FOX: Collapse of Chicago Climate Exchange Means a Strategy Shift on Global Warming Curbs - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;25980143]I can't believe people still "believe" climate change is not human driven. In some cases they deny the climate is changing at all. Pls read actual scientific information and get off the News stations.[/QUOTE] Humans have certainly had an effect on the environment. But I refuse to believe that we are the singular cause of global temperature fluctuations.

[QUOTE=Ridge;25980217] Industrial Revolution: [img_thumb]http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2009/07/2012_the_real_milestone_the_re/industrial-revolution.jpg[/img_thumb] Today: [img_thumb]http://www.chemicals-technology.com/projects/safco/images/safco2.jpg[/img_thumb] Notice a minor discrepency in the emissions?[/QUOTE] I noticed that one is a drawing and one is a photograph and they both depict different kinds of factories (the second of which appearing non-operational) so your post is stupid and you should feel bad for it

[QUOTE=Ridge;25980217]Nobody knows for sure how much oil is in Alaska, but they know there is a shit ton of it there. Electric cars aren't helping because you still use fossil fuel to power them.[/QUOTE] Yes, but you can use less polluting fuels at power stations, including wind/hydro/tidal power. It'll only offset the CO2 levels in the generations ahead, not now. [QUOTE=Ridge;25980217]Industrial Revolution: Notice a minor discrepency in the emissions?[/QUOTE] You do realise there was one tenth of the worlds population at that time, right? And you do realise none of Africa, Asia and very little of the Americas was industrialized at this time also? Since then industry has increased tenfold.

So basically ridge's post had about 20 things wrong with it as usual

[QUOTE=Ridge;25980260]Humans have certainly had an effect on the environment. But I refuse to believe that we are the singular cause of global temperature fluctuations.[/QUOTE] Well you can say that animals have an effect - such as methane from cows and pigs. But strangely enough, it's because we've bred 10 times more animals than existed 100 years ago. So.. I can accept the fact it's not all our fault, nature might have a hand to play - but we're the main cause. [editline]10th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=ZekeTwo;25980389]So basically ridge's post had about 20 things wrong with it as usual[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, the world is still turning and all that.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;25980367]Yes, but you can use less polluting fuels at power stations, including wind/hydro/tidal power. It'll only offset the CO2 levels in the generations ahead, not now.[/QUOTE] What cars run on wind or water power?? Huh? That was my argument. [quote]You do realise there was one tenth of the worlds population at that time, right? And you do realise none of Africa, Asia and very little of the Americas was industrialized at this time also? Since then industry has increased tenfold.[/quote]And there was also 1 hundredth of any oversight. They dumped tons and tons of toxins into the air every day, and what couldn't be pumped into the air was dumped into the water. Yet somehow, despite industry being cleaner today than it was 100 years ago, the CO2 levels have risen inproportionately to the number of people and industry required by them. Why do you guys use Keith Olbermann and Matt Lauer as your only sources of information, and refuse to even entertain others? And before you say it, I refuse to listen to any of those talking heads on Fox.

[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;25980348]I noticed that one is a drawing and one is a photograph and they both depict different kinds of factories (the second of which appearing non-operational) so your post is stupid and you should feel bad for it[/QUOTE] The photograph looks to be a natural gas PP, which pumps out mostly water vapor and CO2, you wouldn't really see much emissions. Also the factories during the industrial revolution pumped out far more particulates and greenhouse gasses than factories of today. Also, pertinent to this thread: [url=http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html?s=news_rss]Declining solar activity may be the cause of recent warming trends[/url].

[QUOTE=Warhol;25972836]Read the top of the chart [/QUOTE] I did but obviously you didn't. Figure 2: Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring 1751-2002. This just shows what we output, it doesn't show any baseline for a "natural" amount of CO2.

