The Heat

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 18 Sep 2006 19:53

We can't destroy the earth unless we totally blow it apart, or blow it off its axis or out ifts orbit or something. What we can do it destroy ourselves by making it less hospitable to our existence. This is what has happened/is happening. Personally, I think water levels will rise, and the climate will change dramatically over the next generation's lifespan. Balance however will be restored over time, civilization as we know it might be destroyed, but I don't think humanity will be. I think the death toll will be immense, but necessary. In the new climate humanity will no longer be able to function without a consideration of sustainability and balance. You can try and delay the innevitable, but as fasr as I'm concerned the tipping point has been passed. Al Gore's movie does indeed offer a good sum up of much of the science of global warming, however he suggests that grass roots social and political change can solve the problem. I disagree as the fundamental social and political structures are the problem. He does not go into specific predictions as to what will happen beyond the water levels rising when the ice on greenland slips into the ocean, he suggests a possible outcome but does not follow the consequences fully. I think following those consequences is what individuals should do, that way when the shit hits the fan, you'll be prepared. Sure try and stop climate change, reduce you personal energy needs and carbon outputs, and vote for political parties and leaders who advocate sound enviromental policy if they exist, but don't bank on that being enough.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 20 Sep 2006 05:02

We can't destroy the earth unless we totally blow it apart, or blow it off its axis or out ifts orbit or something.

Hmm, yes, yes, I think I like where you're going with this, Dyalan. So, what are you proposing; how should we destroy the earth? I say we build our own death-star, but thats just the star-wars fan in me talking. Of course, it could probably also be done by simply stuffing all our nuclear weapons into the earth and setting them all off at once, kind of like when you stuff a pumpkin full of firecrackers. But I'm curious to hear how you would do it.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 20 Sep 2006 06:55

Outsider wrote:
We can't destroy the earth unless we totally blow it apart, or blow it off its axis or out ifts orbit or something.
Hmm, yes, yes, I think I like where you're going with this, Dyalan. So, what are you proposing; how should we destroy the earth? I say we build our own death-star, but thats just the star-wars fan in me talking. Of course, it could probably also be done by simply stuffing all our nuclear weapons into the earth and setting them all off at once, kind of like when you stuff a pumpkin full of firecrackers. But I'm curious to hear how you would do it.

That would be an interesting experiment.

Global warming, nuclear war, bird flu outbreak... these are things I can do nothing about. They do not concern me.

dp · Post by dp » 20 Sep 2006 12:06

Global warming, nuclear war, bird flu outbreak... these are things I can do nothing about. They do not concern me.

Wrong! You can do something about Global Warming however small an impact it will make. Recycle, turn out electrical stuff when you're not using it, bike and walk more palces instead of driving, etc.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 20 Sep 2006 16:11

Jamieson lives in a tent in the bush, he has no electricity and owns only: one footbag, one pair of lavers, one pair of short shorts, one t-shirt, and a video camera which he powers up using his final belonging - a make shift power generator cobbled together from a rusty old push bike.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 20 Sep 2006 18:37

Yeah, Dyalan is correct. I also power my computer using my generator, as I pedal it produces electricity, so I'm pretty fit. I confess though, i have 2 footbags

I really shouldn't, it's unnecessary consumerism that's killing our planet

*ahem*

I guess what I meant was in large scale terms there is nothing I can do. I do all of those things you mentioned (I lost my license for the good of the planet!!

). I also don't believe these will make any impact at all, we're probably screwed already. But I have a very strong christian belief, and although I don't believe in 'fate' as such, I do believe God knows all and my bible tells me certain things that lead me to believe we'll be all right. (If you want to make some argument that that is fate or whatever then pm me I'd be happy to discuss, just don't derail this thread)

Scott · Post by **Scott** » 22 Sep 2006 15:38

Don't worry about global warming, capitalism will save the day.

http://blogs.forbes.com/going_global/20 ... _scen.html

Anyway once we run out of oil all we have to do is filter our coal power stations or use more nuclear power and the world will recover in no time.

I don't really think turning off my computer monitor is going to make much of a difference in the long run.

janis · Post by **janis** » 24 Sep 2006 02:59

Scott wrote:Don't worry about global warming, capitalism will save the day.

http://blogs.forbes.com/going_global/20 ... _scen.html

Anyway once we run out of oil all we have to do is filter our coal power stations or use more nuclear power and the world will recover in no time.

I don't really think turning off my computer monitor is going to make much of a difference in the long run.

LMAO
you're not serious right?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 26 Sep 2006 17:50

I think it would be more fun, for debate, to buy the hoax that warming IS occuring, that it IS caused by human consumption, and that it MIGHT make a difference if emissions were cut drastically.

Because then we can debate about who gets screwed, who deserves to be screwed.

We can guess who is going to pollute away unrestricted, while at the same time, collecting penalty money from the dupe countries that pay.

We can debate the value of human life vs. protecting the environment.

Which lives must be sacrificed, for the potential protection?

