Facts and Myths of Global warming

[manofsparrow]

Originally Posted by Mr.Lucifer

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.

It's not like there hasn't been any progress in Africa.

There are several modern cities in Africa.

[Bartender]

When I was younger I always thought there were too many people nowadays.

More people = less oxygen

More people = more c02

^^ (from breathing)

[Mr.Lucifer]

Originally Posted by manofsparrow

It's not like there hasn't been any progress in Africa.

There are several modern cities in Africa.

"But now as they get help they can't use it fully because they have become lazy over time."

A few modern cities maybe, but so much more could have been achieved if the money had been used better. Both the givers and the takers should have done that.

[An Amateur]

Originally Posted by Bartender

When I was younger I always thought there were too many people nowadays.

More people = less oxygen

More people = more c02

^^ (from breathing)

Your right, not only from breathing but energy usesage as well. More people means more people with a carbon footprint.

So what would you suggest? Mass culling? Population control perhaps? Look at how that turned out in China...

"But now as they get help they can't use it fully because they have become lazy over time." 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.

You can't make generalisations about a whole country or continent based on your personal experience of a small number of people. You keep saying its because they are lazy yet its a fact that imigrants into countries, or at least mine, tend to work hardest, they take advantage of the oportunities presented to them when they get here and work damn hard to be succesful. In my own country we have every opportunity for a succesful career and yet so many people do not take advantage of them. They would rather live off the tax payers money.

A few modern cities maybe, but so much more could have been achieved if the money had been used better. Both the givers and the takers should have done that.

You make it sound like the majority of Africans have many opportunities open to them but the truth is they still don't. You can criticize the way moneys been spent but thats not their fault. Your position is not just a little bit arrogant, it stinks of arogance.

If your happy to remain arogant fine, this isn't the place to discuss it anyway but your free to enlighten yourself by doing some research yourself.

Originally Posted by Mr.Lucifer

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.

It more complicated than that as the great forests were huge ecosystems that grew up over many thousands of years. It was a delicate balance between the trees absorbing CO2 and releasing it and the forest floor absorbing it and decaying matter giving it off. So even in a very sunny area it does not make it a BETTER solution. I'm not saying that plant life is not important im just saying that this kind of mass planting of new forests is flawd.

You should check the link to the article in my previous post if you still don't understand. (plus further research)

[Mr.Lucifer]

Originally Posted by An Amateur

You can't make generalisations about a whole country or continent based on your personal experience of a small number of people. You keep saying its because they are lazy yet its a fact that imigrants into countries, or at least mine, tend to work hardest, they take advantage of the oportunities presented to them when they get here and work damn hard to be succesful. In my own country we have every opportunity for a succesful career and yet so many people do not take advantage of them. They would rather live off the tax payers money.



You make it sound like the majority of Africans have many opportunities open to them but the truth is they still don't. You can criticize the way moneys been spent but thats not their fault. Your position is not just a little bit arrogant, it stinks of arogance.

If your happy to remain arogant fine, this isn't the place to discuss it anyway but your free to enlighten yourself by doing some research yourself.


It more complicated than that as the great forests were huge ecosystems that grew up over many thousands of years. It was a delicate balance between the trees absorbing CO2 and releasing it and the forest floor absorbing it and decaying matter giving it off. So even in a very sunny area it does not make it a BETTER solution. I'm not saying that plant life is not important im just saying that this kind of mass planting of new forests is flawd.

You should check the link to the article in my previous post if you still don't understand. (plus further research)

The African immigrants are generally the ones who aren't lazy. In Africa it's not as easy to get to another country as us in the rich part of the world.

The majority of Africans don't have many opportunities open to them, but they don't use the few they actually have. If they had used their opportunities fully new doors would have opened for the next generations. But they haven't.

If you are to hire 2 million people you have to generalise a bit. You can't judge every single person. Therefore you can't except the majority of 2 million africans to work 40 hours a week when they have never done such a thing before.

The theory is obviously flawed. The question is, can those flaws be worked out? Still, it's not the CO2 problem this solution will be best for, it's Africa. Making them work for their money and food is the BEST thing you can do. Just dropping food from planes lets them live.

"Give a man a fish and he'll be fed for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll be fed for the rest of his life."

I chose to not read the article. I randomly picked out one part which said:

Find out how many trees you need to plant annually to offset your emissions of carbon dioxide.

How many miles do you drive each year? (One tree per 2000 miles)

How many miles do you fly each year? (One tree per 2000 miles)

How much electricity do you use each year (kilowattt-hours)? (one tree per 1000 kwhrs)

Calculating how many trees you have to plant like that is ridicolous. Like the last line, none of the electricity I use has released any CO2 at all. Ever.

[LordShaft]

The thing about the motor companies is that they're trying to make profit over everything =/

[Whist]

Originally Posted by Bartender

When I was younger I always thought there were too many people nowadays.

More people = less oxygen

More people = more c02

^^ (from breathing)

hahaha. Global warming is caused by breathing. Brilliant.


But yeah, I guess I wasn't thinking completely right when I posted that video and didn't comment about it...despite the cut off graphs to make global warming seem like an insanely unnatural event the ice caps are still melting.

And just because medieval times were warmer doesn't mean **** these days because of the amount of people on the earth. The ocean levels rising is not a good thing, whether it's caused by driving SUVs, the Earth's natural cycles, or...people breathing...it's still bad.

The scariest thing about the idea of it being a natural cycle is you can't really stop that. We can stop outputting insane amount of c02 in to the atmosphere when an emergency strikes...but we cannot stop the Earth's cycles.

[An Amateur]

Originally Posted by Whist

But yeah, I guess I wasn't thinking completely right when I posted that video and didn't comment about it...despite the cut off graphs to make global warming seem like an insanely unnatural event the ice caps are still melting.

The scariest thing about the idea of it being a natural cycle is you can't really stop that. We can stop outputting insane amount of c02 in to the atmosphere when an emergency strikes...but we cannot stop the Earth's cycles.

The point is not that global warming would not take place without our intervention. It is that in Earths natural cycles things stay in balance. In the past century since the industrial revolutions there has been a RAPID change which is almost unanomously agreed to be the result of humans producing large amounts of extra CO2 which upsets this balance. Simply breathing would not make that much difference so rapidly. It the activiteys we do that release huge amounts of CO2. With a larger population its not suprising that we do more of those activeties.

Originally Posted by Mr.Lucifer

The majority of Africans don't have many opportunities open to them, but they don't use the few they actually have. If they had used their opportunities fully new doors would have opened for the next generations. But they haven't.

Give me a few GOOD examples that i can't pick apart in 30 seconds or STHU.

If you are to hire 2 million people you have to generalise a bit. You can't judge every single person. Therefore you can't except the majority of 2 million africans to work 40 hours a week when they have never done such a thing before.

Then you could actually employ more than 2M for the same amount of money because you don't pay people that don't work.

People in business generalise all the time, its true. The difference between those who run a successful business and you is that good, successful business men and women base generalisations on actual facts and figures, statistics not your own arogant opinions.

Again present facts and figures to support your argument or just STHU.

The theory is obviously flawed. The question is, can those flaws be worked out? Still, it's not the CO2 problem this solution will be best for, it's Africa. Making them work for their money and food is the BEST thing you can do. Just dropping food from planes lets them live.

"Give a man a fish and he'll be fed for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll be fed for the rest of his life."

While there is actually some truth in this its completely off topic and I don't want to be distracted by it any more. So feel free to make a new topic on Economic aid to developing countries etc etc and i'll discuss it with you there if you want.

I chose to not read the article. I randomly picked out one part which said:

Calculating how many trees you have to plant like that is ridicolous. Like the last line, none of the electricity I use has released any CO2 at all. Ever.

If you had bothered to read the article you would realise that it was outlining the basic principle behind the idea you support and what followed was critism and commentary explaining why the idea has mand flaws.

And yes electricity you use does result in the release of CO2 the amount depends on your supply. Gas, coal and oil in particular release alot of CO2 when used to generate electricity for your homes and business. Even nuclear power has a carbon footprint at some level (although much lower). I huess you missed that lesson at school?

To summarise. Based on the amount of effort you have put into your arguments I can conclude there is more evidence to suggest you are lazy than you have presented to suggest most Africans are lazy.

[Mr.Lucifer]

Originally Posted by An Amateur

Give me a few GOOD examples that i can't pick apart in 30 seconds or STHU.



Then you could actually employ more than 2M for the same amount of money because you don't pay people that don't work.

People in business generalise all the time, its true. The difference between those who run a successful business and you is that good, successful business men and women base generalisations on actual facts and figures, statistics not your own arogant opinions.

Again present facts and figures to support your argument or just STHU.



While there is actually some truth in this its completely off topic and I don't want to be distracted by it any more. So feel free to make a new topic on Economic aid to developing countries etc etc and i'll discuss it with you there if you want.



If you had bothered to read the article you would realise that it was outlining the basic principle behind the idea you support and what followed was critism and commentary explaining why the idea has mand flaws.

And yes electricity you use does result in the release of CO2 the amount depends on your supply. Gas, coal and oil in particular release alot of CO2 when used to generate electricity for your homes and business. Even nuclear power has a carbon footprint at some level (although much lower). I huess you missed that lesson at school?

To summarise. Based on the amount of effort you have put into your arguments I can conclude there is more evidence to suggest you are lazy than you have presented to suggest most Africans are lazy.

They rape, they refuse to let go off their limiting religions, they refuse to let their kids go to school so they can help at home...

There are no statistics made on it. Want me to make some? Want me to go to Africa so I can prove it on the internet? No, I wont. The reason it's not made statistics, or at least I doubt they are made, is because no one has bothered to try to use Africa's manpower.

It's gone a bit off-topic yes...

Water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My laziness has no relevance to this post whatsoever. Attack my opinions, not my person.

[An Amateur]

Originally Posted by Mr.Lucifer

They rape, they refuse to let go off their limiting religions, they refuse to let their kids go to school so they can help at home...

There are no statistics made on it. Want me to make some? Want me to go to Africa so I can prove it on the internet? No, I wont. The reason it's not made statistics, or at least I doubt they are made, is because no one has bothered to try to use Africa's manpower.

Erm, yea there are if you investigate, there is volumes of research into Africas economic problems alone. I've yet to see the word "lazy" in any of my sources.

Water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is this?

My laziness has no relevance to this post whatsoever. Attack my opinions, not my person.

My comment was to demonstraight a point, you have no evidence. Interesting how that demonstraights one of my points. Your attacking enitres cultures, people and nations on an opionion that had no relevance ot this topic.

It's gone a bit off-topic yes...

But don't worry, I made this: RE: Africans are lazy
Feel free to discuss this further but I expect intelligent debate backed up with some form of evidence.

[Mr.Lucifer]

Originally Posted by An Amateur

Erm, yea there are if you investigate, there is volumes of research into Africas economic problems alone. I've yet to see the word "lazy" in any of my sources.

What is this?



My comment was to demonstraight a point, you have no evidence. Interesting how that demonstraights one of my points. Your attacking enitres cultures, people and nations on an opionion that had no relevance ot this topic.


But don't worry, I made this: RE: Africans are lazy
Feel free to discuss this further but I expect intelligent debate backed up with some form of evidence.

It's not political correct.

You don't have to use coal to produce electricity. Water power works wonders too. No CO2 at all.

I'm not "attacking" in any way. I merely try to explain why Africa is still weak. I hate seeing Africa, a country with a lot resources available to them, be down in the dirt. Africa's possibilities are endless, if they had proper education.

Unfortunately there aren't statistics for everything. I assumed it to be common knowledge that Africans work too little for making their situation better when I made the statement. But it's apparently impossible to criticize the weak in todays society...

[An Amateur]

Originally Posted by Mr.Lucifer

It's not political correct.

Don't care, you put yourself in that situation through actions that are dubious politically.

