TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The "Goracle"
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Existo22 You fucking conservatives are a bunch of degenerates rotting in your own vile illness. A Conservative American is one classic oxymoron.... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo |
sorry, i've been trying to convey the impression of Existo's vomitting on this thread ad nauseum
the sluts are nice though.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo sorry, i've been trying to convey the impression of Existo's vomitting on this thread ad nauseum the sluts are nice though. |
right
| quote: |
| Originally posted by metalgearsolid if all we are going to do is post pictures than count me in: |
ew?
this guy could have posted in this thread.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo sorry, i've been trying to convey the impression of Existo's vomitting on this thread ad nauseum |
RIP, Goracle thread
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ResonantDrag RIP, Goracle thread |
god damn I'm tired of this thread and I think this thread is equally tired. The only things I will say in response to Occrider (as I think we've both established our positions quite clearly) is:
1) The environment doesn't know what a "carbon credit" is, and certainly derives no benefit from it.
2) With respect to Gore having a more expensive power bill simply because he is buying "more expensive" alternative power: 191,000 KwH is still 10x the Nashville average, so regardless of the source of his power, he is still a prodigious user of power and the resources required to produce such power.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka god damn I'm tired of this thread and I think this thread is equally tired. The only things I will say in response to Occrider (as I think we've both established our positions quite clearly) is: 1) The environment doesn't know what a "carbon credit" is, and certainly derives no benefit from it. 2) With respect to Gore having a more expensive power bill simply because he is buying "more expensive" alternative power: 191,000 KwH is still 10x the Nashville average, so regardless of the source of his power, he is still a prodigious user of power and the resources required to produce such power. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka god damn I'm tired of this thread and I think this thread is equally tired. The only things I will say in response to Occrider (as I think we've both established our positions quite clearly) is: 1) The environment doesn't know what a "carbon credit" is, and certainly derives no benefit from it. 2) With respect to Gore having a more expensive power bill simply because he is buying "more expensive" alternative power: 191,000 KwH is still 10x the Nashville average, so regardless of the source of his power, he is still a prodigious user of power and the resources required to produce such power. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka god damn I'm tired of this thread and I think this thread is equally tired. The only things I will say in response to Occrider (as I think we've both established our positions quite clearly) is: 1) The environment doesn't know what a "carbon credit" is, and certainly derives no benefit from it. 2) With respect to Gore having a more expensive power bill simply because he is buying "more expensive" alternative power: 191,000 KwH is still 10x the Nashville average, so regardless of the source of his power, he is still a prodigious user of power and the resources required to produce such power. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider 2) Yes the man uses more electricity than the average person. However, the guy is conscientious of that fact and takes far more actionable steps than the average american to minimize his impact on the environment |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Did you miss, "The environment doesn't know what a "carbon credit" is..." part? 'Offsetting', while a nice gesture, doesn't excuse him in my books. It's just not relatable to the average joe who doesn't have the cash this man can obviously throw around; it's a rich man's solution to buying his way out and circumnavigating his own carbon footprint. |
Here's a question (seriously, I thought we were done!)
Does a carbon credit minimize impact on the environment or simply minimize the guilt associated with impacting the environment? If you burn down a forest but purchase "carbon offsets" have you lessened the impact of the burning forest on the greater environment? Methinks not.
I was reading an article about the theory behind carbon offsets, carbon trading, etc. It seems to me that, if anything, they are more of a way to buy the right to pollute more and don't really offset much because the person/company/entity that you purchase them from is a willing seller that wouldn't otherwise need them (i.e. wouldn't be creating the extra pollution anyway). You could essentially argue that the concept allows for maximum possible pollution based on the total size of the carbon credit market. People who sell them generally don't need them anyway, hence they sell the pollution they otherwise wouldn't create to the highest bidder. It's a flawed system, IMO.
Just because Gore is "conscientious" doesn't mean he is doing less harm. That's tantamount to a criminal going to confessional before he goes and commits another crime. Hell, that's chutzpah!
P.S. I am not in favor of a carbon tax either!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Here's a question (seriously, I thought we were done!) Does a carbon credit minimize impact on the environment or simply minimize the guilt associated with impacting the environment? If you burn down a forest but purchase "carbon offsets" have you lessened the impact of the burning forest on the greater environment? Methinks not. I was reading an article about the theory behind carbon offsets, carbon trading, etc. It seems to me that, if anything, they are more of a way to buy the right to pollute more and don't really offset much because the person/company/entity that you purchase them from is a willing seller that wouldn't otherwise need them (i.e. wouldn't be creating the extra pollution anyway). You could essentially argue that the concept allows for maximum possible pollution based on the total size of the carbon credit market. People who sell them generally don't need them anyway, hence they sell the pollution they otherwise wouldn't create to the highest bidder. It's a flawed system, IMO. Just because Gore is "conscientious" doesn't mean he is doing less harm. That's tantamount to a criminal going to confessional before he goes and commits another crime. Hell, that's chutzpah! P.S. I am not in favor of a carbon tax either! |
| quote: |
Carbon offsets Sins of emission Aug 3rd 2006 From The Economist print edition The idea of offsetting carbon emissions is sound in theory, if not yet in practice THE sale of indulgences by the Catholic church in the early 16th century, whereby people could, in effect, purchase forgiveness of past sins by handing over enough money, was condemned by Martin Luther and other reformers. Today, some environmentalists are denouncing the �offsetting� of carbon emissions in similar terms. A company that wants to declare itself �carbon neutral� calculates how many tonnes of carbon it emits, and then offsets the emissions by paying someone else not to emit that amount of carbon on its behalf. Just as Luther criticised indulgences, critics of offsetting argue that the ability to buy retrospective forgiveness for sins of emission is no substitute for not sinning in the first place. Carbon offsets have two main purposes. One, as with indulgences, is to assuage guilt. Carbon offsetting allows consumers to quell their eco-guilt even as they jet off to distant climes on holiday, and drivers of sports-utility vehicles to argue that they have atoned for the emissions produced by their gas-guzzling cars. A second purpose is image-polishing: companies that declare themselves carbon neutral may well have public-relations as well as environmental benefits in mind. To fulfil those purposes, carbon offsets do need to reduce carbon emissions. Existing schemes are far from perfect. One popular sort involves planting trees, which remove carbon from the atmosphere as they grow; but this approach is now somewhat discredited, since the carbon may be released again when the trees are cut down. Another problem with offset schemes is the lack of standards: can you really trust those who promise to eliminate emissions elsewhere on your behalf? Then there is the problem of �additionality�: would the emissions in question have been eliminated anyway, or is the reduction additional? Since offsetting is done on a voluntary basis, unlike the mandatory carbon-trading systems that have been imposed on some industries in some countries, such doubts may put people off doing it altogether. After all, only wide-ranging, compulsory schemes will make a real difference in reducing emissions and minimising climate change; the odd bit of offsetting here and there will not. Despite such flaws, however, the idea of carbon offsets is a good one. Establishing markets in which carbon emissions can be traded and offset is a good idea, since market forces then provide financial incentives for people to find the cheapest ways to reduce or eliminate emissions. The lack of standards is also being addressed. Various bodies are creating standards and inspection regimes that will allow buyers of carbon offsets to feel confident that they really are getting what they pay for (see article). And many firms are embracing voluntary offsetting now in the expectation that compulsory carbon trading will soon be imposed upon them anyway. The right way to not do something Yet as the nascent carbon-offsetting industry starts to take shape, a new problem is emerging. Some of the non-governmental organisations that are drawing up carbon-offset standards require emissions to be cut in particular ways: after due consultation with local people, for example, or using particular favoured technologies. Such considerations are irrelevant: the only thing that should matter in offset schemes is that emissions should be cut. Politicising offsets risks discrediting an approach that deserves to be taken seriously. And that really would be a sin. http://www.economist.com/opinion/di...y_id=E1_SNVNRJS |
| quote: |
 Your projects reduce global warming pollution on your behalf by reducing the amount of power generated by burning fossil fuels. Under federal law, renewable generators can force utilities to buy their power. For efficient grid operation, if the utility has to buy the project�s power, it is going to use it. As a matter of physics, if the utility uses the renewable project�s power, it must, for any given level of demand, use less from other sources. For efficient grid operation, they use less from those generators that have the highest fuel costs � fossil fuel plants. The result is that for every kWh generated by a renewable generator, one kWh less is generated by fossil fuel plants. Learn more. Some renewable energy projects, like our family farm methane projects, reduce global warming pollution by reducing the amount of fossil fuels the farms themselves use for heat and cooling, or by preventing emissions of methane gas from manure stored in lagoons. By helping build new clean and renewable energy projects with NativeEnergy, you�ll reduce CO2 pollution by helping change how our power is made. Learn how we estimate how much CO2 pollution each project prevents. http://www.nativeenergy.com/how_works.html |
This seems like the most appropriate thread for this article.
