Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?

[Katielondon]

Originally Posted by hasselbrad

I'm with you there. I've never hit a woman in my life, but I really have to work to resist the urge to punch some of these Hummer driving soccer moms in their latte holes.

thats not very nice .

on the subject of Global Warming it is mostly a natural thing, yes we contribute but as mentioned already its a tiny amount-i think it might be even less than 2%, most governments are loving all this hype on the matter so they can tax us all more, and pity to the idiot whos stupid enough to belive thier lies and thier spin.

[hasselbrad]

Originally Posted by Katielondon

thats not very nice .

on the subject of Global Warming it is mostly a natural thing, yes we contribute but as mentioned already its a tiny amount-i think it might be even less than 2%, most governments are loving all this hype on the matter so they can tax us all more, and pity to the idiot whos stupid enough to belive thier lies and thier spin.

But...um...you're not a soccer mom.

[Katielondon]

Originally Posted by hasselbrad

But...um...you're not a soccer mom.

thats a good point:icon_smil , and i shall be ditching the SUV when i come to the US

[Scotsworth]

How does the ocean absorb CO2? Are you talking about plant life in the ocean? Because, if so, then melting ice caps would have nothing to do with it. And clearly America needs to do more, and actually it's a huge topic of discussion in political debates (specifically the presidental democratic debates). I guess I just can't ignore that there's more CO2 in our atmosphere than ever before (in the earth's 4.6 billion years of existance), coupled with the fact that this heating period has occurred in a shorter time than ever before...seems like there's a correlation.

[Leonie]

Oceans absorb CO2 like so. Tell your teacher to tell the whole story next time.

I especially like this bit:

Originally Posted by National Geographic

Today's current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is only around half of what scientists have predicted atmospheric levels should be, based on estimates that humans have contributed 244 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to Earth's atmosphere.

And although there is some irony in the fact that I'm quoting a scientist for this claim, it would appear that scientists can only guess sometimes too.

My stats 101 teacher was very, very anal about the fact that correlation does not mean cause and consequence. Did you not read the bit about the sun? And about ice ages? They could coincide and add up and lord knows what else, but there is no conclusive evidence for a cause and consequence relation at this point.

It seems like it could be a complete coincidence too.

I don't think that data from the last two hundred years or so is enough to explain such a large phenomenon. We haven't got any similar date from before ice ages, for example. It's all guess work and inferring.

And every now and then, scientists find something that had earlier been refuted, such as the influence of the cycle of the sun on global warming. Might not explain it all, but they reckon that so far, it's been underestimated.

I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusive statement from the article:

"I suspect that the greenhouse lobby have under-estimated the role of solar variability in climate change," he added. "However I am not in favour of polluting the atmosphere, for whatever reason."

I'm not trying to say that just cause we aren't the (main?) culprit, we should just live on happily polluting the world. I am all for living an environmentally sustainable life, but I think global warming is too often used to coax people into living in a more environmentally friendly way by painting a skewed picture. I'm all for the environment, but I don't like being lied to.

I'm sure we contribute a little bit. I doubt we have the crazy God powers it takes to take full credit for this one, though.

[Hazzle]

I love Elle. Despite what impression people may have of my views on the environment based on my earlier postings, I'm not adverse to being sensible about energy efficiency. Such as switching things off, not just standby (where practical to do so) and switching things like set-top boxes to standby rather than leaving them on all night.

Where I have an issue is where we put dealing with Global Warming ahead of more pressing matters. Although I don't mean to diminish its importance as an issue, it's by no means the most important issue facing human society today (starvation, the AIDS epidemic in Africa, Third World Debt, Middle Eastern instability, running out of sustainable fuels etc). And governments do have an obligation to the electorate to consider domestic policy matters before looking globally.

Ultimately I refuse to believe that our contribution to Global Warming is sufficient enough to warrant putting huge roadblocks in the way of industrial development and growth. Should companies be encouraged to find environmentally sound ways to run their businesses? Of course, using subsidies and other incentives. They should not, however, be put under fixed regulation forcing them to adopt environmentally sound ways to run their business. In some cases it's simply not economical to do so.

