Search forums

Forums

Export thread

We're halfway there!! Just a little more!

Apr 30, 2009#1

elph

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/ ... te-change/

When human injection of carbon into the atmosphere reaches 1 trillion tons, dangerous climate change with average global warming of more than 2 Celsius degrees will likely occur, a new analysis finds.

And humans are hurrying toward that 1 trillion mark. So far, We’ve added about 520 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere. With the addition of an estimated 9 billion tons of carbon a year — a number that’s been growing since 1850 — dangerous warming is likely to occur within half a century.

That’s the message from a new paper in the journal Nature, which — along with half a dozen other papers in the issue — provides a simpler way of looking at the climate change problem. What matters is the total amount of carbon that we release into the atmosphere, and focusing on that number as a budget can shape the way policymakers look at the problem, argues Myles Allen, lead author of one of the papers and a climatologist at the University of Oxford.

“The important thing about the cumulative budget is that a ton of carbon is a ton of carbon. If we release it now, it’s a ton we can’t release in 40 years’ time. Every ton we put out is using up a ton of that atmospheric capacity,” Allen told Wired.com. “Reducing emissions steadily over 50 years is much cheaper and easier and less traumatic than allowing them to rise for 15 years and then reducing them violently for 35 years.”

Previous climate change efforts have tried to find the correct “stabilization level” for which to aim. Policymakers would try to craft scenarios showing that the world’s people should aim to peg the concentration of carbon dioxide at 350 or 450 or 550 parts per million. Beyond the scientific complexity of finding what that number should be — which Myles called “a nightmare” — the esoteric nature of those numbers made the climate problem difficult to communicate to populations across the world.

Allen hopes his team’s new analysis, along with a similar paper lead-authored by Malte Meinshausen of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, will let people look at the problem square on.

The numbers presented in their research are probabilistic. They look at different levels of carbon and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and try to assign the likelihood that a certain emissions level would equate to a temperature change across the Earth. The two papers use different periods of analysis and base cases, but they are broadly consistent in their findings that it’s the total amount of carbon added to the atmosphere that will determine the peak warming of the globe.

Where Allen’s team found that adding 480 billion tons of carbon from here on out would push the risk of 2 degrees of warming to over 50 percent, Meinshausen’s team found even more alarming results. The German team estimates that 310 billion tons is all that would be needed. Without policy changes, that means humans would hit dangerous warming levels in 20 years (Meinshausen) to 40 years (Allen) .

“The bottom line? Dangerous change, even loosely defined, is going to be hard to avoid,” write Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science and David Archer, a geoscientist at the University of Chicago, in an accompanying commentary in Nature. “Unless emissions begin to decline very soon, severe disruption to the climate system will entail expensive adaptation measures and may eventually require cleaning up the mess by actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere.”

Forcing emissions to decline will require changing the way the world uses fossil fuels. In Allen’s view, humans can pull a trillion tons of carbon-rich fossil fuels out of the ground and burn them with risks that have been deemed acceptable by most people. But it’s the second trillion tons of fossil fuels, largely in the form of coal and oil shale, that will determine how recklessly humans play with the climate system.

“From all the incredible arcane arguments that go on, in the end, it’s really a very simple question: what are we going to do with the second trillion tons?” Allen asked.

Fossil-fuel–reserve estimates vary. While it’s clear that there is a lot of coal and oil shale on Earth, there is intense debate over how much of that fossil fuel will be economical to mine. Allen’s group used the World Energy Council’s estimates, which show nearly 6 trillion tons of fossil fuels still left to be mined. Other scientists believe that fossil fuel reserves could be much lower.

Apr 30, 2009#2

ElJuski

Whooooo--ohh we're halfway theeeere

Apr 30, 2009#3

Math242

woooot GO hooms

Apr 30, 2009#4

elph

And humans are hurrying toward that 1 trillion mark. So far, We’ve added about 520 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere. With the addition of an estimated 9 billion tons of carbon a year — a number that’s been growing since 1850 — dangerous warming is likely to occur within half a century.

I think if we work hard enough, we can beat that "half a century" mark! Go team! GO!!

