|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
So one article from the notoriously right wing Daily Telegraph and you're convinced global warming is a hoax. 
Even if global warming were a hoax this doesn't address the fact the oil is a finite resource and it is not possible to indefinitely consume greater and greater amounts of it as the world's population grows and the number of cars multiplies. |
And once oil runs down, so will global warming. All those millions of cars, airplanes and the like will not be emitting emissions anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Even if we do run out of oil and make the switch to alternative energy we still have all the farting cows. Which could be a solution to the former. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And once oil runs down, so will global warming. All those millions of cars, airplanes and the like will not be emitting emissions anymore. |
You think those are the only emitters?
Coal combustion counts for more; as does industrial pollution.
| Quote: |
I can`t believe how seemingly well-educated people could be so easily brainwashed. I`ve heard the warm-mongers declare the debate is over. Give me a break, it hasn`t even begun yet. Disingenuous con-artists like Al Gore and David Suzuki are making a mint off of fear-mongering and half-truths. Big "green" companies like GE are using their unlimited funds to "fuel" the paranoia.
|
Consider this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus
Scientific organizations supporting antro GW:
| Quote: |
# 1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
# 1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
# 1.9 Network of African Science Academies
# 1.10 Royal Society of New Zealand
# 1.11 National Research Council (US)
# 1.12 European Science Foundation
# 1.13 American Association for the Advancement of Science
# 1.14 Federation of American Scientists
# 1.15 World Meteorological Organization
# 1.16 American Meteorological Society
# 1.17 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
# 1.18 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
# 1.19 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
# 1.20 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
# 1.21 International Union for Quaternary Research
# 1.22 American Quaternary Association
# 1.23 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
# 1.24 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
# 1.25 International Union of Geological Sciences
# 1.26 European Geosciences Union
# 1.27 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
# 1.28 Geological Society of America
# 1.29 American Geophysical Union
# 1.30 American Astronomical Society
# 1.31 American Institute of Physics
# 1.32 American Physical Society
# 1.33 American Chemical Society
# 1.34 American Society for Microbiology
# 1.35 Institute of Biology (UK)
# 1.36 World Federation of Public Health Associations
# 1.37 American Public Health Association
# 1.38 American Medical Association
# 1.39 American College of Preventive Medicine
# 1.40 American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
# 1.41 Wildlife Society
# 1.42 Australian Coral Reef Society
# 1.43 American Statistical Association
# 1.44 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
# 1.45 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US) |
Scientific organizations that decent:
| Quote: |
Statements by dissenting organizations
With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[60] |
If you want to argue that GW isn't man made fine. But don't swallow the tripe that there is no consensus. That makes you look like the tinfoil hat model. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bjonothan wrote: |
It is funny how we give the Koreans so much shit for believing stuff that they read in the media without really considering whether it is true or not. The whole world has just done the same with this climate change stuff. It seems that the climate is changing, but since scientists have only got records of the weather patterns for the last hundred or so years, I don't think that they really know what they are talking about.
|
Do some research. Direct measurements go back 150 years, with especially reliable measurements over the last 50 and with satelites, 20 years. However there are plenty of proxies for measuring temperature with somewhat larger error bars. The range of species for example, how far north, or high in altitude conifers can grow, ice cores going back almost a million years, weathering patterns in rocks(gives info about the atmosphere they were exposed in), tree rings and a lot more than I can think of right now.
The most basic science behind AGW is pretty simple. We're realeasing carbon into the biosphere in excess of the natural absorbed and released amounts. This relatively small excess accumulates over centuries. The extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere shortens the mean free path length of longwave radiation exiting into space, causing a slight reduction of the rate we radiate back into space. That energy has to go somewhere. It's rather like chucking another blanket on the bed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Provence
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I am confused, are we debating climate change or man made climate change. The science is out and everyone agrees that the climate is undergoing a change. The debate is over whether or not it�s being influenced by man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
suadente
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OnTheOtherSide wrote: |
Climate change is real, an the concept is very simple.
Industrial technology releases lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 traps heat. Which leads to an overall warming of the atmosphere.
This warming will then have a chain reaction in various ways. Leading to extreme weather conditions of all kinds.
Do you all really think that all the cars, factories, etc. in this world are not having any effect?
The whole concept is so simple, and it has basically been proven beyond all doubt. But then again, people are stupid, so why should we expect people to understand it? |
Calling people with a different opinion than your own 'stupid' is a bit harsh, in my opinion.
We all should know that there are natural cycles of weather, because we all know of the ice ages. There was also a mini ice age in the 8th century causing crop failures and famine. They didn't have factories back then. And, as far as I know, volcanoes still emit more greenhouse gas per year than we do.
I have thinking about this recently. We are all now sitting in heated homes. And, the heat is slowly seeping out the windows and walls. Something needed to burn to make that heat, either at an electric power plant, or ondol furnace. We're all using a computer, which is making heat, and powered by a power plant that either burned something or used nuclear reactions, both of which made heat. Our lights are making heat. When we walk outside, we lose heat to the air. We get into a taxi whose engine creates small explosions several thousand times a minute. We talk on a phone, which emits heat, the cell phone towers emit heat, and the power plant that supplies the electricity emits heat. (I read today that a TV station requires $7,000 worth of electricity to operate for a month. I assume that cell phone towers require a lot of electricity as well.)
I remember learning in elementary school, that if you take a standard sized globe, the atmosphere is approximately the thickness of a single sheet of paper. That's not that much air.
Is it possible, that simply the population being over 6 billion heat creating people be as responsible as the actual green house gases?
Also, the current cold winter: I read in the Chosun Ilbo that warm water fish and cold water fish are now inhabiting the waters off the coasts of Korea. It blamed cold currents due to the melting ice caps. Is it possible that this winter is so cold because the oceans are cold because water that is one degree above freezing has been leaking into them?
Anyways, I'm conservative as hell. But, I don't like how conservative leaders today aren't remembering to conserve. Wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican/conservative, who was a major supporter of natural parks?
I don't think that we are the cause of the relatively recent heat increases, but we definitely are contributing to it. I also don't think that saying that anyone can yet declare that man-made climate change can be proven or disproven.
By the way, I also think that 'An Inconvenient Truth' was a horribly boring documentary. Yeah, it had a lot of information, but it could have been presented much better.
Sorry for no links, but can search for them if you request. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
