The Purpose of Money

NewGrowth · Mar 4, 2009

We Love 1 said:
You believe in global warming still NewGrowth?

Check this out bro.

(The Great Global Warming Swindle)
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Channel: UKUFO on LiveVideo.com

~PEACE~

thanks Love, the scientific community is pretty certain on that one. I have seen lots of anti-global warming stuff but the evidence does not lie. Even without global warming our current practices are not sustainable, we lose more and more arable land each year to modern agriculture.

A good thing to look at is plain math, emotional debate has really messed the whole thing up. The simple amount of energy that each person consumes is not sustainable UNLESS we do this:

5000 new Nuclear power plants in the next 25yrs
Install a wind turbine every 3 minutes
Install 250M2 of solar panels every second
Biofuel four olympic sized swimming pools full of bacteria every second
And so on . . . .

This is all without factoring in worldwide population increase. You don't have to believe in Global Warming the energy crisis in apparent.

Ok now back to the the purpose of money. :peace:

TheBrutalTruth · Mar 4, 2009

NewGrowth said:
You talk about a commodity back currency Brutal, very libertarian.

IMO Gold and Silver also have speculative values. I understand the benefits of such a system however. All these things have assumed value however and this seems to prop up the machine if greed and a shifting of values away from what is really of value.

Eventually we will be forced into more sustainable lifestyles or we face shifting climates, loss of arable land, and enormous energy costs. As this shift occurs what will be the value of money? If I have no heat and can't pay for heat give me some firewood you can keep your green paper and shiny metal.

Enormous Energy Costs that Solar and Wind do not address, because they are more expensive per KWH.

About the only technology that is more economical than Fission would be Fusion, which we don't have yet.

Since we don't have Fission, if pricing is your concern than the best solution is Nuclear Fission.

Loss of Arable Land, and what about gains in Arable Land?

Such as the reversing of the trend of the Dust Bowl during the 30s.

Once again you're arguing that what other nations are doing must dictate what we are doing, and that is a view I disagree with. We can not surrender our sovereignty to other nations, or international groups that seek to transfer wealth from the First World to the Third World.

Besides, the solution to a lot of these problems exists with the Commercialization of Space. Nearly limitless resources, unlimited space, and the potential for agriculture in space.

The problem of course resides in the lack of Gravity, and intense radiation, both of which may or may not be problems.

Lack of Gravity can be solved, and there are already many viable solutions based upon centrifugal force of rotating objects.

If there is lead in the asteroids, or small planets then it can be used to shield stations and ships from radiation.

Earth Based Solutions are not true solutions.

NewGrowth · Mar 4, 2009

TheBrutalTruth said:
Enormous Energy Costs that Solar and Wind do not address, because they are more expensive per KWH.

About the only technology that is more economical than Fission would be Fusion, which we don't have yet.

Since we don't have Fission, if pricing is your concern than the best solution is Nuclear Fission.

Loss of Arable Land, and what about gains in Arable Land?

Such as the reversing of the trend of the Dust Bowl during the 30s.

Once again you're arguing that what other nations are doing must dictate what we are doing, and that is a view I disagree with. We can not surrender our sovereignty to other nations, or international groups that seek to transfer wealth from the First World to the Third World.

Besides, the solution to a lot of these problems exists with the Commercialization of Space. Nearly limitless resources, unlimited space, and the potential for agriculture in space.

The problem of course resides in the lack of Gravity, and intense radiation, both of which may or may not be problems.

Lack of Gravity can be solved, and there are already many viable solutions based upon centrifugal force of rotating objects.

If there is lead in the asteroids, or small planets then it can be used to shield stations and ships from radiation.

Earth Based Solutions are not true solutions.

I can plant a sustainable food forest on 1/4 acre of land that will feed my entire neighborhood and have extra to sell. It will also provide a refuge for wildlife and feed small livestock like chickens. I KNOW this is possible I have participated in projects that have done just that. You are ABSOLUTELY correct about the re-gaining of arable land Brutal, however at this point the Earth's ecosystem can only be re-balanced by human effort. Right now we are looking at something MUCH worse than the dust bowl.

