Why we shouldn't go green.

[QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Yeah, And I think I read that the cord can hook up to any regular electrical wall outlet.

p00zer

That's awesome. Of course, there would be a down side. Your electric bill would skyrocket.

A cobalt Leaf would be so awesome. I'm definitely buying this car, when it comes out and I get my license.

[QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

That's awesome. Of course, there would be a down side. Your electric bill would skyrocket.

BumFluff122

True. So you'd be paying the same, more or less, and also stopping toxic fuel emissions. Also, you can bet that gas stations will replace pumps with chargers to make money off of these cars, so you could recharge everywhere you already fill up.

It's pretty funny that going green often isn't. People tend to think that if they are no longer using something it just disappears. For example trading in your SUV for a "green" car. Basically you're SUV isn't going to disappear. They're going to sell it to somebody else it's still going to guzzle gas, and pollute the environment, and that green car you just bought... where do you think it came from, how long do you think it'll last? Basically you're using a little less gas, and using up a ton more energy, and resources.

Oil isn't going to be a major fuel much longer. According to oil companies they have enough to last 100 years, which is true, but also a bit of BS. See when you drill for oil it's not like you have a perfect container just filled w/ oil. As you get down to the bottom it cost more to retrieve less, and I also believe it costs more to refine that oil also. Not to mention oil companies are publicly traded so their numbers are slightly exaggerated. In the next 20 year the price of oil is going to be too expensive for it to be practical.

As far as solar energies go it's a joke since they use rare earth metals and can never work on a large scale. Nuclear isn't a bad source of energy, but it's more expansive than oil if handled correctly. Most nuclear powerplants can't dispose of nuclear waste in a cost efficient manner hence why so many take short cuts, and why it has a bad name. Wind energy is a big gamble. Those turbines take a lot of energy to build, and it's not recovered for several years after they've been put up. I don't know about their maintenance either, but I'm guessing there's a good chance many will use more energy than they save. Thermal sounds like a great source, but it's not practical everywhere, and it's not permanent like many people think. I don't really no much about using ocean currents, and tides for energy, but it seems like a good option for those in seaside areas, but you also have to consider how much it cost to replace those in disasters, and how they can harm the environment.

Basically my point I'm trying to get across is that people fail to see the big picture they can only see things on a small scale. Buying more crap isn't going to help the environment, and people need to make better use of the resources that they have.

jrhawk42

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

That's awesome. Of course, there would be a down side. Your electric bill would skyrocket.

Phoenix534

True. So you'd be paying the same, more or less, and also stopping toxic fuel emissions. Also, you can bet that gas stations will replace pumps with chargers to make money off of these cars, so you could recharge everywhere you already fill up.

OP, I hope you aren't planning on submitting this for grading. The 'arguments' are nothing more than a loose conglomeration of Fox News quips. There's no explanation, no data provided to support your arguments, no sources... nothing. It is thus TOTALLY unconvincing. And it's poorly written on top of that.

Major revisions are in order. Frankly, the arguments need even more attention than the writing; I'd start by finding some peer-reviewed data to support your rather... baffling... claims.

[QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]But you wouldn't have to buy any more gas.

BumFluff122

True. So you'd be paying the same, more or less, and also stopping toxic fuel emissions. Also, you can bet that gas stations will replace pumps with chargers to make money off of these cars, so you could recharge everywhere you already fill up.

Yeah, America needs to get with the time. We complain possibly more than anyone about global warming, yet brag about driving around in one of these.

Global warming has always been exclusively a moneymaker for General Electric and a few other highrollers, as well as a way for the left to gain more far-reaching political control. They hate corporations that don't further the leftist agenda, and using scare tactics to fabricate a "global warming" myth allows them to cripple those corporations. Very simple.Communistik

Even scientists who argue against man-made global warmign state that it would be foolish to say that the planet is not getting warmer. Because it is. They argue against the man-made part of it.

I'm too lazy to read all of that XD

Glenn Beck did not report it. He allowed the man to be on his show and the scientist did all the talking. Beck simply allowed someone on his show that no one else would.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="Nintendevil"]

If we ever reach that kind of technology in 20 years.

There are already concept Hydrogen fuel cell cars out there..The problem now is how to mass produce the cars, and how to lower prices.

