Jump to content

Rising of oceans now apparently caused by god's tears..


448191
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

haha I knew Global warming was a scam. It rained all the last summer, and right now there is no snow outside and its cold as ice in my apt. If anything were headed for some kind of ice age, not warming. 2012 is  just more end of the world bs for some suckers to buy into, probably the scientists involved with that took the mayan calender and made all the shit up about it.

There just scams to arose people's fears, and make money while doing it.

 

Some scares were the 2000 glitch and also the terrorist warnings on the tv,anthrax, BSE, Sars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha I knew Global warming was a scam. It rained all the last summer, and right now there is no snow outside and its cold as ice in my apt. If anything were headed for some kind of ice age, not warming. 2012 is  just more end of the world bs for some suckers to buy into, probably the scientists involved with that took the mayan calender and made all the shit up about it.

There just scams to arose people's fears, and make money while doing it.

 

Some scares were the 2000 glitch and also the terrorist warnings on the tv,anthrax, BSE, Sars.

 

I believe global warming is simply exaggerated. That doesn't mean you can just dismiss it. There are plenty of signs that it is becoming an issue, counter signs can only prove that it "isn't as bad as we have been made to believe". But the sad truth is that is the only way you can make people take some pre-emptive action. I think it is a bit naive to think you can reintroduce massive amounts of CO2 stored in the earth's crust over the course of millions of years into the atmosphere and expect no effect sooner or later. Especially if at the same time you keep structurally removing natures CO2 scrubbers. Sooner or later it will be an issue, you and I will probably not be around to see it, but don't we have a responsibility to generations to come?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha I knew Global warming was a scam. It rained all the last summer, and right now there is no snow outside and its cold as ice in my apt. If anything were headed for some kind of ice age, not warming. 2012 is  just more end of the world bs for some suckers to buy into, probably the scientists involved with that took the mayan calender and made all the shit up about it.

There just scams to arose people's fears, and make money while doing it.

 

Some scares were the 2000 glitch and also the terrorist warnings on the tv,anthrax, BSE, Sars.

 

this is what scares me about the future:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha I knew Global warming was a scam. It rained all the last summer, and right now there is no snow outside and its cold as ice in my apt. If anything were headed for some kind of ice age, not warming.

I hate when people talk about global warming like this. "It's colder than last year, GLOBAL WARMING MUST BE FALSE". Global warming doesn't (for the most part) happen at a rate so that you can notice it from year-to-year. You have to look at the trends from the last couple hundreds of years. If it was happening at such a rate that you can really say it's noticeably warmer overall this year than last year (and not just from normal temperature variations) we would already be dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supposedly the temperature over the last century was on average 0.5 C higher than the century before. With fluctuations over 36500 days you can't realistically "notice" the temperature going up or down.

 

Anyway, whether you believe in global warming or not, it doesn't hurt to air on the side of caution. Also I really haven't heard any believable counter arguments. I mean, nobody is disputing that CO2 levels are rising. So what's the deniers arguments? That too much CO2 isn't harmful, ever (aside from global warming, acidification of water and in the extreme, breathing difficulties -- although I imagine countless other issues would arise before the latter)? That the amount of CO2 produced by humans is and always will be at a level that the earth can cope with (I don't see how if we keep cutting trees)? Really the only sensible argument you can make is that isn't so bad yet. Well then. Lets keep it that way. Even if we all start driving electric right now, it could take a century or more before we're anywhere near CO2-neutral as a species.

 

And electric cars are way cooler than primitive internal combustion engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant. CO2 is necessary for life on earth. Nothing would be green without it. Vegetation thrives on increased levels of CO2. CO2 amounts to approximately 0.04% [1] of the Earth’s atmosphere. Likewise, mankind’s contributions to annual atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are tiny. 97% of the CO2 released into the air is from natural sources. Mankind is thus responsible for 3% of the 0.04% of the atmosphere that’s comprised of carbon dioxide (0.001% of the atmosphere). As a greenhouse gas, CO2 is a weak agent. The most powerful contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor, which is responsible for 95% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect [2].

 

2. The Climate Changes. The Earth has constantly gone through periods of warming and cooling. The recent warming trend (which has now reversed – average world temperatures have been falling for the last decade) is not outside the natural variation that’s been observed in the geologic record. Mankind had nothing to do with the onset or end of any of the numerous past ice ages or warm periods.

 

3. Garbage in, Garbage Out. Computer models used by UN IPCC scientists that project catastrophic global warming are based on flawed inputs. The models assume that when average global temperatures are rising, less solar radiation is escaping from the Earth’s atmosphere. A new study by MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen, using 15 years of data collected from an orbiting satellite found that the exact opposite is true [3].

