Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: I bet Hugo is PISSED Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 
   

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
10-17-2008 02:27 PM
baldylox
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooz View Post
Oh btw the IPCC findings were shown to be grossly wrong. I remember something about their model being amazingly fubar.
The IPCC report on the rate at which the Greenland ice sheet is melting was grossly wrong. They said that it could be entirely gone in as little as 100 years. In actuality, the problem is MUCH WORSE. Satellite data shows that the ice sheet is melting MUCH faster. It has decreased in thickness by 50% since 2001.

Quote:
Many well respected scientists are now suggesting that we may have an iceless northern icecap as early as the summer of 2013, in just under 5 years, not the century that the IPCC suggests.
Gregable.: The IPCC is Wrong

-geez.... same here on the spelling. I think some of ma brains leaked out.
10-17-2008 02:05 PM
Mooz Oh btw the IPCC findings were shown to be grossly wrong. I remember something about their model being amazingly fubar.

Haven't read up on the others in your list though so I have some research for this weekend, thanks
10-17-2008 12:44 PM
baldylox
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
As a side note about volcanoes, I read a geology study that indicated that while volcanoes do emit some global warming gasses, they also emmit gasses and particulate that has a net global cooling effect that exceeds any warming. Nature tends to balance itself out. I do not have the exact figures, but I do remember this discussion about volcanoes contributing to global warming has been debunked.
On that topic you might want to read up a bit about the climate of 1816. In April of 1815, Mt Tambora in Indonesia went up with an explosive force 4 times that of Krakatoa. So much ash was released into the stratosphere that much of the world didn't have a real summer. The entire planet was effected, especially the northern hemisphere. In Vermont, lakes stayed frozen the entire year. Countless people starved or froze to death. It is sometimes referred to as "Eighteen-Hundred-Froze-to-Death" or "Year Without a Summer"

Year Without a Summer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mount Tambora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
10-17-2008 12:34 PM
Mooz Bullshit


double quarter punders are awesome!
10-17-2008 12:10 PM
Mooz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
Just to add a bit of trivia here fo anyone who wonders why this is. The reason for this is beacuse most of the Earth`s plant life is in the northern lattitudes. When it is winter up north and the plants go dormant, they no longer act as carbon sinks. The fact that this is measureable, to me, indicates how precisely the planet`s climate is balanced. This balance seems to be so precise that it supports the theory that we can in fact upset that balance by buring fossil fuels, clear cutting rain forests and even having too many farting cows... I actually don`t "poopoo" (sorry, could`nt resist) this idea. Anyone who has seen what a single cow can do to a perfectly pristine creek,knows these buggars are evil...

Mooz, not saying you are wrong; I am saying that this is still theory, but the bulk of the evidence is supporting the position that we are either causing it or seriously exacerbating it. The predicted outcomes, based on computer models are so catastrophic that it simply is not a risk I am willing to take. If you turn out to be right, we have spent some money, put a lot of people on the planet to work and have created a cleaner world. If I am right, we have done all that and averted disaster. If we do nothing and you are right, well more of the same ole same ole/ But, if we do nothing and I am right, we are seriously up shit creek without a paddle. Like I said, on this one, we should err on the side of caution.
I'm not saying do nothing. I just can't stand fear mongering. Using fear as a driver to get something done is wrong no matter what you are trying to achieve. We're going down this road of "we should be clean or you will die TOMORROW!!!!11!!!!!!1one!1!!elevintyone!!" Instead of "we should be clean just because it's right to do so."

Fear drives only more fear and panicked "studies" and fills the pockets of people spreading more fear. All fear does is create anger and eventually you begin to hate what you fear and yourself for being fearful of it. It's a never ending cycle of suffering and control and I don't like it.

And don't get me started on computer models. You're talking about a process that we handed off to a computer to handle. A computer program that was written by the lowest bidder. I can count on one hand the number of computer models for anything that haven't been an utter cocked up mess.



On a side note, I have no idea what's up with my typing lately. I could blame the keyboard for these god awful typos but I think I may just be getting slightly more retarded by the day.
10-17-2008 10:40 AM
baldylox
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooz View Post
Oh and my numbers were wrong I had to go back and look them up. We're responsible for 3% (THREE PERCENT) of CO2 emmited. That's every human on the planet. Decaying organic material (plants animals etc), volcanos and forrest fires make up the other 97%. We should ban Decaying plants. Fuck them!
The point is that C02 is naturally in a balance. Every winter the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, then in the spring it starts to fall again. %100 of what humans contribute to that is serving to upset that balance. If you overfill a barrel of radioactive waste by 3%, you're still fucked.

Oh and BTW. You're pointing to a government study as impartial? Read this one about how half of government scientists surveyed were pressured by officials to alter there reports.

US climate scientists pressured on climate change - earth - 31 January 2007 - New Scientist Environment

Also don't forget to take into account that not only are we increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere but we are rapidly reducing the planets ability to recover by destroying forest and polluting the oceans, which in turn kills plankton, producer of 70% of the O2.

