Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & World News' started by N8 v2.0, Feb 27, 2008.
Please register to disable this ad.
Global warming is about long term trends. One heavy winter doesn't mean ****. Of course, you know that and are just trying to keep your "dumbest RM member" crown, I get it.
You Church of Man Made Global Warming zelots have much in common Scientologists ...
Statistically speaking to define a trend you need 7 measurements. Since the global temperature cycle takes a year it would really take 7 years to say there is global cooling. However warming has been measured for about the past 30. I wouldn't expect n8 to be able to think of anything on a long term basis.
Please re-post here:
Soooo... what do you make of this then?
What I make of it is you CAN'T FVCKING READ.
I just keeps getting better...
Actually, you just keep getting stupider apparently. Even with tutoring, you can't make it through this theory.
I'm no climatologist but again from a statistical standpoint you would have to either question the the measurements, Look for a cause (**** like that doesn't happen for no reason) or wait for more measurements.
Actually looking at the hadley center model that the article is based off of it is comparing the average temp in January 08 to the average temp in Jan 07. Comparing single month from year to year doesn't tell you much especially compared to the NASA model I posted that averages out temperature on a single and 5 year basis. Just looking at the chart if you averaged the temps on a year to year basis the drop is probably little more than .1 degrees and not significant unless more data continues the trend.
how's the polar ice cap doing?
Santa Claus say it's colder than a mother-in-law's kiss up there and thanks for asking!
hey N8 you dumbass, pretty much everyone with any sense has accepted global warming, the debate has since moved onto whether or not it is caused by humans.
and here is some good reading for you...
well a chunk of it the size of florida melted in two weeks back in september.
And I always ask...
Let's assume Global Warming doesn't exist... shouldn't we clean up the environment for OUR own good? Do you want your kids breathing poisons?
ps: n8 is a troll tool. No, don't take it as a compliment.
n8 and his ilk would poop in their own bathwater if it meant better stock prices. And that is what it really comes down to.
You can tell that article is complete biased garbage by this little gem.
If average global temps were 70 degrees we'd all be ****ed.
Watch Everything's Cool for an eye opener.
if it happened like a step-function, then yes. but that would take carpet bombing iran w/ nukes for a couple weeks.
you people see all the doom & gloom in global warming. what about really cool weather shows? they would expand like the dozen or so ESPN varieties. talking about the weather would become interesting again, & we'd all get to know each other better.
who the fack did that webpage? jib-jab?
Watch the movie, not to site.
most studies have shown that the temperatures are rising more quickly than many animals(especially fish) are able to adapt to the temp.
That is impossible because evolution is a myth, but so is global warming. It is a scam by scientists, except the ones working on missiles.
I like how "scientists" just all got together and decided to dream this sh*t up best. Like there is some big private science list serv that you only get the password to when you get issued a PHd... then you and all your scientist buddies work out plans to smash the american dream. Mwaaahahaha. Ethics be damned and all that. "Scientists" have a universal agenda to piss of conservatives.
Hop in my limo, we'll go get some panda steaks.
Neocons fear smart people and the logic they use.
the ones working on missiles must be smarter than, say, a rocket (unguided) scientist.
What is good enough for me is the following:
I was at PowerGen, the single largest tradeshow for the Power Generation industry, in December. The keynote speakers were:
Nikolas Akins, VP Operations for AEP (largest power company in the US)
Andy White, CEO of GE-Hitachi Nuclear
Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-founder of Greenpeace
Mark Stavoff, Exec. VP Operations for Entergy
ALL agreed that gobal warming is an issue and is at the very least contributed to by the millions of tons of carbon emissions from coal plants per year. (Incidentally, all agreed that nuclear power must play a role in the growth of base-load power, so if you disagree with that, wake-up.)
All coal fired plant operators are spending billions to install scrubbers and FGD systems to meet emissions regulations and limit carbon, sulphur and mercury emissions.
All of these companies and more are investing their own money in develping a way to sequester carbon and gassify coal to reduce emissions in a project called FutureGen.
So, in the end, is there really a need to debate if the companies in the US that are "to blame" are doing something about it anyway? The debate is over, everyone has moved past it. Perception, true or not, has become reality. whether it is good sense from these companies or the pressure on emissions from the gov't has facilitated this, it doesn't really matter because the changes are happening. GE Wind is shipping 60 wind turbines per week.
There's nothing to talk about anymore...wake up.
You can't just blame the companies. We as consumers always go for bigger over better/more efficient. People will pick the bigger home over the better insulated one. It is largely the consumer that wants cheap electricity but fights every power line because it makes a bad view. Recently Connecticut passed a law requiring all power lines to be buried to prevent ugly lines, it would cost billions if enforced. Good luck building a nuclear power plant anywhere, residents will fight and picket it no matter how safe the technology is.
I'm not blaming the companies.
These are the facts:
They are shooting down coal plants. No state want to allow more carbon emissions. Coal cannot and will not go away, though.
We continue to have increased power needs, $9 lightbulbs won't change that. We all have more TVs, computers, different devices that we are charging to use (cell phones, MP3s, etc).
Windmills are not a solution. They would need to be too numerous (people picket these things too) and always running to create any kind of base-load power. To do that we'll need to fill the great lakes and the oceans with windmills. Won't happen. They are good for peaking, though.
Hydro would be great, but those opportunties are very limited.
Gas and oil are as bad as coal and are limited in where they can exist.
So, do you think they will be more upset about a new nuke plant or rolling blackouts? People picketing a nuke plant are just ignorant anyway, they don't have a leg to stand on. Like it or not we are on the verge are a nuclear power boom.
I'm all for nuclear power as long as they build them near where rich people live as well as where poor people live.
It's not called Global Warming, it's called Climate Change! If you've read any of the actual science, the prediction is not only for the global average to get warmer over time, but also for more rapid and wild fluctuations of temperature and conditions across the globe. More or less rainfall, more or less snow and rain, generally for more chaotic and extreme conditions to emerge. Funny that the graph seems to show exactly that...
i know AEP's nick akins.
oh.. its mostly marketing & branding now.
i think every state in the US should be responsible for producing a minimum of 90% of the electrical power consumed in that state.
If a state's population wants lots of power then they will have to have power plants in their backyards.
That's a great idea.
It may not make economical sense though. A state like NY has a lot of power plants because of the Great Lakes and the hudson river. A large source of cooling water and major waterways to deliver fuel. Now neighboring Vermont doesn't have anything like that. Building a powerplant there doesn't make economic sense. Of course if Vermont gets all of it's power from NY state, NY state gets all of the jobs from the plant and the taxes from the revenue.
Rubbish.. VT could build small nuke plants if they wanted to.. or coal.
The could get them approved with much reduced governmental red tape which would greatly reduce the cost.
or feel free to substitute 'food' or 'gas'.
I can't believe I'm 'defending' n8...
Except that not every state can make all their food or gas. Small nuke plants can be done. At least it's one way to force people to think about their consumption. Better to start somewhere than not at all.