# Material Used in LCD 17,000-times More Warming-Effective Than CO2



## btarunr (Jul 7, 2008)

A lot of us switched over to LCD displays over CRT for reasons such as reduced electricity bills, thereby reducing our carbon-footprint. It is true, LCD displays have done a great job reducing power consumptions and effectively reducing CO2, but to what extant is this 'carbon-footprint reduction' helping reduce green-house gases? 

New studies find that a material used in the manufacture of LCD displays called Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is the 'missing gas' which adds up to the equation of exactly which substances contribute to global-warming. A study conducted by Michael Prather (read here) reveals that this gas has a stunning 17,000 times greater contribution to global-warming. This compound is still used in the manufacturing of LCD and synthetic diamonds. According to Prather, the compound was initially missed by the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty governing response to global warming, due to the fact that it was not widely used at the time and its nature wasn't established.

The Kyoto Protocol missed several such compounds because they felt they were used in very insignificant quantities, although at that time the harmful effects of NF3 might not have been established since Parther's letter is dated 26th June. The amount of nitrogen nitrofluoride emissions is expected to total this year to approximately the emissions of a smaller industrialized nation, such as Austria in CO2, the equivalent of about 67 million metric tons worth. The rise of digital and high-definition television resulting in increased production of LCD and related technologies in the consumer electronics industry, contributes to the rise of emission of this substance. 

Environmentalists will have a tough time convincing governments to enforce regulations. The demand for LCD products is so huge, industrialists will find it too big an expense to halt production and make core redesigns to a 'hot'-selling technology.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 7, 2008)

what about OLED monitors? the market seems to be pushing them as the successor to LCD. are they more or less harmful.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 7, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> what about OLED monitors? the market seems to be pushing them as the successor to LCD. are they more or less harmful.



Yeah I'm googling for that...plasma, etc. 

Yes, OLED has a future, though its current cost-of-production is like what LCD's was about a decade ago. The industry will feed us LCD first, then come up with a "LCD is obselete, scrap it, buy OLED" drama. They need our patronage to stay alive.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 7, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Yeah I'm googling for that...plasma, etc.
> 
> Yes, OLED has a future, though its current cost-of-production is like what LCD's was about a decade ago. The industry will feed us LCD first, then come up with a "LCD is obselete, scrap it, buy OLED" drama. They need your patronage to stay alive.



well if OLED turns out to be the better technology then it will make LCD obsolete. and hopefully not harm the environment as much.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jul 7, 2008)

The whole ordeal of global warming is more political than anything. I cant get into specifics right now, being as it is that Im at work. However, the difference in temperature from the prehistoric days until now, is only a few degrees celsius off. The hole in the ozone, ok I buy that and it has closed significantly since we quit using CFCs. However, Im a bit hesitant on the whole global warming deal. Yay for us wanting to go green, I mean Im all over that. I just dont think its as huge as the politicians want us to believe.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 7, 2008)

WarEagleAU said:


> The whole ordeal of global warming is more political than anything. I cant get into specifics right now, being as it is that Im at work. However, the difference in temperature from the prehistoric days until now, is only a few degrees celsius off. The hole in the ozone, ok I buy that and it has closed significantly since we quit using CFCs. However, Im a bit hesitant on the whole global warming deal. Yay for us wanting to go green, I mean Im all over that. I just dont think its as huge as the politicians want us to believe.



yea, i dont buy into the whole man-made global warming theory either. however, i do think it is important for us to sustain our environment. if we know that a certain chemical/gas is harmful to us then we obviously shouldnt use it.


----------



## pentastar111 (Jul 7, 2008)

Well one thing is for sure...Warm the globe up enough and the ocean gets flooded with fresh water. This will upset the gulfstream. The disturbance in the flow of warm water to the north will probably trigger another IceAge, thereby ending the "Gobal Warming" scare. I like my LCD's...I quit driving my car and switched to a motorcycle to help conserve fuel...Now my monitor is harmful as well? Whatever.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 7, 2008)

WarEagleAU said:


> The whole ordeal of global warming is more political than anything. I cant get into specifics right now, being as it is that Im at work. However, the difference in temperature from the prehistoric days until now, is only a few degrees celsius off. The hole in the ozone, ok I buy that and it has closed significantly since we quit using CFCs. However, Im a bit hesitant on the whole global warming deal. Yay for us wanting to go green, I mean Im all over that. I just dont think its as huge as the politicians want us to believe.



I know what you mean -- there's been countless studies, funded by oil companies, which prove global warming to be the sham that it is.


----------



## Batou1986 (Jul 7, 2008)

pentastar111 said:


> Well one thing is for sure...Warm the globe up enough and the ocean gets flooded with fresh water. This will upset the gulfstream. The disturbance in the flow of warm water to the north will probably trigger another IceAge




didn't this happen before when humans where not even around ?
im sure that some things we do may be speeding this up but who's to say this isn't just a natural cycle that the earth gos through that couldn't be prevented anyway

back on topic this seems to be the trend with all green electronics no matter what we do its a trade off. just take those cfl light bulbs yea they use less power but the all contain a small amount of mercury where as old light bulbs a pretty much glass gas and ferrous metal which are pretty environmentally friendly 
seriously how many ppl do you think are gonna collect up those cfl light bulbs and dispose of them properly most ppl don't use them let alone know that your not supposed to throw them in the trash


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 7, 2008)

just wait, in a couple of months there will be another study showing this study to be false. and then another study disproving that one. and so on and so forth


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Jul 7, 2008)

Humans have such a small effect on the environmental CO2 production that this really should not make that much of a difference.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jul 7, 2008)

Theres been other funded not by oil companies that say the same thing. Al Gores dumb ass (dont get me started) really is stirring this stuff up. I also believe we should recycle, reduce, reuse (and know the rules, haha, remember that song from the 80s/90s). Anyways, I dont know all the facts about freshwater and the ocean. I do know either around the US or some other country, a couple rivers empty out into the Ocean, and also there are streams of fresh water, no salt water, in the ocean. So I dont know if that will throw it out of whack. I kind of believe sort of what the Day After Tomorrow shows,but then again thats just a movie.

Im going green to reduce energy bills, dust, polution, etc and also to help the environment. I just dont think the think tanks need to scare us like this.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jul 7, 2008)

On the Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs. I love them things and I use a few of them, my utilities company sent me a packet. One of the best things ever. However, the fact that they have a very trace amount of mercury in them is disheartening to me. I dont know why they went that route. Hell, light bulbs, normal ones, have a xeon gas in them.


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Jul 7, 2008)

I see this thread eventually spawning conspiracy theory arguments.


----------



## flashstar (Jul 7, 2008)

I didn't buy my LCD to save power or to reduce my "carbon footprint". 

I bought it because it provides a sharper, more accurate picture and it takes up less space than a CRT. Get me a screen that looks even better and I'll upgrade to that, but I'm not going to make the change just because the consensus is that I'm harming the environment with LCD's. 

Currently, cows produce more green house gas than we do.


----------



## Black Hades (Jul 7, 2008)

You mean to say that my 21" / 38Kg /~100W Dell behemoth (that has a color gamut greater than 90% of the world's LCD's) is greener than all those fancy LCD's? 

I promised myself that I would buy a LCD only when one will offer as much fidelity as the "obsolete" CRT... without costing a fortune of course.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jul 7, 2008)

My carbon footprint is TINY compared to my moral/ethical footprint. 

However, even if some individuals are not convinced by our contribution to global warming, environmental protection IS important. Personally, I dont care too much if the world get 20 degress hotter. Better summers. Never mind about 3rd world countries near the equator. They are more trouble than they are worth anyway.  BUT

1./ We made a mess of the ozone layer
2./ We made a mess of nuclear radiation
3./ We made a mess with toxic rivers
4./ We made a mess with the health of thousands and millions of people and children through mismanaged/tested chemicals/pharmaceuticals

Dont be "too liberal" in your thinking. We need to take collective responsibility for more than just our own personal consumption.


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Jul 7, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Dont be "too liberal" in your thinking. We need to take collective responsibility for more than just our own personal consumption.



Are you trying to say that I'm partially responsible for Black Hades' CRT eating up too much energy? (Joking)

Seriously though, I agree with you. Global warming isn't a new thing. I remember back in first grade learning about it, and that was 1991. Too many people are quick to jump on Al Gore for pushing it like it's a new idea or something. Personally I commend the man for trying to bring environmental awareness to the masses.


----------



## Rash-Un-Al (Jul 7, 2008)

*Green*

Interestingly, there is no absolute proof of man-made carbon emissions having an overall long-term effect on our temperatures and/or well-being.

Many of the carbon footprint related actions are performed on a "what if" basis.

While I am in agreement that we should all do what we can to be increasingly enviro-friendly, we should also be very careful not to commit to potentially fallacious movements which may have long-standing and/or irreversible economic and/or law-changing implications.

Example: 
We now have overwhelming scientific evidence which details how the sun contributes to ozone creation and its levels across the globe.  Currently, the area with the most "depleted" ozone layer sits above Antarctica.  However, by the time the truth is learned, countless economically restrictive regulations are set in place, at the expense of the health of various industries and economies.


----------



## Error 404 (Jul 7, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> However, even if some individuals are not convinced by our contribution to global warming, environmental protection IS important. Personally, I dont care too much if the world get 20 degress hotter. Better summers. Never mind about 3rd world countries near the equator. They are more trouble than they are worth anyway.



Oh, yeah, thanks for forgetting Australia.
I do believe that global warming is being accelerated by humans, and it really sucks; raise another few degrees and soon I'll be having 50C summers!

As for OLEDS, the O in the name stands for Organic; they're made out of hydrocarbons and the like, so they can't be _too_ bad...


----------



## flashstar (Jul 7, 2008)

I'll start thinking collectively once China and all of the developing nations reduce their Footprints! 

Even if we reduce our carbon emissions by 20% that still won't change anything. Scientists estimate that we need to reduce our emissions by 50% over the next few decades! Even then, I'm sure that China and India will be speeding up their factories more than enough to cancel out any gains that we make. 

It might seem stupid, but I firmly believe that we need to focus on furthering our technological progress before we devote all of our energy to reducing emissions. Emissions will continue to decrease as we adopt newer technologies because for the most part newer tech is cleaner anyway. 

All that Al Gore did was to encite mass hysteria. Now people are spending so much time worrying about the next mega hurricane and environmental disaster to think straight. :shadedshu


----------



## FatForester (Jul 7, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> yea, i dont buy into the whole man-made global warming theory either. however, i do think it is important for us to sustain our environment. if we know that a certain chemical/gas is harmful to us then we obviously shouldnt use it.



I completely agree. If people thought more about getting something done rather than "getting the word out" and worshiping Al Gore it'd be amazing what could have been accomplished by now.


----------



## mlupple (Jul 8, 2008)

LoL, carbon footprint. 17,000 times greater... i don't even care


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 8, 2008)

lets see I've got a 32" lcd/tv, a 20.1" lcd, a 17' lcd, and a 15'' lcd all running in the same room  omg I'M gonna die. lol

yeah I knew there had to be some kind of catch to the lcd, (well other than the massive heat all 4 create in one room) but I agree that it's better to implement the change in the future tech than in this tech. that way it's an easier transition and it will grant consumers a better option. I seriously doubt joe shmoe is goign to buy a green version of the same monitor for a higher price because theirs a premium for the new manufacturing process. no he'll buy the cheaper non green verison because he see's no gains in buying the green one. If you implement it into the new tech, he'll have a reason to buy the green one, as it'll ahve better picture etc.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 8, 2008)

Guys no fighting about 'man made' global warming here. Theres a thread about it in general non-sense and I'll be happy to argue with you all there. On a side note i assume that gas is 17,000 times more potent right? Not a 17,000 time overall greater effect due to the small amounts of it being used (comparatively speaking anyway).


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 8, 2008)

magibeg said:


> Guys no fighting about 'man made' global warming here. Theres a thread about it in general non-sense and I'll be happy to argue with you all there. On a side note i assume that gas is 17,000 times more potent right? Not a 17,000 time overall greater effect due to the small amounts of it being used (comparatively speaking anyway).



Fact: Global warming is real. I'm going to downright ignore your request since this thread is about global warming.

Sorry if I sound like al gore, but this is something that he DIDNT say: 

*I really feel sick when some people ignore global warming because they'll DIE BEFORE IT IMPACTS THEM. They do not care about the next generation of people in short. This is the majority of the ruling world; who will not be impacted by global warming. Only some people step out to prevent this who are ruling, but they are a minority.*

However for people like me, and others its a totally different story.



WarEagleAU said:


> The whole ordeal of global warming is more political than anything. I cant get into specifics right now, being as it is that Im at work. However, the difference in temperature from the prehistoric days until now, is only a few degrees celsius off. The hole in the ozone, ok I buy that and it has closed significantly since we quit using CFCs. However, Im a bit hesitant on the whole global warming deal. Yay for us wanting to go green, I mean Im all over that. I just dont think its as huge as the politicians want us to believe.



you guys in the US are bloodly lucky that you aren't experiencing anything big in relations to global warming. 

Australia is supposed to get drought cycles once every 25 years according to research. However that data is now irrelevant as recently its changed to droughts occuring every TWO years. Guess what it does? It drives prices of food up-as a result we are now paying much more for food. 

Yes you accepted the existance of CFCs, however did you ever accept the existance of CO2? 

Now to get things straight, the US government has probably tried to coerce you guys to NOT believe in it so that you would continue your economy-building practises; yes you guys are being used. As a result you dont believe in this. 

In Australia, ALMOST EVERYONE knows of the existance, and believes in it. A majority of the population is affected by it, and you *never* get a politician denying its existance.

Scientific data; you cannot deny it. If your government is telling you that global warming isnt happening, even though data suggests it is well someone's dishonest!


Now back on track, this news is rather old. It has been stated that LCD monitors didnt exactly turn out to be as environmentally friendly as they were meant to be.

OLEDs ftw, much more vibrant image compared to LCD monitors.


----------



## pentastar111 (Jul 8, 2008)

Not sure of how this gas is used as I've never made an LCD monitor before, but it sounds like it would be a containment issue....figure out a way to contain and or reuse the gas during the manufacturing process and the problem could be solved without all of the drama....As far as the warming goes...WE ARE WARMING THE PLANET!!!.... Our orbit around the sun is entering the phase in which the orbit is egg shaped vs the totally round orbit we are leaving.  We should be COOLING DOWN and we are not....This is, unfortunately do to US (people)and our infernal machines!.:shadedshu..Comforts of modern living come at a cost....We will have to deal with it now, or deal with it later..either way it will not be avoidable..


----------



## spacejunky (Jul 8, 2008)

OzzmanFloyd120 said:


> Are you trying to say that I'm partially responsible for Black Hades' CRT eating up too much energy? (Joking)
> 
> Seriously though, I agree with you. Global warming isn't a new thing. I remember back in first grade learning about it, and that was 1991. Too many people are quick to jump on Al Gore for pushing it like it's a new idea or something. Personally I commend the man for trying to bring environmental awareness to the masses.




Al Gore is not trying to save the world, he is trying to sell books and movies.  What was his electric bill last year for his carbon footprint?  This is just his Nashville estate


----------



## spacejunky (Jul 8, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> Fact: Global warming is real. I'm going to downright ignore your request since this thread is about global warming.
> 
> Sorry if I sound like al gore, but this is something that he DIDNT say:
> 
> ...



I just saw what *your* politicians did about it...they decided to increase taxes!  great!  let's not solve the problem, if there is one, instead let's make money off it.  Yeah your great country has the solution all right.  How does a 20% hike in your food prices sound due to your taxes?

Droughts?  In Dallas, TX we have had droughts every 2 years for the last 10!

They have you so scared over there that you will be happy to pay your inflated prices and not revolt over the tax increase to the producers that is being passed on to you the consumer.

How much CO2 is released when a volcano erupts?  Speaking of volcanos... read about the ones under the Arctic  Funny how the _scientists_ are quick to dismiss it against global warming...why?  can't make any money off a volcano.

We aren't as greedy and inconsiderate as you have been led to believe.  We care about the enviro but most of us did not buy LCDs to better it.  We bought them to save space.  The assumptions the liberal media makes are funny.  The assumptions you make are even funnier.  I hope you do feel sick about the mess.  Your government has taken advantage of you and you are proud about it. Why do they need to tax carbon output?  Why not just tax the input?  Why tax individuals and then give it back?  Why not just tax the producers?  Do you really think you will get your money back?  HAHA  good luck.

Here's a link  for those that are interested in what is going on in Australia.


----------



## NamesDontMatter (Jul 8, 2008)

I just wanted to chime in on this. LCD's are great, take up less room, (look better in my opinion) and are just great. But it seems like the more technologically advanced we get, the more nasty chemicals we put out. Wasn't it intel that just said they are using half the periodic table in every chip now. Were using stuff much of which is in compounds unexposed to the surfance and we now manufacture it for a multitude of purposes. And this of course causes enviromental issues.

I believe global warming exists, but it has existed forever. In the world everything is cyclical, you live, you die. The seasons are cyclical, the orbit. Everything is, as are iceages, it will happen. Its just a matter of when. The last one was from a NEO hitting the earth, comet astroid w/e(most believe). The next could be caused by that again, or a super volcano etc etc. We don't know. But it would be quite sad if we do it to ourselves insted of actually having something catastrophic happen.


----------



## zithe (Jul 8, 2008)

It's hard to _not_ be more warming effective than something that doesn't warm at all. Heat affects the amount of CO2 present. Why do you think there's hardly any CO2 at the polar ice caps and it gets slowly more condensed as you make your way to the equator?



NamesDontMatter said:


> I believe global warming exists, but it has existed forever. In the world everything is cyclical, you live, you die. The seasons are cyclical, the orbit. Everything is, as are iceages, it will happen. Its just a matter of when. The last one was from a NEO hitting the earth, comet astroid w/e(most believe). The next could be caused by that again, or a super volcano etc etc. We don't know. But it would be quite sad if we do it to ourselves insted of actually having something catastrophic happen.



So in other words, Global Warming exists, but what the media says is a bunch of crap? Can't agree more. It's surprising how many people refuse to even spend 5 minutes researching something so obviously wrong _when they have the ease of the internet_ at their hands. They just go along with the paid scientists and media and assume "The rich guy said it. It has to be true. Made no sense but it's true!"

I saw a poster showing a polar bear on a broken peice of ice saying it was global warming's fault, and that it's causing the rapidly-growing polar bear species to be endangered. Well guess what? Polar bears swim, and since when is the polar bear going to be endangered when it lives on a continent that can't melt because it's high temperatures during its summer are in the negative 20s? (Fahrenheit) -20 + .5 does not equal 33...


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 8, 2008)

To interject a few things, a few years ago, scientific analysis almost universally (peer-reviewed and such) showed global warming was happening as a direct result of man. However, recently there has been some analysis that man actually has very little contribution to global warming, or that it doesn't even exist (although the last one hasn't gained much support). I tend to think global warming should be thought of more as a symbol for how we MUST advance technologically and socially in a way that doesn't destroy the enviornment we live in, for ourselves if nothing else. Global warming in of itself is debatable, and really not as impactful to our current situation as many other problems, such as energy cryses, food shortages, trash, and stuff like that. For whatever reason, it has gained the most political backing and has thus become the issue of choice when concerning the enviornment. But what it represents as a vehicle for change and eco-friendly development is where the true importance lies.


----------



## zithe (Jul 8, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> To interject a few things, a few years ago, scientific analysis almost universally (peer-reviewed and such) showed global warming was happening as a direct result of man. However, recently there has been some analysis that man actually has very little contribution to global warming, or that it doesn't even exist (although the last one hasn't gained much support). I tend to think global warming should be thought of more as a symbol for how we MUST advance technologically and socially in a way that doesn't destroy the enviornment we live in, for ourselves if nothing else. Global warming in of itself is debatable, and really not as impactful to our current situation as many other problems, such as energy cryses, food shortages, trash, and stuff like that. For whatever reason, it has gained the most political backing and has thus become the issue of choice when concerning the enviornment. But what it represents as a vehicle for change and eco-friendly development is where the true importance lies.