[QUOTE=Ridge;25980498]What cars run on wind or water power?? Huh? That was my argument.[/QUOTE] Hydropower plant > Electricity > Car battery. Solar power plant > Electricity > Car battery. [QUOTE=Ridge;25980498]And there was also 1 hundredth of any oversight. They dumped tons and tons of toxins into the air every day, and what couldn't be pumped into the air was dumped into the water. Yet somehow, despite industry being cleaner today than it was 100 years ago, the CO2 levels have risen inproportionately to the number of people and industry required by them.[/QUOTE] Have you been to India or China recently? Rivers are polluted to all hell. Toxins still go into the air in their millions all over Europe and the US, that's a natural by-product of industry, especially the metalworking foundaries. While they do 'filter' it, reducing co2 levels in the air, thousands of tonnes still goes into the air each day, from every country (Minus France, who have a very clean industry because of their nuclear power programme) And no, it hasn't risen disproportionatly. You're overstating the advances in filtration and recycling - they're still pretty inefficient for our needs. Not to mention that China and India, Brazil and most African countries have very few laws requiring clean air (If you don't understand how the air can get that dirty, read the news regarding the Beijing smog). Western countries do have cleaner air, but co2 is more than seeing smog. [QUOTE=Ridge;25980498]Why do you guys use Keith Olbermann and Matt Lauer as your only sources of information, and refuse to even entertain others? And before you say it, I refuse to listen to any of those talking heads on Fox.[/QUOTE] Who and who? I don't know or care about names, this is general science researched and published in peer reviewed magazines, or from universities.

A global rise in temperature is not really a problem. Earths current state is not the geologic norm. We are still in the tail end of the Cenozoic ice age. However a rise in global temperature would be devastating for anything unwilling or unable to adapt.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;25980549]The photograph looks to be a natural gas PP, which pumps out mostly water vapor and CO2, you wouldn't really see much emissions. Also the factories during the industrial revolution pumped out far more particulates and greenhouse gasses than factories of today. Also, pertinent to this thread: [url=[URL]http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html?s=news_rss[/URL]]Declining solar activity may be the cause of recent warming trends[/url].[/QUOTE] We should launch Michael Moore into the sun so that all the oil on his skin would stoke the fires...

[QUOTE=Bluesummers;25980777]A global rise in temperature is not really a problem. Earths current state is not the geologic norm. We are still in the tail end of the Cenozoic ice age. However a rise in global temperature would be devastating for anything unwilling or unable to adapt.[/QUOTE] Right. It's not us humans that really have to worry, it's plant and animal life that won't be able to adapt.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;25980774]Hydropower plant > Electricity > Car battery. Solar power plant > Electricity > Car battery.[/QUOTE] Or, as is the case for the vast majority of people in the US Coal power plant > Electricty > Car battery.

[QUOTE=Ridge;25980843]We should launch Michael Moore into the sun so that all the oil on his skin would stoke the fires...[/QUOTE] No, that amount of douchey-ness introduced to the sun would obliterate the solar system.

[QUOTE=Ridge;25980862]Or, as is the case for the vast majority of people in the US Coal power plant > Electricty > Car battery.[/QUOTE] Oil drilling > oil refinery > car Using any other method than this is better, even if it is natural gas plants (Which still sucks tits)

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;25980657]I did but obviously you didn't. Figure 2: Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring 1751-2002. This just shows what we output, it doesn't show any baseline for a "natural" amount of CO2.[/QUOTE] this was altready established you tool. [editline]10th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;25980843]We should launch Michael Moore into the sun so that all the oil on his skin would stoke the fires...[/QUOTE] oh you're so clever

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;25980955]Oil drilling > oil refinery > car Using any other method than this is better, even if it is natural gas plants (Which still sucks tits)[/QUOTE] Or, the energy with the highest wattage to lower pollution ratio; the atom. [editline]10th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Warhol;25981143]oh you're so clever[/QUOTE] Ahh, did I hit a nerve? Your favorite mockumentary author?