The problem then was solved by "land improvements" :wall:

Increased irrigation that has resulted in a huge drop in our water table, removal of topsoil, and incredibly high levels of soluble salts.

The problem can be solved but conventional monoculture must be thrown out the window. The Grocery store of the future might look more like your backyard.

The real crisis like I have said is energy, do you know the ENORMOUS amount of energy it take to launch something into space let alone build a farm in space?

The Earth is absolutely abundant but only if we act symbiotically within it's ecosystems. This is completely possible. One of my favorite quotes is: "All the worlds problems can be solved in a garden" -Geoff Lawton

We need Earth based solutions before we start flying into space. NASA has been trying for years to grow food in space. Sci-Fi is great but we need real world solutions now.

We Love 1 · Mar 4, 2009

(Kinda off the subject, but I'm just going with the flow.)

Well its all a scam because they pay farmers to not grow crops!

If it was up to Me, I would build HUGE distilleries that would convert salt water into fresh water. I would then procede to plumb any dessert and turn it into farm land. So it would be like a big drip system that converts salt water into fresh water and then plumbing it where need be. And theres a lot of desert out there too. The pumps that would be moving the water could be solar powered too, to make it that much more greener. The distilleries would be solar powered, the Sun would evaporate the water and then the water would be collected and sent on its way.

Imagine all the food! There would be enough food to feed everyone and nearly free.

Also I would setup launching stations that sling things into space rather than use rockets. These launching stations would be miles high and it would be like a bungee effect that would get materials into space. The amount of G forces could also be controlled via the launching towers/station so that people could be launched into space and not have any ill effects from it. There would be almost no energy consumption with this process.

(These towers would be reaching into and over the clouds. Obviously people would be in a container with thrusters on it. These could also lauch HUGE water balls to the moon so We could start terraforming it into a habitable planet.)

~PEACE~

NewGrowth · Mar 4, 2009

We Love 1 said:
(Kinda off the subject, but I'm just going with the flow.)

Well its all a scam because they pay farmers to not grow crops!

If it was up to Me, I would build HUGE distilleries that would convert salt water into fresh water. I would then procede to plumb any dessert and turn it into farm land. So it would be like a big drip system that converts salt water into fresh water and then plumbing it where need be.

Also I would setup launching stations that sling things into space rather than use rockets. These launching stations would be miles high and it would be like a bungee effect that would get materials into space. The amount of G forces could also be controlled via the launching towers/station so that people could be launched into space and not have any ill effects from it. There would be almost no energy consumption with this process.

~PEACE~

The engineering feats you speak of are immense, go for it man. The same question will come up where are you going to get all the power to run your distilleries and space station launch pads?

The government pays small farmers to not grow crops to preserve the land and control commodity cost. The solutions we have today are ridiculous.

The real solution is simple and a great example is already provided us by nature. We can feed the world at a very low cost, forever. Have to stand on the ground before you can look into space. :peace:

TheBrutalTruth · Mar 4, 2009

NewGrowth said:
I can plant a sustainable food forest on 1/4 acre of land that will feed my entire neighborhood and have extra to sell. It will also provide a refuge for wildlife and feed small livestock like chickens. I KNOW this is possible I have participated in projects that have done just that. You are ABSOLUTELY correct about the re-gaining of arable land Brutal, however at this point the Earth's ecosystem can only be re-balanced by human effort. Right now we are looking at something MUCH worse than the dust bowl.

The problem then was solved by "land improvements" Increased irrigation that has resulted in a huge drop in our water table, removal of topsoil, and incredibly high levels of soluble salts.

The problem can be solved but conventional monoculture must be thrown out the window. The Grocery store of the future might look more like your backyard.

The real crisis like I have said is energy, do you know the ENORMOUS amount of energy it take to launch something into space let alone build a farm in space?

The Earth is absolutely abundant but only if we act symbiotically within it's ecosystems. This is completely possible. One of my favorite quotes is: "All the worlds problems can be solved in a garden" -Geoff Lawton

We need Earth based solutions before we start flying into space. NASA has been trying for years to grow food in space. Sci-Fi is great but we need real world solutions now.

Let's see, your solution is to try the same old shit, which isn't going to work, because of population growth...

So what's the next thing you're going to say, that 90% of the population should be killed?

NewGrowth · Mar 4, 2009

TheBrutalTruth said:
Let's see, your solution is to try the same old shit, which isn't going to work, because of population growth...

So what's the next thing you're going to say, that 90% of the population should be killed?

Same old shit would be what we are doing now so no. It's really not as big as you think Brutal. Plant a garden in your backyard, source food locally, promote diversity in natural ecosystems, make better use of available rainwater. The energy savings from doing this alone are immense. The other benefit of something like a food forest over conventional agriculture is the amount of labor required to maintain it is next to none. Cities can still exist we can still build your space stations as well. Rooftop surfaces should all be planted, horizontal surfaces utilized as well.

The benefits to all this are huge and in fact are really close to your political beliefs of being self sustainable. I think you just like to argue . . . :lol:

The plan is NOT to lose 90% of the populace ;-)

TheBrutalTruth · Mar 4, 2009

NewGrowth said:
Same old shit would be what we are doing now so no. It's really not as big as you think Brutal.

Plant a garden in your backyard

Don't have a back yard, the government stole the money I could have used to buy a house and has given it to some one else that bought a house despite having suffered the same problem that I suffered (The government stealing the money they could have used to buy a house.)

, source food locally,

It doesn't matter where Food comes from, and the logic behind this "solution" is that CO2 released by the usage of Fossil Fuels somehow harms the environment despite the fact that PLANTS use CO2 to survive and produce energy.

promote diversity in natural ecosystems,

Ecosystems, with the exception of the rain forest, tend not to be very diverse. A forest in one area may have a niche exploited by one species, that it would not be able to exploit in another.

Or at its worse this would mean bringing invasive species to new ecosystems, which was done and caused problems.

make better use of available rainwater.

Plenty of rain water, it's in the oceans, desalify it, and pipe it.

Or, perhaps, if I still lived in the South West my answer would be, WHAT RAIN WATER?

The energy savings from doing this alone are immense.

Energy is not a fixed value, there's plenty of energy out there, energy is not the issue, producing enough is. The best way to produce enough is Nuclear Fission, or actually financing more experimentation into Nuclear Fusion instead of subsidizing Solar and Wind, and BioFuels, esp. Ethanol.

The other benefit of something like a food forest over conventional agriculture is the amount of labor required to maintain it is next to none.

The problem is that I don't want a damn garden in my yard when I have a house. I bought the house for the aesthetic appeal of having a nice green lawn.

Cities can still exist we can still build your space stations as well.

No, because all this worrying about problems guarantees a waste of funds by trying to solve these so called "problems" in the same old way, or in even worse ways.

Rooftop surfaces should all be planted, horizontal surfaces utilized as well.

Has anyone told you about New Mexico where Martin Chavez (Mayor, D, Albuquerque) tried to state that everyone must grow grass on their roofs and not in their yards, which must be xeroscaped?

The benefits to all this are huge and in fact are really close to your political beliefs of being self sustainable.

I have no political beliefs of being self-sustainable, my only political belief is that Government is a parasite that should be destroyed.

I think you just like to argue . . .

Yes, Arguing is a great way to relieve stress, gets all those nasty emotions out of the system.

The plan is NOT to lose 90% of the populace

Are you sure, can you actually prove, instead of predict, that not losing 90% of the population will be the end result of all your iniatives?

