Global Warming... Where are ya?

[Bunglo]

Sooo, when is this dreaded "global warming" supposed to come in to effect? I mean, I've been looking at all of the weather records for average temperatures for each month and so far it's between below average and average temperatures. Now, you can debate that some glaciers and stuff are melting but here are the two key words you have to pay attention to, you guys ready? Ok, key word one is Global, meaning the entire earth. Key word number two is Warming, meaning a rise in the average temperature. Put those two words together and you get a definition like "a rise in the average temperature of the earth." From what I'm feeling outside and seeing on all of the weather records, "global warming" is not the case. Could the colder extremes of the Earth such as Antarctica be getting warming? Sure, it's possible but it sure as hell ain't humans that are causing it and if it's not us causing it that means it's a natural thing that needs to take place. I just feel all of the global warming "scare" is/was a way for people to start thinking more about the environment, which is great but I don't think scaring people was the right way to do it.

[Sgt So and So]

As my chem teacher put it, Global Warming is the worst possible name for our situation, as it effects mostly the poles and other regions of the earth that are more exposed to the sun's rays. It used to have some more meaningful name, but the US media chewed it up and spit this crap out.

[Hyperion2010]

Climate CHANGE.

NOT "Global Warming."

Europe is probably going to turn into an icecube, which is actually a much worse fate than warming a few degrees.

[Byron]

Yeah I laugh at the people who freak out about 'global warming' with its literal definition and scare. which is completely false, though things are changing, but thats just a part of life..

[lazlazlaz1]

I havent got time to go into a full argument just at the moment, but basically. The idea of a man made global warming crisis is a load of rubbish.
The earths temperature is a cyclical thing, determined by many factors including the suns own cyclical patterns. There is about a 400 short cycle which meant that in the 1600's the River Thames was frozen over enough for there to be ice-skating on it, and in the Middle Ages the global temperature was 3 degrees higher. It is said by Al Gore and others that if the global temperature was to rise by that much then the polar ice caps would melt and we would all drown and the world would be destroyed. Well its happened every 800 years so far, so I wouldn't worry about it.

I will put up some science, facts and graphs later today.

[Oddvin]

......

I agree! In Norway and Europe in general there are a lot of talking about ice-caps on top of mountains and such melting. Seems like a great problem, only thing is that between 1775-1785 the ice caps grew with as much as 200 meter in length! That means that we are still in a recession period since that cooling period. So i would be expecting it to be getting smaller!

Refering to Co2 i would recomend people who still believe this propaganda crap (spread by Gore and his disciples) to apply Guldberg & Vaage's Law of Mass action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_mass_action) into the calculation!

[Mtroll]

The only predictable thing about climate is that its unpredictable. The earth has been changing for thousands of years and will continue to do so with or without humans. I also love how people blame Global Warming for any disaster, when in fact it just humans being dumb that caused the problem. Examples, don’t build houses in Tornado alley, its given that name for a reason. Never build a city below sea level in a area prone to Hurricanes. Much of it is just people looking to pass the blame onto someone or something else so they are not at fault.

I also find this Global Warming crap just away to tackle Oil companies. Oil companies are big, and have lots of money, but taking them out of the picture like so many of these people want to do is not the answer. These companies support so many families, charities, and virtually are the reason so many other business are alive. Take Oil out many thousands if not millions of jobs would be lost and economies would crash into the dirt. I know Oil is not forever but let the market figure things out, when Gas starts to cost way to much some one will develop or release another source of transportation or fuel.

[Kaos]

There's a thread about this already somewhere... with arguments for both sides.

I'll try and find it and merge it, so people don't have repeat themselves.

[Kaos]

Ok I won't merge because it's fairly long and covers a few issues but here it is:

http://www.1944d-day.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5005

[icecoldbeerer]

I agree climate changes in cycles, and this is natural, but I think we might cause it to go more drastic (warmer and colder) than nature itself. The cycle will become more and more extreme and then "Global Warming" may kill us. If we continue to slightly alter it for 100 years, then yes, I bet we will hurt for it.

[lazlazlaz1]

Humans have such a insiginificant effect in terms of Co2 output that it will never make a difference.
We of course do have an effect in terms of habitation and altering of landscapes and ecosystems, but to be quite frank, I would rather have modern technology than a rainforest.

edit:
oh and I would just like to quote this from the previous thread, kinda hits the nail on the head
Few facts:

- Greenhouse gases are 95% of water vapour and 0.057% of Co2(which includes man made CO2).

- Sun is the dominating factor on what happens to the temperatures on Earth.

- C02 levels rise when temperature rises. CO2 levels fall when temperature falls. This is happens in hundred of years delay. It is because of this:

When temperature rises the oceans start to relase more CO2, but it takes time for oceans to warm up and thats why there is a delay. When temperatures falls the oceans tie up CO2 and release only little of it. But again it takes time for oceans to cool down and that is the reason there is a delay.

So in other words: CO2 can't cause global warming because the temperatures must rise first, and after that CO2 levels.

[Sgt So and So]

Personally, I think keeping a rainforest is much more beneficiary in the long run as opposed to technology. If we can take herbal cures from the rainforest and then model our modern medicine off of them? Harmony, my friends. One without the other would simply hinder each's progress.

[Mtroll]

Balance is the key, if we hope to continue on.

[Kaos]

Ok well let's look at like this.

Ice records show that C02 leads to warming in average temperatures and a shrinking of the ice caps. We all agree on that.

Humans produce a shit load of C02. We all agree on that.

Humans weren't producing anywhere near as much C02 before the 1850's (Industrial revolution). Again, all agree.

So while it is true that temperatures fluctuate in cycles... those cycles go for millions of years. The current spike started in the 1850's.

Now we can either say "WELL that's just a huge coincidence!". Or we can accept responsibility for the fact that we are having an effect and try and do something about it before it's too late.

I don't even know why some of you are arguing that human cause is basically nil. Even die-hard conservatives and once-upon-a-time sceptics like the American, Australian and British governments have gotten on board. Not to mention to UN.

[Bunglo]

Ok well let's look at like this.

Ice records show that C02 leads to warming in average temperatures and a shrinking of the ice caps. We all agree on that.

Humans produce a shit load of C02. We all agree on that.

Humans weren't producing anywhere near as much C02 before the 1850's (Industrial revolution). Again, all agree.

So while it is true that temperatures fluctuate in cycles... those cycles go for millions of years. The current spike started in the 1850's.

Now we can either say "WELL that's just a huge coincidence!". Or we can accept responsibility for the fact that we are having an effect and try and do something about it before it's too late.

I don't even know why some of you are arguing that human cause is basically nil. Even die-hard conservatives and once-upon-a-time sceptics like the American, Australian and British governments have gotten on board. Not to mention to UN.