To the surprise of most people who hear this, less people believe in global warming than the amount that don't. There just happens to be a lot of people leftover to cash-in on. Even a lot of kids in schools don't believe it. I was sitting with a bunch of kids in science class and they were complaining about the global warming unit and asking "Why do we have to learn something that's been proven wrong?"

The only reason most people don't know this is because the people who don't believe in global warming aren't going to run around looking for people to tell "It doesn't exist" and make money off of it.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 8, 2008)

zithe said:


> To the surprise of most people who hear this, less people believe in global warming than the amount that don't. There just happens to be a lot of people leftover to cash-in on. Even a lot of kids in schools don't believe it. I was sitting with a bunch of kids in science class and they were complaining about the global warming unit and asking "Why do we have to learn something that's been proven wrong?"



Something like that can't be said for sure. Polls and such are inaccurate, unless it was a question on the census I wouldn't trust it. It hasn't been proven wrong (or right), it's just had conflicting reports from people analysing the data differently. Like I said, even if the reports of man-made global warming are accurate, the problems that arise aren't as great as other enviornmental delima's, its just more of a "hot" topic (couldn't resist).


----------



## zithe (Jul 8, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Something like that can't be said for sure. Polls and such are inaccurate, unless it was a question on the census I wouldn't trust it. It hasn't been proven wrong (or right), it's just had conflicting reports from people analysing the data differently. Like I said, even if the reports of man-made global warming are accurate, the problems that arise aren't as great as other enviornmental delima's, its just more of a "hot" topic (couldn't resist).



It's hard to prove something wrong when every 'scientist' says something different about it. It's impossible to prove correct, though. CO2 does NOT affect temperature. Ask any person who has a chemistry major and is not being paid by the news people to say stuff.



> Yes you accepted the existance of CFCs, however did you ever accept the existance of CO2?



I accepted the existance of both. I accepted that they don't affect temperature. I've also accepted that there is more plant life than mammals/fish/reptiles etc. Don't give me that deforestation crap here. Look from space, the Earth is still green, not brown/blond from the color of people's heads.

What I also find funny is how people say the O-Zone layer is deteriorating. All they do is measure the amount of UV radiation. They NEVER take into account solar storms or any increased discharges from the sun. They also never bothered to prove that it's the O-Zone that's actually blocking UV radiation. Global Warming is filled with too many holes to even be considered plausible. Theories are like statements. It's right if EVERYTHING in it is right. How much of the Global Warming theory is actually right? I can't find it myself.

What also sucks is that no matter how much we argue, no one will change their minds, no one will be persuaded, and this conversation would keep going on after even the media said "Global Warming doesn't exist" or something like that to attract attention.



farlex85 said:


> Wikipedia, as far as I know, is not paid for by the mass media.



But anyone can edit it making it an unreliable source.

And here's one for you. Last year, the average global temperature DROPPED 1C. 1 year. According to this graph, how long would it take for a 1c average global temp change? 1.5 centuries.
Since you insist on wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080225111347AAayVQD


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 8, 2008)

zithe said:


> It's hard to prove something wrong when every 'scientist' says something different about it. It's impossible to prove correct, though. CO2 does NOT affect temperature. Ask any person who has a chemistry major and is not being paid by the news people to say stuff.



Wikipedia, as far as I know, is not paid for by the mass media.


----------



## Triprift (Jul 8, 2008)

Yeah we all no about that its been rammed down are throats by scientists and governments for ages. As far as im concerned its just a fancy way by theses ppl to try and control the population.


----------



## mlupple (Jul 8, 2008)

Think about it, if global warming is real, it'll swallow up southern california!  I'm praying for the day!


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2008)

I hardly think that an average increase of .5 degrees over the span of the last 100years or so qualifies as global warming. Global warming as the politicians would have you believe it, is a farce. .5 degrees falls within the standard margin of error in most tests.

As for the Ozone layer, don't you think firing rockets into space might have a little to do with that?

Now, does that mean we shouldn't be worried about the environment? No, of course it doesn't. We have to live here, so yeah, we should try to do our part to make it as pleasant as possible.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 8, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I hardly think that an average increase of .5 degrees over the span of the last 100years or so qualifies as global warming. Global warming as the politicians would have you believe it, is a farce. .5 degrees falls within the standard margin of error in most tests.
> 
> As for the Ozone layer, don't you think firing rockets into space might have a little to do with that?
> 
> Now, does that mean we shouldn't be worried about the environment? No, of course it doesn't. We have to live here, so yeah, we should try to do our part to make it as pleasant as possible.



Actually a .5 degree average increase is quite drastic. If the average global temperature were to rise or fall by a few degrees in that span of time, an ice age or complete climate change would be taking place.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Actually a .5 degree average increase is quite drastic. If the average global temperature were to rise or fall by a few degrees in that span of time, an ice age or complete climate change would be taking place.



Not the way I see it. Can you tell the difference between 20 and 20.5 degrees? Care to elaborate?


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 8, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Not the way I see it. Can you tell the difference between 20 and 20.5 degrees? Care to elaborate?



What I mean is when taking the global average, a change like that is a big one. In just a specific region, like the city of New York, or your neighborhood, that is of course a very small change. However, when talking about the average temperature of the world, or as they calculate it the near surface air and oceans, a change such as this represents fairly substantial change, not neccessarily abnormal geologically and historically speaking, but substantial nonetheless.


----------



## pentastar111 (Jul 8, 2008)

mlupple said:


> Think about it, if global warming is real, it'll swallow up southern california!  I'm praying for the day!


LOL


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 8, 2008)

zithe said:


> But anyone can edit it making it an unreliable source.
> 
> And here's one for you. Last year, the average global temperature DROPPED 1C. 1 year. According to this graph, how long would it take for a 1c average global temp change? 1.5 centuries.
> Since you insist on wikipedia...
> ...



Studies actually found wikipedia to in some cases be more accurate and reliable than encyclopedia britanica. Where is the graph that shows a 1C drop in world temp? Yahoo answers is not reliable and is more of a chat forum like this. I don't see how the wiki link backs up anything you were saying, it in fact, directly states several times that CO2 is in fact a green house gas and a possible culprit of warming the earth.


----------



## flashstar (Jul 8, 2008)

Al Gore himself stands to make a killing off of the "global warming problem".

http://newsbusters.org/node/11149


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 8, 2008)

flashstar said:


> Al Gore himself stands to make a killing off of the "global warming problem".
> 
> http://newsbusters.org/node/11149



Eh who cares about Al Gore? People bring him into the debate as if he is responsible for starting it. Sure, perhaps he did make it more well-known and bring it to the forefront for some, but to me he and his motives are irrelevant to the issue. More important are the scientific papers that are written on this, and whether they are politically or economically driven rather than scientifically driven.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> What I mean is when taking the global average, a change like that is a big one. In just a specific region, like the city of New York, or your neighborhood, that is of course a very small change. However, when talking about the average temperature of the world, or as they calculate it the near surface air and oceans, a change such as this represents fairly substantial change, not neccessarily abnormal geologically and historically speaking, but substantial nonetheless.



I still fail to see how .5 is substantial in any way, regardless of area. I don't know if I'm misinterpreting something, but that just seems minimal to me.


----------



## flashstar (Jul 8, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Eh who cares about Al Gore? People bring him into the debate as if he is responsible for starting it. Sure, perhaps he did make it more well-known and bring it to the forefront for some, but to me he and his motives are irrelevant to the issue. More important are the scientific papers that are written on this, and whether they are politically or economically driven rather than scientifically driven.



His motives are relevant. If Al Gore made an Inconvenient Truth only to make a boatload of cash without correct scientific data, then thousands of people have been deceived. The average Joe won't go out to independent scientific sources to verify Gore's claims. He will just assume that Al is correct. If anything, Al Gore has harmed our economy while making a ton of dough for himself. I'm not against making money by any means, but it is unacceptable if you are hurting your country in the process. Unfortunately, that seems to be a common theme among liberals.


----------



## spacejunky (Jul 8, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Studies actually found wikipedia to in some cases be more accurate and reliable than encyclopedia britanica. Where is the graph that shows a 1C drop in world temp? Yahoo answers is not reliable and is more of a chat forum like this. I don't see how the wiki link backs up anything you were saying, it in fact, directly states several times that CO2 is in fact a green house gas and a possible culprit of warming the earth.




Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud



> Coleman says his side of the global-warming debate is being buried in mainstream media circles.
> 
> "As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased," he said.


----------



## zithe (Jul 8, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Studies actually found wikipedia to in some cases be more accurate and reliable than encyclopedia britanica. Where is the graph that shows a 1C drop in world temp? Yahoo answers is not reliable and is more of a chat forum like this. I don't see how the wiki link backs up anything you were saying, it in fact, directly states several times that CO2 is in fact a green house gas and a possible culprit of warming the earth.



The 1c drop was all over the news, surprisingly. The fact that last years global temperature average was 1c lower than the year before was what I was trying to point out. The graphs in wikipedia show it takes nearly 2 centuries to get that large of a temperature change, 

Oh and http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=53DE09DC-802A-23AD-4EC4-C8ACCD44A47D
and  then http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/army-vs-global.html
Can't forget this one http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=5CEAEDB7-802A-23AD-4BFE-9E32747616F9
and last http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=A17DEFA8-802A-23AD-4912-8AB7138A7C3F

If those sources aren't reliable then I don't know what is.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 8, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I still fail to see how .5 is substantial in any way, regardless of area. I don't know if I'm misinterpreting something, but that just seems minimal to me.



I'm having trouble finding links to explain it thoroughly, basically, the worlds global mean temperature is thought to be fairly constant over a 100 year period. Geologically speaking, this is a very short amount of time. When applied to an overall average, if the temperature changes more rapidly, more drastic effects are seen. Think of anything where global averages can be compared to small groups. Off the top of my head, think test scores. If a particular class average were to drop by say 5 points overall, it's not very significant to humanity as a whole. If everyone in the world were to take that test and the global average dropped 5 points, that points to something drastic taking place, because averages tend to go to the middle. Perhaps that is a poor example, but averages statistically speaking tend to not vary much, especially when on a global scale. When talking about climate, a move of a few degrees in global average over a short period of time indicates drastic climate change. I wish I could explain it better, maybe I'll think of a better way if that still isn't making sense.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 8, 2008)

flashstar said:


> His motives are relevant. If Al Gore made an Inconvenient Truth only to make a boatload of cash without correct scientific data, then thousands of people have been deceived. The average Joe won't go out to independent scientific sources to verify Gore's claims. He will just assume that Al is correct. If anything, Al Gore has harmed our economy while making a ton of dough for himself. I'm not against making money by any means, but it is unacceptable if you are hurting your country in the process. Unfortunately, that seems to be a common theme among liberals.



