So much bullshit...

[TheFoX]

Just read an excerpt from a report about Global Warming.

The report finds that global manmade emissions of greenhouse gases have continued to rise. For the most important gas, carbon dioxide, concentrations in the atmosphere were about 280 parts per million before the industrial revolution in the 1700s. For the first time in human history, the concentration is now surpassing 400 parts per million - higher than at any time in at least the last 800,000 years.

Firstly, who recorded the original data back before the 1700's? Surely technology was in its infancy. Did they even know of greenhouse gasses back in the 1700's? Also, modern technology can analyse particles in the air with unerring accuracy, but the equipment back in the 1700's probably wouldn't have even been close to sufficient, even if anyone did know how to operate such.

I mean, could you imagine a steam driven electron microscope, and an air sampling computer driven by a water wheel?

Where do these professors get their facts from?

Also, how far do records go back. Did Jesus and his disciples make records of the air purity. Did cave man record the CO2 levels alongside how many sabre tooth tigers he had battled that day?

I think it is arrogant presumption to make such a bold statement, especially considering how many volcanic eruptions there have been during that 800,000 year period. Or did the Met Office have a presence back in those days.

Of course, they might be right. How do we know if the government don't have a secret time travel machine, allowing their operatives to go back and sample the air with modern 21st century technology.

Mind you, if they do have access to time travel technology, why not just send back some scientists to the 1700's and start introducing some less polluting technology. I mean, once electricity has been discovered and utilised, why not introduce fluorescent and LED technology so that Edison can start selling low consumption devices before greenhouse gasses build up.

Another thought has come to me. If the Amazon rainforests are the lungs of the world, why not send someone back to deter the destruction of this massive converter, therefore allowing the Earth to breath properly.

As it stands, our leaders still want us to save power, by switch off low consumption devices, and driving less, while they still run massive coal powered stations, and drive around in their gas guzzling limos. Have any of our world leaders proposed restricting the stripping of the Amazon rainforest? Of course not. This would be too easy.

The world is in turmoil, and most of it is down to greed of the big entities that want to make money regardless. Man, as a small group, will lead a simple life farming the land they live on, but as a commodity, mankind has stripped the world of its resources, in pursuit of profit. No leader would dare challenge the profiting of the big corporations, preferring to enslave the masses in a resource war.

Does this sound so much like bullshit to you. It does to me.

If the bosses lose control, they rejoin the ranks of the masses, but all the time they can hold us over a barrel, they have won. They control our lives, even dictating whether we get the right medical care or not. Even how dangerous our lives are is in their hands. If they send us to war with inferior tools, our lives are in danger.

Now they want to control energy, and ration it out as they see fit. We might not have the power to light and heat our homes, or drive our cars, but you and I both know that the bosses will never go without. It is also ironic that millions on the African continent are starving while a few live in absolute luxury. Imagine having no barriers to what you could buy? Luxury cars, land, countries, and even the Moon.

So much bullshit.

It is much like the terror threats that face the world. While there is a threat of terror, it is no where near the epidemic that we are lead to believe. Fear keeps us in line.

So much bullshit.

Still, we have the freedom to moan about society and its inequality, allowing a few to live like Kings and Queens while the rest of us slave from day to day earning barely enough to survive.

Sit up and smell the roses, because that is all we have.

[megabyteme]

I think you are just mad someone outbid you for the moon on ebay.

[TheFoX]

I think you are just mad someone outbid you for the moon on ebay.

That's the real irony of ownership. Who is to say who owns what? I mean, who would claim the Moon? The US? Considering that they landed on the Moon, it wouldn't surprise me if they did try to claim the Moon as property of the US Government.

Mind you, it is like the Americas. Europeans traversed the Atlantic, settled on the American continents (North and South), then proceeded to wipe out the indigenous population and replace them with their own. It is not just the English either. Portugese, Spanish, French and Dutch have all helped to wipe out indigenous peoples around the world. Australia is now predominantly English, with the Aborigines being the minority, and the US is predominantly English with a good smattering of French, Irish and Spanish, not forgetting all those descended from the slave trade from Nigeria.

If we were to honour right to land, the Brits, French, Spanish and Dutch would need to be kicked out of North America (US of A and Canada), South America (yes, all those Spanish derived countries), Africa (especially South Africa), New Zealand and Australia.

Unfortunately for those lesser races that fell to superior forces, it would appear that the survival of the fittest is the dominant factor. Of course, if the Europeans had discovered the Americas in this day and age, there would be numerous groups protecting the rights of the indigenous population from exploitation, and much of the Americas would still be in the hands of the Indians, Aztecs, Myans and other indigenous races.

How do we think the Americas would have panned out if the Europeans had not discovered the Americas? Would the first man on the moon be a Red Indian? Would the primary European language be German. Would Russia be another Germanic state? Would the internet exist?

[megabyteme]

Would the first man on the moon be a Red Indian?

If you aren't going to take this seriously, I won't be able to.

[mjmacky]

Firstly, who recorded the original data back before the 1700's? Surely technology was in its infancy. Did they even know of greenhouse gasses back in the 1700's? Also, modern technology can analyse particles in the air with unerring accuracy, but the equipment back in the 1700's probably wouldn't have even been close to sufficient, even if anyone did know how to operate such.

Given that you opened with this, I didn't really read the rest. It's probably important to establish this concern of yours first.

They weren't measuring CO2 levels back then. The levels all throughout history are being measured with modern day instruments. You can correlate CO2 levels trapped in ice with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Using complementary techniques, you can also date when the freeze occurred for the section of glacier being studied. It's very much like a fossil record, and that's why atmospheric CO2 values are reported for times much earlier than the 1700s. I'm sure there are other methods for correlating CO2 methods, but this was a general overview of a primary one off the top of my head.

It would be nice if news media included citations the same way we have to in print, for as little help as it would offer since journals are copywritten materials that require subscriptions.

[Quarterquack]

Given that you opened with this, I didn't really read the rest. It's probably important to establish this concern of yours first.

I quit right about there, too.

How are you, Mary?

[mjmacky]

Given that you opened with this, I didn't really read the rest. It's probably important to establish this concern of yours first.

I quit right about there, too.

How are you, Mary?

Doctoral status in limbo due to financial obligations after divorce. Have a full time job now with guaranteed pay that doesn't fluctuate (Mastering Chemistry content development). Dating a girl for almost a year, and I recently kicked her out of the apartment when I decided to throw a tantrum over not being able to experience the independence I originally sought. It led to productive dialog that developed into a new start. It's been like that a couple of weeks, which has been nice and allowed me to numerically sort my collection of Canadian rap artists.

In other words, not much has changed.

[TheFoX]

My main concern is that if our governments decide to start combating Global Warming by banning cars and shutting down power stations for long periods of time, how the fuck would we be able to log in to the internet, and FST?

Actually, I would imagine that the whole internet is quite a drain on global power reserves, and it won't be long before the executive decision to shut down the internet is made, in the name of Prevention of Greenhouse Gases.

In the UK, the power distribution authorities are already warning consumers that within a few years we may have to suffer long periods of no power each and every day, simply because their coal powered stations cannot meet the quotas set by the EU, and the power authorities would rather upset millions of consumers than upset a handful of bureaucrats who have nothing better to do than to tell us how to run our lives.

As for measuring CO2 levels in ice, that is all well and good but it doesn't help when there is a localised increase in CO2, such as a volcanic eruption. Also, since the last Ice Age, all that ice that has melted has released additional CO2 in to the atmosphere that had originally been trapped in the ice. In fact, the more ice that melts, the more CO2 gets released, increasing the global deposit.

There are too many variables to be able to accurately predict what CO2 levels will be at any given point in time, since short term increases are not necessarily recorded in ice layers, due to their temporary nature.

If our scientists truly understood the nature of the problem as well as they think they do, they would also know how to cure such a maelstrom. They only understand half the problem, if that. We are still in our infancy of understanding, and have hundreds of years ahead of us to work out the real impact of man made CO2.

I do find it strange that man is to blame for global warming when 97% of CO2 is naturally occurring, and we are only responsible for 3%. That would be like trying to pollute a lake by pissing in it. Parts per million? More like parts per billion, or trillion.

[mjmacky]

As for measuring CO2 levels in ice, that is all well and good but it doesn't help when there is a localised increase in CO2, such as a volcanic eruption. Also, since the last Ice Age, all that ice that has melted has released additional CO2 in to the atmosphere that had originally been trapped in the ice. In fact, the more ice that melts, the more CO2 gets released, increasing the global deposit.

I dug through to see if you replied to that point and found this paragraph.

Watch how short I keep this.

Regional and numerous sampling.

Science people can get pretty good at doing science stuff.

[TheFoX]

Watch how short I keep this.

Regional and numerous sampling.

You won't find much ice in the Sahara.