I am sooo sick of these corporate fat cats polluting our air and causing a big time heating up of the earth. our skies are constantly being bombarded by pollutants that could endanger human life and even more worse hurt INNOCENT animals of mother earth who are victims and don't contribute at ALL to these toxic fumes...
These corrupt corporations are giving a lethal injection straight to the heart of our planet and what can we do as revolutionaries to bring down these CRIMINALS.
I am sure you all agree with me that we should bring justice to these earth haters once and for all, and seeing how we are revolutionaries, it might just be up to US.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 506 reads
based on Tesla's designs --- then again if I'd never heard of nuclear energy and had no backround in basic physics, and someone tried to explain it to me --- that might sound crazier
to what a lot of "environmentalists" propose. To quote Ted Turner (not the most popular figure on this site) on Nuclear energy,
"Nuclear energy could kill us
but Coal energy will kill us"
It's too bad that nuke energy has been held back by regulation. It might have progressed even farther in the past decades if the fear and panic hadn't stifled its growth.
It's hard to know who to trust in this debate --- but it certainly seems reasonable to question Al Gore and his motives.
I'm frustrated that my scientific background is limited.
Here's a random question --- since you are an engineer I'd be interested in if you'd ever heard of theories on the Haarp program and its ability to influence the weather, cause earthquakes, etc.
I know its not directly related to coal power plants .........
Sorry - I don't know anything about haarp.
I see your point. I'm not if favor of more gov't regulation.
Maybe I'm a bit brainwashed by the MSM but I'm aware that Southern cities were running out of their water supply-- and I've driven through the Southwest and the entire region is dry.
I'm not sure what is causing this but I'm pretty sure it's a serious problem with some potentially dire consequences. Perhaps Al Gore is leading us in the wrong direction. What gives him momentum and strength is that he's leading.
I remain skeptical. But I still haven't heard of a leader who doesn't believe in global warming, take leadership on the environment.
I'm an environmentalist -- though not a global warming (ist) . I just think things like solar and wind energy and pollution controls are a great idea --- ever lived near a coal plant?
I'm also a fan of nuclear energy. In fact I've heard that nuclear reactors could be used to desalinate ocean water and make it drinkable.
So here's a solution -- build Nuclear plants --(they don't poison the air) and use them to desalinate the oceans --- that way when the oceans rise everyone will just drink more water and we'll be fine!
Oh and be real, real careful with the waste.
Adam I agree with the need to build nuclear plants. 30 years ago I was an engineer working for Bechtel in the design of coal fired power plants. I spent a little time on nukes too. I certainly share your belief that living near a nuclear plant would be far better than living near a coal plant.
The last time the electric power industry started to gear up for nuclear plants they got shut down because of increasing regulations resulting from concern over accidents that might release radiation. Some of the utility companies lost so much money in the process that they went belly up. As a result I don't think any new nukes have been built in the last 25 years. But today we can look back at the history of the nuclear plants that are operating and see that they have an extremely safe operating record. As far as I know there has never been a loss of life accident associated with radiation at any US nuclear electric plant. That includes 3 mile island.
Unfortunately the licensing, design and construction process for a nuke takes about 15 years. So we better start fast and hope the alarmists don't shut it down again.
Greenpeace....you've clearly been brainwashed by Al Gore. Maybe you should buy some carbon credits. This is the answer to all your problems. LMW
whatever one believes they'll be able to find a scientist to support their opinion. I couldn't tell you exact numbers but I have seen many books written on climate change by scientists. I know their claims are supported by facts. I don't doubt that scientists claiming the contrary have ample facts and evidence as well.
Just wondering, if I shouldn't trust Al Gore's assertions about scientists why should I trust yours?
Also, I would note that the Bush admin was adamantly oppossed to Kyoto - and that getting 19,000 scientists to sign a paper supporting their opinion when they easily fund many, many more scientists than that number would not be that difficult. For example if there was pressure or a sense that funding would not be continued otherwise it could be accomplished quite easily.
Don't forget about all the experts who assured the public of WMD in Iraq, etc.
Science is as politicized as any other sector.
What it comes down to really, is people making independent observations and judgements on their own.
I've noticed a lot of strange weather recently (tornadoes, floods, forrest fires). The entire Southwest and much of the South is in a draught. Also the amount of forrest fires and the extent of their damage has increased dramatically. Is this because of global warming? I don't know. But I haven't heard any convincing arguments otherwise.
Generally what the scientists who oppose the theory of global warming have said, is simply that it's too hard to tell, or you can't really be sure, or that the earth is always going through climate change.
While their criticism of global warming may be valid -- I haven't heard many convincing alternate theories to explain recent weather phenomena. Well, actually, something about El Nino --- but I haven't really figured that one out.
AdamAdamR Al Gore seems to be the most vocal proponent of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. If this was just a question of personal beliefs I would be quite content to let him and his followers believe whatever they like. But it isn’t just a question of personal beliefs. Al Gore has proposed dramatic reductions in our use of fossil fuels as well as carbon taxes and carbon trading schemes, all of which will significantly increase the cost we pay for energy and maybe affect the way we live. And congress is already beginning to implement some of his proposals. Those things will have a serious effect on us and as a result people are beginning to take a hard look at the things he is saying. That’s a common sense reaction. Wouldn’t you agree?
Let’s look at some of Mr. Gore’s proclamations:
As I pointed out earlier his claim that very few scientists disagree with the AGW theory is totally false.
Gore says that if the Greenland ice sheet melts the sea levels will rise 20 feet. That’s actually true but the zinger is that big “if”. The IPCC is not saying that the Greenland ice sheet will melt. And in fact they predict the sea level will rise only 1 or 2 feet by 2100.
In Al Gore’s PowerPoint presentation he shows a graph of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration above a graph of earth’s temperature during the last ½ million years. The two graphs track each other rather well. Gore says when CO2 is high temperatures are high, leading to the impression that high CO2 levels cause high temperatures. But when scientists examine the data closely they see that the temperature changes precede the CO2 changes by hundreds of years. (This fact is mentioned in the notes which accompany the Vostok ice core data.) So the CO2 changes could not cause the temperature changes. More likely the temperature changes cause the changes in CO2 or possibly something else causes both.
Al Gore’s book an Inconvenient Truth was being taught in British schools until someone challenged its assertions in court, and won. The court found that the book contained 11 material falsehoods. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-e...
So before we embark on a program which will cost hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars and maybe effect the way we live we better be damn sure we really understand the facts. And in the case of global warming we don’t.
Sixty climate scientists sent a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper stating; “Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based” The scientists also proposed that “balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans.”
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87...
Their proposal sounds like a very rational idea to me.
Al Gore claims there are very few scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming. That statement is disingenuous at best. There are many scientists who disagree with the anthropogenic global warming theory. Following are three separate lists of scientists who disagree with AGW:
60 scientists signed a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, urging him not to sign any Kyoto like treaties. The letter states :“The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” Ref http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87...
100 scientists signed a letter to the secretary general of the UN stating:“UN climate conference (is) taking the world in entirely the wrong direction” Ref http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002
19,000 scientists signed a petition stating:“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” Ref http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm
Each of the above letters or petitions contains a list of the signatories who disagree with AGW.
Now let me ask; where is the list of scientists who do agree with AGW? And don’t settle for Al Gore saying that 2500 scientists participated in the IPCC report. Many of those people are not scientists and many of those who are scientists were not asked if they agree with the conclusions.
prefers over priests, have proposed notions that are completely at odds with each other (Global warming, ice age). And it seems like whatever one wants to "believe" there will always be some hard scientific evidence to back it up.
My undestanding is that there is tremendous deforestation ongoing in the rainforest. The rainforest absorbs CO2 and releases oxygen. With more fossil fuels releasing more CO2 and less rainforest to absorb it the CO2 level will be exponentially increased. And since the burning of fossil fuels and the deforestation of the rainforest are both man-made occurrences- then man will have contributed a great deal more CO2 to Earth's atmoshpere.
More CO2 and less oxygen is an alteration of the Earth's cliimate. Therefore man-made climate change is real. I think this is a flawless observation though I'm sure if it isn't someone will point it out.
I wouldn't be able to say as to whether or not an incease in CO2 would cause Global Warming but it seems likely.
It also seems likely that powerful interests would find a way to exploit this to their advantage.
And yes climate change is as old as the earth --- Just ask the dinosaurs!
What percentage of the earth's atmosphere is CO2? I think that you will be surprised by the answer to that question. It has a huge impact on whether a 3% or a 20% or a 100% increase in CO2 would really change the climate via a "greenhouse effect."
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about .038 % on a molecule per molecule or air basis. On a weight basis its about .054% because CO2 is somewhat heavier than air.
Nick. We have been so played by the power brokers. Their dance of propaganda makes my head spin, these people have an agenda, it is more than about money and power because they have that already. First the earth is getting warmer, then colder. Coffee is bad no it's good, eggs are bad no their good, we are running out of oil, no we're not. I have lived long enough to see how easy it has been over the years to get us to think and do whatever they want. The sky is falling no it's not.
Rich man, poor man, begger man, thief, we will find people in every category that know how to manipulate others. Our job, if we choose to except it is not to climb onto any bandwagon because we have no idea where the wagon is taking us. I remember all these same arguments years ago and my husband and I got all scared and did all the things that they said to do. Now, when I think back what it did was gave the government an opportunity to impose laws, taxes and take away more of our rights.
This is the same game they are playing again. When my kids were in school I remember them pushing all this stuff and I was wise to it this time but of course there is nothing you can do about it.
When I hear young people say they hate humans it kinda makes me sick because I think someone put that notion into their heads.
I wish everyone well and think what you will but for me, I'm tired of being lead around with fear mongering and the latest discovery must have sc@## it. Peace
that humans are contributing to global warming emphasize that they are not sure to what extant, that they are not sure that global warming will necessarily be a bad thing, and that political activists, including environmentalists, are grossly exaggerating the risks, which they constantly protest.
As a reality check, the earth is nowhere near as warm as it was a mere 1,000 years ago when the Norse Vikings settled Greenland. At that time, there were no icebergs in the North Atlantic at all, allowing them to establish sea trading routes with Iceland and their home country. When the earth entered the "Little Ice Age" in the 1400's, their trade routes were cut off by ice and they eventually collapsed and died of starvation. The earth began emerging from the Little Ice Age in the 1800's and is still in a warming trend, although 2007 was an exceptionally cold year, prompting some scientists to speculate that we are now approaching a major Ice Age - one for which we are overdue.
For a good account of the Vikings tribulations in Greenland and climate's role (which was NOT the only cause of their demise), read Jared Diamond's book, Collapse. While you're at it, read Guns, Germs, and Steel as well, just because he's a great historian!
For a recent article on the possibility of an Ice Age soon, read this article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html
See you on the bergs! :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
You even mentioned that we are due for a major Ice Age in which you said we were long overdue, the reason we haven't got frozen already is because the earth is heating up rapidly effectively staving off any ice age and putting us on a crash course to become a venus like planet!
That is not what "the scientists" referred to by proponents of the global warming theory say (and I am not talking about all of the scientists that absolutely refute global warming and are immediately marginalized as "schills for big business"). Even those that environmentalist activists say side with them object to the distortion of their views by environmentalist activists. They certainly do not agree that there will be a cataclysmis result for earth or humanity, nor do any that I know of attribute the tardiness of the next ice age (which is a VERY good thing) to human produced global warming. The most that the scientists friendliest to global warming activists will say is that they believe humans are having SOME effect, but how much they do not know and what consequences and whether they will be good or bad they also do not know. Environmentalists happily ignore the conclusions reached by the scientists they quote so long as they can pull out a soundbyte that says "scientists agree humans are affecting climate." Faced with the prospect of 2/3 of North America under a glacier, I say lets produce as much CO2 as we can if it will hold it off for a a while. :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
.. Greenpeace is a lunatic!!!
you're debating greenpeace and you're not even trying to be funny. what's wrong with you?!
A good friend constantly rebukes me for trying to reason with these people. God forbid we start trading facts. LOL!
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Nobel Prize winner Al Gore said the debate was over! And guess who won? ME
who's money started Greenpeace. The Nobel Prize was very convenient and timely for Mr. Gore of course it looks good to get people to hop on the bandwagon. What did you win? Nothing. They will go after the big bad corporations (personally, I have found government to be one of the largest polluters but hey, we don't want to look in the mirror) extracting large sums of money and eventually nationalizing them because they can't be trusted to do the right thing but of course your government will do the right thing. Look at Russia and China they are wonderful state run, and pollution free. They like people to be angry and motivated to want action now, now, now because if they stood back and took another look and did more research they might see the man behind the curtain pulling the strings. Welcome, to the future.
Haha liked the trade facts comment
Gore's Nobel Prize. Just when I thought I might get a full night's sleep for a change. :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Greenpeace get a grip. You despise the very thing which allows all of us to live comfortable lives. Take away industry and we all end up sitting in trees shivering and wondering where the next meal will come from.
I would rather worry about where to get a meal than being burned alive by extreme global heat or die of dehydration due to extreme drought! I guess your right tho, we won't have to worry about SHIVERING in the cold at the rate we're going with our atmosphere being baked like a potatoe
Greenpeace even the IPCC does not say that will happen. You are grossly exaggerating!
People, Greenpeace is NOT the enemy neither is environmentalism and, greenpeace, neither is deregulation. The collectivists are playing both sides of the fence to keep the focus of the masses off of the slieght of hand that is taking place right under our noses. The international banksters couldn't care less which side of the fence each of us land on as long as we don't all land on the same side of the fence. Either way, the goal is the same; get the people to give away more individual power to a centralized power who they believe aligns with their particular sensitivities. They can't do that without opposing sides. They stack the deck with hot button issues and laugh at us for thinking we are actually doing something meaningful anytime we try to expand our sphere of influence beyond our personal individual lives with regard to those issues.
If you haven't got that yet, you are NOT a "Gets it".
BTW, swarelis, how about I replace "Freedom Lover" on my proposed t-shirt design with top:"BECOME A" bottom: "GETS IT"? I kinda like it. That might draw a few questions.
Yeah, the Sun has nothing to do with how hot it is... :\
It's just us! Right.... Man you are a clueless tool. I believe in environmentalism as much as the next guy but you are a straight up Eco-freak.
clearly the sun is the source of our heat, but if we trap 100% of all the heat that comes from the sun cause of all this carbon dioxide then thats like a million degrees HELLO
Greenpeace NO ONE says that will happen. Not the IPCC, not any scientist, just you.
Venus has an atmosphere which is 95% CO2 compared to .05% on earth. And Venice's atmosphere is 90 times denser than ours. So it has over 100,000 times as much CO2 as earth and is much closer to the sun. Granted its temperature is too hot for life as we know it but it is nowhere near a million degrees. You are making extreme exaggerations. Come on, get with the program and start basing your arguments on facts.