 

4. Consensus. Science isn’t determined by consensus. Consensus is a mechanism of politics. We always hear that the debate is over, the science is settled and the scientific consensus is that we are facing a man-made global warming crisis. It’s a lie. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consists of hundreds of bureaucrats and only a handful of scientists. Only 50 IPCC scientists were responsible for the reports claiming catastrophic climate change is around the corner. 54 IPCC scientists dissented, but their remarks were excluded from the reports. Over 31,000 scientists from around the world, each holding a bachelor’s or higher degree (over 9,000 PhDs) have now signed a document stating that global warming is not a serious concern [4]. There is a consensus, but it’s not what we’ve been told.

 

 

Citations:

 

1) T. J. Blasing, “Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations,” Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (2009)

 

2) S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

 

3) Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi, “On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data,” Geophysical Research Letters (2009)

 

4) Petition Project petitionproject.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant"

 

No kidding. The composition of the atmosphere still changes.

 

"97% of the CO2 released into the air is from natural sources. Mankind is thus responsible for 3%."

 

That's actually worse than I thought. That's a 2.9% increase in the overall level of CO2 caused solely by humans. With the world becoming more industrialized with the second, what will it be in 2030? 10%? What about 2060 (I'd be 88, with grandchildren probably)? 30%?

 

"the 0.04% of the atmosphere that’s comprised of carbon dioxide"

 

But 1% can already have an effect human physiology. Of course relatively that would still be a massive increase, but while we're putting things in perspective..

 

"As a greenhouse gas, CO2 is a weak agent. The most powerful contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor, which is responsible for 95% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect"

 

Without the greenhouse effect the average temperature on Earth would be -18 C. It is currently 15 C. This is a difference of 33 C, yet only a couple of degrees more or less has a mayor effect.

 

"The Climate Changes. The Earth has constantly gone through periods of warming and cooling. The recent warming trend (which has now reversed – average world temperatures have been falling for the last decade) is not outside the natural variation that’s been observed in the geologic record."

 

This is true. If the earth may very well be warming by natural or outside influences. Then it would have happened anyway. The supposed recent drop in average temperatures may be just a coincidence (only a tiny negative fluctuation would be needed to cancel out the current proposed level of man-made global warming) or the effect of "global dimming". Truth is nobody really knows. What we do know is CO2 levels have been rising. And that humans produce a lot of CO2. Almost 3% of all, even. The only conclusion is that the presence of humans is having an effect of the earth's atmosphere. What it's effects will be no one can conclusively predict. But I don't think it is unreasonable to say that when left unchecked at some point is going to have a negative effect on human life. Maybe as soon as 20 years from now or as late as 1000 years, who knows. Will it cause global warming on a scale that we can clearly measure (0.5 over a century is just too close to call)? It sounds plausible to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really I don't see how minuscule little ants like us could do serious change by releasing little "smoke" called co2 from burning fossile fuel. That like comparing the head of a needle on the ground and the sky level would be 10,000 feet up. Here you have a little another speck (a car) with your little pin sized ass driving in it, with a little pin sized smoke coming out of it. right.. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really I don't see how minuscule little ants like us could do serious change by releasing little "smoke" called co2 from burning fossile fuel. That like comparing the head of a needle on the ground and the sky level would be 10,000 feet up. Here you have a little another speck (a car) with your little pin sized ass driving in it, with a little pin sized smoke coming out of it. right.. lol

When it comes to interacting with our environment and the impact that we have on the earth we're much more than just ants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that bothers me are stupid things like "Earth Hour".

 

1) Let's say that I throughout the year averagely use some sort of electricity 9 hours per day, i.e. 3285 hours per year. For the sake of simplifying calculations, let's assume that my electricity usage is uniformly distributed. By observing "Earth Hour" I'll then save about 0.03% of my total electricity consumption. OMFG I'M GONNA SAVE THE EARTH!!1one

2) Calling it "Earth Hour" is ridiculous. The Earth doesn't give a shit. It's survived far worse things throughout time.

3) "It's for awareness bla bla I'm an idiot". a) How can I possibly not be aware when I have to keep listening to this? b) Right, so lead people into believing they're making a difference so they needn't do anything else. They're already helping after all.

4) You want me to turn off my computer? GTFO.

 

Really I don't see how minuscule little ants like us could do serious change by releasing little "smoke" called co2 from burning fossile fuel. That like comparing the head of a needle on the ground and the sky level would be 10,000 feet up. Here you have a little another speck (a car) with your little pin sized ass driving in it, with a little pin sized smoke coming out of it. right.. lol

 

Sure, ants are small, but do you want an entire ant colony in your living room?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And almost 7 billion of us, expected 9 billion by 2040..

 

Something that bothers me are stupid things like "Earth Hour".

 

1) Let's say that I throughout the year averagely use some sort of electricity 9 hours per day, i.e. 3285 hours per year. For the sake of simplifying calculations, let's assume that my electricity usage is uniformly distributed. By observing "Earth Hour" I'll then save about 0.03% of my total electricity consumption. OMFG I'M GONNA SAVE THE EARTH!!1one

2) Calling it "Earth Hour" is ridiculous. The Earth doesn't give a shit. It's survived far worse things throughout time.

