48 replies to this topic

[U1]

some stuff is real, more aren't

REAL: the ice on the poles are melting

REAL: the temperature is going up

FALSE: the oceans will not get higher levels and citys won't be flooded by water.

FALSE: the nature wont get in collapse, it will just adapt itself like it did in all history of the planet.

Its a natural process but where speeding it up quite significantly, the oceans ARE rising, if you shove five ice cubes in a glass of water when they melt its obviously going to rise, recently a large chunk of ice broke off from the south pole that could have supplied new york fresh water for 1 year and that disappeared within days and now the glaciers behind that are moving towards the ocean, that's alot of water !!

Every year or so the amount of ice that covers the polar regions is reducing consistently, infact i wouldn't be surprised if it does happen in our lifetime since it has reduced in size by nearly half in what 15 20 years, but nothing will be done until its too late and lots of lives are lost as usual, everything's about money these days !!

Just take a look at this page and look at the second diagram, use the slider to see how much its changed over the last 20 odd years.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/6995999.stm

Buy a boat =)

Edited by U1, 22 June 2008 - 09:05 PM.

[Jeepinator]

U1 if you have a glass of ice water and the ice melts, the water level goes down. Just thought I'd point that out.

[Donna]

Inconvenient Truth - contained nine scientific "errors, so how on earth can you believe someone that had no clue in the first place?

And these errors are?

It was all over the news, schools even banned the movie and those that had already shown it were asked to correct the errors so kids wern't being brainwashed on false info.

http://scienceandpub...goreerrors.html shows the full 35 errors 9 being intentional lies or http://scienceandpub...gore-errors.pdf

That site doesn't even look reliable.. its a croppot of graphics and words I could have made up. Here are some other views of the author of that website...

Monckton's views on how the AIDS epidemic should be tackled have been the subject of some controversy. In an article entitled "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", written for the January 1987 issue of The American Spectator, he argued that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently." This would involve isolating between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States.

or we could spend half the money it would take to do that and put it towards a cure...

Monckton is critical of the theory of anthropogenic causes for global warming and the stated scope of it, which he regards as a controversy catalyzed by "the need of the international left for a new flag to rally round" following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.^[16] Although he has acknowledged that global warming is real, he has cast doubt on its provenance and the underlying science in a number of newspaper articles and papers.

you are using evidence from someone who BELIEVES in global warming to say global warming isn't real.

And lastly the author is not a scientist. He used to be a journalist and more recently polotician. At least al gore traveled the world and talked to scientists...

and even if i am wrong and so are millions of other people (I am willing to say there is a possibility I am wrong) then at least we stood for somthing and tired to make the world better. (Even if that just means pushing for alternative fule and cleaning the enviorment.) We didn't just sit there... I mean what if global warming isn't real... what is wrong with trying to clean up the earth and stop our dependence of foriegn energy. At least it's improving something.

and just to make jeepinator happy I did the real profesional thing and used wiki... (So you know it has to be true..!!)

I never stated he was a scientist if thats what you mean, I was asked what the errors are and that website shows them all..........you'll find the same on all the big news websites with the 9 most relevant ones.

As for cleaning the environment I would like to see this happen but it never will in any of our lifetimes as only a few are interested and we're ALL guilty of polluting and wasting energy.

Some favs of mine is they say our fuel is more environmentally friendly, if it's so friendly why do people still die from the fumes? Can you imagine what animals must be smelling?

Garbage dumps/tips etc shouldn't even exist if we all recycled our garbage.

All our used house water should be used in our gardens and sewage should not be allowed back into oceans even if it's treated I'm sure they can find a dung beetle.

[U1]

U1 if you have a glass of ice water and the ice melts, the water level goes down. Just thought I'd point that out.

Hmm never actually tried it but if your gonna shove say 20 ice cubes in a glass of water its gonna overflow =), 1 or 2 here and there won't do much to notice anything for now =)

Edited by U1, 23 June 2008 - 01:58 PM.

[Jeepinator]

U1 if you have a glass of ice water and the ice melts, the water level goes down. Just thought I'd point that out.

Hmm never actually tried it but if your gonna shove say 20 ice cubes in a glass of water its gonna overflow =), 1 or 2 here and there won't do much to notice anything for now =)

I understand if you put them in AFTER you fill the glass but here on earth the ice is already in the glass if you catch my drift. I know there is land ice though which would probably make things flood.

Anyway, Bouzy your last statement I do completely agree with. Nothing bad can come from innovations that make for a cleaner environment. It isn't only good for the environment it is also good for the economy and the public.

