What if Climate Change was a Hoax ?
- Thread starter Francis2004
- Start date
Why would anyone, including the scientists, want to perpetrate such a hoax? What can anyone gain from such a hoax?
Why would anyone, including the scientists, want to perpetrate such a hoax? What can anyone gain from such a hoax?
Sorry for the double post - I got a reply message that said my reply was to short. Imagine that.
Some people pull hoaxes just for kicks, some for fame, some for profit, revenge ..... pick one.
Why would anyone, including the scientists, want to perpetrate such a hoax? What can anyone gain from such a hoax?
I can accept that climate change is a natural process in the Earth cycle.
However, knowing we have been putting so much crap in our eco system that was not there even 10 to 20 years ago, I cannot believe we have not had an effect of some kind.
And even if it does not affect the climate, it surely affects our health in some way negative..
However, knowing we have been putting so much crap in our eco system that was not there even 10 to 20 years ago, I cannot believe we have not had an effect of some kind.
And even if it does not affect the climate, it surely affects our health in some way negative..
Eventually we will mutate so we can live amongst our garbage and toxic waste. As a friend once said, if in the future we all have lizard skin, then it won't matter, will it? Of course it will be more like we will all have green glowing skin and we won't need electricity to see where we are going. One day we will all get a Darwin Award.
As far as climate change goes I do not think that we have the data to back it up that it is not a natural phenomena, IMO. To me the major cause of the climate change is the dirt in the air. You can easily say the pollution is a major contributor to that. But, we be not have highly accurate statistcs of volcano activity, sand storms, etc... from around the world in earlier times.
I myself attribute the melting of the Arctic fields to the pollution, dust from man made sources, but can not deny that in past years there has been a lot of volcanoes that pump the ash into the atmosphere and it to has made its way to the Arctic. With the dusty air the snow is not a pristine white and attracts more heat from the sunlight causing to melt faster each year thus melting more each year. This will happen regardless of the air temp. Put some pepper in some ice on a sunny cold day and see how fast it melts. there has been a lot of mining operations open in the Arctic over the last 5-10 years. They are likely the major cause of the ice cap melting not Global warming.
I myself attribute the melting of the Arctic fields to the pollution, dust from man made sources, but can not deny that in past years there has been a lot of volcanoes that pump the ash into the atmosphere and it to has made its way to the Arctic. With the dusty air the snow is not a pristine white and attracts more heat from the sunlight causing to melt faster each year thus melting more each year. This will happen regardless of the air temp. Put some pepper in some ice on a sunny cold day and see how fast it melts. there has been a lot of mining operations open in the Arctic over the last 5-10 years. They are likely the major cause of the ice cap melting not Global warming.
Volcanoes have a net cooling effect on the atmosphere. BUt there haven't been any large enough to have much of an effect on the climate since Pinatubo in 1991.
This is true when the dust is in the air. The dust then falls with the rain or snow causeing the snowfields to be dirty and easily heated by the Sun come Spring. The same $hit that is on your car after a rain is falling in the Arctic, but to a lesser degree. That is if there was no eruptions that year.
There have been very few eruptions over the past couple decades. The dust they blow up into the air settles and is in the ocean in less than a year. The aerosols stick around a little longer. The Arctic has been warming for decades, and it doesn't show a significant increase in melt rate during those eruption events.
But this thread is about what if the scientific findings are false. Do you have any insights into what happens if we create a green economy, and the reason turns out to be wrong?
My point about this thread was more of "who cares about climate change being right or wrong, don't you care about the planet being a dump ? "
If we continue to use our Earth as a place to just abuse and dump all chemicals we extract from one spot and leave it exposed in another where it is harmful to us humans, why would we want to continue to do such things ?
There is a quite a difference between a vulcanoe erupting and standing right beside it letting the lava flow onto you. Hence why would you want to leave harmful chemicals like Mercury flaoting in your back yard or city when it does not need to. Just for corporate greed ?
"Hence why would you want to leave harmful chemicals like Mercury flaoting in your back yard or city when it does not need to. Just for corporate greed ? "
That is not Corporate greed unless you look at the advertising contspiracy. It is consumer greed or one up manship with the neighbor or 'keeping up with the Jones' whatever you want to call it.
This will piSS a lot of people off but if you really want to get serious about green you have to start working on Nuclear power. Find some way to use the 96% of unuseable material. Because from a Northerners prospective we need heat. That is coal, wood, oil, or electric. if we go nuclear there will be lots of electricity to produce hydrogen, charge our cars, run equipment, and heat our homes. But we have to deal with the waste. I think even if we have to put it in a rocket and send it to the Sun (which we can do now), it would be the best thing for the planet.
With the new nano-technology we have to be very careful what we make, because the carbon items (I hear) are almost indistructable. They are ideal for hydrogen storage tanks and super light and super strong car frame, but they must be reusable. Just think, yo can pass your storage tank down to your son, just like the old shotgun used to be.
