global warming and ocean life

[Diuretic]

1. There is climate change and its effects are apparent. We need to acknowledge it and we need to change the way we live to be able to continue to exist.

2. If it is caused by human activity then the quicker we adapt to it to slow it or at least ameliorate its effects, the better for our (and other) species..

D, the problem is that even the IPCC has conceded that what it would take to unequivocally infer a cause and effect relationship between human activity and "climate change" is not possible. And the idea that we need to be able to change the way we live in order to "continue to exist" is very questionable.

But prudent.

 

[editec]

Okay .. now they are certainly grasping at straws with that crap.

No they're not.

If the PH of the ocean continues to change as a result of the ocean absorbing all this extra carbon disoxide, we will be dramatically changing the microscopic life that is the foundation upon which the rest of the oceans' food chain exists.

Now before you think you can live without fish, tell me...can you live without OXYGEN?

Because that microscopic life also produces most of the stuff you're breathing right now.

 

[Meister]

Want an electric car, but can't afford the pricey Tesla Roadster? Can't get your hands on the electric Mini Cooper? Having a hard time finding one of the other elusive electric cars available today? eBay has a deal for you: a 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV. It's got 45,500 miles, tops out at about 78-81 mph (depending on the weather) and can fit easily into a daily commuting lifestyle of 70 miles or so. According to the ad, "The RAV4 EV is a practical and functional SUV and the unique battery placement does not compromise the storage space. Unlike some electric vehicles, this car has room for 5 passengers, plus cargo space in the rear. The dashboard is just like a "regular car" and the amenities are similar. This car offers heat & air conditioning, power windows & door locks, Anti-Lock Brakes, Dual Front Air Bags, AM/FM/CD Player and much more!" The car has 15,500 miles left on the battery warranty, and can be yours today -- better hurry, the auction ends at 11pm today, September 1. Instant gratification will cost you, though: it's got a "buy it now" price of $62,000; maybe you can bid low and get lucky.
Toyota RAV4 EV For Sale on eBay : TreeHugger

Now that is considerably more than that vehicle cost new. Talk about holding value.

Sorry rockhead, I can't afford a 62,000 dollar car. In fact, I don't think too many people can. So lets try to keep our feet on the ground...OK?

 

[KittenKoder]

Want an electric car, but can't afford the pricey Tesla Roadster? Can't get your hands on the electric Mini Cooper? Having a hard time finding one of the other elusive electric cars available today? eBay has a deal for you: a 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV. It's got 45,500 miles, tops out at about 78-81 mph (depending on the weather) and can fit easily into a daily commuting lifestyle of 70 miles or so. According to the ad, "The RAV4 EV is a practical and functional SUV and the unique battery placement does not compromise the storage space. Unlike some electric vehicles, this car has room for 5 passengers, plus cargo space in the rear. The dashboard is just like a "regular car" and the amenities are similar. This car offers heat & air conditioning, power windows & door locks, Anti-Lock Brakes, Dual Front Air Bags, AM/FM/CD Player and much more!" The car has 15,500 miles left on the battery warranty, and can be yours today -- better hurry, the auction ends at 11pm today, September 1. Instant gratification will cost you, though: it's got a "buy it now" price of $62,000; maybe you can bid low and get lucky.
Toyota RAV4 EV For Sale on eBay : TreeHugger

Now that is considerably more than that vehicle cost new. Talk about holding value.

Sorry rockhead, I can't afford a 62,000 dollar car. In fact, I don't think too many people can. So lets try to keep our feet on the ground...OK?

Even if you could, would you want to? Really. If these envirofriendly cars are so damned important why do they still cost more than a used car? Not to mention the fact that if they take out the on board computer (which it could still run without one) the cost to make it would be less than any other car. Instead they do everything they can to make it more expensive ... hmm ... I wonder why?

