- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Global warming question for both sides....
Posted on 2/17/14 at 11:21 am to cokebottleag
Posted on 2/17/14 at 11:21 am to cokebottleag
quote:
If warming is so bad, why is the temp we are now so good?
it's more about where we are in terms of progress
ignore global warming's cause
the issue is how we deal with it b/c of the coastal concentration of humanity
1
Posted on 2/17/14 at 11:27 am to SlowFlowPro
The greenies/ save the world / mankind is bad
BS argument can only end in one natural conclusion. Mankind needs to die to save the earth.
BS argument can only end in one natural conclusion. Mankind needs to die to save the earth.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 12:01 pm to cokebottleag
Listening to commentary from opposing sides can be very confusing, but for me, one fact stands out. When you look at the small percentage of the atmosphere composed of CO2 (0.03%), you realize that any change in that amount has a much greater effect on the properties exhibited by that gas than ones that make up a larger percentage of the atmosphere. For example, if you combust enough carbon based fuel to increase the amount in the atmosphere by 0.03%, then you have doubled the amount of that gas. Increase the amount of nitrogen by 0.03%, and you increase the amount by about 0.0003%.
You might check my math, but the difference is almost nil for N.
This post was edited on 2/17/14 at 12:03 pm
Posted on 2/17/14 at 12:08 pm to Upperaltiger06
quote:Which leaves us understanding the ocean is a ticking CO2 timebomb. Amirite?
you realize that any change in that amount has a much greater effect on the properties exhibited by that gas than ones that make up a larger percentage of the atmosphere.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 12:10 pm to GumboPot
quote:
What are we looking for?
A reduction in carbon emissions, which is a decent goal to have.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 12:12 pm to ScottFowler
quote:
The greenies/ save the world / mankind is bad
BS argument can only end in one natural conclusion. Mankind needs to die to save the earth.
There's a huge difference between conservationist and rabid environmentalism.
Absolutely nothing wrong with taking care of our planet and conserving our resources. It's a worthwhile goal.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 12:14 pm to RogerTheShrubber
upvoted 
Posted on 2/17/14 at 12:14 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Absolutely nothing wrong with taking care of our planet and conserving our resources. It's a worthwhile goal.
This board is only composed of the raging fringes.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 12:15 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
There's a huge difference between conservationist and rabid environmentalism.
Absolutely nothing wrong with taking care of our planet and conserving our resources. It's a worthwhile goal.
This.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 12:19 pm to RogerTheShrubber
It is a great goal to take care of our planet and conserve natural resources and leave a better place for the next generation. The devil in the details for me, though, is we all have to be in this together and I don't see it happening.
If we aren't all operating under the same "rules", all we're doing is shifting production to China, India, Russia, etc., hurting our economy and harming the environment because those countries aren't going to have as stringent regulations as we do. In effect, we'll be out-sourcing our pollution.
If we aren't all operating under the same "rules", all we're doing is shifting production to China, India, Russia, etc., hurting our economy and harming the environment because those countries aren't going to have as stringent regulations as we do. In effect, we'll be out-sourcing our pollution.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 12:21 pm to CollegeFBRules
quote:
This board is only composed of the raging fringes.
Nah, they just tend to take over threads. Most folks are somewhat rational. It's like anything, 20% make the most noise.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 12:22 pm to Clete Purcel
quote:
If we aren't all operating under the same "rules", all we're doing is shifting production to China, India, Russia, etc., hurting our economy and harming the environment because those countries aren't going to have as stringent regulations as we do. In effect, we'll be out-sourcing our pollution.
A great free market way of taking care of this is the dollar vote. Purchasing products that fit in with your political and ethical concerns.
Unfortunately people, even those who are the loudest, vote the bottom line in many cases and expect people to make rules to protect them from themselves.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 12:24 pm to CollegeFBRules
quote:
A reduction in carbon emissions, which is a decent goal to have.
Wrong. Just the opposite. CO2 is great stuff. Look up Idso.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 1:50 pm to Upperaltiger06
are you saying if manmade carbon emissions stopped, the amount of co2 would drop. Can it drop too low? what is the perfect amount? Can trees/plants make up for extra amounts? etc etc etc. there are so many variablesim all in for cutting unnecessary emissions.
original point is, if we have events in the far past that equal events of today, why do the events of today mean mankind is causing the climate change?
original point is, if we have events in the far past that equal events of today, why do the events of today mean mankind is causing the climate change?
Posted on 2/17/14 at 1:53 pm to GeeOH
quote:Yes. Google "iron seeding"
Can trees/plants make up for extra amounts?
quote:They don't
why do the events of today mean mankind is causing the climate change?
Posted on 2/17/14 at 2:05 pm to NC_Tigah
not what's being portrayed by libs
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:29 pm to GeeOH
quote:
are you saying if manmade carbon emissions stopped, the amount of co2 would drop. Can it drop too low? what is the perfect amount? Can trees/plants make up for extra amounts? etc etc etc. there are so many variablesim all in for cutting unnecessary emissions. original point is, if we have events in the far past that equal events of today, why do the events of today mean mankind is causing the climate change?
The question was can man have a global effect on the climate.
My point is that co2 contributes to such a small percentage of the atmosphere, it is much more sensitive to changes in atmospheric composition.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:34 pm to Upperaltiger06
quote:
My point is that co2 contributes to such a small percentage of the atmosphere, it is much more sensitive to changes in atmospheric composition.
Even more to the point, how do we know that this isn't correlational instead of causational.
Scientists are still struggling to understand simple variable in weather production and somehow we know for a certainty that humans are responsible for climate changes? Seems presumptive.
Even worse, many of these hard core believers force their views with a false sense of urgency, that if you don't capitulate and act immediately the planet will fall apart. It is transparently a move to coerce people.
If you challenge the science these priests of Anthropomorphic global warming will accost you with appeals to consensus and authority, challenge those and you get a false-urgency or accused of being a 'denier'. Reminds me a lot of religion to be honest.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:36 pm to MagicCityBlazer
The biggest trick they were able to pull was convincing people that being skeptical of their research is somehow "anti-science". Everything about climate change research is completely compromised and bastardized that it isn't worth paying much attention to anymore.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:37 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
The biggest trick they were able to pull was convincing people that being skeptical of their research is somehow "anti-science".
Same group that pushed the idea that "small government" was racist.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News