Glenn Beck did not report it. He allowed the man to be on his show and the scientist did all the talking. Beck simply allowed someone on his show that no one else would.

K_56

How did Jon Stewart put it?

"So, on the one hand, 90-95% of the scientific community agrees that global warming is a reality, and that it's a problem. On the other hand... scientists are paid. And it's cold in the winter."

Is that about right? That might be two different quotes.

[QUOTE="Communistik"]Global warming has always been exclusively a moneymaker for General Electric and a few other highrollers, as well as a way for the left to gain more far-reaching political control. They hate corporations that don't further the leftist agenda, and using scare tactics to fabricate a "global warming" myth allows them to cripple those corporations. Very simple.BumFluff122

Even scientists who argue against man-made global warmign state that it would be foolish to say that the planet is not getting warmer. Because it is. They argue against the man-made part of it.

Well the idea is that we should produce more CO2, and grow plants on dry land so that less people will starve.
Then we use those people to keep mc donalds running.

money creates as many problems as it solves.

Global warming is COMPLETELY a product of politics and leftist corporations. It takes pieces of scientific data out of context, connects them, and claims the world is warming because of carbon dioxide, which it is not. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html Yes, perhaps the climate is SHIFTING in some form or fashion (hence why most scientists have begun using the term "climate change" instead), but there still has never been any data to show conclusively that it is specifically warming. There is CERTAINLY no data to show conclusively that it is the fault of human beings.Communistik

first Link and second link: 1998 was an El Nino cycle. It was also the warmest El Nino cycle in recorded history. We are currently in a La Nina cycle. In your second link it even states that ocean currents are a cause, which is what causes La Nina and El Nino cycles. Let me explain how global warming works from a post I made on my own forum:

When methane(CH4), a colourless odorless gas formed by the decomposition of plant and animal matter, is burned in an engine combustion, or rapid oxidization, occurs forming carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (2H2O). The greenhouse effect occurs because some of the gases in the atmosphere, including both CO2 and water vapour, are able to absorb infrared radiation. While the energy the Earth recieves from the Sun is mostly in the short (Ultraviolet) wavelength the energy that is re-emitted by the Earth's surface back out into space is in the long (Infrared) wavelength due to the temperature of the Earth's surface. Oxygen and nitrogen, the major gases in the atmosphere, do not have the ability to absorb IR radiation. However when infrared radiation strikes a molecule such as carbon dioxide it causes the bonds to bend and vibrate, known as the absorption of IR energy, and gain kinetic energy which it transfers to other molecules. The greater the concentration of these greenhouse gases that are in the atmosphere the greater this effect will be and the warmer the planet will become.

If you take that mathane in the first sentence are place it with methonol (Which is a more potent cause of CO2) or coal (Which is still even more potent) You get more of this CO2 when the elements, when burned, go through oxidization. The combustion of fossil fuels are one of the major causes of CO2 in the atmosphere. We know that we are the main cause of CO2 released into the atmosphere. The US Geolocal survey has stated as such.

Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This colorless, odorless gas usually does not pose a direct hazard to life because it typically becomes diluted to low concentrations very quickly whether it is released continuously from the ground or during episodic eruptions. But in certain circumstances, CO2 may become concentrated at levels lethal to people and animals. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps. The boundary between air and lethal gas can be extremely sharp; even a single step upslope may be adequate to escape death.

Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)!

And I have already mentioend in this thread that the Co2 content of the atmosphere has risen to over 370ppm compared to 280ppm before the industrial revolution began.

The whole go-green thing always seemed to me more about us warming globally to alternative (i.e. nuclear) power sources than real concerns about global warming. jimmyjammer69

well we are going to need to switch to a different kind of power source so it doesn't really matter why we get everybody to go along with it.

Personally I want to see the world go paperless (with a few exceptions of course) as a way of "going green" and that has nothing to do with switching to other power sources so much as it has to do with slowing down mass logging.