NewGrowth · Mar 4, 2009

You are an anarchist Brutal, and not even the type I like. Good luck with that, I have no interest in debating with someone so cynical and irrational. :peace:

ilkhan · Mar 4, 2009

TBT is just mad LOL, I like your idea I wish I had a couple acre's to raise my own chickens and some plums and apricots. Just like my grandparents did i am planting a garden I think this year. your suggestions about local food production is very valid and when you look at commodities such as sugar and cotton they are valued very low. Just think about this what if the price of wheat tripled and potatoes and cotton everything you eat were to go up right now? With people already hurting then food becomes scarce, ouch. The problem is selling the stuff with big agro-business the little guy is squeezed out of the market by regulations. Regulations put in by lobbyists for big agro-business. They are even pushing for everyone who owns chickens to register their chickens with the dept of agriculture. Like that will happen...

Fusion. We do have fusion its just that the fuel we use produces an excess of heavy neutrons that bombard the shielding of the system. This bombardment causes the shielding to go bad. Then you have to replace it which they say is to expensive to make it practical. A better fuel is required it is called helium 3 it does not produce the neutrons like the fuel we use now in our studies. However it does not occur naturally on earth. It is produced and expelled by the sun. Our magnetic field and atmosphere deflect it away from the earth. However the moon is positively loaded with the stuff they said 1 rail-road car of this stuff could power the United States for a year. That's one reason why China, Russia and the US are planning to go back to the moon, Mining.

As far as getting into space look into the X-prize they did that on the cheap and got to space twice in two weeks and getting their is half the battle. See once you get the government out of the way people will get the job done just like with the X-Prize. It cost 100 million bucks but it was privately funded by an "evil" rich guy. And if NASA had done it, it would have cost 10 billion probably.

You can not terraform the moon it is imposable (with anything our current technology can even conceive of). And I will explain why. Their is only 1/6th earth gravity on the moon not enough to hold onto gasses. The best you can hope for is domes. But even domed colonies would not house permanent residents. The gravity there is so weak that you would begin to suffer bone and muscle loss after long term exposure you wouldn't want to stay their anymore then a year it would be very much like being weightless look at the Russians who stayed on there station to long. Mars is more able to be terraformed however. I can't wait to see how life adapts to this new environment.

As for losing 90% of earths population they couldn't manage to do it if people grew their own foods collected their own water and produced much of their own electricity. Create a bottom up grid instead of a top down grid.

NewGrowth · Mar 4, 2009

ilkhan said:
TBT is just mad LOL, I like your idea I wish I had a couple acre's to raise my own chickens and some plums and apricots. Just like my grandparents did i am planting a garden I think this year. your suggestions about local food production is very valid and when you look at commodities such as sugar and cotton they are valued very low. Just think about this what if the price of wheat tripled and potatoes and cotton everything you eat were to go up right now? With people already hurting then food becomes scarce, ouch. The problem is selling the stuff with big agro-business the little guy is squeezed out of the market by regulations. Regulations put in by lobbyists for big agro-business. They are even pushing for everyone who owns chickens to register their chickens with the dept of agriculture. Like that will happen...

Fusion. We do have fusion its just that the fuel we use produces an excess of heavy neutrons that bombard the shielding of the system. This bombardment causes the shielding to go bad. Then you have to replace it which they say is to expensive to make it practical. A better fuel is required it is called helium 3 it does not produce the neutrons like the fuel we use now in our studies. However it does not occur naturally on earth. It is produced and expelled by the sun. Our magnetic field and atmosphere deflect it away from the earth. However the moon is positively loaded with the stuff they said 1 rail-road car of this stuff could power the United States for a year. That's one reason why China, Russia and the US are planning to go back to the moon, Mining.

As far as getting into space look into the X-prize they did that on the cheap and got to space twice in two weeks and getting their is half the battle. See once you get the government out of the way people will get the job done just like with the X-Prize. It cost 100 million bucks but it was privately funded by an "evil" rich guy. And if NASA had done it, it would have cost 10 billion probably.

You can not terraform the moon it is imposable (with anything our current technology can even conceive of). And I will explain why. Their is only 1/6th earth gravity on the moon not enough to hold onto gasses. The best you can hope for is domes. But even domed colonies would not house permanent residents. The gravity there is so weak that you would begin to suffer bone and muscle loss after long term exposure you wouldn't want to stay their anymore then a year it would be very much like being weightless look at the Russians who stayed on there station to long. Mars is more able to be terraformed however. I can't wait to see how life adapts to this new environment.

As for losing 90% of earths population they couldn't manage to do it if people grew their own foods collected their own water and produced much of their own electricity. Create a bottom up grid instead of a top down grid.

Yeah TBT is quite mad mostly because I uncover the flaws in his beliefs whenever I get the chance . . . .
Actually while I was chatting with him here I was disproving his claims on another.

Well said in the end a bottom up verse top down grid.

I think these crisis are an incredible opportunity for mankind to show our true creative capabilities. Imagine we can re-design our cities and really make the world a nicer place to live. Imagine manhattan covered in green fresh air and plenty of food.

TheBrutalTruth · Mar 5, 2009

ilkhan said:
TBT is just mad LOL, I like your idea I wish I had a couple acre's to raise my own chickens and some plums and apricots. Just like my grandparents did i am planting a garden I think this year. your suggestions about local food production is very valid and when you look at commodities such as sugar and cotton they are valued very low. Just think about this what if the price of wheat tripled and potatoes and cotton everything you eat were to go up right now? With people already hurting then food becomes scarce, ouch. The problem is selling the stuff with big agro-business the little guy is squeezed out of the market by regulations. Regulations put in by lobbyists for big agro-business. They are even pushing for everyone who owns chickens to register their chickens with the dept of agriculture. Like that will happen...

Fusion. We do have fusion its just that the fuel we use produces an excess of heavy neutrons that bombard the shielding of the system. This bombardment causes the shielding to go bad. Then you have to replace it which they say is to expensive to make it practical. A better fuel is required it is called helium 3 it does not produce the neutrons like the fuel we use now in our studies. However it does not occur naturally on earth. It is produced and expelled by the sun. Our magnetic field and atmosphere deflect it away from the earth. However the moon is positively loaded with the stuff they said 1 rail-road car of this stuff could power the United States for a year. That's one reason why China, Russia and the US are planning to go back to the moon, Mining.

As far as getting into space look into the X-prize they did that on the cheap and got to space twice in two weeks and getting their is half the battle. See once you get the government out of the way people will get the job done just like with the X-Prize. It cost 100 million bucks but it was privately funded by an "evil" rich guy. And if NASA had done it, it would have cost 10 billion probably.

You can not terraform the moon it is imposable (with anything our current technology can even conceive of). And I will explain why. Their is only 1/6th earth gravity on the moon not enough to hold onto gasses. The best you can hope for is domes. But even domed colonies would not house permanent residents. The gravity there is so weak that you would begin to suffer bone and muscle loss after long term exposure you wouldn't want to stay their anymore then a year it would be very much like being weightless look at the Russians who stayed on there station to long. Mars is more able to be terraformed however. I can't wait to see how life adapts to this new environment.

As for losing 90% of earths population they couldn't manage to do it if people grew their own foods collected their own water and produced much of their own electricity. Create a bottom up grid instead of a top down grid.

Your statements don't contradict mine.

Gravity can be emulated utilizing Centrifugal Force, the only other problem is radiation, which can be shielded against by using Lead.

The problem of course, is that we're trying to launch things from here to there, instead of using the resources that are up there, and thus stuck dealing with a gravity well.

As far as Fusion. My understanding was that it was all managed by magnetic containment, how do neutrons degrade a magnetic containment field?

NewGrowth · Mar 5, 2009

TheBrutalTruth said:
Your statements don't contradict mine.

Gravity can be emulated utilizing Centrifugal Force, the only other problem is radiation, which can be shielded against by using Lead.

The problem of course, is that we're trying to launch things from here to there, instead of using the resources that are up there, and thus stuck dealing with a gravity well.

As far as Fusion. My understanding was that it was all managed by magnetic containment, how do neutrons degrade a magnetic containment field?

It's more than that. Hydrogen three is readily available from seawater. There are two types of fusion reactors Laser and Containment. The containment types are probably most viable at this point. The superconducting magnets must be supercooled while containing plasma much hotter than the sun. Then energy must somehow be extracted in the form of electricity.

The newest and largest containment type reactor is currently under construction in France. The problem with fusion is not in theory but in actually engineering obstacles.

Fusion may be our energy "get out of jail free" card. Right now nearest estimates for it being a viable source are around 2012 most put it off till about 2035. The problem is energy decline is happening now and for those of you with basic knowledge of Chemistry also understand the nature of CO2 and the greenhouse effect.

Honestly we should be using more of our resources for fusion research.

TheBrutalTruth · Mar 5, 2009

NewGrowth said:
It's more than that. Hydrogen three is readily available from seawater. There are two types of fusion reactors Laser and Containment. The containment types are probably most viable at this point. The superconducting magnets must be supercooled while containing plasma much hotter than the sun. Then energy must somehow be extracted in the form of electricity.

The newest and largest containment type reactor is currently under construction in France. The problem with fusion is not in theory but in actually engineering obstacles.

Fusion may be our energy "get out of jail free" card. Right now nearest estimates for it being a viable source are around 2012 most put it off till about 2035. The problem is energy decline is happening now and for those of you with basic knowledge of Chemistry also understand the nature of CO2 and the greenhouse effect.

Honestly we should be using more of our resources for fusion research.

What CO2 effect, temperatures have been trending down since 1998.

NewGrowth · Mar 5, 2009

TheBrutalTruth said:
What CO2 effect, temperatures have been trending down since 1998.

CO2 traps and absorbs large amounts of heat, this is a known scientific fact. This is known as the "Greenhouse Effect", because the heat trapping capability is similar to glass. Think of a hot car during the summer.

If CO2 were not a component in our atmosphere too much heat would be lost to space and life as we know it would not exist.

Here is a good chart from our friends at NASA :clap:

There are natural warming and cooling periods on earth. There have been times of massive temperature variance however. The Ice Age being an example. The trend emerges over time but this rise is notable.

We are still just beginning to understand the earth's climate the Global Warming theory is based on raw data and it's result are becoming apparent.
Massive Tsunamis, encroaching shorelines, melting ice caps, changing ocean currents, extreme weather patterns (hurricane katrina), ect. The list goes on, these are all observable natural occurences.

Ok check out the chart:

ilkhan · Mar 6, 2009

I believe we use hydrogen now that is the fuel that produces the neutrons. We need Helium 3 which does not occur naturally on earth.

I realize that centrifugal gravity exists but would be difficult to manage in an environment like the moon which has its own gravity that would be working against it. Actually I was referring to true transforming, that will never happen without star trek tech.

I was also under the impression that fusion was contained in an electromagnetic field. However The field draws so much power that it eats up a large amount of the power produced as to make it infeasible, with current technology. So in order to save on the power consumption my guess is they are trying to dumb it down a little.

As far as CO2 goes, The earth goes threw changes all the time the earth is an incredibly complex system that no computer model can accurately predict. We have had mini-ice ages and heat spells within just the last 1500 years consider the Viking colonization of Greenland. They only died out there due to the climate becoming colder. Consider this, what if the CO2 emissions are holding off an ice age. You just don't know. Just speculation on my part.
It would take 30 Kyoto treaties to offset what is being produced by man. Even if their models are accurate Kyoto, cap-in-trade, wind and solar power by the year 2100 it will result in a .13 degree temperature drop that could cost our economy as much as $420 billion a year or as much as 3% of our GDP. I say screw it if the earth does get warmer then huge tracts of land currently unusable will become available in Canada and Russia. I'm sorry I don't see the need to get my panties in a bunch over it. If we really wanted to help the environment we would use Hemp instead of lumber to build our homes. we would help replant the forests in Indonesia and the Amazon basin. And don't forget Plants Love CO2 the more there is the better they like it. CO2 is not a pollutant.

NewGrowth · Mar 6, 2009

ilkhan said:
I believe we use hydrogen now that is the fuel that produces the neutrons. We need Helium 3 which does not occur naturally on earth.

Helium three is a by-product of fusion. We have all the materials here on earth to create a fusion reaction and have done it many times. The problem is somehow extracting power from this reaction. It's an engineering problem.

I was also under the impression that fusion was contained in an electromagnetic field. However The field draws so much power that it eats up a large amount of the power produced as to make it infeasible, with current technology. So in order to save on the power consumption my guess is they are trying to dumb it down a little.

You are correct, containment reactors have been successful in generating a net output of power. The problem now is containing the plasma for extended periods of time.

As far as CO2 goes, The earth goes threw changes all the time the earth is an incredibly complex system that no computer model can accurately predict. We have had mini-ice ages and heat spells within just the last 1500 years consider the Viking colonization of Greenland. They only died out there due to the climate becoming colder. Consider this, what if the CO2 emissions are holding off an ice age. You just don't know. Just speculation on my part.
It would take 30 Kyoto treaties to offset what is being produced by man. Even if their models are accurate Kyoto, cap-in-trade, wind and solar power by the year 2100 it will result in a .13 degree temperature drop that could cost our economy as much as $420 billion a year or as much as 3% of our GDP. I say screw it if the earth does get warmer then huge tracts of land currently unusable will become available in Canada and Russia. I'm sorry I don't see the need to get my panties in a bunch over it. If we really wanted to help the environment we would use Hemp instead of lumber to build our homes. we would help replant the forests in Indonesia and the Amazon basin. And don't forget Plants Love CO2 the more there is the better they like it. CO2 is not a pollutant.

Civilization would not survive a massive climate shift. The writing is on the wall and 99% of the scientific community agrees.

We Love 1 · Mar 6, 2009

The "global warming" propaganda is just that, propaganda. As history shows the Earth goes through natural climate cycles that are more contingent upon the Suns solar activities rather than co2. Co2 is not much of a greenhouse gas, and its levels are relativly low compared to the past. Apparently methane from farm animals are having a bigger impact than co2.

The more co2 the better, in My opinion. The more ambient co2 that is produced the more plants will grow and produce more oxygen, and thusly lowering the co2 levels.

The bottom line is that the gov't and mainstream media lie.

~PEACE~

NewGrowth · Mar 6, 2009

We Love 1 said:
The "global warming" propaganda is just that, propaganda. As history shows the Earth goes through natural climate cycles that are more contingent upon the Suns solar activities rather than co2. Co2 is not much of a greenhouse gas, and its levels are relativly low compared to the past. Apparently methane from farm animals are having a bigger impact than co2.

The more co2 the better, in My opinion. The more ambient co2 that is produced the more plants will grow and produce more oxygen, and thusly lowering the co2 levels.

The bottom line is that the gov't and mainstream media lie.

~PEACE~

Once again Global Warming is based on raw data. We have dramatically changed the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. To say that is not a big deal is simply ignorant. This really need not be an emotional debate, just look at the data it's un-biased.

I have examined both side of the issue and like I said the writing is on the wall :wall:

Once again more unbiased data:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

medicineman · Mar 6, 2009

I don't know what it would take to make the doubters wake up. I mean if one only looked at the LINK TV channel, where they actually show the changes, let alone all the other info coming through the Tube. One would have to be fucking deaf dumb and blind not to see the progression, the impact on the poorer nations, starving in Africa because the Sahara desert is on the move south. The drying up of rivers due to the lack of snow melt in the mountains, the massive assault on the last vestiges of arboreal forests in the tropics and elsewhere, the dessimation of wildlife all over the globe, it is almost unbelievable that there are people so ignorant that they don't see global warming coming at them like a runaway train.

The Purpose of Money

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member