[QUOTE=Ridge;25981160]Or, the energy with the highest wattage to lower pollution ratio; the atom. [editline]10th November 2010[/editline] Ahh, did I hit a nerve? Your favorite mockumentary author?[/QUOTE] Not really, that was just a stupid joke.

[QUOTE=Ridge;25981160]Ahh, did I hit a nerve? Your favorite mockumentary author?[/QUOTE] Bad fat jokes are only acceptable when it's Gabe. Otherwise it's not really funny.

Sadly it seems humans will not try to switch energy until they can find some way to make money off of it

[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25967564]This is proof that something on earth most be going really wrong[/QUOTE] Oh my god I love you in this thread I never want it to end :h: [editline]10th November 2010[/editline] oh wait it's a Glaber thread that overpowers you I definitely want it to end now

[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25982733]Sadly it seems humans will not try to switch energy until they can find some way to make money off of it[/QUOTE] Humans =/= business

[QUOTE=Bluesummers;25980777]A global rise in temperature is not really a problem. Earths current state is not the geologic norm. We are still in the tail end of the Cenozoic ice age.[/QUOTE] The temperature isn't the problem, it's the rate at which the temperature is changing, which has no natural precedent except for extinction-level events like the meteor that killed the dinomasaurs. If the temperature increase occurred over 10,000 years instead of 100 like it is now there wouldn't be a problem. [QUOTE=Bluesummers;25980777]However a rise in global temperature would be devastating for anything unwilling or unable to adapt.[/QUOTE] Evolution isn't an exclusive club. Species that DO survive will still have their populations nearly obliterated.

You guys can argue all you want, you are the same people who bash nuclear power usage which is one of the only true energy sources we have thats practical and clean.

[QUOTE=Bluesummers;25983168]You guys can argue all you want, you are the same people who bash nuclear power usage which is one of the only true energy sources we have thats practical and clean.[/QUOTE] No it isn't?

[QUOTE=TH89;25982889]The temperature isn't the problem, it's the rate at which the temperature is changing, which has no natural precedent except for extinction-level events like the meteor that killed the dinomasaurs. If the temperature increase occurred over 10,000 years instead of 100 like it is now there wouldn't be a problem. Evolution isn't an exclusive club. Species that DO survive will still have their populations nearly obliterated.[/QUOTE] I was not saying anything to the contrary, I was simply stating the world will go on after a mass extinction with more wildlife and planet life surviving then you think. [editline]11th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Warhol;25983242]No it isn't?[/QUOTE] name one other power source that can provide as much power, as quickly, and as efficiently as nuclear power. And before you say solar power, we are still in the process of developing the technology to make it a viable solution and at present it is not cost effective.

[QUOTE=Bluesummers;25983168]You guys can argue all you want, you are the same people who bash nuclear power usage which is one of the only true energy sources we have thats practical and clean.[/QUOTE] Stop generalizing people. I for one am for Nuclear Power. Sure, I'd rather have more hydro and wind power, but it's the most stable solution for the population we have.

[QUOTE=Bluesummers;25983290]I was not saying anything to the contrary, I was simply stating the world will go on after a mass extinction with more wildlife and planet life surviving then you think.[/QUOTE] You could say the same thing about nuclear war. I'm not sure what your point is.

[QUOTE=Bluesummers;25983290]name one other power source that can provide as much power, as quickly, and as efficiently as nuclear power.[/QUOTE] Hydroelectric power. [editline]fff[/editline] I really feel that people should just shut up about global warming not being real. Even Bill O'Reilly is in favor of reducing pollution and making the earth cleaner. It doesn't even matter if global warming is caused by pollution, there are plenty of other climate problems that are. Go live in LA and tell me that pollution isn't a problem. If you're opposed to Cap and Trade for other reasons, go for it, but don't say that it doesn't matter if we continue to dump pollutants at the rates that we do.

:foxnews: [B]THIS JUST IN: GLOBAL WARMING IS TAKING EFFECT. DEATH TOLL IS APPROXIMATELY 14 BILLION PEOPLE. More at 11 [/B] :foxnews: