Sass Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 Hmm, I would have to say that the folks here who decided that we (the USA) doesn't have to work toward the Kyoto Treaty need to have their brains blown out and flattened. I don't really care as much about what other countries think as I do about what the long term consequences are of not trying to restrict pollution. Global WarmingEnergy ConsumptionLand, Water, and Air pollution All are directly related to 20th century industrialism For this time, I am against USA policy. That is simply a mistake that doesn't just affect other nations, it affects mankind as we know it. I need to get more information about it.
MonteZuma Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 Hmm, I would have to say that the folks here who decided that we (the USA) doesn't have to work toward the Kyoto Treaty need to have their brains blown out and flattened.OMFG. I agree! The only developed countries that haven't ratified the agreement are the US and Australia. Imo, both countries have made terrible mistakes. The US is the biggest producer of greenhouse pollution, and Australia is the biggest per capita greenhouse polluter. You never know - If the Kyoto protocol is a success, the US and/or Australia might backtrack. The main opposition party in Australia (Labor) supports Kyoto. The Australia government says it will join when the US and China join. And I think the Democrats (US) are a little more friendly to the protocol than the Republicans. It may take a while, but there might eventually be unanimous support for the plan.
Aileron Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 Sigh... The problem with the Kyoto treaty is that member nations give economic strings to some international body. The name of the package says pollution controll, and that is a very pretty !@#$%^&*le, but Kyoto is really about economic controll. It would make every nation have to make their economy jump through hoops for yet another corrupt international body that will invariently be dominated by somebody. What if out of a combination of pity and benefit of doubt that North Korea was elected head of this thing? They would threaten to make the industrial emmissions requirement .0000001% for any nation that didn't give them a billion dollars per year and turn a blind eye to however many nukes they were making. What if two nations had invented two seperate devices that limited pollution, which one would be implimented? Why, the one whose nation had power in Kyoto and forced everyone else to buy their patron machinery. Imagine if Kyoto were in place during Operation Iraqi Freedom. If Europe ran the organization in charge of enforcing Kyoto, they could have and would have given the US tighter restrictions and severly hurt the US economy for a difference of opinion. If instead the US was the dominant force of Kyoto, we could have forced France to join the war by giving them tighter pollution controlls if they didn't. We have too many means of economic control as it is...we don't need another one.
MonteZuma Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 ...What if out of a combination of pity and benefit of doubt that North Korea was elected head of this thing? They would threaten to make the industrial emmissions requirement .0000001% for any nation that didn't give them a billion dollars per year and turn a blind eye to however many nukes they were making. What if two nations had invented two seperate devices that limited pollution, which one would be implimented? Why, the one whose nation had power in Kyoto and forced everyone else to buy their patron machinery....The doomsday scenarios that you have put forward can't happen. North Korea or any other country can't make or change any of the rules. The protocol requires that greenhouse emmissions be reduced. It doesn't specify how this should be done. Naturally governments and industry will try to do this in the most cost-effective way. If 2 countries invented devices that reduced pollution then that would be a success! The one with the cheapest and best invention would make a lot of money and the environment would be better off Kyoto isn't perfect, but it is all there is.
»SD>Big Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 The only developed countries that haven't ratified the agreement are the US and Australia.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> although Canada has agreed to Kyoto, we do not have any plans or programs in effect and won't until we decide on one! not too good either
Phyran Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 Hmm, I would have to say that the folks here who decided that we (the USA) doesn't have to work toward the Kyoto Treaty need to have their brains blown out and flattened. I don't really care as much about what other countries think as I do about what the long term consequences are of not trying to restrict pollution. Global WarmingEnergy ConsumptionLand, Water, and Air pollution All are directly related to 20th century industrialism For this time, I am against USA policy. That is simply a mistake that doesn't just affect other nations, it affects mankind as we know it. I need to get more information about it.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> i'm sick of what the political environmentalists are spouting about HUMANS causing global warming...the truth is that the majority of the global warming effect isn't caused by humans and they know it. As we all know Earth have cycles, and we rotate on an axis...in the human's point of view global warming is happening very fast but if u look at it from an astromical point of view we're still in the ICE Age and slowly coming out of it the EARTH is never in a STABLE environment and never will be, its like how ppl thought the Earth was flat kind of thing . The Earth has Heat and Ice Ages, our current position is the "late" Ice Age period of the cycle. How do we know this..?We knew that Dinosaurs lived (so theory said but regardless whether dinosaurs existed like some creationists believed) in a Heat Age - volcanic eruptions, warm environment, majority of them are cold-blooded like most birds. Until some !@#$%^&* from outerspace (meteor) hits the now gulf of mexico and killed almost everything off. Then heat Age turns to Ice Age and mammals like mammoths and sabretigers exist p!@#$%^&* 40-100 million years and we have our ancestors (in the "late" Ice Age period). Its been getting warmer since we existed...nothing will change that, and evidence shows that glaciers were once on long island (however what's weird is that they might come back again...). Oh and BTW the most common greenhouse gas is OXYGEN, thats right you !@#$%^&*es its the very air we breathe. We did however cause the pollution and the ozone layer crap though but we cannot take credit for global warming that much.
