Recently Active Forum Topics:

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 112, 113, 114 ... 132, 133, 134 Next

jadewahoo

jadewahoo Avatar

Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 29, 2009 - 9:24am

oldslabsides wrote:

All the energy we generate using fossil fuels is releasing energy that's been stored in the earth for millennia. Plentiful, but definitely finite. Meanwhile, the sun is pouring more energy than we could possibly use on a daily basis onto the planet every day. Releasing all that stored energy has a lot of negative effects, finding an efficient way to use the sun's energy is imperative.

We could set up big magnifying lenses in space and zap all the ignorant asshats with the focused rays of the sun.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Gilead

Posted: Dec 29, 2009 - 9:18am

MrsHobieJoe wrote:

I listened to "Home Planet"- a programme about the environment and natural world on radio 4 today whilst driving over Dartmoor. I thought that it dealt with a number of items that we have been discussing here (although I missed the first ten minutes). The focus for the day was energy and climate change. They also dealt with some sensible and some extremely harebrained letters with suggestions from listeners very well. It's available to listen for 7 days if anyone cares to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006sdz0

they discussed nuclear power, ice ages, methane, solar energy and other related areas with a mixture of scientists and experts in the area

Welly

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female

Posted: Dec 29, 2009 - 9:11am

MrsHobieJoe wrote:

I listened to "Home Planet"- a programme about the environment and natural world on radio 4 today whilst driving over Dartmoor. I thought that it dealt with a number of items that we have been discussing here (although I missed the first ten minutes). The focus for the day was energy and climate change. They also dealt with some sensible and some extrememly harebrained letters with suggestions from listeners very well. It's available to listen for 7 days if anyone cares to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006sdz0

Thanks!

MrsHobieJoe

MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female

Posted: Dec 29, 2009 - 8:59am

I listened to "Home Planet"- a programme about the environment and natural world on radio 4 today whilst driving over Dartmoor. I thought that it dealt with a number of items that we have been discussing here (although I missed the first ten minutes). The focus for the day was energy and climate change. They also dealt with some sensible and some extremely harebrained letters with suggestions from listeners very well. It's available to listen for 7 days if anyone cares to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006sdz0

they discussed nuclear power, ice ages, methane, solar energy and other related areas with a mixture of scientists and experts in the area

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 27, 2009 - 5:40pm

lowelltr wrote:

The earth CANNOT "run out of water" - its a closed system. Nothing escapes the atmosphere, not hydrogen nor oxygen.
Except for some astronaut pee and a few other "drops in the bucket", the earth has the EXACT same amount of water that it has had for millenia......

but if water is fixed (roughly) and population is not, then water per person is decreasing.

And the quality of that water may not always be what we are used to since a lot of people use water to carry away their refuse. Want a nice cold cup of this?

Xeric

Location: Montana
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 27, 2009 - 11:42am

Lazy8 wrote:

MrsHobieJoe wrote:

I thought that the earth is NOT a closed system because we have the sun's energy coming in.

There is a pretty big issue though with the water and the people being in different places and more people and people having a higher water consumption.

A better choice of words would be running out of drinkable water. And that will always be a localized problem—"the world" is not running out of water.

But of course neither is it running out of people, nor out of an increasingly-irrigation-dependent agribusiness conglomerate to feed those people. Just agreeing that the total amount of water is not the problem. The total number of people—people accustomed to or wishing to become accustomed to a certain lifestyle—might lead to large water-related problems, indeed.

Lazy8

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 27, 2009 - 11:35am

MrsHobieJoe wrote:

A better choice of words would be running out of drinkable water. And that will always be a localized problem—"the world" is not running out of water.

MrsHobieJoe

MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female

Posted: Dec 27, 2009 - 11:29am

lowelltr wrote:

lowelltr

lowelltr Avatar

Location: Cardinal Nation
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 27, 2009 - 10:49am
hippiechick wrote: Especially that part about running out of water. "Water is the new oil." The earth CANNOT "run out of water" - its a closed system. Nothing escapes the atmosphere, not hydrogen nor oxygen. Except for some astronaut pee and a few other "drops in the bucket", the earth has the EXACT same amount of water that it has had for millenia......

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 24, 2009 - 7:57am

miamizsun wrote:

Me personally, I like to know the truth. All of it.

Preferably from people I trust. (In my experience it has always yielded better results.)

Which begs me to consider the source.

All of the credible scientific data I've seen indicates that there is a lag in C02 cycle from 500 to 1000 years.

C02 follows the warming, it doesn't precede it.

Would you agree that manipulating data (all data, not just climate) to fit the political model is standard operating procedure for politicians?

Do you not see that theme in all of politics?

Regards

sirdroseph wrote:

I would never be in charge therefore it is not my place to implement poltical policy, what I can do is to recycle and lower my energy consumption the best I can on a personal level and what I won't do is politicize such an important issue by decrying the existence of climate change and dwell on buerocratic driven corruption that always exists regardless of the social issue. I agree there are cycles the Earth goes through regardless of our consumption, but I also know that C02 emissions accelerate the warming of the planet and that humans emit massive amounts of it therefore we should be looking at ways for us to reduce emissions and quite frankly that is all I need to know.

Yes, I do. {#Yes}

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 24, 2009 - 7:51am

sirdroseph wrote:

I would never be in charge therefore it is not my place to implement poltical policy, what I can do is to recycle and lower my energy consumption the best I can on a personal level and what I won't do is politicize such an important issue by decrying the existence of climate change and dwell on buerocratic driven corruption that always exists regardless of the social issue. I agree there are cycles the Earth goes through regardless of our consumption, but I also know that C02 emissions accelerate the warming of the planet and that humans emit massive amounts of it therefore we should be looking at ways for us to reduce emissions and quite frankly that is all I need to know.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 24, 2009 - 7:12am

miamizsun wrote:

Joe, what is the human impact of climate change, specifically?

I agree we need to clean up the pollution.

But the planet has been going through these cycles for billions of years (I've posted evidence, charts etc.).

The Carbon Derivatives & Tax scheme is the end result.

Ask yourself if you were in charge what you'd do?

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 24, 2009 - 6:11am

sirdroseph wrote:

This is the crux of the situation; Two men are in a boat that is starting to sink, one man is arguing with the other that he does not like the way that he bails and is not sure if they should be bailing in the first place seeing how it was not their fault the ship is sinking! {#Eek}

If you think there is fraud in the climate change community and are wary of their methods, fine, but don't you think our time would be better spent on finding a better way to lessen human impact which is intensifying an already natural process to the extent that it poses a serious threat to our species survival? {#Stupid}

Southern_Boy

Southern_Boy Avatar

Location: On my way to the beach
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 24, 2009 - 6:06am
HazzeSwede wrote: China man is slowly but surely taking over the planet,,leading world power now,IMHO ! Oh,,and Merry Christmas,,all ! We'll have to bomb the shit out of 'em so we can reestablish the world order.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 24, 2009 - 5:46am

HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 24, 2009 - 12:19am

MrsHobieJoe wrote:

I found this quite an interesting article. I didn't follow the talks in enough detail to filter the information well so I odn't have a feel for how accurate it is.

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed

Ed Miliband: China tried to hijack climate deal

The key players and how they rated

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International. MORE FROM THE GUARDIAN

China man is slowly but surely tak

ing over the planet,,leading world power now,IMHO !
Oh,,and Merry Christmas,,all !

xmas-smiley-4605 by HazzeSwede, on Flickr

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 23, 2009 - 5:01pm

Lazy8 wrote:

miamizsun wrote:

not one bleedin' comment on this?

Um, nice tie?

It's appalling, but I don't have anything to add. The Medieval Warm Period is there (along with a notice that editing is locked until 12/25 due to vandalism), as is the Little Ice Age (which is particularly thorough and well-sourced). The IPCC's treatment of these events (including their waffling and dissembling about the earth's climate history) is described in this article.

Connolley's activity on Wikipedia has its own section in the article on him. It includes this:

A July 2006 article in The New Yorker reported that Connolley briefly became "a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming", in which a skeptic repeatedly "watered down" the article's explanation of the greenhouse effect.<9> The skeptic later brought the case before Wikipedia's arbitration committee, claiming that Connolley was pushing his own point of view in the article by removing material with opposing viewpoints. The arbitration committee imposed a "humiliating one-revert-a-day" editing restriction on Connolley. Wikipedia "gives no privilege to those who know what they're talking about", Connolley told The New Yorker.<9> The restriction was later revoked, and Connolley went on to serve as a Wikipedia administrator from January 2006<9> until the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked his administrator status on 13 September 2009.

Nothing on Wikipedia is permanent, not even a lie.

I noticed a ton of stuff he worked on were recently edited, some as recent as yesterday.

Lazy8

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 23, 2009 - 4:40pm
Manbird wrote: I edited the article about you so that it says the length of your inseam is 41 inches. I don't think anyone's corrected it yet. You'll find a little something extra in your stocking this year. Or your hat, wherever they'll hold still.

Manbird

Manbird Avatar

Location: La Villa Toscana
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 23, 2009 - 4:30pm

Lazy8 wrote:

miamizsun wrote:

not one bleedin' comment on this?

Nothing on Wikipedia is permanent, not even a lie.

I edited the article about you so that it says the length of your inseam is 41 inches. I don't think anyone's corrected it yet.

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male

Posted: Dec 23, 2009 - 3:46pm
miamizsun wrote: not one bleedin' comment on this? I didn't see it the first time you posted it but it's old news so I probably would have ignored it anyway.

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 112, 113, 114 ... 132, 133, 134 Next

I found this quite an interesting article. I didn't follow the talks in enough detail to filter the information well so I odn't have a feel for how accurate it is.How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

I found this quite an interesting article. I didn't follow the talks in enough detail to filter the information well so I odn't have a feel for how accurate it is.

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room