[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32308242]Global warming can be used to create the best possible advantage for the human race.
For example the opening of the Northwest passage will allow shipping through much easier and allow Pacific and Atlantic species of marine animals to migrate to the other areas, both of which can be exploited for raw material purposes.
Antarctica can be drilled for oil, mined for minerals and varying other purposes made easier once the ice melts.
In fact I take comfort in the fact that global warming is inevitable, and I do my part to ensure that I have as big a carbon footprint as possible.[/QUOTE]
It will also cause incredible devastation in the form of superstorms which serve the purpose of cycling heat from the equator towards the poles.
It will seriously mess up sea life by changing the acidic levels of the oceans, eventually robbing many, many millions of people of their main source of food.
Rising sea levels will kill a huge number of people who live on coastal areas.
If the changing climate decides to fuck with the Ocean Currents, then we're going into a fiery asshole, fast.
I get what you mean, that we should tame the lands to suit our needs, but uh
we're not advanced enough to work on an instant planetary scale like this.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32308242]
In fact I take comfort in the fact that global warming is inevitable, and I do my part to ensure that I have as big a carbon footprint as possible.[/QUOTE]
k that's nice
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;32308386]the only group of people getting anything done with arab scientists.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. There were two periods of intellectual rebirth in the middle ages, the first in the time of Charlemagne and the second in the 1200s. Up until the mid 1300s Universities, Churches, Monasteries, Cathedrals, etc were being set up in almost every town and city. Population levels boomed and trading cities grew into regional powers off the wealth of trade. The Hanseatic league being an example.
During the middle ages up until the 1350s (When the Mini ice age and Black Death kicked in.) Europe managed to produce many agricultural inventions such as the Horse collar, Heavy plough, Horse shoes and wine press.
Many mechanical inventions came along such as clocks, cranes, windmills, watermills and the such.
The blast furnace also appeared along with paper mills, water hammers, compasses and gunpowder weaponry.
To say that the middle ages was dark and Arab scientists were the only humans making any progress is of the highest ignorance. In fact the life expectancy isn't even forty. Many died in childbirth, but provided you lived past infancy you could easily live into your fifties. Many who lived to 40 could expect to live to their mid 60s.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32306786]We don't need nature once we have invented a replacement for it.
Like what is so bad about global warming? It shall heat up the earth to allow the tundras of Siberia and Canada to become rich farmland. A lot more land stands to be gained from it than lost. The lack of ice means that ships can use the Northwest passage. Greenland, Antarctica, etc will be able to have cities and railways built on them. All that useless ice on top of Antarctica gone means we can finally colonise the last continent and use it.[/QUOTE]
There is a reason why Russia doesn't really care about climate change.
[QUOTE=Contag;32308764]There is a reason why Russia doesn't really care about climate change.[/QUOTE]
Precisely, the land gained would be massive. The USSR covered something like 1/5 of the worlds land surface and much of it is useless tundra.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32308691]Bullshit. There were two periods of intellectual rebirth in the middle ages, the first in the time of Charlemagne and the second in the 1200s. Up until the mid 1300s Universities, Churches, Monasteries, Cathedrals, etc were being set up in almost every town and city. Population levels boomed and trading cities grew into regional powers off the wealth of trade. The Hanseatic league being an example.[/QUOTE]
Because the 1200s and 1300s were that much higher in temperature than the 1700s and 1800s if one knows how to read a graph, right?
For a guy who has so much faith in technology and science, you're awfully stupid about both. Leave arguments on technical topics to the actual engineers and scientists, or learn how to fucking read.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;32308834]Because the 1200s and 1300s were that much higher in temperature than the 1700s and 1800s if one knows how to read a graph, right?
For a guy who has so much faith in technology and science, you're awfully stupid about both. Leave arguments on technical topics to the actual engineers and scientists, or learn how to fucking read.[/QUOTE]
You still have been unable to convince me that my viewpoint that Humans are inherently superior to all other forms of life and should constantly improve and dominate the earth and later much more than that is incorrect.
why do you guys even care about coral reefs you'll be all dead before they disappear
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32308691]Bullshit. There were two periods of intellectual rebirth in the middle ages, the first in the time of Charlemagne and the second in the 1200s. Up until the mid 1300s Universities, Churches, Monasteries, Cathedrals, etc were being set up in almost every town and city. Population levels boomed and trading cities grew into regional powers off the wealth of trade. The Hanseatic league being an example.
