PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft, Global warming, and what you guys think



slugkilla
July 17th, 2006, 05:19 AM
I just saw this program on the Discovery channel about Global warming and how we can stop it. However, this thread has little to do with global warming itself. During a commercial break, the announcer guy said that this program was sponsored by Microsoft. Seeing this, I thought, "Hmmmmmm. I really hate Microsoft. I wish people would realize that Linux is better so I would never have to see that logo again. But they are funding a program to teach people about Global warming. This is good of them. So is Microsoft really that bad?"
Sure, MS is not just an OS developer. No one likes Windows and the people who designed it, but if Windows was gone, who would fund TV programs like these? I guess this kind of goes with the monopoly thing.
I'm sure that you all have a lot of thoughts on this. I would not be surprised if we share a few. So tell me what you think!

benplaut
July 17th, 2006, 05:22 AM
they are not sponsoring the program. They bought a sponsorship to discovery channel.

Who would fund the TV channel? the viewers.

briancurtin
July 17th, 2006, 05:32 AM
I really hate Microsoft. I wish people would realize that Linux is better so I would never have to see that logo again.
i love reading thoughts like this...

slugkilla
July 17th, 2006, 05:36 AM
Oh I see. I saw that Microsoft thing and was like, "Say whaaaaa!!" and thought it would be a good thread.

Edit: Thanks briancurtin!

henriquemaia
July 17th, 2006, 05:37 AM
i love reading thoughts like this...

It starts well...

ubuntoy
July 17th, 2006, 05:50 AM
ms users who will upgrade to vista would probably upgrade or buy a new computer specs.

imagine where would be those millions of used surplus winxp computers going to?

and its hard to recycle computer components >>> polution. >>> global warming.

aysiu
July 17th, 2006, 05:53 AM
Those millions of used surplus Windows XP computers will go to Linux users who will gladly install the latest version of Ubuntu on them... of course!

dickohead
July 17th, 2006, 06:20 AM
One hour in and the thread's going well I see.....

I too have a few disagreements with certain aspects of the microsoft empire (which may stem from my convict heritage), however, the amount of good that the company (and Bill) is doing for the world from a social perspective is fantastic.

As for somewhat forcing users to upgrade their computers in order to use the latest software, I disagree with this practise in principle as I am all for choice and freedom when it come's to technology (ie - build for users, don't force them to learn all the time, intuitive innovation should always preceed really cool technology). But as for what Vista will do for the computer economy on a global scale, it's surely a good thing for the tech industry no?

I do also like the fact that it coincided with a show on global warming, time to get some real pc recycling efforts into gear methinks!

krazyd
July 17th, 2006, 06:41 AM
When you see organisations such as this (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/), providing services to the third world rivalling that of the WHO, it is very hard to see the evil in using Windows.

Derek Djons
July 17th, 2006, 09:32 AM
I find sponsoring and charity not but ignoring the problem! A lot of big commercial companies not only promote their products and services these days. Also they like promoting there charity deeds and fundings.

The whole problem with such a global doing is that we all ignoring the main reason why the problem excists:

- Closed source
- Intellectual property
- Profit and margins
* to name a few

If all what mother earth gives us would be shared, we wouldn't needing charity and sponsoring.

krazyd
July 17th, 2006, 10:33 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot malaria was closed-source :rolleyes:

drizek
July 17th, 2006, 10:46 AM
there is no charity here. They just bought the premium advertising(the ad that comes on right at the start of the commercial break). MS is no different to burger king or car insurance ads.

I think one of the greatest things about linux however is its ability to dramatically reduce waste in the tech world. Computers that are just 3 years old running windows would be entirely unable to run vista, but will be perfectly capable of running KDE4 or something like XFCE.

the idea that linux users will somehow gobble up all the waste is simply not true. THis stuff will end up in a landfill or something. The problem wiith computers is that they require vast amounts of energy and water to produce and are harmfull to the environment when they are disposed. The fact that computers have a 3 or so year lifespan makes it especially bad. Devices like the ipod are also very bad for the environment because they are basically designed to be thrown away after 18 months. MSs iPod killer will probably hurt the trees more than apples bottom line.

I didnt really like that documentary BTW. Tom Brokaw is an idiot, and the whole thing was very sensationalist. There wasnt a lot of information there and it seemed kinda empty. THey could have done better IMO, it certainly didnt live up to the "hype".

woedend
July 17th, 2006, 10:49 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot malaria was closed-source :rolleyes:

ROFL

hizaguchi
July 17th, 2006, 01:15 PM
I'm not a Microsoft hater, but if I were, I would point out that even if they were directly funding a message about global warming it wouldn't be a good thing. From what I've read on the subject, the majority of scientists believe that "global warming" is not a result of human activity... it is a natural shift in the Earth's climate that has occured repetitively throughout history. Many of the polutants that are blamed for the warming were present in far higher concentrations during ice ages than they are now. In short, "global warming" is far more political than scientific. Therefore, funding a message delivered under false scientific pretenses on a subject with growing political weight is likely to be less about protecting the planet (from its own natural cycle) and more about pushing an agenda.

