, whats Ozone? Skin cancer? BAH SCARE MONGERING!!), long etc.

Wizard wrote:

Do some research for yourselfs rather than absorbing the media - then post a comment

Read books, stop watching the TV. Any idiot can grab a microphone and say nonsenses. You have to have a Ph.D. to write a book. Smile

Go wiz!

Peace out, clever people.

sk8bcn

Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Posted: Sep 21, 2006 - 11:33

I can affect affect the climate of my bureau my changing temperature on the climatizer.

I know some girls that can also heaten up temperature.

But on-topic,

There's something I don't understand. The ozone layer protects earth from radiations and it already have some breaches. How comes that some doubts about the gaz effects on climates?

Actually, I never even thought that someone doubt of it and a bit like Daft, I thought that some industrials that didn't wanted to slow down their economy, hadn't the intention to reduce it.

What I find fun in Daft's argument, it's that climatologist try to explain their salarys while industrials, perfect persons to understand climat effect, are beeing honest and their refusal is NOT linked to money.

Well the wording is wrong, I give in my argument more than what Daft said. However I think you get the idea. I don't buy a climatology world theory and wheter they are right or not, in doubt, I prefer people to take care about environment.

ps: I know to be hypocrital saying that. I still drive a car and I am not doing much by myself.

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes

sk8bcn

Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Posted: Sep 21, 2006 - 11:37

Montagne wrote:

Well. I ll speak from the view of a Chemist. I have studied chemistry for a lot of years. I did specialized in Radiation Spectroscopy, Masses, and Atmosphere Chemistry.

Whoever says that men is not changing the composition of the planet atmosphere is just blind/stupid/etc. That change on the composition of the atmosphere (increase of CO, CO2, SO3, and many other things that you will never know) leads to changes in its characteristics, that involves its behaviour with sun radiations.

Now, a small class about spectroscopy. Light = radiation.

After clearing this (mwhaha), I ll tell you that the amount of CO2 has, of course, produced the greenhouse effect, increased the heat in the planet, and all the stuff. Closing your eyes to this and believe what goverment people says is pretty stupid. Have you seen a cow waiting to be sacrificed? Smile

Why is the USA government against the Kyoto policy? Why is the USA goverment trying to suffocate the voices that say that they are behaving madly about this?

Does anyone remember what the agent orange? It produced CANCER.
What about Uranium bullets? Same answer.
And DDT, CFCs (oh wait, whats Ozone? Skin cancer? BAH SCARE MONGERING!!), long etc.

Wizard wrote:

Do some research for yourselfs rather than absorbing the media - then post a comment

Read books, stop watching the TV. Any idiot can grab a microphone and say nonsenses. You have to have a Ph.D. to write a book. Smile

Go wiz!

Peace out, clever people.

Please people, when you read my post imagine I have wroted this. Kinda was what I think, but less aggressively!

go Montagne!

good post

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes

Mr_Launcher

Joined: Dec 27, 2003

Posted: Sep 21, 2006 - 13:43

daylightdancer wrote:

The point is, no one really knows for certain how much of current climate change trends are indirectly caused by human activity (except that some of it is). Also, no one really knows what effect it will have. But looking at past human impact on the environment, it is better to assume the worst and act accordingly, rather than assume the problem will a) go away b) doesn't really exist or c) will solve itself (current government thinking in most countries).

The problem with the approach you recommend (i e assume the worst and act accordingly), is that you risk wasting valuable resources that could have been spent on fixing things that we know are problems, like AIDS research and whatnot, instead.

sk8bcn

Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Posted: Sep 21, 2006 - 14:15

here an intersting documentary about the subject

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes

M'Kari

Joined: Nov 02, 2005

Posted: Sep 21, 2006 - 15:57

Nighteye wrote:

There are experts that believe global dimming have also masked the true extend of the global warming, since the effect of the two phenomena are opposite. Anyways, I can recommend everyone to research global dimming someomre, BBC has made an excellent documentary, that was absolutely chilling to watch, even if they where only half correct.

There's also evidence that(talk about crappy timing) the sun is expelling higher levels of solar flares etc and it's heat is intensifying. I can't remember the name of the scientist involved but there are 2 main, and contrasting scientists examining this, I believe one is Scottish and the other Australian. One believes we're past the 3 degrees to disaster whilst the other thinks we are not passed it yet. They both agree on the outcome if we are.

I've seen An Inconvenient Truth. It is a well developed, scientifically backed, plainly put (to be understood by the general public) eye-opener. We are in deep trouble.

America is obviously the biggest polluter and what the American car industry is doing is so ludicrious, it takes a special kind of suicidal idiot to follow that path (30% world polution)

Us Europeans can't say much, as we are responsible for 27.7%.

There is one last point, which I have to include, which has nothing to do with An Incovenient Truth and the topic it covers directly. I saw a programme the other day, referring to the Doomsday Code. Apparently, a surprizingly sizeable number of evangelical American and African Christians, called 'Time-Enders', believe in what is written in Revelations.

They believe it to the extent that they are actively trying to guide the future towards their translation of Revelations to ensure the 2nd coming of Jesus.

It refers to the fact that they have banded together with a sect of Israeli jews who are trying to re-build the Temple on the Mount (currently in Palestinian hands, which has a mosque on it). The reason for this is not for any real shared interest but apparently the TotM has to be re-built as part of the conditions which need to take place to ensure the 2nd coming. They also decry the facts of climate change and do all they can to neglect any attempts of conservation because again Revelations refers to the world turning against man. There are a number of other conditions which I can't recall.

Another reason for their actions, which will apparently coincide with the 2nd coming, is that they will be the chosen ones for 'The Rapture'. This being that at the 2nd coming they instantly disappear from Earth and will be spirited away by Jesus to heaven. This however, has nothing to do with Revelations and is no where in the Bible. The Rapture was thought up (nothing more) by something like a 19th century English pastar but the present evangelists have taken it on as if it is written in the Bible. They also think the Anti-Christ is the UN (I'm surprized they give the UN such credibility), again referring to Revelations, inwhich the Anti-Christ is actually not mentioned.

Looking at these, there are a lot of different factions working towards the climate change. The religious aspect I found most disturbing. It looks like we are in some real serious trouble.

Tophat