Old 12th August 2010, 00:35   #1
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
You want that margarita on the rocks?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz0wLNYf0Bk

An island of ice more than four times the size of Manhattan is drifting across the Arctic Ocean after breaking off from a glacier in Greenland.

Potentially in the path of this unstoppable giant are oil platforms and shipping lanes - and any collision could do untold damage. In a worst-case scenario, large chunks could reach the heavily trafficked waters where another Greenland iceberg sank the Titanic in 1912.

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2010, 07:05   #2
SunBee
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5
Nice. That's what we need after the BP desaster: more destroyed oil platforms and more oil in our oceans. Can I get a visa for another planet with a respirable atmosphere?
SunBee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2010, 16:47   #3
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
This is normal. It happened in 1912 to sink the titanic. It happened in 1962 and the iceberg was even larger.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cap...s_off_gre.html

Quote:
Since 1970, temperatures have risen more than 4.5 degrees in much of the Arctic - much faster than the global average.
Where? It's funny I couldn't find any data that says anything like that. Perhaps it's scientists making scary noises thinking that the temperature could raise 4 1/2 degrees.

Every year, 150-300 arctic icebergs reach the Atlantic Ocean. Some are a mile across, some are Manhattan sized.

In recent years we've detected more large icebergs. I'm not sure that's really more icebergs. It could be that we are just looking for them. In 1912 and 1962, their technology for detecting icebergs was eyes only.

Meanwhile, the ice sheet seems to be reconstituting itself, leaving Al Gore's face red.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....not-retreating

Even these guys are worshiping at the holy grail of global warming, but the're saying the arctic could possibly be ice free in the summer by 2060. By Al Gore's accounting, we should all be dead by now.

“In retrospect, the reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated. The lesson is that we must be more careful in not reading too much into one event”

In other words, we're not giving up the holy grail of global warming, that would be liberal heresy, but we're saying we were full of shit when we predicted doomsday in a week. Stay afraid though. We still have to make sure we starve Africa of any meaningful power generation.

Yeah, the BP disaster. We've had oil accidents before. We've even had huge oil disasters before. It is not the end of life as we know it. When gas goes to $5-6 a gallon and people start freezing to death because they can't afford heat, we'll know we did our liberal duty.

With the beaches mostly clean, and not finding catastrophe, OMG! It's the bogie man. There must be some long term effects which we can't detect. Not to worry. Doomsday must be here. It's gotta be the tea party.... last 8 years.... Bush is Hitler.... the ice shelf will be gone in 5 years... I'm Al Gore and my electric bill is $50,000 a year. It's an inconvenient truth.

The End is Nigh. Sinner repent!

Last edited by rockouthippie; 12th August 2010 at 17:59.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2010, 17:25   #4
ujay
Forum King
 
ujay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 6,072
For British viewers, that's about 2/3 the size of the Isle of Wight.

All a bit sensationalist in these days I think.

With satalite imaging available nowadays anything that looks remotely like it will reach the Atlantic is going to be tracked as a matter of course.

I seem to remember some plan to tow icebergs around as a source of fresh water. Never got off the ground at the time as the only icebergs capable of being towed would have melted before they reached their destination.

UJ
ujay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2010, 18:01   #5
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
All a bit sensationalist in these days I think.
You risk being branded a heretic. To question the holy Algore?
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2010, 15:50   #6
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
Icebergs calving off of Greenland's glaciers are nothing new. In fact, the Canadian Ice Service and the U.S. Coast Guard's International Ice Patrol estimate that anywhere between 10,000 and 40,000 icebergs calve from the glaciers of western Greenland in a given year.

What is unusual, however, is the size of this new iceberg, which is more typical of Antarctic than Arctic waters.

The National Ice Center in Suitland, Md., tracks a number of massive icebergs in the oceans surrounding Antarctica, some of which are truly monsters. One, known as D-15, is a little larger than the state of Rhode Island, and 33 are currently being tracked that are more than 10 nautical miles long on one axis.

Most Arctic icebergs are on the order of hundreds of meters long or less. Typically once every few years a larger one, miles long, will break off. Though such occurrences have become more frequent in recent years, as detailed in a news article last month:

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th August 2010, 02:09   #7
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
I'm not worried about the Titanic happening again. Icebergs don't move fast enough to surprise anyone, considering today's technology in detecting them. I am a bit worried about oil platforms though. They can't just move out of the way, and I hesitate to think whether or not they're prepared or equipped to safely seal off and detach their oil supply to minimize the harmful spill effects of an iceberg collision. As proven with the gulf disaster, these oil platforms don't have even half-decent redundant backups for sealing off the supply when something goes wrong. I hope a lesson was learned so that if something goes wrong, we don't have Lake Erie's worth of liquid in oil spilling into our oceans again.

Please don't minimize the disaster of the gulf. People's lives were ended, and for those that survived, many lost their jobs as fishermen or shrimping business owners. That doesn't scratch the surface of how the gulf disaster affected the underwater ecosystem. The last thing we need is for some unprepared oil platform in the arctic to repeat this embarrassing historical atrocity.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th August 2010, 06:31   #8
SunBee
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockouthippie View Post
You risk being branded a heretic. To question the holy Algore?
I don't think we need Al Gore to see that we are destroying our planet step by step. Even in the renaissance scientists saw how destructive men are and believed that the end of the world was near. On the one had you could say that this is the prove that it won't happen yet but on the other hand it could mean that the process we believe to be not that far in progress will soon be completed. And as I already mentioned: we cannot just get a visa for moving to another planet and the problem is, too many people are not aware that "apocalypse" will strike them as well.
SunBee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th August 2010, 13:34   #9
Warrior of the Light
Forum King
 
Warrior of the Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 4,072
This is stupid. Why don't they just blow it up if they're so afraid?

Jesus loves you [yes, you] so much, he even died for you so that you will not need to die, but live forever
Warrior of the Light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th August 2010, 16:26   #10
thinktink
Forum King
 
thinktink's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: On the streets of Kings County, CA.
Posts: 3,004
Send a message via Skype™ to thinktink
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior of the Light View Post
This is stupid. Why don't they just blow it up if they're so afraid?
To blow up a giant iceberg...

To do that I think you would need:
A) A water craft of some manner to reach it in time...
1) ...which would require the use of fossil fuels to power it
2) Which would require a post industrial civilization to have made it in the first place.
B) High yield of explosives of some kind...
1) Which when exploded will probably cause more "air pollution."
2) Which would also require those nasty man-made chemicals of some kind to make it.
3) Which would also require (again) a post industrial civilization to have made it in the first place.
C) And all to save oil rigs which they hate anyways.


I surmise that deep deep down inside the imaginations of their secret thoughts these commie faco "environmentalists" want that iceberg to hit every single waterborne oil rig and spilling so that they can declare a worldwide N.W.O. style martial law and pass U.N. resolutions banning all waterborne oil rigs.




If these people really do care about the "environment" the only solution to this "problem" is action that does not use any of the fruits of technology:

Walk out of their house naked (naked because all the clothes they probably were wearing was made in textiles none of which would have existed without the industrial revolution) and fashion coverings of some kind without cutting down any trees (that would require tools made technologically and "killing" trees is "anti-Earth" anyways) or bushes or anything alive or anything green. I guess all that's left is dead leaves and twigs.

They walk (or run if they're so inclined) to the coastline. They cannot use an airplane, helicopter, car, train, bus, bicycle, skateboard, roller skates, or anything made by any technology old or new. It was technology and innovation which brought us the industrial revolution so lets throw all those ideas away. No matter what part of any nation they are from they are only allowed bipedal transportation.

When they finally reach the coastline (if they're fortunate enough to still be breathing) they cannot use a ship, dingy, boat, raft, emergency life boat, or any watercraft made in modern times. They can only use craft that they make themselves without cutting down any trees. No animals, bushes, insects, or anything green either. I guess again, that only leaves dead leaves and twigs.

