I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Sep 15th, 2003 03:40 PM

O71394658

Short article on effect of global warming and ice caps.

Sep 15th, 2003 12:42 PM

Pub Lover

Quote:

Originally Posted by Some Aussie Wanker

Next they will have their own prime minister.

Sep 15th, 2003 10:00 AM

mburbank

I say we blast Vinth into near orbit. Then there'd be two great big holes in the ozone layer.

Sep 15th, 2003 12:08 AM

AChimp

The melting of the ice caps would have serious implications for Earth's climate. For one, where would all that water go? The polar icecaps are over three MILES thick in some places. That's a huge shitload of water, and is bound to increase water levels substantially all around the world. It's not like they would melt and the water would just vanish because it's convenient.

Not to mention the fact that there is no arable land up North! There may be some here or there, but it's called tundra for a reason. In a lot of places, there's just a few inches of soil, and then you hit solid rock. Can't really grow much, unless we all start eating lichen.

EDIT: In which case, I might add, Canada would have the market cornered. We are the world's largest producer of mossy rocks.

Sep 14th, 2003 09:57 PM

kahljorn

Maybe the hole is there for a reason, like the Earth needs to take an occasional shit.

Sep 14th, 2003 09:24 PM

O71394658

Quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the concern is crop production, per se. Wasn't the issue that g.w. would raise crop lines, with the ultimate doomsday prediction being that our fly-over state crop resources would ultimately leave us for Canada....? Not certain, just speculating.

Yes, if the temperature rose dramatically, climate belts would shift. No big problem, really (even though I believe it wouldn't happen). The hundreds of millions of acres of tundra would simply become arable land, which would increase crop production. The United States would have to plant crops that were more suitable for a warmer climate, is all. Something like 60 miles per degree. The most pro-global warming-extremist scientists predict a 10 degree rise in Farenheit. What's that. 600 miles? :/

Most of America's climatologists work for the government or work in universities (which are predominantly liberal) I believe. I'll do my best to find the article, even though I didn't find it online before. :/

Regarding the "ozone hole", there's also mass speculation regarding the topic. Seemingly, when they first started monitoring ozone, the hole was already there. I'll provide links to necessary information tomorrow.

Sep 14th, 2003 09:19 PM

The One and Only...

Hey! Melting the ice caps could be the solution to the growing population problem! W00T!

...

I do think that global warming is blown out of proportion, especially since many scientist now believe we are due for an ice age. Not anytime soon, but within the next couple centuries or so.

Sep 14th, 2003 09:06 PM

CaptainBubba

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore

.....Right, but most global warming theorists acknowledge that our earth's history is one of fluctuating trends. Those scientists you call "stupid" comprise a large portion of the global scientific community. This community agrees that while heating trends have happened, this one is probably being sped up by our own practices..

So theres a large part of the global scientific community that things temp. doesn't fluctuate? I don't think thats what you meant to say but re-read my statement on what would be stupid to think. I'm pretty sure the concensus in the scientific community is that we're responsible for at best 1% of the heating/ozone deteriorating.

Quote:

So? The Rockefellers and the DuPonts invested in bullshit eugenic research, but some good stuff actually came out of that Malthusian madness. Your conspiracy theory about an international plot of greedy scientists seems to be a bit of a stretch, however. :/

Slander!

But no, seriously, how can the idea of people raising worry about an enviromental problem to get funding not be beleivable? If they (The scientific community) one day said, "Ok, global warmings not really a big deal and neither is the ozone layer. I guess we'll get back to studying trees", do you think they would still get the same amount of funding they currently do? They benifit by convincing people theres a problem. This can't be denied.

Quote:

The indicators of a warming problem might be the subject of this article, as well as the melting ice caps. I think the "freeze fear" you're mentioning has little to do with it. There are REAL substantive causes for alarm here....

The point of the global cooling statement was to illustrate how dead wrong the scientific community can be concerning the enviroment. Though the temperature in the last century rose about 2 degrees on average, the century before that it decreased 7. Thus we can conclude the only thing they could be basing their theories on is the maximums since overall the temperature has decreased in the last 2 centuries.

Unless we've had global warming for more than 2 centuries now.

Sep 14th, 2003 08:49 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by O71394658

Nothing would really happen if the ice caps melted. It's a crock of shit, that whole "Waterworld" the ice caps will melt garbage.

Water levels around the world would rise. This would alter costal grounds, create new ones, and poor New Orleans is hangin' in there for dear life as it is. Numbers mustn't like mardi gras.

Quote:

Seriously though, I'm not saying global warming doesn't exist, but it is greatly, greatly blown out of proportion. Many would argue that it doesn't exist. In fact, all of the pHd holding climatologists in the United States (I think there were only about 65 in the article I read several years ago) don't really believe in global warming, or believe it's not a big problem at all. Funny considering they know the most about it. :/ , don't ya think?

Funny how only American climatologists, many of them invested in by corporations who would oppose emission regulations, seem to be the only opinions that matter to you.

I however do agree that the issue has taken on more of a political nature than a scientific one, but this runs both ways. People like Rush Limbaugh have gone out of their way to argue that global warming doesn't exist. That of course is a falshood, so the new company line now is "well, it exists, but so what?" They should make up their minds.

Quote:

Also, they justed tested increase C02 levels in relation to crop production and found that as c02 levels increased, so did crop yields. This is contrary to the popular opinion that global warming would hurt and destroy global food production.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the concern is crop production, per se. Wasn't the issue that g.w. would raise crop lines, with the ultimate doomsday prediction being that our fly-over state crop resources would ultimately leave us for Canada....? Not certain, just speculating.

Sep 14th, 2003 08:48 PM

kahljorn

I read that too, but if i remembered right it was also mentioned that we may need to move our crops to keep them out of the sun so to speak. Arid desertish areas.

Sep 14th, 2003 08:14 PM

O71394658

Nothing would really happen if the ice caps melted. It's a crock of shit, that whole "Waterworld" the ice caps will melt garbage.

Seriously though, I'm not saying global warming doesn't exist, but it is greatly, greatly blown out of proportion. Many would argue that it doesn't exist. In fact, all of the pHd holding climatologists in the United States (I think there were only about 65 in the article I read several years ago) don't really believe in global warming, or believe it's not a big problem at all. Funny considering they know the most about it. :/ , don't ya think?

Also, they justed tested increase C02 levels in relation to crop production and found that as c02 levels increased, so did crop yields. This is contrary to the popular opinion that global warming would hurt and destroy global food production.

Sep 14th, 2003 07:47 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

Quote:

We've only been observing the ozone for what? 2 decades? 3 decades? I'm sure it has been much bigger than this in the past. Scientists simply need funding and the more scare they manage to stir up the more eager people are to give it to them.

Quote:

Yunno how we have global warming now? Well about 30 years ago they were heralding a new ice age from "global cooling"

. I kid you not.

Sep 14th, 2003 02:36 PM

Big Papa Goat

When my friend gave me the pic he said it was an osterich, but I guess it might be an emu :/

Sep 14th, 2003 09:58 AM

CaptainBubba

Back on the main point: This reminds me of "global warming", with gathering data on some level of heat/ozone in a small period of time and freaking out when it hits its periodic absolute maximums and minimums. Is it not obvious that all things regarding our enviroment fluctuate? Is there any scientist stupid enough to think that the temperature or the ozone Isn't going to have periods of growth?

We've only been observing the ozone for what? 2 decades? 3 decades? I'm sure it has been much bigger than this in the past. Scientists simply need funding and the more scare they manage to stir up the more eager people are to give it to them.

Yunno how we have global warming now? Well about 30 years ago they were heralding a new ice age from "global cooling"

. I kid you not.

Sep 14th, 2003 02:20 AM

Zhukov

It is possible to live a modern life through naturaly reacuring resources, so we don't really need pollution at all.

I think the discussion of communism is my fault, as it is in a few other threads. I have been posting more than usual lately. :/

...Are you SURE that is not an emu?

Sep 14th, 2003 01:42 AM

Big Papa Goat

Even in theory communism and socialism in their classical forms would not be environmentally friendly. Perfectly working communism would consume resources and pollute just as much as capitalism, although, it would be easier to curb these problems in a communist state.
I feel this discussion of communism in this thread is my fault, and that makes me

and

at the same time.

Sep 13th, 2003 10:28 PM

Zhukov

What are you talking about about?

I talked bad about about about it in my own post.

I take back what I said before - Vince should now start a thread.

Sep 13th, 2003 02:44 PM

VinceZeb

Don't talk bad about about the SU, it may make Zhukov cry.

Sep 13th, 2003 02:42 PM

Zhukov

Quote:

Thus proving my point that modern day Communists don't care about the here and NOW environment.

Ok, Ok.... well I can say that enviromentalists of today don't care about the future of the enviroment..... And socialist groups are usualy swarming with hippies; they usually care. Plus, communists don't go out of their way to destroy the environment, and we really do want the future to be the HERE AND NOW... but I suppose you win.

Quote:

filled with men who saw themselves as the torch carriers of Marxism.

Thats what they told people yeah... But they didn't believe their own lies. Stalin wrote a book called "The problems of Leninism" (or something to tht affect). It's just like GWB, you don't think he thinks that war on Iraq is defending liberty and democracy?

I agree with you that the USSR, China et al polluted the enviro even worse. I was watching a documentary in which the USSR had a plan to radiate wheat seeds to make them some kind of 'Hulk seeds', needless to say, it went haywire and the place got contaminated.

Quote:

I said that because it's very true. Communism would be great in theory - but the fact of the matter is the human nature will never allow for it.

I was refering to big Kev's use of it. :/

Human Nature will not allow it? Maybe you should start a thread.

Sep 13th, 2003 02:21 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Thus proving my point that modern day Communists don't care about the here and NOW environment.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I understand the Soviet Union debate you're getting at, but they were still controlled by a one-party, Communist system, filled with men who saw themselves as the torch carriers of Marxism. Whether or not they put that into practice is another subject, but it doesn't change the fact that men who saw themselves as Communists dumped toxic waste and polluted the skies just as much, if not more than every other capitalist country.

Sep 13th, 2003 02:18 PM

Zhukov

You can have welfare and still have Capitalism. Capitalism doesn't require the non-existance of welfare.

And I never said the USSR wasn't a "true" communist state. I say it was not evan a 'false' communist state.

The union may have been the model communist state for non-communists, but not for us.

If you want to start a thread about whether or not the USSR was "communist or not", do so. I don't want to talk about it but I will still reply.

And the reason that the enviroment is put behind the needs of "The Workers" is becasue once the Capitalist system of waste and destruction is ended, the enviroment will probably do better. There is no point trying to save the environment under capitalism becasue it is like a cup of water in an ocean, and companies and corporations wont really feature prominently in the future.

Sep 13th, 2003 02:16 PM

The One and Only...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov

I heard you use that term yourself somewhere, so don't play vince.

I said that because it's very true. Communism would be great in theory - but the fact of the matter is the human nature will never allow for it.

In other words, I don't think that we will ever have a truly communist society. I am a strong believer that "dictatorship of the proletariat" will always become "dictatorship over the proletariat." Even Cuba shares this sort of problem.

Sep 13th, 2003 02:04 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Right, and we could say that the U.S. isn't a "true" capitalist nation, because we have welfare state policies such as social security and expanded Medicare.....

Point is, for all intensive purposes, we are the model for Capitalism, and the SU was the model for Communism. Perhaps Cuba isn't so bad, but they are also a tiny island with a considerably smaller population than most industrialized nations. So, Look at China, North Korea, and Russia. Did they, or have they, been beacons of environmental standards....?

And even on the micro- level, a lot of so-called Communists I know place environmental concerns well below others. Why? Well, they are supposedly all about "theworker." Well what is used by business as an excuse to drive down wages? That's right, environmental standards that cost the companies money.

Sep 13th, 2003 01:56 PM

Zhukov

They weren't communist. Stalinism was the name of the game.

I heard you use that term yourself somewhere, so don't play vince.

Sep 13th, 2003 01:55 PM

The One and Only...

Oh, but wait: you must remember that "the Soviet Union was essentially a capitalist society".

Yes, I have actually read that. Or, at least, something to that effect.

That's worse than people who think that fascism was an entirely right-wing movement, despite the fact that Mussolini was left-wing.

This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off