That is not Corporate greed unless you look at the advertising contspiracy. It is consumer greed or one up manship with the neighbor or 'keeping up with the Jones' whatever you want to call it.
This will piSS a lot of people off but if you really want to get serious about green you have to start working on Nuclear power. Find some way to use the 96% of unuseable material. Because from a Northerners prospective we need heat. That is coal, wood, oil, or electric. if we go nuclear there will be lots of electricity to produce hydrogen, charge our cars, run equipment, and heat our homes. But we have to deal with the waste. I think even if we have to put it in a rocket and send it to the Sun (which we can do now), it would be the best thing for the planet.
With the new nano-technology we have to be very careful what we make, because the carbon items (I hear) are almost indistructable. They are ideal for hydrogen storage tanks and super light and super strong car frame, but they must be reusable. Just think, yo can pass your storage tank down to your son, just like the old shotgun used to be.
CanadianLove
That is not Corporate greed unless you look at the advertising contspiracy. It is consumer greed or one up manship with the neighbor or 'keeping up with the Jones' whatever you want to call it.
Sorry but since when did Governemnt become Consumer Greed and the Jones next door? Since Governemnt has passed a law saying incandescent light bulbs will be banned as of 2012 and they we have been pushed to use CFL's, do you realize these all contain Mercury ? Granted LED lighting may have made it's way into the market by then but how many home already have CFLs in them and now are throwing these away ?
Lights to go out on inefficient bulbs by 2012
Compact fluorescent lamp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This will piSS a lot of people off but if you really want to get serious about green you have to start working on Nuclear power. Find some way to use the 96% of unuseable material. Because from a Northerners prospective we need heat. That is coal, wood, oil, or electric. if we go nuclear there will be lots of electricity to produce hydrogen, charge our cars, run equipment, and heat our homes. But we have to deal with the waste. I think even if we have to put it in a rocket and send it to the Sun (which we can do now), it would be the best thing for the planet.
Nuclear Technology might sound great but is it the only solution? If it has 96% of unuseable material what do you do with it ? It's unuseable ? Of course we have not even discussed one accident like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl that still affect those areas and our planet?
What about thermal tapping and other technologies such as Hydrogen Power ( Hydrogen and Oxygen ) which give you water as a result that can be recycled?
With the new nano-technology we have to be very careful what we make, because the carbon items (I hear) are almost indistructable. They are ideal for hydrogen storage tanks and super light and super strong car frame, but they must be reusable. Just think, yo can pass your storage tank down to your son, just like the old shotgun used to be.
New ?? Nanotechnology is new ?? At the rate technology moves nanotechnology was yesterdays technology..
Nanotechnology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again, what difference are you making.. Are you cleaning up the environment around you or just trying to make up excuses ?
Do you think our cities should be filled with Lead, Cadmium, Phosphorus, Mercury, bags of thrown away biohazardous materials and just plain old garbage that could have any old viruses hanging about in it, or should we try to clean up the mess ?
That is not Corporate greed unless you look at the advertising contspiracy. It is consumer greed or one up manship with the neighbor or 'keeping up with the Jones' whatever you want to call it.
Sorry but since when did Governemnt become Consumer Greed and the Jones next door? Since Governemnt has passed a law saying incandescent light bulbs will be banned as of 2012 and they we have been pushed to use CFL's, do you realize these all contain Mercury ? Granted LED lighting may have made it's way into the market by then but how many home already have CFLs in them and now are throwing these away ?
Lights to go out on inefficient bulbs by 2012
Compact fluorescent lamp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This will piSS a lot of people off but if you really want to get serious about green you have to start working on Nuclear power. Find some way to use the 96% of unuseable material. Because from a Northerners prospective we need heat. That is coal, wood, oil, or electric. if we go nuclear there will be lots of electricity to produce hydrogen, charge our cars, run equipment, and heat our homes. But we have to deal with the waste. I think even if we have to put it in a rocket and send it to the Sun (which we can do now), it would be the best thing for the planet.
Nuclear Technology might sound great but is it the only solution? If it has 96% of unuseable material what do you do with it ? It's unuseable ? Of course we have not even discussed one accident like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl that still affect those areas and our planet?
What about thermal tapping and other technologies such as Hydrogen Power ( Hydrogen and Oxygen ) which give you water as a result that can be recycled?
With the new nano-technology we have to be very careful what we make, because the carbon items (I hear) are almost indistructable. They are ideal for hydrogen storage tanks and super light and super strong car frame, but they must be reusable. Just think, yo can pass your storage tank down to your son, just like the old shotgun used to be.
New ?? Nanotechnology is new ?? At the rate technology moves nanotechnology was yesterdays technology..
Nanotechnology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again, what difference are you making.. Are you cleaning up the environment around you or just trying to make up excuses ?
Do you think our cities should be filled with Lead, Cadmium, Phosphorus, Mercury, bags of thrown away biohazardous materials and just plain old garbage that could have any old viruses hanging about in it, or should we try to clean up the mess ?
Sorry but since when did Governemnt become Consumer Greed and the Jones next door? Since Governemnt has passed a law saying incandescent light bulbs will be banned as of 2012 and they we have been pushed to use CFL's, do you realize these all contain Mercury ? Granted LED lighting may have made it's way into the market by then but how many home already have CFLs in them and now are throwing these away ?
This is exactly one-up-manship. The Government put in a good incentive to produce new enviornment friendly bulbs. It is the consumer that is out there wanting to be the first to save the planet. The government did not demand that we go and buy the bulbs. And as the bulbs are replaced by newer better the people will buy those, to be first. By 2012 there will likely be a whole new technology to light our homes, and you can b!tch about the plastic in the landfill along with the mercury.
I do believe in hydrogen and Thermal although thermal is not available on the scale needed and electricity is needed for both. Thermal to run compressors (ground heat systems). Hydrogen to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen.
Here is a link to a blog that has a player with a CBC podcast with the show IDEAS concerning the Hyrogen Solution. Quite good. 1+2 are by the author alone. Part 3 is a debate with a hard critic of hydrogen. Author is pro-hydrogen pro-nuclear.
Hydrogen as an Alternative Energy. - ALIENUFO
This is exactly one-up-manship. The Government put in a good incentive to produce new enviornment friendly bulbs. It is the consumer that is out there wanting to be the first to save the planet. The government did not demand that we go and buy the bulbs. And as the bulbs are replaced by newer better the people will buy those, to be first. By 2012 there will likely be a whole new technology to light our homes, and you can b!tch about the plastic in the landfill along with the mercury.
I do believe in hydrogen and Thermal although thermal is not available on the scale needed and electricity is needed for both. Thermal to run compressors (ground heat systems). Hydrogen to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen.
Here is a link to a blog that has a player with a CBC podcast with the show IDEAS concerning the Hyrogen Solution. Quite good. 1+2 are by the author alone. Part 3 is a debate with a hard critic of hydrogen. Author is pro-hydrogen pro-nuclear.
Hydrogen as an Alternative Energy. - ALIENUFO
Do you think our cities should be filled with Lead, Cadmium, Phosphorus, Mercury, bags of thrown away biohazardous materials and just plain old garbage that could have any old viruses hanging about in it, or should we try to clean up the mess ?
If you want to go and clean it up that would be a good thing but you still have to have a place to recyle it once it is cleaned up. Did you see the US news report (60min or 20/20) where they tracked a cargo container of CRT back to China. They were to be recyled here, but were illegely exported back to china and placed on a mountain of CRTs. Recyclers don't even want them. We have to be convinced that they can be used then fixed and used again - but they suck to much energy.
No I don't but we all are a wasteful bunch. I think that the recession is going to slow this down, but we are still in the mind set that "we deserve better and I don't care what people say I'm going to get it." The mass has to be convinced that the better thing is being a minimalist.
A prime example of what has happened to us is happening in Japan and China as we speak. The people in Japan have really taken off with the technology generation due to higher standards of living and personal freedoms. China is just beginning.
If you want to go and clean it up that would be a good thing but you still have to have a place to recyle it once it is cleaned up. Did you see the US news report (60min or 20/20) where they tracked a cargo container of CRT back to China. They were to be recyled here, but were illegely exported back to china and placed on a mountain of CRTs. Recyclers don't even want them. We have to be convinced that they can be used then fixed and used again - but they suck to much energy.
No I don't but we all are a wasteful bunch. I think that the recession is going to slow this down, but we are still in the mind set that "we deserve better and I don't care what people say I'm going to get it." The mass has to be convinced that the better thing is being a minimalist.
A prime example of what has happened to us is happening in Japan and China as we speak. The people in Japan have really taken off with the technology generation due to higher standards of living and personal freedoms. China is just beginning.
Hydrogen, think outside the concept given to you.. Ballard of BC leads the way along with many others.. If Canada saw the light it would wake up and invest a lot more into it's own Canadian companies.
http://marqui-ballard.gssiwebs.com/files/pdf/PWC_Report.pdf
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology, Hydrogen Power in Buses | Ballard Power
I don't think that there is anything wrong with the way I am thinking. I know about fuel cell technology, but we live in Canada, and fuel cell get ditroyed when they freeze. The Idea is very good and I plan to build on for a home torch unit. They are ideal for Southern or warmer climates like Vancouver or the Island, they can get 20-30% increase in milage from homemade units (I hear from the Southern US). Unforntunitly the rest of the country would have to have storage tanks in the car for liquid Hydrogen and a production plant at home or a system of fueling stations. And electricity to produce the hydrogen. Nuclear.