Live Earth Pledge

[Demosthenes11]

Does anyone notice that one volcanic eruption produces more pollution in the air than our entire civilization has... but we're destroying the ozone.... moving on.

Close. Volcanoes are the #1 contributer to greenhouse gases (something like 80% iirc), with most of the rest coming from random ass shit and humans coming in at 5% at the highest estimate. Volcanoes do not, however, contribute to the ozone getting raped in the ass. That's a large part humans. But all of this doesn't matter because everyone will believe what Al Gore says. Having a rock concert to save the world is like playing the trumpet when you can't breathe very well...seriously what the hell.

*Not completely sure about volcanoes and ozone stuff, as it was 2 years ago I learned all about that bullshit stuff

[MF Perm]

Does anyone notice that one volcanic eruption produces more pollution in the air than our entire civilization has... but we're destroying the ozone.... moving on.

Close. Volcanoes are the #1 contributer to greenhouse gases (something like 80% iirc), with most of the rest coming from random ass shit and humans coming in at 5% at the highest estimate. Volcanoes do not, however, contribute to the ozone getting raped in the ass. That's a large part humans. But all of this doesn't matter because everyone will believe what Al Gore says. Having a rock concert to save the world is like playing the trumpet when you can't breathe very well...seriously what the hell.

*Not completely sure about volcanoes and ozone stuff, as it was 2 years ago I learned all about that bullshit stuff

Volcanoes, even a small eruption, can put enough ash into the atmosphere to trap heat. A large eruption can cause that effect for several years. The problem is, eruptions are so few and far between it's not enough to contribute to the levels we are currently seeing.

But of course when an intergovernmental panel of scientists publishes this:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

..some asshole on the internet talking about volcanoes is pretty goddamn funny in my opinion.

[Demosthenes11]

the ipcc is just a bunch of scientists guessing. Their estimates for the looming years are so different than any other global climate agency + have such wide ranges it's laughable. I remember one particular *estimate* of an increase in global temperature to be between 1 degree and 5 degrees celcius, or an increase in ocean depth between 1 and 150 centimeters. It's all a guessing game as to where it all goes. We do KNOW the earth has done this before, and it got to a point where it stopped and reversed itself. Scientists are just giving an estimate of where things COULD go if the earth doesn't go right back to what it has been doing for billions of years. We still have no clue how the earth and it's system works despite what scientists may want you to think. It's all just a guessing game

and it's not just the visible shit from volcanoes that do the trick. Volcanic eruptions happen a lot more frequently than you may think, and it spews a shitload of crap into the air. There is a reason volcanoes contribute the most to greenhouse gasses, and that is a fact

[Devek]

There is absolutely no question that humans are impacting the environment.

There are some questions about to what extent...

There is absolutely no question that we could easily cut in half our greenhouse emissions without impacting our daily lifestyles one bit.

There are some questions about why we don't...

[MF Perm]

the ipcc is just a bunch of scientists guessing. Their estimates for the looming years are so different than any other global climate agency + have such wide ranges it's laughable. I remember one particular *estimate* of an increase in global temperature to be between 1 degree and 5 degrees celcius, or an increase in ocean depth between 1 and 150 centimeters. It's all a guessing game as to where it all goes. We do KNOW the earth has done this before, and it got to a point where it stopped and reversed itself. Scientists are just giving an estimate of where things COULD go if the earth doesn't go right back to what it has been doing for billions of years. We still have no clue how the earth and it's system works despite what scientists may want you to think. It's all just a guessing game

Right but there are still measures showing that in the past 20-30 years the CO2 levels are the highest they've been in recorded and measurable ( ice caps ) history. It's a noticeable enough spike to make an estimated guess in the right direction.

All science starts with hypothesis and theory in the beginning, you don't know if that theory is true until the end result. The end result of this theory if no change occurs is mass extinction. Is it worth it to find that out? If we're wrong we die anyways, if we're right we live.

[MF Perm]

Here's some more proof on GW:

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoi ... 0000000000

[Demosthenes11]

Honestly though, even if we are looming on mass extinction, there is nothing we could do about it. Humans do not impact the environment nearly enough to significantly slow any disaster or avert it. Also, even if we could, the world is not going to follow suit. Maybe the more rich countries will, aka north america and europe, but where the majority of the emissions are coming from, asia and third world countries, the incentive isn't there to slow production. They are going for their own best interests, and slowing their developing nations is something they will not do. That, compounded with the estimated amount it would cost for even the richer countries to make a significant forceful change is astronomical and would cause a huge backlash because of the things money would not be poured into.

And I think it's funny all the talk about CO2...because there is no discernible proof that it has any connection with temperatures. Al Gore tries to make the connection but fails horribly if you watch carefully on his graphs. The intervals are not even close to matching up (shows a huge spike in CO2 levels the last 100 years, then tries to show the same rise in temperatures, only that rise starts about 10,000 years ago).

