I don't personally believe in the concept of man-made climate change. I'm unsure if we're in a period of climate change just yet, I remain unconvinced either way but if we are I assume it'd due to a natural process rather than Co2 emissions.
I also believe there is [i]alot[/i] of money in 'Green' Dollars so the concept of man-made climate change makes for lucrative careers which, in my opinion, are ridiculous and more harmful than good.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32376297]People who say global warming is real:
-Analysts
-Al Gore
-The entire scientific community
People who say global warming is fake:
-Oil tycoons
-Their wholly-owned media subsidiaries
Hmm, I wonder which is more trustworthy.[/QUOTE]
your gonna need some sauce with that. No one will take your word.
Personally, I believe Global Warming/climate change is a natural occurrence of the planet and that we do little or nothing to aid or accelerate it.
That, and I could use a little global warming around here in the winter when it hits -20 out.
Though, it is evident that global warming is occuring, it isn't happening on such a grand scale that it should be worrying.
I do believe, however, that we, as a species, do little to contribute to global warming in any significant, world altering way, but that doesn't mean to say we shouldn't be doing ever little thing we can to preserve a healthy, living environment.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;32379826]It's not a hoax, the temperature is getting unnaturally high, and natural disasters are more likely to happen. Plus taking oil out of the ground creates gaps which the plates have to move to compensate for the empty space, which causes more earthquakes, and they trigger volcanic eruptions. This volcano may erupt soon and will be 10 times as powerful as krakatoa, or around 800 megatons of energy released. The global temperature will be porbably drop 1.7 degrees. While this will reduce the temperature, a shit ton of people will starve because lots of crops will fail.[/QUOTE]
spaghetti goes great with sauce.
I think it's a hoax because people are doing stupid things to "prevent it from happening"
Like driving these fucking things.
[IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0jaiKAKUBkE/TME1RHlIeiI/AAAAAAAAA24/uVlVXTjdDXU/s1600/toyota-prius-hybrid8.jpg[/IMG]
If it really does exist. I highly doubt it's our fault that it's happening.
[QUOTE=magicman1234;32381869]I think it's a hoax because people are doing stupid things to "prevent it from happening"
Like driving these fucking things.
[IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0jaiKAKUBkE/TME1RHlIeiI/AAAAAAAAA24/uVlVXTjdDXU/s1600/toyota-prius-hybrid8.jpg[/IMG]
If it really does exist. I highly doubt it's our fault that it's happening.[/QUOTE]
The prius is such a joke. If only it was a funny joke.
Also
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JdOH7GrE6Q[/media]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;32378511][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png[/IMG]
If you Believe in Global Warming and think it's not something we should worry about, then I suggest you go read about the consequences of Global Warming.[/QUOTE]
What pisses me off with graphs like that is that they're EXTREMELY short term. I could zoom in on a REALLY small section of Google's stock trends and conclude that they're going to go bankrupt when in reality the long term trend is up.
The global average temperature has been going up for millions, nay, billions of years. Sure, we're probably not helping it, but even without us it'd continue to go up over time.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32382384]What pisses me off with graphs like that is that they're EXTREMELY short term. I could zoom in on a REALLY small section of Google's stock trends and conclude that they're going to go bankrupt when in reality the long term trend is up.
The global average temperature has been going up for millions, nay, billions of years. Sure, we're probably not helping it, but even without us it'd continue to go up over time.[/QUOTE]
Amusingly enough the earth is actually at its coldest/second coldest in the past half billion years.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png[/img]
The earth can get warmer and live will still prosper as it normally does. The last time it became intolerable was around 250 million years ago when according the graph the temp went right off the chart and around 95% of life on earth ceased to exist.
I personally don't believe in global warming. After everything that humans have thrown at the ozone layer (I'm looking at you, the 70's), something must've happened by now. Global warming/cooling has always been predicted since the early 1900's, these scares are as cyclical as the Earth's climate cycles.
