+- Fearless Forums (https://fearlessrp.net)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://fearlessrp.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Forum: Discussions (https://fearlessrp.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+---- Forum: Archive (https://fearlessrp.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=481)
+---- Thread: What do you think of Global Warming? (/showthread.php?tid=19873)
RE: What do you think of Global Warming? - aviator - 10-28-2012
Maths has a definite answer. What is right, is right. What is wrong, is wrong. I can't see how the question I said has a definite answer? Nothing is proven except maths. That's really it. Life can adapt to the harshest of conditions. Like those fish in the sea with anti-freeze, it can work both ways, because it takes so long, climate change, that animals would adapt so that you may find mammals with a form on anti-freeze, or we become more hairy or fatter (not so you get some cardiovascular disease). But that only works when it takes 100's of millions of years. Humans, speed up the process which makes 'adaption' even harder, almost impossible.
Most of Africa, the middle part, is 'rain forest'. This is compared to the heating control of the Earth. Rain forests dictate the average temperature across the globe. Cutting these down will inevitably warm up the Earth. CO2 is the thing that keeps plants and animals which breath alive. If we reduce the amount of CO2 too much, many animals or humans may die because these plants will be sparse.
Saving people is the right thing but we don't really want to change too much, even though most of this stuff is 'broken' it is hard to fix and change. We can't save too many people because lets face it. The population is 7 billion. Too many people. If these plants save people. Food and water will be more sparse. I don't quite understand what you are saying Midget? From the way I have interpreted it, it seems like you are wanting to plant 'plants' in Africa to help save people?
RE: What do you think of Global Warming? - SilentGamer - 10-28-2012
(10-28-2012, 07:34 AM)Midget Wrote:(10-27-2012, 06:39 PM)SilentGamer Wrote:What about the landscapes near the equator, lets use Greenland for an example, you want to use Greenland to grow new plants, so you use more CO2 or heat up the planet in other ways. Greenland starts to melt, Norway is pretty hot in the summer time now, Sweden as well. Move down to Africa, or maybe the USA too. The temp will be so hot there, at least in the summer time, making it unbearable. We could easily use most of Africa to grow these plants. Maybe even saving a ton of people in the process, getting food for the less unfortunate people. Instead of killing all people down with the equator.(10-27-2012, 04:15 PM)Midget Wrote: We are speeding up the "natural" process, meaning life on earth won't be able to adapt the harsh environment. And anyway,
how can it be a ice age if the globe gets to hot? In the end nothing will be able to live on the planet due to the incredibly hot environment. Important animals will die out, and the "circle" (Fish eats bigger fish and so on) will stop.
An example of global warming is butterfly worms (Or whatever you call them)
They turn into butterflies to early, meaning the birds is not able to feed their young like they used too, meaning a lack of food. And the birds will die out. There are many examples of this, when thickening the ozone layer more heat will stay here on earth, and in the end no heat will go out into space. Making it hotter.
Btw, fossil fuel is not unlimited (unless you want to wait a few million years) So in time you will run out of it, what are you supposed to do then? That song is just stupid...
(10-27-2012, 04:05 PM)Warior135 Wrote: As the APOLLO 11 landings and this I say:It's just a theory, that's not true.. Eh, but anyway, believe what you want..
"THATS BULLSHIT!!!"
As I have said before you are being far too general with what you are saying. And clearly you did not read or have ignored about what I have said regarding new opportunities for more CO2 reducing plant-life to grow in regions that are currently too cold for it to do so if the Earth does warm up. And we are in an ice age because the definition of an ice age is the presence of ice caps.
You are taking this way too far. Greenland cannot melt, it is land, not ice. And the equator will not become uninhabitable. The highest the average global temperature could rise would be 4-7 degrees Celsius, and this would take centuries of constant fossil fuel burning, which would not be possible because you would run out of fossil fuels to burn.
The average global temperature has only risen 0.74 degrees Celsius over the last century, and if human activity is to be entirely blamed for this then it would be because of the large scale industrial activity and the rise of the auto-mobile market in the early-mid 20th century that once produced unacceptable amounts of waste products but is now carefully moderated.
So in theory you would have to recreate the industrial development of the early-mid 20th century over 9 times (that's if you don't run out of resources) and quite quickly in order to produce the way over the top scenarios that you are ranting about.
You are clinging at bits and bobs of things you have heard from one source to another and exaggerating them many times over. If you want to talk about climate change then you must be prepared to be realistic.
Furthermore, you also seem to believe that everywhere on the equator is hot, this is not true. Snow exists on the many mountains that can be found in the equatorial region, and there are even cities on the equator that experience a mild climate like Quito for example, the capital of Ecuador which has an average maximum temperature of 19 degrees and an average low of 9. It even occasionally snows there.
(Also, the climate of Baltic and Scandinavian countries can be hot in the summer, but mainly in the Southern parts and it's been this way for quite a while as records prove. You can't just say the country in general because the climate varies all over it.)
