We can't stop global warming

O

Onceler

New member
Barring an absolute worldwide revolution in energy development & usage. And it won't happen, because we'd need to see the real effects of where this is headed (which are only just starting to appear) in order to act. We're a reactive society, not a proactive one; we wait until terrorists are in the airport with liquid explosives to ban liquids on flights. We can't even make modest emissions cuts happen, which would do next to nothing even if enacted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23552526/

And the buffoonery of people like Dano & Superfreak will go down in history with the idiocy of the men who ridiculed & persecuted Galileo for daring suggest that the earth was not the center of the universe. 100 years from now, when we're living in domes or something along those lines, no one is going to remember that you could draw a line between 1998 & 2007 and conclude in a half-witted way that "maybe we're not warming, after all!", and we certainly won't think that global warming is good for polar bears & whales, who will be long gone....
 
Onceler said:
Barring an absolute worldwide revolution in energy development & usage. And it won't happen, because we'd need to see the real effects of where this is headed (which are only just starting to appear) in order to act. We're a reactive society, not a proactive one; we wait until terrorists are in the airport with liquid explosives to ban liquids on flights. We can't even make modest emissions cuts happen, which would do next to nothing even if enacted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23552526/

And the buffoonery of people like Dano & Superfreak will go down in history with the idiocy of the men who ridiculed & persecuted Galileo for daring suggest that the earth was not the center of the universe. 100 years from now, when we're living in domes or something along those lines, no one is going to remember that you could draw a line between 1998 & 2007 and conclude in a half-witted way that "maybe we're not warming, after all!", and we certainly won't think that global warming is good for polar bears & whales, who will be long gone....
Click to expand...
So aim at the reactive, use it to fight terrorism and pollution without worrying about global warming. If the same actions take place for a different reason why not accept the actions anyway?
 
Damocles said:
So aim at the reactive, use it to fight terrorism and pollution without worrying about global warming. If the same actions take place for a different reason why not accept the actions anyway?
Click to expand...

I'd accept them if they were happening. They're not. The pollution argument has been made for decades; national security is new to the mix, but it's backed by some very influential people & groups. Still, nothing to rival the cash flow of the oil industry....so not much happens (a few symbolic changes here & there, but completely neglegible in the scheme of things)...
 
Onceler said:
I'd accept them if they were happening. They're not. The pollution argument has been made for decades; national security is new to the mix, but it's backed by some very influential people & groups. Still, nothing to rival the cash flow of the oil industry....so not much happens (a few symbolic changes here & there, but completely neglegible in the scheme of things)...
Click to expand...
It would help if more jumped on the bandwagon. Pretending that moving in the same direction would be bad because they aren't saying "Co2 and Consensus" like Cypress is simply foolish. Use the allies you have regardless of the reason that they move in the same direction. The more momentum you get the less chance of stopping it there is.
 
I have yet to see anyone, anywhere reject an initiative to move in a greener direction, because those proposing it were doing so on the basis if national security & not global warming or consensus. If it's out there, I missed it.
 
Onceler said:
I have yet to see anyone, anywhere reject an initiative to move in a greener direction, because those proposing it were doing so on the basis if national security & not global warming or consensus. If it's out there, I missed it.
Click to expand...
Cypress does it all day long and calls people proposing it for any other reason than CO2 or Consensus "neanderthals" and "flat-earthers". So, either you don't pay attention, or you like to pretend you haven't seen it to make yourself feel better.

Not only that, but if you haven't seen some of the new up and coming technology on this front and gotten excited about it, then something is wrong.
 
"Not only that, but if you haven't seen some of the new up and coming technology on this front and gotten excited about it, then something is wrong."

That's a rather retarded interpretation of what I just said. Not sure what's happening to your reasoning capability of late.

And I'm not talking about the musings of anonymous internet message board posters, though I disagree with your characterization on that point, as well. I'm talking about meaningful action at the national or global level.
 
Onceler said:
"Not only that, but if you haven't seen some of the new up and coming technology on this front and gotten excited about it, then something is wrong."

That's a rather retarded interpretation of what I just said. Not sure what's happening to your reasoning capability of late.

And I'm not talking about the musings of anonymous internet message board posters, though I disagree with your characterization on that point, as well. I'm talking about meaningful action at the national or global level.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I wasn't speaking to you personally on that, it was meant as a generality of all people. As for meaningful action, you can expect it when they make it cool, when it is in. When people get excited about getting off the grid and saving money as well as "feeling good" about saving the world too.
 
"We can't stop the warming, nobody can stop the warming,
Take the cold from snow, tell the trees, don't grow,
Tell the wind, don't blow, 'cause it's easier.
No, you can't stop the warming, nobody can stop the warming.
Take the spark from love, make the rain fall up
'cause that's easier to do."

And I only had to replace "music" with "warming".

Them eco-terrorist Village People types, there they were, giving us a message and were we listening? Nope, we were all wondering about the handkerchief code. Jeez. Too late now probably.
 
tinfoil said:
AGW is the tool big business used to get the value of the new technologies up before they released them.
Click to expand...
Very likely, but that doesn't make them less cool. When we now can run a house on solar cells and places like CO you can actually sell back excess... I can likely pay for my solar cells in 5 years then it is all just savings and some of the electricity others use isn't from NG burning... Very cool.
 
Onceler said:
"Not only that, but if you haven't seen some of the new up and coming technology on this front and gotten excited about it, then something is wrong."

That's a rather retarded interpretation of what I just said. Not sure what's happening to your reasoning capability of late.

And I'm not talking about the musings of anonymous internet message board posters, though I disagree with your characterization on that point, as well. I'm talking about meaningful action at the national or global level.
Click to expand...

Ever since he started dating Superfreak, he's been different.
 
Onceler said:
Barring an absolute worldwide revolution in energy development & usage. And it won't happen, because we'd need to see the real effects of where this is headed (which are only just starting to appear) in order to act. We're a reactive society, not a proactive one; we wait until terrorists are in the airport with liquid explosives to ban liquids on flights. We can't even make modest emissions cuts happen, which would do next to nothing even if enacted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23552526/

And the buffoonery of people like Dano & Superfreak will go down in history with the idiocy of the men who ridiculed & persecuted Galileo for daring suggest that the earth was not the center of the universe. 100 years from now, when we're living in domes or something along those lines, no one is going to remember that you could draw a line between 1998 & 2007 and conclude in a half-witted way that "maybe we're not warming, after all!", and we certainly won't think that global warming is good for polar bears & whales, who will be long gone....
Click to expand...


QFT

The absolute best we can hope for is to slightly limit the extent of global warming.
We have made our bed and now we will sleep in it.
 
Onceler said:
Barring an absolute worldwide revolution in energy development & usage. And it won't happen, because we'd need to see the real effects of where this is headed (which are only just starting to appear) in order to act. We're a reactive society, not a proactive one; we wait until terrorists are in the airport with liquid explosives to ban liquids on flights. We can't even make modest emissions cuts happen, which would do next to nothing even if enacted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23552526/

And the buffoonery of people like Dano & Superfreak will go down in history with the idiocy of the men who ridiculed & persecuted Galileo for daring suggest that the earth was not the center of the universe. 100 years from now, when we're living in domes or something along those lines, no one is going to remember that you could draw a line between 1998 & 2007 and conclude in a half-witted way that "maybe we're not warming, after all!", and we certainly won't think that global warming is good for polar bears & whales, who will be long gone....
Click to expand...

You crack me up gumby2.

I have not stated that global warming doesn't exist. I have agreed with you that the past ten years have been some of the warmest on record. You are just too much of an idiot to recognize that because your panties are in a bunch over my stating the obvious.

Average temperatures last year were the same as they were ten years ago. The next point I make, that the previous sentence doesn't mean that temperatures haven't changed at all over those ten years you also choose to ignore.

The question you refuse to answer... other than with your childish rants.... is .... are average global temperatures from 2007 the same as they were in 1998?

Again, this doesn't mean that significant warming didn't occur during the 1990s. It just means they have stabilized over the past ten years and we should be asking ourselves WHY?

As for your example.... you have things a bit backwards.... Galileo faced the almighty "consensus" that was so sure they were right that they refused to accept anything that might show that their almighty "consensus" was wrong.
 
$plus $100 a barrel. estimates of 3trillion in iraq.

Lets cut our losses on the environment and in Iraq and begin pumping tons of money into alt energy.. imagine what we could do with 3 trillion of investment into American alt energy tax breaks and university funding or what not have alternative energy like solar shingles and siding on houses in America and solar paint on cars.

pick an alt energy and make America the leading expert on it and sell it to the world. It will be another golden era for us.
 
"Again, this doesn't mean that significant warming didn't occur during the 1990s. It just means they have stabilized over the past ten years and we should be asking ourselves WHY? "

You conclude that they have "stabilized" because of a 1 year drop?

Yes or no on that....
 
Onceler said:
"Again, this doesn't mean that significant warming didn't occur during the 1990s. It just means they have stabilized over the past ten years and we should be asking ourselves WHY? "

You conclude that they have "stabilized" because of a 1 year drop?

Yes or no on that....
Click to expand...

No you twit.... where did I say it was because of a one year drop? Seriously, when did you become as bad as Cypress creating strawmen?

I SAID that the average temperature in 2007 was the same as it was in 1998. That is ten years with a net zero change in average temperatures. Yes, they went up and down during that ten years, but for a ten year period to end with a net zero change... yes, I would call that stabilized.... but what caused the stabilization? That should be a question we all ask.... is it a temporary natural phenomenon that offset the additions of man? Or what?

I answered your question... are you planning on answering mine?
 
Imagine where our country would be if all the Iraq war money had been routed back into the USA. Heck we could even have secure borders against terrorist attacks.
 
"As for your example.... you have things a bit backwards.... Galileo faced the almighty "consensus" that was so sure they were right that they refused to accept anything that might show that their almighty "consensus" was wrong."

It figures a lackey like you would interpret it this way.

Galileo believed in science. The men who persecuted him believed in putting their hands over their ears, closing their eyes and humming loudly. That's more "your department," as they say...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top