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;32382914]I personally don't believe in global warming. After everything that humans have thrown at the ozone layer (I'm looking at you, the 70's), something must've happened by now. Global warming/cooling has always been predicted since the early 1900's, these scares are as cyclical as the Earth's climate cycles.[/QUOTE]
The ozone layer only protects us from the shit the sun flings at us
I beleive in it, just that it is being a bit over-extraggated
Also, people should understand this also causes things such as weather to get unstable
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;32382914]I personally don't believe in global warming. After everything that humans have thrown at the ozone layer (I'm looking at you, the 70's), something must've happened by now. Global warming/cooling has always been predicted since the early 1900's, these scares are as cyclical as the Earth's climate cycles.[/QUOTE]
There's actually a huge gaping hole (think [i]goatse[/i] scale gaping hole) in the ozone layer. The incidence of skin cancer has gone up greatly since it formed. CO2 has bugger all to do with the ozone layer, though. Things like chlorofluorocarbons are the culprit there, but we're phasing them out over time now in favour of less destructive alternatives.
The ozone layer doesn't really effect the global temperature, though. All it does is act as a UV shield for us. I guess technically, being radiation, UV radiation could heat the Earth up, but compared to the visible and infrared radiation that we're bombarded with constantly it's probably negligible.
[QUOTE=Abrown516;32375728]I don't know why people call it a hoax. Either Earth is getting warmer or it isn't.[/QUOTE]
The debate is over whether it's man-made or a natural occurrence.
Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in the research of fuel efficient cars/solar panels, etc. as a means of conservation of nonrenewable resources, but not as a means of preventing global warming.
And I'm not sure if we can so readily base weather patterns on global warming just yet. There's always been weather oddities throughout history.
Global warming is there, but exaggerated to all hell. We SHOULD do as much as we can to eliminate our footprint on the Earth, but not go all out and start to live in shacks.
If each person does a little bit, we can slow this down to the point where we can dump it on the shoulders of generations in the far future! :downs:
[QUOTE=firestorm0;32381079][B]New [highlight]NASA[/highlight] Data [highlight]Blow Gaping Hole[/highlight] In Global Warming Alarmism[/b]
Read this: [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/?partner=yahoofeed[/url]
[url]http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/[/url][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html[/url]
[url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/[/url]
Title makes it sound like NASA published a paper refuting Global Warming, but it's just some dude from a Libertarian think tank.
[QUOTE=wingless;32375507]Gonna pull a classic here: Better safe than sorry.[/QUOTE]
Well actually, I'm going to reverse this statement for the sake of debate: what if, by taking action, we do more harm than good? Wouldn't it be "better safe than sorry" to simply do nothing?
My issue is that the global warming debate is being used to launch lots of non-profits designed with the sole purpose to steal money from well meaning people. In British Columbia (a province in Canada), a charity promised to plant one tree for every dollar donated. In reality, the numbers were closer to one tree for every $36 donated. That is a 3500% increase in the price of a tree, apparently. Even the Suzuki Foundation is in on it, trading carbon credits for money using the Kyoto Accord and similar agreements.
The problem with global warming being seen as one big blob issue is that it allows lobbyists and politicians (of all people) to manipulate it. They can lie, cheat, and steal, all in the name of "green" and it's all hidden behind blanket "global warming" work. Companies green-wash people by claiming they're doing so much for the environment when really, at best, their efforts show token improvement and really just save them money. What those who genuinely want to fight global warming should do is break it back up into its components. You can argue against global warming, saying that it isn't happening or isn't man made, and those arguments are plausible due to things like increased sun activity. But can you argue against the harmful effects of deforestion? No! No sane person can honestly say wanton deforestion is not harmful. You'd just look like a tool. Same with pollution, dumping garbage in the oceans, burning fossil fuels... people can argue global warming but they can't argue those issues, and solving those issues will help fight global warming anyway, so why not?
I guess what I'm saying is, global warming may not be fake, but the cause has been hi-jacked and the eco-concious would be better off attacking these individual issues one-by-one. If they did, they would very likely see more success than the itty-bitty concessions they see now.
I remember hearing something about one of the official big names in global warming conducting a test and finding out that 98% of it is because of some space radiation or something, anyone know what I'm talking about or was it a dream or something?
[QUOTE=scotland1;32375541]Since when did people think it was a hoax?[/QUOTE]
Here in America like half the population thinks it's a hoax. No really where I live majority of people think it's BS.
Yes, we are in a Global warming phase, but it isn't because of us. Don't believe in Al Gore kiddies, he's not an actual scientist or climatologist.
[QUOTE=Orckrast;32387214]Yes, we are in a Global warming phase, but it isn't because of us. Don't believe in Al Gore kiddies, he's not an actual scientist or climatologist.[/QUOTE]
because Al Gore totally just made all of that up himself, it's not like he drew on the work of thousands of scientists for his documentary.
how do you breathe?
[QUOTE=Orckrast;32387214]Yes, we are in a Global warming phase, but it isn't because of us. Don't believe in Al Gore kiddies, he's not an actual scientist or climatologist.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but [b]98% of actual climatologists agree with him[/b]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;32375587]'what if'
'better safe than sorry'
That's not exactly a good way to think, but in the end you're right.
Also Climate Change is a fact, supported by most climate scientists who are worth their words.[/QUOTE]
Even if we are wrong about climate change (which we probably aren't), environmental reform will still do much more good than harm.
I think that global warming is partly due to the natural course of the Earth.
But I think that it is happening a lot worse now due to us.
Then how we are trying to [b]stop[/b] global warming is actually going to eventually suffocate all the plants as there won't be enough carbon dioxide for plants.
[QUOTE=TH89;32387282]Yeah but [b]98% of actual climatologists agree with him[/b][/QUOTE]
For the guy who rated me "disagree"
[img]http://www.greentaxi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/climate_consensus.gif[/img]
[img]http://icons.wxug.com/metgraphics/climate/EOS_public_scientific_opinion.png[/img]
[img]http://jameswight.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/climate-change-infographic1.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=TH89;32387472]For the guy who rated me "disagree"
[img]http://www.greentaxi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/climate_consensus.gif[/img]
[img]http://icons.wxug.com/metgraphics/climate/EOS_public_scientific_opinion.png[/img]
[/QUOTE]
That survey was flawed because its question was a simple yes or no answer.
A better survey shows varying level of agreement.
[IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/2dryivc.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=cccritical;32386328]I remember hearing something about one of the official big names in global warming conducting a test and finding out that 98% of it is because of some space radiation or something, anyone know what I'm talking about or was it a dream or something?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/[/url]
You're talking about this, but, it's complicated.
They've stated that it's possible that cosmic rays can nucleate aerosol particles, which could result in more cloud-cover. They didn't explicitly state one way or the other how this would effect the climate or if it's possible in a "real" scale as it was a closed experiment.
However, one thing should be said of all this. To all the people saying it's "a fact" climate change is caused by people, you're wrong. The fact is there is a lot of variables we're not sure about yet, there is no definitive proof, no matter how many times you try to hammer it into people's heads.
Is it true that corporations could be blowing evil gasses into our planet? I guess, yeah. Could this have an effect on the climate? Sure, why not. Is this conclusively proven with absolutely no unproven data in the models or based on some assumptions in models filling the holes in data? [b]No[/b].
Alas scientists are not yet gods of the universe and can not explain things down to the smallest level of detail. The models are not complete, there's data that obviously still needs to be 'proven' and yes, despite people pointing and laughing at people pointing out that it's "just a theory", it is, and now it needs to be "proven" in scientific terms, by testing all of the variables and ensuring their models are completely accurate.
Are all the models they've put out so far an accurate prediction of real life events? We don't know yet.
Are all the models they've put out actually [i]proven[/i]? No, they aren't. They're assumptions based on the data they have so far and/or have assumed, they're in the process of proving it now. If it turns out to be true, super, we'll get right on that, if not, then back to the drawing board.
[QUOTE=flyschy;32387495]That survey was flawed because its question was a simple yes or no answer.
A better survey shows varying level of agreement.
[IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/2dryivc.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
That still reflects a consensus, but what's your source?
Also a "yes" or "no" question is pretty sufficient when we're gauging consensus for the purposes of [i]acting on an imminent threat to the world[/i], wouldn't you say?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.