What do you think about global warming of the planet?

No its just over 1 degree, not 10.

Global warming is bad, for sure. We have +8 in Saint Petersburg right now and it's at the begining of December. That's crazy

I've read that scientist discovered that 2/3 of gases polluting our atmosphere are caused and made by.... COWS!

Global warming is happening. Face the truth, educate yourself, and act.

That is, if you care about life.

Its all Bush's fault

Even if that was true, the only reason there are so many cows are because of... HUMANS!

Global warming my ass !!!!

the world is simply evolving....its no great surprise for fuck sake its done it before !!!


I believe the theory that the poles are going to flip anyway and thats whats causing all the fucked up weather and shit...but hey my family think i am mad

wow, i did not think this thread would get so many replies! nice to see some good discussion going.......i guess that we just have to adapt to the new conditions and as for the pollution, try to be smart when possible.

No offense but you are drinkin the koolaid lol

perfectodollars-gabrio:

It's a valid thread and not surprising the replies.

Unfortunately 95% are from totally ignorant asses who generally have a no clue on any subject.

The good news for the thread count is that they will continue to cut and paste any old crap from other websites to support whatever crazy views they have - and call it "evidence". It's GFY

I havent cut and pasted anything other than what I posted before. Which came out of my little non green peace ass kissing tiny little brain. lol

As old as you are Webby Im surprised you aren't hoping for it to get warmer, Im sure you got your fill of cold weather at the end of the last ice age....

I'm really baffled with the replies here - is this what people think?

Only those with common sense.

I never noticed addressing you or whether I cared about whether you cut and pasted anything???

Sorry.. too busy - don't have time for silly crap Sticky.

"it's the end of the world as we know it, and i feel fine"

Well I was one of the main posters for the other side,...

You were??? I never even read what you or anyone else claimed - rest assured it's the usual utter shit that is fairly unique to GFY. Only certainty is that it will have zero relevance to anyone.

Never confuse this kind of thread with sanity, rational evaluation, discussion or much else. As I said - a warped rabble of utter bullshit.

Have a nice day

Save the Earth!!!!!!
Make it better place!

i am not joking.

ok guys, time to roll in the sack, pretty late over here in Italy! for the note, it's getting cold and next weekend it's skiing time finally ;-)

ciao!

It seems like we are going through extremes.Hotter Summers and colder winters..I blame it on global warming

yes, very slowly its happening...:\

How bout if you are going to post in support of your side you dabble into providing a few rock solid facts that support global warming.

I love how folks act like they really give a crap about what happens to the earth after they're gone ;) "Oh, but I drive a hybrid, I recycle, etc.". Yet they'll still go and buy clothes made by factories that are polluting the air, don't compost, knock down trees to build their homes, etc.

We're dealing with what people generations ago created - why should we be any different?

Whats funny is how short peoples memories are lol. Suddenly there is a ton of pollution. The 1970 pollution protection act did away with an incredibly huge amount of it. Anyone who thinks we pollute alot now needs to look at the pics I posted on the first page and see what it used to be like. The earth is like an operating room compared to what it was like from 1900s till the late 70's early 80's. Tons has been done.

OK... got a moment. First, there is no "side" - it's not a debate, tho small elements can be good or bad, tho don't have enough impact worth discussing. This is also not a subject that can be covered on a chatboard so will keep it simple.

There are two elements associated with... basically pollution. First is a growing lack of resources - and an element of destruction of existing resources. Second is in increasing demand on these resources where world population is increasing X fold.

A simple example is a cup filled 25% with water and represents the current world population. For example sake, assume world population doubles every 20 years. How long before that cup overflows and unstainability starts?

It's basically about lack of resources and pressure being placed on these resources. Some resources can be "manufactured" or regenerated - such as water, but at a high cost. Water will be the oil of the future.

Resources range from ... literally everything, from air to water and have an effect on existing species in the process.

Some nations, such as China are the problem of the future. The Chinese govt is well-aware of this growing problem and actively seeking avenues to contain it - but, other pressures (economic) will prob supercede their intentions. The current problem is most likely the US which is home to only 5% of the world's population, yet consumes 25% of world resources. This is obviously unsustainable (as is the fiscal policy).

Call it what you will - "global warming", "unsustainability", "lack of resources" - it's the same thing - perhaps expressed in different terms.

Whether we like it or not, there will be little choice but to address the issue - and this needs attention on a global basis. The introduction of Kyoto is a step, but only a first stage - it will take far more effort.

Was speaking with a group of people who specialize in "resource management" recently and they forecast the introduction of "oxygen shares" on the markets within 10 years. The current scenario in managing "oxygen" under Kyoto makes it hard for govts to trade in these and offset their "oxygen quotas". Stuffing them on to the markets simplifies the process. Two guys already had orders for.. can't remember, something like 5 million of these shares. Their problem was they can't find enough land which ommitted oxygen levels to qualify (involves around one hectare of land per share).

