LADYBOY.REVIEWS
This site contains Adult Content.
Are you at least 18 years old?

Yes No

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flying by Air- the carbon footprint

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Some news to ponder:

    The world's largest tropical glacier is in danger of disappearing within five years, according to international researchers meeting this week in San Francisco.


    CBC News


    Ohio State glaciologist Lonnie Thompson and a team of scientists said they have found evidence the Qori Kalis glacier of the Quelccaya ice cap in the Peruvian Andes could lose half its mass in 12 months and could be gone five years from now.

    Thompson gave his presentation Thursday at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He told reporters afterward there was little mankind could do to stop the decline of the glacier and others like it.

    "The lower elevation tropical glaciers are going right now, no matter what we do we're going to lose the glaciers on [Mount] Kilimanjaro and we're going to lose the lower elevation glaciers in the Andes," said Thompson.

    The Quelccaya ice cap covers 44 square kilometres in the Cordillera Oriental region and is the world's largest tropical ice mass. Its biggest glacier, the Qori Kalis, has receded by at least 1.1 kilometres since 1963, when the first formal measurements were taken. The rate of retreat has increased from six metres per year between 1963 and 1978 to 60 metres per year now, said Thompson.

    The region also includes Peru's Cordillera Blanca, or White Mountain Range, one of the Andean country's most famous natural landmarks.

    Climate change research has focused on melting glaciers in the north and south poles, but tropical glaciers also play a valuable role in local ecosystems as they feed rivers that supply fresh water to areas like Peru's arid coast.

    Thompson worries the problem of global warming won't be addressed until things get worse.

    "The question is, how far down this road do we go before there's any meaningful action to reduce emissions, what does the evidence have to be?" he said. "And unfortunately as human beings - it doesn't matter really what it is - we only deal well with crises."

    The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report two weeks ago saying evidence of global warming was "unequivocal" and that man-made greenhouse gases were "very likely" behind the rising temperatures and sea levels.

    The second of four reports from the panel identifying at-risk regions will be released April 6.

    An explorer looks on in the Pastoruri glacier in Huaraz in November 2006. Ice atop the Cordillera Blanca, the largest glacier chain in the tropics, is melting quickly because of rising temperatures.
    (Karel Navarro/Associated Press)

    With files from the Associated Press

    So let's wait until everything melts before we decide if this is a real problem or not?
    Attached Files

    Click on the links below and discover how the Forums work
    Membership Levels
    The Rookie Thread
    New to The Ladyboy Forums? Introduce yourself!
    Old Members Must Reset Their Passwords

    Comment


    • #92
      (rxpharm @ Feb. 17 2007,22:14) So let's wait until everything melts before we decide if this is a real problem or not?

      Your ice-cube of a country would be well-served by a little global warming!

      Canada knows this, which is why it is one of the bad players with respect to global warming...

      Stop the Canuck conspiracy!
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • #93
        Actually yesterday i watched some film of Mount Everest and the glacier that E.Hilary started his ascent has shrunk by three miles....and thats with a 0.13c warming per decade.

        I think Scientists in general are the most Skeptical people you will ever meet and i think that when they have concensus, its time to at least listen and think. even Senator mcCain said yesterday..........

        " the debate is now over my friends" " that man is changing the climate is beyond doubt"

        Comment


        • #94
          (Tomcat @ Feb. 17 2007,23:36) I think Scientists in general are the most Skeptical people you will ever meet and i think that when they have concensus
          There is NO consensus. When 2500 toadys and sycophants band together and sign their names to a document, that means NOTHING, especially when many of those "scientists" do not even study the climate. They are from unrelated disciplines such as anthropology, linguistics and pussy-ology. Even if every single last signer was a true climate scientist, whatever that may be, there are still many skeptics who did not sign. So where the fuck is the consensus?

          (Tomcat @ Feb. 17 2007,23:36) even Senator mcCain said yesterday.......... " the debate is now over my friends" " that man is changing the climate is beyond doubt"
          This is absurd at this point and now you are embarrassing yourself.

          Comment


          • #95
            (sangabriel @ Feb. 18 2007,00:44) There is NO consensus. When 2500 toadys and sycophants band together and sign their names to a document, that means NOTHING,
            But hang on

            113 delegates from all countries agreed. Why would they agree?

            Even the anti science Saudis and the hard nose Chinese agreed with the IPCC report. The report was actually waterd down for these guys to agree.

            So what about the coal fired power stations being built on average every 10 days in China , not a problem eh!...explain that away............

            if you can

            Comment


            • #96
              (sangabriel @ Feb. 18 2007,00:44) This is absurd at this point and now you are embarrassing yourself.
              how

              this is what he said? whats so funny.
              Im not an American so maybe i missed something

              Comment


              • #97
                (sangabriel @ Feb. 17 2007,16:44) There is NO consensus. When 2500 toadys and sycophants band together and sign their names to a document, that means NOTHING, especially when many of those "scientists" do not even study the climate. They are from unrelated disciplines such as anthropology, linguistics and pussy-ology. Even if every single last signer was a true climate scientist, whatever that may be, there are still many skeptics who did not sign. So where the fuck is the consensus?
                Hello Sangabriel,

                You seem to have a low opinion of a large part of the scientific comunity. Do you have personal knowledge of these '2500 toadys and sycophants' that causes you to dismiss their findings.
                Who or what do you believe as you apparently have such a low opinion of scientists and researchers.

                So far you have taken a very fixed stance but have only offered us one chart that allegedly proves that there is no global warming.
                Can you please show us some of your other proof apart from newspaper cuttings that is.

                RR.
                Pedants rule, OK. Or more precisely, exhibit certain of the conventional trappings of leadership.

                "I love the smell of ladyboy in the morning."
                Kahuna

                Comment


                • #98
                  (Tomcat @ Feb. 18 2007,00:56) this is what he said?
                  Exactly.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    im lost on that one

                    anyway i think you should answer Road Runner

                    Comment


                    • (Tomcat @ Feb. 18 2007,00:55)
                      113 delegates from all countries agreed. Why would they agree?
                      Because they knew it was a meaningless document anyway and that everyone would soon forget about it. Perhaps more than a few were hand-picked toadys. Stack your votes and you will have unanimity.

                      (Tomcat @ Feb. 18 2007,00:55)
                      Even the ... hard nose Chinese agreed with the IPCC report. The report was actually waterd down for these guys to agree. So what about the coal fired power stations being built on average every 10 days in China , not a problem eh!...
                      Sounds like hypocrisy which the Chinese will need to explain. But perhaps they vote yes on a report they know will die, and reap the benefit of supporting it while doing exactly what they intended to do anyway.

                      The United States helped draft the Kyoto treaty with the help of Al Gore. Then he brings it home and the treaty dies in the Senate 99 to 0 (talk about bipartisan unanimity!), and even his own running mate, a fellow Democrat, President Clinton, called it a bad treaty. So, now China has done the same with this stupid report.

                      Comment


                      • (Road Runner @ Feb. 18 2007,00:57)
                        You seem to have a low opinion of a large part of the scientific comunity.
                        You are confusing "the scientific community" with the supporters of this report.

                        They are not the same.

                        It is a simple point really.

                        (Road Runner @ Feb. 18 2007,00:57)
                        So far you have taken a very fixed stance but have only offered us one chart that allegedly proves that there is no global warming.
                        Can you please show us some of your other proof apart from newspaper cuttings that is.
                        I did not offer you "one chart".

                        The photos of newspaper cuttings were not proof of anything. The newspaper cuttings were evidence that the media feeds off hysteria-mongering about the climate since the days of yellow journalism.

                        And the funny thing is, until 30 years ago, the "in" worry was that another ice age was coming. Now the school of fish has abruptly changed direction and the concern is global warming! Unfortunately,  you have started swimming with the school of fish recently, and seem completely oblivious to the 180 turn.

                        As for what I believe... it does not matter. I may actually believe that the earth is warming. But I am aware that there are diverse viewpoints and theories that attribute warming to causes other than man-made CO2 production.

                        What matters is that these "facts about climate change" are in fact not facts. That man is the cause of global warming (or climate change or whatever Orwellian-speak is currently in vogue) is unproven. Even the 2500 scientists claim only 90% certainty and use language indicating that they are not certain. Usually, scientific journals expect that conclusions be made at the 95% confidence level. Those scientists are aware of that, yet chose to say 90%. Why? Because they are not totally sure.

                        So who gives a rat's ass what an ambitious politician like McCain or Schwarzenneger or any other fuck says to a reporter?

                        The media-driven hysteria, which the nodding donkeys are cooing over, is nothing more than X-files-style pseudoscience and unproven religion. People want to believe and have faith in their 2500 prophets and their messiah, Al Gore.

                        Comment


                        • To me, there is no doubt climate is changing.

                          You talk about the glacier in the Andes, the Himalayas and the one you missed, Kilimanjaro. These are 3 of many 1000's of glaciers, and others are forming at an equal rate. Same with the Greenland Ice Pack, yes i agree it is melting, but the ice pack is reforming and deepening at other points. These FACTS are uncontested by the "scientists" who only ever give one side of the argument, the side who is paying them First you have the green lobby sponsored by major organisations like the Audobon Society, Green Fund etc, and the other side sponsored by Exxon, Shell and other industrial giants.

                          So who is right? Both sides have valid arguments. I personally believe we are just going through a phase of climate adjustment, as has happened in the billions of years this planet has been around.

                          It wasn't that long ago, as donnnny says, that Australia was a teeming rainforest and vines were grown in Greenland.

                          This whole argument/discussion has appeared in the media and everyone has jumped on the bandwagon, some using it as a means to raise taxes, others to keep the subject in the front of the people whilst they hide the true problems that face this earth.
                          seriously pig headed,arrogant,double standard smart ass poster!