MonteZuma Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 i'm sick of what the political environmentalists are spouting about HUMANS causing global warming...the truth is that the majority of the global warming effect isn't caused by humans and they know it.It isn't just 'political environmentalists' saying this. There is near-unanimous agreement amongst climatologists and other scientists that the source of ^CO2 in the atmosphere is burnt fossil fuels, and that this is causing global climate change. The main area of uncertainty is the speed, the amount, and the direction of temperature change. It isn't difficult to add up CO2 emmissions in the same way we tally up our grocery bill. It has been firmly established that we are changing our atmosphere and that this is likely to affect sea temperatures and climate. As we all know Earth have cycles, and we rotate on an axis...in the human's point of view global warming is happening very fast but if u look at it from an astromical point of view we're still in the ICE Age and slowly coming out of it the EARTH is never in a STABLE environment and never will be, its like how ppl thought the Earth was flat kind of thing . The Earth has Heat and Ice Ages, our current position is the "late" Ice Age period of the cycle.No. We are in an interglacial period. In fact we are at the end of an interglacial period, and most scientists would expect us to be in a cooling phase. Interglacials normally last for 10,000 - 15,000 years. The last glaciation ended and the interglacial period began about 11,000 ago. We are overdue for cooling. In any case, over this 30,000 year or so glacial cycle, the typical temperature difference at the extreme ends is 4 to 6 degC. We have seen a 1degC rise in about 100 years. Climate forecasters predict somewhere between a 1degC and 5degC rise in temperature in the next 100 years. This is not natural. This is scary stuff. How do we know this..?We knew that Dinosaurs lived (so theory said but regardless whether dinosaurs existed like some creationists believed) in a Heat Age - volcanic eruptions, warm environment, majority of them are cold-blooded like most birds. Until some !@#$%^&* from outerspace (meteor) hits the now gulf of mexico and killed almost everything off. Then heat Age turns to Ice Age and mammals like mammoths and sabretigers exist p!@#$%^&* 40-100 million years and we have our ancestors (in the "late" Ice Age period). Its been getting warmer since we existed...nothing will change that, and evidence shows that glaciers were once on long island (however what's weird is that they might come back again...).The ice age that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs was an extreme event. It wasn't part of the regular cycle of warming and cooling that we are concerned with. Most people don't understand the distinction between a glaciation and an ice age, or they don't bother making the important distinction. There have been hundreds or thousands of glaciations since the extinction of the dinosours, and we still have cold blooded animals. Oh and BTW the most common greenhouse gas is OXYGEN, thats right you !@#$%^&*es its the very air we breathe.No it isn't. Water is a greenhouse gas, but the amount of water in the atmosphere is regulated by precipitation. There are no adverse warming effects. We did however cause the pollution and the ozone layer crap though but we cannot take credit for global warming that much.Unfortunately we can take credit for the lot.
