Global Warming not looking good

Options
1234568

Comments

  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    catefrances wrote:
    perhaps if mankind decided to tackle pollution as the major problem hed have a head start on what is degrading the planet. is coal burning and the use of petroleum lowering the clean level of the air? if the answer is yes, then lets find an alternative. is the razing of hectares of forests contributing to the rising level of pollutants in the air? if the answer is yes, the lets do something about lowering the amount of trees felled.

    uhhh ... if you think this would be more effective then by all means ... i'm just pointing out the differences ...
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    polaris_x wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    perhaps if mankind decided to tackle pollution as the major problem hed have a head start on what is degrading the planet. is coal burning and the use of petroleum lowering the clean level of the air? if the answer is yes, then lets find an alternative. is the razing of hectares of forests contributing to the rising level of pollutants in the air? if the answer is yes, the lets do something about lowering the amount of trees felled.

    uhhh ... if you think this would be more effective then by all means ... i'm just pointing out the differences ...

    more effective than what?

    maybe its the headache i currently have, but im not quite grasping what you think the major contributor to global warming is. or even if you think there is one?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    Pepe Silvia wrote:


    i think people should stop mentioning global warming and just go with the harmful effects from pollution, you can have arguments all day long if the planet is cooling or warming or going through its natural cycles but you can not argue the effects of pollution. i think 'global warming' is just a way to distract people and keep them arguing while really doing nothing (i don't mean they aren't doing anything, i mean overall nothing much changes)
    :clap::clap:
    THANK YOU.

    I've said that once or twice around here!
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    catefrances wrote:
    more effective than what?

    maybe its the headache i currently have, but im not quite grasping what you think the major contributor to global warming is. or even if you think there is one?

    a more effective way of combating climate change ...

    my point is that when you talk about "pollution" - you are not simply referring to just CO2 which many will argue that it isn't a pollutant ... pollution includes - toxic waste, garbage, grey water, pesticides, pcbs, etc ... not all those things contribute to global warming ...

    global warming is primarily caused by the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere ... saying - let's just address pollution is not the answer simply because - you can remove all the above items and still not tackle global warming ... again - whether CO2 is a pollutant is significantly more debatable than whether global warming is man made ... and in an age, where the skeptics need only a single hair to detract - i don't see how this would be good ...

    yes ... sorting out pollution is a good thing but it won't necessarily tackle global warming ...
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    polaris_x wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    more effective than what?

    maybe its the headache i currently have, but im not quite grasping what you think the major contributor to global warming is. or even if you think there is one?

    a more effective way of combating climate change ...

    my point is that when you talk about "pollution" - you are not simply referring to just CO2 which many will argue that it isn't a pollutant ... pollution includes - toxic waste, garbage, grey water, pesticides, pcbs, etc ... not all those things contribute to global warming ...

    global warming is primarily caused by the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere ... saying - let's just address pollution is not the answer simply because - you can remove all the above items and still not tackle global warming ... again - whether CO2 is a pollutant is significantly more debatable than whether global warming is man made ... and in an age, where the skeptics need only a single hair to detract - i don't see how this would be good ...

    yes ... sorting out pollution is a good thing but it won't necessarily tackle global warming ...


    im wondering if it is possible to combat climate control. it would seem to me that the contributing factors to climate change are more great and out of mankinds hands than hes willing to admit.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    catefrances wrote:
    im wondering if it is possible to combat climate control. it would seem to me that the contributing factors to climate change are more great and out of mankinds hands than hes willing to admit.

    check out 350.org ...

    it is more than plausible ... but like any other problem - we have to first admit that there is a problem ... the technology already exists - it's not like there needs to be some mass change ... how is it that germans can contribute half the emissions of americans/canadians and have the same (if not higher) quality of life?
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    polaris_x wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    im wondering if it is possible to combat climate control. it would seem to me that the contributing factors to climate change are more great and out of mankinds hands than hes willing to admit.

    check out 350.org ...

    it is more than plausible ... but like any other problem - we have to first admit that there is a problem ... the technology already exists - it's not like there needs to be some mass change ... how is it that germans can contribute half the emissions of americans/canadians and have the same (if not higher) quality of life?

    what kinds of emissions are we talking of here?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    catefrances wrote:
    what kinds of emissions are we talking of here?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    polaris_x wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    what kinds of emissions are we talking of here?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita


    both canada and the US are in excess of 9 million square kilometres in area. germany is just under 349 000sq kms. , so this doesnt surprise me.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • eyedclaar
    eyedclaar Posts: 6,980
    catefrances wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    what kinds of emissions are we talking of here?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita


    both canada and the US are in excess of 9 million square kilometres in area. germany is just under 349 000sq kms. , so this doesnt surprise me.