Last month 180 nations met to continue negotiating deeper cuts under the Kyoto Protocol but excluding developing nations - for the moment. The US rejects the Protocol and complains about developing nations and that this will damage the US economy. However, thats only delaying the inevitable - there will be more than just economies damaged (including the US economy) unless this issue is addressed. There are other quibbles from a variety of nations where economic impact is a concern. Other nations object strongly to their resources being raped by others - so, it's going to be a negotiating process all round. When Kyoto expires, nations not in the "club" will prob suffer some degree of impact looking forward.

Hehe... you got a point there Peaches.

Governments around the world have paid good money for extensive research into their nations activities and the future effects of these activities on the land within their jurisdictions.

A very common feedback after having sat thru days learning the facts of life is - "I won't be in office when the shit hits the fan, so it's not my problem".

Nice to see responsibility in government

Al Gore says it's bad...it's bad!

First off the population doesnt even come close to doubling every 20 years. Just over a billion is what it has increased per 20 years over the last 4 decades. Secondly the current population of the world could live comfortably in a state the size of New Jersey if we had to as far as just living space. Natural resources have little to do with the reasons they "say" global warming is happening. If we ran out of resources wouldnt actually help put a stop to the so called pollution we have? lol

You realize the reason the U.S. did not sign Kyoto is it would hurt our economy while doing little to curb pollution levels. If we were really losing resources as is touted in the media it could only lead to new products and innovations that would lead us away from using oil. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Who said it did? That was an example.

Utter crap - You try that as see how long you would live. We are not taking about more stupid condo complexes.

OK.. Run out of resources and see how you like it.

The consumer logic of the US is not worth discussing - nor are the excuses.

You saying we are not losing resources??? Hell.. not worth discussing.

Losing resources? Well we are using them. Are we going to run out is the question.

And studies have been done on the area the world population could fit in. There are many many cities where people live every day in the same size living space as what they would in New Jersey. The point isnt to say we COULD live in a small area, the point is to show the population is much much much smaller than what is portrayed by the media.

Im only debating this because Id like to reach 10k before New years, and I just have batch encoding running and really no work that requires my immediate attention hehe.

yes it's real and will end ability for us to live here in the next couple hundred years.

Steven Hawkins (one of the smartest guys alive) said just this year it's inedible that we will ruin the ozone within 200 years even if we change and we have to start moving to space to keep our species alive.

Lol where did he say that? Not doubting you, I just want to read the whole deal.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1034951AAf9M7S

Here is the quote I found he said.

He said he was afraid that Earth "might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid."

No.. the question is.. at what point does a resource start costing more money than it does today and what effect that has on an economy.

The question of it running out will come when the world population exceeds the supply. (It's prob to late to be even discussing the subject then)

Truth is... guessing, who knows, but suspect within the next 20 years "resources" which are currently free (or almost free) will carry a premuim and, suspect that will have substantial effects on economies.

Another

''It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species,'' Hawking said. ''Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of.''

Ok maybe I missing it, or you just wanted to run off track for awhile, but what does running out of natural resources have to do with global warming...

The earth has been around for billions of years. It's not if the earth will survive, it's if people will survive on the earth.

But again, as long as I can survive, I'm hunkydory with that

Do you have a problem concentrating on the subject or just like cutting and pasting any old segments from the net to fit any old agenda you may dream of??

You missed it.

Edit some more porn and stay on that subject

I actually watched a interview about 3 months ago. Good stuff

Wasn't about global warning as much as the number of ways that this planet can end is statistically impossible to ignore and we need to move to space.

Remember we are the second true species to use this planet and they didn't survive and lived here for thousands of years.

The next will be something evolved from cock roaches and if we ware smart we will be in space finding a way to make a planet function from scratch.

Ways the planet can end off hand:

ozone can cause so many ways for the planet to end.

meteater

A earth quake can change the atmispher if it's big enough.

Aliens can come kill us

Our axis can fail and flood everything

The sun can shift and burn us all down

Honestly, I don't care if it's real or not

That about sums it up

Problem being he names 3 or more POSSIBLE scenarios that may or may not happen. For a scientist to use the shotgun method to try and get a prediction to come true is pretty weak.

It was a 20/20 special. I saw it, and in fact look on page one I already addressed that exact gloom and doom special.

I was addressing Chaze mention of Stephen Hawkings. What he said did not equate to what was stated.

Same old same old eh?

Now then explain how global warming would worsen if the so called catalyst that is being pointed to by the scientists was removed from the equation.

Oil is the main pollutant, so if its used up completely how would that increase "so called" global warming?

The truth is if the news said every day that everything was just peachy, no one would ever watch it. The news outlets love to spell out doom and gloom. This is just another cycle of our planet. The ozone layer is fine, thank you.

Want gloom and doom? Here ya go hehe

We can lessen it if we stop polluting the planet

That its fucked up.