                          Comment


                          • From Reuters: "The scientists said it was 'very likely' -- or more than 90 percent probable -- that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years."

                            The fucks at the Toronto Star are a bit more dishonest, with an article titled "There is No Longer Any Doubt.", writing: "it's no longer in dispute that human activities are rapidly accelerating global warming."

                            Are Canadians such sheep?

                            Comment


                            • (sangabriel @ Feb. 17 2007,17:28) You are confusing "the scientific community" with the supporters of this report..
                              I was not 'confusing the supporters of this report with the scientific community' - I was quoting you to illustrate my point.
                              I stand by what I said above you seem to have a very low opinion of the scientific community and researchers.

                              (sangabriel @ Feb. 17 2007,17:28) I did not offer you "one chart".
                              Yes appologies there  -  it was Grunyen who at least provided some factual evidence.

                              (sangabriel @ Feb. 17 2007,17:28) The photos of newspaper cuttings were not proof of anything. The newspaper cuttings were evidence that the media feeds off hysteria-mongering about the climate since the days of yellow journalism.
                              I think the vast majority of the public is sensible enough to treat newspaper reports with a considerable amount of scepitcism.

                              (sangabriel @ Feb. 17 2007,17:28) And the funny thing is, until 30 years ago, the "in" worry was that another ice age was coming. Now the school of fish has abruptly changed direction and the concern is global warming! Unfortunately,  you have started swimming with the school of fish recently, and seem completely oblivious to the 180 turn.
                              All the early research was expected to show global cooling as we entered another ice age and not global warming  -  maybe that is masking the heating effect.
                              Maybe it's helping to mittigate it.

                              (sangabriel @ Feb. 17 2007,17:28) As for what I believe... it does not matter. I may actually believe that the earth is warming. But I am aware that there are diverse viewpoints and theories that attribute warming to causes other than man-made CO2 production.
                              I think we all agree that there are other causes but man made CO2 is an additional factor and we are now producing it in larger quantaties than before.

                              (sangabriel @ Feb. 17 2007,17:28) What matters is that these "facts about climate change" are in fact not facts. That man is the cause of global warming (or climate change or whatever Orwellian-speak is currently in vogue) is unproven.
                              Climate change is a fact  -  the earths climate has never been constant in its 4.5 billion year history.  What we do not know is if the present changes are related to the effects of man or natural changes.
                              Global warming is almost certainly occuring  -  OK we cannot say 100% that it is.   We do not have a long enough time scale for absolute proof.  I guess you want to wait another 100 years (or more?) for a more 'scientific' result.  Only problem is it might be a little late by then.  

                              (sangabriel @ Feb. 17 2007,17:28) Even the 2500 scientists
                              You are confusing "the scientific community" with the supporters of this report.  They are not the same.
                              Err...... I think I missed something here.

                              (sangabriel @ Feb. 17 2007,17:28) claim only 90% certainty and use language indicating that they are not certain. Usually, scientific journals expect that conclusions be made at the 95% confidence level. Those scientists are aware of that, yet chose to say 90%. Why? Because they are not totally sure.
                              No they are not certain  -  again I think we all agree on that  -  but at the moment that is as good as we are likely to get.  Still we could always wait another 100 years  -  or 1000 ?


                              (sangabriel @ Feb. 17 2007,17:28) So who gives a rat's ass what an ambitious politician like McCain or Schwarzenneger or any other fuck says to a reporter?
                              Who's McCain?  Arnie is a politician now!  
                              Anyway like I said above I think most people here are bright enough to make their own minds up about politicians and newspaper reports.


                              (sangabriel @ Feb. 17 2007,17:28) The media-driven hysteria, which the nodding donkeys are cooing over, is nothing more than X-files-style pseudoscience and unproven religion. People want to believe and have faith in their 2500 prophets and their messiah, Al Gore.
                              So who do YOU believe?

                              RR.
                              Pedants rule, OK. Or more precisely, exhibit certain of the conventional trappings of leadership.

                              "I love the smell of ladyboy in the morning."
                              Kahuna

                              Comment


                              • (Road Runner @ Feb. 18 2007,02:13) I was not 'confusing the supporters of this report with the scientific community' - I was quoting you to illustrate my point.
                                I stand by what I said above you seem to have a very low opinion of the scientific community and researchers.
                                Now you get to show everyone where you quoted me.

                                As for your statement that I have a very low opinion of the scientific community and researchers, well, suffice to say that I do research myself. So go fuck yourself.

                                (Road Runner @ Feb. 18 2007,02:13) Yes appologies there  -  it was Grunyen who at least provided some factual evidence.
                                "Factual evidence"? You are very careless with you choice of words.

                                As for me, I am banging my head against the wall wondering how did I allow myself to get drawn into a debate about global warming with a bunch of belligerent fucks on the a bulletin board about transsexuals? Even after I made fun of people arguing with Cliff Clavin. I am totally ashamed.


                                Comment



                                Working...
                                X