[Fiirdraak]

I'm with Scotsworth on this one. Greenhouse effect is very true and it is increasing. Every report that I have heard about this climate crisis backs up the theory that this warming is unnatural.

To Hazzle:
I'm not Liberal. I'm not even US citizen so I don't have any connections to the people who are pro the climate crisis theory. I don't give a damn about politics. If you ask me, it is plain stupid to turn this issue a political one. I mean, what possible could we win by saying that global warming is an important issue we need to pay attention to? No, there is nothing that we could win by saying this kind of thing. This is no game. If this fight is lost, we all lose, if it is won, we all win. It's that simple. This is our home, the only home we can populate at the time being. The only benefit comes to the corporations who manufacture natural saving gadgets, i.e. electric cars, non-polluting power plants and so on. And these things are the future if we would embrace it. There is no other way for us to manage.

In my home country, Finland, there has been studies about different tree and other plants species. The species that normally manage to survive in the southest parts of Finland are now expanding their territory and nearing the arctic circle. The most parts of Finland were the domain of conifers, though some leafy tree species were able to manage in the colder environments too. But nowadays the evolution is heading towards the fact that these leafy tree species which were previously unable to sustain in the northern parts of Finland such as oak-trees and so on.

The funniest part about this all was that Hazzle called the climate crisis a conspiracy theory. I usually think conspiracy theories to be something where someone or ones get benefit from. I just can't see what benefit would there be from trying to change to healthier ways to design international industry. Oh, I must be conspiring to make people travel less with cars and more with their legs. I dear, I am a bad person to courage people to lead healthier lives and to courage obese people to loose weight by travelling by bicycle to work instead of cars. I must also be quite the plotter to side with people who support non-polluting energy (which by the way is more lasting than the coal-based energy forms we are using nowadays). Oh yeah, I want world domination by making people feel better about themselves, both physically and mentally.

P.s. Conspiracy theory - attempts to attribute the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secrect, and often deceptive plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes. -A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

[rani]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

heh, i take it you failed that subject?

CO² is a greenhouse gas, it absorbs heat. (simplified)

hi flightfreak..actually i just borrowed the term from the original owner of the thread which he just quoted (please read the 1st page) . green house effect like CFC (carbonfluorochloride) and carbon monoxide are destroyers of ozone layer. ozone layer ( or O3, please try to subscript 3, i do not know eh..thanks)absorbs the heat.

honestly i just learned that when i was active in environmental activism, sharing the sentiments of the neglected indigenous peoples of the philippines.

I love to share with leonie's point:

"I am all for living an environmentally sustainable life, but I think global warming is too often used to coax people into living in a more environmentally friendly way by painting a skewed picture. I'm all for the environment, but I don't like being lied to." -(Leonie)-

Some are campaigning for environmental issues and even grant millions of dollars for the same cause but just for the community acceptance of their anti environment activities.

[I Luv Keira]

Without global warming, the british weather would suck even more....

[Katielondon]

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFo...ouse_data.html

makes for interesting reading.

[Hazzle]

Fiirdraak: Well written post, I'm not going to quote it for fear of making this post even longer. However the issue IS a political one. The liberals wish to turn it into something it's not. You ask what they have to gain? Well they're anti-big business, which is what they have to gain. There are whole industries that now rely on this theory of global warming, solar power companies and the like. Where do you think energy saving lightbulbs come from? This is a war over our money, and if you can't see that, you're naive. Both sides only care about the financial rammifications, not the environmental ones. Which is why I prefer the pro-business side; at least they're being honest about their motivation.

Your point about trees is simply stating the obvious. You even use the word evolution in the paragraph, which is the point. There will be species of plantlife, and animal life, that won't cope with the increased temperatures. We now suspect it was immense cooling that killed the dinosaurs, so what makes you think it's unnatural that the temperature of the Earth changing would cause the death of some species, and the birth of new ones? Like I said, all those studies you can cite only use data we've recorded, but we've not been keeping records that long, and as a species we've not even been on the planet for its entire existence. The idea that we have a divine right to survive climate change (which underpins your argument) is at complete contradiction to the theory of evolution. If the climate change that's occuring causes the human species to be wiped out, that's simple survival of the fittest. The likelihood, however, is that we will evolve yet further to cope with the changes. If you studied mankind's ancestors you would know that we've overcome changes in climate before, and we will again.

"Climate crisis" (as opposed to simple climate change) is a conspiracy theory. There is political and financial benefit to be had, and yet not one of the proponents of the man-made climate change argument can refute the fact that we only contribute approximately 2% to the global warming situation. The other 98%, one would have to assume, is entirely natural. Yes, the world is warming at an unnatural rate, I concur, but only 2% more than the natural rate would have been. This is an irrefutable fact. You talk about making industry non-polluting but that may come at considerable economic cost and what for? A fractional reduction in the rate of climate change? What will we blame the other 98% on then? Non-polluting energy, which you mentioned, is a multi-billion dollar industry. Just who do you think is funding all those studies you read about the "Climate crisis"? You got it...energy companies. I wonder why...

Your definition of conspiracy theory does little to change this. Read what Leonie wrote about the lies we're being fed. We have had facts concealed from us for ulterior motives. The theory of man-made climate change being solely, or even majorly responsible for the global warming "crisis" is designed to "explain" the phenomenon by "facts" which just happen to serve to line the pockets of interested parties. The true cause is the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycles, and any attempt to prove anything other than that is by definition a conspiracy theory. And the people that will lose out will be the poorest in society who won't be able to afford housing and food in the world you advocate, due to increased business overhead. Who do you think business will pass those overheads onto? The consumers, that's who., and ultimately we'll be the ones who suffer. It's very easy for the middle classes to harp on about the environment; we can afford to. In doing so we ignore those who can't.

[dave]

I am so sorry. I didn't mean to get this started again. I had not been over here for awhile and you guys are so much fun, that I just looked around for something and saw this thread. I didn't realize that it is even older than the other one, I'm not used to having so many threads on the same subject.

Dear Leonie & crabby old guys. Is it possible to combine this thread with the other one so that all these newbies get more information before they begin spewing their revisionist Global Warming propaganda all over here again? Please, Please, Pretty Please. I am so doomed. I promise I will try to pay attention to the dates on old threads. That other discussion got really good, but this one is truly boring and all my fault. I deleted my posts as soon as it was pointed out to me what I had done, but the guy who pointed it out didn't delete his, and some others found this thread instead of the other, interesting one.

I don't know how combining two threads works, but if there is any way to combine them such that these newbies would have to at least 'look at' some of the other stuff, I would be eternally greatful. The problem seems to be that 'in a different thread' the people who have actually 'learned something' and 'changed their mind' can now do a 'reset' back and they have to be beaten down again. That's no fun. Once a person admits they might be mistaken, then that admission should stand. Especially if the proof of their admission keeps popping up.
Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?
Thanks, Dave

[Leonie]

Alright, I've merged the two.

If everything looks a bit illogical or out of order, that would be why.

I do, however, have a few conditions. There shall be no personal attacks. I've been reading back through the old pages of this merged thread, and it is pathetic to see two adults have a go at each other, just because they can't agree on something even science has no uniform opinion on.

The second condition is the following: if you need two consecutive posts to prove your point, you are talking too much.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

To be honest Hazzle I can’t figure out why you’d be against it. You sum me up what the disadvantages are of the global warming hype. What is the disadvantage of a more energy efficient industries?

Don't be silly Pieter. I know you can read. However I'll be kind and sum it up for you again in one word; cost. For a 2% reduction in global temperatures which will make NO DIFFERENCE to the Global Warming epidemic the ability to create cheap products will disappear overnight. You may not consider cost to be a big issue, that's because you're financially comfortable enough to make that decision. Can you truly say the same about every single person on the planet? You mention the growing population, and yet you forget that all those people need feeding. Food may grow on trees (pardon the pun) but the increased costs of transporting food across the world would make most foods entirely too expensive for many, meaning that their nutrition will suffer, and people will die, so what problem are you solving, exactly?

Ultimately the important thing is you can have all the energy efficient industries you want. It won't make a blind bit of difference when we have another Ice Age, as seems likely. What will is the intervening period and I for one think we have more pressing matters than trying to battle something we can't change. What good is a fantastic environment if in the meanwhile billions of people die? The disadvantages are clear; energy efficiency will work in some industries, in others it will make them unviable. I encourage energy efficiency WHERE PRACTICAL but people like you advocate far more far-reaching provisions than that. Frankly you're naive.

I tell you what, you can keep going on about the effect of global warming, and what we must do to change things, and in a way, actually, I hope industry does change. When it all proves fruitless and the temperature continues to rise, I'll get to say I told you so. Then I suppose you can apologise to the billions who will be unable to afford food and housing. If they're still alive for you to apologise to, that is.

[Leonie]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

To be honest Hazzle I can’t figure out why you’d be against it. You sum me up what the disadvantages are of the global warming hype. What is the disadvantage of a more energy efficient industries?

I think you misrepresent Hazzle's opinion, and by extension, my own.

Neither of us is against more environmentally friendly industries, and a more sustainable life in general. I would assume it's something most intelligent people support. That doesn't, however, mean I have to buy into the hype of global warming and the greenhouse effect.

[Ranman]

Someone should put a poll on top. I'd like to see the results.
Me, I believe in global warming and we're all gonna be orange color by new years

[Leonie]

I think the hype actually has a negative effect. It takes away all credibility.

I hate that educated guesses are being presented as facts. It's just not right, no matter what good cause you have in mind.

[AureaMediocritas]

I am really sorry to become impertinent in a few moments.

Where I live people have become, I would say, immensely concerned with ecological lifestyle. For example, ten years ago nobody cared what kind of substance one was throwing away to the bins. It would be burnt anyway. Today, I can see that all the measures put up on a communal and national level to promote "recycling" and "nature-friendly" ways of living are favoured not only by a bunch of idealists or vegetating woodstock hippies but by a great deal of citizens, educated or not. It pretty much resembles an instinct. I think there is a great potential for optimism based on restraining yourself from choosing the simple possibility : not caring at all.

Nevertheless, it all seems absurd if it won´t be applied in every country. I believe that this is not going to happen ever... especially because of quest of wealth. You won´t be able to ban "unhealthy" methods of gaining profit in countries and in people´s mentality that are not rich. Ecology, protection of Mother Earth is a luxury product for people who can afford to change lifestyle. Therefore, a poor African dude will throw away his dirt just as ever because he doesn´t and doesn´t want to care (something I witness everyday here in Paris). Something I understand : he can´t afford to care.

So, if for example Europeans start voting obligations for companies to respect certain ecological means of production, it will only result in bigger costs for those concerned. The Chinese will laugh their ***** off at stupid people like that who voluntarily double (for example) production costs just to be allowed to show off as being "nature-friendly". It simply won´t work. It remains, unfortunately, a political issue.

If we had liberal democracy all over the world, maybe there would be a fair chance of all countries taking part in the action. But as it is, it is all illusion and vanity. It will need diseases "officially" linked to the problem to make people realize what is at stake. As long as the cause-consequence link is not certain, every "greenpeace" argument can and will be refuted.

Feel free to contradict. Bye.

[duckula]

Everybody chill, problem solved.

[Keira lover]

The Earth is Warming, but is it natural or man made.

Despite what Algore says:

The earth goes through 10,000yrs of cooling, 9,000yrs of warming, repeat. We are in the warming period. Also, the climate stations that people use to support global warming are in terrible locations, like near trash-burning barrels, AC units, airports, etc.. (i've seen the photos)

Myths

Polar bears are dying: Polar bear population is at the highesty it's been in years

Carbon is bad for the environment: we need it to live

and, Algore is not the messiah.

he uses private jets

uses twice the amount of energy the avg. American uses in 1 year in one of his mansions in one month.

live earth.