• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Are you concerned about Global Warming?

Phoenix

Fee-nix
good point, nightsurfer. places such as florida, New York, parts of the UK, parts of India, and other low-altitude locations will flood if the sea level continues to rise. this will displace millions of people, creating all kinds of population and housing difficulties.
 

Phoenix

Fee-nix
BTW, if you have not seen An Inconvenient Truth, SEE IT. It is a powerful, well thought out movie (in my opinion), and it does a good job of summing up this issue. If you would like to discuss the movie in depth, I have started a thread in the Movie section of this website concerning this movie. I would love to hear any comments people have about it :)
 

SimplyGenius

Registered Member
Well, I just need to enlighten you all with some really great info. I am marginally surprised that this hasn't already been brought up.

Let me start off by saying that I do in fact find that the earth warming will create some issues. But the fact is, we can't stop Global Warming. We can only adapt to it.

Do you really think Co2 is a big Global Warming factor? Co2 accounts for approximately 5% if the greenhouse effect. Ya. 95% of greenhouse gases is Water Vapor!!! We don't even produce that much Co2! Its something like 3%. All told, humans contribute to .28% of the greenhouse effect, along with the other gases we make. AL GORE! THAT IS NEGLIGIBLE! Don't buy into the propaganda. There is no consensus, as the debate is almost half and half.

I would only look into alternative energy as an economic interest. People demonize big oil companies for using a cheap natural resource that "pollutes the environment". And while it is true that anything cheap probably means there's some big downside, the downside of oil is that it is NON-RENEWABLE, and if anything, the abundant co2 it produces HELPS the environment.

So if you want to get alternative fuels out on the market, make sure you're doing it for all the RIGHT reasons. Saving the environment is not one of those. Because it won't, it may only hurt it. For example, hydrogen cars: what do they produce? Water Vapor! BAD IDEA! The same goes for Geothermal heat.

So please aknowledge the disagreement, and view the wider issue here. I am concerned about Global Warming, I just know we likely never caused it, and we likely can't stop it. So we'll just have to adapt.
 

Phoenix

Fee-nix
Interesting point, SimplyGenius. Thanks for bringing it up. I will have to learn more about this. I have heard that water vapor is a significant greenhouse gas, I just never heard about it in much detail. So do you think that most of the things Al Gore says are incorrec, biased or altered to show one side of the problem? Or do you think what he says is incorrect most of the time? I would be interested to hear what you think.
 

RenewalVentures

Registered Member
Precisely what do you mean when you say: "We can only adapt to it." Does that entail: (a) changing life habits, (b) mass immigration to less-affected climates, (c) colonizing other planets, (d) biological mutation, (e) etc.???

Does this suggest that eco-friendly consumption is not feasible adaptation?
 

SimplyGenius

Registered Member
So do you think that most of the things Al Gore says are incorrec, biased or altered to show one side of the problem? Or do you think what he says is incorrect most of the time? I would be interested to hear what you think.
Well, it is quite obvious that he extrapolates the information to try and get you to do something about Global Warming, and even he has said that he does this. He thinks it's justified that you can totally mislead millions of people into thinking we are the root of the problem. Then, they will be even more zealous to the cause. But we must ask if the cause is will even have the desired effect. Which ultimately, Kyoto will solve nothing and will just create a whole new problem. Check this out:

"The Kyoto agreement--if fully complied with--would likely reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by 2.3 percent per year. However, according to a climate model of the National Center for Atmospheric Research recently featured in Science, the Kyoto emission-control commitments would reduce mean planetary warming by a mere 0.19 degree Celsius over the next 50 years. If the costs of preventing additional warming were to remain constant, the Kyoto Protocol would cost a remarkable 12 percent of GDP per degree of warming prevented annually over a 50-year period. " -http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-307.html

NO THANK YOU. And actually I don't think I know much about Gore. All I know is he's wrong in a big way here. You remember how in the movie, he basically said, "They got me young."? He's been campaigning on the issue for DECADES, and telling him that he's wrong NOW can really make him grapple. His movie is a great piece of propoganda, and as a writer, I find it just fascinating. Its reality is unfortunate, but I can only try my best to inform those who dwell still in the doom and gloom of Global Crisis. There's this great resource guy, Bob Wagner who's gaining some popularity for his videos on Global Warming. You can find them out on YouTube. His account is "bumpy111". He's especially known as "The Internet Skeptic". I've seen him in debates, and he always comes off as a careful and concerned scientist. Also see if you can get your hands on "The Great Global Warming Swindle" documentary.