Should developing countries stop developing? or be forced to stop?

Does lifting a society out of squalor and poverty, have "to high" an environmental cost?

Lots of great non-P.C., offensive solutions could be thrown around.

---------------------

Although, Al Gore should not be the focus of this thread, when his giant whoppers of hypocrisy, or massive pollution conflicts of interest occur, they need to be aired.

Also, because he is at the forefront of the G.W. lobby, and stands to influence how, or who gets screwed.

Did anybody read about his idea to throw out Soc Security, and unemployment compensation tax, in exchange for a greenhouse consumption tax?

That seemed like a fools' errand, that could never be considered feasible.

I am sure the press, and news outlets have buried that speech.

No need for the public to see that foollery.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 03 Oct 2006 09:56

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

Here's a link about Gore railing about cigarette smokers causing the global warming, and then selling copies of his book.

So the next time you see somebody smoking a cigarette, outside, showing consideration for those who might be uncomfortable, you should walk up to them and scream in their face, "You're killing my children!"

-n

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 03 Oct 2006 10:18

That article is pure bullshit.....no sources or science. I agree that global warming is a problem and that we can do something to fix it but smoking ciggarettes is the least of the problem.

INTERESTING FACTS OF THE DAY!!!

The USA used 8% of the worlds 2003 electricity consumption on air conditioners alone. (Globe and Mail Oct 3rd/2006)

Air conditioners in american vehicals use 26 million litres of petrol a year, which is equivalent to the total oil consumption of Indonesia, which has a population of 240 million people.(Same source as above)

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 03 Oct 2006 15:39

Americans shouldn't use their AC in their cars.

They are to fat anyway, and should sweat off that excess weight.

AC un-naturally extends the life of old people, who would otherwise expire in the heat of summer while traveling.

--------------------

You are correct, there was no source for that Gore speech, nor any mention of the science supporting the cigarette tie to g.warming.

The speech, if it occured at all, is gone from the ether.

I can't find it using Google, or Ask.com, or dogpile

All I can find , are links to that drudge page, and the United Nations website, with the media alert for that day announcing that Al Gore would give a Climate speech, or show, later in the day.

http://www.un.org/media/accreditation/m ... =28/9/2006

I wonder if we will ever know what he said at that speech.

What a prick, for having to conceal his ideas, when he addresses foreign audiences. He is probably telling them how to screw us.

-n

-----------

Aleksandr · Post by **Aleksandr** » 03 Oct 2006 18:11

Smoking is only bad for global warming because of transport and packaging - using fossile fuels. Actual emmission from burning the tobacco (and chemicals) is 0 because any tobacco that is burnt is replaced and the carbon comes back out of air.

Only thing that causes global warming is burning coal based material that is not replaced. This is why almost 100% of scientists accept that global warming is caused by humans. Easy to test and prove that higher carbon atmosphere = higher temperatures - easy to record that carbon in atmosphere is higher - easy to find the source of the imbalance since other carbon sources into the air are replaced (balanced). Fossil fuels replace themselves too - but it takes million of years and we are burning them in lot quicker than million years.

Scott wrote:Anyway once we run out of oil all we have to do is filter our coal power stations or use more nuclear power and the world will recover in no time.

Not the case. Unless we start creating more things with carbon, the levels of carbon in the atmosphere will remain the same - it is very hard to reverse process unless we give up economic land to plant trees. Australia will face drought forever.

james_dean wrote:Global warming, nuclear war, bird flu outbreak... these are things I can do nothing about. They do not concern me.

Australia you are very bad in greenhouse gasses. You live in democracy. You can do something. Politicians do what people want them to do. You want to stop global warming - tell them that is what you want. Try but fail is better than do not try at all. Global warming is global problem. It will only go away if globe works together - not just some people and not others.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 05 Oct 2006 13:07

Ah, I didn't think about the fossil fuels burned in the trucking of the cigarettes.

That is the case for recycling also.

When you throw a plastic bottle in the recycle bin, an extra diesel truck has to spew toxins all over town, to save the environment.

-n

Aleksandr · Post by **Aleksandr** » 09 Oct 2006 08:07

HighDemonslayer wrote:
When you throw a plastic bottle in the recycle bin, an extra diesel truck has to spew toxins all over town, to save the environment.

-n

What is your point? If you do not recycle the garbage track has to do more trips and there is more rubbish. You think best thing to do is keep rubbish in your home?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 09 Oct 2006 18:50

No, you don't keep the plastic bottles in your house, lol.

However, I re-use some plastic drink bottles a few times before throwing them away.

You throw it in with all the other trash, and it all goes in one truck, instead of having 2 diesel trucks.

Most garbage trucks I see, have a compactor, so there would be no need for the truck to make extra trips, JUST because of the increased mass of having garbage and recyclables mixed together.

-n

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 10 Oct 2006 10:10

In oakland, and probably elsewhere in the bay.

All the garbage gets taken away in one truck.
All the bags are opened and sorted at a central facility.