Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The True Adonis on January 21, 2010, 01:57:13 PM
-
-
Oh no ::) lets see in about 1860 temps started really getting recorded and loggged so we have been tracking for what 150 years? Thats not even the blink of an eye in the history of man let alone the world which is what 4.5 Billion years old.
It must be abnormal, because we have so much to base it against ::)
-
Oh no ::) lets see in about 1860 temps started really getting recorded and loggged so we have been tracking for what 150 years? Thats not even the blink of an eye in the history of man let alone the world which is what 4.5 Billion years old.
It must be abnormal, because we have so much to base it against ::)
Do you really think temperature data is only discernible from 1860 and that is the starting date? You aren`t that ignorant are you?
-
lol
-
Great article by Bill Gates about how this can be reduced.
People often present two timeframes that we should have as goals for CO2 reduction -- 30% (off of some baseline) by 2025 and 80% by 2050.
I believe the key one to achieve is 80% by 2050.
But we tend to focus on the first one since it is much more concrete.
We don't distinguish properly between things that put you on a path to making the 80% goal by 2050 and things that don't really help.
To make the 80% goal by 2050 we are going to have to reduce emissions from transportation and electrical production in participating countries down to zero.
You will still have emissions from other activities including domestic animals, making fertilizer, and decay processes.
There will still be countries that are too poor to participate.
If the goal is to get the transportation and electrical sectors down to zero emissions you clearly need innovation that leads to entirely new approaches to generating power.
Should society spend a lot of time trying to insulate houses and telling people to turn off lights or should it spend time on accelerating innovation?
If addressing climate change only requires us to get to the 2025 goal, then efficiency would be the key thing.
But you can never insulate your way to anything close to zero no matter what advocates of resource efficiency say. You can never reduce consumerism to anything close to zero.
Because 2025 is too soon for innovation to be completed and widely deployed, behavior change still matters.
Still, the amount of CO2 avoided by these kinds of modest reduction efforts will not be the key to what happens with climate change in the long run.
In fact it is doubtful that any such efforts in the rich countries will even offset the increase coming from richer lifestyles in places like China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, etc.
Innovation in transportation and electricity will be the key factor.
One of the reasons I bring this up is that I hear a lot of climate change experts focus totally on 2025 or talk about how great it is that there is so much low hanging fruit that will make a difference.
This mostly focuses on saving a little bit of energy, which by itself is simply not enough. The need to get to zero emissions in key sectors almost never gets mentioned. The danger is people will think they just need to do a little bit and things will be fine.
If CO2 reduction is important, we need to make it clear to people what really matters -- getting to zero.
With that kind of clarity, people will understand the need to get to zero and begin to grasp the scope and scale of innovation that is needed.
However all the talk about renewable portfolios, efficiency, and cap and trade tends to obscure the specific things that need to be done.
To achieve the kinds of innovations that will be required I think a distributed system of R&D with economic rewards for innovators and strong government encouragement is the key. There just isn't enough work going on today to get us to where we need to go.
The world is distracted from what counts on this issue in a big way.
-
Do you really think temperature data is only discernible from 1860 and that is the starting date? You aren`t that ignorant are you?
Doesn't the title say hotest year recorded? Not guestimated because no one recorded the temperature, you aren't that ignorant are you?
Ah thats right your one of those bat-shit crazy econ-fucktards.
-
Doesn't the title say hotest year recorded? Not guestimated because no one recorded the temperature, you aren't that ignorant are you?
Ah thats right your one of those bat-shit crazy econ-fucktards.
No. Thats not what the title says.
-
No. Thats not what the title says.
2009 Tied for SECOND HOTTEST YEAR Ever RECORDED- NASA video
To tell you the truth I'm about sick of you envro-freaks and your alarmist bullshit based on blink of any eye recordings and fixed data. You must have money invested in carbon credits or your just a useful idiot.