:o This means that Bill Gates is going to run for president! I knew he had a reason for reducing his role at Micro$oft!!!

slimdog360
July 17th, 2006, 01:23 PM
dont forget the millions of dollars to charities every year, I suppose its not that bad.

ComplexNumber
July 17th, 2006, 01:37 PM
I'm not a Microsoft hater, but if I were, I would point out that even if they were directly funding a message about global warming it wouldn't be a good thing. From what I've read on the subject, the majority of scientists believe that "global warming" is not a result of human activity... it is a natural shift in the Earth's climate that has occured repetitively throughout history. Many of the polutants that are blamed for the warming were present in far higher concentrations during ice ages than they are now. In short, "global warming" is far more political than scientific. Therefore, funding a message delivered under false scientific pretenses on a subject with growing political weight is likely to be less about protecting the planet (from its own natural cycle) and more about pushing an agenda.

:o This means that Bill Gates is going to run for president! I knew he had a reason for reducing his role at Micro$oft!!!
thats true. i wish more people would realise that "gobal warming" is natural and the same cooling-heating-cooling-heating cycle has been occurring since the earth first existed. it has very little to do with mans presence in the world. its been happening for eons and will happen whther we are here or not.
its all based on scientists and green organisations getting enormous funding. they them use scare tactics to appeal to the ordinary persons fears. global warming is a mega million industry. unfortunely, there are lots of gullible people in the world who are likley to believe any old piece of crap that the media tells them.
did you know that some scientist have had their funding taken away from them because they stated the truth - that is, they stated that global warming is perfectly natural.
it wasn't that long ago when green organisations and some funded scientist were telling us that "we are heading towards an ice age". 10-20 years later, and those very same people are now telling us about global warming :-k
one thing should be noted here is that the bulk of the warming appeared before 1940, yet the bulk of the increase in c02 appeared after. according to the man made global warming propagandists, its the c02 that is causing the heating. yet, in reality, its the opposite. its the (natural) warming that causes the increase in co2...and is not man made.

slimdog360
July 17th, 2006, 01:46 PM
it wasn't that long ago when green organisations and some funded scientist were telling us that "we are heading towards an ice age". 10-20 years later, and those very same people are now telling us about global warming :-k
I believe global warming leads to an ice age. But hay Im not a scientist and neither are you.

henriquemaia
July 17th, 2006, 01:51 PM
thats true. i wish more people would realise that "gobal warming" is natural and the same cooling-heating-cooling-heating cycle has been occurring since the earht first existed. it has very little to do with mans presence in the world. its been happening for eons and will happen whther we are here or not.[...]

Documentation supporting this "realization" would be nice. Links or wikipedia entries, for instance.

Like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

ComplexNumber
July 17th, 2006, 01:51 PM
I believe global warming leads to an ice age.
really? and how do you work that one out?




Documentation supporting this "realization" would be nice. Links or wikipedia entries, for instance.

Like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
as you wish...
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html (http://www.clearlight.com/%7Emhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html)
there are plenty more.

sophtpaw
July 17th, 2006, 02:04 PM
GlobalWarming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtF0l-yuL6E&search=global%20warming)

AnInconvenientTruth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XMn_Ry3z6M&mode=related&search=global%20warming)


The Errorist Bush on Glabal Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDtkNCSISYo&mode=related&search=global%20warming)

Yossarian
July 17th, 2006, 02:12 PM
Ah hah! A link showdown, is it? Draw!

http://www.scientology.org/
http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/ (http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/?Media=PlayFlash)
http://www.communist-party.ca/

There. I reckon theres something in there that proves something.

EDIT:
In all seriousness, I have no professional opinion on global warming as I am not a scientist in that field. However, even a quick overview of the climate change science makes it obvious that we're running a fast burn through this planet, like a bunch of friggen junkies. Global warming is not a distinct possibility but a fact of our life.

henriquemaia
July 17th, 2006, 02:16 PM
really? and how do you work that one out?




as you wish...
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html (http://www.clearlight.com/%7Emhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html)
there are plenty more.

A quote from a comment on slashdot:

«There is also disagreement on whether the world is round or flat. Should we give both sides equal time?

Despite what you want to believe, the vast majority of climate scientists blame the majority of current global warming on Man. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) [wikipedia.org]. Argue against the IPCC, the joint science academies statement, the US National Resource Council, the American Meteorological Society, the Federal Climate Change Science Program, the Summary Report of the World Climate Change Conference, and dozens more "summary" studies if you want to take this position.»

And if you have time, you can read the whole discussion:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/14/209235

Evidence is not provided by dubious sites.

henriquemaia
July 17th, 2006, 02:19 PM
Ah hah! A link showdown, is it? Draw!

http://www.scientology.org/
http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/ (http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/?Media=PlayFlash)
http://www.communist-party.ca/

There. I reckon theres something in there that proves something.