3) "It's for awareness bla bla I'm an idiot". a) How can I possibly not be aware when I have to keep listening to this? b) Right, so lead people into believing they're making a difference so they needn't do anything else. They're already helping after all.

4) You want me to turn off my computer? GTFO.

 

Yeah that stuff is not going to make a dent. You have to think big cause that is just a lot of trouble with too low a return. Personally I have high hopes for green energy and electric transportation. Especially the latter. The fact that we're still driving cars based on exploding goo is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I agree. This is a terrible crysis (Not to be confused with the VG). I hope some great politician for mother earth will make a policy to force everyone on bikes instead of cars as they just pollute way too much for the good of us all.

 

Also, we must not allow forests to burn themself. We need to form some peace negotiation.

 

Computers should just be destroyed as they consume a massive amount of energy. Also they let people look at the other side of the story that simply will not work in a free, everyone-works-the-same, society.

 

I think North Korea is a perfect example of a country. They all believe in their leader, they don't have any vehicles (Why don't we do this?), and they never ever speak against whats going on (Well, if someone does it will only be temporary as they will reasonably work out his problems why he is upset about the way the country is.). Lets bring up food consumption. The per capita for food in NK is far less than US which means more efficient people!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's ridiculous. Your point?

 

Thats my same exact thought when we consider how much money we are wasting to "save the world from impending disaster".

 

People were sure that witchcraft would bring an end to the world so they went on witch hunts.

 

People thought we would overpopulate the planet and eat all the food and then we all die from starvation so they attempted to make population caps (China attempted to make one at what was it? 1B?).

 

People thought that "global warming" is going to destroy the entire planet.

 

People thought that...oh wait I'm not a future teller.  ;)

 

Honestly, if a politician tells me something, I'm just gonna believe he is wrong and I'll be right more than wrong. Lawyers are not the bad guys, politicians are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have valid arguments to downplay the effects of CO2 increase, fine, but what you're saying is just a big load of bullcrap. No arguments whatsoever. All you said is you don't believe it because there are politicians that say it is so. That, sir, is retarded. I have to restrain myself not to make remarks about evolution being a myth, proven by the existence of people using the words "bad guys" in a non-fictional and non-humorous context. Oh. Sorry. Maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it does is trivial. Sure, it could increase it by a very, very, very, low number, but its as valid as the population end-of-the-world scenario. They both hold stone if they are blown completely out of proportion in which needs to happen for it to destroy the world.

 

Eg. We have 10 trillion people on earth. Everything is the streets of a major city. No where to plant vegetation or food, people starve. I suppose it doesn't make sense as how could you get to 10 trillion in the first place? But anyways, that was considered a "serious threat" that earth would run out of capacity.

 

Sure to the same extent of global warming destroying earth. If we produced a gigantic number of CO2, the world could theoretically be in jeopardy.

 

Really, air pollution is gonna kill people before global warming does. Chinese people don't live a shorter life due to heat, its due to air contamination and from my knowledge, you can't really have global warming without air pollution so therefore global warming is not a threat but air pollution is.

 

Really, if we did increase 0.5 (Not sure if this is F or C. Also that could easily be just luck more or less. Maybe next century it will be a drop of 0.6 degrees?) in the last 100 years, we surely will die from air pollution first as far as the air pollution:temperature ratio goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, I am for doing my part to help out. IE installing lights that save me money, turning off electronics when not in use to save me money in the short term etc.

 

As far as global warming is concerned I do appreciate that my children's  children may experience it and I will do my part, I am just not going to go hog wild about it. The only real bad part is, me doing all these energy efficient acts really save me money now, but later down the line they energy companies are not going to be making enough money so they are going to charge more etc. So all this BS that it saves you money in the long run is just stupid. I do do it to help with the bills now, but in reality it is just nice to pitch in so my kids and their children may have it easier.

 

The other stupid thing is those dumbass 'save the polar' commercials. I mean come, fuck the polar bears I need to save my ass first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who propagate it are the ones who are making a lot of money off of it (or those convinced by these), but often not living up to what they would have everyone else do.

 

Al Gore is a perfect example, do a little big of research and see just how much money he has made from his bs... while at the same time he owns a mansion that consumes many many times as much electricity as the average person's home, he loves to fly around on private jets, and he loves to eat meat (which apparently is something that hardcore environmentalists say is about the worst thing you could do). These research centers obviously are trying to "hide" data and such, in their own words. Why wouldn't they? They have great incentive to, the more panic they can create from gullible people, the more contributions they get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the more contributions they get.

 

to give (money, time, knowledge, assistance, etc.) to a common supply, fund, etc., as for charitable purposes.

 

I'm afraid you are mis-using the word "contribution". Forcing someone to pay for someone is NOT a form of a contribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is more than a year old. Are you sure you have something important to add to it?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.