Until I see actual evidence that the Earth's climate is changing like it never has before, I won't believe a word any says "supporting" global warming. And if that evidence is ever presented to me, I'm going to need further evidence showing that humans are having the bigger effect than natural causes. Have I seen any of that evidence yet? No. All I see are people saying all this crap about co2 but that's it. Please, don't show me a graph that speculates (because that's what they're doing, speculating) how the Earth's climate was millions of years ago, it doesn't prove a thing. I want current records showing how the climate has changed and according to what I've been looking at, it's been a bit colder than average.

[Kaos]

Until I see actual evidence that the Earth's climate is changing like it never has before, I won't believe a word any says "supporting" global warming. And if that evidence is ever presented to me, I'm going to need further evidence showing that humans are having the bigger effect than natural causes. Have I seen any of that evidence yet? No. All I see are people saying all this crap about co2 but that's it. Please, don't show me a graph that speculates (because that's what they're doing, speculating) how the Earth's climate was millions of years ago, it doesn't prove a thing. I want current records showing how the climate has changed and according to what I've been looking at, it's been a bit colder than average.

Wait so.. you don't accept graphs as proof the climate is changing... but you accept them as proof that it's getting colder?

As has been said, climate change does not mean that every place in the world is increasing in temperature. The end result is, and will be, more temperature extremes and more extreme weather pattern.

Sydney has just had it's coldest winter on record, as have alot of places in Aus. Europe and America had record summers. The highest amount of hurricanes ever recorded was last year. Australia is having the longest drought in its history. The frequency and devestation of floods in Asia is getting more pronounced every year. Islands have already been sunk by rising sea levels. The Antarctic and Arctic shelves are breaking up.

Here's some more facts:

During the last 100 years the Earth has warmed by 0.76 °C on average, and the rate of warming has further increased. The 11 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 12 years. The second half of the 20th century was the warmest period in the northern hemisphere for at least 1 300 years. Europe has warmed by about 1 °C over the past 100 years, faster than the global average.

Rates of observed sea level rise almost doubled from 18 centimetres per century in 1961–2003 to 31 cm per century in 1993–2003.

That's from the UN IPCC.

Ok so that's what happening. Now to explain why man is causing it.

This article explains how group of scientists reached that conclusion:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html

Here's the method of another group of scientists:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm

So if you don't accept that man has an impact, what do you believe is the reason that the UN Scientific Body, the US NAS, various other scientific bodies and organisations and every scientific journal in the world are trying to convince people of that fact? It's not a recent phenomenon, climate scientists have been warning people for at least 30 years but its only know when the effects have become more pronounced that it's risen to the top of various political agendas. In my opinion that rules out the idea that scientists are doing this for 'profit' or fame. You could only do decades of research into something and then release results and a conclusion which goes against the status quo if you really believed in it.

[Bunglo]

Wait so.. you don't accept graphs as proof the climate is changing... but you accept them as proof that it's getting colder?

As has been said, climate change does not mean that every place in the world is increasing in temperature. The end result is, and will be, more temperature extremes and more extreme weather pattern.

Sydney has just had it's coldest winter on record, as have alot of places in Aus. Europe and America had record summers. The highest amount of hurricanes ever recorded was last year. Australia is having the longest drought in its history. The frequency and devestation of floods in Asia is getting more pronounced every year. Islands have already been sunk by rising sea levels. The Antarctic and Arctic shelves are breaking up.

Here's some more facts:

During the last 100 years the Earth has warmed by 0.76 °C on average, and the rate of warming has further increased. The 11 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 12 years. The second half of the 20th century was the warmest period in the northern hemisphere for at least 1 300 years. Europe has warmed by about 1 °C over the past 100 years, faster than the global average.

Rates of observed sea level rise almost doubled from 18 centimetres per century in 1961–2003 to 31 cm per century in 1993–2003.

That's from the UN IPCC.

Ok so that's what happening. Now to explain why man is causing it.

This article explains how group of scientists reached that conclusion:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html

Here's the method of another group of scientists:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm

So if you don't accept that man has an impact, what do you believe is the reason that the UN Scientific Body, the US NAS, various other scientific bodies and organisations and every scientific journal in the world are trying to convince people of that fact? It's not a recent phenomenon, climate scientists have been warning people for at least 30 years but its only know when the effects have become more pronounced that it's risen to the top of various political agendas. In my opinion that rules out the idea that scientists are doing this for 'profit' or fame. You could only do decades of research into something and then release results and a conclusion which goes against the status quo if you really believed in it.

Ummm, no. As I said before, don't show me graphs of what the temperature may have been like a million years ago, they're not relevant. Graphs of the last century or so explain what I need to see. Now, you've stated some things in your post but have cited no sources for where you got those temperature/precipitation figures. You've also stated that many places in Australia have had their coldest winters on record... That's the complete opposite of the word "warming". So is it Global Warming or just climate change? There's a big difference. I haven't read any of the articles that you've posted as your proof that man is causing "global warming" so I won't comment on them yet.

[Kaos]

Ok you want a graph of the last century or so.

Here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

It shows the increase in average temperatures since 1900 and also breaks it up into various causes. As you can see from the graph, the primary factor is man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

That one shows the increase since 1960.

In regards to your second point, the majority of statements can be backed up by the Bureau of Meteorology's website. http://www.bom.gov.au/

And I did infact cite the figures for temperature increase and sea level rises. They are from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC is a UN body comprised of about 3,000 atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, ice specialists, economists and other experts, and is the world's top scientific authority on global warming and its impact.

Here's my source:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21429&Cr=climate&Cr1=change

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses the term "climate change" for human-caused change. One part of that "change" is a general warming of the earth, but that 0.5-1 degree is not enough to make us Average Joe's sit up and take notice in our comfortable houses. However it IS enough to cause severe melting in the polar regions, drastically changing the flow of currents and water temperature. This is a knock on effect all over the globe and changes weather patterns. Since the temperature, currents, wind etc. aren't independent but all related, when one changes so drastically so do the others. In this case, the change is reflected in more extreme temperature patterns. So that winters will be cooler and summer's will be hotter.

The Earth has such a complicated weather system that when something changes it it is a lot more complicated to explain than simply "Ok so the atmosphere traps the heat in and we all get hot".

[Lt. Hanley]

Hmm, I think you meant to post the real graph using the real data:

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l43/vektor_gt/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

:dunce2: Iz red it pn wikepidias, is must be tru!1

:grin:

Seriously though, if you look at the graph you posted, and we take all their data to be the absolute truth, we've been lower than we've been high. It doesn't really prove anything other than that it has been getting warmer after it got cold. Big deal. If it can get cold it can get hot. The seasons of summer and winter prove this to be true. Just for kicks, let's take the mean of the highest and lowest, which we'll say is .55 and -.59 respectively. What do we get? -.02 degrees. Oh horror of horr-oh...wait. Kinda averages out to around 0 doesn't it?

If people had had the "awareness" of today back when it reached -.6, the doomsdayers, fearmongerers, and self-proclaimed saviors of the world would have been having a field day preaching about the coming of the new ice age. Burn your homes! Save the toucans from certain death by freezing! Cover the oceans with oil and light them on fire! Must warm up earth!

Now that being said, I do believe that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the planet we have been given, regardless of "globalwarmingclimatechangewhateverthehelltheycalli t." I view the initiatives to find cleaner fuels, etc. to be worthwhile endeavours. Hell, if everyone drove cars in Atlanta where the only by-product was water, we wouldn't have to worry about our water supply running out in a couple months. We could just rig up some water coolers to our exhaust pipes and use that for drinking water :grin:.

[Bunglo]

I'm still not convinced, that first graph looks like a first grader made it lol.

I've been looking at temerature charts of the state I live in (Washington) as well as Oregon just to see how the average temperature has increased with in the last 80 years or so. From what I've found, the average temperature of each state is rising very slightly but steadily as well. I believe it's due to the Earth's natural heating/cooling cycle.

Take a look at the graph on this page, it shows the CO2 level with the temperature for ice cores taken from Antarctica.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

As you can see, the graph shows the temperature rising and falling in cycles. It seems as though there is no huge difference when comparing each of the extremes, both negative and positive, with each other.

I also don't believe the predictions that some people claim will happen due to global warming, such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheets.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V11/N4/EDIT.jsp

As this link will explain, predicting something like that is just too unpredictable and there are too many factors that come into play that must be accounted for to get an accurate assessment of how something like the melting of giant ice sheets could occur.

I also seem to find that when looking for evidence supporting global warming as politicians and the media have you believe, there is always this one graph that seems to be their greatest evidence as far as temperature change goes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

They clearly inflate the graph to make it seem like the temperature has risen dramatically with in the last 150 years or so. So, according to the graph, the temperature anomaly has increase by .4. This graph is only an approximation but I still consider it valid, but it does not convince me that we are 100% sure on what causes the climate to change.

The mean temperature for Antarctica in the winter is -40 to -94°F and in the summer the mean temperature is -5 to -31°F. Last time I checked, 32°F was the freezing point.

As it is difficult to predict how the Earth's climate will change and what causes it to change, it is also difficult to tell how the sea level will rise. Those who support the global warming theory (that's what it is, a theory) will have you believe that the sea level is going to rise so quickly in such a short period of time all of the towns and cities at sea level will be half under water. This just isn't true. Go to the following link and scroll down to the "Sea Level" section.

http://www.gma.org/surfing/antarctica/antarctica.html

It says how much some scientists predict the sea level will have risen by the year 2100. Even if they were right, we won't be using many fossil fuels (if any) by the year 2100. In fact, I'm fairly certain we'll be using reusable energy sources for most things such as vehicles by 2030. If our extra CO2 emissions are what's causing the steady increase in temperature, we'll have cut that number greatly (probably around 75% or so) by my estimated 2030 date. Why would we switch our energy sources so quickly? Because, according to current estimates of fossil fuels we've got about 45 years left of oil reserves as well as 72 years for gas. Man kind will not let our energy sources get to a point in time where we're saying "Well, we've got about five years left of fossil fuels, I think it's time we start looking into some other energy sources..." I wouldn't be surprised if we start a major energy "conversion" for things like vehicles with in the next 2 to 3 years. If history has taught us anything, techology advances at an incredible rate. Once we find a way a practical way to power our factories and vehicles with renewable energy, every thing will be ran on the stuff with in a few years. So, if we really start using renewable energy with in the next few years or so, the CO2 emissions won't be a big factor at all for global warming like many think it is today.

Could CO2 emissions from vehicles and factories be adding to the heat? Maybe but I don't see how it can possibly be enough to increase the Earth's average surface temperature to a degree that could doom us all. Only with in the last 100 years has our CO2 emissions increased to around 6,000 million metric tons per year. Sounds like a lot but there are about 330 gigatons (330 billion tons) of CO2 released due to natural causes such as rotting animals. So, take our 6,000 million ton per year and combine that with the natural 330 gigatons of CO2 that is released and you'll find that our amount can't possibly be enough to upset the entire Earth's climate.

[Kaos]

Ok dude, I can tell you aren't going to accept it no matter what.

You said you didn't want graphs with millions of years of data, but more recent ones. I gave you those, but you rebutted them with graphs going back half a million years? And even that graph proves the point!

[Bunglo]

Ok dude, I can tell you aren't going to accept it no matter what.

You said you didn't want graphs with millions of years of data, but more recent ones. I gave you those, but you rebutted them with graphs going back half a million years? And even that graph proves the point!

I posted those graphs because, even though they are still speculating to a certain extent, people like you except them, and it proves my point. That point being, even with our added CO2, the average temperature hasn't increased to a temperature that the Earth hasn't been at before. I can clearly see you have no rebuttal to my post besides "there's no convincing you..." so I'll take that as a win for me, yeah! :tongue3:

[Kaos]

I posted those graphs because, even though they are still speculating to a certain extent, people like you except them, and it proves my point. That point being, even with our added CO2, the average temperature hasn't increased to a temperature that the Earth hasn't been at before. I can clearly see you have no rebuttal to my post besides "there's no convincing you..." so I'll take that as a win for me, yeah! :tongue3:

You realise that your graph DOES show an increase in temperature with an increase in CO2?

Take my exasperation as a "win" all you want, there's just no point arguing with the small percentage of people who refuse to looks facts in the face.

[Bunglo]

You realise that your graph DOES show an increase in temperature with an increase in CO2?

Take my exasperation as a "win" all you want, there's just no point arguing with the small percentage of people who refuse to looks facts in the face.

I was kidding about the "win" thing. Hey, I agree the temperature is rising the thing I don't agree with is that we are putting out an amount of CO2 that the Earth can't handle. According to most scientists, when the Earth was formed billions of years ago, it was one big ball of volcanoes and lava. Fast forward around two billions years after that and now the Earth is a water world with an average temperature of 200F. Around 500 million years ago or so (give or take a few hundred million years), the Earth was a frozen snowball. My point to all of this is that the Earth's climate is so unpredictable and there are dozens of things that come into effect to cause certain changes. Here's a graph I found that shows no major difference in the temperature extremes (just like every other graph I've posted or looked at) from its youngest point to its oldest point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Whether I disagree with you or not I do think we need to look for other resources than fossil fuels, they obviously are bad for the environment and we need to leave the stuff alone or at least start using it in a way the benefits the Earth.

[Katulobotomia]

the global warming doesnt mean the average temperature rises evenly globally. It means the weather gets really unstable and yet...warmer. In Finland, we break heat-records each year, and there havent even snowed good in Helsinki...AND ITS END OF JANUARY!! This is weird. In summer we had a tropical storm here, more than 2000 lighting strikes per minute.

For a layman the global-warming means the shit gets hotter, but it's not that simple as just looking at the average temperatures each month. Global warming now might even trigger a mini ice-age at some parts of the world, like for turning the warm streams in the oceans. But...for the warming, heat records are being broken each year, and it's only getting faster.

[Bunglo]

the global warming doesnt mean the average temperature rises evenly globally. It means the weather gets really unstable and yet...warmer. In Finland, we break heat-records each year, and there havent even snowed good in Helsinki...AND ITS END OF JANUARY!! This is weird. In summer we had a tropical storm here, more than 2000 lighting strikes per minute.

For a layman the global-warming means the shit gets hotter, but it's not that simple as just looking at the average temperatures each month. Global warming now might even trigger a mini ice-age at some parts of the world, like for turning the warm streams in the oceans. But...for the warming, heat records are being broken each year, and it's only getting faster.

See, where I live, everything is pretty much the same as it usually is. The temperatures are the same, we still get the occasional snow shower here and there (it's snowing right now actually). I really think they should put a new handle on this "global warming" and just call it climate change. I mean, you said it your self, it could cause a mini ice-age for some parts of the world. How can that be possible if it's getting warmer across the entire globe, even if it isn't in equal amounts?

Honestly though, if we can control how hot the Earth can get, let's try to control every other aspect of the Earth's climate. Ya, there will be no more tsunamis, hurricanes or any other natural disasters! It'll be great :icon_rolleyes:

[Bunglo]

I pretty much agree with everything in this article.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3061015&page=2
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3061015&page=3

[Kaos]

I think you'll find the term scientists were using was infact "Climate Change" but someone in the US State Department (Can't remember his name) came up with "Global Warming" because it sounded less dramatic.

Immense propaganda ensued...

[lazlazlaz1]

Cheers for that article Bunglo, tis good.

[Kaos]

Yeah so the guy who wrote the article is a journalist, not a scientist and he also believes DDT is good.

Not really the first choice to go for facts about climate change.

[enigma]

:singer:

Ok well let's look at like this.

Ice records show that C02 leads to warming in average temperatures and a shrinking of the ice caps. We all agree on that.

Humans produce a shit load of C02. We all agree on that.

Humans weren't producing anywhere near as much C02 before the 1850's (Industrial revolution). Again, all agree.

So while it is true that temperatures fluctuate in cycles... those cycles go for millions of years. The current spike started in the 1850's.

Now we can either say "WELL that's just a huge coincidence!". Or we can accept responsibility for the fact that we are having an effect and try and do something about it before it's too late.

I don't even know why some of you are arguing that human cause is basically nil. Even die-hard conservatives and once-upon-a-time sceptics like the American, Australian and British governments have gotten on board. Not to mention to UN.



...... actually....

Scientists working out of the Carriebean iirc contuining on with the work some Czech-Balkans-Japanese-Austrailian dude was doing (cant remember where he was from haha, think it was somewhere in the Balkans thou) established via there research that CO2 had nil effect in real terms on the ice if i remember rightly and that the earth goes through hot and cold cycles due to the position in space or some poop which leads to the ice caps reducing in size (like now) or increasing in size.

:p

:scholar:


Of course there are other scientists who state this is all to do with the sun, others which claim it is to do with solar winds, other theorys about space, others who argue that its not human involement but the oceans and volcanos, there now also stating its the cows fault, rice paddies etc etc

There are many theorys out there stating that either:
A - Its going to happen because of X ... although theres a shite loads of X's
B - Its not going to happen because of X .... ditto


Who can we trust, can we trust anyone? Is the truth out there? Where am i? :beatnik2:








btw i blame the NSA and the men in the black coats! ... goddam alien invaders! :mad:

[RonanHayes]

My two scents on this:

Who cares if we are causing Global Warming, Who cares if it's natures natural cycles, who cares what the various causes are. We still need a solution to reduce how much we abuse our planet, I couldn't give a shit if cycling 10km a day saves on X does or does not contribute to Global warming. What I care about is knowing that I am not destroying our planet by wreckless daily consumption of fuels, paper, electrictiy etc.

Can anyone tell me a practical use for big cars like SUV's and Hummers? Can anyone tell me a practical reason why someone would drive to work when it's 20 minute walk? Can anyone tell me why Ireland and the UK are pushing Solar panels while Australia and America are not? Heck I would have thought Solar panels would be a given on buildings where there is regular amounts of direct sunlight. Why countries still using plastic bags?

The list goes on and on.

The issue here is the mentality of people and just because we can do things does not mean we should. The best way to impact change is to impact the mentality of people and the easiest way to do that is to charge them money. Charge them for every plastic bag, charge them large sums for having bigger cars, charge them per every litre of fuel they consume. Shift the focus away from "We should do this for the planet" and move it to "You should do this to save money"

Just because we live on this planet does not mean we own it, therefore we should not be looking as to reasons why we should stop polluting, we should just stop polluting.

[DavidUpton]

What annoys me the most at the moment is that the technology to improve our enviroment exists, but the world governments/businesses simply can't be nothered with it because it won't be profitable enough. Take car petrol for example. Here in the UK (and I am guessing other places), the price just keeps increasing and it is completely absurd. Yet alternative types of fuel exit that would be greener and cheaper (for the consumer). So why not implement it? The answer: why? As far as companies are concerned, why make greener and cheaper to run cars when you can make a greater profit with less hastle by just using petrol.

All in all, for most people it seems that being 'green' is only worthwhile if it is convenient. To that end, I agree with Ronan's views.

[lazlazlaz1]

To what Ronan said, it is the very reason why I am in such support of ideas such as hydro-powered cars and nuclear power stations.
There are far more sensible reasons why we need to change our sources of energy and power, such as they are running out or are just inefficient and expensive due to new research.
If global warming wasn't pushed to the point where it almost becomes brain-washing and used as propaganda for political figures, then I wouldn't have so much a problem with it. If only a balanced view was given in the media, then there wouldn't be as much excessive panic.

There are far greater and more threatening problems facing the world we should be focusing on: famines, droughts, continuing breakdown of society, lack of morality, on-going genocidal wars, etc.
If people got behind those things as they do global warming, then that might actually help.

So you could say, its not so much the (in my view) faulty science behind global warming that bothers me, but more the distraction it provides from other issues. Also the platform for cheap political propaganda it creates, detracting from, again, more important issues.

[Kaos]

What's weird is that 5 years ago people were saying the exact opposite.

"Stop worrying about poverty, climate change is going to kill us all anyway!".

And everyone went "Meh".

Sure there are other problems, but from an environmentalists perspective it's the holy grail. People from all parts of society have been agitating for more conservation, less pollution etc. for years but more often then not they were brushed aside as hippies and tree huggers. Then climate change came along and it seemed to encompass everything they had been banging on about as well as suggesting solutions that are both doable and friendly towards the environment.

So from that perspective I don't see climate change as 'competing' with other environmental problems for attention, but in fact refocusing our view towards the health of the environment in general. Famines and droughts are part of that. War and poverty are also huge problems, but like David said we can pretty solve most problems now but no one can be bothered because it's cheaper and more profitable to sit on our arses and milk the consumer and the environment for every penny.

And that relates to climate change, war and poverty.

[Bunglo]

Yeah so the guy who wrote the article is a journalist, not a scientist and he also believes DDT is good.

Not really the first choice to go for facts about climate change.

So politicians and the media is?

[Kaos]

So politicians and the media is?

No... the information I use to form my opinions, and which I cited my arguments with come from a broad range of scientists including geologists, geographers, climate scientists and chemists.

Slightly more apt choice than right-wing hacks.

[Bunglo]

No... the information I use to form my opinions, and which I cited my arguments with come from a broad range of scientists including geologists, geographers, climate scientists and chemists.

Slightly more apt choice than right-wing hacks.

Wow, me too! I hope you're not aiming that "right-wing hacks" comment at me because I've clearly posted everything besides the article that was indeed based on scientific findings. I was only posting that article to show you what I think of global warming ;)

[SuperSoldier]

Can anyone tell me a practical use for big cars like SUV's and Hummers?

Obviously it's driving the kids to soccer practice :daisy:

[Kaos]

Wow, me too! I hope you're not aiming that "right-wing hacks" comment at me because I've clearly posted everything besides the article that was indeed based on scientific findings. I was only posting that article to show you what I think of global warming ;)

No, that was directed that the person who wrote that article. He's quite a famous conservative journalist.

[Bunglo]

No, that was directed that the person who wrote that article. He's quite a famous conservative journalist.

Ahhh, I see. Ya, I don't really pay too much attention to journalist/ media stuff so I don't really know "who's who".

[Saden]

I'm not sure if this has been said already, not gonna' look but I'm pretty sure that it went something like this..

Basically, if we instantly stopped everything, producing greenhouse gas, climate change/global warming would still continue for another decade.

[scottdog]

I beleive... people of the present first.

But on an environmental note.

What really pisses me off is when people don't accept alternatives, they always come up with excuses. I was watching a tipical Right-wing news channel, and wind generators are getting Built around a "Classical family garden"(As the biased fucks call it). They complain that this garden is going to lose buissness because the wind generators are ugly and make noise(not true, they don't), and that it's heritage is part of Australian culture.

This what Australia says about Alternatives:

Wind-Power, its ugly and makes alot of noise.

Nuclear power, I don't want it in my backyard, and what about an accident.

Solar, It will cost too much to implement them.

Edit: oh yes, and SUVs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wub7keZo0nw

[Bunglo]

I agree with you there, scottdog. I was pretty astounded when I learned that pretty much all of Germany as well as many surrounding countries are using solar panels on pretty much all of their houses and buildings. I was watching a program on some HD channel and they had a farmer in Germany who, instead of using all of his land for crops, decided to use a portion of it for solar panels. It cost him millions of dollars (US) but he generates so much energy for a certain amount of a town or city (can't remember the exact details.) And he also get paid because of it. AND the citizens are actually getting 50% back of what the use (money wise). So if you used a certain amount of electricity for one month, you would normally pay X amount of money. Because you're using solar panels, you're generating energy as you're using it, so the electric companies give you half of what you would normally pay back.

[RonanHayes]

Nuclear Power is not a viable solution as it needs to be well maintained and the human race are not capable of maintaining such a power. Thus each nation and continent needs to look to what will work for them. Countries with strong coastal regions should look into wind energy and compliment it with Hydro power from their rivers. Hot / Sunshine Countries need to look towards the sun.

While poor 3rd world developing countries need our help to get them out of the hole they are in and bring their technology forward. There is no point in China being the power house it is if all it's going to do is pollute and burn coal to achieve economic success. It's not a way forward and we need to force their hand so they will adopt far better solutions.

I don't see this as an issue of Global Warming, Political Tools or about Cost. I simply see this as something we need to change or the planet we so love to rape will one day hold a grudge to or neglegence.

[enigma]

Why countries still using plastic bags

The solution to this is?

As for 4x4s and SUVs ... what i dont get it why people in the city own these big ass cars but people in the rural areas own flash saloons .... cars completly unsuitable for both environments and the latter cant pull me out of some farmers flooded field can it! >.<

[RonanHayes]

The solution to this is?

As for 4x4s and SUVs ... what i dont get it why people in the city own these big ass cars but people in the rural areas own flash saloons .... cars completly unsuitable for both environments and the latter cant pull me out of some farmers flooded field can it! >.<

Well when I lived in Australia the option was there for the shopper to use their own bags or take a plastic bag. As you can imagine everyone took the plastic bags.

While in Ireland you are charged 7cent per bag. Nearly overnight everyone stopped taking the plastic bags.

Regarding the vehicles well that's the issue isn't it, people living on farms require a vehicle suitable for the surrounding while people living in LA, New York, London, Berlin, Paris have very little need for tanks.

[enigma]

When i was a wee child i remember the shops use to charge a penny for plastic bags to carry your shopping home.

Now they just dont bother ... :surprised: ... although a penny is nothing to a person with any sort of income so you can image how many of these bags people bought.

If i recall correctly, when i last went to virgin Megastore ... or whatever its called now, they had binned plastic bags for the use of paper ones instead.

Dont know whats worse?

[Bunglo]

The solution to this is?


Some stores here in Washington State are giving people a "reusable bag" that you take to the grocery store each time you go shopping for groceries. I think there is only one store that I know of that has officially stopped using plastic bags and started handed out one of those reusable bags to people. It's a start I guess.

[lazlazlaz1]

Nuclear Power is not a viable solution as it needs to be well maintained and the human race are not capable of maintaining such a power.

Yeh we do, hence why we already have many nuclear power stations. The only time when we haven't been able to was Chernobyl. But that was because the silly scientists decided to experiment on it, whilst it was in operation and having taken out the safety rods. These are the rods that detect if the reaction is going out of control drop in and save the day.
Experiment + no safety = boom.
So long as people follow common sense and rules, there really is no problem with nuclear power.

[Kaos]

Yeh we do, hence why we already have many nuclear power stations. The only time when we haven't been able to was Chernobyl. But that was because the silly scientists decided to experiment on it, whilst it was in operation and having taken out the safety rods. These are the rods that detect if the reaction is going out of control drop in and save the day.
Experiment + no safety = boom.
So long as people follow common sense and rules, there really is no problem with nuclear power.

No sorry, there are quite a few problems with nuclear power.

1. Massive amounts of energy are required to both mine and refine uranium, which of course leads to a bigger CO2 output as well.

2. What the hell do we do with radioactive waste that lasts for thousands of years? No one has come up with a viable alternative. Sure you can say "Well countries all over the world deal with." True but the most common method of containment using barrels and concrete has been proven useless with leak after leak

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/4589321.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1766365.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2049582,00.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/19/18467/3479/644/373614

3. We're just trying ourselves down to another finite resource. If every country switched to nuclear power tomorrow, we would only have an 8 year supply of fuel to keep us going at our current rate of energy consumption.

Developing nuclear technology, building and maintaining nuclear plants and mining fissile material is an extremely expensive process. Countries that are contemplating it right now, such as the UK and Australia would really be better off investing in renewable's like Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Hydro etc. It would help stave off another dependency cycle. Come on, we're having wars for oil now imagine if we switch to nuclear chances are we're going to be having wars for uranium as well.

In terms of just its "CO2 footprint" Nuclear might have less than coal or gas power stations but it's other negatives and it's cost that show that the really viable alternatives are a mix of renewable energy technologies.

[scottdog]

Come on, we're having wars for oil now imagine if we switch to nuclear chances are we're going to be having wars for uranium as well.


And Australia would be the battlefield :surprised:.

[Oddvin]

Can anyone tell me a practical use for big cars like SUV's and Hummers?

You certaily have not been to Norway. The government refuses to invest in better infrastructure and therefore you actually need a SUV or something similar to not break the car while driving. There was a case in the local newspaper here about a guy that got a heartattack or something and when they drove him to the hospital in the ambulance, they could not measure his blood pressure. Why? Because the road was so bumpy that the results made absolutely no sense!

[Bunglo]

You certaily have not been to Norway. The government refuses to invest in better infrastructure and therefore you actually need a SUV or something similar to not break the car while driving. There was a case in the local newspaper here about a guy that got a heartattack or something and when they drove him to the hospital in the ambulance, they could not measure his blood pressure. Why? Because the road was so bumpy that the results made absolutely no sense!

Are you serious? I remember way back when I was in the 4th grade and one the kids in my class wrote to the governor of of the city or something because there was this big dip/hole in the road where we stood waiting for our bus, a road crew cam out with in a few weeks and fixed it. Tell your government to stop being lazy assholes and fix the roads!

[Kaos]

Are you serious? I remember way back when I was in the 4th grade and one the kids in my class wrote to the governor of of the city or something because there was this big dip/hole in the road where we stood waiting for our bus, a road crew cam out with in a few weeks and fixed it. Tell your government to stop being lazy assholes and fix the roads!

Tell YOUR government to subsidise healthcare!

So that was an example of how we can get offtopic.

Back to the issue!

[enigma]

radioactive waste is just another pile of crap made up by the man...like work .... and popstars! :p

[Bunglo]

Tell YOUR government to subsidise healthcare!

So that was an example of how we can get offtopic.

Back to the issue!

I'm pretty sure the issue switched to why aren't we doing anything to improve our environment lol.

[Bunglo]

If some of your really want to continue debating global warming, I'll get us started again. You guys do know that the polar ice caps are actually growing again, right?

[Kaos]

If some of your really want to continue debating global warming, I'll get us started again. You guys do know that the polar ice caps are actually growing again, right?

Here are two articles from the last week saying the exact opposite:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23106226-663,00.html

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2008/2008-01-28-02.asp

And here's one explaining that Australia has had it's hottest January on record. Ever.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/into-the-fire-last-month-hottest-january-so-far/2008/01/31/1201714150490.html

[enigma]

However there a rather large number of articles, websites and documentries which cover:

Icecaps on both poles thickening and increasing in size
Other icecaps such as the Greenland increasing in size
That whatever the icecaps do, it is mostly down to the earth owns natural cycles based on all sorts of factors and that CO2 or Human involement have little to no impact upon them.

[Kaos]

However there a rather large number of articles, websites and documentries which cover:

Icecaps on both poles thickening and increasing in size
Other icecaps such as the Greenland increasing in size
That whatever the icecaps do, it is mostly down to the earth owns natural cycles based on all sorts of factors and that CO2 or Human involement have little to no impact upon them.

The third point point has been discussed a fair bit in this thread already, but for the first two I'm not so sure.

I hadn't heard about any scientific research done showing polar caps increasing in size whether published in scientific journals or the mainstream press. Even doing a Google search for "Greenland ice caps increasing" comes up with hits all about the fact that the caps are receding. The same result for Google News.

The only thing I can find about thickening icecaps is some guys (www.cosmicconservative.com) blog post from 2005 talking about heavier snowfalls in Greenland. What that has to do with the polar icecaps melting, I'm not so sure.

[Bunglo]

However there a rather large number of articles, websites and documentries which cover:

Icecaps on both poles thickening and increasing in size
Other icecaps such as the Greenland increasing in size
That whatever the icecaps do, it is mostly down to the earth owns natural cycles based on all sorts of factors and that CO2 or Human involement have little to no impact upon them.

Exactly, this is the way I feel about this global warming thing. I just can't stand how assholes like Gore (yes, he is an asshole) take advantage of the position they're in and make people believe that most of Florida will be covered by water in 20 years. The media takes advantage of peoples scientific illiteracy to make them think we're doomed. Damn it, I can't stand it :furious:

The polor ice caps tend to do their thing in cycles (like everything else). This has happened before in the 30's. The caps started melting and then started growing again.


Also, I'd like to show you how things tend to flip flop back and forth in the media. This is a quote from this (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/) website “Antarctic glaciers shrink” –The Baltimore Sun, April 22, 2005

“Study shows Antarctic glaciers shrinking” –Associated Press, April 22, 2005

“Vanishing glaciers: Antarctica’s big melt” –The Australian, April 23, 2005

“New study points to big melt in Antarctica” – Sci-Tech Today, April 22, 2005

“Antarctic glaciers in mass retreat” –Nature.com, April 21, 2005

“Antarctic glaciers at risk of global warming” – All Headline News, April 22, 2005

“Antarctic glaciers are getting smaller faster” –The Times On-line, April 22, 2005

“Shrinking glaciers confirm the worst” –New Scientist, April 27, 2005

Suddenly the tune has changed:

“As climate shifts, Antarctic ice sheet is growing” –Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2005

“Scientists link global warming to Antarctic’s ice cap’s growth” –Chicago Tribune, May 20, 2005

“Antarctica ice cap thickens” –Pittsburgh Post Gazette, May 20, 2005

“Warming is blamed for Antarctic’s weight gain” –New York Times, May 20, 2005

“Ice sheet confounds climate theory” – The Telegraph, May 20, 2005

“Antarctica ice cap thickens, slowing rise in sea levels” – Pioneer Press, May 20, 2005

[Bunglo]

The third point point has been discussed a fair bit in this thread already, but for the first two I'm not so sure.

I hadn't heard about any scientific research done showing polar caps increasing in size whether published in scientific journals or the mainstream press. Even doing a Google search for "Greenland ice caps increasing" comes up with hits all about the fact that the caps are receding. The same result for Google News.

The only thing I can find about thickening icecaps is some guys (www.cosmicconservative.com) blog post from 2005 talking about heavier snowfalls in Greenland. What that has to do with the polar icecaps melting, I'm not so sure.

I don't think these links have to do with the greenland ice caps but here are some links saying some of the polar ice caps are growing.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1281
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarctica-ice-cap-growth-reaches.html

It looks like the southern caps are growing quite a bit. So I think this is all a natural cycle that needs to occur.

Oh, I also found this little animation http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/SNOW/DATA/nhem-1mo-loop.html

[Kaos]

I don't think these links have to do with the greenland ice caps but here are some links saying some of the polar ice caps are growing.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1281
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarctica-ice-cap-growth-reaches.html

It looks like the southern caps are growing quite a bit. So I think this is all a natural cycle that needs to occur.

Oh, I also found this little animation http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/SNOW/DATA/nhem-1mo-loop.html

Do you know what providence is?

You're using sources like "Capitalist Magazine" and the "Heartland Action Group" to rebut actual climate scientists. Two pieces of information, directly contravening coming from two different groups. I'm with the scientists on this one.

And your point about Gore is invalid. He hasn't taken advantage of any position. He was talking about the seriousness of climate change and the need to reduce our CO2 levels back in the 1970's. The fact that it took most other people and the media until 2004/05 to catch on to its seriousness is a testament to environmental activists everywhere.

You can call him an asshole all you want but he did win the Nobel prize along with the IPCC for their work in climate change.

[Bunglo]

Do you know what providence is?

You're using sources like "Capitalist Magazine" and the "Heartland Action Group" to rebut actual climate scientists. Two pieces of information, directly contravening coming from two different groups. I'm with the scientists on this one.

And your point about Gore is invalid. He hasn't taken advantage of any position. He was talking about the seriousness of climate change and the need to reduce our CO2 levels back in the 1970's. The fact that it took most other people and the media until 2004/05 to catch on to its seriousness is a testament to environmental activists everywhere.

You can call him an asshole all you want but he did win the Nobel prize along with the IPCC for their work in climate change.

So you think Florida will be underwater in 20 years? Ok then... And the fact that he won a noble prize is for proof that this is all fueled by money. The guy made a powerpoint... WOW! Good job Mr. Gore, It's good to know all you have to do is find some graphs and have a 10 year old put them together to convince people something serious is going on. And if Gore was talking about all of this back in the 70's, why in the hell is he just now trying to convert all of his power sources?

Oh, and this site sickens me http://www.kidzworld.com/article/7238-polar-ice-caps-here-today-gone-tomorrow

Please, Kaos, watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY

Oh, and be sure to watch the IPCC comparision to Gores water level graph and every other graph... If you don't believe the video, I don't know what's going to convince you.

[Kaos]

So you think Florida will be underwater in 20 years? Ok then... And the fact that he won a noble prize is for proof that this is all fueled by money. The guy made a powerpoint... WOW! Good job Mr. Gore, It's good to know all you have to do is find some graphs and have a 10 year old put them together to convince people something serious is going on. And if Gore was talking about all of this back in the 70's, why in the hell is he just now trying to convert all of his power sources?

Oh, and this site sickens me http://www.kidzworld.com/article/7238-polar-ice-caps-here-today-gone-tomorrow

Please, Kaos, watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY

Oh, and be sure to watch the IPCC comparision to Gores water level graph and every other graph... If you don't believe the video, I don't know what's going to convince you.

You're acting as though Climate Change has been an accepted theory for decades. I'm sorry but this is the wrong example to pick if you are trying to be some anti-establishment rebel. I can't believe people don't remember that up until a few years ago anyone who mentioned the world "Climate Change" or even the "environment" was virtually spat at by politicians and the media. That was the environment scientists and activists worked under to try and get their message across and thankfully they did succeed and people took notice and made the environment an election issue in a lot of countries.

You have some idea that the theory of Climate Change is the status quo and it's the duty of conservatives and a minority of scientists to disprove 'scientific consensus' because apparently that's bad? Last I checked we had scientific consensus on a whole range of ideas, like gravity.

There's no need to become exasperated just because I value the opinion of scientists who have been studying these issues for at least 30 years over a few blog posts and youtube videos.

Also about Gore; he hasn't just "made a powerpoint".


During his tenure in Congress, Gore co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste in 1978–79, and hearings on global warming in the 1980s.
In 1989, while still a Senator, Gore published an editorial in the Washington Post, in which he argued, "Humankind has suddenly entered into a brand new relationship with the planet Earth. The world's forests are being destroyed; an enormous hole is opening in the ozone layer. Living species are dying at an unprecedented rate."
On Earth Day 1994, Gore launched the GLOBE program, an education and science activity that, according to Forbes magazine, "made extensive use of the Internet to increase student awareness of their environment".
In the late 1990s, Gore strongly pushed for the passage of the Kyoto Protocol, which called for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2004, he launched Generation Investment Management. This firm, which he chairs, seeks out companies which take a responsible view on global issues such as climate change.


So he hasn't jumped on the bandwagon just to cash in. The fact is movies are much more likely to capture peoples attention then senate hearings. A 10 year old can create a power point presentation but a 10 year old can not succinctly explain the problems associated with Climate Change and how to fix to them to a broad audience (Essentially the whole world) nor lend them credence because most 10 year olds aren't ex-Senators of ex-Vice Presidents who's tenures were marked by a desire to go against the odds and speak up for the environment.

Oh and he donated 100% of his Nobel Prize money to charity.

So Glenn Beck, from the article you linked me too compares Al Gore to Hitler and believes Climate Change is a conspiracy designed to create a fascist empire.

And you're thinking "Wow if he doesn't come to my side of argument after watching this guy, he must be crazy!"

[Bunglo]

You're acting as though Climate Change has been an accepted theory for decades. I'm sorry but this is the wrong example to pick if you are trying to be some anti-establishment rebel.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? I'm sorry but that "ant-establishment rebel" comment really pissed me off. So because I disagree with a few scientist and your best buddy Al Gore, I'm and "anti-establishment rebel"? Please refrain your self from posting such stupid comments. And climate change is not a theory... It is indeed fact. How do I know this? Because it's happened threw out the Earth's history. Any one who's been in a grade school science class can tell you that.


I can't believe people don't remember that up until a few years ago anyone who mentioned the world "Climate Change" or even the "environment" was virtually spat at by politicians and the media. That was the environment scientists and activists worked under to try and get their message across and thankfully they did succeed and people took notice and made the environment an election issue in a lot of countries.

I honostly don't remember this, why? Because this is all the media talks about now. They keep talking about how we're all going to die because we spewed out some sh*t into the Earth's atmosphere for the past century. The media is for the ignorant and for those who except every thing they hear. Again, I agree it's a good thing we're starting to try and change things to improve our environment but it really pisses me off when I hear stupid shit from the news and politicians.


You have some idea that the theory of Climate Change is the status quo and it's the duty of conservatives and a minority of scientists to disprove 'scientific consensus' because apparently that's bad? Last I checked we had scientific consensus on a whole range of ideas, like gravity.