You're right. In the end people (myself included) believe in what they WANT to believe.

ComplexNumber
July 17th, 2006, 02:36 PM
Argue against the IPCC, the joint science academies statement, the US National Resource Council, the American Meteorological Society, the Federal Climate Change Science Program, the Summary Report of the World Climate Change Conference, and dozens more "summary" studies if you want to take this position.» are you kidding? :mrgreen:. the IPCC? surprised you haven't mentioned The Green party as one of those organisations. if those organisations say its true, it must be true. hehe.

sophtpaw
July 17th, 2006, 02:40 PM
Ah hah! A link showdown, is it? Draw!


There. I reckon theres something in there that proves something.

EDIT:
In all seriousness, I have no professional opinion on global warming as I am not a scientist in that field. However, even a quick overview of the climate change science makes it obvious that we're running a fast burn through this planet, like a bunch of friggen junkies. Global warming is not a distinct possibility but a fact of our life.

There is now link-showdown. And i wasn't challenging for one. Nor was i trying to prove something.

What makes an opinion 'professional' in the sense you mean, that is authoritative i am guessing?

As you say, global warming is a fact. not even so much the 'warming' but the impact we're having on teh planet, which tends to be destructive and exhausting.

so, i was just sharing three links which were relevant and connected to the topic, both humourous but also serious, not to prove anything just for interest.

henriquemaia
July 17th, 2006, 02:48 PM
There is now link-showdown. And i wasn't challenging for one. Nor was i trying to prove something.

What makes an opinion 'professional' in the sense you mean, that is authoritative i am guessing?

As you say, global warming is a fact. not even so much the 'warming' but the impact we're having on teh planet, which tends to be destructive and exhausting.

so, i was just sharing three links which were relevant and connected to the topic, both humourous but also serious, not to prove anything just for interest.

His post is what is it's called "irony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony)".

slimdog360
July 17th, 2006, 02:51 PM
[QUOTE=ComplexNumber;1266154]really? and how do you work that one out?

Most scientists involved in research on this topic agree that the culprit is global warming, melting the icebergs on Greenland and the Arctic icepack and thus flushing cold, fresh water down into the Greenland Sea from the north. When a critical threshold is reached, the climate will suddenly switch to an ice age that could last minimally 700 or so years, and maximally over 100,000 years.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

like I said Im not a scientist and neither are you

ComplexNumber
July 17th, 2006, 03:05 PM
[quote=ComplexNumber;1266154]really? and how do you work that one out?

Most scientists involved in research on this topic agree that the culprit is global warming, melting the icebergs on Greenland and the Arctic icepack and thus flushing cold, fresh water down into the Greenland Sea from the north. When a critical threshold is reached, the climate will suddenly switch to an ice age that could last minimally 700 or so years, and maximally over 100,000 years.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

like I said Im not a scientist and neither are you
in that sense, yes (ie not the same as the alarmist meant when they said that the world is rushing headlong to an ice age). the natural cycle. the earth has always had a way of regulating itself.

Yossarian
July 17th, 2006, 03:07 PM
There is now link-showdown. And i wasn't challenging for one. Nor was i trying to prove something.

What makes an opinion 'professional' in the sense you mean, that is authoritative i am guessing?

As you say, global warming is a fact. not even so much the 'warming' but the impact we're having on teh planet, which tends to be destructive and exhausting.

so, i was just sharing three links which were relevant and connected to the topic, both humourous but also serious, not to prove anything just for interest.

As much as my ego is stoked by someone telling me I was demonstrating irony, I wasn't trying to make a real point. I just found it hilarious that people were posting links, without saying anything about them. Like a snowball fight or something.

As for your question, by professional I meant credible. Hopefully there's some climate scientists/students on this board to back me up, but being a scientist doesn't make you credible any more than training makes you a great athlete. You don't know if a runner is any good unless you see him race. Likewise, if all a scientist does is wave his pipe around and make lofty pronouncements, he could be full of crap. The test for a scientist is to publish his or her work in a peer-reviewed journal, and have it be well-recieved. If anyone can find work of this sort related to global warming, it would be worth considering. Blogs and wikipedia articles, not so much. (Although wikipedia often refers to and summarizes real work)

EDIT: I just realized that I was asking scientists to support me on the proposition that not all scientists are credible. I'll leave the implications of this to everyone's personal conscience.

EDIT2: I'm not implying that credible material has not been produced. To be honest, I wasn't really reading the links. I had planned to just do a run-by zinger type post.

henriquemaia
July 17th, 2006, 03:13 PM
As much as my ego is stoked by someone telling me I was demonstrating irony, I wasn't trying to make a real point. [...]

:D

But you ended up by making a very interesting point to me. My reading of it, of course.

djsroknrol
July 17th, 2006, 03:14 PM
That's not the only good thing that's comming out of MS..Mr. G. has a large stake in Waste Management which is a sanitation company.

I use to see alot of his commercials back in L.A.