[MF Perm]

Honestly though, even if we are looming on mass extinction, there is nothing we could do about it. Humans do not impact the environment nearly enough to significantly slow any disaster or avert it. Also, even if we could, the world is not going to follow suit. Maybe the more rich countries will, aka north america and europe, but where the majority of the emissions are coming from, asia and third world countries, the incentive isn't there to slow production. They are going for their own best interests, and slowing their developing nations is something they will not do. That, compounded with the estimated amount it would cost for even the richer countries to make a significant forceful change is astronomical and would cause a huge backlash because of the things money would not be poured into.

And I think it's funny all the talk about CO2...because there is no discernible proof that it has any connection with temperatures. Al Gore tries to make the connection but fails horribly if you watch carefully on his graphs. The intervals are not even close to matching up (shows a huge spike in CO2 levels the last 100 years, then tries to show the same rise in temperatures, only that rise starts about 10,000 years ago).

Check the link above.

[Demosthenes11]

haha, that graph is a little better than Al's. But still, CO2 levels obviously started rising before the industrial revolution (20k years before) and have been at the current levels before, who is to say this isn't just a cycle, as it definitely looks like we are due for this yet again

[MF Perm]

haha, that graph is a little better than Al's. But still, CO2 levels obviously started rising before the industrial revolution (20k years before) and have been at the current levels before, who is to say this isn't just a cycle, as it definitely looks like we are due for this yet again

If you read the words along with the graph, and look closely - the very end of the graph, which is the industrial revolution, it spikes high above normal fluctuations. Ignorance and lack of observation are not an argument. As far as science, not two assholes like you and I arguing on the interweb, can tell - there is an abnormal fluctuation that seems to be caused by human action.

This is in the intergovernmental report, and the other report I posted.

[Swatt]

and how much electricity is spent doing the live earth concerts? enough to power a small country for weeks and enough to cause more global warming.

this is just for publicity and public image(omg i care abt teh globalz)

[sephir]

the US contributes the most about of tons of Co2 per year for each person compared to India/China. Although India and China are producing absurd levels, that doesnt mean action cant be taken in other countries.

[MF Perm]

the US contributes the most about of tons of Co2 per year for each person compared to India/China. Although India and China are producing absurd levels, that doesnt mean action cant be taken in other countries.

Yeah but, it's still nice to set an example. There are economic models to preventing CO2 discharge and for using new methods and technologies. But instead of asking the government for subsidies to retrofit and redesign, they're spending more money on lobbying to keep the same ways.

Anyways, I think it's childish for us ( not you in particular ) to point at other countries and say "well if they're doing it we can."


And to the poster above you, I believe they plan on offsetting carbon use for travel and stage power used, as well as making sure the concert is zero-waste as far as I know. By doing things like converting materials and such.

I mean essentially it zero's it out, it's intention is in the right place, but I do agree it's a litlle overboard since everyone already knows about GW for the most part.

[Quicklet]

Today I left a light on all day just to spite these damn hippies and their peace and love and free carbon. It was incandescent.

[Royal]

Today I left a light on all day just to spite these damn hippies and their peace and love and free carbon. It was incandescent.

I did the same except with a tv in the other room.

[Oxyminus]

I watched the end of the concert (I think) when I got home from work. kept showing shots of the beautiful people in the crowd, kept thinking they dont give a crap about the enviorment, just wanted to see a show. not that id ever hate on anyone for wanting to take in a good show, but it seems like this is gonna end up to be all spectacle, no substance.

and it hit a low when my mom called me, and said i missed pink floyd playing, I told her "its not pink floyd, its roger waters" and she asked me who roger waters is. <3 the woman, least she tries

[jaryk]

MF Perm, you're a gigantic tool, and while it's fantastic to use a graph covering the past 10-20 years, how about the 65 million years of unrecorded gasses, temperature and oddities that we have no idea about. This could be a completely natural occurrence that follows history or it could be a serious problem. During the industrial revolution we produced far more Co2 as well as other pollutants than we do today, it makes no sense that it would increase today.

Now on a side note, I'm not saying we shouldn't do our best to recycle, use alternative views and try to maintain earth in the best possible way. Also I am a huge fan of Al Gore, HOWEVER, we do not have enough data and information to undoubtedly prove that global warming exists or that these are naturally occurrences. If you want to be credible, try linking something more than a website link.

[MF Perm]

MF Perm, you're a gigantic tool, and while it's fantastic to use a graph covering the past 10-20 years, how about the 65 million years of unrecorded gasses, temperature and oddities that we have no idea about. This could be a completely natural occurrence that follows history or it could be a serious problem. During the industrial revolution we produced far more Co2 as well as other pollutants than we do today, it makes no sense that it would increase today.

Now on a side note, I'm not saying we shouldn't do our best to recycle, use alternative views and try to maintain earth in the best possible way. Also I am a huge fan of Al Gore, HOWEVER, we do not have enough data and information to undoubtedly prove that global warming exists or that these are naturally occurrences. If you want to be credible, try linking something more than a website link.

Yeah, I'm a gigantic tool that takes a graph spanning 400,000 years and only sees it covering the past 10-20 years.

Have you ever heard of paleobotany, paleoclimatists etc etc and so forth? Do you understand they can pull CO2 levels from fossils? Ranging from soil, plants, bones and all that? Please don't make an argument when you don't know shit about what you're talking about. There are standards and procedures for measuring level of CO2 for over 65 million years ago, and these are being taken into account for the study.

During the industrial revolution we produced far more Co2 as well as other pollutants than we do today, it makes no sense that it would increase today.

This highlights what a moron you are. Hey, how about the act that during the western industrial revolution there was: smaller population, it was mainly in western civilization, not near as many factories or cars - I can go on and on an on poking holes in that retarded statement. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you get it now.

If you want to make a point, try not saying website links with scientific data aren't enough to counter your own ill-informed opinion.



PS - Don't get pissed at me and try to make it personal because you got called on some dumb shit on your first post.

[jaryk]

I never got called on any dumb shit, you're linking nothing credible and using data that still a strong majority of scientists dispute, but using it because it caters to your needs. You didn't even read my post, I realize that there were smaller populations, let me put this in caps so maybe your little brain can comprehend basic fundamental knowledge that you didn't learn after you dropped out of high school. THE AMOUNT OF TOTAL CO2 PRODUCED DURING THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION WAS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN THE AMOUNT PRODUCED TODAY DESPITE A SMALLER POPULATION. Through carbon dating you can measure Co2 levels, HOWEVER, scientists have even said that this is in no way a clear cut way to measure if that was what the total CO2 looked like, if it's increased/diminished in the fossils over time or if it was particular to the areas that the fossils came from. ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE NO CLEAR CUT EVIDENCE ASIDE FROM A WEBSITE LINK, if you want I can make a website that refutes all of it and call it fact too. Here's a clue, go read something aside from conspiracy theory websites, maybe do five minutes of research, hell you might even want to read a book from time to time, then come back and have a conversation until then, you're an idiot.

PS-Don't try to have an intelligent conversation when your avatar is from a B-Movie action flick, it only decreases your credibility even more... oh and suck it.

[MF Perm]

I never got called on any dumb shit, you're linking nothing credible and using data that still a strong majority of scientists dispute, but using it because it caters to your needs. You didn't even read my post, I realize that there were smaller populations, let me put this in caps so maybe your little brain can comprehend basic fundamental knowledge that you didn't learn after you dropped out of high school. THE AMOUNT OF TOTAL CO2 PRODUCED DURING THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION WAS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN THE AMOUNT PRODUCED TODAY DESPITE A SMALLER POPULATION. Through carbon dating you can measure Co2 levels, HOWEVER, scientists have even said that this is in no way a clear cut way to measure if that was what the total CO2 looked like, if it's increased/diminished in the fossils over time or if it was particular to the areas that the fossils came from. ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE NO CLEAR CUT EVIDENCE ASIDE FROM A WEBSITE LINK, if you want I can make a website that refutes all of it and call it fact too. Here's a clue, go read something aside from conspiracy theory websites, maybe do five minutes of research, hell you might even want to read a book from time to time, then come back and have a conversation until then, you're an idiot.

PS-Don't try to have an intelligent conversation when your avatar is from a B-Movie action flick, it only decreases your credibility even more... oh and suck it.

It's actually a minority of scientists who dispute the popular theories behind climate change. Do your research.


Because of the smaller populations, and way less sources of CO2 emissions during the revolution compared to now, you sound like a retard and I suggest pulling over and calling it quits. Not to mention the about, oh I don't know - hundreds of millions of cars on the roads these days compared to 200 years ago.

If you think what I posted as far as links was conspiracy theory, you've got either serious comprehension issues or you're just putting up a fight to defend the mountain of dumb shit that's coming from your fingers. Either way I don't need to be clever or resourceful any further to make you look stupid, you're doing a magnificent job of it on your own.



PS - Friday wasn't an action flick, and if you meant my ozone laye... my signature, The Last Dragon was one of the most incredibly awesometastic parodies of all time.



Hey I have someone you might like, maybe together you two can solve more impenetrable mysteries of all the pop-up books in the galaxy.


http://www.kids-birthday-party-guide...BluesClues.jpg