That's the average Joe's fault then for not finding things out for themselves. Politicians lie, I thought that was common knowledge. He's no different than any other. We can only do what we can to acsertain what is the truth and what is not, what Al Gore says about global warming matters not if he is not part of the scientific community. There are many many more politicans who have hurt the country far worse for personal monetary gain, don't be too conservative.



zithe said:


> The 1c drop was all over the news, surprisingly. The fact that last years global temperature average was 1c lower than the year before was what I was trying to point out. The graphs in wikipedia show it takes nearly 2 centuries to get that large of a temperature change,
> 
> Oh and http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=53DE09DC-802A-23AD-4EC4-C8ACCD44A47D
> and  then http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/army-vs-global.html
> ...



K well now I'm confused, b/c you are now taking info from the mass media? I thought they lied? Those links are blogs, I don't think I need to say more (although I am not saying they are lies).


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2008)

Your explanation is pretty clear, but no matter how I look at it, .5 isn't a significant or rapid change. Perhaps if it were 5 degrees as opposed to a half of a degree, I might be inclined to agree with you, but as it stands, nothing can make .5 degrees significant in my mind. Unless, of course, somebody can point me to something that actually proves that small change makes a significant impact on the environment.


----------



## zithe (Jul 8, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> That's the average Joe's fault then for not finding things out for themselves. Politicians lie, I thought that was common knowledge. He's no different than any other. We can only do what we can to acsertain what is the truth and what is not, what Al Gore says about global warming matters not if he is not part of the scientific community. There are many many more politicans who have hurt the country far worse for personal monetary gain, don't be too conservative.



Global warming IS hurting the economy. Corn was wasted on ethonol, something that actually DOES increase temperatures (Water vapor = increased humidity) and caused food shortages. Not trying to offend anyone, but the Arabian countries are trying to drive the rest of the world's oil prices up by not selling a whole lot of it. 

Off-topic for a moment.. Has anyone heard that scientists have found out that if you feed this insect certain foods it excretes usable petroleum? They're working on getting that going. (More of an economy related issue)



farlex85 said:


> K well now I'm confused, b/c you are now taking info from the mass media? I thought they lied? Those links are blogs, I don't think I need to say more (although I am not saying they are lies).



Oh I'm sorry. I didn't know the US Senate Committee was just another online newspaper. 
OK. Ignore the 1 link that isn't government-involved. Just because it's a blog completely throws away any credibility of the article I guess.

Edit: I'm going to bed now. I'll wake up and reply in the morning.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 8, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Your explanation is pretty clear, but no matter how I look at it, .5 isn't a significant or rapid change. Perhaps if it were 5 degrees as opposed to a half of a degree, I might be inclined to agree with you, but as it stands, nothing can make .5 degrees significant in my mind. Unless, of course, somebody can point me to something that actually proves that small change makes a significant impact on the environment.



.5 is significant b/c it's more than usually happens in that period of time (estimated at least). The effects on the enviornment aren't drastic, but subtle at that point. Drier inland, lower ice-caps, certain subtle climate shifts, stuff like that. Which has happened. The main debate is over how much this trend will continue, or accelerate. B/c if it were to speed up to say 3 or 4 degrees in 100 years, the climate shift would be very noticeable, and difficult to cope w/.



zithe said:


> Global warming IS hurting the economy. Corn was wasted on ethonol, something that actually DOES increase temperatures (Water vapor = increased humidity) and caused food shortages. Not trying to offend anyone, but the Arabian countries are trying to drive the rest of the world's oil prices up by not selling a whole lot of it.
> 
> Off-topic for a moment.. Has anyone heard that scientists have found out that if you feed this insect certain foods it excretes usable petroleum? They're working on getting that going. (More of an economy related issue)
> 
> ...



It's worse than just another online newspaper, it's political. There are alterior motives there, they are not just trying to spread factual information, not to say they are worthless, there is certainly some good info there. And yes, when speaking of scientific matters, I think the fact that it is a blog does remove it's credibility. It means it wasn't reviewed or edited by an outside source before making it there. I wouldn't use them as arguments. 

I haven't heard about that insect you speak of, I'd certainly like to though, definitely link some info on that. And the middle-easter and arabian countries are claiming the skyrocketing prices are not b/c they are not selling enough, but b/c of the failing US dollar and economic situations here. I don't trust that explanation or our own gov't's completely, but what can you do?


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 8, 2008)

meh im still using CRT i like it more than LCD anyway, i just want a 22in CRT


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 8, 2008)

spacejunky said:


> I just saw what *your* politicians did about it...they decided to increase taxes!  great!  let's not solve the problem, if there is one, instead let's make money off it.  Yeah your great country has the solution all right.  How does a 20% hike in your food prices sound due to your taxes?
> 
> Droughts?  In Dallas, TX we have had droughts every 2 years for the last 10!
> 
> ...



Err no drought = less food produced. Half the fucking farms here are defunct thanks to the dought.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 8, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I still fail to see how .5 is substantial in any way, regardless of area. I don't know if I'm misinterpreting something, but that just seems minimal to me.



.5 *C higher average for a year can go a LONG way. Example, ice sheets, that 0.5 may weaken the ice sheets around the poles enough to crack them. Thats occured in antarctica over the past few years, ice sheets giving into stress MUCH earlier than predicted.


Oh yes. I heard. Your droughts in the US are a couple of days without rain.

Our droughts = weeks - months of no rain and scorching hot and dry conditions. The drought preceeding the current one, there was only what one month between them!

Since you guys arent on the recieving end you guys don't care. Its you guys in the US who usually deny or downplay the significance of global warming. People from the rest of the world, the UK, Australia, new zealand, etcetera, ALL realise it. 

I'm not anti US, i like the food (maccas ftw), i like the culture, i like the stuff that comes out of it. I just don't like how the government makes you guys think. 

Your arguments that tax etc, is for greed is invalid. Its saying "Global warming doesnt exist because there is money".


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> .5 *C higher average for a year can go a LONG way. Example, ice sheets, that 0.5 may weaken the ice sheets around the poles enough to crack them. Thats occured in antarctica over the past few years, ice sheets giving into stress MUCH earlier than predicted.
> 
> 
> Oh yes. I heard. Your droughts in the US are a couple of days without rain.
> ...


There's no evidence to support that ice sheets cracking at the poles are cause from the whopping .5 degree change in temperature. -50C + .5C still equals -49.5C.

And you aren't feeling the difference that .5C has given you. .5C is not enough to cause droughts. Your droughts are naturally occurring, and have nothing to do with "global warming".

And if global warming does exist, explain to me how this past year the average went down a degree, completely negating the .5C anyway.

If global warming does exist, it has nothing to do with man. It's cyclical.


----------



## Grimskull (Jul 8, 2008)

I for one dont believe in the whole global warming/climate change crap.... why did they change it from global warming to climate change anyway?? The earths temperature always changes... its effected by the sun... always has been... always will be!!! The earth can heal itself.... we had an ice age around 10000 years ago.... were we to blame for that?? Damn those sabertooth tigers and mammoth elephants for not helping fight against the ice age!!!! 

Those CFL/energy saving light bulbs have their good and bad points. Good that they might save you money on your electricity bill on the long run, bad that they contain Mercury and take ages to fully light up. If you break the CFL light bulb in your house you have to open the windows and doors and leave your house for a few hours to let the mercury out... out to the environment!!

The normal light bulbs are fine, if everyone was to change over from the normal lightbulbs to the CFL ones, their would be more waste from the changeover than a full landfill dump site!!!

Another thing that really gets up my nose is those "Green" cars... like the Toyota Prius..... the batteries that are in those cars use more chemicals and CO2 to make one of them than what the average "non-green" car outputs in one year. 

Yes i believe in conserving our natural resources, but if all of those tree hugging "save our planet al gores types" want to really save it... then stop breathing!!! (We exhale CO2) 

Heres an interesting concept to offput CO2... seen that everyone is on the bandwagon of it..... plant more trees...or.... stop the deforestation of the amazon.... Plants and trees need CO2 to survive... they take it in and convert it to oxegen... basic chemistry! cant remember but its something like 3-4 football fields are being cut down a day in the amazon. 

Al Gore really annoys me..... jetting all over the planet telling us to stop polluting the planet... then he can jet back to his nice house with his electricity bill being paid for by the average joe...... also greenpeace can go fcuk themselves.... another waste of space orgainsation... best thing the French ever did was to sink that rust bucket that greenpeace was using to motor around the planet and tell us to stop polluting. 

Anyone remember those concerts held last year (think it was last year, might be the year before) with all the rock stars bragging on about conserving energy and stop polluting and cut down CO2..... little hypocritical of them... flying all over the planet to a concert that using a MASSIVE amount of electricity... hmmm.... kettle.... pot.....black?????

.5C can cause some effects.... .5 in a CPU temp can cause effects.... but nothing drastic!!


----------



## HTC (Jul 8, 2008)

Just did an image search in Google for the words "glacier melt" and came up with this:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...&prev=/images?q=glacier+melt&gbv=2&hl=en&sa=G

The reason i searched for these 2 words in particular is because i've seen, in documentaries, how much have certain glaciers retreated in recent years. Unfortunately, i was unable to find the glacier pics i had seen in the documentary 

0.5º doesn't seem like much but, when compared to the changes in the other time frames (see the charts in the link), you'll get an idea why it *IS significant*.


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 8, 2008)

its just the end of the last iceage, this is the normal cycle of the planet get over it. Global Warming is a liberal farce meant to scare the mass's


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 8, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> Err no drought = less food produced. Half the fucking farms here are defunct thanks to the dought.



