Global Warming is bullshit; resume driving normally.

[Hardwyre]

This was such a wonderful read. Finally something that meticulously dismantles all of the 'global warming/climate change (notice the nomenclature change?)' bullshit.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Dont-believe-it.html

 

Science-driven-science learns from failed theories; greed-driven-science simply ignores all the, ironically, inconvenient truths.

 

The UN, echoed by Stern, says the graph isn't important. It is. Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.

The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000-year melting trend. Data from 6,000 boreholes worldwide show global temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than now. And the snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing not because summit temperature is rising (it isn't) but because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air. Al Gore please note.

 

 

Enjoy.

[HRH]

Ehh, say what you will, but I whole-heartedly believe in global warming. Reason being is simple. It's not about the greenhouse gases. It's simply about having too many damn people (increasing daily), those people doing work (generating heat energy and consuming more to sustain that energy), utilizing more products (slave labor energy, mining energy), and farting a lot. ;)

 

My point is the human being can be considered a heater. We consume resources and give off heat. It doesn't take a genius to see that more and more people giving off heat and disturbing things, will cause a change in environment. In this case, since a lot of the heat doesn't escape because of the greenhouse effect, that means we're going to warm up the earth. Period. The question is, how much, and what will change as a result?

[wildmaninid]

Ehh, say what you will, but I whole-heartedly believe in global warming. Reason being is simple. It's not about the greenhouse gases. It's simply about having too many damn people (increasing daily), those people doing work (generating heat energy and consuming more to sustain that energy), utilizing more products (slave labor energy, mining energy), and farting a lot. ;)

 

My point is the human being can be considered a heater. We consume resources and give off heat. It doesn't take a genius to see that more and more people giving off heat and disturbing things, will cause a change in environment. In this case, since a lot of the heat doesn't escape because of the greenhouse effect, that means we're going to warm up the earth. Period. The question is, how much, and what will change as a result?

Wow, sounds like matrix-ology there matt.........now if we could only harness the power of human beings to generate power for our machines.........yes global warming is real, what they are saying is its fucking happened before, is happening now and will happen again. That volcano in iceland impacted the earth greenhouse wise more than humans and automobiles! Remember the old addage "there's nothing new under the sun"? Its never been truer than right now.....it is our own short sightedness that makes most people believe what is happening RIGHT NOW is the most important and only relevant point in history.

[67411sss]

Whether you believe or not in global warming , the fact is that there are 6 billion people on the planet and growing exponentially. Unless we face the facts of overpopulation and wasting resources i think a warmer planet is only part of the problem . The article doesn't seem to talk about the medieval vs present day population and the effects and differences that has on the planet.

[HRH]

To solve the overpopulation problem, I vote we start killing (ahem, "phasing out") certain parts of the population. We'll start with methheads and crackwhores! ;)

 

Oh, and Bill, the Matrix is real! :blink:

[wildmaninid]

I get to choose the crackwhores, as I may need to replenish my stable of bitches

[Wide14u]

To solve the overpopulation problem, I vote we start killing (ahem, "phasing out") certain parts of the population. We'll start with methheads and crackwhores! ;)

 

Oh, and Bill, the Matrix is real! :blink:

 

not the crackwhores :lol:

[HRH]

Oh, that's right, I forgot, you need them don't you! Ok, maybe we'll start with the methheads and politicians? :D

[wildmaninid]

Politicians? Check and double check! Why not honduhboyz too......we could really stand to add some chlorine to thatt gene pool.

[Spades]

The question to ask if greenhouse gasses drive the global temperature change or if temperature has an affect on CO2 levels.

 

So far, the evidence I see shows records of CO2 levels staying high even though the global temperature started to drop, then after the temperature lowered, the CO2 levels dropped.

 

Either way, while I am not going to go light an SUV on fire, it wouldn't kill people to recycle more, and for companies to package more products in glass and paper...or for petroleum companies to provide a synthetic mixture of part petroleum directives, part organic fuel, and 50% or so of liquid hydrogen.

 

We have to worry about far more things than greenhouse gasses...with all the asteroids on a collision course with earth, plenty of people on this planet that would like to kill everyone or almost everyone by any means possible, and with new germs and illnesses popping up each day, I think we will rot the gene pool so bad we can't reproduce before greenhouse gasses bake us.

[wildmaninid]

I see forming the united federation of planets and following the prime directive being our only saving grace. Beam me up.

[Spades]

I see forming the united federation of planets and following the prime directive being our only saving grace. Beam me up.

 

nah...I would rather have individuality and less government control personally...peoples mindsets just need to evolve past the point of what they are today. I don't see that happening. What I do see happening is some fruitcake developing a nasty virus and taking us off the map...that's what I think is more likely to happen than everyone getting in a drum circle of love and bringing about galactic peace.

[wildmaninid]

It wasn't a drum circle of love that brought people together, it was hot alien ass......just sayin

[Spades]

It wasn't a drum circle of love that brought people together, it was hot alien ass......just sayin

 

lol

[]2eDeYe]

Oh noes, the climate is changing!!!!!

 

 

Wait, you mean it always does that? :rolleyes:

[Hardwyre]

Ehh, say what you will, but I whole-heartedly believe in global warming. Reason being is simple. It's not about the greenhouse gases. It's simply about having too many damn people (increasing daily), those people doing work (generating heat energy and consuming more to sustain that energy), utilizing more products (slave labor energy, mining energy), and farting a lot. ;)

 

My point is the human being can be considered a heater. We consume resources and give off heat. It doesn't take a genius to see that more and more people giving off heat and disturbing things, will cause a change in environment. In this case, since a lot of the heat doesn't escape because of the greenhouse effect, that means we're going to warm up the earth. Period. The question is, how much, and what will change as a result?

Thing is there have been periods of time where there were significantly higher concentrations of C02, and yes, the temperatures were higher; but the rub is that the temperatures rose before the C02 levels did. I probably should have clarified my angst. The enviro-political phenomenon we refer to as "C02-Based Global Warming" is bullshit. How do you know it's bullshit? Because it's being mutually supported by all media outlets and all political parties on average while you rarely hear the other side's argument except for niche outlets. Further more, anything that China gets excluded from in the way of regulations just further my opinion that the whole field is bunk. The Kyoto Treaty, Cap'n'Trade (if its passed), and virtually every other environmental agreement excludes China on the grounds that they're supposedly a "developing nation". China has no interest in developing 4/5ths of its country, so they'll get to milk that exclusion criteria until we smarten up.

 

There is a direct correlation between C02 levels and plant growth. When atmospheric levels rise, so does food production. Americans have proven this time and time again; when food is available, it will be eaten. Same is true with plants.

 

I can't wait until I get my Datsun and my brother's '69 Firebird running on locally distilled ethanol. We'll be heading to Portland and harassing all of the Prius drivers for their polluting habits, cheeky bastards.

 

Anyone know how to get a Datsun to run 18:1 compression ratios?

 

Whether you believe or not in global warming , the fact is that there are 6 billion people on the planet and growing exponentially. Unless we face the facts of overpopulation and wasting resources i think a warmer planet is only part of the problem . The article doesn't seem to talk about the medieval vs present day population and the effects and differences that has on the planet.

There are stacks of papers on the Midieval Warming Period, going into depth in this article would have been derailing. Here's a good bit of reading on the reasons to remain skeptical of MMGW: http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered

 

For the most part, the large climate changes are going to happen regardless of what we do unless we start pumping massive amounts of raw reflectants, such as soot (I'm looking at you China), into the atmosphere. The insulating capacity of C02 is no linear. There is a diminishing return just like every other insulation. Further more, C02 comprises 0.0393% of the atmosphere right now. In a vacuum, there is virtually zero insulative temperature change detected until injected C02 comprises 5% (vs 0.0393%) of the volume.

 

Oh, that's right, I forgot, you need them don't you! Ok, maybe we'll start with the methheads and politicians? :D

Both would produce too many toxic fumes to work as a good fuel. Although, catapulting them into the sun sounds like fun.

 

The question to ask if greenhouse gasses drive the global temperature change or if temperature has an affect on CO2 levels.

 

So far, the evidence I see shows records of CO2 levels staying high even though the global temperature started to drop, then after the temperature lowered, the CO2 levels dropped.

 

Either way, while I am not going to go light an SUV on fire, it wouldn't kill people to recycle more, and for companies to package more products in glass and paper...or for petroleum companies to provide a synthetic mixture of part petroleum directives, part organic fuel, and 50% or so of liquid hydrogen.

 

We have to worry about far more things than greenhouse gasses...with all the asteroids on a collision course with earth, plenty of people on this planet that would like to kill everyone or almost everyone by any means possible, and with new germs and illnesses popping up each day, I think we will rot the gene pool so bad we can't reproduce before greenhouse gasses bake us.

Oh recycling... some of the current practices on the industrial side of it astound me.

"Hi, we have forty tons of clear glass for you."

"Okay, put it in that... wait.. what's that?"

"What's what?"

"That! Is.. IT IS! I single piece of brown glass! The whole lot is contaminated, throw it away!"

"Wait! What!?"

"THROW IT AWAY! IN THE JUNK YARD! ITS USELESS!"

"FML."

 

What is absolutely depressing is that even if every English-primary country (US, UK, Australia, etc) stopped manufacturing and driving, China's manufacturing industry would still tip the destructive scale since they have virtually zero environmental quality concerns (Thanks Koyoto Treaty for excluding China).

