- Status
[citation][nom]fuzznarf[/nom]Seriously?!!? You are still believing the CO2 lies? It has been shown that the global temperature is DECREASING!! and has been for the past DECADE!![/citation]
Didn't read any farther than this. You're either a troll or idiot.
In the case you're just an idiot, would you care to explain how exactly the arctic sea ice melted entirely for the first time in recorded history last year? Or how the global temperature is decreasing when every study produced says exactly the opposite? Or how the oceans are acidifying at the greatest rate the planet is ever seen? Or why huge patches of the ocean are now devoid of life? Or why the sea levels are the highest they've been in recorded history, completely inundating several low lying islands that used to have people on them until climate change rendered them uninhabitable? Or why most of the glaciers on the planet are receeding at the highest rate in recorded history (the one on top of Kilimanjaro is expected to be totally gone in about 12 years at the rate it's going, it's been there since the last ice age and was stable until the industrial revolution). Or the pattern of record shattering extreme weather we've had as the climate becomes less stable (a single storm last year produced 5 EF-5 tornadoes, while the average is one per year)?
You start there, when you finish I'll give you more you'll need to refute to even begin to have a coherent argument against climate change. The amount of evidence in favor of global warming is absolutely staggering. Deniers are either idiots, trolls, stand to profit from dirty industry or have been bribed by those who stand to profit.
An overwhelming majority of scientists across the planet (around 99% of them) agree that not only is global warming happening, but far and away the most likely cause is CO2 emissions from humans. You think you're smarter than 99% of the scientists on the planet?
But I guess you don't need scientists when the local weather man can say "Nuh uh!" and pretend he's a climatologist, and the politicians can use cherry picked 20 year old data based on biased studies occasionally using outright falsified data.
Didn't read any farther than this. You're either a troll or idiot.
In the case you're just an idiot, would you care to explain how exactly the arctic sea ice melted entirely for the first time in recorded history last year? Or how the global temperature is decreasing when every study produced says exactly the opposite? Or how the oceans are acidifying at the greatest rate the planet is ever seen? Or why huge patches of the ocean are now devoid of life? Or why the sea levels are the highest they've been in recorded history, completely inundating several low lying islands that used to have people on them until climate change rendered them uninhabitable? Or why most of the glaciers on the planet are receeding at the highest rate in recorded history (the one on top of Kilimanjaro is expected to be totally gone in about 12 years at the rate it's going, it's been there since the last ice age and was stable until the industrial revolution). Or the pattern of record shattering extreme weather we've had as the climate becomes less stable (a single storm last year produced 5 EF-5 tornadoes, while the average is one per year)?
You start there, when you finish I'll give you more you'll need to refute to even begin to have a coherent argument against climate change. The amount of evidence in favor of global warming is absolutely staggering. Deniers are either idiots, trolls, stand to profit from dirty industry or have been bribed by those who stand to profit.
An overwhelming majority of scientists across the planet (around 99% of them) agree that not only is global warming happening, but far and away the most likely cause is CO2 emissions from humans. You think you're smarter than 99% of the scientists on the planet?
But I guess you don't need scientists when the local weather man can say "Nuh uh!" and pretend he's a climatologist, and the politicians can use cherry picked 20 year old data based on biased studies occasionally using outright falsified data.
What an annoying ad, and I'm not a very good fan of Facebook. Also, this gets tricky. Companies want to build servers where they can run cheaply and near large Internet pipes. I wouldn't blame it entirely on the companies. Yes, they do have loads of cash, but companies can't just go around funding every little pet project.
I'm also not too keen of Greenpeace, even though I like renewable energy
I'm also not too keen of Greenpeace, even though I like renewable energy
Stardude82
Distinguished
- Apr 7, 2006
- 89
- 1
- 18,585
[citation][nom]Le Guy[/nom]"oesn't matter how much energy we save or green we go as Americans are addicted to coal and wont admit that they are as much of a problem as China is.[/citation]
US CO2 emissions have been declining over the last few years and China has produced more CO2 emissions than the US for a few years now. Besides, we consume more petroleum and natural gas than coal.
US CO2 emissions have been declining over the last few years and China has produced more CO2 emissions than the US for a few years now. Besides, we consume more petroleum and natural gas than coal.
[citation][nom]fuzznarf[/nom]Meanwhile China is putting a new coal plant online every day, WITHOUT and sort of clean air technology. We could stop ALL emissions in North America and one year from today would still have more pollution worldwide thanks to China alone. Perhaps Greenpeace should STFU about Apple, or any other company and focus on the real polluters.[/citation]
Every day?
I thought they were going online -one- every two weeks
Every day?
I thought they were going online -one- every two weeks
[citation][nom]stardude82[/nom]US CO2 emissions have been declining over the last few years and China has produced more CO2 emissions than the US for a few years now. Besides, we consume more petroleum and natural gas than coal.[/citation]
Yep. By far the biggest problems are China and Africa, where industrial development is happening for the first time with severely strained budgets. Coal is the cheapest you can get electricity, even if it's the dirtiest, so they build pretty much exclusively coal plants.
Most of the world that has already industrialized have been seeing CO2 emissions decline slightly under the Kyoto Protocol, while China and other developing nations have been increasing rapidly.
Yep. By far the biggest problems are China and Africa, where industrial development is happening for the first time with severely strained budgets. Coal is the cheapest you can get electricity, even if it's the dirtiest, so they build pretty much exclusively coal plants.
Most of the world that has already industrialized have been seeing CO2 emissions decline slightly under the Kyoto Protocol, while China and other developing nations have been increasing rapidly.
elbert
Distinguished
- Jan 11, 2005
- 341
- 0
- 19,260
Greenpeace is promoting 19th century gas powered electric. After seeing the gulf spill I wouldn't suggest gas power. Greenpeace needs to realize solar power isn't abandonment enough even today none less the 19th century versions. Greenpeace should focus on any development that requires paving over ground which trees cant grow. IE new roads and encourage government to make a passenger train system to reduce airplane, runways, roads, and petroleum produces in their creations and use.
Coal in many respects is the cleanest abundant natural resource we have. Currently fighting this fact only leads to higher power bills and the burning of coal and wood in homes were it is much less efficient and clean. Many scientists claim global warming but fail to point out the earth was much hotter when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. Scientists fail to point out past volcanic activity can dwarf any man made CO2 emissions. Scientists fail to point out 93% of all scientific theory is proven false. Work for cleaner air as this is something we all want but if you don't like what creates the electric don't use it. This is what you can do to reduce CO2 emissions.
Coal in many respects is the cleanest abundant natural resource we have. Currently fighting this fact only leads to higher power bills and the burning of coal and wood in homes were it is much less efficient and clean. Many scientists claim global warming but fail to point out the earth was much hotter when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. Scientists fail to point out past volcanic activity can dwarf any man made CO2 emissions. Scientists fail to point out 93% of all scientific theory is proven false. Work for cleaner air as this is something we all want but if you don't like what creates the electric don't use it. This is what you can do to reduce CO2 emissions.
[citation][nom]tomaz99[/nom]Every day?I thought they were going online -one- every two weeks[/citation]
In 2006 they put 321 plants online.
in 2008 they were averaging 2 per week according to wired.com.
all of these were without emissions controls. their first clean technology plant was put online in June 2009.
Best estimates are that China alone will produce more pollution in 2030 than the rest of the world combined.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/images/coal-fired-build-rate-china-US.png
In 2006 they put 321 plants online.
in 2008 they were averaging 2 per week according to wired.com.
all of these were without emissions controls. their first clean technology plant was put online in June 2009.
Best estimates are that China alone will produce more pollution in 2030 than the rest of the world combined.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/images/coal-fired-build-rate-china-US.png
[citation][nom]willard[/nom]Deniers are either idiots, trolls, stand to profit from dirty industry or have been bribed by those who stand to profit. An overwhelming majority of scientists across the planet (around 99% of them) agree that not only is global warming happening, but far and away the most likely cause is CO2 emissions from humans. You think you're smarter than 99% of the scientists on the planet?But I guess you don't need scientists when the local weather man can say "Nuh uh!" and pretend he's a climatologist, and the politicians can use cherry picked 20 year old data based on biased studies occasionally using outright falsified data.[/citation]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/NOAAsourcebutnotofficialsunclimate_3b.gif
List of scientists who question your global warming religion - http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/21978.pdf
The fact is that you are the one duped by the greenies. The solution is always more money.. Polticians like Al gore want to sell carbon credits. People like Greenpeace want more donations to 'save the planet', and useful idiots like you spout anecdotal evidence about polar ice melting for the first time ever in history (it never happened. They even refuted it as a hoax), and tornados and hurricanes. So talk about reasonable discussions all you want, you will never participate in one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/NOAAsourcebutnotofficialsunclimate_3b.gif
List of scientists who question your global warming religion - http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/21978.pdf
The fact is that you are the one duped by the greenies. The solution is always more money.. Polticians like Al gore want to sell carbon credits. People like Greenpeace want more donations to 'save the planet', and useful idiots like you spout anecdotal evidence about polar ice melting for the first time ever in history (it never happened. They even refuted it as a hoax), and tornados and hurricanes. So talk about reasonable discussions all you want, you will never participate in one.
wiyosaya
Distinguished
- Apr 12, 2006
- 396
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]isn't coal considered green energy?...from what i recall there are a lot of advertisements on tv showing the public that coal is green and efficient energy....greenpeace and all of those idiots can stick it where the energy from the coal does not shine[/citation]
Advertisements? You're joking, right? If not, then please do some research.
Most advertising is designed to part you from your money and present what is being advertised in the most positive manner possible - doing so usually entails hiding or covering up facts which would call into question what is being advertised. And there are a lot of questions when it comes to coal - especially "clean coal."
Advertisements? You're joking, right? If not, then please do some research.
Most advertising is designed to part you from your money and present what is being advertised in the most positive manner possible - doing so usually entails hiding or covering up facts which would call into question what is being advertised. And there are a lot of questions when it comes to coal - especially "clean coal."
wiyosaya
Distinguished
- Apr 12, 2006
- 396
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]fuzznarf[/nom]List of scientists who question your global warming religion - http://heartland.org/sites/all/mod [...] /21978.pdf[/citation]
A list by a right-wing tink tank is hardly unbiased information. The list of "scientists" you cite is vastly in the minority of scientists on the issue of global warming.
[citation][nom]fuzznarf[/nom]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ [...] al_warminghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe [...] ate_3b.gif[/citation]
The wikipedia link clearly states that it is neutrally disputed information.
And I suggest you examine more closely the graph in the second link. What that graph implies is that the surface temperature of the sun is likely correlated to sunspot activity. It in no way indicates a correlation to the surface temperature of the Earth. I suppose you were hoping no one would look at that graph? Or perhaps you are unskilled at interpreting scientific data?
II suppose other people have been telling you what thoughts are "right" all your life. I strongly suggest learning how to think for yourself.
A list by a right-wing tink tank is hardly unbiased information. The list of "scientists" you cite is vastly in the minority of scientists on the issue of global warming.
[citation][nom]fuzznarf[/nom]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ [...] al_warminghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe [...] ate_3b.gif[/citation]
The wikipedia link clearly states that it is neutrally disputed information.
And I suggest you examine more closely the graph in the second link. What that graph implies is that the surface temperature of the sun is likely correlated to sunspot activity. It in no way indicates a correlation to the surface temperature of the Earth. I suppose you were hoping no one would look at that graph? Or perhaps you are unskilled at interpreting scientific data?
II suppose other people have been telling you what thoughts are "right" all your life. I strongly suggest learning how to think for yourself.
shin0bi272
Distinguished
- Nov 20, 2007
- 271
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]dheadley[/nom]This is the same GreenPeace that singled out Apple NC data center and invented numbers that stated that it would use five times the power it would actually use last week? And that was 5x the total power it could ever possibly use without even taking into account that they are building the largest private Solar grid ever built to help power it and using fuel cells and lots of other technologies to lower it's actual grid impact? Since when does inventing information and/or outright lying to people make you a source that should be given any credit in the first place?[/citation]
You havent been watching the mainstream media for the past like 100 years, have you? "The truth is whatever you can convince someone else to believe" Remember Dan Rather? forging documents to make it seem like pres Bush didnt complete his flight hours? The media have been making up facts since there's been a media.
You havent been watching the mainstream media for the past like 100 years, have you? "The truth is whatever you can convince someone else to believe" Remember Dan Rather? forging documents to make it seem like pres Bush didnt complete his flight hours? The media have been making up facts since there's been a media.
back_by_demand
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 1,599
- 0
- 19,730
I'm no Apple fan, but, Greenpeace is fucking stupid
...
Apple does not use coal to power its data centres, it uses electricity, it buys that electricity from a power company
...
The power company uses coal to run its power station, surely Greenpeace should be devoting resources to push the power company to use alternative fuel sources, rather than trying to push its agenda by bandwagoning a big tech company name
...
Apple does not use coal to power its data centres, it uses electricity, it buys that electricity from a power company
...
The power company uses coal to run its power station, surely Greenpeace should be devoting resources to push the power company to use alternative fuel sources, rather than trying to push its agenda by bandwagoning a big tech company name
back_by_demand
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 1,599
- 0
- 19,730
[citation][nom]fuzznarf[/nom]Meanwhile China is putting a new coal plant online every day, WITHOUT and sort of clean air technology. We could stop ALL emissions in North America and one year from today would still have more pollution worldwide thanks to China alone. Perhaps Greenpeace should STFU about Apple, or any other company and focus on the real polluters.[/citation]
Actually China are pushing out Thorium LFTR tech at an frightening rate, within 20 years they will have the most efficient and clean power generation in the world and the USA will be stuck in the 1950's with Unranium PWR reactors and coal.
Actually China are pushing out Thorium LFTR tech at an frightening rate, within 20 years they will have the most efficient and clean power generation in the world and the USA will be stuck in the 1950's with Unranium PWR reactors and coal.
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]A list by a right-wing tink tank is hardly unbiased information. The list of "scientists" you cite is vastly in the minority of scientists on the issue of global warming.The wikipedia link clearly states that it is neutrally disputed information.[/citation]
The source of the list is irrelevant. It is the names on the list and the institutions that the scientists work at that is important.. But like all environmental alarmists, you dispute not the facts but the messenger. To scoff at such a large number of scientists proves you only want to end the debate by continually shouting about consensus. This list shows that there is NO CONSENSUS. Also, why would you expect to find a list of the scientists on a liberal site? They are the ones trying to end debate, shut up the opposition, and convince everyone there is consensus.
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]What that graph implies is that the surface temperature of the sun is likely correlated to sunspot activity. It in no way indicates a correlation to the surface temperature of the Earth.[/citation]
You're kidding right? So you are saying that the temperature of the sun has no correlation to the temperature of the Earth. Not to mention that the sun's climate has fluctuations just as the Earth's does. LOLOLOLOLOL....
The reality is that no matter how many climate-gates prove that the scientists lie, distort and destroy data, no matter how many times you see environmental alarmists selling nothing but 'freedom-from-guilt' carbon credits to line their own pockets, no matter how many anecdotal stories are debunked you will still believe in the CO2 lie. You won't even question it. It is your faith. The truth is that the verdict is still out on man-made global warming and there is certainly no consensus. You talk about people
The source of the list is irrelevant. It is the names on the list and the institutions that the scientists work at that is important.. But like all environmental alarmists, you dispute not the facts but the messenger. To scoff at such a large number of scientists proves you only want to end the debate by continually shouting about consensus. This list shows that there is NO CONSENSUS. Also, why would you expect to find a list of the scientists on a liberal site? They are the ones trying to end debate, shut up the opposition, and convince everyone there is consensus.
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]What that graph implies is that the surface temperature of the sun is likely correlated to sunspot activity. It in no way indicates a correlation to the surface temperature of the Earth.[/citation]
You're kidding right? So you are saying that the temperature of the sun has no correlation to the temperature of the Earth. Not to mention that the sun's climate has fluctuations just as the Earth's does. LOLOLOLOLOL....
The reality is that no matter how many climate-gates prove that the scientists lie, distort and destroy data, no matter how many times you see environmental alarmists selling nothing but 'freedom-from-guilt' carbon credits to line their own pockets, no matter how many anecdotal stories are debunked you will still believe in the CO2 lie. You won't even question it. It is your faith. The truth is that the verdict is still out on man-made global warming and there is certainly no consensus. You talk about people
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]I'm no Apple fan, but, Greenpeace is fucking stupid...Apple does not use coal to power its data centres, it uses electricity, it buys that electricity from a power company...The power company uses coal to run its power station, surely Greenpeace should be devoting resources to push the power company to use alternative fuel sources, rather than trying to push its agenda by bandwagoning a big tech company name[/citation]
There's no money in beating up the power company.. and the alarmists say those opposed to the CO2 mantra are the ones who are after money. haha
There's no money in beating up the power company.. and the alarmists say those opposed to the CO2 mantra are the ones who are after money. haha
wiyosaya
Distinguished
- Apr 12, 2006
- 396
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]fuzznarf[/nom]The source of the list is irrelevant. It is the names on the list and the institutions that the scientists work at that is important.. But like all environmental alarmists, you dispute not the facts but the messenger. To scoff at such a large number of scientists proves you only want to end the debate by continually shouting about consensus. This list shows that there is NO CONSENSUS. Also, why would you expect to find a list of the scientists on a liberal site? They are the ones trying to end debate, shut up the opposition, and convince everyone there is consensus.You're kidding right? So you are saying that the temperature of the sun has no correlation to the temperature of the Earth. Not to mention that the sun's climate has fluctuations just as the Earth's does. LOLOLOLOLOL.... The reality is that no matter how many climate-gates prove that the scientists lie, distort and destroy data, no matter how many times you see environmental alarmists selling nothing but 'freedom-from-guilt' carbon credits to line their own pockets, no matter how many anecdotal stories are debunked you will still believe in the CO2 lie. You won't even question it. It is your faith. The truth is that the verdict is still out on man-made global warming and there is certainly no consensus. You talk about people[/citation]
Dude, you clearly have no clue!
Dude, you clearly have no clue![citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]Dude, you clearly have no clue![/citation]
You're the one without a clue. CO2 is what mammals exhale. These people are trying to convince us that BREATHING is bad for the earth. It's like Christian guilt for original sin. People fall for it as you have.
You're the one without a clue. CO2 is what mammals exhale. These people are trying to convince us that BREATHING is bad for the earth. It's like Christian guilt for original sin. People fall for it as you have.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Old text messages not showing up on new android phone
- Started by Weathered95
- Replies: 30
-
Question Asus Tuff Fx507 not recognizing new WD_Black 4tb ssd in secondary m2 slot- Started by BelgradianSalsa
- Replies: 9
-
-
Discussion Undiagnosed Medical Condition regarding audio (Reversed directional audio when gaming)
- Started by Sharples65
- Replies: 3
-
-
Facebook
Twitter