 

[Old Rocks]

Want an electric car, but can't afford the pricey Tesla Roadster? Can't get your hands on the electric Mini Cooper? Having a hard time finding one of the other elusive electric cars available today? eBay has a deal for you: a 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV. It's got 45,500 miles, tops out at about 78-81 mph (depending on the weather) and can fit easily into a daily commuting lifestyle of 70 miles or so. According to the ad, "The RAV4 EV is a practical and functional SUV and the unique battery placement does not compromise the storage space. Unlike some electric vehicles, this car has room for 5 passengers, plus cargo space in the rear. The dashboard is just like a "regular car" and the amenities are similar. This car offers heat & air conditioning, power windows & door locks, Anti-Lock Brakes, Dual Front Air Bags, AM/FM/CD Player and much more!" The car has 15,500 miles left on the battery warranty, and can be yours today -- better hurry, the auction ends at 11pm today, September 1. Instant gratification will cost you, though: it's got a "buy it now" price of $62,000; maybe you can bid low and get lucky.
Toyota RAV4 EV For Sale on eBay : TreeHugger

Now that is considerably more than that vehicle cost new. Talk about holding value.

Sorry rockhead, I can't afford a 62,000 dollar car. In fact, I don't think too many people can. So lets try to keep our feet on the ground...OK?

Even if you could, would you want to? Really. If these envirofriendly cars are so damned important why do they still cost more than a used car? Not to mention the fact that if they take out the on board computer (which it could still run without one) the cost to make it would be less than any other car. Instead they do everything they can to make it more expensive ... hmm ... I wonder why?

Because GM and Chevron bought Texaco and enforced some fine print in the Ovshinsky patents on large NiMH batteries, forcing Toyota to pay 30 million in damages and denying them the right to import into the US batteries large enough to power vehicles.

 

[Meister]

Sorry rockhead, I can't afford a 62,000 dollar car. In fact, I don't think too many people can. So lets try to keep our feet on the ground...OK?

Even if you could, would you want to? Really. If these envirofriendly cars are so damned important why do they still cost more than a used car? Not to mention the fact that if they take out the on board computer (which it could still run without one) the cost to make it would be less than any other car. Instead they do everything they can to make it more expensive ... hmm ... I wonder why?

Because GM and Chevron bought Texaco and enforced some fine print in the Ovshinsky patents on large NiMH batteries, forcing Toyota to pay 30 million in damages and denying them the right to import into the US batteries large enough to power vehicles.

Stop the damn "because's" rockhead. It comes down to what is....is ! Your world is just too damn expensive to live in...get that through your blockhead !!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

It is pointed out that Toyota is one of the only automakers that produces its own batteries. This gives them a competitive edge when future electric vehicles begin selling in large volumes. If EV battery demand outstrips supply, they could then keep those batteries for their own cars shutting out competitors, or sell them to other OEMs at significant profit. It was also noted that Nissan is in a joint venture with NEC that has plans to produce enough batteries to power 200,000 electric cars within the next few years.

The fact that Telsa will be supplying lithium batteries to Daimler is also mentioned. Those cells will be going into a test fleet of 1000 Smart EVs that will roll out onto US roads in 2010. Daimler itself also owns 90% of a new joint venture with Evonik Industries to build lithium ion cells not only for its own vehicles but for other manufacturers.
Automakers Poised to Profit From Electric Car Batteries, GM Missed its First Chance, Will it Also Miss its Second? | GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site

 

[kakarothusain]

marine life as well as human life is in great danger because of global warming but i think this problem can be solve if they people of the world start making less air pollution than before..

 

[k2skier]

Even if you could, would you want to? Really. If these envirofriendly cars are so damned important why do they still cost more than a used car? Not to mention the fact that if they take out the on board computer (which it could still run without one) the cost to make it would be less than any other car. Instead they do everything they can to make it more expensive ... hmm ... I wonder why?

Because GM and Chevron bought Texaco and enforced some fine print in the Ovshinsky patents on large NiMH batteries, forcing Toyota to pay 30 million in damages and denying them the right to import into the US batteries large enough to power vehicles.

Stop the damn "because's" rockhead. It comes down to what is....is ! Your world is just too damn expensive to live in...get that through your blockhead !!!!!

And your world is so polluted human life can't live in it...

 

[k2skier]

Anyone else noticed how the term went from

global warming to climate change

Because the globe isn't warming and these guys don't know what the fuck is going on so it's a much more generic term

The warming of the planet, what we're experiencing now was coined "global warming".

Climate change is what happens when the planet warms.

Global Warming= Climate Change, no spin, just the reality of temperature increases, changing weather patterns and climate.

 

[Missourian]

Anyone else noticed how the term went from

global warming to climate change

Because the globe isn't warming and these guys don't know what the fuck is going on so it's a much more generic term

The warming of the planet, what we're experiencing now was coined "global warming".

Climate change is what happens when the planet warms.

Global Warming= Climate Change, no spin, just the reality of temperature increases, changing weather patterns and climate.

 

[k2skier]

Anyone else noticed how the term went from

global warming to climate change

Because the globe isn't warming and these guys don't know what the fuck is going on so it's a much more generic term

The warming of the planet, what we're experiencing now was coined "global warming".

Climate change is what happens when the planet warms.

Global Warming= Climate Change, no spin, just the reality of temperature increases, changing weather patterns and climate.

LOL! Nice job. You have waaaaaay too much time on your hands.

A delusional denier you are.

 

[code1211]

For the denialist ideologues.

1. There is climate change and its effects are apparent. We need to acknowledge it and we need to change the way we live to be able to continue to exist.

2. If it is caused by human activity then the quicker we adapt to it to slow it or at least ameliorate its effects, the better for our (and other) species.

I'm not a green ideologue, but I'm living in a country that is affected adversely by global climate change and I have had to change the way I live, along with everyone else.

It's fine to bang on about it being climate hysteria and all the rest of it, but a more prudent response would be to accept the possibility (if you are a denier) and then scrutinise policy developed to deal with it. The truth is that humans are no more entitled to exist on this planet than any other life form and the planet doesn't give a fuck who lives on it.

But the denialists refuse to accept that. I think I know why.

A. Economic ideologue denialists don't want to accept that human industrialisation has accelerated or even caused climate change. The concept of de-industrialistion frightens them, they want things to keep going.

B. Religious ideologue denialists believe that God gave the planet to humans and if the planet is fucked up by human activity then that might somehow threaten that view. I don't know why, I thought one of the main planks of a belief in the current model of God was that He lets us get on with stuff and if we fuck up then we fuck up.

Either way I have to ask denialists to examine their views and work out the real reason they spit in the face of scientific evidence about climate change.

Denialist?

I accept that there are various forces that affect climate. Some among the many are: Solar irradience variation, continental drift, magnetic fields, volcanism, ocean currents, albedo, deforestation, paving everything in sight and Green House Gases.

Green House Gases play a role, probably, but what role exactly? There are more GHG's in the air now than in 2001 and yet there is no warming since then. There was not a significant change in GHG's from 1750 to 1800 and yet there was significant warming.

Of all air, 5% is GHG. Of that 5%, only 3% is CO2. Of that 3%, only 3% is contributed by the activities of Man.

Science is not as sold on this tripe as the politicians would like for us to believe. The scientific statements are filled with ifs and buts and the predictions are increasingly wrong with every passing year. A statement on Global Warming that does not include a warning of dire consequence is rare. Kind of like yours above.

I accept all causes of Global Warming and the idea that nature can pretty much sweep us away at any moment. Is it any wonder that the Native Americans did NOT live on the coasts? They had not developed the impudence of Modern Man.

You deny the possibility that nature is stronger than Man and the impact of all of the other forces on climate and the obviously very weak impact that CO2 has had throughout history.

Why the name denialist? As someone that you have put in that group, I don't deny anything. I just ask for proof of what you are saying.