Kimm
July 17th, 2006, 03:50 PM
thats true. i wish more people would realise that "gobal warming" is natural and the same cooling-heating-cooling-heating cycle has been occurring since the earth first existed. it has very little to do with mans presence in the world. its been happening for eons and will happen whther we are here or not.
its all based on scientists and green organisations getting enormous funding. they them use scare tactics to appeal to the ordinary persons fears. global warming is a mega million industry. unfortunely, there are lots of gullible people in the world who are likley to believe any old piece of crap that the media tells them.
did you know that some scientist have had their funding taken away from them because they stated the truth - that is, they stated that global warming is perfectly natural.
it wasn't that long ago when green organisations and some funded scientist were telling us that "we are heading towards an ice age". 10-20 years later, and those very same people are now telling us about global warming :-k
one thing should be noted here is that the bulk of the warming appeared before 1940, yet the bulk of the increase in c02 appeared after. according to the man made global warming propagandists, its the c02 that is causing the heating. yet, in reality, its the opposite. its the (natural) warming that causes the increase in co2...and is not man made.

This is propaganda, mainly created by the US government (no offence). And is mainly the cause of capitalism:
Oil is good for uss, we make money using oil. If we would make money using Ethanol other countries would have an advantadge over uss.

The main oposer of the Global Warming theory is in fact, the US Government.

Although you are right, it is only to a very small extent. The CO2 levels have infact been going up and down through out the centirues BUT they have never been as extremely high as they are today.
I have made an atemt at illustrating this (and no, its not an exageration):

http://img439.imageshack.us/img439/1636/20060717164300fm3.th.png (http://img439.imageshack.us/my.php?image=20060717164300fm3.png)

The cause of this?
In the past, it has allways been the same carbondioxide in circulation and Nature has adapted to be able to process that precise amount of CO2. In addition to trees, the seas can also take care of some of the CO2 in the atmosphere (lovering the pH-value somewhat), but it can not take care of it all. In extent to this, we are cutting down valuable trees.

So, what happens? We get more carbondioxide in the atmosphere, thats what happens, carbondioxide that is IN FACT a pretty effective heat-refletive gas, thus closing the heat in.
We are also using a depletable source of fuel (that wount last for much longer), which also causes prices to get higher. This causes uss to spend more money on this depletable source of fuel (money that could be spent on fighting things like cancer or AIDS, mind you).

And on the Microsoft donation thingie... its Bill Gates that donates money, not Microsoft.

G Morgan
July 17th, 2006, 04:06 PM
The problem with GW is by the theory (which is quite sound as I will go into) the rate of increase of CO2 levels is proportional to the level of CO2 once you break a certain average temperature barrier for the planet. This means that when we go past this point the planet is pretty much instantly fried because any student of mathematics should be able to tell you the solution of an equation where dx/dt is proportional to x.

The problem with GW and the way its presented is that a lot of political fumbling has gone on. Politicians know that people have some grasp of science as it is generally practiced via reductionism. Any theory based upon reductionism is false if one of the key smaller theories is false. Now GW is a large scope theory where there are a lot of mechanisms affected by it which aren't well understood. Politicians will point out that these points aren't understood so the whole theory must be wrong. Of course this is a logical fallacy since the smaller theories are driven by the results of GW not the cause of it but joe public has difficulty differentiating between the 2.

It's perfectly true that temperatures have gone up and down over the course of history but never at the gradients we have seen recently and the gradients do coincide with the CO2 output of industry (and the reduced intake from deforestation) and what is understood of the Greenhouse Effect (a theory which is beyond debate seeing as the theory fits not only for Earth but for the other planets we have meassured in our solar system).

Now for GW to be disproved people need to tackle the Greenhouse Effect because it is why GW is a fact. People don't target the Greenhouse Effect because it arises through reductionism and all the points behind it are very much provable beyond all reasonable doubt which is why we have such political nonsense going on. Most scientists have actually considered GW to be true for some time but its only since the recent environmental disasters that the media have given them any heed.

ComplexNumber
July 17th, 2006, 04:09 PM
Kimm
did you read the Nature Magazine June issue 2006 about how they discovered that the temperature in the actic was 74 degrees 55 million years ago. obviously there were fossil fuel burning dinosaus back then :-k




The CO2 levels have infact been going up and down through out the centirues BUT they have never been as extremely high as they are today.
read Nature magazine because there isn't a direct quote online...only references to it. you can buy it many newsagents. the evidence states that the c02 55 million years ago was 2000 parts per million. in 2006, it is 380 ppm.

Yossarian
July 17th, 2006, 04:18 PM
Posted by ComplexNumber
did you read the Nature Magazine June issue 2006 about how they discovered that the temperature in the actic was 74 degrees 55 million years ago. obviously there were fossil fuel burning dinosaus back then

A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing. Drink deeply or not at all.

ComplexNumber
July 17th, 2006, 04:27 PM
A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing. Drink deeply or not at all.
yeah, whatever.

Kimm
July 17th, 2006, 04:31 PM
Dont think that I cant give you an entierly logical explanation to that :mrgreen:


Kimm
did you read the Nature Magazine June issue 2006 about how they discovered that the temperature in the actic was 74 degrees 55 million years ago. obviously there were fossil fuel burning dinosaus back then :-k


Surely you must be aware that landmasses move?
55 million years ago, the arctic was not where it is today, the temerature difference can party be explained by that, but also by this:


read Nature magazine because there isn't a direct quote online...only references to it. you can buy it many newsagents. the evidence states that the c02 55 million years ago was 2000 parts per million. in 2006, it is 380 ppm.

That is entierly possible. And ofcourse, it has most probably been that way. The only problem with it, is that Oil does not apear out of thin air (or well... what I'm about to say may contradict that somewhat :mad: :-P ).
In the beginning all Carbon that exists on this planet today, actually existed in our atmosphere (as carbondioxide), as time went on and plants began to grow, the carbondioxide was taken in by the plants (and became part of the plants, while the oxygen was released into the atmosphere again). Ofcourse, this made it possible for other creatures to evolve, creatures that could breathe oxygen (and exhail carbondioxide, tus creating a perfect cycle). Ofcourse, since these creatures where Carbon based (as are we), the amount of carbondioxide in the atmoshphere decreased. It came to a point where these creatures almost covered the entire planet, and then... they suddenly got extinct.
Ofcourse... the carbon wount dissapear into thin air.
The creatures died in an environment low on oxygen (the sky was covered by dust, and plants could not perform fotosynthesis), so the animals slowly decomposed into what we today know as... Oil.

Causing the carbondioxide levels to... gues what! decrease ;)

After this sudden change, nature has ofcourse adapted to the new levels of carbondioxide, and sure, they could probably adapt again. Problem is, we release carbondioxide too rapidly, leaving no chance of adaptation.

Edit:


A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing. Drink deeply or not at all.


That was a pretty wise quote...

Yossarian
July 17th, 2006, 04:48 PM
Posted by Kimm
...
Edit:
Quote:A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing. Drink deeply or not at all.


That was a pretty wise quote...

I'm glad you liked the quote. It's a paraphrase of a pretty good one, but I can't remember who said it or the exact wording anymore, and I've had no luck finding it online.

I was very interested to read your explanations, not knowing very much about the subject myself.

ComplexNumber
July 17th, 2006, 04:50 PM
Kimm
well, 55 million years later, and the earth is still here :D. i'm sure that there are many organisations have a vested interest in propagating both arguments for and against man made global warming (as you say, the oil barons eta al are not likely to believe the man made global warming theory. on the other hand, there are many organisations(eg IPCC) whose funding and R&D depend entiry on propagating man made global warming. there are also far too many incidents of scientists/organisations having their funding cut when they state that global warming is natural, almost as if they are bullied into claiming that global warming isn't natural). in truth, the models are not entirely clear either way (so the man made global warming people can't say that there is no doubt. unfortunately, they dont) because it is so complex with so many different factors involved. but we know for a fact that there is a natural cycle. and we also know for a fact that the world has been much hotter than it is (and survived) and has had considerably more c02 in the atmosphere than we do now (and survived) at various points in the past. the earth has a way of regulating itself.

btw that diagram is that of Michael Manns hockey stick....where the evidence was never replicated, is now considered dubious to say the least, and all the man made global warming theories are (at the very least) based upon.

Kimm
July 17th, 2006, 04:51 PM
I was very interested to read your explanations, not knowing very much about the subject myself.

Thank you! :mrgreen:

Kimm
July 17th, 2006, 05:12 PM
Kimm
well, 55 million years later, and the earth is still here :D. i'm sure that there are many organisations have a vested interest in propagating both arguments for and against man made global warming (as you say, the oil barons eta al are not likely to believe the man made global warming theory. on the other hand, there are many organisations(eg IPCC) whose funding and R&D depend entiry on propagating man made global warming. there are also far too many incidents of scientists/organisations having their funding cut when they state that global warming is natural, almost as if they are bullied into claiming that global warming isn't natural). in truth, the models are not entirely clear either way (so the man made global warming people can't say that there is no doubt. unfortunately, they dont) because it is so complex with so many different factors involved. but we know for a fact that there is a natural cycle. and we also know for a fact that the world has been much hotter than it is (and survived) and has had considerably more c02 in the atmosphere than we do now (and survived) at various points in the past.

btw that diagram is that of Michael Manns hockey stick....where the evidence was never replicated, is now considered dubious to say the least, and all the man made global warming theories are (at the very least) based upon.

There are also several studies that have had their funding cut when they claimed that it is in fact, not natural.
You will also find that most studies that claim that it is natural have been funded by the US government, the largest body that would actually gain something from continued use of oil. And studies that claim the other, is normaly European.

Undoubetdly, there has been fraud from both sides, but the facts can not be seriouesly questioned.

