STOP PRESS - Vast Cracks Appear in Arctic Ice

reply to post by Sublime620


At first I was cheering the effort but once it became clear to me that it is lie upon lie upon lie upon lie I stopped cheering in the middle of one. I will not be lied at! Not for whatever heavenly good cause. When that very personal D.Wolf rule is breached, whatever cause is attached to the slur is good for nothing but putting in a particular dark place where the sun never shines.

This thread is about doing something without understanding the problem. It is pinning this crakue in the polar ice to manmade global warming and that is in my humble opinion; per definition a shameless political propaganda scheme lacking basic scientific evidence at the very core of it’s claims that -still in my humble opinion- needs to be thoroughly cleaned up first.

I will not be lied at.

Most of factories are already moved. Mostly cause of eco standards and cheap labour force. 90% of things is made in China.

I agree about biofuels. Oil lobby is pushing on them and they are doing it good. Prices of food are rising globally. Sun should be used far more.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I think most agree that ethanol was a mistake. Again, that represents policies, not the cause.

It's a shell game. Shut down the factories in one country in the name of saving the planet, only to reopen them in another country with even lower environmental standards. Not to mention the waste of energy and resources to move a factory.

See above.

reply to post by Sublime620


You know when I gave up on being concerned about the environment? When I found out that for all of my cleaning and seperating of the trash, it all wound up in the same dump. Despite the fact that the legislation to implement recycling had come in with gusto, and a tidy profit was turned handing out tickets to people who weren't compliant. I think they should get their money back.

But in the end, as I said, I wish there were some menaingful measures being taken to maintain and improve our natural ecosystems.

reply to post by Locus Iste




There is also a counter theory that CFC's are nothing but a political move, along with with lobbyists (patent claims expiring). I have read theories that indicate that the diminishing, changing magnetic poles has a direct correlation to the missing ozone, as the magnetic field weakens in some areas, ozone is depleted.

reply to post by pityocamptes


Well read also something about sea current and global air masses. Try not to do it from wiki you might also get some reliable physics knowledge. You will also find out more about it and chemistry between CFC's and Ozone.



[edit on 23-5-2008 by Locus Iste]

Originally posted by theRiverGoddess
I believe it is a SOLAR event.
The entire solar system is warming up, it is hotter everywhere that the sun shines.

What exactly do YOU PROPOSE that we, as small humans on this planet, do to stop the sun from having its solar event?

Tell me, if this is a solar event, how is it you believe that humans are not exacerbating the situation? Do you believe the sun can act alone and with out being impacted by other phenomena?

We are no longer "small" on this planet, we are massive and growing. Look at the stain our population has put on every physical product of this planet around you. If you think we are having a smaller impact on the atmosphere it is likely because you cant see it and are having a hard time perceiving it....

I PROPOSE humans start living on this planet wit the respect it deserves. IT is pretty simple really.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I apoligise for misjudging you for your initial light-hearted post. Your subsequent contributions have been really thought-provoking and cogently argued.

If I have understood you correctly you believe the direction of the renewable energy industry is determined by profitability as opposed to efficacy? Very sobering.

I wonder whether there are some outstanding examples of altruistic investment in renewables, whether by individuals, trusts, industries or governments that might have the potential to buck the trend you have identified? Or at least balance out some of the worst fronts for more of the same?

reply to post by pityocamptes


Starred your post for an original angle.

It does sound a bit far fetched, however it would be good to weigh up the force of the argument you mentioned. Do you have any references to back up the theory that the ozone layer is influenced by the movement of the magnetic poles?

reply to post by Animal


In meteorology there is law called "Butterfly effect" It's claiming that butterfly when it's flying can cause a tornado on the other side of world with it's wings.

Sadly we are not butterflies but our influence is far far greater.

reply to post by Animal



We do effect the planet, as far as health wise, and viability of soil, water, and air quality. However, the crap that the Al Gore's keep spewing DOES NOT MAKE SENSE given that one volcano instance can blow more "pollutants" into the atmosphere than ALL of the crap humans have spewed into the atmosphere over the last century! Given this, who is the REAL detriment to planet - man or Earth itself?

One volcano that erupts contributes more of a global impact to global change for centuries, than anything man could ever possibly attempt to create.
Well after man is gone from this planet, the natural events will continue to dictate global warming/cooling.
I find it completely absurb anyone could ever think man would impact earth in such a way it alters the large scale ecosystem.

Man is just a dot (.) if that in the history of earth. Just because we are the smartest species to populate the earth does not mean we are best choice to remain existing on the earth.

I laugh at all that think man is the major contributor to global warming. There are much bigger forces at work in this solar system that is causing such a dramatic change.
It is sad that our leaders do not recognize the common sense that would make them understand these factors

reply to post by pause4thought

I apoligise for misjudging you for your initial light-hearted post. Your subsequent contributions have been really thought-provoking and cogently argued.

No need to apologize. It was my error in not properly introducing myself and my position before trying to make a funny.

I wonder whether there are some outstanding examples of altruistic investment in renewables, whether by individuals, trusts, industries or governments that might have the potential to buck the trend you have identified?

I would imagine so, but I have no evidence to show of that. In the more abstract, many people often pose the question "well if 'they' are so powerful, then what's to stop them from doing this or that right now? Why hide?"

I think the answer to that qusetion is that there is a war going on, that has been waged for thousands of years. Some may call it a war between good and evil, but religion has been twisted so much that I hesitate to even offer such an analogy. But if there is one single bloodline that goes all the way back to the beginnings of civilization and has ruled all along, then perhaps there is a second as well, that has challenged that authority all along.

This was touched on to some extent in the downright bizarre work The Illuminatus! Trilogy

[edit on 5/23/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by pityocamptes


Vulcanoes releases are 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources. What is bigger we all see. Of course it can vary but huge eruptions would at first cause global cooling.

reply to post by Sublime620

Originally posted by Sublime620
You can tell someone has an agenda when just the mention of Global Warming makes them start yelling smart-ass Al Gore remarks.

Chill out. Stop trying to appear so high-and-mighty. You can't tell squat about somebody's "agenda" just because they made a joke.

You're so uptight you'd need a tractor to pull a pin out of your butt.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Cleaning up the Earth is wrong?

Finding cleaner energy is wrong?

Recycling is wrong?

Protecting ecosystems is wrong?

After all, those are the methods prefered by most advocates of Global Warming.
[edit on 23-5-2008 by Sublime620]

Once again with the sanctimonious nose in the air. Since when are "most advocates of Global Warming" the only ones who care about the Earth?

"Stay Classy". My Assy.

reply to post by jsobecky


Attack, attack, attack. That's all you are good for. Are you sure you don't work in the MSM spin zone?

You just wrote a whole lot without saying anything at all. Impressive.

reply to post by TheComte

Imagine all the mineral wealth Canada is going to have when the ice melts away. Americans stay back. Don't f#$@ around, the Arctic is ours.

Did you hear the rumour about a US/Bilderberg drive towards a Canada - US - Mexico economic union?

Make any more sense now?..

Originally posted by pavil
Tell that to the Russians. They are the ones already staking new Economic Zones of influence up there. C'mon, tell them to #@#@#@ off too!

Well, the Russians can have the other side. No argument there. And America has Alaska. What's done is done. But what's on our side, stays on our side...

Originally posted by pause4thought


Did you hear the rumour about a US/Bilderberg drive towards a Canada - US - Mexico economic union?

Make any more sense now?..

Yes, I heard it. Makes for a good story. We already have an economic union of sorts. But we will not be all one country. Not in my lifetime. It's ours...all ours.

[edit on 23-5-2008 by TheComte]

[edit on 23-5-2008 by TheComte]

Originally posted by pityocamptes
More crap has been spewed by the planet over the course of eons (volcanos) than we could ever do. Though I agree that mans influence has poisoned water supply systems and altered soil production, etc. I do not believe that he has had the catastrophic hand that the Al Gores of the world keep saying.

The world is changing, but as other have commented its solar. The precession is also changing which I would venture to say is going to change seasonal cycles and perhaps even the jet and ocean streams.

These things are beyond our fixing. Yes man may poison himself to death or render the air unbreathable, or even farm himself out of existance, but the real deal breaker is going to be mother nature.

This is the best post in this thread. Earth is a prodigous greenhouse gas maker. The majority of the greenhouse gas emissions you will likely see deal with the methane on the ocean floor bubbling up as the sea warms.

What we need to do is quit dumping mercury into our water. Quit flushing pills and other pharmaceuticals (it is actually policy in many hospitals that you flush pills that are to be "destroyed").

But saying that mankind can do anything to "fix" this is as absurd as thinking my dog will fix my car. His first problem is he lacks a means to be able to effect any change (he lacks opposable thumbs), so any "fixing" he will do will amount to banging, clanging, and back clapping.

We amount to a glow worm on Antares. we are nothing.

Originally posted by Locus Iste
reply to post by pityocamptes

 

Vulcanoes releases are 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources. What is bigger we all see. Of course it can vary but huge eruptions would at first cause global cooling.

Why bother even measuring carbon emissions? It is a poor greenhouse gas. The real "money" is on methane.