You don't have to use coal to produce electricity. Water power works wonders too. No CO2 at all.

Yet still roughly 80% of the worlds energy comes from fossil fuels.
Energy Sources and Production - Fossil fuels, Nuclear energy, Renewable energy sources

Whatever type of "water" power you use it has one thing in common, it has a huge effect on the surounding envoriment. The other problem is that it is situational, you need large bodies of water to be present in order ot harness any form of hydro power. Tidal power in particular cannot supply continuous demand because it is dependand on the tides. The other disadvantage is that it is exspensive and so many poor countries will not be able to impliment it.

However you look at the problem there is no one solution. You can't say stop using fossil fuels full stop because the alternative sources we have at the moment are not available to everyone. The implimentation of alternative energy sources is important for those of us wealthy enough and luck enough to have them available to help reduce our dependance on fossil fuels though.

It is however this still costs a lot of money just like your governments drive to reduce its carbon footprint. In fact to reduce a carbon footprint can in the long run cost less because one of the main principles of this is to make better use of energy and so use less of it and it can be achieved by good practices rather than spending money. Efficiency of energy use is increasing (i think i saw by about 2%) per year.

The problem is no one wants to spend money, if they think there is cheap solution they don't want to pay for something that costs them more. The problem with this line of thought is just what we have talked about in this thread, no one solution is gonna work to solve all problems. Its making advancements in all the areas that can aid in reducing and/or reversing human impact on global warming. Unfortunatly that costs a lot of money to research and introduce but is probably better in the long run.

[Mr.Lucifer]

Originally Posted by An Amateur

Don't care, you put yourself in that situation through actions that are dubious politically.

Has nothing to do with me. I don't make statistics.

Originally Posted by An Amateur

Yet still roughly 80% of the worlds energy comes from fossil fuels.
Energy Sources and Production - Fossil fuels, Nuclear energy, Renewable energy sources

Therefore it's important to ensure every country uses renewable power. Don't England use coal, for instance? If they changed to nuclear power, the new kind of nuclear power which is perfect except the nuclear waste, CO2 would go down a lot. But it's the really big countries that has to do something. The US, China, India... I can't say I know much of how they get the electricity there, but I know they should use better cars. What about the new japanese car that runs 80 km on 1 litre of water?

Originally Posted by An Amateur

Whatever type of "water" power you use it has one thing in common, it has a huge effect on the surounding envoriment. The other problem is that it is situational, you need large bodies of water to be present in order ot harness any form of hydro power. Tidal power in particular cannot supply continuous demand because it is dependand on the tides. The other disadvantage is that it is exspensive and so many poor countries will not be able to impliment it.

It has some effect on surrounding environment and it can't be used everywhere. But it's an inexpensive form of power. Building it is expensive but it lasts a very long time and it will pay off in the long run.

Originally Posted by An Amateur

However you look at the problem there is no one solution. You can't say stop using fossil fuels full stop because the alternative sources we have at the moment are not available to everyone. The implimentation of alternative energy sources is important for those of us wealthy enough and luck enough to have them available to help reduce our dependance on fossil fuels though.

We have good time. If every rich country began spending some money on it, but not so much that they have to cut other places, it would be the ideal solution. As it is now some countries do nothing while others do a lot.

Originally Posted by An Amateur

It is however this still costs a lot of money just like your governments drive to reduce its carbon footprint. In fact to reduce a carbon footprint can in the long run cost less because one of the main principles of this is to make better use of energy and so use less of it and it can be achieved by good practices rather than spending money. Efficiency of energy use is increasing (i think i saw by about 2%) per year.

Energy effiency is good. Can't argue against that as long as we don't spend more money on effiency than we get back.

Originally Posted by An Amateur

The problem is no one wants to spend money, if they think there is cheap solution they don't want to pay for something that costs them more. The problem with this line of thought is just what we have talked about in this thread, no one solution is gonna work to solve all problems. Its making advancements in all the areas that can aid in reducing and/or reversing human impact on global warming. Unfortunatly that costs a lot of money to research and introduce but is probably better in the long run.

The problem where I live is that people use too much money. Never the less, I can see how you in other countries use too little. It should be balanced out.

What I dislike about all this global warming stuff is the hysteria. "Proffesionals" keep disagreeing, madmen claim the doom is near and people pay money assuming it will solve all the problems. Heard about this?

[An Amateur]

Originally Posted by Mr.Lucifer

Therefore it's important to ensure every country uses renewable power. Don't England use coal, for instance? If they changed to nuclear power, the new kind of nuclear power which is perfect except the nuclear waste, CO2 would go down a lot.

lol, what?! A new kind of nuclear power?!! Thats news to me because there is no such thing. There is only the same nuclear power that has always existed, there are varying types of reactor and improvments to them that make them more efficent and safer but thats all. Still not a viable solution for poorer countries or politically unstable ones, look at the issues around Iran and North Korea.

Yes in Britain we do use fossil fuels however a scheme to build new nuclear power stations was anounced only a couple of years ago. This was largely to replace existing, legacy reactors, but also to replace old fossil fuel power stations. Were already taking the route you suggest but thats not gonna make a global impact on CO2 levels as Britain and Ireland are far from the biggest poluters.

But it's the really big countries that has to do something. The US, China, India... I can't say I know much of how they get the electricity there, but I know they should use better cars. What about the new japanese car that runs 80 km on 1 litre of water?

That looks like an interesting solution for coutries that have no shortage of water. Just like hydrogen powered cars and electric cars. The biggest problem for these is that they often need to be approved by regulators and that process can take years. The other biggest problem is a lack of support for such vehicals. Fair enough this thing can run on any water but people are gonna still need mechanics trained to support it as well as places like a petrol station where they can refill with water (like a fire hydron(?) in America). Also...how much would it cost?

It has some effect on surrounding environment and it can't be used everywhere. But it's an inexpensive form of power. Building it is expensive but it lasts a very long time and it will pay off in the long run.

My point is that its too expensive for poorer countries to even impliment. Places such as China are ment to have huge potential for hydro electric power yet they have only recently come to a position that they may be able to afford building hydro electric power plants. Even so they are likely lacking skilled workers to build and run them.

We have good time. If every rich country began spending some money on it, but not so much that they have to cut other places, it would be the ideal solution. As it is now some countries do nothing while others do a lot.

Energy effiency is good. Can't argue against that as long as we don't spend more money on effiency than we get back.

The problem where I live is that people use too much money. Never the less, I can see how you in other countries use too little. It should be balanced out.

Your not entirely wrong, but i disagree that your country has a wrong policy to its spending. People say the same thing here and yet when you look at the figures we contribute a very small amount of foriegn aid etc. I think its good that your country leeds by example. I wish our people would support a government that would introduce similar policies...too much focus on some things that were better before the government interviened.

In terms of how much money nations spend in USD America spends by far the most, and Britain is number 4 in a list and Norway is about midway down a list of 24 countries. But wait...America is a far bigger country than England or Norway and has more people and a larger buggest etc. So lets look at it in terms of % of gross national income (GNI). Holy crap, Norway is top of the list and America is at the bottom. The same is true of other countries with less to spend, spend more on foriegn aid.

US and Foreign Aid Assistance - Global Issues
You may have to scroll down a bit, you can view the data in different formats (click on the tabs)

What I dislike about all this global warming stuff is the hysteria. "Proffesionals" keep disagreeing, madmen claim the doom is near and people pay money assuming it will solve all the problems. Heard about this?

Sorry link is dead right now. There is still disagreement but thats not over whether it is taking place, nor typically over humans having an impact. The disagreement comes over predictions of how drastic these changes are and how fast they will occure. Such predictions are very hard to make as its such a complex model you have to consider.

What you need to realise is that people need these drastic examples of the worst case scenarios to encourage people to act. It's all very well to point out, actually this may of been exagerated and there is no need to go into hysterics, however its still an issue that needs attention and people don't pay a great deal of attention to issues that don't make an impact on them.