RE: What do you think of Global Warming? - Faustie - 10-29-2012
This entire thread:
"OMG ITS ALL BULLSHIT ITS PROVEN TO BE BULLSHIT" - Doesn't post any proof, extremely bad science
"Tries to explain whats going on" - Really, REALLY bad science
"OMG WE HAVE FERTILISERS THAT ARE IMPACT FREE" - Learn science, seriously, DoYouEvenCycles
"IT'S BY RICH PEOPLE FOR PROFIT" - Massive generalisation, no proof, contradictive arguments, doesn't even oil
"A TINY BIT OF HEAT INCREASE WILL DO LITTLE" - Do you even science
"Fails to view data and thinks all carbon related emissions remain linear over past 100 years" - Idiot
"F*cking conspiracy theorists" - F*ck off
"You are clinging to bits and bobs of things you have heard" - So are you, son
"Complex weather systems" - Hey this guy might be alri--Oh it's fertilizer guy, see above
"Welfare bashers" - This is not Jeremy Kyle
"HIPPIES HIPPIES HIPPIES HIPPIES HIPPIES" - Yeah, no, you don't even economy, you don't even science, you don't even logic
"Guy who denounces tons of data because he got bored at a film, and can't view it objectively and instead listens to his friends" - Please get out of any discussion
In short, this thread contains people who can't view data objectively, provide no proof, are generally being idiots, and so on. Is everyone in this thread 14? This is why I don't like discussions on FL.
RE: What do you think of Global Warming? - Haarek - 10-29-2012
(10-29-2012, 11:51 AM)Faustie Wrote: This entire thread:The wasn't really needed..
"OMG ITS ALL BULLSHIT ITS PROVEN TO BE BULLSHIT" - Doesn't post any proof, extremely bad science
"Tries to explain whats going on" - Really, REALLY bad science
"OMG WE HAVE FERTILISERS THAT ARE IMPACT FREE" - Learn science, seriously, DoYouEvenCycles
"IT'S BY RICH PEOPLE FOR PROFIT" - Massive generalisation, no proof, contradictive arguments, doesn't even oil
"A TINY BIT OF HEAT INCREASE WILL DO LITTLE" - Do you even science
"Fails to view data and thinks all carbon related emissions remain linear over past 100 years" - Idiot
"F*cking conspiracy theorists" - F*ck off
"You are clinging to bits and bobs of things you have heard" - So are you, son
"Complex weather systems" - Hey this guy might be alri--Oh it's fertilizer guy, see above
"Welfare bashers" - This is not Jeremy Kyle
"HIPPIES HIPPIES HIPPIES HIPPIES HIPPIES" - Yeah, no, you don't even economy, you don't even science, you don't even logic
"Guy who denounces tons of data because he got bored at a film, and can't view it objectively and instead listens to his friends" - Please get out of any discussion
In short, this thread contains people who can't view data objectively, provide no proof, are generally being idiots, and so on. Is everyone in this thread 14? This is why I don't like discussions on FL.
RE: What do you think of Global Warming? - aviator - 10-30-2012
Some of these points can easily be backed up. Simple Google searches can wield hundreds of pages of information. I do find it unnecessary to say that Faustie. This argument wasn't exactly. Out of hand. It simple had some un-backed up statements, however, these can easily be backed up with common sense, Internet, Books and/or other methods. Some of what you said is true. Like I have said: 1 Degree Celsius per century is a HUGE increase. Climate change is a more accurate thing to say as opposed to Global Warming this is due to that fact the regional areas may experience cooling, where as other location may experience a drastic and rapid change to their climate. Some of what said can be backed up and is not far from the truth. The thread was pure speculation. No need to have a go at us. Arguing is good, if you know how to do it.
You are not far from the truth, I am 13. We can all view data objectively. Just has not been shown. Proof, There is some (Might not be a lot) of proof. Not all of us are idiots.
Fertilizers are a cause of concern. This is a major cause of Water pollution and also has fatal consequences on humans. (See http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/fertilizers-pollutants-2898.html)
Rich people make huge profits from oil and fossil fuels because they are a necessity. In the 1970's the middle eastern nations rose fuel prices by 4x's. Unlike other primary resources countries can't go to another country to get their wood for cheaper. Oil is made in vast amounts here so the western nations agreed to pay this amount. This made the middle east a rich area and put their money in European banks which invested billions of dollars into African nations of which couldn't pay the loan back. (This will lead into more complex things so I will stop here).
This leads onto the 'Welfare' point. Welfare is a drain on the economy. Unfortunately, tax payers dislike this. Tax payers are basically paying for these people to live. Fairly unfair. This does depend on why these people live on benefits. If it is because they refused to be bothered at school, that is a problem, if it is because some unfortunate thing happened like they lost their jobs or a health condition stops them from working, fair enough.
The current economic stand point of the globe is a mess.
As long as those bits and bobs have been or can be backed up, fair enough, if they can't, I see where you are coming from.
Carbon emissions over the past century have increased, rapidly, We have used up more or less all of the fossils fuels in a century. I call that fast. (This might have some info http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissions-historical)
RE: What do you think of Global Warming? - trouserlessliam - 10-30-2012
* trouserlessliam Tilts his aviators and looks at Fausties post, then claps.
RE: What do you think of Global Warming? - Toxic - 10-30-2012
Fake.
RE: What do you think of Global Warming? - aviator - 10-30-2012
(10-30-2012, 04:45 PM)Toxic Wrote: Fake.
What do you mean?
RE: What do you think of Global Warming? - Anakonda - 11-04-2012
Norway could definetly use a warming
RE: What do you think of Global Warming? - Toxic - 11-05-2012
(10-30-2012, 04:56 PM)NycDude66 Wrote:(10-30-2012, 04:45 PM)Toxic Wrote: Fake.
What do you mean?
By fake, I mean fake.