Apr 30, 2009#5

Math242

ROCKS FALL EVERYONE DIES :falldown:

Apr 30, 2009#6

Anubinomicon

http://news.aol.com/article/antarctic-i ... art/452969

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

irate:

Apr 30, 2009#7

*sighs* I'm going to get flamed for this, but I wish people (not just here, but worldwide) would take this issue more seriously. We're screwing over our entire planet, which means it may very well become unsustainable for us to live. Basically, it'll turn into another Mars.

I don't understand why, when the technology is there now, that we can't have a lot of buildings and houses retrofitted with wind and solar. Heck, I was at a green living exhibition in Toronto recently and they showed some really neat wind-powered inventions, some small enough to have several on some buildings and at least one on the average house. I mean, if every building had one, would that not cut down on our need for fossilized fuel? Why aren't countries like China, who are building new coal plants nearly every day, jumping on this?

This is one of those things where I pull out my hair and scream "You idiots!" The world needs to change its ways of living and sadly, I don't think it's going to happen.

Apr 30, 2009#8

JCM

ThatNickGuy said:
*sighs* I'm going to get flamed for this, but I wish people (not just here, but worldwide) would take this issue more seriously. We're screwing over our entire planet, which means it may very well become unsustainable for us to live. Basically, it'll turn into another Mars.

I don't understand why, when the technology is there now, that we can't have a lot of buildings and houses retrofitted with wind and solar. Heck, I was at a green living exhibition in Toronto recently and they showed some really neat wind-powered inventions, some small enough to have several on some buildings and at least one on the average house. I mean, if every building had one, would that not cut down on our need for fossilized fuel? Why aren't countries like China, who are building new coal plants nearly every day, jumping on this?

This is one of those things where I pull out my hair and scream "You idiots!" The world needs to change its ways of living and sadly, I don't think it's going to happen.

No flaming from me mate.

Whether we agree on global warming or not, we are dirtying and polluting the planet which we will give to our kids to live in.

Apr 30, 2009#9

Shawn

ThatNickGuy said:
*sighs* I'm going to get flamed for this, but I wish people (not just here, but worldwide) would take this issue more seriously. We're screwing over our entire planet, which means it may very well become unsustainable for us to live. Basically, it'll turn into another Mars.

I don't understand why, when the technology is there now, that we can't have a lot of buildings and houses retrofitted with wind and solar. Heck, I was at a green living exhibition in Toronto recently and they showed some really neat wind-powered inventions, some small enough to have several on some buildings and at least one on the average house. I mean, if every building had one, would that not cut down on our need for fossilized fuel? Why aren't countries like China, who are building new coal plants nearly every day, jumping on this?

This is one of those things where I pull out my hair and scream "You idiots!" The world needs to change its ways of living and sadly, I don't think it's going to happen.

Pfft. Silly man.
There is no profit in wind.

Apr 30, 2009#10

elph

ThatNickGuy said:
This is one of those things where I pull out my hair and scream "You idiots!" The world needs to change its ways of living and sadly, I don't think it's going to happen.

You are 100% right in all of that. Nothing I'm going to flame you over. However, a person can change, but a people cannot. Not unless it's something drastic that makes them change.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/04 ... index.html

Take Greensburg, KS for example. The whole town was completely destroyed and they rebuild the place with going green in mind. Solar systems as much as possible, etc.. (read the article above).

The biggest problem I see of it all is that, as creatures of habit, we will not do drastic changes unless forced. People are doing things, but the problem is that it's not enough, fast enough.

Take China & India as examples, these are countries that most of the everyday people are finally able to afford cars. But they're so grossly overpopulated that the cars that are already there are too much, but they're going to get more. So even if we in the US / UK were to figure out better ways to build our communities where we can really limit auto usage, it's really being offset by what's becoming available to others.

With technology we have today, look at your job and ask yourself, "Do I really *have* to go to a different location to work?" Most of us don't. Your standard office job can be done from your home if it wasn't for trust issues & "security". That alone would limit how many cars being driven daily?

Apr 30, 2009#11

Fuck profit.

I think about an interview with David Suzuki where he said "Going by the way that we, in North America, live right now, if everyone on the planet lived the same way, we would need the equivalent of five Earths to sustain us indefinitely." The interviewer threw his hands in the air and said "So, it's hopeless!" But Suzuki's point is "the way we live right now". I look at all the useless waste we use in the world, like coffee cup, or just wasteful uses of electricity (most of us operate during the day, so if every building was outfitted with solar panels...) and really, we're just going about the same way of life that we've all grown up on and now, we're going to pay for it.

-- Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:35 am --

That's fantastic of Greensburg, but it's a shame the circumstances that forced them to do that.

Transportation is another thing. I mean, I live in the city, so I don't even need a car with the transit system. It's a major source of transportation for a lot of people in the city. Again, what about more forms of public transit, like solar & wind powered rail cars? I know a lot of this would take major changes, but speaking as someone who doesn't see a problem with public transit, it's one I wish I would see more. Especially in those large places like India and China, who, from your description, are acting like kids with a brand new toy.

Apr 30, 2009#12

JCM

Sadly, profit is more important to most that clean living.

Apr 30, 2009#13

Shegokigo

JCM said:
Sadly, profit is more important to most that clean living.

There's plenty of profit, you think they're going to give away those wind powered machines/generators? :bush:

Apr 30, 2009#14

Yeah, there's still the cost of buying and installing them, plus workers to install and maintain them. It just wouldn't be the same profits as buying gas at the pumps, which I don't see as a bad thing. It's about moving away from unsustainable sources like oil and coal.

Apr 30, 2009#15

Shegokigo

ThatNickGuy said:
Yeah, there's still the cost of buying and installing them, plus workers to install and maintain them. It just wouldn't be the same profits as buying gas at the pumps, which I don't see as a bad thing. It's about moving away from unsustainable sources like oil and coal.

Well, wind would be sustainable... unless the Crystal of Wind loses it's power....

Apr 30, 2009#16

Math242

some men just want to watch the world burn !

Apr 30, 2009#17

drawn_inward

JCM said:
Whether we agree on global warming or not, we are dirtying and polluting the planet which we will give to our kids to live in.

I concur. I think that's the first time I've agreed w/ you JCM. :falldown:

Apr 30, 2009#18

Ravenpoe

Shegokigo said:
ThatNickGuy said:

Yeah, there's still the cost of buying and installing them, plus workers to install and maintain them. It just wouldn't be the same profits as buying gas at the pumps, which I don't see as a bad thing. It's about moving away from unsustainable sources like oil and coal.

Click to expand...

Well, wind would be sustainable... unless the Crystal of Wind loses it's power....

Don't worry, those crystals will be restored.

Apr 30, 2009#19

AshburnerX

Once the Superpowers start going to war with each other for coal and oil, it'll only be a matter of time until we switch to something more sustainable like solar/wind/hydro.

Apr 30, 2009#20

Wahad

ThatNickGuy said:
*sighs* I'm going to get flamed for this, but I wish people (not just here, but worldwide) would take this issue more seriously. We're screwing over our entire planet, which means it may very well become unsustainable for us to live. Basically, it'll turn into another Mars.

I don't understand why, when the technology is there now, that we can't have a lot of buildings and houses retrofitted with wind and solar. Heck, I was at a green living exhibition in Toronto recently and they showed some really neat wind-powered inventions, some small enough to have several on some buildings and at least one on the average house. I mean, if every building had one, would that not cut down on our need for fossilized fuel? Why aren't countries like China, who are building new coal plants nearly every day, jumping on this?

This is one of those things where I pull out my hair and scream "You idiots!" The world needs to change its ways of living and sadly, I don't think it's going to happen.

What hair?

Apr 30, 2009#21

GasBandit

Good god, more carbon witch huntery. There's plenty of REAL pollution to worry about, folks. Sulphur. Mercury. Lead.

You've got an article that says the antarctic ice shelf is collapsing, another guy's got one that says it is growing. But no matter which it does, a zealot from the church of global warming will tell you it is evidence that global warming is occurring AND it is entirely man made.

It's all bullshit, it's all biased, it's all political, it's all power and profit driven, and the waters are so churned by all of the above that it's actually impossible for us to make a scientific deduction about what is actually going on. And right at the center of it all is the arrogant hubris that climatological, biological, seismic, cosmic, volcanic and umpteen other factors are all disregarded because it's ALL OUR FAULT. I swear, "green" is the new "Catholic."

Jumping jeezus on a pogo stick.

Apr 30, 2009#22

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Jumping jeezus on a pogo stick.

Apr 30, 2009#23

ElJuski

I mostly agree with you, Gas...but don't you think that installing sustainable energy would still be a good idea? I still try to be more environmentally sound even though I don't buy into a chunk of the man-made global warming stuff.

Apr 30, 2009#24

Chibibar

ThatNickGuy said:
*sighs* I'm going to get flamed for this, but I wish people (not just here, but worldwide) would take this issue more seriously. We're screwing over our entire planet, which means it may very well become unsustainable for us to live. Basically, it'll turn into another Mars.

I don't understand why, when the technology is there now, that we can't have a lot of buildings and houses retrofitted with wind and solar. Heck, I was at a green living exhibition in Toronto recently and they showed some really neat wind-powered inventions, some small enough to have several on some buildings and at least one on the average house. I mean, if every building had one, would that not cut down on our need for fossilized fuel? Why aren't countries like China, who are building new coal plants nearly every day, jumping on this?

This is one of those things where I pull out my hair and scream "You idiots!" The world needs to change its ways of living and sadly, I don't think it's going to happen.

sadly mate... I can sum it up with one word.

Profit.

The world is run by money. Seriously, think about that, everything that we do have to do with money. As long money remain part of the equation, people will continue to do what is needed to make more of this money

they don't care the consequences unless the public was aware of it and protest about it.

going green cost a lot of money and not enough ROI (return on investment) sure you will live longer and your children will live better, but general population rather be happy NOW than say 50 years or 100 years from now.

Apr 30, 2009#25

GasBandit

ElJuski said:
I mostly agree with you, Gas...but don't you think that installing sustainable energy would still be a good idea? I still try to be more environmentally sound even though I don't buy into a chunk of the man-made global warming stuff.

We have that already, it's called Nuclear fission. But the same people who rail against carbon are historically the same segment who railed against nuclear power. Wind and solar are not quite yet ready for prime time... nuclear has been ready for decades.

Apr 30, 2009#26

Chibibar

GasBandit said:
ElJuski said:

I mostly agree with you, Gas...but don't you think that installing sustainable energy would still be a good idea? I still try to be more environmentally sound even though I don't buy into a chunk of the man-made global warming stuff.

Click to expand...

We have that already, it's called Nuclear fission. But the same people who rail against carbon are historically the same segment who railed against nuclear power. Wind and solar are not quite yet ready for prime time... nuclear has been ready for decades.

Yea. The problem is that people still fear nuclear due to couple of major disaster and the word nuclear. General public are stupid and still think that every nuclear plant = Chernobyl.

Apr 30, 2009#27

GasBandit said:
Good god, more carbon witch huntery. There's plenty of REAL pollution to worry about, folks. Sulphur. Mercury. Lead.

You've got an article that says the antarctic ice shelf is collapsing, another guy's got one that says it is growing. But no matter which it does, a zealot from the church of global warming will tell you it is evidence that global warming is occurring AND it is entirely man made.

It's all bullshit, it's all biased, it's all political, it's all power and profit driven, and the waters are so churned by all of the above that it's actually impossible for us to make a scientific deduction about what is actually going on. And right at the center of it all is the arrogant hubris that climatological, biological, seismic, cosmic, volcanic and umpteen other factors are all disregarded because it's ALL OUR FAULT. I swear, "green" is the new "Catholic."

Jumping jeezus on a pogo stick.

Sorry Gas, but I'm going to disagree with you. The weather has been wonkier and wonkier every year and it ain't just natural. Plus, you've got animals species being wiped out left right and centre in the name of profit and development.

Again, it's about "how we live our life". What would be so wrong with changing our dependency on fossil fuels? Honestly, I don't know anything about nuclear fission, but it burns some kind of resource, right? Hey, guess what? We've got a big ball of fire up there in the sky that we can get power from for another few billion years. And there's always wind blowing, too. That's stuff that we don't need to burn up using, have any worries about trying to find places "safe" to store it while the radiation dies down in a few hundred years and will always be there, without having to dig up the earth or create more pollution.

I'm not talking about just global warming or the environment. I'm talking about the way that we live and the waste that we produce on a daily basis, either in refuge we throw away or crap we pull out of the ground and burn back into the atmosphere. What would be so wrong with using and re-using things that are openly and readily available to us that would never dwindle away?

Apr 30, 2009#28

GasBandit

ThatNickGuy said:
GasBandit said:

Good god, more carbon witch huntery. There's plenty of REAL pollution to worry about, folks. Sulphur. Mercury. Lead.

You've got an article that says the antarctic ice shelf is collapsing, another guy's got one that says it is growing. But no matter which it does, a zealot from the church of global warming will tell you it is evidence that global warming is occurring AND it is entirely man made.

It's all bullshit, it's all biased, it's all political, it's all power and profit driven, and the waters are so churned by all of the above that it's actually impossible for us to make a scientific deduction about what is actually going on. And right at the center of it all is the arrogant hubris that climatological, biological, seismic, cosmic, volcanic and umpteen other factors are all disregarded because it's ALL OUR FAULT. I swear, "green" is the new "Catholic."

Jumping jeezus on a pogo stick.

Click to expand...

Sorry Gas, but I'm going to disagree with you. The weather has been wonkier and wonkier every year and it ain't just natural. Plus, you've got animals species being wiped out left right and centre in the name of profit and development.

That's a lot of bullshit right there. The weather has always been wonky, we just didn't have the tech to report and record it. Animals have been going extinct at thousands per day for millenia. Nature is not stagnant. Nature is ever changing, ever dying, ever renewing.

From recently, in Gas Bandit's Political Thread-
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOc5yiIWkg:2bwvkdwt][/youtube:2bwvkdwt]

Again, it's about "how we live our life". What would be so wrong with changing our dependency on fossil fuels? Honestly, I don't know anything about nuclear fission, but it burns some kind of resource, right? Hey, guess what? We've got a big ball of fire up there in the sky that we can get power from for another few billion years. And there's always wind blowing, too. That's stuff that we don't need to burn up using, have any worries about trying to find places "safe" to store it while the radiation dies down in a few hundred years and will always be there, without having to dig up the earth or create more pollution.

I'm not talking about just global warming or the environment. I'm talking about the way that we live and the waste that we produce on a daily basis, either in refuge we throw away or crap we pull out of the ground and burn back into the atmosphere. What would be so wrong with using and re-using things that are openly and readily available to us that would never dwindle away?

Solar helps, but it's not where we can power ourselves entirely on it yet. Wind is even further behind. The fact of the matter is Oil is the lifeblood of western civilization. We don't just burn it for energy, we make everything out of it. Everything. Plastic. Clothes. FOOD.

You've been drinking too much of the kool-aid and you've been brainwashed by the watermelon environmentalists. The true agenda is not to save the earth or better our lives, it has always been to throw sand in the gears of the most powerful capitalist economy on earth.

The truth of the matter is we need ALL forms of energy generation. Oil, Coal, Nuclear, Solar, Wind, Hydro, and more. All of it we can get. We'll never be "off" any form of energy dependency because our need for energy is ever expanding.

http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/why.htm

Apr 30, 2009#29

We don't NEED all of that. Maybe we should just, you know, cut back on how much energy and electricity. Lower our dependency on it. You know, that whole "the way we live right now" kind of thing? And it's sad if the lifeblood of our civilization is oil, especially since we're draining the supply of it further and fighting over it more and more (see also, Iraq). Speaking as a Canadian, I've see a lot on the tar sands, which are just a total mess and for what? More oil. Yippee.

With that said? I don't much appreciate feeling attacked and being called brainwashed. I politely disagreed with you and you're just attacking and insulting.

Enjoy the thread, folks.

Apr 30, 2009#30

Shegokigo

ThatNickGuy said:
We don't NEED all of that. Maybe we should just, you know, cut back on how much energy and electricity. Lower our dependency on it. You know, that whole "the way we live right now" kind of thing? And it's sad if the lifeblood of our civilization is oil, especially since we're draining the supply of it further and fighting over it more and more (see also, Iraq). Speaking as a Canadian, I've see a lot on the tar sands, which are just a total mess and for what? More oil. Yippee.

With that said? I don't much appreciate feeling attacked and being called brainwashed. I politely disagreed with you and you're just attacking and insulting.

Enjoy the thread, folks.

*ques Nickguy's Benny Hill theme song*
Run Nick! It's an argument! :slywink:

Apr 30, 2009#31

I'll come back to respond that:

It's not an argument. Gas basically shat all over something that I strongly believe in to continue his political soapbox. I don't appreciate being called brainwashed when I honestly and truly think (of my own volition, thank you very fucking much) that the world needs to move away from its dependency on burnable products and maybe move to a simpler way of life.

To reiterate, what Gas responded with is not an argument, it's just belittling.

Apr 30, 2009#32

Shegokigo

ThatNickGuy said:
I'll come back to respond that:

It's not an argument. Gas basically shat all over something that I strongly believe in to continue his political soapbox. I don't appreciate being called brainwashed when I honestly and truly think (of my own volition, thank you very smurfing much) that the world needs to move away from its dependency on burnable products and maybe move to a simpler way of life.

To reiterate, what Gas responded with is not an argument, it's just belittling.

See, now that's a response. Your previous one? Not so much. :slywink:

Apr 30, 2009#33

HoboNinja

ThatNickGuy said:
We don't NEED all of that. Maybe we should just, you know, cut back on how much energy and electricity. Lower our dependency on it. You know, that whole "the way we live right now" kind of thing? And it's sad if the lifeblood of our civilization is oil, especially since we're draining the supply of it further and fighting over it more and more (see also, Iraq). Speaking as a Canadian, I've see a lot on the tar sands, which are just a total mess and for what? More oil. Yippee.

With that said? I don't much appreciate feeling attacked and being called brainwashed. I politely disagreed with you and you're just attacking and insulting.

Enjoy the thread, folks.

If you want to cut back go ahead, but I like my gas guzzling car, my computer(which actually has a High Efficiency Green power supply

), my tv, I like to leave the lights on when i leave the room, I like air conditioning... I like the shit that uses all the natural gas and I am not going to change for a bunch of liberal hippies who don't understand the natural cooling and heating cycles of the Earth... Oh by the way folks... The hole in the ozone is shrinking

So yeah all these supposedly irreversible effects we have on the planet are in fact reversible. I saw a study about trees in the rain forest multiplying more than ever seen before, why? Because we have more carbon dioxide in the air and they are sucking it, the planet adapts and changes.

Apr 30, 2009#34

Kitty Sinatra

I think we're moving towards the changes, Nick, but they are such huge ones and we are not so willing to give up our conveniences.

There is so much opportunity for wealth creation. After all, new energy sources and fuels can mean whole new sets of infrastructure that need to be built and a market share that zooms from 0 people up to a billion (in the Western World). That's huge opportunity for capitalism. They just need the capital . . . and products that people want to buy.

I'm optimistic there'll be a point where we turn this ship around.

-- Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:52 pm --

HoboNinja said:
So yeah all these supposedly irreversible effects we have on the planet are in fact reversible.

I like your optimism Hobo, and I hope you're right.

I just want to nitpick: I don't think all those effects have ever been called irreversible. It's always been presented as effects we can change. We stopped using CFCs in the expectation that doing so would indeed help the ozone layer.

May 1, 2009#35

Anubinomicon

i guess pictures of the shelf breaking off into the ocean aren't good enough. i only posted it because it had pictures, i'm with you GB on not believing oneside or the other more.

May 1, 2009#36

GasBandit

ThatNickGuy said:
I'll come back to respond that:

It's not an argument. Gas basically shat all over something that I strongly believe in to continue his political soapbox. I don't appreciate being called brainwashed when I honestly and truly think (of my own volition, thank you very fucking much) that the world needs to move away from its dependency on burnable products and maybe move to a simpler way of life.

To reiterate, what Gas responded with is not an argument, it's just belittling.

You think THAT was belittling? You think THAT WAS BELITTLING? You've got awful thin skin for an anusfaced maggot who uses his RL picture for his avatar. You want belittling? You got it.

ThatNickGuy said:
We don't NEED all of that. Maybe we should just, you know, cut back on how much energy and electricity.

Wrong. We need more than we already have. Constant rolling brownouts in the western US, for example. China is hungry for every drop of oil our hybrid owners think they're leaving in the ground. Forget saving the world from fossil fuels, guy. Whatever you're not buying, somebody else is, and it's THEIR economy that ends up growing for it while you throttle yours in the name of an imaginary crisis designed to make political hay.

Lower our dependency on it. You know, that whole "the way we live right now" kind of thing? And it's sad if the lifeblood of our civilization is oil, especially since we're draining the supply of it further and fighting over it more and more (see also, Iraq).

Great. Googlily. Moogily. You didn't just make the "no blood for oil" argument did you? [Belittling alert] Of all the asinine... that's like saying "it's sad if the lifeblood of our species is oxygen." It isn't sad, it isn't happy, it IS. Oh, and btw, peak oil is a myth.

Speaking as a Canadian,

(lightbulb goes off) Well, all this delusional pap suddenly has an explanation.

With that said? I don't much appreciate feeling attacked and being called brainwashed. I politely disagreed with you and you're just attacking and insulting.

GTFO my internets, nancy. Until next time, Mr. T sheds a single tear for your unappreciation of my belittling.

May 1, 2009#37

Mr_Chaz

GasBandit said:
ThatNickGuy said:

I'll come back to respond that:

It's not an argument. Gas basically shat all over something that I strongly believe in to continue his political soapbox. I don't appreciate being called brainwashed when I honestly and truly think (of my own volition, thank you very fucking much) that the world needs to move away from its dependency on burnable products and maybe move to a simpler way of life.

To reiterate, what Gas responded with is not an argument, it's just belittling.

Click to expand...

You think THAT was belittling? You think THAT WAS BELITTLING? You've got awful thin skin for an anusfaced maggot who uses his RL picture for his avatar. You want belittling? You got it.

ThatNickGuy said:

We don't NEED all of that. Maybe we should just, you know, cut back on how much energy and electricity.

Click to expand...

Wrong. We need more than we already have. Constant rolling brownouts in the western US, for example. China is hungry for every drop of oil our hybrid owners think they're leaving in the ground. Forget saving the world from fossil fuels, guy. Whatever you're not buying, somebody else is, and it's THEIR economy that ends up growing for it while you throttle yours in the name of an imaginary crisis designed to make political hay.

Lower our dependency on it. You know, that whole "the way we live right now" kind of thing? And it's sad if the lifeblood of our civilization is oil, especially since we're draining the supply of it further and fighting over it more and more (see also, Iraq).

Click to expand...

Great. Googlily. Moogily. You didn't just make the "no blood for oil" argument did you? [Belittling alert] Of all the asinine... that's like saying "it's sad if the lifeblood of our species is oxygen." It isn't sad, it isn't happy, it IS. Oh, and btw, peak oil is a myth.

[quote:1yeibxxz]Speaking as a Canadian,

(lightbulb goes off) Well, all this delusional pap suddenly has an explanation.

With that said? I don't much appreciate feeling attacked and being called brainwashed. I politely disagreed with you and you're just attacking and insulting.

GTFO my internets, nancy. Until next time, Mr. T sheds a single tear for your unappreciation of my belittling.

[/quote:1yeibxxz]

Didn't you know Nick, people aren't allowed to disagree with Gas. He doesn't understand the concept.

May 1, 2009#38

Kitty Sinatra

Man, if I didn't prefer pretty near zero moderation, I'd be suggesting that Gas should get a temp ban for that shit. Fuck dude, where did that shit come from?

May 1, 2009#39

Could you people just do me a favor and foe each other? Thanks. -ZM

Forums