| quote: |
| With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming 30.03.07 His serious aviation habit means he is hardly the best person to lecture others on the environment. But John Travolta went ahead and did it anyway. The 53-year-old actor, a passionate pilot, encouraged his fans to "do their bit" to tackle global warming. Scroll down for more... John Travolta Happy landings: John Travolta's plane collection parked at his home in Florida But although he readily admitted: "I fly jets", he failed to mention he actually owns five, along with his own private runway. Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions � nearly 100 times the average Briton's tally. Travolta made his comments this week at the British premiere of his movie, Wild Hogs. He spoke of the importance of helping the environment by using "alternative methods of fuel" � after driving down the red carpet on a Harley Davidson.  travoltapilot This is your captain: Travolta on tour for Qantas Enlarge the image Travolta, a Scientologist, claimed the solution to global warming could be found in outer space and blamed his hefty flying mileage on the nature of the movie business. But his appointment as a "serving ambassador" for the Australian airline Qantas doesn't seem to have much to do with the movies. Nor does a recent, two-month round-the-world flying trip. "It [global warming] is a very valid issue," Travolta declared. "I'm wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities. "Everyone can do their bit. But I don't know if it's not too late already. We have to think about alternative methods of fuel. "I'm probably not the best candidate to ask about global warming because I fly jets. "I use them as a business tool though, as others do. I think it's part of this industry � otherwise I couldn't be here doing this and I wouldn't be here now." Travolta's five private planes � a customised �2million Boeing 707, three Gulfstream jets and a Lear jet � are kept at the bottom of his garden in the US next to a private runway. Indeed, such is his enthusiasm for flying, he persuaded his wife, actress Kelly Preston, to name their son Jett when he was born 14 years ago. Five years ago he piloted his own Boeing 707 on a 13- city "Spirit of Friendship Tour" for Qantas, taking in Los Angeles, Auckland, Sydney, Singapore, Tokyo, London, Paris and New York and amassing over 35,000 flying miles. More recently, a gruelling promotional schedule for his two latest projects, Hairspray and Wild Hogs, has seen him fly extensively over the past year. This includes a country-wide tour of the US and a visit to Canada as well as this week's appearance in Leicester Square. Such prolific mileage means that, over the past 12 months, he has accumulated around 800 tonnes of carbon emissions. According to a recent study by the government-funded Carbon Trust, this means he boasts a carbon "footprint" nearly 100 times that of the average Briton, who is responsible for 10.92 tons of Co2, from his flights alone. One of the world's leading climate change businesses, the Carbon Neutral Company, has written to Travolta, suggesting ways he could reduce these alarming levels. He has yet to respond to their advice. Environmental groups were quick to criticise Travolta for "discrediting the cause". John Buckley, managing director-of CarbonFootprint.com, said: "John Travolta has such a high-profile celebrity status, so what he says carries an extraordinary amount of weight. "So it is such a shame when someone of his standing is so outspoken about green issues, yet fails to practise what he preaches. "Unfortunately someone of his standing ends up discrediting the cause itself, because he is saying people should protect the environment on one hand, yet travelling on a private plane on the other. "Green issues are serious and should be treated as such. "It is vital for celebrities to toe the line when they speak out in support of it." |
Haha, Shakka, very good one. That just shows the world's hypocrisy - all these big rich fat stars, politicians and other famous people claim to be such hearted global warming advocates, yet they are the ones part of the problem. Thats great, I bet there are many other great ones out there. Like its that big of a deal as well when these fat cats make millions of dollars a year and then contribute a few thousand bucks to charity, thats like me donating 10 dollars to charity from a 400 dollar paycheck - except my percentage of donation vs. income would be greater but noone is making a big fuzz about it.
Its like people want to feel good about themselves by saying yeah they support Al Gore and want to fight global warming, but they dont want to be the ones who want to put sacrifices to make the environment better. Its always has to be someone else's job, probably some poor guy somewhere in Asia who is living a miserable life as it is, and he has to do something about it, and no no, rich western white guys need their luxurious life and all. We all have to do the dirty work and feel bad for not doing enough about global warming, while the Almighty Heavenly Al Gore has done so many good things in his fight against global warming, especially when he was in office as vice president 
. Seems like all the other fat cats are following suit, jumping on the bandwagon, claiming to be big environment supporters and contributers, f***ing hypocrites. Though I know a few of these rich&famous people are very deserving, for most part others are just greedy selfish bastards who want to appear great.
With the fortune that he has, if I had that much money I would have definitely made a much better movie thats not as much bullshit as Inconvenient Truth to show the actual problems and issues that need to be faced with the environment. And I wouldn't be using 10 times the national electricity levels thats for sure.
^I thought you backed Gore?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium With the fortune that he has, if I had that much money I would have definitely made a much better movie thats not as much bullshit as Inconvenient Truth to show the actual problems and issues that need to be faced with the environment. And I wouldn't be using 10 times the national electricity levels thats for sure. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Haha, Shakka, very good one. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by metalgearsolid ^I thought you backed Gore? |
I watched him today, go at it in the Congress last week. Inspiring dude, so, I started writing; dunno why. So I'll just go ahead and post it here if you don't mind, basically the same shit you read everywhere, with some self-indulgent crap.
Oh, but if you give me the name of a meteorological station in your neighbourhood, I may be able to provide you with the graph I made for Uccle in Belgium. Maybe that's interesting.
A word on global warming.
It is with great attentiveness and inappropriate pleasure that I have watched global warming shift from being regarded a potential danger to an imminent threat. It is since 2002 that I consider global warming to be a greater threat to mankind than nuclear proliferation. Since then, I have used the internet to gather data, find information resources and most importantly, develop insights that are alarmist at the very least. To the point it has me 'praying' for a cataclysmic volcanic eruption to counter the global warming effect by a short period of global dimming. No such 'luck' so far, so as it stands now, the only structural remedy against the warming is to reduce greenhouse gasses.
Principle
A body at any temperature above absolute zero emits electromagnetic radiation (Planck or 'Black Body' radiation). Although it is fundamentally a volumetric phenomenon, it often manifests itself as a surface effect, because the radiating body itself absorbs its own radiation, except at its surface where the radiation is emitted into the surrounding 'space'. The planet Earth being an intermediate form, since its solid state and fluid surface is surrounded by the gaseous atmosphere. Key here is to be aware of the following relations:
-'Cold' bodies emit radiation with lower intensity (less photons) and lower energy (per photon).
-'Hot' bodies emit radiation with higher intensity (more photons) and higher energy (per photon).
That is why infrared cameras detect body heat sources (32�C skin surface), it is why an object at 600�C starts glowing visible orange, why an object at 1200�C glows bright white and why the sun's surface (T=5500�C) radiates most of its energy under the form of ultraviolet rays.
Quantitatively, if the body is at (absolute) temperature T, it emits energy at a rate of esAT^4, with e being an emissivity factor (between 0 and 1), A its area and s is a constant. This is known as Stefan-Boltzmann's law.
Although overly simplistic, the green house effect can be described as follows.
Incident sunrays originate from the hot sun's surface, under the form of highly energetic ultra violet rays (known to cause sunburn). Thing is, these rays pass through air with relative ease and thus make it to the ground where they are ultimately absorbed and that is how the earth surface is being heated by the sun. To be in equilibrium, the Earth must radiate the exact same amount of energy to outer space. This happens via emission of infrared radiation since, contrary to the surface of the sun, mean Earth surface temperature is only of the order of 15�C. These infrared rays however do not travel through air without undergoing significant absorbsion in the air itself. This means that looking to Earth from outer space with an infrared camera, one does not see the black body spectrum of the earth surface, but that from a layer of air that surrounds it, the photons of which can make it to the camera, not having to make their way through the thick layer of air. The emission of greenhouse gases make the atmosphere essentially thicker, causing the radiation that does make it out of the atmosphere to originate from higher altitudes. Air at high altitude is cooler (this follows from static force equilibrium and the ideal gas law) so less energy is irradiated causing a structural energy imbalance of 0.4 to 1 Watt per m� of net heating (1 Watt = 1 Joule per second; 1 Joule is the energy needed to heat roughly a quarter of a gram of water by 1�C). One can think of (the upper limit of) 1W/m� as a 100 Watt lightbulb of excess energy for every 10 by 10 meter column of air and ground/sea on the Earth. This radiation energy imbalance, for the time being, causes temperatures not so much to be high, but to rise. Notice the derivative - integral relation between energy imbalance and temperature (although it is infinitely more complex). Please realize that miraculously freezing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, will not halt the temperature rise, but will only stop it from rising faster and faster. Also note that annual global greenhouse emissions are rising every year, and that the rate at which it is rising is also on the increase.
To the point that the effects are evident, and that point has long passed. Glaciers melting, 20%(!, volumetric) of arctic ice already lost, sea level rise (so far, primarily due to thermal expansion of the sea water) in the order of tens of centimeters. All symptoms of a warming globe. Warmer sea water also accounting for shifts in prevailing winds. Belgium, for example, noting an increase in wind coming from the South-West: Belgium lies on a frontier of Atlantic water at its North-West, land at its South-East. Warmer water causes areas of low pressure to be more dominant over water, with winds around it being forced to rotate counterclockwise by (the very weak) Coriolis force resulting in South-East winds alongside its South-West flank with Belgium in the brunt of it all. Warmest month ever (July 2006), followed by the warmest Autumn ever (calculated to have a statistical return period of 500 years), followed by the warmest Winter ever (this last one holds globally); March too will be high above average. I have a feeling we skipped Winter altogether this time around.
Now on a climatic scale, these recent extremes are quite insignificant, so let's widen the temporal scope. And they say one picture paints a thousand words.
Obviously, regional changes do occur, and even that graph isn't all that significant. So let's widen the spacial scope, and make no mistake, following graph is very, very significant.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.