Conquer Club

in what way do you mean uninhabitable

Guiscard wrote:

Kid_A wrote:

WL_southerner wrote:who seen the latest reports on gobal warming

I'm taking a class this semester on global warming

The popular opinion among the world's scientist these days is that the planet will be UNINHABITABLE in approx 40 year!

The general population is completely clueless!!

Errm... any single source to back that up? uninhabitable in 40 years? You idiot. Even if sea levels rise significantly (which is probably gonna cause the majority of the damage due to climate change), there will still be plenty of inhabitable planet. The planet has been habitable for billions of years.

Seriously, where did you get that 'popular opinion' thing from?

I'm not pulling this out of my ass. Like I said, I'm taking a class on Global Warming at the moment.

What you fools don't realize who use the "Planet has been around for Billions of years" argument, is that industrialization has only been around for 100 years.
In just the past 100 years we have caused so much damage to this planet that soon it will be irreversible.

That canadian solution that is being presented i think its actually being done as a trial process in germany i believe, but like the article says its still pretty early to tell one way or the other, whether or not its a viable solution.

Secondly, i find it very inconsistent with anything ive come across which would lead me to believe any popular opinion says in 40 years that the planet would be uninhabitable.

Lastly, although this isnt really a very sound line or argument and is more provactive....i mean seriously, what kind of person do you have to be to be against trying to find a way to limit co2 emissions and find an alternative to fossil fuels. it just seems like such a simple thing that could be done and especially once people find ways to make it profitable to do so (which someone certainly will)....how much do you have to want to dig up our planet trying to find oil to drive those absurdly ineffiecent gas guzzlers that you cant be apart of finding a way to better the environment?

I DO remember reading someone - I just can't remember who, but I think it might have been the UK chief scientific advisor Sir David King - who complained of environmentalist groups putting forward such apocalyptic arguments as the Earth will become uninhabitable in a short while. Millions in the Third World will probably die as a result of global warming, but no-one is actually saying that the world will come to an end. That kind of propaganda is just as bad as the opposite - the climate-change denialists'.

got tonkaed wrote:Lastly, although this isnt really a very sound line or argument and is more provactive....i mean seriously, what kind of person do you have to be to be against trying to find a way to limit co2 emissions and find an alternative to fossil fuels. it just seems like such a simple thing that could be done and especially once people find ways to make it profitable to do so (which someone certainly will)

There's a reason petro replaced earlier fuels for automobiles. I know it's rediculous how much of the energy is lost in cars instead of uutilized but fossil fuels are some of the only sources for these high demands. Coal is a transportable source of energy while wind, thermal, and hydro sources all depend on the location to work. That and there is still roughly a 200 year supply of coal left in the US so there isn't any impetus by the industry to replace it.

sir david king i remember him, the lap dog of magreat thacther the one who started the gobal warming idea,back in 1979 so she could have a good reason to closed down the coals mines and bring in nuke power stations
you know in the uk if you want goverment grants for research all you need to do is put down co2 global warming and you get the money easy but if you say the true affects of gobal warming you will not get any

WL_southerner wrote:sir david king i remember him, the lap dog of magreat thacther the one who started the gobal warming idea,back in 1979 so she could have a good reason to closed down the coals mines and bring in nuke power stations
you know in the uk if you want goverment grants for research all you need to do is put down co2 global warming and you get the money easy but if you say the true affects of gobal warming you will not get any

I see you watched that programme on the telly the other night. I didn't, but I'm happy to say that I didn't take it at all seriously despite not having watched it. I really don't think David King started the whole global-warming idea just so that Thatcher could get back at the miners - bit far-fetched if you ask me.

it is true lo, what was the first thing maggie went for was the miners, and the sec thing she done was give the go ahead with sizwell b nuke power station and ordered for 2 more to be build she needed the reason to get it done and king was the one that gave her the facts that she needed
i do remember them years very well

Southener, you seem to me (after looking at a fair few of your posts on different subjects), to be very heavily influenced by what you watch on TV.

If I believed everything the telly told me, global warming would be an entirely fictitious thing (Richard and Judy on Wednesday), Iraq would be in civil war / Iranian-funded insurgency (BBC and Fox news respectively)...

Seriously chap, stop watching Horizon and read a bit more widely..

na dont watch tv that much my intrest in it all started back 1972 when i was down in antarctica when i came across people like prof and sciencists, i still keep in touch with them, but there are some things that i will watch if i got time like programmes that deal with up to date facts

Guiscard wrote:Richard and Judy on Wednesday

You know, I think your posts are amongst the better on here, but sentimentalism cannot get in the way of what needs to be said.

Hang Your Head In Shame.

stopper i not going to ask if you watch that lol

Nah, but let's be honest here, that's probably just because it's finished by the time I get home from work....

If the planet contained no oxygen billions of years ago and life prospered, then life can continue with hot air in the atmosphere.

unriggable wrote:If the planet contained no oxygen billions of years ago and life prospered, then life can continue with hot air in the atmosphere.

you people have no idea what you're talking about.

Educate yourself!!

Live on earth BEGAN with oxygen. As well as methane amonia nitrogen. There is not a single living organism on this planet that could survive without oxygen

Kid_A wrote:

unriggable wrote:If the planet contained no oxygen billions of years ago and life prospered, then life can continue with hot air in the atmosphere.

you people have no idea what you're talking about.

Educate yourself!!

Live on earth BEGAN with oxygen. As well as methane amonia nitrogen. There is not a single living organism on this planet that could survive without oxygen

No it began with some sulfur carbonite or something like that. Then plants gave off oxygen when they evolved chloroplasts. We know thats true because some bacteria in deep parts of the world still use this technique.

You're thinking of water. Life began with water.

Stopper wrote:

Guiscard wrote:Richard and Judy on Wednesday

You know, I think your posts are amongst the better on here, but sentimentalism cannot get in the way of what needs to be said.

Hang Your Head In Shame.

The man’s a student, isn't it part of the curriculum to watch daytime TV?

unriggable wrote:

Kid_A wrote:

unriggable wrote:If the planet contained no oxygen billions of years ago and life prospered, then life can continue with hot air in the atmosphere.

you people have no idea what you're talking about.

Educate yourself!!

Live on earth BEGAN with oxygen. As well as methane amonia nitrogen. There is not a single living organism on this planet that could survive without oxygen

No it began with some sulfur carbonite or something like that. Then plants gave off oxygen when they evolved chloroplasts. We know thats true because some bacteria in deep parts of the world still use this technique.

You're thinking of water. Life began with water.

I get my information directly from a textbook. Where do you get yours?

flashleg8 wrote:The man’s a student, isn't it part of the curriculum to watch daytime TV?

I know that watching TV is a cornerstone in my curriculum.

Anyhoo, the Earth being uninhabitable in 40 years sounds like a plausible number, but it does seem a tid bit far-fetched. Uninhabitable by humans, maybe. But that's a big maybe. But I know for a fact that it won't be uninhabitable by other species in 40 years. Even if the number was true, some species we never heard of before is going to adapt, and keep on living.

Sex with robots, how about that?

reverend_kyle wrote:Sex with robots, how about that?

I can foresee some problems with that idea.
Rust under your foreskin being one.

not necessarily, I mean, robots can be built of materials that don't rust, too, right?

MeDeFe wrote:not necessarily, I mean, robots can be built of materials that don't rust, too, right?

id like to think that if we had the technology to build robots that can fullfill our sexual desires, we can surely make them out of materials that dont rust

I like the way this thread keeps coming back to having sex with robots.

Stopper wrote:I like the way this thread keeps coming back to having sex with robots.