During the middle ages up until the 1350s (When the Mini ice age and Black Death kicked in.) Europe managed to produce many agricultural inventions such as the Horse collar, Heavy plough, Horse shoes and wine press.
Many mechanical inventions came along such as clocks, cranes, windmills, watermills and the such.
The blast furnace also appeared along with paper mills, water hammers, compasses and gunpowder weaponry.
To say that the middle ages was dark and Arab scientists were the only humans making any progress is of the highest ignorance. In fact the life expectancy isn't even forty. Many died in childbirth, but provided you lived past infancy you could easily live into your fifties. Many who lived to 40 could expect to live to their mid 60s.[/QUOTE]
Horse Collars and Heavy Ploughs existed before the middle ages.
Horseshoes can be dated back to around 4-500 BC.
[url=http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/11/archaeologists-unearth-the-worlds-oldest-wine-press]Oldest wine press found is around six thousand years old.[/url]
Early mechanical clocks did appear in Europe, however clocks on their own can be seen 4000 years BC.
"Blast furnaces existed in China from about the 5th century BC[1]"
"The crane for lifting heavy loads was invented by the Ancient Greeks in the late 6th century BC.[1]"
Windmills were not invented in the middle ages what the fuck. I don't even have to check that Heron planned one in 1st century AD. The first practical windmills though, made in Persia.
Watermills in the middle ages? Yeah no.
Compasses and Gunpowder both go to the Chinese if I recall correctly.
Average life expectancy at birth was around 30, but if you made it to 21 years then a total of 64 years could be averaged.
This is all wiki quoting. Everything I said is sourced in the wikis.
[editline]15th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32308970]You still have been unable to convince me that my viewpoint that Humans are inherently superior to all other forms of life and should constantly improve and dominate the earth and later much more than that is incorrect.[/QUOTE]
How's this.
Humans are [B]intellectually[/B] superior to all other life on this planet.
However at the moment we do not have the means to keep the race going in a practical way if we fuck up the planet bad enough.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32306715]judging by the ratings on my post clearly we have a bunch of shark sympathizers here
[editline]15th September 2011[/editline]
they will murder you in an instant fyi thats what sharks do
[editline]15th September 2011[/editline]
sharks are aquatic terrorists
good fucking riddance[/QUOTE]
I prefer shark apologist.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;32309290]However at the moment we do not have the means to keep the race going in a practical way if we fuck up the planet bad enough.[/QUOTE]
The practical method is to use the planet and make sure humans survive.
Environmentalists seem concerned with keeping the earth the way it is, and let the landscape be unspoiled. As a result they go about carrying out the goals of the human race very inefficiently. For example we can't even mine in Antarctica due to selfish traitors such as these.
Capitalists seem concerned only with money, and thus go about everything incredibly inefficiently so that the true potential of the planet is not used. These traitors only care about the accumulation of wealth, enact monopolies and force deals through for money rather than efficiency means.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;32308386]Um.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png[/IMG]
1000 wasn't prosperous, people died at age 40 and the only group of people getting anything done with arab scientists. You're just saying that because of misguided "some people in what would be come the west, ergo they must have been eating a shitload of easy food" bullshit. That's christian scientist level wrong.
"Now" in Milankovitch cycles [URL="https://www.sciencemag.org/content/207/4434/943"]is thousands of years from now.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Depends on what data you look at.
[IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/308frsk.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/91doaq.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/a2tb94.png[/IMG]
[quote=Rate and Magnitude of Past Global Climate Changes]Although it is difficult to develop precise paleothermometry, qualitative evaluations indicate sudden and dramatic changes in climate. Some are perhaps as great as a change from conditions warmer than today to a full glacial climate in as little as 100 years. The converse can be true. Current data indicate a trend of change that is substantially severe but no greater in rate or magnitude, and probably less in both, than many changes that have occurred in the past.[/quote]
[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;32303305][img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/climate_consensus.gif[/img]
I don't know how many times I have had to show this picture.