I Really hate to tell you this, but Austrillia was never the best place in the world to farm, and where at the end of the last Ice Age, meaning its just gonna get hotter down there. I understand alot of yall where put there as exiles of the Brittish Government but wake up its a desert and that is growing its not global warming, its the end of the last iceage, and we go through these cycles about once every what 1 million years or so. The planet is about at the end of this age, in another thousand years the ice caps should have totally melted, which has happened before and will again, it has be proven most of this planet has been covered by water. But don't blame man for this cycle it was going on long before we got here and there is nothing we can do to stop it.


----------



## HTC (Jul 8, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> *its just the end of the last iceage, this is the normal cycle of the planet get over it.* Global Warming is a liberal farce meant to scare the mass's



It's not the increase that's the problem, dude: it's the time frame in which it occurred.

The Earth has had Ice Ages for millions of years: what it didn't have until recently (100 years or so), was a 3rd party factor (Man) helping in the global temperature increase.

The politicians (worldwide) are more interested in keeping their asses in power to look @ the middle / long term effects of what they are doing.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2008)

HTC said:


> It's not the increase that's the problem, dude: it's the time frame in which it occurred.
> 
> The Earth has had Ice Ages for millions of years: what it didn't have until recently (100 years or so), was a 3rd party factor (Man) helping in the global temperature increase.
> 
> The politicians (worldwide) are more interested in keeping their asses in power to look @ the middle / long term effects of what they are doing.



And were we around to note how rapidly (or not) the temperatures changed when moving from one Global Climate to the next? How do you know this level of change isn't normal?


----------



## Grimskull (Jul 8, 2008)

yes the planet is at the end of an ice age... yes the planet is going through cycles.... yes australia is majority a desert...... yes global warming/climate change... whatever the tree huggers wanna call is not man made!

Anyone here know their chemistry? i rememeber a lab experiement that was done in my chem lab when i was in secondary school (10 yrs ago).... CO2 is a heavy gas... how can i get up to the atmosphere?? Has CO2 lost weight?? Been to the gym??

It seems that if a scientist wasnt to get tonnes of funding or want their name on the latest edition of Scientist Weekly they just say that the study they want want to do, are doing or just finsished is related to climate change! BAM... instant funding....!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cant beleive all our our tax dollars are going towards something we have literally no power over.... no control over.... and not our doing!!


----------



## HTC (Jul 8, 2008)

Wile E said:


> And were we around to note how rapidly (or not) the temperatures changed when moving from one Global Climate to the next? How do you know this level of change isn't normal?



That can be measured ... in the Ice as well as other places:








> *Figure 5.* Variations of the Earth's surface temperature over the last millennium. Data from thermometers (red), tree rings, corals, ice cores and historical records (blue). The year by year (blue curve) and 50 year average (black curve) variations of the average surface temperature of the Northern Hemisphere for the past 1000 years have been reconstructed from proxy data calibrated against thermometer data. Note: there is quite large uncertainty in proxy data for past climates, of the order of 0.5oC (adapted from IPCC, 2001)



Source: www.helpsavetheclimate.com


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 8, 2008)

they don't thats the point, also prove to me its bad for the planet if it is off by 1000yrs because of man, considering the poles won't melt for another 10,000 years minimum and the jet stream should be good for another 13,000-14,000 years how does this affect us, and how is it bad for the planet honestly? Do you think when the earth gets flooded if man is even still here we won't have a way to leave the earth by then?

Even considering this a problem is like being concered that the sun is gonna go Nova or the Universe emplode one day. I don't waste my time considering what is going to happen i have better things to do. The only thing affected by this is guess what, life on the planet, which if life is here after the last ice age and if man survived the last iceage and we wore fur, don't you think even today we are equipped to handle it, heck think of all the fresh water we will have to drink and all the frozen fish, we won't even have to pay for plumbing and who needs to worry about food with millions of prefrozen uncooked fish, heck the next iceage is like the frozen meat section at the store. And well let it come, i got a blanket, and i got a heater, and i still have my Y2K stock of toliet paper


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2008)

HTC said:


> That can be measured ... in the Ice:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't believe that for a second. They even admit it may not be accurate. The only way I'll believe this kind of data, is if somebody was there to actually record it at the time. Meaning we can't accurately go back far enough to determine what the global trends are. We can only guess at best.

ANyway, this is my last post on the subject. You all know my stance. Provide me with hard evidence, and I'll change my views. But until then, it's all just speculation.


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 8, 2008)

HTC said:


> That can be measured ... in the Ice as well as other places:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



amazing look where warming up, so what, as we said this is natural. know why you won't find proff though, it might have to do with when the last ice age ended the ice was gone, i dunno but just maybe thats why no ice cores are around. All you did was say what i said, where at the end of the iceage, thanks for proving the point. Now prove this rapid warming isnt indictive of the end of an iceage, go ahead find me proof


All i can say is clothing stores will sell less coats and more swim trunks, bout damn time to, its to cold in the winter for a proper BBQ


----------



## HTC (Jul 8, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> *they don't thats the point, also prove to me its bad for the planet if it is off by 1000yrs because of man, considering the poles won't melt for another 10,000 years minimum and the jet stream should be good for another 13,000-14,000 years how does this affect us, and how is it bad for the planet honestly? Do you think when the earth gets flooded if man is even still here we won't have a way to leave the earth by then?*
> 
> Even considering this a problem is like being concered that the sun is gonna go Nova or the Universe emplode one day. I don't waste my time considering what is going to happen i have better things to do. The only thing affected by this is guess what, life on the planet, which if life is here after the last ice age and if man survived the last iceage and we wore fur, don't you think even today we are equipped to handle it, heck think of all the fresh water we will have to drink and all the frozen fish, we won't even have to pay for plumbing and who needs to worry about food with millions of prefrozen uncooked fish, heck the next iceage is like the frozen meat section at the store. And well let it come, i got a blanket, and i got a heater, and i still have my Y2K stock of toliet paper



When will you be running for office? I mean: you think like a politician, so ...

EDIT



candle_86 said:


> *amazing look where warming up, so what, as we said this is natural.* know why you won't find proff though, it might have to do with when the last ice age ended the ice was gone, i dunno but just maybe thats why no ice cores are around. All you did was say what i said, where at the end of the iceage, thanks for proving the point. Now prove this rapid warming isnt indictive of the end of an iceage, go ahead find me proff



Ofc it's natural: what's unnatural, as the pic clearly shows, is the time frame in which the increase took place.


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 8, 2008)

you can't prevent the inevitable you can prepare or you can die, but you can't prevent, why is that so hard to grasp, also why should i care whats in 10,000 years, i doubt we as a race will even be here, either we will destory ourselves in war, or the biblical armagedon takes place.


As for Office, im not a politcian, i hate them, every last one of them, i just vote for the republican one because i hate them slighly less


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 8, 2008)

HTC said:


> When will you be running for office? I mean: you think like a politician, so ...
> 
> EDIT
> 
> ...



prove it, find me prove of that fact that what that graph shows is unnatural. Anyone know why Global Warming is a Theroy and not a fact, because to become a fact you have to prove it and they can't


----------



## tomy (Jul 8, 2008)

*global warming*

Hi friends i am very interested to join you.global warming is mainly caused by man activities.so we must aware of the problem created by people.so, we must ready to bothering others also.

===================================================

sherin


www.orkut.com


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 8, 2008)

well dont go bothering me about it, last group of tree huggers came over here to talk to be about this problem they precive i called the cops for tresspassing on our apartments property and loitering because they didnt have premission to be on the property annoying people. Save your tree hugging liberal feel good crap for yourself. IF and its a big IF global warming becomes an actual problem i might give a shit, right now nope, i see no reason for concern, 10000 years from now does not affect me in the slighest


----------



## HTC (Jul 8, 2008)

Do you know of the volcano of Mount Tambora eruption in 1815?

From Wikipedia:



> Mount Tambora (or Tomboro) is an active stratovolcano, also known as a composite volcano, on Sumbawa island, Indonesia. Sumbawa is flanked both to the north and south by oceanic crust, and Tambora was formed by the active subduction zones beneath it. This raised Mount Tambora as high as 4,300 m (14,000 ft),[2] making it one of the tallest peaks in the Indonesian archipelago, and drained off a large magma chamber inside the mountain. It took centuries to refill the magma chamber, its volcanic activity reaching its peak in April 1815.[3]
> 
> Tambora erupted in 1815 with a rating of seven on the Volcanic Explosivity Index, making it the largest eruption since the Lake Taupo eruption in AD 181.[4] The explosion was heard on Sumatra island (more than 2,000 km or 1,200 mi away). Heavy volcanic ash falls were observed as far away as Borneo, Sulawesi, Java and Maluku islands. The death toll was at least 71,000 people (perhaps the most deadly eruption in history), of whom 11,000–12,000 were killed directly by the eruption;[4] the often-cited figure of 92,000 people killed is believed to be an overestimate.[5] The eruption created global climate anomalies; 1816 became known as the Year Without a Summer because of the effect on North American and European weather. Agricultural crops failed and livestock died in much of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in the worst famine of the 19th century.[4]



Do you know what the overall decrease in temperature (globally) was?

According to this, it was ~3º: *~3º* and it caused a year without summer.

For a few more years after 1815, the temperatures recorded were abnormally low.


OK: this was a 1 time event but *i'm only using it to show what a mere 3º difference in global temperature can do*.

We're seeing a 0.5 increase over the last 100 years or so and, although it seems insignificant to many, it most certainly *is NOT*.


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 8, 2008)

oh yes it is, how does a lack of winter hurt us?

It just means we can grow crops year round actully, the problem was the drop in temp, not the rise, how much more food would we have if we harvested on January 10th and again in the summer time compared to one crop? As for the heat issue caused by this, well +.5C doesnt hinder plants at all, give it another 5,000 years for that +.5c to make it +25C and we got a problem, but in the near future if you understand farming youd realize most crops wont be affected till you gain around 10C on them.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 8, 2008)

This is what happens:

We who believe in Global warming use scientific sources to prove our point.

Then you guys who deny it deny the facts without any scientific backup. NICE JOB.







_That image you denied proves even if the world blows up you still wont believe it _.


_ provide me with a source that states that that graph is not 100% accurate? _


_Provide me with a source that states that "Global Warming" is different to "Climate Change" in every way_


_ and finally, provide me with a SCIENTIFIC source that states that climate change is not being accelerated by humans_



GREED for MONEY. George W Bush, basically was a smart idiot. He was smart that he had a presedential campaign that had less taxes to win the election, compared to Al Gore. But hes an idiot at the same time; his ways endangers the world by balantly ignoring, and educating the US against "Global Warming"


One question; why is it, that the people who deny such Global warming mainly come from the US? Does your education system even have "Climate change/global warming" as part of the Syllabus? 

I really think, it is 100% impossible to convince you people.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 8, 2008)

> Update: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns" (IPCC 2007).



Source: http://www.helpsavetheclimate.com/climatechange2.html

I find it really hard to believe the arrogance of people who havent been educated in such a field of study proficiently to deny such evidence. We provide books of evidence; our rebuttal = a short phrase + legal intervention.


----------



## HTC (Jul 8, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> This is what happens:
> 
> We who believe in Global warming use scientific sources to prove our point.
> 
> ...



I would like to see that as well.

Meanwhile, i found this (PDF file): learned a few things that i was unaware too!


----------



## btarunr (Jul 8, 2008)

I'm proud of you guys. You've put up such a great discussion over something most ignore.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 8, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> prove it, find me prove of that fact that what that graph shows is unnatural. Anyone know why Global Warming is a Theroy and not a fact, because to become a fact you have to prove it and they can't



Hey, look -- it's the old "it's not a fact, it's a theroy [sp]" argument!  Man, I remember that one from back in the day.  Strangely enough, it's usually only brought up by people who _aren't_ scientists and who _don't_ spend all of their time in laboratories performing experiments all day.

Let me just remind you that technically *gravity* is still considered just a "theory," too, you know. 



btarunr said:


> I'm proud of you guys. You've put up such a great discussion over something most ignore.



I agree -- no matter what viewpoint you take, (somewhat) rational discourse on a matter is always a good thing.  I find it odd, however, that the real issue here is one that's being ignored completely (hint:  it's not "global warming" or "the environment"):

Universal entropy -- how to stop it?


----------



## Rey17 (Jul 8, 2008)

wow, that figure is big !! lol


----------



## Black Panther (Jul 8, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> oh yes it is, how does a lack of winter hurt us?
> 
> It just means we can grow crops year round actully, the problem was the drop in temp, not the rise, how much more food would we have if we harvested on January 10th and again in the summer time compared to one crop? As for the heat issue caused by this, well +.5C doesnt hinder plants at all, give it another 5,000 years for that +.5c to make it +25C and we got a problem, but in the near future if you understand farming youd realize most crops wont be affected till you gain around 10C on them.



Lack of winter might not hurt one country but hurt another. 
As much as I love the summer, I can't imagine Malta without a winter.
It only rains for four months here, and very sparsely - total rainfall for a whole year is like 20 inches!

The highest ever temperature was August 1999 where it reached a sweltering 44 degrees in the shade! Fortunately it never got higher than that (meaning there's no warming?) though occasionally it goes up to 38-40 degrees.

Myself I'm not much sure about CO2 contributing to temperature warming, if it is indeed happening. I've read studies saying that sunspot activity (the 11 year cycle) affects temperatures, others still attribute warming to the sun's slowly but steadily increasing girth....


----------



## Grimskull (Jul 8, 2008)

@Tkpenalty..... im not from the US, im in Europe. Theres thousands and thousands of people that dont buy into the global warming/climate change scam. i never bought into it, never will. Yes i believe in conserving our natural resources, but CO2 leading to global warming?? nah.... CO2 falls... its a heavy gas.... how can it climb to the atmosphere... thats gravity... hang on... gravity is a theory.... climate change must be too.... 

There was suppose to be WMD's in Iraq.... All the Coalition leaders in the US and UK said there was.. there was proof (apperantly).... have they found any???

I wouldnt mind a warmer summer here in Ireland.... we only get 2 weeks of sunshine... the rest is wind, rain, rain, rain, rain... did i mention rain????


----------



## Zubasa (Jul 8, 2008)

Error 404 said:


> Oh, yeah, thanks for forgetting Australia.
> I do believe that global warming is being accelerated by humans, and it really sucks; raise another few degrees and soon I'll be having 50C summers!
> 
> As for OLEDS, the O in the name stands for Organic; they're made out of hydrocarbons and the like, so they can't be _too_ bad...



Well... we will get 54C summers in Hong Kong nice......


----------



## flashstar (Jul 8, 2008)

They did find hundreds of gas bombs from the 80's in Iraq... 

@ HTC 

Global temperatures dipped because massive amounts of ash were released into the atmosphere and blocked out the sun. It has nothing to do with CO2 itself.


----------



## Triprift (Jul 8, 2008)

I remember a few days when i lived in a little country town up North Woomera were it hit 50c when i was young now thats hot. I dont want to experience them temps again ever but most likely will.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 8, 2008)

It touches 48 C where I come from. The city has lakes and resevoirs around it. So that's 48 C + >50% RH. Ouch.


----------



## zithe (Jul 8, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> It's worse than just another online newspaper, it's political. There are alterior motives there, they are not just trying to spread factual information, not to say they are worthless, there is certainly some good info there. And yes, when speaking of scientific matters, I think the fact that it is a blog does remove it's credibility. It means it wasn't reviewed or edited by an outside source before making it there. I wouldn't use them as arguments.
> 
> I haven't heard about that insect you speak of, I'd certainly like to though, definitely link some info on that. And the middle-easter and arabian countries are claiming the skyrocketing prices are not b/c they are not selling enough, but b/c of the failing US dollar and economic situations here. I don't trust that explanation or our own gov't's completely, but what can you do?



The gas prices in england would translate into about 10 USD. I doubt it's the 'failing dollar' in the US.

I know it's times, but bear with me. XD 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece
There are several hits on this when you google "Insect excretes petroleum". :3

Your response confuses me. All I see out of it is: "Your source sucks but it may or may not be true."


----------



## Darkrealms (Jul 8, 2008)

Do your part get propane!  LoL, at least it'll be cheaper.  Or if you’re that against CO2 ride a bicycle.  If everyone did that prices would plummet.

I believe the universe has cycles, therefore our sun, earth, seasons, climates, etc, etc  have cycles.  Can man have an effect on the cycles?  On earth and below yes.  Do we actually have the "global warming" effect.  I believe No.
There is "evidence" on both sides of the argument.  Yes "Day After Tomorrow" was a great movie, I own it.  Does it prove anything? No.

Should we be stewards of the planet we live on? Yes.  
Should things like "global warming" have an effect on our stewardship? No.  We should do what we UNDERSTAND is best, and when we find out we are wrong we should do what we UNDERSTAND is best again.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 8, 2008)

zithe said:


> The gas prices in england would translate into about 10 USD. I doubt it's the 'failing dollar' in the US.
> 
> I know it's times, but bear with me. XD
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece
> ...



That's bizarre, cool though, I'll be on the lookout for further developments in that bug thing. I'm not really saying your sources suck, I'm just saying with things of this nature I've begun to only trust true scientific sources b/c of the media's and politicians slants on the subject. A couple of those articles actually have scientific articles as the subject, so that's good at least. And it's also probable that many scientific articles on the subject have been influenced by alterior motives as well. Basically, I'm saying I don't know one way or the other, I've read scientific data supporting both sides, and I genuinely don't know, I think the verdict is still out and it's a little foolish to totally commit to one way or the other. But I wouldn't use a political blog as a basis for an argument. Like I said before, global warming to me is more of a symbol for the need for eco-friendly action than being a serious problem in of itself.


----------



## zithe (Jul 8, 2008)

I'm having trouble finding any good sources these days. It's hard to determine if the scientist is making up crap (being paid) or actually saying something worth listening to.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 8, 2008)

flashstar said:


> They did find hundreds of gas bombs from the 80's in Iraq...



I know this is way off topic, but gas bombs that _the US gave_ Saddam in the 80's shouldn't count towards the "missing WMD's" needed to justify the current conflict in Iraq. :shadedshu

Anyway -- the way I see it, any environmental problems created by the production of LCD's are probably negated by the much, much smaller energy requirements used by them in lieu of CRT's.  So there.



zithe said:


> I'm having trouble finding any good sources these days. It's hard to determine if the scientist is making up crap (being paid) or actually saying something worth listening to.



You make a damn good point!  However, you can usually be sure of where a scientist's intentions lie by looking at where they publish their papers -- if they publish them in something called a "peer-reviewed journal," where other scientists are free to check and verify their work, you can usually trust it.  However, if the scientist in question releases his work immediately to the news media, or anything else, cast it in doubt.


----------



## Rash-Un-Al (Jul 8, 2008)

*Debate*



tkpenalty said:


> This is what happens:
> 
> We who believe in Global warming use scientific sources to prove our point.



There are scientifically founded studies from various sources which question the validity of the man-made global-warming claim (and, to your surprise or dismay, they are not all US-derived).
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1131275.stm



tkpenalty said:


> Then you guys who deny it deny the facts without any scientific backup. NICE JOB.
> 
> _That image you denied proves even if the world blows up you still wont believe it _.



The image, to which you refer, does nothing more than to provide a (very low resolution) visual reference of temperatures with respect to time.  It fails, however, to describe exactly if, how, or to which extent man has contributed to the increases and decreases in temperature.



tkpenalty said:


> _ provide me with a source that states that that graph is not 100% accurate? _



Provide us with a source that states the information in the (above) PDF -- which encompasses far more than a temperature/time graph -- is inaccurate.



tkpenalty said:


> _ and finally, provide me with a SCIENTIFIC source that states that climate change is not being accelerated by humans_



Provide us with a source which proves not only man's contributions to global warming, but also to which extent, in addition to the specific ways in which these contributions will negatively affect the earth and the livelihood of persons, animals, and plant life.



tkpenalty said:


> One question; why is it, that the people who deny such Global warming mainly come from the US? Does your education system even have "Climate change/global warming" as part of the Syllabus?



In the event you have been unaware, the US is at the forefront of studies which support each side of the argument.  Are you not interested in fair and open debate?

It just so happens that approximately 31,000 US scientists – approximately 9,000 of whom hold scientific PhDs – disagree with the claims of the 2,500 (or so) IPCC scientific reviewers.

http://tadcronn.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/global-warming-consensus-31000-scientists-disagree/


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 8, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> One question; why is it, that the people who deny such Global warming mainly come from the US? Does your education system even have "Climate change/global warming" as part of the Syllabus?
> 
> I really think, it is 100% impossible to convince you people.



"you people" indicates prejudice, I'd be careful with these comments as you basically just stated that everyone in the US is the same and that they all think the same way. 

and you're complaining about a few months of no rain? try 9-11 that's the AZ cycle we have rain 1 portion of the year and have to store it all up. It's called a desert and it hasn't changed since long before people got there. We store it up in AZ california uses it up, california says they're in a drought, in az we call it a dry season and a monsoon season. So basically your govenment didnt' store enough water from the rains, or allotted too much for the population and then calls it a drought. that has nothing to do with the topic on hand and everything to do with poor planning. It's a desert, you can't all have grass, pools, golf courses, waterparks and expect there to be enough water to drink.

global warming is a gross misinterpretation based off of speculation. and that nice little graph you guys are flashing shows a DECREASE in temperature during the industrail revolution which go against the entire theary of glabal warming. coal powerplanst produce more emissions than nuclear ones and yet that graph shows those coal plans dropping the temperture yet still says that global warming is because of man? so it's either graph=fake or glabal warming = fake. take your choice.


and yes all the "evidence " of the polar ice caps melting. it's a 3d ice cap, you can't just measure it's area, you have to go by volume and while the surface area is shrinking, it's volume underneath is growing. 


AZ is a desert and over the past 200 years our temperture have dropped by 2 degrees farenheit.  and to put that in perspective az 200 years ago had no industriaization and fewer than 100,000 inhabitants. now we're over 6 million with nuclear powerplants "concrete islands" (look it up) and over 4 million cars cross our roads everyday. (mass transit, wtf is that psh)
and yet with all those pollutants we dropped temperature by 2 degrees huh the world it totally warming cause yea yeah it's totally possible for the deserts to cool down while the world warms.


----------



## zithe (Jul 8, 2008)

The thing that urks me most is that people just keep arguing that CO2 drives up temperature as if they had proven it to me and I believed it. You haven't proven it, and I don't believe it. Show me an actual test with several cases, using scientific method of course. Take those cases and fill them with gas. One with nothing but oxygen, one with half C02 and half Oxygen, and one completely filled with CO2. Fill the bottom with a small amount of dirt to make an even layer that's a couple inches thick, and place temperature sensors on top of the dirt in each one (Several sensors to increase reliability) and collect the temperatures for a week. Note this must be done in the sun or something similar. 

Do some sort of test or something like it. I just need someone to actually prove whether CO2 affects temperature. My idea is that temperature controls CO2 levels, not the other way around, so the controlled amount of gases in each case will not leave dependent variables unchecked.


----------



## HTC (Jul 8, 2008)

flashstar said:


> They did find hundreds of gas bombs from the 80's in Iraq...
> 
> *@ HTC
> 
> Global temperatures dipped because massive amounts of ash were released into the atmosphere and blocked out the sun. It has nothing to do with CO2 itself.*



Yes: i know.

The sole reason i brought it up was to say what a mere ~3º drop (in global temperature) can do and that it's a *BIG* mistake to think that a 0.5º global increase is pretty much nothing.

It is possible, however, that the drop in the temps in 1815 were not the sole reason for the lack of Summer of 1816: the blocked sun was probably a factor as well.

In any case, the temperature DID drop, globally, by ~3º and, whether or not it was the only reason, it did cause a Summerless year.


----------



## pentastar111 (Jul 9, 2008)

I am from the U.S. And I am alittle more than concerned with whats happening in the world today (Alright TK?!) But I would like to know what the hell the truth REALLY is. On one hand we've go people saying we are warming...On the other there are those that say phtt! no way!...Let's take CO2 out of the equation...Here's one fact...The glaciers are receding...Why?...That would mean the oceans are warming...If the ocean is getting warmer, we do have some real problems...THE THAWING OF FROZEN METHANE...But is this really a problem? This has happened before...There used to be lush tropical jungles at the POLES! So even if this were to happen, we'd still be alive. Now let's bring CO2 back into the picture. I believe we are speeding up what would have occured anyway...Back to the LCD issue...I really don't think that that process compares to the emissions put out by the millions of cars on the road, let alone the co2 emmited by the billions of humans who breath everday. It is not going to stop...There is really no way to REVERSE it. It is called change...Uncomfortable and uncontrollable...We just have do deal with it...Mankind has dealt with severe change in the past and we will in the future.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 9, 2008)

If you guys are not going to talk about nothing but global warming fight in this thread http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=59647&highlight=global+warming.

Just read through it before you guys start posting on it.


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 9, 2008)

go ahead go about your global warming BS, ill continue to live as a I do and will continue to live my life the way i see fit.


----------



## magibeg (Jul 9, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> go ahead go about your global warming BS, ill continue to live as a I do and will continue to live my life the way i see fit.



And you can do that, however if you're going against the general scientific community you can post your arguments in the before mentioned thread


----------



## pentastar111 (Jul 9, 2008)

I'm still buying a 24" LCD monitor for my next build...


----------



## chron (Jul 9, 2008)

so having lcd's in every headrest of my supercharged ford excursion = bad?

also global warming is a real thing.  It's happening.  I dont know if we're causing it though or if its something that's happening naturally.  And hey, don't humans thrive in warmer environments? Maybe it won't be so bad... 

I know that growing up in northern virginia, we would have snow every winter, and lots of it.  Last winter, we had one snow fall, and it was half an inch.  The winter before that was the same, but with a few more frosts, and the winter before THAT didnt have ANYTHING!


----------



## Darkrealms (Jul 9, 2008)

*Underwater Arctic Volcanoes*

I won't say if I agree with this or not, I'm still reading into it.  However there seems to be a lot of research into this.  Please read the links in order as the second and third are from the first as clarifications/details.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5589
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html


----------



## flashstar (Jul 9, 2008)

Back in Massachusetts last year there were torrential snow falls compared to previous years. 

People don't understand that global warming (like global cooling) is just an average of the entire planet. You cannot extrapolate to say that global warming would cause a severe reduction in snow falls in a particular area of the US over a decade. You could argue such a theory if given 500 years of data or so. Temperatures fluctuate widely year by year and century by century. Global warming on a planetary scale would require hundreds of years of data to prove. At the moment, we only really have 60 years of data which is accurate enough to prove or disprove the global warming theory.


----------



## chron (Jul 9, 2008)

flashstar said:


> Back in Massachusetts last year there were torrential snow falls compared to previous years.
> 
> People don't understand that global warming (like global cooling) is just an average of the entire planet. You cannot extrapolate to say that global warming would cause a severe reduction in snow falls in a particular area of the US over a decade. You could argue such a theory if given 500 years of data or so. Temperatures fluctuate widely year by year and century by century. Global warming on a planetary scale would require hundreds of years of data to prove. At the moment, we only really have 60 years of data which is accurate enough to prove or disprove the global warming theory.



but lets just say it's real and people like you keep saying we dont have enough data.  400 years from now when we have enough, and the planet is scorching hot (big if) dont you think they'd look back and wonder why we didnt act as if it WAS happening, not act as if we don't have proof it's happening? My point is, what's the harm in being cleaner?


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 9, 2008)

cleaner, half the clean energy crap uses more harmful chemicals to simply produce. But for the sake of arguement lets say our government says everyone get a hybrid in 5 years, do you expect we as a people to just say ok, or will you expect to see who ever is in charge loose there jobs before 5 years is up? Going green is a waste of money and the only true way to go green in alot of areas is to stop using it period the end.

You can't ask me to stop driving, you can't ask me to stop using incandesent light bulbs, and you can't ask me to plants 50 trees, unless your paying for everything to change for your green standards.


----------



## chron (Jul 9, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> cleaner, half the clean energy crap uses more harmful chemicals to simply produce. But for the sake of arguement lets say our government says everyone get a hybrid in 5 years, do you expect we as a people to just say ok, or will you expect to see who ever is in charge loose there jobs before 5 years is up? Going green is a waste of money and the only true way to go green in alot of areas is to stop using it period the end.
> 
> You can't ask me to stop driving, you can't ask me to stop using incandesent light bulbs, and you can't ask me to plants 50 trees, unless your paying for everything to change for your green standards.



I dont know if someone brought it up already, but aparently if everyone in the US gave their car a tuneup, and had propper tire preasure, the energy saved would equal the ammount saved if we switched to corn ethanol.  Why shouldn't our government make sure people are on top of these minor things? Hell there's seatbelt and helmet laws aren't there? Which do you think is more nosey? Making sure you wear your seatbelt to protect yourself, or making sure the air in your tires is correct to (i dont know if _protect_ is the right word) but _protect_ those around you... 

Either way, theres tiny steps we can take, it doesn't need to be drastic.  Baby steps are still steps in the right direction.


----------



## candle_86 (Jul 9, 2008)

Tune ups most people get them when the car needs it, but alot simply can't afford it, do you think i can afford to walk out and get a tuneup, as for tire pressure any driver will fix that if they feel the imbalance driving, where not morons chron. IF the government wants to send me a check to have my engine tuned let them, otherwise ill drive it till it dies because i don't have the money for a full tuneup, i do the little things like adjust idol ect


----------



## chron (Jul 9, 2008)

"where not morons chron" I almost replied to correct you. lolol.  YAGAHME

anyways, I can understand when it comes to spending money on stuff that aint broke, but there are other steps we could all take to consume less as a nation.  One major free one - take everything out of your car you dont need!  My friend meg drove around literally for 7 years with her trunk FILLED to the very top with JUNK.  Finally we cleaned it out one day, and i mean she just had so much crap it was unbelievable.  And we knew it was 7 years because there were assignments from highschool still in her trunk lol. She told me she definitely noticed a difference when breaking.  

I personally drive a 5 speed focus, and I rarely speed.  55 gives you the max fuel economy your car can offer, so i try to stay around there.  You might not like it, but this is where we are headed.

oh and one last thing i'd like to add - What's with the argument that organisms like us can't change the earth in such a way? I thought the only reason we have oxygen is because the very FIRST organisms made it that way? sure it was over the course of millions of years, but still, with the way we're pumpin it out what's to say we really can't make a profound impact?


----------



## Darkrealms (Jul 9, 2008)

Darkrealms said:


> Do your part get propane!  LoL, at least it'll be cheaper.  Or if you’re that against CO2 ride a bicycle.  If everyone did that prices would plummet.
> 
> I believe the universe has cycles, therefore our sun, earth, seasons, climates, etc, etc  have cycles.  Can man have an effect on the cycles?  On earth and below yes.  Do we actually have the "global warming" effect.  I believe No.
> There is "evidence" on both sides of the argument.  Yes "Day After Tomorrow" was a great movie, I own it.  Does it prove anything? No.
> ...


I've said that as well just see my highlighted section above.





chron said:


> I dont know if someone brought it up already, but aparently if everyone in the US gave their car a tuneup, and had propper tire preasure, the energy saved would equal the ammount saved if we switched to corn ethanol.  Why shouldn't our government make sure people are on top of these minor things? Hell there's seatbelt and helmet laws aren't there? Which do you think is more nosey? Making sure you wear your seatbelt to protect yourself, or making sure the air in your tires is correct to (i dont know if _protect_ is the right word) but _protect_ those around you...
> 
> *Either way, theres tiny steps we can take, it doesn't need to be drastic.  Baby steps are still steps in the right direction.*






chron said:


> "where not morons chron" I almost replied to correct you. lolol.  YAGAHME
> 
> anyways, I can understand when it comes to spending money on stuff that aint broke, but there are other steps we could all take to consume less as a nation.  One major free one - take everything out of your car you dont need!  My friend meg drove around literally for 7 years with her trunk FILLED to the very top with JUNK.  Finally we cleaned it out one day, and i mean she just had so much crap it was unbelievable.  And we knew it was 7 years because there were assignments from highschool still in her trunk lol. She told me she definitely noticed a difference when breaking.
> 
> ...


The actual efficient speed is different from vehicle to vehicle but it is generally in the 50s or 60s mphs.  There are also as many theories about how the world/universe was created as there are theories about global warming.  And unfortunately the facts on both are about as clear.


----------



## pentastar111 (Jul 10, 2008)

Well I did go from driving this car to riding this bike....Went from 8 miles to the gallon to over 40 MPG. Still have the car, although it does not go anywhere except back and forth across the street for the street cleaner...So I am doing my part for reducing my consumption...I'm not going to stop getting high-perf PC components though.


----------



## spacejunky (Jul 10, 2008)

chron said:


> I dont know if someone brought it up already, but aparently if everyone in the US gave their car a tuneup, and had propper tire preasure, the energy saved would equal the ammount saved if we switched to corn ethanol.  Why shouldn't our government make sure people are on top of these minor things? Hell there's seatbelt and helmet laws aren't there? Which do you think is more nosey? Making sure you wear your seatbelt to protect yourself, or making sure the air in your tires is correct to (i dont know if _protect_ is the right word) but _protect_ those around you...
> 
> Either way, theres tiny steps we can take, it doesn't need to be drastic.  Baby steps are still steps in the right direction.



I guess you haven't heard but ethanol is less efficient than gasoline meaning you have to burn more of it to get the same power.  It is a farce.  Like the efficient toilets you have to flush 3 times to get all your crap down the hole.

Why do you think BIG government is the key?  Have they ever done anything right?  Yeah just what I want, monthly inspection stickers.  Just another tax in the name of saving the planet.  Baby steps too often get exploited and end up applying to things you would never think of.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 10, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> This is what happens:
> 
> We who believe in Global warming use scientific sources to prove our point.
> 
> ...


 Why do you feel that these climate changes are caused by man. I'm not the one that needs to bear the burden of proof, those that believe and support the global warming theory are the ones that bear the burden. 

Besides, you clearly don't fully understand how theories and science works. You cannot prove that something does not exist. It's scientifically impossible.

The climate changes we are experiencing are NATURAL, until the Global warming camp proves otherwise. That chart is useless as proof, as we weren't around to measure the temps. It is just an estimation, NOT FACTS. Pretty hard to prove a theory with an estimate, isn't it?


----------



## ghost101 (Jul 10, 2008)

Wile E said:


> The climate changes we are experiencing are NATURAL, until the Global warming camp proves otherwise. That chart is useless as proof, as we weren't around to measure the temps. It is just an estimation, NOT FACTS. *Pretty hard to prove a theory with an estimate, isn't it?*



I bet you're the same type of person who claims evolution is false since what we are doing is using fossilized evidence to estimate the course of evolution.

Samples collected from the antarctic deep in ice beds which collect air from hudreds of years ago as snow is compressed is incredibly accurate. Dont dismiss what you dont know. Precisely what a lot of people do with global warming. I live in the UK, with some of the best universities in the world. I challenge someone to find a single university in the UK which teaches a course which does not claim anthropogenic global warming to be true.

Also, you dont take a innocent till proven guilty approach with science. You take your best guess. You can never prove global warming or evolution for that matter, but you can be pretty damn sure.

If I told you that global warming was likely to be true to a degree of 99%, would you dismiss this since it isnt incontrovertible evidence?

Of course this whole story has been blown out of all proprtiona anyway since this is a minor problem if true. Who doesnt throw away LCD screens properly? And even if you dont, how many do to actually make this a serious problem on the scale of pollution via industrial processes and cars?


----------



## Wile E (Jul 10, 2008)

ghost101 said:


> I bet you're the same type of person who claims evolution is false since what we are doing is using fossilized evidence to estimate the course of evolution.
> 
> Samples collected from the antarctic deep in ice beds which collect air from hudreds of years ago as snow is compressed is incredibly accurate. Dont dismiss what you dont know. Precisely what a lot of people do with global warming. I live in the UK, with some of the best universities in the world. I challenge someone to find a single university in the UK which teaches a course which does not claim anthropogenic global warming to be true.
> 
> ...


How do they know their samples are accurate? And I'm not sure on my take on evolution. I believe it to be feasible. But I don't believe in the Carbon dating of fossils. It's already proven to be extremely easy to fake. Remember the missing link fossil hoax? But that's neither here nor there.

I do not believe that global warming is a man caused problem. I believe it is naturally occurring. But no matter what you say, I will never believe temperatures derived from ice samples. It is completely impossible to prove them true.


----------



## ghost101 (Jul 10, 2008)

Wile E said:


> How do they know their samples are accurate? And I'm not sure on my take on evolution. I believe it to be feasible. But I don't believe in the Carbon dating of fossils. It's already proven to be extremely easy to fake. Remember the missing link fossil hoax? But that's neither here nor there.
> 
> I do not believe that global warming is a man caused problem. I believe it is naturally occurring. But no matter what you say, I will never believe temperatures derived from ice samples. It is completely impossible to prove them true.



I hope you dont believe in God. That would make you a hypocrite.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 10, 2008)

Wile E said:


> How do they know their samples are accurate?



Carbon-dating.


----------



## chron (Jul 10, 2008)

spacejunky said:


> I guess you haven't heard but ethanol is less efficient than gasoline meaning you have to burn more of it to get the same power.  It is a farce.  Like the efficient toilets you have to flush 3 times to get all your crap down the hole.
> 
> Why do you think BIG government is the key?  Have they ever done anything right?  Yeah just what I want, monthly inspection stickers.  Just another tax in the name of saving the planet.  Baby steps too often get exploited and end up applying to things you would never think of.



lol you bring up a really good point.  I usualy take dumps a man can be proud of, and when I'm on a toilet thats supposed to save water, I end up flushing it 3 - 4 times just as you said, so yeah what's the point? 

And I was under the ignorant impression that corn ethanol = better mileage. MY BAD! 

Speaking of saving the planet, I was thinking of this thread on the way to work today and I happened to notice all the people around me with their windows up, and compressors drippin (a/c goin) and it was 70-73 degrees outside.  I'd say one out of every 10 cars around me had their windows down.


----------



## Darkrealms (Jul 10, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Wile E said:
> 
> 
> > How do they know their samples are accurate?
> ...


ROFL!!  Thank you that made me laugh.





Wile E said:


> How do they know their samples are accurate? And I'm not sure on my take on evolution. I believe it to be feasible. *But I don't believe in the Carbon dating of fossils. It's already proven to be extremely easy to fake.* Remember the missing link fossil hoax? But that's neither here nor there.
> 
> I do not believe that global warming is a man caused problem. I believe it is naturally occurring. But no matter what you say, I will never believe temperatures derived from ice samples. It is completely impossible to prove them true.





chron said:


> lol you bring up a really good point.  I usualy take dumps a man can be proud of, and when I'm on a toilet thats supposed to save water, I end up flushing it 3 - 4 times just as you said, so yeah what's the point?
> 
> And I was under the ignorant impression that corn ethanol = better mileage. MY BAD!
> 
> Speaking of saving the planet, I was thinking of this thread on the way to work today and I happened to notice all the people around me with their windows up, and compressors drippin (a/c goin) and it was 70-73 degrees outside.  I'd say one out of every 10 cars around me had their windows down.


: (  Its not my fault, the windows broken and won't come down.  Although I don't use my A/C in under 90+% weather anyway. (I only drive the car because of good gas mileage)


----------



## pentastar111 (Jul 10, 2008)

ghost101 said:


> I hope you dont believe in God. That would make you a hypocrite.


Camera starts in close at my skyward looking face, then pulls away sowly as I'm screaming, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! please don't turn this into a belief in god thread!!!


----------



## zithe (Jul 10, 2008)

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for environmental protection, but I can't afford it. No matter how expensive petroleum may seem, it's still the cheapest stuff to get me around. I can barely afford the cheapest stuff, and a hybrid car is retarded to think of. Pay twice as much for an underpowered car? You just blew the money you won't spend on gas on your car payment instead. Electric cars are just as bad. You're not polluting with gas, but the power has to come from somewhere(ie, you're burning the coal elsewhere). Plugging it in drives up your electric bill, and paying for one of those fancy ones that sort of 'self charge' is really difficult.


----------