Phyran Posted February 17, 2005 Report Posted February 17, 2005 i'm sick of what the political environmentalists are spouting about HUMANS causing global warming...the truth is that the majority of the global warming effect isn't caused by humans and they know it.It isn't just 'political environmentalists' saying this. There is near-unanimous agreement amongst climatologists and other scientists that the source of ^CO2 in the atmosphere is burnt fossil fuels, and that this is causing global climate change. The main area of uncertainty is the speed, the amount, and the direction of temperature change. It isn't difficult to add up CO2 emmissions in the same way we tally up our grocery bill. It has been firmly established that we are changing our atmosphere and that this is likely to affect sea temperatures and climate. As we all know Earth have cycles, and we rotate on an axis...in the human's point of view global warming is happening very fast but if u look at it from an astromical point of view we're still in the ICE Age and slowly coming out of it the EARTH is never in a STABLE environment and never will be, its like how ppl thought the Earth was flat kind of thing . The Earth has Heat and Ice Ages, our current position is the "late" Ice Age period of the cycle.No. We are in an interglacial period. In fact we are at the end of an interglacial period, and most scientists would expect us to be in a cooling phase. Interglacials normally last for 10,000 - 15,000 years. The last glaciation ended and the interglacial period began about 11,000 ago. We are overdue for cooling. In any case, over this 30,000 year or so glacial cycle, the typical temperature difference at the extreme ends is 4 to 6 degC. We have seen a 1degC rise in about 100 years. Climate forecasters predict somewhere between a 1degC and 5degC rise in temperature in the next 100 years. This is not natural. This is scary stuff. How do we know this..?We knew that Dinosaurs lived (so theory said but regardless whether dinosaurs existed like some creationists believed) in a Heat Age - volcanic eruptions, warm environment, majority of them are cold-blooded like most birds. Until some !@#$%^&* from outerspace (meteor) hits the now gulf of mexico and killed almost everything off. Then heat Age turns to Ice Age and mammals like mammoths and sabretigers exist p!@#$%^&* 40-100 million years and we have our ancestors (in the "late" Ice Age period). Its been getting warmer since we existed...nothing will change that, and evidence shows that glaciers were once on long island (however what's weird is that they might come back again...).The ice age that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs was an extreme event. It wasn't part of the regular cycle of warming and cooling that we are concerned with. Most people don't understand the distinction between a glaciation and an ice age, or they don't bother making the important distinction. There have been hundreds or thousands of glaciations since the extinction of the dinosours, and we still have cold blooded animals. Oh and BTW the most common greenhouse gas is OXYGEN, thats right you !@#$%^&*es its the very air we breathe.No it isn't. Water is a greenhouse gas, but the amount of water in the atmosphere is regulated by precipitation. There are no adverse warming effects. We did however cause the pollution and the ozone layer crap though but we cannot take credit for global warming that much.Unfortunately we can take credit for the lot.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> meh, i got pwned thats the end of that
Vile Requiem Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 I just took an enviromental class last semester. The largest reason the US cites, which I actually see some validity in, is that Class B countries such as China have no obligation to join Kyoto, only the Class A countries. Yet China is growing industrially by leaps and bounds, and by proxy their share of the pollution is too. Doesn't excuse us from trying to work out some kind of deal with China though.
MonteZuma Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 meh, i got pwned thats the end of thatLOL No you didn't. There are a lot of facts in what you have written, but I think some are slightly mixed up. I just waste more time investigating these things than most people. I'm sure there are quite a few holes in my arguments too. There is a lot of uncertainty about global warming and scientists get things wrong all the time (flat Earth for example). Anthropogenic global warming might never happen. But the balance of evidence and opinion at the moment says it will. And although the uncertainty is high, so are the risks, so my opinion on this is that we should be very cautious. The less we change the atmosphere, the less we are likely to change the climate. !@#$%^&* I feel bad
MonteZuma Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 I just took an enviromental class last semester. The largest reason the US cites, which I actually see some validity in, is that Class B countries such as China have no obligation to join Kyoto, only the Class A countries. Yet China is growing industrially by leaps and bounds, and by proxy their share of the pollution is too. Doesn't excuse us from trying to work out some kind of deal with China though.Yeah. I think the US and Australia both make valid arguments. Third world countries are a difficult problem. But although some have the biggest forecasted increases in CO2 emissions, their per capita emmissions are generally low. Kyoto should, if it doesn't already, have some mechanism for financial !@#$%^&*istance to 3rd world countries to develop environmentally friendly industry with low greenhouse emissions.
Dr Brain Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 Let us take the fact that oil is a fossil fuel for granted. It's probably not, but "there is near-unanimous agreement amongst climatologists and other scientists" that it is. Let us also take all the laws of physics and chemistry to be true as well. Especially the ones concerning the conservation of m!@#$%^&* and atoms. What does a fossil fuel mean? Well, it means that over the course of a very long time, energy was transformed from prehistoric muck to oil. How did that prehistoric muck get there? Well, marshes absorbed CO2 and other "dangerous" g!@#$%^&*es from the enviorment. By burning fossil fuel, we cannot create more CO2 than there was absorbed in prehistoric times. This is a fact derived from the two statements above. We cannot raise the temperature above what was in prehistoric times with only fossil fuels. Also, how to you explain the fact that it was hotter in midevil times than it is today? And don't give me global dimming bull !@#$%^&*. You guys are all spouting about how evolution is such a good thing, so wouldn't some extra heat be a good thing? Kill off some of those weaker species? First off, the evidence for global warming is very distorted. It's a political issue used by anti-capitalists. Oil is the fuel of the free market, and if they can take it away, they deal capitalism a huge blow. Second, there is no where near "near-unanimous agreement" on this issue. Far from it. Get out from behind your leftist wall and smell the fresh air once in a while. This is not an insult. This is a request. Third, the science that goes into most global warming research is questionable at best. The fact is that most scientists do not understand dynamic systems. Not that I can blame them for this, after all, if they did understand dynamic systems, they'd be making a !@#$%^&* of a lot of money in another field rather than wasting their time with something that's obviously stable. Most people don't look beyond the obvious. This is especially true when the obvious helps your political goals. Let us never forget that global warming is a political issue and not a scientific issue. There has been enough research to cast serious doubts on the whole thing, but no one ever hears about it, because it is a POLITICAL issue and there's no question as to where the mainstream media falls. That extreme event, the one that killed the dinosaurs. The one that put us into an ice age that we're just coming out of. Remeber that one? You said yourself it was an extreme event. You said yourself it was not normal. We're still not out of it. You'd have the earth STOP warming? S!@#$%^&*, Kyoto is a joke. Read up on what the ramifications are. Most 3rd world countries earn money by signing it. If global warming is a problem, then Kyoto will not fix it. It will only make the underdeveloped countries rich at "the enviorment's expense" (I don't think humans can harm the enviorment, but that makes the whole treaty useless).
Aileron Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 Don't get me wrong, I'd say the cause of reducing pollution worldwide is its own justification regardless. However, the prospect of creating yet another international body that isn't accountable to anybody literally scares me.
»Ducky Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 I don't think humans can harm the enviorment, but that makes the whole treaty uselessCouldn't have said it any better myself.
MonteZuma Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 Let us take the fact that oil is a fossil fuel for granted. It's probably not, but "there is near-unanimous agreement amongst climatologists and other scientists" that it is.If you think it isn't, and you can demonstrate that it might not be, then why take it for granted? Let us also take all the laws of physics and chemistry to be true as well. Especially the ones concerning the conservation of m!@#$%^&* and atoms. Until someone comes up with something better, why not? What does a fossil fuel mean? Well, it means that over the course of a very long time, energy was transformed from prehistoric muck to oil. How did that prehistoric muck get there? Well, marshes absorbed CO2 and other "dangerous" g!@#$%^&*es from the enviorment. The gases are only dangerous if they have unwanted effects. CO2 in and of itself is not dangerous. A change in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, due to anthropogenic factors, is dangerous. By burning fossil fuel, we cannot create more CO2 than there was absorbed in prehistoric times. This is a fact derived from the two statements above. We cannot raise the temperature above what was in prehistoric times with only fossil fuels. You don't seem to understand the carbon cycle. Those fossil fuels were taken out of the atmosphere over millions of years. They are being returned to the atmosphere thousands of times faster than they can be reabsorbed. And in any case, they can't be reabsorbed the way they were in, say the carboniferous era, because of deforestation. If I need to, I'll explain how the carbon cycle worked before we started burning fuels, and how it works now. But to put it simply, 'before' there was a balance. 'Now' there is an imbalance. In any case, it isn't temperature in and of itself that is a problem. The problem is change and in particular the speed of change. Also, how to you explain the fact that it was hotter in midevil times than it is today? And don't give me global dimming bull !@#$%^&*. The "medieval warming period" idea has been discounted. It was an idea put forward by one group of researchers that used a narrow and flawed set of data (you are doing the same). The 6 editors that approved the paper for publication resigned. You guys are all spouting about how evolution is such a good thing, so wouldn't some extra heat be a good thing? Kill off some of those weaker species? Species evolve over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. Not decades. First off, the evidence for global warming is very distorted. It's a political issue used by anti-capitalists. Oil is the fuel of the free market, and if they can take it away, they deal capitalism a huge blow Whacky conspiracy theory. Second, there is no where near "near-unanimous agreement" on this issue. Far from it. Get out from behind your leftist wall and smell the fresh air once in a while. This is not an insult. This is a request The only significant source of disagreement comes from industrialists that make money from burning oil and polluting the environment. People with no scientific credibility. Third, the science that goes into most global warming research is questionable at best. The fact is that most scientists do not understand dynamic systems. Not that I can blame them for this, after all, if they did understand dynamic systems, they'd be making a !@#$%^&* of a lot of money in another field rather than wasting their time with something that's obviously stable. I agree. The science is questionable and the system is relatively stable. The Earth will equilibrate. But at what cost? Let us never forget that global warming is a political issue and not a scientific issue. It is both. Obviously. That extreme event, the one that killed the dinosaurs. The one that put us into an ice age that we're just coming out of. BS. The earth recovered from that event (climatically), whatever it was, tens of millions of years ago. It was aberration. The last real ice age ended 250 million years ago. Before the dinosaurs. If you are talking about glaciations, it is absolutely incorrect to state that we are just coming out of that "ice age". The last one ended 11,000 years ago. Remeber that one? You said yourself it was an extreme event. You said yourself it was not normal. We're still not out of it. You'd have the earth STOP warming? We are out of it. What I would have us do is stop changing the composition of the atmosphere. S!@#$%^&*, Kyoto is a joke. Read up on what the ramifications are. Most 3rd world countries earn money by signing it. If global warming is a problem, then Kyoto will not fix it. It will only make the underdeveloped countries rich at "the enviorment's expense" Heh. What makes you think that Kyoto could possibly be bad for the environment? Please explain. (I don't think humans can harm the enviorment, but that makes the whole treaty useless). Of course people can. Look up pollution in the dictionary.
MonteZuma Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 I think I outdid myself with the length of that post, and the number of quotes. I'm so proud :-p On a less serious note: Top Reasons the Dinosaurs became Extinct 1.They all died.2. They couldn't make rice.3. They just all couldn't get along.4. No caffeine or sugar.5. Didn't know how to say "SEGA!"6. Didn't have Air conditioning for those hot and humid days.7. Couldn't find their MTV.8. The earth said, " pull my finger."9. Didn't have sun tan lotion.10.They were abducted by aliens.11. The females were cold blooded.12. Those !@#$%^&* tar pits.13. Decided to look for the wizard of Oz to get a bigger brain.14. Were killed off secretly by the C.I.A.15. Because their lack of a mutigenic gene and the change in environment . They were forced into extinction by the fact that they could not adapt to the harsh changes brought to their environment.
Dr Brain Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 You don't seem to understand the carbon cycle. Those fossil fuels were taken out of the atmosphere over millions of years. They are being returned to the atmosphere thousands of times faster than they can be reabsorbed. And in any case, they can't be reabsorbed the way they were in, say the carboniferous era, because of deforestation. If I need to, I'll explain how the carbon cycle worked before we started burning fuels, and how it works now. But to put it simply, 'before' there was a balance. 'Now' there is an imbalance. In any case, it isn't temperature in and of itself that is a problem. The problem is change and in particular the speed of change. And all that carbon in the atmosphere just magically appeared there for it to absorb? As long as the speed of change is spread out over many years, nothing especially bad will happen (Don't take this as an admission that we're changing the earth, we're not). The "medieval warming period" idea has been discounted. It was an idea put forward by one group of researchers that used a narrow and flawed set of data (you are doing the same). The 6 editors that approved the paper for publication resigned. Uh huh. The whole global warming idea has been discounted. Species evolve over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. Not decades. Incorrect. Whacky conspiracy theory. Sure it is. The only significant source of disagreement comes from industrialists that make money from burning oil and polluting the environment. People with no scientific credibility. Wrong. I agree. The science is questionable and the system is relatively stable. The Earth will equilibrate. But at what cost? So you say that the science is questionable and ask what the ramifications are in the same breath? That's like Rather saying the do!@#$%^&*ents were forged but we should look into the questions anyway. It is both. Obviously. No, it's not. BS. The earth recovered from that event (climatically), whatever it was, tens of millions of years ago. It was aberration. The last real ice age ended 250 million years ago. Before the dinosaurs. If you are talking about glaciations, it is absolutely incorrect to state that we are just coming out of that "ice age". It ended 11,000 years ago. Did it now? Heh. What makes you think that Kyoto could possibly be bad for the environment? Please explain. I didn't say it would be bad for the enviorment. I said it wouldn't help. It lets developing countries with more polluting rights sell some of their unused pollution to countries that need more. It means we pollute as much as we do today, and the 3rd worlds get rich off of making the enviorment just as bad as it is now (again, !@#$%^&*uming there is a problem). Of course people can. Look up pollution in the dictionary. Look up nuclear fission.
»SD>Big Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 New proof that man has caused global warmingFrom Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html
Phyran Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 You don't seem to understand the carbon cycle. Those fossil fuels were taken out of the atmosphere over millions of years. They are being returned to the atmosphere thousands of times faster than they can be reabsorbed. And in any case, they can't be reabsorbed the way they were in, say the carboniferous era, because of deforestation. If I need to, I'll explain how the carbon cycle worked before we started burning fuels, and how it works now. But to put it simply, 'before' there was a balance. 'Now' there is an imbalance. In any case, it isn't temperature in and of itself that is a problem. The problem is change and in particular the speed of change. And all that carbon in the atmosphere just magically appeared there for it to absorb? As long as the speed of change is spread out over many years, nothing especially bad will happen (Don't take this as an admission that we're changing the earth, we're not). The "medieval warming period" idea has been discounted. It was an idea put forward by one group of researchers that used a narrow and flawed set of data (you are doing the same). The 6 editors that approved the paper for publication resigned. Uh huh. The whole global warming idea has been discounted. Species evolve over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. Not decades. Incorrect. Whacky conspiracy theory. Sure it is. The only significant source of disagreement comes from industrialists that make money from burning oil and polluting the environment. People with no scientific credibility. Wrong. I agree. The science is questionable and the system is relatively stable. The Earth will equilibrate. But at what cost? So you say that the science is questionable and ask what the ramifications are in the same breath? That's like Rather saying the do!@#$%^&*ents were forged but we should look into the questions anyway. It is both. Obviously. No, it's not. BS. The earth recovered from that event (climatically), whatever it was, tens of millions of years ago. It was aberration. The last real ice age ended 250 million years ago. Before the dinosaurs. If you are talking about glaciations, it is absolutely incorrect to state that we are just coming out of that "ice age". It ended 11,000 years ago. Did it now? Heh. What makes you think that Kyoto could possibly be bad for the environment? Please explain. I didn't say it would be bad for the enviorment. I said it wouldn't help. It lets developing countries with more polluting rights sell some of their unused pollution to countries that need more. It means we pollute as much as we do today, and the 3rd worlds get rich off of making the enviorment just as bad as it is now (again, !@#$%^&*uming there is a problem). Of course people can. Look up pollution in the dictionary. Look up nuclear fission.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> evolution...you can see rapid changes due to mutations by experiments done on fruit flies within weeks or months but I believe Mont was referring to humans which would take hundreds and thousands of years which would probably be correct. Besides 70% of our geno sequence is related to carrots (correct me if im wrong) and 98% to chimps
Dr Brain Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 evolution...you can see rapid changes due to mutations by experiments done on fruit flies within weeks or months but I believe Mont was referring to humans which would take hundreds and thousands of years which would probably be correct. Besides 70% of our geno sequence is related to carrots (correct me if im wrong) and 98% to chimps One to five degrees in 100 years? I think we humans can handle that even as we are now. No evolution required. Evolution works as fast as it needs to.
»Ducky Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 Hmm.. Lack of working quotes on the posts is difficult to deal with.Somehow I got through reading it though Of course people can. Look up pollution in the dictionary.When it comes down to it, I just don't see the environment collapsing so quickly.The earth will renew itself in time, and if it causes human extinction; so be it.Call me ignorant *shrug* This is one of those "It won't bloody happen in my lifetime" deals.It's sad we have the ability to kill ourselves, put since I honestly believe we are a product of pure evolution (Without the oversight of a creator) It's something that happens.
MasterDrake Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 ok I'm not understanding how they are saying that the if the ice caps melt that the oceans will flood. Is it just me or last time I checked it was ice that had more density compared to water therefore they would ethier stay the same or fall a bit. Like ice in a cup the water rises when you add a piece
Vile Requiem Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 ok I'm not understanding how they are saying that the if the ice caps melt that the oceans will flood. Is it just me or last time I checked it was ice that had more density compared to water therefore they would ethier stay the same or fall a bit. Like ice in a cup the water rises when you add a piece <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't care, I don't live in Palm Beach.Akai's a gonner though
Sass Posted February 18, 2005 Author Report Posted February 18, 2005 ok I'm not understanding how they are saying that the if the ice caps melt that the oceans will flood. Is it just me or last time I checked it was ice that had more density compared to water therefore they would ethier stay the same or fall a bit. Like ice in a cup the water rises when you add a piece <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because the glaciers are below AND above sea level. Put the whole glacier in the water like your 'ice-cube' and see what happens. Next topic for those who wish to assume that we need no prevention of pollution nor worries....landfills.
Recommended Posts