    The chart is measuring each person, not each country though. Size doesn't matter - for once. ;)
    Idaho's Premier Outdoor Writer

    Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:

    https://www.createspace.com/3437020

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696

    http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    eyedclaar wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    both canada and the US are in excess of 9 million square kilometres in area. germany is just under 349 000sq kms. , so this doesnt surprise me.

    The chart is measuring each person, not each country though. Size doesn't matter - for once. ;)

    yes ... it's a per capita figure ...
  • eyedclaar
    eyedclaar Posts: 6,980
    polaris_x wrote:
    eyedclaar wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    both canada and the US are in excess of 9 million square kilometres in area. germany is just under 349 000sq kms. , so this doesnt surprise me.

    The chart is measuring each person, not each country though. Size doesn't matter - for once. ;)

    yes ... it's a per capita figure ...


    Woo-hoo! My country is totally kickin' ass!

    TryAndStopUs.jpg
    Idaho's Premier Outdoor Writer

    Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:

    https://www.createspace.com/3437020

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696

    http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    polaris_x wrote:
    eyedclaar wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    both canada and the US are in excess of 9 million square kilometres in area. germany is just under 349 000sq kms. , so this doesnt surprise me.

    The chart is measuring each person, not each country though. Size doesn't matter - for once. ;)

    yes ... it's a per capita figure ...

    yep i understand that. i just want to know what contributes to per capita statistics such as these.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    catefrances wrote:
    yep i understand that. i just want to know what contributes to per capita statistics such as these.

    i would assume they take the consumption for the entire country and divide it by the population or they survey a statistically significant sample size and average it out ...
  • eyedclaar
    eyedclaar Posts: 6,980
    catefrances wrote:
    yep i understand that. i just want to know what contributes to per capita statistics such as these.

    All of our heaters, air conditioners, automobiles, lawnmowers, my weekly tanning visits, etc.
























    Alright, I don't really have weekly tanning visits.
    Idaho's Premier Outdoor Writer

    Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:

    https://www.createspace.com/3437020

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696

    http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    eyedclaar wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    yep i understand that. i just want to know what contributes to per capita statistics such as these.

    All of our heaters, air conditioners, automobiles, lawnmowers, my weekly tanning visits, etc.
    Alright, I don't really have weekly tanning visits.

    well see heres the thing... my household has no heaters, no aircon, 1 car per 6 people and none of us visits the tanning salon. so someone out there is punching above their weight on behalf of my household. i suspect its industry. ;)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • shadowcast
    shadowcast Posts: 2,336
    I'm just saying:

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    shadowcast wrote:
    I'm just saying:

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

    uhhh ... so, centuries of climate data is not sufficient but 3 years is enough to debunk all the leading scientists!? ...

    i will also add that joanna haigh, the lead author on this solar research, is also a member of the IPCC who believes that climate change is indeed man-made ... she only addresses the modeling aspect ... similar, this could actually prove the impact of greenhouse gases is FAR greater than initially thought ...

    the debate is over ...
  • shadowcast
    shadowcast Posts: 2,336
    polaris_x wrote:
    shadowcast wrote:
    I'm just saying:

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

    uhhh ... so, centuries of climate data is not sufficient but 3 years is enough to debunk all the leading scientists!? ...

    i will also add that joanna haigh, the lead author on this solar research, is also a member of the IPCC who believes that climate change is indeed man-made ... she only addresses the modeling aspect ... similar, this could actually prove the impact of greenhouse gases is FAR greater than initially thought ...

    the debate is over ...

    Just saying that there are multiple factors that are involved and to say that it is caused by us is premature. I'm not ruling it out but I do have lots of questions.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    shadowcast wrote:
    Just saying that there are multiple factors that are involved and to say that it is caused by us is premature. I'm not ruling it out but I do have lots of questions.

    again - everything you've brought up has been addressed ... it's only premature if you are determined to not believe in the science ... it's there for you to read up on ...

Categories