Either way do your part and stop breathing, if all you assclowns did that the CO2 would drop 75%
-
Hey Kazan, serious question. For the 1st time ever, I'm probably voting republican for the next presidential election. The simple reason? I'm tired of being able to keep only $33 of every $100 I earn. This redistribution of wealth is a bunch of BS.
Is there a republican candidate that is pro environment, pro immigration, pro choice and pro gay marriage (no homo)? If so, he/she has my vote...
-
2009 Tied for SECOND HOTTEST YEAR Ever RECORDED- NASA video
To tell you the truth I'm about sick of you envro-freaks and your alarmist bullshit based on blink of any eye recordings and fixed data. You must have money invested in carbon credits or your just a useful idiot.
Either way do your part and stop breathing, if all you assclowns did that the CO2 would drop 75%
lol
-
Hey Kazan, serious question. For the 1st time ever, I'm probably voting republican for the next presidential election. The simple reason? I'm tired of being able to keep only $33 of every $100 I earn. This redistribution of wealth is a bunch of BS.
Is there a republican candidate that is pro environment, pro immigration, pro choice and pro gay marriage (no homo)? If so, he/she has my vote...
Not that I am aware of, you are not going to find any candidate that meets all the criteria.
-
Is there a republican candidate that is pro environment, pro immigration
If you mean pro illegal immigration than yes, there is... Every single on of them... :-\
-
If you mean pro illegal immigration than yes, there is... Every single on of them... :-\
Juan McCain might run again.
-
Juan McCain might run again.
lol
-
Hey Kazan, serious question. For the 1st time ever, I'm probably voting republican for the next presidential election. The simple reason? I'm tired of being able to keep only $33 of every $100 I earn. This redistribution of wealth is a bunch of BS.
Is there a republican candidate that is pro environment, pro immigration, pro choice and pro gay marriage (no homo)? If so, he/she has my vote...
From the last election, Rudy Giuliani is probably the closest fit to your above description.
“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” - Winston Churchill
-
I've never had a heart.
McCain for prez ( assuming he lives that long) in 2012 with anyone except Palin as his running mate.
-
I've never had a heart.
McCain for prez ( assuming he lives that long) in 2012 with anyone except Palin as his running mate.
You think McCain would have been any different than Obama? ???
-
Yes. Very much so.
-
Yes. Very much so.
We would not have KSM trial at 60 Centre Street and effectively shutting down lower manhattan and putting people of out of business. That is for sure.
-
Lobbyists would have taken a beating. None of this climate change agenda bullshit. None of this healthcare debacle. No government take over of the auto industry. 180 degree difference in foreign policy. Tax cuts and a reduction in government spending. No circus trial in manhattan as 333 mentioned.
McCain is not a staunch conservative, he's independent-- and that's why I like him and would vote for him again.
The stuff I mentioned above is only a small sample. He would make common sense based decisions to help the country instead of trying to push forward a massive partisan agenda.
-
From the last election, Rudy Giuliani is probably the closest fit to your above description.
“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” - Winston Churchill
Guess what,
Winston Churchill NEVER EVER EVER said that.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/myths/myths/quotes-falsely-attributed-to-him
"Conservative by the time you're 35"
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"
-
Guess what,
Winston Churchill NEVER EVER EVER said that.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/myths/myths/quotes-falsely-attributed-to-him
"Conservative by the time you're 35"
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"
Whether he said it or not, its the damn truth.
Liberalism is the ideology of children and those who refuse to grow up.
-
Whether he said it or not, its the damn truth.
Liberalism is the ideology of children and those who refuse to grow up.
Winston Churchill would disagree.
-
So would Mao.
-
Hey Kazan, serious question. For the 1st time ever, I'm probably voting republican for the next presidential election. The simple reason? I'm tired of being able to keep only $33 of every $100 I earn. This redistribution of wealth is a bunch of BS.
Is there a republican candidate that is pro environment, pro immigration, pro choice and pro gay marriage (no homo)? If so, he/she has my vote...
What makes you think any republican is anti-environment? You think republicans want dirty water, dirty air and the forest to turn to deserts? And there isn't a republican I know that is against legal immigration.
If by pro choice you mean Roe vs Wade the issue was not abortion per se but who is to decide. Abortion was already legal in some states at the time including California and Hawaii. It's a matter of State rights and not the Federal government deciding these issues. And who is against gay marriage? Gay people have the exact same rights as hetros to marry. As Arnold once said, "I support gay marriage as long as it's between a man and a woman." Now if you want to redefine marriage -- that's another question entirely. Would you support polygamy? How about a brother and sister getting married? How long before people start to marry their pets? Don't laugh:
www.marryyourpet.com
-
8)
-
8)
In 4 Billion years TA?
-
In 4 Billion years TA?
I really hope you aren`t serious or really that stupid. :-\
That makes no sense. The planet was uninhabitable for any form of life whatsoever 4 billion years ago. We are concerning life right now as we know it and the large population numbers of Humans. We simply have too many humans and the result of rising water levels is a massive influx of refugees, millions and millions, moving more and more inland which then puts intense strain on resources where there once wwas no strain. This will effect every single country economically as global crisis always do.
The human population trend is only growing upwards according to global birth rates so the disaster will be more and more devastating as carrying capacities in areas are reached and exceeded. Due to the population trend not changing the only mitigating thing we can do is reduce Carbon levels in the atmosphere which would prevent or lessen any such disaster.
Global Warming would not be much of a problem, at least for human lives and Global resources that humans consume, if there wasn`t such a large population of humans. OF course this is turning a blind eye to ecosystems, (which would eventually affect humans in some form) of many other wildlife which of course would be affected.
The planet will be just fine and it will be just fine without us so your argument is just ignorant(wanting to measure temperature billions of years ago). Evolution and Natural Selection are indifferent to humans just as it is indifferent to all life forms. The planet will exist fine with zero humans on it and it will exist fine until the sun explodes and there is no longer any trace that any of this was even here.
-
I really hope you aren`t serious or really that stupid. :-\
That makes no sense. The planet was uninhabitable for any form of life whatsoever 4 billion years ago. We are concerning life right now as we know it and the large population numbers of Humans. We simply have too many humans and the result of rising water levels is a massive influx of refugees, millions and millions, moving more and more inland which then puts intense strain on resources where there once wwas no strain. This will effect every single country economically as global crisis always do.
The human population trend is only growing upwards according to global birth rates so the disaster will be more and more devastating as carrying capacities in areas are reached and exceeded. Due to the population trend not changing the only mitigating thing we can do is reduce Carbon levels in the atmosphere which would prevent or lessen any such disaster.
Global Warming would not be much of a problem, at least for human lives and Global resources that humans consume, if there wasn`t such a large population of humans. OF course this is turning a blind eye to ecosystems of many other wildlife which of course would be affected.
The planet will be just fine and it will be just fine without us so your argument is just ignorant(wanting to measure temperature billions of years ago). Evolution and Natural Selection are indifferent to humans just as it is indifferent to all life forms. The planet will exist fine with zero humans on it and it will exist fine until the sun explodes and there is no longer any trace that any of this was even here.
________________________ ______
So get us off to a good start in healing the planet and go kill yourself.
-
______________________________
So get us off to a good start in healing the planet and go kill yourself.
That wouldn`t mitigate the upward trend of an expanding population whatsoever. Seriously, in time we WILL strain our resources to a level which is unsustainable. Every moron thinks they should have children not to mention Africans and Indians and Chinese breeding like houseflies. There will come a time when there is not enough food, energy and other resources to sustain the world`s population.
Imagine the United States with 100 or 200 million more people than it has now. Do you think the United States economy can sustain that ype of increase?
-
NASA stats ::)