返回列表 發帖
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.
祝大家永遠快樂! ^^

TOP

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.

TOP

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

TOP

C姐最好吾著衫
無希望無失望

TOP

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.
祝大家永遠快樂! ^^

TOP

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。

TOP

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.
祝大家永遠快樂! ^^

TOP

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?

TOP

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.

TOP

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?

TOP

返回列表