It is a fact that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere go up and down.
It is also a fact that CO2 is a well known heat-reflective gas.
We KNOW (it would be very silly to say that this is not true), that humans have been releasing CO2 into the atmosphere in increasing amounts.

Based on these facts, is there any possible way of claiming that human activities does not affect the global climate?

And yes, earth has survived higher temperatures than today. Only problem with that statement is that the temperature has never increased at the same rates that they are today. And schientists have reason to believe that the rate the temperature increases in will accelerate after the point when the ice-caps melt, since this will release methane gas, a HIGHLY effective heat-reflective gas.


Note:
I just want to point out that when I say heat-reflective gas, I am describing its abilities, it may be the wrong word.
The Swedish word for it is "Växthusgas" diretcly translated, that would be greenhouse gas, but I am unsure if this is the corrent term. Anyone?

G Morgan
July 17th, 2006, 05:33 PM
I would like to point out that while the Earth has survived hotter temperatures than this there were no warm blooded bipedal apes to fry at that point. We've adapted to colder climates and people are already dying around the planet from heat stroke (22,000 died on the continent from heat stroke last summer) at these low temperatures. What will happen when they go up another couple of degrees and this isn't predicted to end any time soon.

G Morgan
July 17th, 2006, 05:35 PM
Note:
I just want to point out that when I say heat-reflective gas, I am describing its abilities, it may be the wrong word.
The Swedish word for it is "Växthusgas" diretcly translated, that would be greenhouse gas, but I am unsure if this is the corrent term. Anyone?

Greenhouse gas is the correct term in English.

ComplexNumber
July 17th, 2006, 06:08 PM
Only problem with that statement is that the temperature has never increased at the same rates that they are today. and from what years are you measuring the increase? strange that, according the the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, the temperatures decreased between 1998 and 2005.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

also, if you have a look at the figures, the greatest increase in temperatures(in the 20th/21st century) were from 1910 to 1940, whereas the greatest increase in c02 and greatest(in the 20th/21st century) actual levels of c02 have been the since 1940. that hardly confirms c02 driving temperatures, rather, the other way around.





We've adapted to colder climates and people are already dying around the planet from heat stroke (22,000 died on the continent from heat stroke last summer) at these low temperatures. What will happen when they go up another couple of degrees and this isn't predicted to end any time soon. in Roman times, they had vineyards in many places in britain. they don't now because its not warm enough. also, i wouldn't bet on the temperatures continuing to increase, if i were you. many of the scientist have predicted that the temperatures will reach a plateau soon(next 20 years or so), and then we will head towards the next mini-iceage.

its also worthy to consider suns spots and the solar cycles, especially considering that scientist have show that the sun is at its brightest now that at any time in the last 300 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

slugkilla
July 17th, 2006, 06:16 PM
Well GW is real. We have established that. The Earth does have climate shifts. Humans are contributing to the Co2 in the atmosphere. Everyone wants to fight about what is causing it right? I think that it is more important that we do something to stop it. I mean don't you guys want the Human race to survive? I'm a teenager myself and I have noticed a lot of other teens not caring about the Human race surviving. This forum is full of people. What do you guys think?

P.S thanks for all the replies!

henriquemaia
July 17th, 2006, 07:39 PM
Well GW is real. We have established that. The Earth does have climate shifts. Humans are contributing to the Co2 in the atmosphere. Everyone wants to fight about what is causing it right? I think that it is more important that we do something to stop it. I mean don't you guys want the Human race to survive? I'm a teenager myself and I have noticed a lot of other teens not caring about the Human race surviving. This forum is full of people. What do you guys think?

P.S thanks for all the replies!

There are a lot of people that think that the point now is not what can we do to stop it, but how do we deal with it and adapt. Noone is going to stop the usage of his/her car, nor big countries are going to control CO2 emissions since that will hinder their development (that being particular true for the developing countries).

BWF89
July 17th, 2006, 07:46 PM
The fact that humans are causing global warming is a myth propigated by the liberals (left of center) and enviromentalists. The tempature of Earth has fluctuated wildly over last few million years and theres no reason to believe this recent warm trend were experiencing is anything other than that. During the time of the American Revolultion we had a time of unusually cold weather called the Little Ice Age.

And scientists are always giving us new theories. When my dad was going to school in the 70's they were teaching them that the Earth was cooling and that we were going into a new ice age. They also taught him that if the population of Earth ever reached X billion people we would'nt be able to sustain ourselves. We have many more billions of people now and we're doing fine.

We also have less poluttion nowaways (per capita) than we did in the early 20th century because of all the envimental safety procautions.

aysiu
July 17th, 2006, 07:48 PM
I don't know much about global warming, but whether or not we are "warming" the globe, we're certainly polluting it enough. One can hardly argue that the automobile emissions, chopping down of the rainforests, and general overpopulation are good for the planet in the long run.

henriquemaia
July 17th, 2006, 07:55 PM
I don't know much about global warming, but whether or not we are "warming" the globe, we're certainly polluting it enough. One can hardly argue that the automobile emissions, chopping down of the rainforests, and general overpopulation are good for the planet in the long run.

Some people just prefer to think that they are living on "what a wonderful world".

woedend
July 17th, 2006, 07:58 PM
There's no doubt that we are polluting the world. Humans are a disease to the earth, but what can you do? Nothing really. Don't believe in global warming, never will. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but NOBODY can prove it is or isn't happening...just theories.Like BWF said, look at a year by year temperature chart of the earth before you start talking about how we're all gonna burn and die.

slugkilla
July 17th, 2006, 07:59 PM
henriquemaia said:
Noone is going to stop the usage of his/her car, nor big countries are going to control CO2 emissions since that will hinder their development (that being particular true for the developing countries).
--------------------

Well yeah, but we can start burning cleaner fuel like Ethanol. Like aysiu just said,(I know you it was after your post, henriquemaia) Pollution is bad news. I can't wait until there are more flex (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/flextech.shtml) cars on the road.

henriquemaia
July 17th, 2006, 08:05 PM
henriquemaia said:
Noone is going to stop the usage of his/her car, nor big countries are going to control CO2 emissions since that will hinder their development (that being particular true for the developing countries).
--------------------

Well yeah, but we can start burning cleaner fuel like Ethanol. Like aysiu just said,(I know you it was after your post, henriquemaia) Pollution is bad news. I can't wait until there are more flex (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/flextech.shtml) cars on the road.

I do hope we find a way of controling some of the mess we humans are doing. But I'm not very optimistic.

ComplexNumber
July 17th, 2006, 08:13 PM
i'm surprise that there aren't significantly more americans(especially) that aren't more worried about the super volcano at yellowstone national park



Scientists have revealed that Yellowstone Park has been on a regular eruption cycle of 600,000 years. The last eruption was 640,000 years ago…so the next is overdue. The next eruption could be 2,500 times the size of the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption. Volcanologists have been tracking the movement of magma under the park and have calculated that in parts of Yellowstone the ground has risen over seventy centimeters this century. http://www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm




mans contribution to global warming is miniscule, at most. so there is no point in even thinking about it. the eruption, above, will contribute several thousand times more to greenhouse gases than all of mans contributions since we were first here. and the same with the eruption at Toba(another super volcano that erupted several thousand years ago).

bruce89
July 17th, 2006, 08:15 PM
i'm surprise that there aren't significantly more americans(especially) that aren't more worried about the super volcano at yellowstone national park

Or indeed that bit of the Canaries which will fall off, and create a tsunami which will wipe out the east coast of the USA.

ComplexNumber
July 17th, 2006, 08:17 PM
Or indeed that bit of the Canaries which will fall off, and create a tsunami which will wipe out the east coast of the USA.
yup, and given the distance, there won't be that much left of the east coast.

Yossarian
July 17th, 2006, 08:53 PM
Flex-fuel vehicles are abit of a scam. They're very cheap to make, count as more economical vehicles when the manufacturer is calculating his average, and few people run them off ethanol. There's very little distribution of ethanol, for consumers.

Ethanol's a bad solution right now, anyways. Right now we use more fossil fuel producing a litre of ethanol than we save by later using it. So its not a longterm solution, as is. This is basically the same problem with hydrogen cars.

Researchers, however, are studying all kinds of other fuels. Practically anything that can be burned, even garbage, is being tested.

EDIT: My solution would be to centralize more. You could have garbage-burning and nuclear fission power plants supplying electricity to an electric light rail system. Not everyone will take public transit of course, but it should reduce the burning of fossil fuels.

RavenOfOdin
July 17th, 2006, 10:04 PM
As for Microsoft, I will undo my belt, whip myself out and let fly over a copy of Windows XP. They have no morals, no ethics and they are the perfect example of a rogue which will not answer to anyone. They have disobeyed or tried to work around court rulings, and they have gone down the road of controlling the consumer.

To Hell with them.


The fact that humans are causing global warming is a myth propigated by the liberals (left of center) and enviromentalists. The tempature of Earth has fluctuated wildly over last few million years and theres no reason to believe this recent warm trend were experiencing is anything other than that. During the time of the American Revolultion we had a time of unusually cold weather called the Little Ice Age.

And scientists are always giving us new theories. When my dad was going to school in the 70's they were teaching them that the Earth was cooling and that we were going into a new ice age. They also taught him that if the population of Earth ever reached X billion people we would'nt be able to sustain ourselves. We have many more billions of people now and we're doing fine.

We also have less poluttion nowaways (per capita) than we did in the early 20th century because of all the envimental safety procautions.

Agreed. . .the explanation that the Earth is going through cyclical changes sounds to me to be a lot more sensible than anything I've heard so far.

hizaguchi
July 17th, 2006, 11:36 PM
Holy crap. When I said that global warming was part of a natural cycle, I never thought I would set off pages and pages of debate. That really wasn't my intention.

I see it like this:

The Earth has been changing since its beginning. Biomass, climate, CO2 levels, volcanic activity, midget population... they all vary with time. We can observe correlations and draw conclusions, but with the limited evidence available to us we really can't determine causation. That doesn't mean we shouldn't study the evidence and look for more. (Especially if it can help us make a difference.) But it does mean that, right now, nobody can really tell you for sure that we are or are not the cause of global warming. Therefore, if somebody does start telling you that X or Y causes global warming, they probably have an agenda... especially if they are spending the money to put it on TV (news, Discovery Channel, etc.).

WaveMyBlackFlag
July 27th, 2006, 05:14 AM
Simply a P.R. game, guess how much more money they spent on advertising what they were going to do for global warming awareness.

It all boils down to this, windows was stolen, dos was stolen, Mac Os was stolen, all the giants in the software industry are theives, not innovators.

RavenOfOdin
July 27th, 2006, 05:28 AM
Mac Os was stolen

Proof?

handy
December 21st, 2006, 02:30 AM
Proof?

I can't proove anything, but the Apple copyright infringement cases against M$ were already happening in 1988 a year after the release of windoze 2.0.

Some say one of the reasons that M$ will not open their code is to protect them from more copyright infringement cases, & not just from Apple?!

On another tack, I've heard from a geologist friend that many climatologists believe that the likely-hood of another ice age being bought about by global warming is receding, & that it is just going to get hotter on earth for a long time. A common belief according to my friend is that in 50 years time it is really not going to be a very nice place to live, many forms of vegetation & wildlife will not be able to survive the heat.

No one really knows what the future holds, but if the above scenario is played out, it will be a testament to human stupidity, greed & short term thinking...

I sure hope that it is a storm in a tea cup, but here in Australia (the land of drought) our CSIRO (government funded research lab') is talking climate change, & not the worst drought in 1000 years. & they are predicting the desert growing closer to the coast by 100 - 200 kilometers in parts of Australia.

These are not happy thoughts.

jordoex
January 29th, 2007, 07:25 AM
ummm,

Originally Posted by handy
I can't prove anything, but the Apple copyright infringement cases against M$ were already happening in 1988 a year after the release of windoze 2.0.
That's because Window$ copyrighted the word 'Windows' when apple was already using the word windows to describe their desktop enviroment and they kept on using it. Apple is stealing software because they are using a derivative of the BSD kernel. Windows steals by using DRM on non copylefted free software.

As for the world enviroment, i kinda sit on the fence, seeing as there are many rebuttals for both sides' key arguments and prediction is mostly speculation and experts can be wrong. as, for example meteorologists, despite their best efforts, can't always get tommorow's weather right sometimes.

dvarsam
January 29th, 2007, 11:45 AM
I just saw this program on the Discovery channel about Global warming and how we can stop it. However, this thread has little to do with global warming itself. During a commercial break, the announcer guy said that this program was sponsored by Microsoft.

You want to know why?
It is because the M$ Software is so bloated that it Globally Warms all the World's CPUs & Mobos...
And M$ is feeling guilty about it, so they decided to fund this project! :)


Seeing this, I thought, "Hmmmmmm...
...But they are funding a program to teach people about Global warming...
This is good of them. So is Microsoft really that bad?"
...but if Windows was gone, who would fund TV programs like these?

Somebody else who would feel guilty about something...


I'm sure that you all have a lot of thoughts on this.
I would not be surprised if we share a few.
So tell me what you think!

I can't think of anything... :)

JAPrufrock
January 29th, 2007, 03:39 PM
Microsoft is one of the biggest threat to a reasonable and equitible life for everyone everywhere. It is the biggest ($) monopoly in the world whose business model has been, and is being, adopted by national and multinational companies, in such industries as manufacturing, banking, medicine, insurance, etc. Its business model is based on monopolistic practices, ruthlessness in dealing with competitors, and disregard for the needs of consumers (and of society in general).

Companies like Microsoft, in general, are not immoral, but rather amoral. Supporting important social issues, or helping to confront environmental problems is just a way to improve net revenue. It's good for their image and makes more money for them, but they would drop any purported moral position if it were unprofitable.

If societies continue to support, or tolerate, monopolistic companies like Microsoft, the eventual effect will be an erosion of the capitalist system, and an increase in the economic gap between the rich and the poor.

john_spiral
January 30th, 2007, 12:30 AM
ummmmmmmmmmm it's great that we all agree! ;-)

Aside from the evils of Microsoft what is Ubuntu doing about Global Warming (G.W)?

Does Ubuntu encourage you to switch off your machine when not in use?

What energy saving features does Ubuntu have?

Is it easy to install Unbuntu on an old machine? Think about the waste:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6187358.stm

I personally would love to see Ubuntu taking a strong assertive stance on G.W and pollution.

What more important direction is there?

Johne

Ocxic
January 30th, 2007, 01:17 AM
i beleive you can suspend and hibernate your computer with ubuntu just as you could windows.