After traversing the great ocean on their little dead-leaves-and-twigs made watercraft to reach the iceberg these "billions" of people (who supposedly represent the majority of the entire planet) can all get to work dismantling the giant frozen iceberg either by hand or with tools not made by industrialism or the industrial work-force. They can dig and chip away at that giant iceberg against perilous freezing temperatures wearing their dead-twigs-and-leaves "clothing." They can even re-use the dead-leaves-and-twigs rafts they made just for the journey because recycling is the only way to go.

So here we are with "billions" of "environmentalists" (who all agree that Africa should be forced not to use their own resources and let people die to save the planet) all chipping away at a giant iceberg braving the cold weather and hypothermia in their leaf-and-twig attire with leaf-and-twig tools to save the planet from the evil industrial oil rigs spilling into the ocean.

And after most (if not all) of them have martyred themselves in their valiant efforts to save the planet from humans and industrialism the rest of us can finally go about our lives minding our own damn business.
thinktink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th August 2010, 17:14   #11
Warrior of the Light
Forum King
 
Warrior of the Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 4,072
I wasn't referring to hippies really.. and yes, to care more about an animal than a person is completely retarded. What I meant was when ice would hit an oil rig, everybody is concerned.

Yea, sure the amount of explosives that would have to be used is quite substantial, but letting an oil reserve 'bleed out' after the crash is bad for everyone. I don't believe we don't have the firepower yet, though. I'm not suggesting to nuke it, but to at least let it break into several smaller and safer pieces should be possible.

They're showing ads for the IFAW for animals in Pakistan on tv now. Sure, save all the animals and let the people die

Jesus loves you [yes, you] so much, he even died for you so that you will not need to die, but live forever
Warrior of the Light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th August 2010, 17:28   #12
thinktink
Forum King
 
thinktink's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: On the streets of Kings County, CA.
Posts: 3,004
Send a message via Skype™ to thinktink
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior of the Light View Post
I wasn't referring to hippies really.. What I meant was when ice would hit an oil rig, everybody is concerned.
I know you weren't referring to hippies. I was just making a point. The allusion of the article posted by the OP is of the environmentalist movement. The accusation is clearly that industrialism made the giant iceberg that "threatens the entire planet." I was simply "completing the circle" by formulating a solution that doesn't involve hypocrisy on the part of the accusers:
Quote:
The world's newest ice island already is being used as a powerful emblem in the global warming debate, with Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., suggesting it could serve as a home for climate change skeptics.
thinktink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th August 2010, 22:13   #13
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
My toilet has a redundant shut-off valve in case the valve in the tank fails or needs service. Each of my sinks have separate redundant shut-off valves for both hot and cold. The same goes for my bath/showers and garden hose. Furthermore, the plumbing for the cold water bladder tank and hot water heating tank have shut-off valves both before and after the tanks.

I'm not paranoid, nor is my plumbing system unusual. This is standard plumbing procedure for all homes, because it just makes sense to have those valves when you need them.

Now why in fuck's fuck don't oil rigs have redundant valves like these?

Forget the environment, because there are people on the conservative end that don't buy the argument. You don't need the environmental concerns to justify this. All you need is some elementary business sense to protect your business from product loss. Oil is known as "black gold" and yet the oil companies are too stupid to protect it from spilling in huge quantities into the ocean with something as basic as a couple shut-off valves.

I don't mean to undermine the environmental concerns, which are legit. I'm just approaching this from a standpoint that the anti-green people can still understand. Pushing the green-environmental argument will only increase resistance in an argument with conservatives, so you have to operate on their level if you want to get shit done, by pushing the other green button - the $green money$ button.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2010, 00:43   #14
thinktink
Forum King
 
thinktink's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: On the streets of Kings County, CA.
Posts: 3,004
Send a message via Skype™ to thinktink
Unfortunately it's a bit way too late for that argument ted. That green, fear-mongering, anti-industrialism anti-free market, anti-liberty, anti-human rights, anti-humans button has already been pushed, the rockets launched, programmed targets already acquired and changes locked out.

"You want that margarita on the rocks?"

Don't get me wrong, I am not against stewardship of the home we live in, but the point of the article has already been made by the very people that wrote it. People are already dead and buried because of this "revolution."



And on a side note, I think a 100KPSI underwater hole in the dirt is probably really not comparable at all to your common household commode.
thinktink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2010, 04:46   #15
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior of the Light View Post
and yes, to care more about an animal than a person is completely retarded.
In some areas of the world, it is common to shoot/kill poachers of endangered exotic animals. Many times their job is to arrest instead, but they kill and claim self defense (saying the poaching gun was pointed at them when attempting to arrest). I'm not saying it's right, but depending on the culture/location you're in, you may encounter people who would believe that ending a non-endangered species life to save an endangered species life is justified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinktink View Post
And on a side note, I think a 100KPSI underwater hole in the dirt is probably really not comparable at all to your common household commode.
That's kind of my point - all the more reason to keep things safe for workers while protecting the business from product loss. You don't build a train without multiple brakes just because it's enormous compared to a car, so why would you build an oil rig without a series of shutoff valves just because it's bigger than a household water (or natural gas) supply?

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2010, 16:29   #16
Warrior of the Light
Forum King
 
Warrior of the Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 4,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by swingdjted View Post
Ending a non-endangered species life to save an endangered species life is justified.
I see your point - If that were the case I'd support it, but the ad shows mostly dogs and cats

Jesus loves you [yes, you] so much, he even died for you so that you will not need to die, but live forever
Warrior of the Light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2010, 01:00   #17
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
In that case, I usually opt for what I like to call animal euthanasia. The only difference is that the animal has no way of telling someone to kill it, but sometimes people realize that killing it is actually doing it a favor.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2010, 11:59   #18
ethan.hunt
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 66
Is the title correct ?
ethan.hunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2010, 09:05   #19
fresk
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 37
thats a huge island

this island is a huge island and if it hit any one of these targets then it will make so much harm.
fresk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2010, 13:57   #20
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Well make your own thread then!

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2010, 05:15   #21
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
I think it was 60 minutes that had an interview with the lead electronics tech who blames the accident mostly on corporate greed.

My thinking is that you pay your money and you take your chances. Certainly nobody, even BP thought the rig would blow up. BP has every interest to make sure that no rigs blow up in the future. I don't think this requires additional governmental punishment.

BP screwed up, but BP is doing something we need done. We need the gas. We don't get it both ways. We don't reduce our dependency on foreign oil from leaving our oll in the ground. We can gripe about eco-damage, but how damaging is war and patronage of some of the assholes we are forced to buy oil from? Compare the 6 million barrels the Iraqis dumped into the Persian Gulf and the 2 million barrels they burned (Kuwait) to the 575,000 barrels BP leaked. The assessment by Unesco in 1993 is that there was "little long term damage".

BP will be forced to pay for it's mistakes and to compensate people who were affected. I think we can count on capitalism to insure some of this. BP has already spent 8 billion and expects to spend 32 billion dollars by the time this is done. It almost seems like people want to hold BP responsible for intangibles. It also seems like some people think this should be payday for anyone who was even slightly inconvenienced.

Who do you think is going to pay this 32 billion dollars? Did you fill your car this week?

BP blowing up their oil rig is bad business. I think 32 billion is a pretty good incentive to have this not occur again. You can bet BP's internal safeguards are gonna be superior to anything government can throw at it. It's 32 billion dollars! That's pretty hefty, even for BP.

It might take a good while for the ecosystem to recover completely, but it will recover. In speculation about the long term damage, we don't need to speculate about it. We have other oil spills to tell us what happens. Give or take, in 10 years, you'll never know it happened. If you didn't know an oil spill happened, you might not notice a problem from a casual walk on the beach.... as of now...

We needed the oil, but we didn't want to look at oil rigs on our beach walks. That's why we sent BP into an invisible spot to get oil a mile down instead of pumping from safer, shallower, more conspicuous locations.

Is this all BP's fault or does our own NIMBY have a lot to do with it?

Last edited by rockouthippie; 12th September 2010 at 05:59.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump