溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: Global Warming的故事 [打印本頁]

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-2-2 22:50 標題: Global Warming的故事

你哋班蛋散唔好咁懶啦﹐開個題唔係好難姐。

既然呢度咁多讀environmental science嘅老友﹐有無人話到俾我聽我哋無雪點辦冬奧?

同埋呢﹐呢排好多陰謀論呢﹐成日話有某D科學家危言慫聽﹐講D不盡不實嘅研究結報告果去達到某一D目的。因為最近有報導指北極由2007年開始結冰速度無減之餘仲以百倍增加。又話我哋開始緊一個小冰河時期﹐究竟天氣會變熱定冬呀? 我要入定d大褸或者短裙架嘛...

-- 時裝界代表大C姐

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-2 22:54

小弟覺得, 大褸同短裙都要入啦!
你問LYK班蛋散有鬼用咩, 話明係蛋散, 即話係冇用架啦! 你慳番啖口水去問下個sales 大褸同短裙一齊買可唔可以比多個discount 你好過啦~

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-2 23:09

拿。我講我喇。我唔睇報紙唔聽收音機。頂龍。上吓網。今年。or 舊年 fall 開始。vancouver 啲天氣真係怪怪。唔見晒啲。落雨天。你知啦。我 dumpster dive。就係靠啲。落雨天。同落狗屎天氣。幫我篩走晒啲 enemy。佢地個個去避雨。我。就發財。個天唔落雨。我就。無咁好生意。

[attach]7508[/attach]

作者: Purpleheart 時間: 2010-2-2 23:15

拿。我講我喇。我唔睇報紙唔聽收音機。頂龍。上吓網。今年。or 舊年 fall 開始。vancouver 啲天氣真係怪怪。唔見晒啲。落雨天。你知啦。我 dumpster dive。就係靠啲。落雨天。同落狗屎天氣。幫我篩走晒啲 enemy。佢 ...
playingtoy 發表於 2010-2-3 00:09

仲係。講唔聽。叫你去排對。又唔去排。你地。排隊o個D早餐。有蛋。有toast。有 bacon。不知幾豐富。

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-2 23:17

我琴晚做 research。先知。south park。港譯：衰仔樂園。eric cartman。港譯：蛋散。

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-2-2 23:19

我好驚熱囉﹐好驚著唔到我D fashion。

你知啦﹐鍾意時裝嘅蛋散永遠覺得冬天衫係靚D﹐同埋多D配搭。

但係某程度上﹐我又唔覺得暖左﹐係凍早左。之前十月十一月凍到顛﹐結晒冰﹐不過落唔出雪之嘛。Again﹐喺另一條題過班有見識之士﹐知唔知我洗唔洗入幾對thigh-high boots。

-- 忽冷忽熱大C姐

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-2 23:26

仲係。講唔聽。叫你去排對。又唔去排。你地。排隊o個D早餐。有蛋。有toast。有 bacon。不知幾豐富。
Purpleheart 發表於 2010-2-3 00:15

你咁鍾意排隊。你去。約埋 ricrick。油黑塊面。着啲污糟衫褲。整亂啲頭髮。去。趁無人睇住就羅部手機出嚟。影幅相。留念。食飽就。去個 public washroom。換番啲 clean clothes。上番自己架 volvo。

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-2-2 23:36

暫時係無人講過global warming....

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-2 23:38

喺另一條題過班有見識之士﹐知唔知我洗唔洗入幾對thigh-high boots。

大C姐發表於 2010-2-3 00:19

哎斯。你話果班。買手袋既姐姐仔。亞大師姐。呢啲咪叫做代溝囉。

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-2-2 23:39

哎斯。你話果班。買手袋既姐姐仔。亞大師姐。呢啲咪叫做代溝囉。
playingtoy 發表於 2010-2-3 00:38

我無話買手袋有咩唔岩﹐我都有買﹐不過我買咪買囉﹐洗乜同同事研究唧? 我又唔係買俾人哋欣嘗。

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-2 23:47

我無話買手袋有咩唔岩﹐我都有買﹐不過我買咪買囉﹐洗乜同同事研究唧? 我又唔係買俾人哋欣嘗。
大C姐發表於 2010-2-3 00:39

你。應該係。住嚮我對面。成日出露台煲煙同埋種花。果位。女強人。岩唔岩。

我或者估錯左。

作者: Purpleheart 時間: 2010-2-2 23:51

你咁鍾意排隊。你去。約埋 ricrick。油黑塊面。着啲污糟衫褲。整亂啲頭髮。去。趁無人睇住就羅部手機出嚟。影幅相。留念。食飽就。去個 public washroom。換番啲 clean clothes。上番自己架 volvo。 ...
playingtoy 發表於 2010-2-3 00:26

我唔駛。排隊。因為我。銀包有錢買野食。再唔係。俾Visa/mastercard 都得。

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-2-2 23:52

你。應該係。住嚮我對面。成日出露台煲煙同埋種花。果位。女強人。岩唔岩。

我或者估錯左。
playingtoy 發表於 2010-2-3 00:47

咁都俾你發現? 我喺屋企都要戴翻個bra先...

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-2 23:56

暫時係無人講過global warming....
大C姐發表於 2010-2-3 15:36

乜唔係討論買大褸定係短裙咩?...

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-3 00:07

我唔駛。排隊。因為我。銀包有錢買野食。再唔係。俾Visa/mastercard 都得。
Purpleheart 發表於 2010-2-3 00:51

哎斯。大家唔同路。

作者: Purpleheart 時間: 2010-2-3 00:12

哎斯。大家唔同路。
playingtoy 發表於 2010-2-3 01:07

但我想問。你睡在街上的。應該比我們睡在室內的。更加體驗到。global warming。是嗎。

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-3 00:13

乜唔係討論買大褸定係短裙咩?...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-2-3 00:56

香港時間。星期三下晝四點幾。實情你嚮邊度做緊乜野。

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-3 00:17

但我想問。你睡在街上的。應該比我們睡在室內的。更加體驗到。global warming。是嗎。
Purpleheart 發表於 2010-2-3 01:12

等我回一回氣先。

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-3 00:24

咁都俾你發現? 我喺屋企都要戴翻個bra先...

大C姐發表於 2010-2-3 00:52

我朝頭早換衫褲都係打開窗。哦。原來你。

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-3 00:41

香港時間。星期三下晝四點幾。實情你嚮邊度做緊乜野。
playingtoy 發表於 2010-2-3 16:13

我用緊20%時間做task A, 30%時間做task B, 40%時間做task C, 仲有10%時間去輕鬆一下.

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2010-2-3 01:11

you don't need to study environmental science to know the truth. Evidence from climategate scandal is sufficient.

作者: Ovaltine 時間: 2010-2-3 07:55

you all notice the skunks these few winters are digging holes for food in the front lawn? well these skunks are not hibernating and are out searching for food. the winter in vancouver is not cold enough anymore.

there will always be one year of cold winter, the next would be warm (this year). Remember as little kids, the summer was so cold in Vancouver, we wouldn't run around in shorts? now our summer is like cali, back in the 70s. also notice more rain storms? sign of tropical weather in the north.

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-2-3 08:07

you don't need to study environmental science to know the truth. Evidence from climategate scandal is sufficient.
kipposhi 發表於 2010-2-3 02:11

都唔咁講呀﹐就係坊間實在太多唔同意見﹐唔同research好多都有茅盾。我呢D唔識science係唔知信得邊個"專家"﹐要有個底先消化到街外D scandal。

-- 凍到突點大C姐

作者: habitrailspace 時間: 2010-2-3 08:21

咁都俾你發現? 我喺屋企都要戴翻個bra先...

大C姐發表於 2010-2-3 00:52

[attach]7510[/attach]

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2010-2-3 12:14

本帖最後由 kipposhi 於 2010-2-3 12:23 編輯

都唔咁講呀﹐就係坊間實在太多唔同意見﹐唔同research好多都有茅盾。我呢D唔識science係唔知信得邊個"專家"﹐要有個底先消化到街外D scandal。

-- 凍到突點大C姐

...
大C姐發表於 2010-2-3 08:07

That is because the emails from warmist researchers showed they altered the data on global warming search.

Emails:

"I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say '1000 scientists signed' or '1500 signed'. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story." - Joseph Alcamo, Lead Author IPCC (2001, 2007)

"I've just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"...it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back." - Michael Mann, Lead Author IPCC (2001)

"I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!" - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"...If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals." - Ben Santer, Lead Author IPCC (1995)

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." - Kevin Trenberth, Lead Author IPCC (2001, 2007)

Subject: John L. Daly [Skeptic] Dead

"...this is cheering news!" - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted." - Ben Santer, Lead Author IPCC (1995)

You may want to download the emails hacked from University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and read it yourself.

http://junkscience.com/FOIA/FOI2009.zip

East Anglia Emails (Searchable)

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-2-3 14:21

Now we know that they inflated the numbers. But does that mean there's no global warming then?

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2010-2-3 14:47

Exaggerated by some interested groups to make money 26# 快樂牛郎

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2010-2-3 15:00

Now we know that they inflated the numbers. But does that mean there's no global warming then?
快樂牛郎發表於 2010-2-3 14:21

The warmists are supposed to prove that there is global warming. But it is not supposed that other people try to disprove the existence of global warming. That is the rule in the field of science.

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-2-3 15:23

I am not interested in Science. I am only interested in Logic.

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2010-2-3 15:34

Global warming is bad, I agree.
End of the world? nah, How about another flood or Ice Age?

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-2-3 15:45

我沒有認真研究那些數據，亦不否認有人把溫室效應誇大其詞。我只知道最近看過的planet earth，polar bear因為北極冰塊溶化，它找不到可供棲身的浮冰，找不到食物，只能不斷地游，最後力竭。下場怎樣都可想而知。
也許溫室效應是誇大，但以人類不停的為了一己私慾，任意的破壞環境，而資源是不會無窮無盡的...

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-2-3 18:44

我淨係想知買左carbon credit D錢到底做過/做左D乜。

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2010-2-3 18:45

本帖最後由 kipposhi 於 2010-2-3 18:53 編輯

I am not interested in Science. I am only interested in Logic.
快樂牛郎發表於 2010-2-3 15:23

Even the argument of global warming is flaw. Then is that enough for you?

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2010-2-3 18:47

我淨係想知買左carbon credit D錢到底做過/做左D乜。
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-2-3 18:44

hoho, someone in this forum finally notices some interesting part of the "solution" of global warming.

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2010-2-3 18:53

本帖最後由 kipposhi 於 2010-2-3 18:55 編輯

我沒有認真研究那些數據，亦不否認有人把溫室效應誇大其詞。我只知道最近看過的planet earth，polar bear因為北極冰塊溶化，它找不到可供棲身的浮冰，找不到食物，只能不斷地游，最後力竭。下場怎樣都可想而知。
也 ...
fibbi 發表於 2010-2-3 15:45

Those documentaries are de facto propagandas.

1. Some reports state that polar bear population is increasing.

2. The ice in the north pole melting is not due "global warming". The temperature of water under the ice is lower that of the ice. That causes the bottom part of the ice melting.

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-2-3 18:59

i always wonder.

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2010-2-3 19:03

i always wonder.
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-2-3 18:59

This may be my fault to miss it as I do not read every thread in this forum.

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-2-3 21:43

其實好多人都話地球好危險(古sir都係咁講)﹐話其實已經去到返唔到轉頭嘅地步。若然﹐D科學家真係講到咁暗然﹐不如今天有酒今天醉啦﹐反正就算搞環保都搞唔切啦﹐橫死惦死係咪要諗吓點死最值得?

-- 依然大起大喝大C姐

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-3 22:07

其實好多人都話地球好危險(古sir都係咁講)﹐話其實已經去到返唔到轉頭嘅地步。若然﹐D科學家真係講到咁暗然﹐不如今天有酒今天醉啦﹐反正就算搞環保都搞唔切啦﹐橫死惦死係咪要諗吓點死最值得?

-- 依然大起大喝大C ...
大C姐發表於 2010-2-4 13:43

地球好危險... 呾返去火星law...

算把啦, 我地呢d 蟻民又點會完全了解地球既情況有幾咁嚴重woh.
如果想對呢個世界有少少貢獻既話, 就可以考慮生活得"環保"d law. 今朝有酒今朝醉都唔係唔得既, 但係小弟就覺得雖然自己做唔到d 乜野, 但做少少都好過乜都唔做呀~

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-2-3 23:01

地球好危險... 呾返去火星law...
算把啦, 我地呢d 蟻民又點會完全了解地球既情況有幾咁嚴重woh.
如果想對呢個世界有少少貢獻既話, 就可以考慮生活得"環保"d law. 今朝有酒今朝醉都唔係唔得既, 但係小弟就覺得雖 ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-2-3 23:07

而家D人話返唔到轉頭呀﹐你以為用少兩個膠袋北極會突然凍翻結翻冰咩?

我哋呢D三姑六婆唔係話唔環保﹐但係既然都講到咁灰咁極端﹐都唔係三五十年內就改善到。到時可能已經陸沉啦。

不過而家做環保自係叫做令自己無咁guilty﹐自我感覺良好D。

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-3 23:27

而家D人話返唔到轉頭呀﹐你以為用少兩個膠袋北極會突然凍翻結翻冰咩?

我哋呢D三姑六婆唔係話唔環保﹐但係既然都講到咁灰咁極端﹐都唔係三五十年內就改善到。到時可能已經陸沉啦。

不過而家做環保自係叫做令自己 ...
大C姐發表於 2010-2-4 15:01

用少兩個膠袋, 總比好過都唔做丫.
買少一兩件衫, 生活盡量簡樸少少. 食野可以少肉多菜, 就可以唔駛養咁多家畜家禽, 減少CO2 既排出.
慢慢黎啦, 地球冇咁快被打殘既, 唔駛咁快就諗住著草返火星woh.

環保, 由日常生活開始, 慢慢做啦.

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-2-3 23:39

Even the argument of global warming is flaw. Then is that enough for you?
kipposhi 發表於 2010/2/3 18:45

How is it flawed? I am no expert on this topic.

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-2-3 23:47

用少兩個膠袋, 總比好過都唔做丫.
買少一兩件衫, 生活盡量簡樸少少. 食野可以少肉多菜, 就可以唔駛養咁多家畜家禽, 減少CO2 既排出.
慢慢黎啦, 地球冇咁快被打殘既, 唔駛咁快就諗住著草返火星woh.

環保, 由日 ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-2-4 00:27

你講呢D三毫子一擔理論我唔敢話你錯﹐但係好似我之前講﹐心理上幫助多過實際上囉。

因為市面不停講30年後雪山無雪﹐邊度邊度陸沉﹐咩地方會唔住得人。但係無人講過用少D膠袋有咩後過呀嘛。至少我無曾聽過人講"用少五成膠袋北極熊生存多50年"之類。D人花咁多錢去嚇我哋但係無具體講到數字我哋做咩係可以實際幫助到﹐我覺得有D揾笨囉。

-- C Cup baby

作者: ricrick 時間: 2010-2-4 00:05

C姐最好吾著衫

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-4 00:05

你講呢D三毫子一擔理論我唔敢話你錯﹐但係好似我之前講﹐心理上幫助多過實際上囉。

因為市面不停講30年後雪山無雪﹐邊度邊度陸沉﹐咩地方會唔住得人。但係無人講過用少D膠袋有咩後過呀嘛。至少我無曾聽過人講"用少五成膠袋北極熊生存多50年"之類。D人花咁多錢去嚇我哋但係無具體講到數字我哋做咩係可以實際幫助到﹐我覺得有D揾笨囉。

大C姐發表於 2010-2-4 15:47

C姐, 有時三毫子一擔既理論係好重要架! 好似果d 孝順父母, 尊敬師長, 愛護弟妹, 都係三毫子一擔既理論, 亦都唔會有人講比你聽"孝順父母就令你家庭幸福幾多個%". 如果乜野都要數據, 乜野都要proof, 咁呢個世界好多野都唔駛理. 果d "善有善報, 惡有惡報" 邊有人可以prove? 有冇人具體講到數字我知行善點樣有善報呢?

你d 我行我素打死擺就既心態我唔敢話你錯, 但係好似我之前講, 為地球出番少少力點都有d 用既, 積少可以成多, 聚沙可以成塔.

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-2-4 00:15

C姐, 有時三毫子一擔既理論係好重要架! 好似果d 孝順父母, 尊敬師長, 愛護弟妹, 都係三毫子一擔既理論, 亦都唔會有人講比你聽"孝順父母就令你家庭幸福幾多個%". 如果乜野都要數據, 乜野都要proof, 咁呢個世界好多野 ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-2-4 01:05

你"又"捉錯用神....

我係話好多(偽)科學數據用好嚇人嘅數字﹐好肯定嘅聲音﹐好強捍嘅語氣不定話個世界將會點點點點...(只有downside無upside) 但係你做得呢D projection﹐點解你唔做一個比較﹐你話到俾人聽如果我哋環保D﹐做D咩嘢﹐數字上會有D咩改善會唔會effective D呢? 你一味叫人慳D﹐其實已經好慳架啦﹐世界艱難邊個想多用電多用水呀。

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-4 00:35

你"又"捉錯用神....

我係話好多(偽)科學數據用好嚇人嘅數字﹐好肯定嘅聲音﹐好強捍嘅語氣不定話個世界將會點點點點...(只有downside無upside) 但係你做得呢D projection﹐點解你唔做一個比較﹐你話到俾人聽如果我哋環保D﹐做D咩嘢﹐數字上會有D咩改善會唔會effective D呢? 你一味叫人慳D﹐其實已經好慳架啦﹐世界艱難邊個想多用電多用水呀。
大C姐發表於 2010-2-4 16:15

小弟覺得, 如果而家咁情況繼續咁落去, 地球會遲早玩完的. 為左我地既後代, 我地有"責任"去善用而家既資源.
好多野都好難project, 正如香港既高鐵咁, project 個客運量已經比人話錯哂, 更何況而家係講緊成個地球? 係人都想有數字, 我都好想知道如果繼續咁落去, 地球可以捱到幾多年, 不過, 你真係覺得有人會答到你咩(而個答案又要準確架woh)? 咁而家冇concrete 既figure, 係唔係可以乜都唔駛做呢?
至於係唔係一味慳, 睇下你點睇個"慳"字. 有人會慳水慳電就覺得自己好環保; 有人又like 廢物分類回收; 有人又會少食肉多食素. 有好多方法令環境好d, 每個人都有權去選擇適合自己既一套. 當然, 你可以選擇乜都唔做, 繼續你既精采繽紛既生活, 亦都冇人吹得你脹.

小弟做野好簡單, 最緊要過得自己過得人. 而家我生存o係呢個世界係我既幸運, 我亦都想我既後代(唔一定係自己既仔孫)生活既環境可以好一d, 我講完喇.

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2010-2-4 02:06

How is it flawed? I am no expert on this topic.
快樂牛郎發表於 2010-2-3 23:39

As there are so many wrong information in the argument presented by warmists, I will just pick one of them now.

Carbon Dioxide:

"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet." - Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

The above few quotes are easy to understand, right?

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2010-2-4 02:08

好多野都好難project, 正如香港既高鐵咁, project 個客運量已經比人話錯哂, 更何況而家係講緊成個地球? 係人都想有數字, 我都好想知道如果繼續咁落去, 地球可以捱到幾多年, 不過, 你真係覺得有人會答到你咩(而個答案又要準確架woh)? 咁而家冇concrete 既figure, 係唔係可以乜都唔駛做呢?
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-2-4 00:35

Solution for 高鐵 is very easy. If this can really earn money, the private sector will do it for sure.

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-2-4 02:15

As there are so many wrong information in the argument presented by warmists, I will just pick one of them now.

Carbon Dioxide:

The above few quotes are easy to understand, right?
kipposhi 發表於 2010/2/4 02:06

So let's assume that CO2 is good for trees.
But how do we know whether it caused global warming or not?

One of the quotes says that historically CO2 levels were much higher. Which period are we talking about? Were human existant at that time?

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2010-2-4 12:35

So let's assume that CO2 is good for trees.
But how do we know whether it caused global warming or not?

One of the quotes says that historically CO2 levels were much higher. Which period are we talking about? Were human existant at that time?
快樂牛郎發表於 2010-2-4 02:15

For your first question:

First, we have to define global warming.
Second, is that "global warming" (or  "climate change") really a problem?
Last but not least, what is the cause of "global warming"?  caused by human activity or nature?  (This is the most important question.  The one Al Gore talks about is called "Anthropogenic [Man-Made] Global Warming".)

Even according to IPCC, the global average temperature has increased 0.6°C only over last century.  Does it really matter?

That period should be last 600 million years.  It talks about the average CO2 concentration.
Whether human existed at that time?  We don't know because human have not developed time traveling technology yet.  But the first human is believed to have existed about 200,00 years ago as it is the oldest human fossil has been found.

作者: B2L2 時間: 2010-2-4 13:33

Even according to IPCC, the global average temperature has increased 0.6°C only over last century. Does it really matter?
kipposhi 發表於 2010-2-4 13:35

First, thanks for the link. I wasn't familiar with all these data and honestly wasn't paying much attention on global warming. But the link you gave actually brought up the alarm for me.

0.6°C over last century may not seems that much, but I do worry about that. However, what bothers me more is the trend showed in those graph. They also mentioned about the reduce in snow coverage and raise of sea level. So all these don't even bother you at all?

I don't know who/what caused the change, but being human, I believe there is something we could do, instead of keep saying the damage we made is insignificant.

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2010-2-4 14:49

本帖最後由 kipposhi 於 2010-2-4 14:50 編輯

First, thanks for the link. I wasn't familiar with all these data and honestly wasn't paying much attention on global warming. But the link you gave actually brought up the alarm for me.

0.6°C over last century may not seems that much, but I do worry about that. However, what bothers me more is the trend showed in those graph. They also mentioned about the reduce in snow coverage and raise of sea level. So all these don't even bother you at all?

I don't know who/what caused the change, but being human, I believe there is something we could do, instead of keep saying the damage we made is insignificant.
B2L2 發表於 2010-2-4 13:33

Assume both the reduce in snow coverage and raise of sea level are true, there are not proven to be related to the raise in temperatire.

If global warming is not induced by human, then there are not much we can do.

But one thing for sure is, 2009 is the year of global cooling. In addition, some studies show that the global average temperature has been declining since year 1999. According to the warmists' argument, we are supposed to use more energy especially fossil fuel to increase the temperature.

If man-made global warming is really a critical issue, why do they make the value-added data in the first place?

作者: B2L2 時間: 2010-2-4 15:04

Let me ask whether you agree that the 0.6°C could account for at least part of the snow/sea level issue?  Instead of keep quoting others comment, what's your actual stand on this topic?

One side, you said there isn't much human could do, and the other side, you quote other suggestion to use energy to increase the temperature.  So which one you agree that's possible?

Scientists are just human and human does lots of dirty things for ones benefit.  I don't why they want to adjust data and I can't tell who is telling the truth.  You quoted a link for our reading and I'm just base info off that.

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2010-2-4 15:57

Let me ask whether you agree that the 0.6°C could account for at least part of the snow/sea level issue?  Instead of keep quoting others comment, what's your actual stand on this topic?

One side, you said there isn't much human could do, and the other side, you quote other suggestion to use energy to increase the temperature.  So which one you agree that's possible?

Scientists are just human and human does lots of dirty things for ones benefit.  I don't why they want to adjust data and I can't tell who is telling the truth.  You quoted a link for our reading and I'm just base info off that.
B2L2 發表於 2010-2-4 15:04

In my opinion, I disagree with that slightly increase in temperature can cause the snow/sea level issue.  I would say we human race is still unable to predict the climate accurately.

Sorry, I did not make it clear and made a typo.  I mean "according to the warmists' logic".  The warmists never admit the global average temperature has been declining since 1999.  They have never suggested increase the use of fossil fuel either.  The trend of oil consumption in last few decades has been increasing.  If man-made global warming is true, the yearly average temperature would not decline.

The income of those warmist scientists are mostly from government funding.  If they deny global warming, they cannot get those easy money.

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2010-2-4 16:01

I don't know how many of you read this news:

UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-2-4 23:11

I don't know how many of you read this news:

UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers
kipposhi 發表於 2010-2-4 17:01

就係呢D實失報導成日覺得好可疑囉。好多時都大大隻字標題嘩眾取寵嚇左你先﹐等你驚餐懵。永遠都係雷聲大雨點小﹐之後又唔聲唔聲唔知邊度發聲明話其實唔係準確﹐但係一般小市民唔會日日追住副刊﹐有時呢D"follow-up"連報紙都未必會寫。

同埋好多人都好似MJJ果D老伯性覺得聽埋聽埋呢D報導就去"扮環保"﹐但係無人講過真正計算呢D動作有咩效益﹐可能得不償失都未定。但係你哋班蛋散就信晒。當然啦﹐你被洗左腦就challenge我﹐覺得"車~呢個世界唔係淨係講數字既﹐邊有人計得咁準呀﹐先知咩﹗"但係老友﹐班科學家經常以好確定嘅語氣去project雪山幾時無晒﹐幾多年後陸地又少﹐水又少﹐Himalayas又無埋... 呢D數字又係點嚟呢?

-- 小心求證大C姐

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-4 23:16

趁夜晚黑。個個訓晒。走去。搬左個雪山。番屋企。

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-4 23:19

洗左腦。右腦未洗。

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-2-4 23:32

洗左腦。右腦未洗。
playingtoy 發表於 2010-2-5 00:19

咪就係死得囉﹐左腦係控制邏輯思考﹐無左腦的話就靠晒右腦去胡思亂想。所以D蛋散先個個都會盲目去相信D偽科學之嘛。

-- 抽C剝揀

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-4 23:45

咪就係死得囉﹐左腦係控制邏輯思考﹐無左腦的話就靠晒右腦去胡思亂想。所以D蛋散先個個都會盲目去相信D偽科學之嘛。

-- 抽C剝揀
大C姐發表於 2010-2-5 15:32

有科學家話, 如果無左腦既話, 右腦有capacity 可以takeover 左腦既功能, 係唔係要大C姐親自抽C剝揀一下?...

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-2-5 12:31

global warming與否，我覺得不太重要。重要的是，它給了我們一個理由去反思我們到底對我們的環境造成了甚麼的影響，甚麼的破壞。就算沒有global warming（或程度沒有想像中的嚴重），不等如我們沒有責任而繼續放縱自己的生活方式，不等如我們有權為了口腹之慾而把某種生物食至絕種，破壞生物鏈；不等如為了發展商的利益而過度發展，過度的嵌伐樹木。我們可做的，可能不算很多。少用一個膠袋，減少廢物，少一點焚化垃圾，空氣也會清新一點吧。

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-2-6 22:01

global warming與否，我覺得不太重要。重要的是，它給了我們一個理由去反思我們到底對我們的環境造成了甚麼的影響，甚麼的破壞。就算沒有global warming（或程度沒有想像中的嚴重），不等如我們沒有責任而繼續放縱自 ...
fibbi 發表於 2010-2-5 13:31

我覺得你係絕對岩﹐但係我有時都懷疑好多呢D所謂研究其實有其他動機同想呃funding嗟。

當然﹐每個人都想環景好D啦﹐其實可以做都做左架啦﹐但係好多"真環保"嘅動作一般人係接受唔到囉。你要我洗少兩機衫都死。

同埋民以食為天﹐我環保極都鬥唔過鵝肝同烏魚子嘅魔力...

-- 為食達人大C姐

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-7 18:17

我覺得你係絕對岩﹐但係我有時都懷疑好多呢D所謂研究其實有其他動機同想呃funding嗟。

當然﹐每個人都想環景好D啦﹐其實可以做都做左架啦﹐但係好多"真環保"嘅動作一般人係接受唔到囉。你要我洗少兩機衫都死。

同埋民以食為天﹐我環保極都鬥唔過鵝肝同烏魚子嘅魔力...

-- 為食達人大C姐
大C姐發表於 2010-2-7 14:01

咁如果你真係覺得自己已經做左d 野幫助保護環境, 咁就最好不過啦~

總之, 呢個地球大家都有份, 希望大家可以善用同珍惜資源law.

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-2-7 20:01

咁如果你真係覺得自己已經做左d 野幫助保護環境, 咁就最好不過啦~

自己覺得同現實係2回事

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-7 20:13

環保乜鬼丫。大家千祈唔好咁環保。啲啤酒呀紅酒呀。飲唔晒。咪掉落個垃圾桶囉。最好係。未開頭果隻。

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-7 21:36

自己覺得同現實係2回事
快樂牛郎發表於 2010-2-8 12:01

咁冇計架woh, 真相呢d 野, 我地小市民又點會知得一清二楚丫. 正如大C姐話齋, d 專家講既野都可以係昆人, 咁應唔應該信佢地woh.
邊個都唔信得既話, 唯有信自己, 做好自己, 咁應該都唔會死錯人的!

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-7 21:39

環保乜鬼丫。大家千祈唔好咁環保。啲啤酒呀紅酒呀。飲唔晒。咪掉落個垃圾桶囉。最好係。未開頭果隻。
playingtoy 發表於 2010-2-8 12:13

不如叫大C姐將d 唔食既魚子醬掉落個垃圾桶, 之後通知你去收集左佢啦~

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-2-7 21:50

68# mcjohnjohn

到人日
由露宿者之友
搞番個街頭大餐
請我地去刷番餐

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-7 22:01

不如叫大C姐將d 唔食既魚子醬掉落個垃圾桶, 之後通知你去收集左佢啦~
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-2-7 22:39

佢咁鹹濕。我驚。佢會。非禮我。

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-7 22:07

佢咁鹹濕。我驚。佢會。非禮我。
playingtoy 發表於 2010-2-8 14:01

非禮你。又有乜所謂。LYK不知有幾多會員。等住比大C姐佢非禮。如果你有幸比。大C姐選中。絕對係。你既光榮。

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-7 22:08

68# mcjohnjohn

到人日
由露宿者之友
搞番個街頭大餐
請我地去刷番餐
sheep 發表於 2010-2-8 13:50

有冇搞錯?!?! 可唔可以setup 一個香港分部, 等我有機會參加?

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-2-7 22:14

72# mcjohnjohn

DHL 俾你

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-7 22:17

72# mcjohnjohn

DHL 俾你
sheep 發表於 2010-2-8 14:14

等你... 有冇話幾時送到?

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-7 23:10

非禮你。又有乜所謂。LYK不知有幾多會員。等住比大C姐佢非禮。如果你有幸比。大C姐選中。絕對係。你既光榮。
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-2-7 23:07

大 C 姐。你自己。出黎。澄清下。

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-7 23:26

大 C 姐。你自己。出黎。澄清下。
playingtoy 發表於 2010-2-8 15:10

澄清乜野。你要出黎。比大C姐驗下貨先。如果佢覺得。你啱佢口味。佢先會揀你。

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-7 23:31

拿。講明先。呢單野。大 C 姐無份。剩係你一個咋。麥兄。

Sexual exploitation
153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or
(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.

Punishment

(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-8 00:03

拿。講明先。呢單野。大 C 姐無份。剩係你一個咋。麥兄。

Sexual exploitation
153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person w ...
playingtoy 發表於 2010-2-8 15:31

young person? 咁你今年貴更呀?

well, 呢單乜野呀? 乜你唔係想去回收人家既廚餘, 但又怕比人非禮咩?

作者: playingtoy 時間: 2010-2-8 22:11

澄清乜野。你要出黎。比大C姐驗下貨先。如果佢覺得。你啱佢口味。佢先會揀你。
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-2-8 00:26

亞林生。唔該。驗貨。

[attach]7527[/attach]

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-8 22:41

亞林生。唔該。驗貨。

好心你打下格仔啦...
我老婆話哂都唔係呢個圈既人, 請問你仲乜野要擺佢上枱呢?

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-2-8 22:47

好心你打下格仔啦...
我老婆話哂都唔係呢個圈既人, 請問你仲乜野要擺佢上枱呢?
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-2-8 23:41

好在係莧菜
唔係梅菜
咁都冇咁驚
唔係又多一單家變

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-2-8 22:53

好在係莧菜
唔係梅菜
咁都冇咁驚
唔係又多一單家變
sheep 發表於 2010-2-9 14:47

乜野係莧菜or 梅菜?
點解唔係咸酸菜?

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-2-8 22:56

咸酸菜?
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-2-8 23:53

用泥煮你瘀

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2010-2-9 01:43

邊個都唔信得既話, 唯有信自己, 做好自己, 咁應該都唔會死錯人的! ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-2-7 21:36

Adolf Hitler really thought that holocaust should be done.

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://loyaukee.com/forum/)