Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 181

Thread: The Real Reason For Global Warming!

  1. #41
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Murray Hill
    Posts
    7,491
    [QUOTE=jefethegreat]Regardless, the question is not why. The question is WHY NOT. Why not support a clean planet? Why not preserve the planet for future generations and support a green Earth? It's not wrong or sissy or liberal (which I am not) to believe in these things. People get hung up on Global Warming, but that should not be the only reason to support the environment.[/QUOTE]


    Excellent point.

    Also its clear Global Warming is happening; it is and will continue to diminish our quality of life. There is a very credible theory as to why so why not do everthing we can to try to minimize it.

  2. #42
    [img]http://www.zombietime.com/gore_in_marin/al_gores_secret_message/holding_book.jpg[/img]

  3. #43
    [QUOTE=Blair Thomas]Excellent point.

    Also its clear Global Warming is happening; it is and will continue to diminish our quality of life. There is a very credible theory as to why so why not do everthing we can to try to minimize it.[/QUOTE]


    As I said before, I highly recomend that you read Michael Critchon's book.

  4. #44
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,651
    Images
    142
    [QUOTE=Blair Thomas]Also its clear Global Warming is happening; it is and will continue to diminish our quality of life.[/QUOTE]

    Why do you believe that humans will have a worse quality of life if the Earth warms? What's the basis for this belief? Which humans are you referring to? Those living on the equator? Folks living in Buffalo? If it gets 2 degrees warmer and there is more arrable land and longer growing seasons worldwide, thereby increasing global food production, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

    [QUOTE=Blair Thomas]There is a very credible theory as to why so why not do everthing we can to try to minimize it.[/QUOTE]

    It is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. There is an important difference. Theories are reproducable and accepted as true. Hypotheses are not.

    And why not try to minimize it? Here are a few reasons:

    a) We don't know if we cause 0%, 1%, 50% or 100% of the problem. If the sun is responsible for 99% of the problem, how much effort do you want to expend on the 1% we can impact?

    b) Direct cost...implementation of protocols, regulations, taxation, standards, etc.

    c) Indirect cost...lost jobs, increased cost of living, loss of focus on other value human endeavors.

    d) Opportunity cost. Every dollar (or Euro or Rupee or Yen ...) that chases a global warming issue can't chase a medical research issue, or a housing issue, or a defense issue, or a paying off debt issue.

    This isn't like the question of whether or not it's worth buckling your seatbelt.

    It's not free.

  5. #45
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    [QUOTE=jetstream23]It's kind of funny that we don't hear about the planetary warming on Saturn which has been taking place. The temperature there has apparently been increasing slowly for several decades yet they have no cars, no factories, and no Al Gore.....it's just a natural planetary process. But I still think we should send Madam Speaker of The House to Saturn in order to tax their oil companies! :P[/QUOTE]

    Well I think they found that CO 2 emissions were also leaking from our atmosphere and polluting other planets as well. :rolleyes:

    Seriously, there is more factual information lining up solar activities with increases in temps. In fact, we are not even close to the warmest temps ever on this planet yet we have people running around blaming man-made global warming on everything from storms to the color of your turds. Unbelievable.

  6. #46
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    [QUOTE=JETS_for_life]Most of you that use these opportunities to nonchalantly downplay the fact of global warming are probably the same people that look at a transition fossil in a Geology textbook, the significance of which is discussed by a Ph.D. in the field, and say "Hey! It looks like a BIRD to me! **** evolution!"

    If you don't understand it, it must be false, right? Yeah! :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Might not be false but it would be nice to have at least a shred of evidence showing man made emissions have something to do with it. Right now there is more evidence that cow farts contribute more than your SUV's. They can't even come to a ball park "consensus" of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.

    I think the situation is more of if you don't believe it you should be slapped down.

    As for evolution.....don't get me started. Just tell me how we became humans in a relatively short period of time, losing our hair, learning cognizant thinking, which, by the way, no other animal on earth can do and yet all over the world monkeys and apes are still monkeys and apes.

    Later.

  7. #47
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    [QUOTE=jefethegreat]Regardless, the question is not why. The question is WHY NOT. Why not support a clean planet? Why not preserve the planet for future generations and support a green Earth? It's not wrong or sissy or liberal (which I am not) to believe in these things. People get hung up on Global Warming, but that should not be the only reason to support the environment.[/QUOTE]


    That makes more sense. Clean air ain't a bad reason, but you still need to balance that with our economy and safety too. If I can't survive in an accident with my 50 mpg little car then what the hell do I care about breathing pure air.

  8. #48
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    [QUOTE=beemer]Thank God I have a bunch of Jets fans to tell me that global warming isn't a real problem. All of those peer-reviewed scientific studies had me concerned, but the postings of a bunch of strangers on the Internet is a much more reliable basis for my decision.[/QUOTE]

    I don't know what studies you are reading but why not check who funds them before jumping on the bandwagon huh?

  9. #49
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    [QUOTE=JETS_for_life]:clapper: :clapper: :clapper:

    Exactly. Damn, sometimes it scares me when a bunch of these guys post one after another in this way re: global warming (it happens FREQUENTLY regarding this topic on this messageboard, unfortunately).

    Nice to see a post like yours though. It gives me hope that this perspective is not lost on all fellow Jets fans who frequent this messageboard :yes:[/QUOTE]


    Of course listening to Dolphag fans and Jet fans that believe in this crap should be listened to as fact. :rolleyes:

  10. #50
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    [QUOTE=docdhc]This is a fallacy, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that global warming is real, is dangerous, and needs to be dealt with. Its the lay press that stirs up the idea that it doesn't exist, with an assist from people who are financially motivated to keep doing what we are doing to the environment.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah and those "overwhelming majority of scientists" can't even agree on how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. They don't even come close. Not only that, all their computer models keep getting adjusted away from their earlier predictions as they are all WRONG. Of course they don't tell you that.

    By the way, remind me never to go to your cardiologist when I get older. :D

  11. #51
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    [QUOTE=Nyjetsbfc]That's what they want you to belieave


    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle[/url][/QUOTE]

    There are plenty of dollars, billions and billions and billions, behind that as well. Hmmm.... :yes:

  12. #52
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    [QUOTE=NIGHT STALKER]Maybe if the libs quit blowing hot air up everyone's butt we could be a couple of degrees cooler... :yes:[/QUOTE]

    Nice!

  13. #53
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    [QUOTE=Savage69]That's because there's no Al Gore on those planets..Nothing like the Carbon Credit business Al has..The Limo Liberals get in their private planes and then buy stock in his company to erase their carbon footprints..Nice scam if you can do it.. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Of course. They can buy their way out of anything. If anyone here believes in that carbon credit crap you might as well leave the thread now. Your opinion means nothing.

  14. #54
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]:and RFK jr who does not want alternative sources of energy like windmills in his back yard...[/QUOTE]

    Not to mention his refusal to fly around the country on his personal Jet warning us of global warning and our need to change. :huh:

  15. #55
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ (Jets Stadium Section 246)
    Posts
    35,903
    Maybe one thing we can all agree on is that Woody's hot air is at least partially responsible for the increase in temps.

  16. #56
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    6,230
    [QUOTE=dolphan117]

    That's not to say that we shouldn't be looking at cleaner/renewable energy, heck I think hybrids are a great technology, but I'm not sure I buy all this global warming stuff.[/QUOTE]

    I agree with the first part of the statement but read up on the hybrid technology and what it takes to make the batteries and where to dispose of them. Imagine all the cars in the world now being hybrids. What do you do with all the batteries? There is recycling for the plastics, but all the chemicals and acids need to go somehwere too. ALso read up on the nickel plants needed to create the nickel in the batteries and what a nickel plant does to the environment. Pretty scary.

    We need to figure a way to fill the cars with water and separate the molecules to use the hydrogen safely.

  17. #57
    [QUOTE=JetinHuntersville]Yeah and those "overwhelming majority of scientists" can't even agree on how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. They don't even come close. Not only that, all their computer models keep getting adjusted away from their earlier predictions as they are all WRONG. Of course they don't tell you that.

    By the way, remind me never to go to your cardiologist when I get older. :D[/QUOTE]

    I don't know what the cardiologist remark means. I also don't understand why you would discount all the global warming hypotheses as being politically motivated, but trust implicitely the people denying its existence. They have political and financial motives as well. The oil companies don't inspire my trust and I can't figure out the profit motives of the environmentalists as clearly as the "deniers" seem to. I am not a tree hugger but it seems to me alternative fuels to decrease carbon emissions can't be a bad thing.

  18. #58
    Do we really need to go over this again?

    [url]http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html[/url]

    [Quote=] Sun does vary

    The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent-not substantial enough to affect Earth's climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet's current warming trend, scientists say.
    "The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record," said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.
    The link between solar activity and global warming is just another scapegoat for human-caused warming, Mann told LiveScience.
    "Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians," Mann said. "People who don't accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity." [/Quote]

    So what's next for the skeptic of man-made global warming to move on to ... hmmm:

    [Quote=JetsinHuntersville]Might not be false but it would be nice to have at least a shred of evidence showing man made emissions have something to do with it. [B]Right now there is more evidence that cow farts contribute more than your SUV's.[/B] They can't even come to a ball park "consensus" of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. [/Quote]

    First and this may be a minor quibble, but it is not cow farts but methane produced by belching/seeping through the skin of animals such as cows and sheep that are a problem. However, while methane is a gas that causes an even greater greenhouse effect than CO2, humans are dumping a far greater amount of CO2 into the atmosphere than animals are burping out methane.

    Finally, anyone relying on a piece of fiction by Michael Crichton for their scientific information about global warming is in for a serious intelletcual letdown. While the guy is smart, his is not a climate scientist and the his thoughts behind global warming a faulty.

  19. #59
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN, but originally from NW Mass.
    Posts
    1,748
    This thread has ripped on global warming and evolution.

    Boring.

    Let's move on to gravity. You know, that bunch of crap from Isaac Newton.

    I think that really there are trillions of invisible metaphysical puppet strings from above moving all things around. I'm sure Michael Crichton would agree.

    :)

  20. #60
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,651
    Images
    142
    [QUOTE=F-4 Phantom]Do we really need to go over this again?[/quote]

    Yes. Debate is important in this matter. Until somebody comes up with a silver bullet that accurately and completely explains global warming, we're going to keep pulling straws.

    [QUOTE=F-4 Phantom]Finally, anyone relying on a piece of fiction by Michael Crichton for their scientific information about global warming is in for a serious intelletcual letdown. While the guy is smart, his is not a climate scientist and the his thoughts behind global warming a faulty.[/QUOTE]

    I can accept your dismissal of a novel. However, Michael Crichton is not so readily disposed of. He certainly has the academic training to understand the scientific aspects of the debate. And further, he is a very qualified social scientist, particularly in the scope of how humans relate to science, and forecasting how science and technology will impact people and culture.

    And might I point out that the leading spokesperson for the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is a CAREER POLITICIAN, who has, true to form, flipped and flopped on big issues for pure political gain. A man who supported the tobacco industry during and after the life of his sister (she died of lung cancer), until it became politically expedient to change sides (when he was no longer a senator from a tobacco growing state, and it looked like big tobacco was losing the war).

    I'll take Michael Crichton's expertise over Al Gore's all day, every day, and twice on Sunday.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us