the Global warming thread...

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
GTS

GTS

....
#21
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#21
TROLL said:
^^
good read.. i fiind this intresting...

i wonder ifthe date 2012 purposefully coincides with teh mayan calander ending..
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing.
 
GTS

GTS

....
#23
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#23
War= fear Republican fear tactic
Global Warming= Democrat fear tactic

????????????
2012
????????????
what really will happen?:siccness:
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#24
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#24
GTS said:
War= fear Republican fear tactic
Global Warming= Democrat fear tactic

????????????
2012
????????????
what really will happen?:siccness:
Click to expand...
Global Warming is no fear tactic - it's too real not to be taken seriously

I don't care whether Al Gore's doing it because he really wants to change something or because of political reasons - what he's doing is right and what republicans are doing is a crime against humanity
 
GTS

GTS

....
#25
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#25
ThaG said:
Global Warming is no fear tactic - it's too real not to be taken seriously

I don't care whether Al Gore's doing it because he really wants to change something or because of political reasons - what he's doing is right and what republicans are doing is a crime against humanity
Click to expand...
How do we REALLY know the reason whether it be the Sun's magnetic poles or humans?
 
Anaheim*Rob

Anaheim*Rob

Sicc OG
#27
Nov 7, 2005
2,601
20
0
44
#27
ThaG said:
I don't care whether Al Gore's doing it because he really wants to change something or because of political reasons - what he's doing is right and what republicans are doing is a crime against humanity
Click to expand...
I think he's dedicated so many years to it because he really wants to make a change. Anyone interested in this thread should watch "An Inconvenient Truth".
 
nhojsmith

nhojsmith

Sicc OG
#31
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#31
ThaG said:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/climate.html
Click to expand...
they are using the same information that prompted them several years ago to say that nature was the main culprit. this same information they said would raise the temp by 5 degrees, then retracted and said less than one, and now they are back around the 5 mark. so the information has stayed the exact same, but the "concensus" conclusions have been shifting.

doesnt the phrase "90% certain" mean "uncertain". lol. if you really believe this shit, get off the computer, you are burning fossil fuels and endangering your children.
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#33
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#33
nhojsmith said:
they are using the same information that prompted them several years ago to say that nature was the main culprit. this same information they said would raise the temp by 5 degrees, then retracted and said less than one, and now they are back around the 5 mark. so the information has stayed the exact same, but the "concensus" conclusions have been shifting.

doesnt the phrase "90% certain" mean "uncertain". lol. if you really believe this shit, get off the computer, you are burning fossil fuels and endangering your children.
Click to expand...
no, uncertain means 50/50; 90% is a lot, especially when we talk about such a complex issue

whether it's 1 degree (it will be more than that) or 5 doesn't make the much of a difference in terms of what we have to do; 1 degree means a lot of trouble, especially considering the fact that it will be actualyl two (add it to the 0.8 degree increase during the 20th century)

5 degrees means a catastrophe I don't even want to think about

because 5 degrees might mean melting of the methan hydrate under the sea; if this happens what probably happened in the end of Permian might happen again and this will be the end of everything

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom