Global Warming

catocom said:
eh, I'm still looking for an affordable electric car, that has some horsepower,
longer running.
Click to expand...

Hybrids are as far as the technology has advance so far. I read a while back that someone came up with a new, relatively inexpensive way to mass produce fuel cell separators though, so if that pans out maybe reasonably efficient and inexpensive electric cars aren't that far away. OTOH, the cheapest way to make hydrogen is currently from natural gas (Honda even makes a machine for you to do it at home) so that kind of misses the fossil fuels boat. :shrug:

I think maglev cars will precede flying cars, but the first big step on that road is getting people to give up individual control. As Bish says, a lot of people can't drive safely in two dimensions, let alone three.
 
if they could just figure out how to make a cheap particle separator, so
we could just use water......:nerd:
 
catocom said:
if they could just figure out how to make a cheap particle separator, so
we could just use water......:nerd:
Click to expand...


You do realize that water vapor is a much more significant greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, don't you? :shrug:
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Ah.

No SUVs, no pollution, nothing man made in that one either. So why are we to believe that this time it's different?
Click to expand...

Because Al Gore says so! :lloyd:

So a propaganda leap was made from that half truth to the claim that more carbon dioxide means more heat in the air. This leap of logic is not science. Science is measurement of evidence which is evaluated through correct logic based upon established principles. A leap in logic does not have to have any relationship to objective reality. One could say that since humans walk on two legs, and dogs on four, humans should only weigh half as much as dogs, or humans should eat half as much food as dogs. The logic can't go in any wild direction in contradiction to known facts.
Click to expand...

Link
 
eh, if they find a way to do it, I sure the tech will be there to do something
on the exhaust end too. ;)
 
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Click to expand...

Canada Free Press

This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact.
Click to expand...
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
They know because they are [trumpet fanfare]SCIENTISTS[/fanfare]. The same folk who tell us all about the dinosaurs what used to run about 72 quidtrillion years ago. Back when we evolved from apes
Click to expand...

You don't believe in science, dinosaurs, or evolution?

They have dinosaur skeletons you can look at. :confused:
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Ah.

No SUVs, no pollution, nothing man made in that one either. So why are we to believe that this time it's different?
Click to expand...

Because what is going on now is not part of a natuarl cycle.

a working group of some 3,000 delegates from 113 countries, today issued its final report here on the state of climate change--and the findings were grim. "There can be no question that the increases in these greenhouse gases are dominated by human activity,"

Weird that so many here are so determined to deny overwhelming evidence. What's the motivation for being unable to be objective?

Is it just resistance to putting forth any kind of effort to improve the situation?
 
spike said:
Because what is going on now is not part of a natuarl cycle.

a working group of some 3,000 delegates from 113 countries, today issued its final report here on the state of climate change--and the findings were grim. "There can be no question that the increases in these greenhouse gases are dominated by human activity,"

Weird that so many here are so determined to deny overwhelming evidence. What's the motivation for being unable to be objective?

Is it just resistance to putting forth any kind of effort to improve the situation?
Click to expand...
1. The most prevalent greenhouse gas is not CO2, it's water vapor (much more prevalent). A hydrogen based energy solution would create more water vapor, would it not?
2. While most agree that humanity has a role in this there is considerable divergence of opinion over what role we have.

Finally, I don't think it's reluctance to do anything, I think it's reluctance to do something that would screw up the world's economy because in the short term that would certainly be much more disruptive. It's not the huge emergency that the doom-cryers would have you believe and it's not happening in a vacuum. Over-reacting is always at least as dangerous as under-reacting and it appears the jury is still out on what a "reasoned" reaction is.
 
Speaking only for myself, it's reluctance to:

1. Believe a damn word that falls out of Al "I invented the internet" Gore's lying mouth. And before you start, he was my senator a long time before he was your VP.

2. Believe data funded by those with a specific agenda.

3. Put one iota of belief in the concept of global warming when it is part of the cyclic pattern of nature. I know many of you choose not to believe this, but man is capable of doing so very little to this planet. They say we access something like 10% of our brain's true potential...well, I say we get maybe that much out of this planet. To think that we are capable of such enormous climate change is laughable. One would have to believe man created himself to believe bunk like that.

Then again, some of y'all do believe that...



In the end, we as a species could not ever hope to destroy this planet of our own actions. Of all the things it is possible to fear, that one is on the bottom of my list.
 
Hell, Pelosi herself just said "I see green turning into gold, for the US"

I mean to me this is just a Blatant money grab.:shrug:
 
spike said:
You don't believe in science, dinosaurs, or evolution?

They have dinosaur skeletons you can look at. :confused:
Click to expand...

They have bones of something arranged in a pattern. Give me enough bones and I can build anything you want.

Evolution, yes. Evolution as the genesis of life? No way.

Science? A useful pursuit without question. As a means of explaining the genesis of life...useless.
 
chcr said:
1. The most prevalent greenhouse gas is not CO2, it's water vapor (much more prevalent). A hydrogen based energy solution would create more water vapor, would it not?
2. While most agree that humanity has a role in this there is considerable divergence of opinion over what role we have.

Finally, I don't think it's reluctance to do anything, I think it's reluctance to do something that would screw up the world's economy because in the short term that would certainly be much more disruptive. It's not the huge emergency that the doom-cryers would have you believe and it's not happening in a vacuum. Over-reacting is always at least as dangerous as under-reacting and it appears the jury is still out on what a "reasoned" reaction is.
Click to expand...

1. I didn't mention hydrogen but I would suppose that the solution should be whatever produces the least total greenhouse gas. So if hydrogen produces water vapor but the total amount of greenhouse gas is less than it might be viable.

2. Most may agree humanity is dominating the increase in greenhouse gas it seems many here are in denial that humanity has any role at all.

It seems like a reluctance to do anything on this board more than something that would screw up the world's economy. There's much that can be done without destroying the economy.

You say it's not an emergency yet that is an empty claim. Many people that I'm guessing are much more informed on the subject are disagreeing with you.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Speaking only for myself, it's reluctance to:

1. Believe a damn word that falls out of Al "I invented the internet" Gore's lying mouth.
Click to expand...

Actually that Gore said he invented the internet is a lie.

Status: False at Snopes

Interesting that easily believe lies about Gore.

2. Believe data funded by those with a specific agenda.
Click to expand...

Good, because most of the data about global warming isn't. Much of those against are however.

3. Put one iota of belief in the concept of global warming when it is part of the cyclic pattern of nature. I know many of you choose not to believe this, but man is capable of doing so very little to this planet. They say we access something like 10% of our brain's true potential...well, I say we get maybe that much out of this planet. To think that we are capable of such enormous climate change is laughable. One would have to believe man created himself to believe bunk like that.
Click to expand...

The current global warming trend is not part of the earth natural cycle. Current trends are not explained by natural cycle but can be explained by the 35% increase in greenhouse gasses.

To think billions of people burning fossil fuels and creating pollution all over the world has no effect is laughable. To draw a parallel to brain power or man creating himself where there is absolutely no connection just underlines the baselessness of your arguement and a refusal to look at the information.

In the end, we as a species could not ever hope to destroy this planet of our own actions. Of all the things it is possible to fear, that one is on the bottom of my list.
Click to expand...

It's not about destroying or disintegrating the globe it's about effect on the climate which changes conditions on the globe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top