 

One of the best and easiest changes we can make is switching from a petroleum-based society to an ethanol-based society. Virtually 99% of all materials produced by oil can be made from ethanol and the enviromental impact is drastically less. Ethanol, while it produces fewer BTUs of energy in the combustion cycle, provides a complete burn, versus nearly half of gasoline being unburnt and wasted. Also, in an automotive stance, ethanol allows for far greater compression ratios, providing far better mechanical efficiency. Ethanol does not leave any carbon deposits, so lubricants remain cleaner longer and there is less wear on the engine from the sand-like nature of carbon. The only "pollutants" from ethanol combustion is water and C02, but the amount of C02 used to grow the fuel stock (corn, sugar beats, cat tails, etc) is greater than what is given off during combustion, so ethanol is a carbon negative fuel.

[HRH]

Unless you're in Brazil and you can make ethanol from sugar cane, which works wonderfully for them, cost-effectively anyway.

[Hardwyre]

2eDeYe' date='07 July 2011 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1310074200' post='508039']

Oh noes, the climate is changing!!!!!

 

 

Wait, you mean it always does that? :rolleyes:

 

Have you noticed how quietly, over the past few years, as more and more data has piled up debunking Global Warming, the Climatologists/Al Gore have changed the language from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

 

1997, NASA states that they have found no definitive warming trend with their satellite-based thermometers; 1998 NASA's budget is cut.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

 

Here's a fun site: http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/

[king bee66]

global warming is a distraction from the real need to diminish humanities foot print on the environment. pollution is a real problem to our health and the health of everything else in the ecosystem (that means vegetation and wildlife, hardwire). no amount of flow charts and pie graphs can argue that

[FoxyRoadster]

I didnt give a shit anyways, most people around here drive SUV's and large trucks that suck down fuel anyways. I don't think my little 4 bangers are gonna cause near as much damage.

[Hardwyre]

Unless you're in Brazil and you can make ethanol from sugar cane, which works wonderfully for them, cost-effectively anyway.

 

Corn can produce about 250-400 gallons of ethanol per acre. Sugar cane I think is about 700-1200.

 

You know what is a REALLY good source for ethanol?

 

 

Cattails! These bastards can produce anywhere from 2500 gallons an acre for naturally grown stock to upwards of 10000 gallons an acre for sewage fertilized stock.

 

We can make vast amounts of ethanol while purifying waste water at the same time. Win-Win?

[FoxyRoadster]

Corn can produce about 250-400 gallons of ethanol per acre. Sugar cane I think is about 700-1200.

 

You know what is a REALLY good source for ethanol?

 

 

Cattails! These bastards can produce anywhere from 2500 gallons an acre for naturally grown stock to upwards of 10000 gallons an acre for sewage fertilized stock.

 

We can make vast amounts of ethanol while purifying waste water at the same time. Win-Win?

 

 

I was thinking hemp for fuel. :D

[HRH]

Hell yeah, there are a lot of ways we could improve things, damn politics getting in the way. But you know, hey, we should just all relax.

 

 

:rofl:

[Hardwyre]

global warming is a distraction from the real need to diminish humanities foot print on the environment. pollution is a real problem to our health and the health of everything else in the ecosystem (that means vegetation and wildlife, hardwire). no amount of flow charts and pie graphs can argue that

Thank you! THIS is my huge gripe with the Church of Climate Change. Trillions of dollars are going to be wasted on reducing C02 instead of actually producing solutions that will make a difference. Al Gore should be thrown in prison for criminal fraud.

 

I didnt give a shit anyways, most people around here drive SUV's and large trucks that suck down fuel anyways. I don't think my little 4 bangers are gonna cause near as much damage.

All of those trucks and SUVs could be made to run on ethanol with little more than a turbo charger to increase cylinder pressure and a fuel/timing change. Hell, Henry Ford was producing "FlexFuel" vehicles back before Prohibition.

 

 

But yes, you're car(s) fart rainbows and butterflies when compared to most of those big rigs. I do get a little twitched when I see a Ford Excursion or similar being used for NOTHING other than grocery getting. At least my Suburban went off roading on a semi-regular basis.

[Hardwyre]

I was thinking hemp for fuel. :D

Fuck that, Marijuana's better. It's nearly 2012, why the hell is pot still illegal? And why do I still NOT have a jetpack?

 

Hemp looks like it produces an average of about 1800 gallons/acre. This is why marijuana would be great; it would be a dual purpose crop!

 

Hell yeah, there are a lot of ways we could improve things, damn politics getting in the way. But you know, hey, we should just all relax.

:rofl:

 

I like relaxing to this sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6ueVApWZRw