[Donna]

Ice caused major flooding where I am this last winter because we had a few warmer than normal days and the icey rivers starting to slowly melt caused the banks to overflow as the ice had no where to go, but for anyone that lives in cold winters will know that even 10ft of snow can melt within a few days and have hardly any water from it, as for ice.water expands when cold so it's actually less when melted Hope that all makes sense lol

[Jeepinator]

Ice caused major flooding where I am this last winter because we had a few warmer than normal days and the icey rivers starting to slowly melt caused the banks to overflow as the ice had no where to go, but for anyone that lives in cold winters will know that even 10ft of snow can melt within a few days and have hardly any water from it, as for ice.water expands when cold so it's actually less when melted Hope that all makes sense lol

Well yes because the melted snow adds more water as it was not in the rivers already. This would be like land ice. But an iceberg would not add to the height of the water.

[Matthew.]

That site doesn't even look reliable.. its a croppot of graphics and words I could have made up. Here are some other views of the author of that website...

The film is well known for being on the whole just another worthless piece of propaganda. I don't know what the situation in other countries is, but here in England for schools to legally show it to students we have to be issued with a list of faults/lies in it.

It shows nothing more than Al Gore's impressive ability to make speeches. It's not a balanced view on the issue and shouldn't be taken very seriously as authority on the issue as it presents all the characteristics of something a causal pressure group may want to become engaged with. If you really need proof take a good look (or even a brief look) at the large graph he uses to demonstrate the relationship between global temperature and CO₂ p/p and you will see that in actual fact that very graph contradicts quite significantly the theory behind the very idea of global warming. (the graph shows that temperature in fact peaks in all cases slightly before CO₂ levels begin to rise).

Global warming shouldn't even be the issue anymore. The atmosphere is changing, and few will deny that as it's plainly visible but that's nothing new to the Earth and in terms of what has happened in the past it's to a minor degree. But whether carbon dioxide and other gas emissions are causing this or not, the core issue is we're still using fossil fuels which are not going to last forever and for a society that claims to be advanced the idea of burning away the planet and indeed making the atmosphere unhealthier in the process for our own gain doesn't really bode well. Global warming and the effect we are having on it should be used primarily as an awareness campaign imo. Things like advising people to turn off appliances and switching to energy saving lightbulbs is all well and good but when it comes down to it regardless of whatever wild statistic 'they' may come out with to shock us it's not going to make a significant difference on the grand scale of things. Promote it but do it with the intention of changing people's mindset on the issue, not saving the world by turning down the weekly wash to 40.

I will say what I have said for quite a while now although I know most do not agree - unless a more efficient technology is developed soon then the only viable large scale option is nuclear power. The idea of wind and hydrolic turbines is nice and all but in the majority of cases its simply not practical, having said that I would dearly love to see some effort going into research of solar energy. If we're talking fission power then the hazards are well documented, but people need to appreciate the balance between gratifying their own demands as users of the end product and the fact that where the dangers have become apparent (ok, I'm skirting around the main name 'Chernobyl') it has been down to nothing else than simple human error (should I say ignorance?). Not to play down the dangers and certainly not to make light the trajedy of Chernobyl in particular but if you dig around these things then there are just so many more factors that come into it than simply 'nuclear is bad' as some people will tout.

As far as fusion goes....well....if we ever develop a material resistant to the high temperatures it needs to be to contain it then as far as I understand it we're all sorted with a reaction so unstable that if anything went wrong it would shut down and added to that an endless supply of Helium for our enjoyment!

Yeah....so, apologies if I went on a bit and if what I think is horribly expressed but to be frank about it I'm shattered. Just thought I would share what I think on the issue which admittedly is only the viewpoint of what I see as a British teen!

Edited by Matthew., 24 June 2008 - 05:47 PM.

[Donna]

Things like advising people to turn off appliances and switching to energy saving lightbulbs is all well and good but when it comes down to it regardless of whatever wild statistic 'they' may come out with to shock us it's not going to make a significant difference on the grand scale of things. Promote it but do it with the intention of changing people's mindset on the issue, not saving the world by turning down the weekly wash to 40.

The idea of wind and hydrolic turbines is nice and all but in the majority of cases its simply not practical,

Also skeptical on all those energy efficient appliances, we changed over a year ago and have not noticed the slightest diff in our power. As for enery saving lightbulbs I hate them they give me migraines the same as fluorescent bulbs, never thought much of it until I saw on the news one night 1,000's of other people are also being effected by them.

And as for wind and hydrolic turbines, ever walked around one and seen the amount of dead birds laying all over the place or parts of what used to be a bird.