So in fuill asnwer to your question, I would say the former.

Precisely what do you mean when you say: "We can only adapt to it." Does that entail: (a) changing life habits, (b) mass immigration to less-affected climates, (c) colonizing other planets, (d) biological mutation, (e) etc.???

Does this suggest that eco-friendly consumption is not feasible adaptation?
I would say it will most likely entail a, c, and perhaps b. But if we can effectively carry out a and c, then there might not be a need for b. I really think c is a great idea. D is bogus, and for e, I can't really think of much else.

In answer to Q: Well if you are talking about Alternative energy, then I would say yes. Global Warming likely doesn't effect the shortening of our Oil Supply :rolleyes:. In other words, what you consider to be "eco-friendly" is actually a whole different story. Biofuel is a dumb idea (burning away our excess food that should be for starving children in Africa, so you don't have to make the trees healthier:(). Hydrogen power isn't right (I've shown this). Solar power for under-developed countries isn't right (poor countries/expensive power. Meanwhile: rich and affluent countries/cheap power).

The only Non-eco-friendly consumption might be the burning of mass expanses of forests (extracting heat energy), the mass draining of swamplands (to harvest all sorts of nutrients, extracting perhaps chemical energy...?), or maybe even the mass production of Water Vapor. When you are talking about Global change, you cannot get the facts wrong. Because if you do something to radically prevent something that isn't even the cause, you can expect great reprecusions. Even Al Gore quoted Winston Churchill:
"...we are entering a period of consequences." Ya, and Gore, if you're totally wrong, then a lot of people are dead for sure.

I can't even think of truly "eco-friendly" consumption, nor the opposite. We should look for alternative energy, but it should rather be an economic interest.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
Al Gore has economic interest in carbon offsets companies. To Gore, the end game is carbon offsets and he has positioned himself to make billions off the idea. There was an article recently about Gore's massive house and his $2800/month energy bill. Clearly, he doesn't believe in what he preaches.
 

Nightsurfer

~Lucky 13 strikes again~
Like I said a while back. Water world! How long can you tread water.

But I think we have more to do with the prob than the solution. We need to work with the earth, not rape and destroy it.

Look at each time we launch a shuttle all the weather patterns go haywire.

As to the alternate fules there so many to explore right now. Which one do you choose?

Me I am a big fan of wind farms, wave farming and solar farms. We could reduce our coal and natural gas use by exploring and using alternate flue sources like these.

But we need to stop fighting among ourselves first. We fix that one and we can fix anything.

If we spent as much on exploration of alternate flues as we do on war then hell we could colonize mars and explore space, Or even our own oceans for that mater.

But the big question is....If we did make it to that phase of exploration would we make the same mistakes and kill that planet too?

Well that's my two cents for now.
 
Last edited:

Phoenix

Fee-nix
Me I am a big fan of wind farms, wave farming and solar farms. We could reduce our coal and natural gas use by exploring and using alternate flue sources like these.

But we need to stop fighting among ourselves first. We fix that one and we can fix anything.

If we spent as much on exploration of alternate flues as we do on war then hell we could colonize mars and explore space, Or even our own oceans for that mater.
OMG THANK YOU!!!
I get so frustrated when our government misdirects its attention towards wars and the such. Of course, there is a certain responsibility we must take as individuals, too. We have to really take a good look at our world today and determine whether we want to pay more attention to celebrities doing drugs or to issues such as oppression, unemployment, schools not getting enough funding, poverty in 'third world countries', the spread of desease among those who cannot afford health insurance...the list goes on and on.

As you said, Nightsurfer, if the countries of this world decided to sit down and cooperate, just imagine the things we as a people of this world could accomplish. But is the human race prepared to set aside its ancient urge to dominate over others and to look at what it can do to serve others?
ooo, I got off topic...oh well :-/
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
More on Al Gore:
I was just reading the political compass website that is being talked about on another thread. There is a section called Iconochasms that has this question:

------------------------------------------------
Who in 1997 championed the privatisation of California's National Oil Reserve, and the subsequent drilling by Occidental that resulted in serious environmental damage, destruction to a sacred Indian burial ground and a windfall for his family trust's Occidental stocks? (Occidental also put a pipeline through the Colombian rain forest.)

Robert Redford
Al Gore
Ralph Nader
David Cobb

Answer: Al Gore, as US Vice President
 
Top