You are credit to the American Education system.[/QUOTE]
First that info-graphic is cited wrongly. It's Doran and Zimmerman not Nolan and Zimmerman. It also says 10,257 earth scientist's were surveyed when only 3146 responded and it mentions nothing of the fact that it's 97% (which seems to have turned into 99%) comes from a pool of only 79 individuals. That 11% should also be 18%.
Here's the the actual thing [url=http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf]here[/url].
[del]It was a voluntary response survey which means it can't really be said to be accurate.[/del]
Changed my mind. That isn't really a problem. Horrible info-graphic still.
[editline]16th September 2011[/editline]
Here's a good look at the scientific consensus taking into account that survey and many others. [url=http://dvsun3.gkss.de/journals/2010/Bray-envscipol.pdf]The Scientific Consensus of Climate Change Revisited[/url]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32309696]The practical method is to use the planet and make sure humans survive.
Environmentalists seem concerned with keeping the earth the way it is, and let the landscape be unspoiled. As a result they go about carrying out the goals of the human race very inefficiently. For example we can't even mine in Antarctica due to selfish traitors such as these.
Capitalists seem concerned only with money, and thus go about everything incredibly inefficiently so that the true potential of the planet is not used. These traitors only care about the accumulation of wealth, enact monopolies and force deals through for money rather than efficiency means.[/QUOTE]
Except ocean acidification which is caused by increased CO2 levels will destroy the first trophic level for most of the ocean. This would most definitely cause a great mass extinction down the food chain of many, many species including most commercial catch fish species. So your philosophy is contradictory. If you want humanity to be able to exploit the seas for food, you must take care of it and stop acidification. Farming of the common commercial fishes (herring, cod, anchovy, tuna, flounder, mullet, squid, shrimp, salmon, crab, lobster, oyster and scallops.) is next to impossible. Not to mention the only way to do it would be in the ocean because you would need to build extremely large pens for a healthy life unless you like to eat malnourished, unhealthy, disease ridden, fish that are full of Mercury. I'm not here to say that fish need voting rights or some Greenpeace hippy nonsense, I'm here to say that if humanity want's healthy fisheries, we need to fix this. Something you of all people should be behind given your exploitative position on nature. To exploit the ocean for food, we need to take care if it. If the global fisheries collapse, the world economic system will be in for a major shit storm. People will starve and lose their way of life, among many other things.
The ocean is perhaps the most vital ecosystem on the planet. Turn the rainforests of Brazil into suburbs, drill oil in Alaska and Antarctica, but don't let the ocean die. A healthy ocean would be plenty to provide earth and its inhabitants with oxygen, food, and water. We just need to give it time to replenish itself before we fish it into oblivion.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32309696] As a result they go about carrying out the goals of the human race very inefficiently.[/QUOTE]
the human race doesn't have a goal besides procreate
[QUOTE=Contag;32308764]There is a reason why Russia doesn't really care about climate change.[/QUOTE]Russia doesn't care about anything.
I'm far from an environmentalist, I personally dislike the green movement, but things like reefs and beaches are one of the few things I think really need protecting. Not so much from climate change but from people right now.
When I drive around on the Florida coast there are fucking highrises built all over the beaches, and it makes me so mad I can't see straight. There's no reason to have them so close to the beach other than so the condo commandos don't have to exert themselves. Frankly they could use the exercise, and I think the sand dunes that keep the shoreline there are a little more important than their convenience. Not to mention they're an eyesore and block what could have been a nice view.
Same thing with reefs, although I've yet to see a highrise built on a reef.
[editline]15th September 2011[/editline]
And that is my rant for the day.
[editline]15th September 2011[/editline]
Honestly, fuck beachfront developers. If they could they'd build goddamn parking lots and highrises on every square inch of Florida.
blame china
[url]http://www.pacificenvironment.org/section.php?id=373[/url]
GOOD JOB HUMANITY.
You are doing great!
F-
[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;32313464]I'm far from an environmentalist, I personally dislike the green movement[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;32313464]There's no reason to have them so close to the beach other than so the condo commandos don't have to exert themselves. Frankly they could use the exercise, and I think the sand dunes that keep the shoreline there are a little more important than their convenience.[/QUOTE]
welcome aboard brother, here's your clothing made of recycled plastic, your joint, and your radiohead cd's.
see you at the bongo circle at around 10-ish, emphasis on the ish
I feel kinda bad that I live in Australia, and the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef is hardly ever talked about here, most Australians believe there's nothing wrong with it.
Wish I could do more.
Just curious but...who's to say the corals wouldn't have died off on their own? Nature is constantly changing, evolving, adapting. Corals however are extremely slowly growing vegetation of sorts that hasn't changed over the years. Evolution has taken its course and eliminated them. It can only mean that something will take its place. It has to. It's how nature works.
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;32314945]Just curious but...who's to say the corals wouldn't have died off on their own? Nature is constantly changing, evolving, adapting. Corals however are extremely slowly growing vegetation of sorts that hasn't changed over the years. Evolution has taken its course and eliminated them. It can only mean that something will take its place. It has to. It's how nature works.[/QUOTE]
Read, again:
[quote]An important caveat to the book's predictions is that the corals themselves – the tiny organisms largely responsible for creating reefs – may be lucky enough to survive the destruction, if past mass extinction episodes are anything to go by. "Although corals are ancient animals and have been around for hundreds of millions of years, there have been periods of reefs, and periods where there are no reefs," explains Mark Spalding, of the US-based environmental group Nature Conservancy, and the University of Cambridge. "When climatic conditions are right they build these fantastic structures, but when they're not they wait in the wings, in little refuges, as a rather obscure invertebrate."[/quote]
Also, Corals are not vegetation. They are animals. They are animals that have formed a symbiotic bond with algae. They eat, fight and have sex.
If you put two Anemones -while not technically corals but somewhat similar- in a small tank together, they will hunt each other down and fight to the death.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32306715]judging by the ratings on my post clearly we have a bunch of shark sympathizers here
[editline]15th September 2011[/editline]
they will murder you in an instant fyi thats what sharks do
[editline]15th September 2011[/editline]
sharks are aquatic terrorists
good fucking riddance[/QUOTE]
Everytime someone is rated for sometime, someone has to brag about it, no matter who did it.
[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;32313464]I'm far from an environmentalist, I personally dislike the green movement, but things like reefs and beaches are one of the few things I think really need protecting. Not so much from climate change but from people right now.
When I drive around on the Florida coast there are fucking highrises built all over the beaches, and it makes me so mad I can't see straight. There's no reason to have them so close to the beach other than so the condo commandos don't have to exert themselves. Frankly they could use the exercise, and I think the sand dunes that keep the shoreline there are a little more important than their convenience. Not to mention they're an eyesore and block what could have been a nice view.
Same thing with reefs, although I've yet to see a highrise built on a reef.
[editline]15th September 2011[/editline]
And that is my rant for the day.
[editline]15th September 2011[/editline]
Honestly, fuck beachfront developers. If they could they'd build goddamn parking lots and highrises on every square inch of Florida.[/QUOTE]
Have to agree here. Sad when you're at the beach and there's huge buildings right behind you.
[QUOTE=Nelth;32309185]why do you guys even care about coral reefs you'll be all dead before they disappear[/QUOTE]
Glad you can help.
OvB I love your marine-life related threads but the hard pressing truth ones make me cry sometimes. :(
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=BCell;32304875]Blame the evolution of corals. If only they had evolved to be so adaptable, they wouldn't be in this mess.[/QUOTE]
This is one of your most retarded posts yet, I don't know how you do it but please stop.
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=killover;32299580]I meant how would we know? Theres probably hundreds of coral reefs we haven't found yet.[/QUOTE]
Coral reefs can only exist in shallow waters so I'm pretty sure we know where all of them are.
[img]http://www.worldcoal.org/media/jpg/585/094423coal_electricity_page_pie_chart_highlight_right_column.jpg[/img]
There's your problem
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
