|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 3, 2009 5:26:16 GMT -5
Here in the US, some global warming supporters have a habit of taking an "us vs. them" approach to the issue: either you're behind global warming and initiatives to curb it 100% or you're completely against it. As a result, people who do tend to believe in global warming but express skepticism at the pundits or urge caution in rolling out initiatives are frequently regarded as no better than the people who deny that it exists. Since there's division within Christianity over the matter (some deny it, some support it, others simply want questions answered first), Christianity as a whole is regarded as opposing it. I personally believe that, whether we're causing it or not, it wouldn't hurt to cut down, just to be on the safe side. (Plus, I love my mother Earth! *hugs a tree*) Frankly, I could care less whether we're actually affecting GW or not Sorry, gotta point this out as I hear someone say this phrase this way, the wrong way, at least 3 out of 4 times I hear it.
To show that you don't absolutely do not care for somethin, that your "Give a fuck" meter is effectually on zero, you say you COULDN'T care less.
If you COULD care less, it means that you have an amount of caring, albeit a small one, within you. If you couldn't care less, there is no room to drop in the level of caring.
Pedantic, yes, I'm not usually a grammar nazi because I'm not that good at following or even knowing the rules, but this one always bugs me. [/pedantic rant --we should care for our planet ANYWAY, even if there isn't a horrible disaster about to unfold. My father, on the other hand, doesn't even take that view. He insists that the planet warming up now is no different from the other Warm Period/Ice Age cycles it's gone through. Never mind the trillions of tons of CO2 we're suddenly producing every year since the Industrial Revolution. Never mind that the planet is heating up faster than it ever has before. Nope, the earth's heated up naturally before, so global warming MUST be bunk. >.<
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 3, 2009 5:33:31 GMT -5
The whole problem is the fact that the US is not going to force power companies into the renewable energy avenue until the 11th hour. Too many people stand to lose money if the US gets off of its oil addiction. This has always, and will always, be the problem with a market system that is allowed to "regulate itself". Not quite. Power companies have been trying to make the move into alternative fuels and renewable energy sources for some time, but have constantly run into roadblocks. For example, "not-in-my-backyard" and green types frequently turn out to oppose wind turbine construction along the coasts on the basis that birds supposedly don't learn at first to go around them and so get chopped to shreds. So in those instances, it's a damned-if-you-do for the company as no matter what they do they'll be offending people. It also forces turbines to be constructed in the Midwest instead, where the infrastructure often isn't in place to effectively make use of them. Likewise, the government itself inadvertently killed the electric car. Initial reviews for GM's EV-1 were poor owing to the batteries not being quite powerful enough (the designers calculated power demand based on the raw weight of the vehicle and didn't factor in for passengers or cargo), and so pre-orders began to fall off. GM moved to scale back production accordingly while they worked out the issues, only for the battery producer to halt shipments as GM's proposed scale-backs went below the other company's break-even point. Government law requires auto manufacturers doing business in the US to supply parts for 10 years past the model year, and so w/o a new source of batteries GM couldn't meet the requirements; killing the EV-1 and recalling the vehicles on the road was their only option. Bull fucking shit. If the american govt was actually working towards clear air they wouldn't have done most of the shit they have done for many years now. This is really just too fucking stupid to go into great detail but between the FACTS of america causing most pollution, and not lifting a fucking finger to undo that very serious problem your post is complete and utter shit. As usual, many problems in america have been addressed and fixed in other countries, or at the very least, they don't have the problems that we do. Even making a fucking effort like treaties that signers promise to work to make less mess would be SOMETHING. America uses most of the oil used in the world, coupled with no desire to seriously limit emissions which basically tells the world "fuck you, we'll do whatever we want even if we are the biggest contributor to the GLOBAL problem that we are only now admitting actually fucking exists makes your stance that of an utter retard.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 3, 2009 5:36:24 GMT -5
Skyfire - how many fucking times have we asked you to cite your utter rubbish, so we can tell if it's your own idiocy or someone elses biased crap! 1/. The algorthims were not WRONG. 2/. The NASA did not make that graph, three climatologists/meteorologists/university professors wrote a paper that was peer reviewed and published in Nature. 2a/. NASA did however efffectively refute the work of the two guys who brought up the contraversy, pointing out the critical data that they ignored in order to make their claim - they only concentrated on one data set, not everything. Tree rings were only one minor piece of evidence the original authors looked at in order to calculate temperatures for this period. 3/. Statistically insignificant and isolated regional temperature anomalies don't mean jack shit. 4/. The 'contraversy' concerns a small segment of the methodology used to calculate temperatures for a period that occurred over 500 fucking years ago, not the 30's. We'd appreciate it if the villian of the week refrained from being Captain Dumbass for once! PLEASE! [Edit to add:] v V v And it wasn't from bloody last year, it was from 2005! Since then the NorthWest passage has opened up. Also, since you seem to have a thing with NASA, and the UN, so undoubtedly the WMO, UNFCCC, IPCC, etc, why don't you start with this page from NOOA. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.htmlSkyfire, before you add any more uncited, weaselly, erroneous, fictitious, fallacious, inflammatory misinformation, how about you cite your source for here, and address the claims in the website... Whoa, whoa!
Why should he change his posting styles just for YOU?After you've done that you can please explain why you posted something saying the companies would love to do what you've already decried in this thread and many others as being not cost effective. Why change horses midstream?Are you a professional troll or just a full time idiot? Can I have more than one answer?
|
|
|
Post by Death on Apr 3, 2009 7:02:22 GMT -5
So it is the governments fault GM tried to put out a crap car? GM was actually about to take the rare step of fixing their own screw-up when the battery company backed out of the deal: an upgraded version was in the works that would have corrected for the flaws of the production version. please don't talk about the car industry as if you have a clue
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 3, 2009 7:14:16 GMT -5
GM was actually about to take the rare step of fixing their own screw-up when the battery company backed out of the deal: an upgraded version was in the works that would have corrected for the flaws of the production version. please don't talk about the car industry as if you have a clue Sky, please don't talk about anything as if you have a clue unless you actually do. Your history here has amply shown this is yet to happen!
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 3, 2009 7:15:02 GMT -5
GM was actually about to take the rare step of fixing their own screw-up when the battery company backed out of the deal: an upgraded version was in the works that would have corrected for the flaws of the production version. Rare? How many recalls have there been in the past? GM should have made sure that their suppliers would be there when needed.
|
|