Do you believe in global warming?
Printable View
Do you believe in global warming?
No, but I believe in the Great Global Warming Swindle
The question is not whether we believe in global warming or not, it is happening right now! The question is, how fast will it destroy the life on Earth we know, and can we do something about it, or is it too late? it certainly seems to be going faster than anyone expected 10-15 years ago.
See some facts here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l_warming.html
I’m sure if people had had computers a few hundred years ago, and had there been Forums like this, there most likely would have been a thread called: Do you believe the Earth is round? :rolleyes:
Ditto the above post
Global warming isn't a theory, it is a sad fact. It exists whether you believe in it or not. And while the Earth has warmed up and cooled down several times over its history, from what we can tell, this one is the "fault" of humanity. I am, however, hopeful that humanity can act to slow its progress before life become unsustainable.
I have, out of curiosity, checked, living two towns in from the ocean as we do, what would happen if sea levels rose dramatically. My house would still be fine, and on dry land, but I'd need a boat to get to church, and my alma mater would be flooded, but that part is no surprise, as Boston's "Back Bay" was created from swamp in the first place.
It's not a matter of believing it or not, it is a theory based on lots and lots of hard data and research. It would be like choosing not to believe in Gravitational Theory.
I think we need more science education in this country so people understand the scientific method- scientists don't arrive at conclusions based on a whim, it takes years of valid testing and retesting hypotheses to arrive at a theory. That is actually what I am completing my master's thesis on- science education for the first 3 chapters and for my project, a unit on the scientific method and global warming. I will hopefully be done shortly! :)
Karen, that's interesting. John did the same about 8-9 years ago. The map he came up with looked pretty scary - Denmark under 10 meters of water. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Karen
When's that ice age going to start?
I understood it better after I saw a documentary on PBS about the glaciers that showed pictures of them "calving". My mom and dad went on a cruise to Alaska and saw glaciers. Previous generations might not have been aware of the impact of modern living on the environment; I'm glad there has been "consciousness raising" about it.
The Earth has been warming and cooling since its begining. Humans have very little impact on the warming or cooling cycles, especialy when it comes to CO2 emissions.
In the mid 70's we were warned that CO2 was going to plunge us into a new Ice Age, so we started curbing our CO2 output. So, since we have curbed our emissions more and more since the dire predictions of the 70's, why is a warming trend in climate change happening? It couldnt possibly have anything to do with solar activity could it?
One of the co founders of Green Peace left the orginization because of GP's participation in the global warming movement. GW is big business, and gets big money. It is also holding back third world nations from developing. Keeping third world nations as third world nations is killing people.
Ill make it easy for all of you to watch The Great Global Warming Swindle, link.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is just about as credible as "Loose Change" - the documentary about the 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Too many people consuming too many resources and producing too much waste.
Why does someone have to "believe" in Global Warming? Isn't the evidence of the damage we are doing to this planet apparent to those without blindfolds on?
I don't "believe" in electricity, or flight of heavier than air crafts or that the earth is round.
Somethings just "are" and don't, in my opinion, require belief or non-belief.
Global Warming is one of those.
:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Karen
It's too bad we can't convince EVERYone that Global Warming IS a FACT;
and needs EVERYone in the World to get together and turn the temperature down.
We seem to *burn* everything in sight - Oil, Coal, Trees, and even our Garbage! :(
Burn Less ~ Breathe Better. ;)
Global warming is a fact and putting our head in the sand and coming up with
these conspiracies to deny it is not responsible. Blue you probably still have a
W sticker on your jeep. You sound like you are cut from the same stock anyway. Living in Alaska the proof is all around you. Have you been outside lately.
Okay, the climate IS changing and causing bad effects.
To heck with whatever is causing it - that argument is a waste of time.
The main point is - WHAT ARE WE DOING/GOING TO DO ABOUT IT????
JMO
JMO...you are wrong to think "to heck with whatever is causing it".Quote:
Originally Posted by Catty1
If you cannot determine what is "causing it" you do not know what to do differently.
To solve a problem it is not enough to define the problem - you must also determine "probable cause." Else you will spend time, energy and resources chasing the wrong solution.
:confused:Quote:
Okay, the climate IS changing and causing bad effects.
To heck with whatever is causing it - that argument is a waste of time.
The main point is - WHAT ARE WE DOING/GOING TO DO ABOUT IT????
"What's causing it ... is a waste of time" ????????
The steps in Problem Solving are usually:
1) Identify the problem = Global Warming - the evidence is everywhere
2) Determine the Cause = WHY is the Ice melting and the Planet warming?
3) Knowing the Cause(s) - develop plans to eliminate or minimize the "Causes".
I think determining WHAT's causing the Global Warming is kinda *important*.
/s/ Phred
For example - you define the problem as "the house is too cold".
To heck with the cause!
I'll put in a new furnace.
But the problem is - there is no insulation in the house.
So it is still too cold.
You have bought a new furnace and been cold for three more weeks. With no improvement in the problem. And now you must spend more money and time getting insulation put in the house.
Identification of the cause of a problem is crucial to solving it. The first time.
The fact that there is evidence of tropical forests in AK? Yes that was many millions of years ago but it shows that the Earth was once much warmer then it is now. Its also true that back in the 80's we would have had snow on the ground by now, but we now have much more severe and longer cold spells in Jan and Feb then we did back then.
Putting your head in the sand is on both sides of the Globull Warming debate. Its Climate Change and its natural, and its been going on since the begining without our help.
Ill take the scientists and researchers in The Great Global Warming Swindle over Al Gores hot air or the scientists and researchers cashing in on Globull Warming on the billions in grants.
I dont put political stickers on my Jeep, I dont need a lefty nut trashing it.
What I meant was - to argue whether it is a natural event, or caused by humans, the actions to slow and even reverse it would be the same, no?
I tend to think that it may well be a natural event, but made far more severe by the crap that has been poured into the environment since the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1800's.
Let's remove all the human factors possible and see if that helps. How can it not?
Remove the human factors??? - impossible - unless you remove humans!Quote:
Originally Posted by Catty1
At best, they might be modified. This would have to be a worldwide cooperative effort, and just one industrial nation and it's people, is not going to make a difference. All - or nothing at all. And which way do you think it would go???
Why do people like to pick and choose when to "believe" in scientific evidence? We know that our climate has changed over the course of the earth's history due to scientific evidence. Likewise, we know that that it is now warming as result of human activities from scientific evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
"all the human factors possible" I didn't say ALL. ;)
It is true that there is evidence that a tropical rain forest existed on the east shore of the gulf of Alaska. That was 40-50 million years ago. It took millions of years to go from that tropical age to the cold climate of just 50 years ago. The problem is we are seeing warming in just a few decades not thousands of millions of years as would be the norm. The change we are seeing today is very rapid and accelerating at an alarming rate. Warming is real and worsening much to fast. It will take a Global change in how we use our resources or we will pay the consequences in our lifetime.
I don't think that I'll ever see it in what's left of my lifetime, and maybe not even that of my children's. Certainly I feel that it will impact my grandchildren and beyond. It's going to be a long, hard sell, to convince people to change. Everyone has gotten too comfortable with the way of life that progress has afforded them, and unfortunately, most will not want to make any sacrifices to turn this all around. I feel that too many take the "I'm not going to be around for it to affect me, so why should I bother to make a change?" attitude, or the attitudes such as "blue's" who believe that, we the people, are not the cause, and it's just the natural course of events.Quote:
Originally Posted by kokopup
It saddens me to say this, but I'm glad I won't be around to see the results, if we continue on this destructive course. :mad:
No, the actions to slow or reverse would not be the same. If it is naturally occurring how could you slow or reverse it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catty1
Steve Mc Queen would have been a wonderful spokesman for the Global Warning Movement..........
Watch the last five minutes of "The Blob".
If it IS natural, we could keep working towards cutting CO2 emissions and everything else we are doing. I can't help but think it will have some effect, natural causes or not.
To clarify further, merely arguing about the chicken or egg cause takes energy we could be putting towards cleaning up after ourselves, commercially, internationally, and personally.
Global "warming". Follow the money. How much is Al Gore worth now?
The science I have read, from various sources is far from conclusive. Seems to be that that enourmous ball of fire in the sky has something to do with it. Something that contemporary science cares little about.
I care about the environment MORE than the average person. Call me on it. The "answers" proposed... "Cap and Trade...." Discuss?
Cap and Trade. Ready to live in the 18th century? I am. How about you?
Ask Al Gore and every scientist with their hands out for Globull Warming grant money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pembroke_Corgi
It didnt take millions of years to go from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age, or the 1940s warming to the cooling in the 1970s. Neither of us is going through million years of tempurature records without being paid to do so for the sake of an intardnet discussion. The world has been cutting its emissions for 3 decades and climate change is still rapidly accelerating. The problem is we started cutting our emissions to stave off another cooling period and caused a warming period?Quote:
Originally Posted by kokopup
The Globull Warming Scare tactic is already killing people in developing nations.
So more mining is now the answer on using our resources to help stop climate change?
Al Gore the limo riding private jet flying Climate Commando!Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
There is no grant money for solar activity studies when it come to Globull Warming.Quote:
The science I have read, from various sources is far from conclusive. Seems to be that that enourmous ball of fire in the sky has something to do with it. Something that contemporary science cares little about.
Not ready to live like its 1799, and I doubt neither are the Globull Warming alarmists.Quote:
I care about the environment MORE than the average person. Call me on it. The "answers" proposed... "Cap and Trade...." Discuss?
Cap and Trade. Ready to live in the 18th century? I am. How about you?
I am glad that everyone has the benefit of listening finally to what is really going on: the earth is in fact overall cooling down. Warming and cooling cycles have existed since the earth was formed some 5.5 billion years ago, but at one time the temperature on the surface of the earth was thousands of degrees F! We are probably in a localized "warming" period that may or not be affected by humans, but on the scale of billions of years the earth will in fact one day become unihabitable, not because of excessive heat, but due to excessive cold! The earth's surface heat, generated by its enormously hot, molten core, is being radiated into outer space. Due to solar activity, and the complex and convoluted nature of earth's continents, et al, earth experiences climate cycles. But the reality is that on the largest scale possible, the earth is cooling down and will one day become a solid block of frozen rock -- if not consumed by an expanding sun, which will in most likelihood become a red giant star. Whether or not that happens, it cannot be denied that given enough time the earth will cool down overall.
There is plenty of credible, scientific information available on the web (I am talking about abstracts and reports written by Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech, et al, scientists -- not "wannabe" scientists) to support what I have posted.
There are undoubtedly scientists who don’t agree about global warming, and while some would call global warming a theory, others would call it a proven set of facts. Opinions differ vehemently.
It’s true that the earth is cooling down if we count millions of years, but I do believe people who say that at the moment we are in a warming period! Whether it’s entirely human activity that are causing it, I’m not sure. The environment of the world as we know it is slowly, but very surely increasing in overall air and water temperature, and a promise that if whatever is causing this is not interrupted or challenged, life on earth will dynamically be affected.
The prevailing counter opinion is that all that is presently perceived to be global warming is simply the result of a normal climactic swing in the direction of increased temperature. Most proponents of this global warming ideology have definitive social and financial interests in these claims!
I assume that the conflicting facts between scientists has to do with how they define the period they refer to.
On the web there are countless articles about global warming, but it’s just too time consuming to keep up with who says what. I’ve seen some programmes about global warming on National Geographic, and I believe they are trustworthy. :)
The U.S. Global Change Research Program says:
Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.
The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says:
Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.
The real question about climate change is: is it anthropogenic? We know, for example, of a cause-and-effect relationship between CFCs and the ozone hole: when CFC emissions dropped, the ozone hole got smaller. The whole CO2 debate is a lot tougher; in my opinion it's a good idea to reduce pollution of all types just to make life easier for all who live on Earth.
There is some evidence of rapid (decades-scale) climate change in the past. Some suspects have been: solar cycles (the Sun is a variable star); volcanic activity (the Year without a Summer in the early 1800s); and even asteroid impacts!
Both sides of the debate have an axe to grind. The oil companies want to continue to explore for, drill for and sell oil. The solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen, etc. sides want funding (Federal or otherwise) to fund their research.
People want to improve their standard of living; this is natural. Heinlein said it best: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. This TANSTAAFL principle must be kept in mind; everything we do takes resources, energy and has an impact on the planet.
Well, how would you go about discounting "millions (billions, actually) or years?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Randi
I agree and believe that we are in a warming period. It is probably, equally true that this warming period is being adversely affected by mankind; however, no amount of heeding of the facts will change the immutable fact that the earth will eventually lose all of its heat, its molten inner core will eventually cool down, and sometime in the far distant future will become a solid, frozen rock, totally devoid of life.
__________________
There is no doubt the earths core is cooling and in a million or so years will be a solid frozen chunk. I'm not really going to worry about this event. i am concerned about the warming that is happening right now that is thawing mountain tops, melting Glaciers, and changing ocean currents. This will bring about an early end to life as we know it. Until we change how we treat our environment this trend will continue to accelerate. I have seen major changes in my lifetime, I am 69 years old not .69 million years old. We can try to justify what is happening with a lot of technobabble, the fact remains the problem is here now and it is real.Quote:
By Willow oak
Well, how would you go about discounting "millions (billions, actually) or years?"
I agree and believe that we are in a warming period. It is probably, equally true that this warming period is being adversely affected by mankind; however, no amount of heeding of the facts will change the immutable fact that the earth will eventually lose all of its heat, its molten inner core will eventually cool down, and sometime in the far distant future will become a solid, frozen rock, totally devoid of life.
I think it will take a lot longer than a million years for the Earth's core to freeze. There's a pretty big insulating layer around it!
Whether it is a million, 10 million , or 100 million will not matter because manQuote:
Smokey the elder
I think it will take a lot longer than a million years for the Earth's core to freeze. There's a pretty big insulating layer around it!
would have been gone for a while before this happens. Our decades are numbered.
Mr. Gore's face is priceless. The comments are even better. LOL
I love it when "Progressives" get spanked and then all they can do is attack the messenger. Priceless.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/03/sawyer-beck-gore/
Well said!!Quote:
Originally Posted by kokopup
Now, WHY is that so hard for so many to understand? :confused:
:(
Does post #39 give me license to use The Onion as a "news" source?