Mother Nature> People. It has been a long time since we had an Ice Age or even a Mini Ice Age. Eventually something like that will happen, and the people will try to stop it. Just as they are trying to stop the warming period. And as a big fan of Space Exploration, I believe many of these problems can be solved with enough resources.
To be perfectly honest, I want an ice age to happen. I like the cold but I don't like most people so much. Plus it might force people to go into space or at least try to.
| Farsala said: Mother Nature> People. It has been a long time since we had an Ice Age or even a Mini Ice Age. Eventually something like that will happen, and the people will try to stop it. Just as they are trying to stop the warming period. And as a big fan of Space Exploration, I believe many of these problems can be solved with enough resources. |
| Aeolus451 said: To be perfectly honest, I want an ice age to happen. I like the cold but I don't like most people so much. Plus it might force people to go into space or at least try to. |
We are actually in an ice age at the moment. It started about 2.5 million years ago. The reason scientists are worried is that we're coming out the ice age far too quickly as it takes an incredibly long amount or time. And the global temperature is growing not just the ice areas. As no ice age is 100% global.
There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'
| pokoko said: The way I see it, the odds are good that human waste emissions are, at the least, exacerbating climate change. At the worst, they're the main catalyst. If we try to minimize the damage and it turns out that they aren't a major factor, then what is the real harm? However, what if we do nothing and the outcome is that they are really bad and the world is irreversibly screwed? Will people just go, "oops, my bad?" Logic would say to err on the side of caution, especially since we know other pollutants have caused irrefutable damage to the environment. Honestly, though, the one thing that really, really bugs me is how many people form their opinions on this based solely on the stance of their political party of choice and whichever political entertainer they follow. Think for yourself, people. |
Demonising cheap sources of power like coal could cause hundreds of millions of deaths in developing nations like India and China. The west would recover, but once again the poorest people in the world would suffer.
I think renewable energy is a wonderful thing for those who can afford it but I also think that with the most recent research indicating low climate sensitivity to CO2 that we should allow developing nations to continue burning coal, while developed nations gradually move towards geothermal, nuclear, fusion and better solar technologies as they can afford it.
I think we should continue moving towards renewables, but just not at an economically irresponsible rate.
| ArchangelMadzz said:
|
In that case, is it too much to ask for another one around where I live?
Edit* For some reason, what's supposed to show up in the quote box didn't. Quotes are acting squirly.
ArchangelMadzz said:
>
|
Not really the Ice Age I am talking about. What I mean is another Glacial Maximum.
| ArchangelMadzz said: My take is politicians cannot debate scientific issues they don't understand. I am not a climateologist but. If 99% of climatologists after hard study and research come to the conclusion that humans are influencing climate change until evidence is shown otherwise I have to go with the side where the evidence is. I'm not going to tell a geologist what a rock is. |
Where does the 99% figure come from? Not trying to be argumentative, I've just never seen that one before.
Locknuts said:
Where does the 99% figure come from? Not trying to be argumentative, I've just never seen that one before. |
My fault, it was done with members of the national academy of sciences. The agreement is lower among the rest if you count anyone with a degree.
When there's overwhelming evidence for one side and little for the other it's hard for me to go in that direction. If the world was heating up and the ozone layer had no noticeable changes in the past 100 years then I'm sure they'd rethink the theory on some level.
There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'
I don't deny that we have a role as far as climate change is concerned but what alarmists fail to realize are the benefits of a warmer environment like less deaths from freezing or more natural produce growing ...
I think Human activity plays a very small role in our climate. Like someone else pointed out, climate change has been happening long before Humanity was on this planet and will happen well after we're gone.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