Last time I checked, we had scientific consensus on how the world was flat, what's you're point? And the reason I'm so "head strong" about this is because NO ONE knows if humans are actually causing this so called "global warming". See, this is how science works, they discover something, take the most logical and excepted theory amongst other scientist and say that's how a certain thing happens. Do they know that for a fact? No, but that's the best answer they can come up with and it makes since. Years later they discover some other detail and realize they were way off on their last theory, then they come up with a new theory on how that certain thing happens. All I'm saying is, until there is 100% proof and an overwhelming amount of scientist in the proper fields agree that we're causing global warming, I'm not going to believe it.


There's no need to become exasperated just because I value the opinion of scientists who have been studying these issues for at least 30 years over a few blog posts and youtube videos.

I've given you much more information and links than "a few blogs and a youtube video". You gave me a wiki link, that means I should completely disregard what you say? No. I'm surprised you mention nothing about you're precious Al Gore graphs when compared with the other ICPP members graphs from the video. So who do you believe, the ICPP or Al Gore? Oh, and here's a link that you might want to read, seems as though a lot of these ICPP guys, along with hundreds of other scientist disagree with Gore.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report


Also about Gore; he hasn't just "made a powerpoint".


During his tenure in Congress, Gore co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste in 1978–79, and hearings on global warming in the 1980s.
In 1989, while still a Senator, Gore published an editorial in the Washington Post, in which he argued, "Humankind has suddenly entered into a brand new relationship with the planet Earth. The world's forests are being destroyed; an enormous hole is opening in the ozone layer. Living species are dying at an unprecedented rate."
On Earth Day 1994, Gore launched the GLOBE program, an education and science activity that, according to Forbes magazine, "made extensive use of the Internet to increase student awareness of their environment".
In the late 1990s, Gore strongly pushed for the passage of the Kyoto Protocol, which called for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2004, he launched Generation Investment Management. This firm, which he chairs, seeks out companies which take a responsible view on global issues such as climate change.


So he hasn't jumped on the bandwagon just to cash in. The fact is movies are much more likely to capture peoples attention then senate hearings. A 10 year old can create a power point presentation but a 10 year old can not succinctly explain the problems associated with Climate Change and how to fix to them to a broad audience (Essentially the whole world) nor lend them credence because most 10 year olds aren't ex-Senators of ex-Vice Presidents who's tenures were marked by a desire to go against the odds and speak up for the environment.

Oh and he donated 100% of his Nobel Prize money to charity.

People see Gore winning a nobel piece prize for his "work" on global warming and now people who don't actually research the subject think every thing the man says is fact. I'm curious, do you heed to all of Gores wise words of wisdom? The mans not even a scientist on any level. And trust me, one way or another, Al Gore is making money because of this. And if he's not, he will be soon. I believe he was the one who introduce the "carbon tax" idea, no?


So Glenn Beck, from the article you linked me too compares Al Gore to Hitler and believes Climate Change is a conspiracy designed to create a fascist empire.

I have no idea who this Glenn Beck guy is, but I was giving you links in support of the ice caps either growing or not melting, for the sake of the debate. And the pictures of the satellite data are real so it shouldn't really matter where I get the info from, (just like it doesn't matter if I get a video from youtube or you get something from wikipedia) as long as it's actual evidence.


And you're thinking "Wow if he doesn't come to my side of argument after watching this guy, he must be crazy!"

And you're thinking "Wow, if he doesn't come to my side of the argument after I told him Al Gore and some scientist think global warming is caused by us, he must be crazy!"

[Kaos]

Everything you just wrote comes back to the point about "Know one knowing if climate change is caused by humans".

I've told you so many times about the UN IPCC report which states it DOES and the hundreds of other scientific journals also. Look back and have a read. I'm not going to repeat myself.

I also think it's amusing that you're insinuating Al Gore and I are 'best buddies'. I haven't said I agree or disagree with his methods, policies or himself as a person. I was merely trying to correct your statements in which you claimed he one the Nobel Prize for profit and the only thing he'd done for the environment was create a slideshow.

I take it by your vitriolic response that you dislike being corrected.

There already ARE an overwhelming number of scientists saying Climate Change is caused by humans, yet you still refuse to believe it. Your beef appears to be with the media whom you accuse of hoodwinking the public in theories about the end of the world. As I pointed out that's an extremely new phenomenon and you're exaggerating it's influences. But I can't help if you can't remember back more than a few years.

[Bunglo]

Everything you just wrote comes back to the point about "Know one knowing if climate change is caused by humans".

I've told you so many times about the UN IPCC report which states it DOES and the hundreds of other scientific journals also. Look back and have a read. I'm not going to repeat myself.

I also think it's amusing that you're insinuating Al Gore and I are 'best buddies'. I haven't said I agree or disagree with his methods, policies or himself as a person. I was merely trying to correct your statements in which you claimed he one the Nobel Prize for profit and the only thing he'd done for the environment was create a slideshow.

I take it by your vitriolic response that you dislike being corrected.

There already ARE an overwhelming number of scientists saying Climate Change is caused by humans, yet you still refuse to believe it. Your beef appears to be with the media whom you accuse of hoodwinking the public in theories about the end of the world. As I pointed out that's an extremely new phenomenon and you're exaggerating it's influences. But I can't help if you can't remember back more than a few years.

Well, you see, this is why we're different. You believe that we're causing global warming because some scientist say we are. I don't believe we're causing it because only some scientist say we are. And no, I do like being corrected, who the hell wouldn't? It seems to me that there are an equal number of scientists that agree/disagree with the global warming theory. I have yet to see an "overwhelming" number of scientists say climate change is caused by humans. It also seems as though more and more scientists are coming out and stating they don't agree with the theory.

Please tell me how I'm exaggerating it's influences? You've got 9 year olds saying the world is going to be underwater and all of the oxygen is going to go away because of this stupid global warming scare the media is causing. Oh, and I can remember back "more than a few years", I just didn't spend all my time watching the news to see who "got spit on" because the mentioned the environment :icon_rolleyes:

And for my "Al Gore being your best bud" comment, It's a joke but you never say you disagreed with the man, so what else am I supposed to think? You sure seem glade that he "spread the word" of global warming...

Here's the thing I don't understand, why can we control how hot the Earth gets but nothing else doing with the climate? It doesn't make any since at all...

[enigma]

I think your missing the point Kaos ... we all know the UN is ran by MJ12!

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

So whats bad about global warming? I don't mind if it gets a few degrees warmer here. It's a natural proces that has happened many times in the earths history. Maybe we have boosted it a little but well who knows whats gonna happen. Rise of sealevel or maybe the next ice age.
And another thing is we're running out of oil soon so i dont think it will matter anyway. We will be forced to use alternative energy sources.
But untill that time im gonna enjoy being able to use it all.
Owh and let's hope Nucleair fusion reactors will work soon and all our problems will be solved. Free energy for everyone :D

[lazlazlaz1]

Also something to note, if the worse does happen and another mega ice age comes (be it caused by normal cycles or man), then at least we can have some cool snow ball fights.

[napalmi]

I think your missing the point Kaos ... we all know the UN is ran by MJ12!

And we all know UN is just a testground for NWO! :surprised: