Facts and Myths of Global warming

[LordShaft]

Global Warming Myths and Facts - Sympatico / MSN Green

Neat article i found when i logged into msn

[slingblader]

Interesting, but far too one sided to change anyone's mind who already has decided they don't care. it's just too laundry list of positive things to give off the air of an official study, y'know?

[Whist]

YouTube - Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off 1/5

Watch this.

The IPCC is based off of bull**** basically.

[Chokichi]

im watching.

It looks kinda like GW isn't as believeable as the IPCC say.

[Mr.Lucifer]

Global warming is exaggerated. It's not going to kill us all in 50 years like some people claim, nor is it the biggest problem in the 21st century. But it's still a problem. It's only good that people work to decrease the CO2, as long as it doesn't make other problems.

Biofuels could lead to mass hunger deaths: U.N. envoy | Environment | Reuters
TheHill.com - Warner-Lieberman bill could raise gas prices

Oops?

[An Amateur]

Originally Posted by Mr.Lucifer

Global warming is exaggerated. It's not going to kill us all in 50 years like some people claim, nor is it the biggest problem in the 21st century. But it's still a problem. It's only good that people work to decrease the CO2, as long as it doesn't make other problems.

Biofuels could lead to mass hunger deaths: U.N. envoy | Environment | Reuters
TheHill.com - Warner-Lieberman bill could raise gas prices

Oops?

I don't believe that most people exagerate it. That whole attitude is what concerns me most. "It's not the biggest problem [right now]..." but in 50 years time when it could of become the biggest problem for many people it will be too late to do anything about it. Once global warming has happened it will be far harder to turn around if mankind is the biggest contributer.

Of course there are problems with the technologies that are currently being researched. However your example of biofuel is a technology that oil companies etc would like to push, it does not mean it will become common use. There are others out there being researched, hydrogen, small and compact electromagnetic generators etc.

[Mr.Lucifer]

Originally Posted by An Amateur

I don't believe that most people exagerate it. That whole attitude is what concerns me most. "It's not the biggest problem [right now]..." but in 50 years time when it could of become the biggest problem for many people it will be too late to do anything about it. Once global warming has happened it will be far harder to turn around if mankind is the biggest contributer.

Of course there are problems with the technologies that are currently being researched. However your example of biofuel is a technology that oil companies etc would like to push, it does not mean it will become common use. There are others out there being researched, hydrogen, small and compact electromagnetic generators etc.

Exactly. We have to start thinking about it, but there is no reason to get hysteric and forget all the other problems in the world. Biofuel was heavily advertised as a good solution. When they began producing it thousands died. Simply because they didn't think enough about the consequences.

The new technologies are interesting and I'm glad they are researching. But there are other things in the world we should research. Now as people think global warming is the biggest problem they demand more money invested in researching it. That lowers financial support to others. For example AIDS research.

[An Amateur]

Originally Posted by Mr.Lucifer

Exactly. We have to start thinking about it, but there is no reason to get hysteric and forget all the other problems in the world. Biofuel was heavily advertised as a good solution. When they began producing it thousands died. Simply because they didn't think enough about the consequences.

The new technologies are interesting and I'm glad they are researching. But there are other things in the world we should research. Now as people think global warming is the biggest problem they demand more money invested in researching it. That lowers financial support to others. For example AIDS research.

Just because the media and public opinion are as fickle as a child and the spotlight changes direction does not mean that the funding goes away for other projects and those that have a personal interest in that field won't stop researching it.

[Mr.Lucifer]

Originally Posted by An Amateur

Just because the media and public opinion are as fickle as a child and the spotlight changes direction does not mean that the funding goes away for other projects and those that have a personal interest in that field won't stop researching it.

That's exactly what happens. My country has done it.

[Chokichi]

How about this !

You solve like 2+ problems at once.

You get a bunch of Africans and pay them $12 an hour to plant trees.

that way Africans now have money.
Tree's are growing and will take in Co2 and pour more oxygen into the atmosphere !

Btw im being dead serious about this idea.

[Whist]

Originally Posted by Mr.Lucifer

Global warming is exaggerated. It's not going to kill us all in 50 years like some people claim, nor is it the biggest problem in the 21st century. But it's still a problem. It's only good that people work to decrease the CO2, as long as it doesn't make other problems.

Biofuels could lead to mass hunger deaths: U.N. envoy | Environment | Reuters
TheHill.com - Warner-Lieberman bill could raise gas prices

Oops?

Yeah it's over exaggerated. I mean I'm not saying it's a bad thing everybody's trying to reduce their output of c02.
Leading this to conspiracy theories...federal banks have stated (I forget WHO in the federal banks don't think it was greenspan though) that "going green is the new global religion"
Which in the end links more toward the implantation of a fascist global government rant rant conspiracy blah blah I'm not explaining the whole thing here.
Anyway, there are slight undertones that "going green" is being used for political advantages that aren't good for the people.

[An Amateur]

Originally Posted by Mr.Lucifer

That's exactly what happens. My country has done it.

You live where? Even if it has happened there does not mean that most countries have the same philosophy...hell even the american government is steadily becoming more commited to reducing CO2 emisions and becoming "greener".

Originally Posted by Chokichi

How about this !

You solve like 2+ problems at once.

You get a bunch of Africans and pay them $12 an hour to plant trees.

that way Africans now have money.
Tree's are growing and will take in Co2 and pour more oxygen into the atmosphere !

Btw im being dead serious about this idea.

Who is gonna pay these people to do the job which always leaves them out of pocket? A charity? A single charity could not make that much difference for the reason bellow.

Planting a few trees isn't gonna make that much difference anyway since a section of the amazon equivlent to the size of wales or more is cut down every day.

IF it was done we would have the same problem as with biofuel technologies. That land is needed for farming. In the next decade its likely that food shortages will be an even bigger issue in many parts of the world.

[Mr.Lucifer]

Originally Posted by An Amateur

You live where? Even if it has happened there does not mean that most countries have the same philosophy...hell even the american government is steadily becoming more commited to reducing CO2 emisions and becoming "greener".

Norway. I believe we're a couple of years ahead of being comitted. We have come to the point where are our government is CO2 fanatics and spends "all" our tax money on it.

Originally Posted by An Amateur

Who is gonna pay these people to do the job which always leaves them out of pocket? A charity? A single charity could not make that much difference for the reason bellow.

Planting a few trees isn't gonna make that much difference anyway since a section of the amazon equivlent to the size of wales or more is cut down every day.

IF it was done we would have the same problem as with biofuel technologies. That land is needed for farming. In the next decade its likely that food shortages will be an even bigger issue in many parts of the world.

If they plant banana trees they get food AND less CO2. Also my country alone could pay 160256 africans (assuming they work 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year, which is more than what those lazy africans probably will) with our annual "anti-CO2" spending. We are less than 5 million. You in England are 60 million. If you contribute equally as much as us you can pay 1923076 africans. Assuming I didn't click wrong on the calculator 2 million africans can work for 12$ an hour with planting banana trees. The only charities are England and Norway.

Of course, inflation, the problem with hiring, war etc has not been taken into consideration. It's far more complicated than that, yet it might just work if someone works a lot with it.

Originally Posted by Whist

Yeah it's over exaggerated. I mean I'm not saying it's a bad thing everybody's trying to reduce their output of c02.
Leading this to conspiracy theories...federal banks have stated (I forget WHO in the federal banks don't think it was greenspan though) that "going green is the new global religion"
Which in the end links more toward the implantation of a fascist global government rant rant conspiracy blah blah I'm not explaining the whole thing here.
Anyway, there are slight undertones that "going green" is being used for political advantages that aren't good for the people.

Indeed. Think of the children who's scared because doomsday is coming.

[An Amateur]

Originally Posted by Mr.Lucifer

Norway. I believe we're a couple of years ahead of being comitted. We have come to the point where are our government is CO2 fanatics and spends "all" our tax money on it.

I'm not gonna go into any detail here because i can't pretend that i know anything about Norways tax spending. What I can say is that that kind of responce is typical of people who expect imediate results. I can think of examples in britain where foreign aid busaries were heavily critisized (saying we spend too much abroad) when in comparrision to poorer contries we contribute far lower percentage of our wealth. So if your gonna use that kind of argument present some figures.

If they plant banana trees they get food AND less CO2. Also my country alone could pay 160256 africans (assuming they work 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year, which is more than what those lazy africans probably will) with our annual "anti-CO2" spending. We are less than 5 million. You in England are 60 million. If you contribute equally as much as us you can pay 1923076 africans. Assuming I didn't click wrong on the calculator 2 million africans can work for 12$ an hour with planting banana trees. The only charities are England and Norway.

"Lazy Africans". BOLLOCKS. That just highlights the arogance of your aguments. Blatent arogant and generalised statements like that with no basis in fact have no place in what we call "serious discussion".

This idea has already been considered and is a very dangerous one. remember that plants and trees only convert CO2 into Oxygen some of the time (typically when they have a good source of light) The rest of the time they produce CO2.

This is called creating a CO2 "sink" and what can actually happen is the area becomes saturated with CO2 and contributes to Global warming. Reasons such as this have caused it to be less heavily persued. Thats why the primary factor is to reduce our CO2 emmissions and combine it with other methods.

Plant trees to reduce global warming

[Mr.Lucifer]

Originally Posted by An Amateur

"Lazy Africans". BOLLOCKS. That just highlights the arogance of your aguments. Blatent arogant and generalised statements like that with no basis in fact have no place in what we call "serious discussion".

This idea has already been considered and is a very dangerous one. remember that plants and trees only convert CO2 into Oxygen some of the time (typically when they have a good source of light) The rest of the time they produce CO2.

This is called creating a CO2 "sink" and what can actually happen is the area becomes saturated with CO2 and contributes to Global warming. Reasons such as this have caused it to be less heavily persued. Thats why the primary factor is to reduce our CO2 emmissions and combine it with other methods.

Plant trees to reduce global warming

I say lazy africans. That's because my personal experience is that these africans are lazy. There are also few africans who actually do something with their life situation. In the beginning it was because their situation was hopeless. But now as they get help they can't use it fully because they have become lazy over time. It's not racism, it might be a little bit arrogant but as I see it that's the fact. The majority of africans ARE lazy and that might hinder such a project.

I didn't think over the tree theory a lot. Of course what you say is true. It's only a CO2 sink. Then again, Africa have sun many hours each day so the oxygen production will beat the CO2 production, correct me if I'm wrong.

Planting trees wont solve the problem alone but it will help A LOT if 2 million africans walk around planting trees. And that's with the support of only 2 countries. 2 fairly small countries at that. If USA, India and China begin working more for it the problem will be a lot easier to handle.

And did I mention how you can crush 2 birds with one stone doing this? Letting africans work for their money is the best way to develop Africa. Build schools, make them work and let them evolve on their own. Like China and India, Africa can also be big as long as they become educated and begin working.