There is no way to determine how thin the ozone is and one quick change can send the society into fear.

dunl12496

We will never run out of oil either. We may go for a period with undiscovered oil but we will never run out. You may say it takes millions of years for oil to form but what about unfinished oil?

dunl12496

The earths temperature has been changing since the begining of time, and I believe I read somewhere that only about 8% of the co2 emmissions are because of humans.Recently on the radio, there was a report about 2 scientists who did an expirement, and alter their emails were found. They were emailing eachother saying that the evidence wasn't convincing enough and they were making up numbers...global warming is happening, but as humans, we'd be lucky if we could reduce our emmisions by 1%. The only thing we should be worrying about is running out of fuel for our homes, cars, etc. Stanley09

Dummy, global warming is real.

but that doesn't matter, even if it was fake, its a good idea to support. all the money made ur talking about means better economy, commerce, foreign relations, tech., and jobs.

and btw u din't say actually answer ur topic question

Dummy, global warming is real.

but that doesn't matter, even if it was fake, its a good idea to support. all the money made ur talking about means better economy, commerce, foreign relations, tech., and jobs.

and btw u din't say actually answer ur topic question

england2010

As far as i know that's not true. We want more CO2, so that plants will take less water to grow, and will grow more. This can greatly aid us creating plantations in desert area's. I have never heard about CO2 reduction before. That seems kind of awkward. Then again i never realised there was a problem in the first place. The earth is a few degrees warmer than we anticipated. But to be honest we have always been off with our predictions and we expect no less because there is no computer on earth, and no knowledge available about all the complex influences on the way climate changes.

KungfuKitten

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]

As far as i know that's not true. We want more CO2, so that plants will take less water to grow, and will grow more. This can greatly aid us creating plantations in desert area's. I have never heard about CO2 reduction before. That seems kind of awkward. Then again i never realised there was a problem in the first place. The earth is a few degrees warmer than we anticipated. But to be honest we have always been off with our predictions and we expect no less because there is no computer on earth, and no knowledge available about all the complex influences on the way climate changes.

BumFluff122

I have never heard of the idea that CO2 causes the climate to heat up or cool down as a whole. The only times i saw CO2 involved with temperature actually showed things the other way around; CO2 being increased or decreased by the temperature changes. But i don't have the paperwork to back it up. I'm saying this out of concern that You're not heading into a mental direction that is wrong. So i'm not trying to prove You wrong or anything. Yes we've seen enormous shifts in treelines and ecosystems because of climate change. We should definitely take the changes of climate to heart and adapt to them. Or if we could control them that would be awesome for sure. And climate change will continuously result in new world records for climate. You may be right, i haven't read through the entire thread and it being 5am here, i can't bring myself to do that. Personally i just don't believe that there is any reason to think that we can control global climate in any significant way, without significant changes happening to the world. I rather had us seen preparing for possible changes than spending so much time, attention and money on trying to slow it down a notch. That's me and clearly You think very different about it.

Ugh this post was written really bad but i'm zzzzz falling asleep on the keyboard, i'll reread this tomorrow afternoon if i can.

KungfuKitten

Anyways, we do know that radiation from the Sun arrives on Earth in a short wavelength. That radiation, when it strikes a surface such as snow, water, etc... some of it is re-radiated back into the atmosphere. This is why when it snows it feels relatively warm outside compared to what the actual temperature without this effect would be. That radiation is then re-emitted back into the atmosphere at a longer wavelength due to the Earth's surface temperature. Some particles that exist in the atmosphere, known as greenhouse gasses and consist of CO2, methane, water vapour and a numbe rof others, are excited by this longer wavelength radiation forcing the bonds to vibrate. This gets energy, known as IR energy, gets transmitted to other airborn molecules, excites them, and in effect heats the atmosphere. Perhaps you mean that if the greenhouse effect, which CO2 is one of the major players in and is actually the second most potent gas attributed to this effect, didn;t exist the planet would be about 60 degrees Celsius colder than it is now. Those are the estimates of what it would be like if the greenhouse effect didn't exist. The planet Venus actually has a runaway greenhouse effect and temperatures on that planet are hot enough to melt steel at the surface. We can prepare for all the changes we want to but if we stop it at it's source there would be no need to take such drastic measures, and believe me they would be drastic.

This guy is right, global warming is a load of crap....get over yourselves you tree huggers...CHOASXIII

This guy is right, global warming is a load of crap....get over yourselves you tree huggers...CHOASXIII

Yeah, you go on ahead and continue driving around in that 10 MPG SUVs and see how you like it when we run out of fossil fuel while the rest of us will have adapted to solar and wind power and will have adapted to vehicles like the Leaf. That is, if your kind doesn't kill us first.