Quote:
The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years,
This is something that is happening slowly over time. Every year we release a little more CO2 into the air than the planet is able to recover from, its building and building.
10-17-2008 10:36 AM
slimpanzee
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooz View Post
That's not how it works. These are future oil contracts. What's sitting in the pump right now was bought at $120 a barrel. Plus you still have to refine it, ship it etc etc etc. Prices at the pump won't fall back in line with the 50% decline in oil until feb.
I understand that the gas being used was bought at a different price that is currently being traded. And it's nice that everyone is fine with it taking months for gas to drop, yet it will go up almost immediately when the price per barrel goes up.

As for going green... if you don't really do it for climate change, it is just better for the environment. Less pollution in major cities will make the air better to breath. Water cleaner to drink, etc... Plus, some thing will just run out in time. Using renewable sources is a better way to go.
10-17-2008 10:18 AM
Mooz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
I totaly disagree.

Climate scientists with far more education than you tend to differ greatly and they all pretty much agree. I have read report after report after report from many international agencies that have nothing to gain by lying. Almost all of them conclude the same thing; human activity is the factor that is tipping the balance and disrupting the Earth`s normal climatic cycles. The data also reveals that it is entirely possible at this point to turn this around before we reach a tipping point.

I am not going to go into all the facts to back up what they are saying. I have done that in the past and I suspect you dont read them anyway. You go ahead and believe what you will and you certainly have the right to voice your opinion, but I think you are wrong.

When faced with making a choice, I am going with the people who actually have an education in that field, No disrespect to you, but while very intelligent, you do not hold any degrees in Meteorology, Oceanography, volcanology or any other related field that gives you any credibility in this field even if you do claim to be an expert in every field....

You an I do agree that we should go green regardless of why.
I've read countrless studies and they all say we have an impact on climate change but there has been no clear sign that we are THE driving cause.

To be clear, I give studies funded by oil companies the exact same weight I give studies funded by large "green" fund raising firms. That weight is exactly dick. When the people writing the results of the study know who is giving them the money, they skew the results to whatever said funder wants to hear. This is why medical studies are all blind. The people writing the final summary have no idea who funded it, who the drug company is etc etc. This keeps them objective.

If a company that's huge on "zomg we're all gonna die from the pollutionz" gives you a big ass grant to perform a study, you're going to "find" what they want to hear. You want another grant later. Go with the independant studies. The ones not funded by a "green" fundraising panic group or an oil funded "gas is good!" group.

Here's a start. I know this is scary, but you'll actually have to get it from some place other than the internets!

I don't need to have a degree to read an actual study. I just need to read the study itself and not some summary of the study that someone else wrote or worse some news agencies interpretation of the study. Keep in mind the same mindless douche nozzle's that are screaming we're going to die today were screaming it in 1971 except they were screaming that the world was getting colder.

Oh and my numbers were wrong I had to go back and look them up. We're responsible for 3% (THREE PERCENT) of CO2 emmited. That's every human on the planet. Decaying organic material (plants animals etc), volcanos and forrest fires make up the other 97%. We should ban Decaying plants. Fuck them!

The point is we've spent all this time and money trying to panic over c02 when in fact, c02 isnt even the culprit. If we send people into a silly panic with bad data, we'll over look the real reason. Maybe we are causing climate change by eating pistacios? Who knows, we sure as hell don't. And we'll never know if we keep pounding back bad science. All while telling developing countries they can't have their industrial revolution because of their evil c02z.
10-17-2008 12:11 AM
Mooz
Quote:
Originally Posted by slimpanzee View Post
^^^Huh? The price per barrel dropped $4.69 to settle in at $69.85 today. That's the lowest it's been since August of last year. The price at the pump drops 4 CENTS overnight to bring the national average to $3.08. Doing the math, the pricer per barrel dropped just over 6%, the price at the pump just over 1%. The price over all has dropped over 50% per barrel, yet only has dropped around 25% at the pump. To say your happy that it's $2.93 just goes to show the oil companies got what they wanted. You're happy with a high price, because it's not $4.11.

If the price did (or does) fall to 45 bucks a barrel, that price per gallon better drop below 2 bucks.
That's not how it works. These are future oil contracts. What's sitting in the pump right now was bought at $120 a barrel. Plus you still have to refine it, ship it etc etc etc. Prices at the pump won't fall back in line with the 50% decline in oil until feb.
10-17-2008 12:06 AM
Mooz Oy ok. Out of all the carbon dioxide produded every day, 90% is non man made factors. Shit we can't control like volcanos. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work on reducing emmissions and going or staying green but all this fear based propaganda is making me sick.

Fact: We do not know what is causing climate change
Fact: We don't know for sure if we impact climate change or not. We suppose so, but we don't know
Fact: Going green is good and can only help
Fact: We have no idea if we can fix climate change or even if we should


The simple fact is, we know as much about the reason for climate change as we do the surface of mercury. Trying to scare people into changing won't do a damn thing and is the wrong approach. Going green because it's just a better way to go IS the way to go about getting people to change. Setting an example IS the way to go about getting people to change as well.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome