We aren't the cause of Global Warming!

[Kenny]

Note: Make sure you read absolutely everything before you jump straight to a conclusion and make an immediate response. I would like you to know everything I say here is totally arguable, this is of course the debate forum. I would appreciate someone to argue against my thoughts. Everything I write is legible, trust me. Also, please, when you write your comment, tell me whether this thread has affected your opinion. Thanks for taking the time to read this guys and gals...

It isn't our fault that the earth is warming. Over extremely long periods of time the temperature of the Earth alternates between a cold ice age phase, in which the world acts as a giant snow ball, and a warm interglacial phase, which we're on the breach of experiencing now. The planet is dying but we aren't the cause of it. After every ice age the earth becomes weaker.

The reason you believe we're the cause of the so called 'mess' is because of the governments, they want to keep your attention away from all the war, terrorism and thousands of serious things like that. They're doing this by influencing the media, perhaps by bribing them, I don't know. But they are attempting to brain wash you through doing that. I know that I'm going to receive many negative comments about this but I believe that it is the truth. The only problem that we're to blame for is world pollution. Pollution isn't speeding up the process of our Earth's life at all, it's just harming us and natural organisms that span around the urban environments.

The thing that I am against however is urban jungles, deforestation and things like that. Think of it this way, before urban cities, England used to be more or less a giant forest, the only difference between the heaven-like Pandora and the giant forest of England was that we lived as savages, unlike the Native Americans, unlike the Pre-Columbians, and many, many more. There were many parts of the world in which people lived like animals, but that's because they weren't taught the way of civilization.

What happened when the leaders of the civilization grasped the idea of an urban environment? War happened. One of the first major urban cities was Rome, and what is Rome known for? It's known for the battles that the Roman's had fought for centuries, along with Egypt and Greece. The idea of an urban environment gives the governments the feeling of power, the fact that the governments control the urban environment has allowed their tainted minds to dominate the world. All the world leaders are corrupted. Why is it that none of the people who protest for peace ever end up in politics? It’s because the government don’t want to give them a chance.

When it comes to talking about the icecaps melting, ask yourself this question: how many times have the ice caps melted before? Further more, a better question would be, how come no global warming proponents know the answer to the question? Try asking them yourself! If their biggest fear really is the ice caps melting, wouldn't they have looked it up before?

So what is the real problem? It's the urban environment, the governments, and war. Don’t be fooled by the illusion of global warming, don’t allow the media to brainwash you, it’s nothing more then a sham, but one thing you can do is protect mother Earth through the ages, don’t corrupt the planet, or the urban jungles and don’t be brain washed.

Thanks for reading, post your comments, please don’t hate or flame. Peace.

[Tsyeymzi]

I'm jumping to a conclusion before I finish reading here:

Global Warming is all a sham, it is a natural process, the world has heated up before and it has cooled down before, not 40 years ago everyone was saying we were headed for an "Ice Age"; and now it's a melted, wet, flooded age... Whatever.

Now I shall read:

Lol, exactly what I just said, nice work. I'm all for Urban Jungles and what-not though, it is progress and without it I'm sure we would NOT be better off.

[Neytiri]

I am not going to be inflammatory. I am just going to respectfully say that this is complete BS. Why did they even hold Copenhagen talks, unsuccessful as they were? Carbon pollution is slowly destroying the planet.

http://climateinteractive.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/bill-mckibbens-guardian-uk-article-features-climate-interactive/

[Jay]

I agree that while there are MANY man-made environmental issues, Global Warming is not one of them. It's a shame that so many people LIED about the data, beacuse now the public will not trust "the scientists" any more.

Think "boy who cried wolf" :angry:

There are so many harmfull toxins that spew out into our atmosphere, and the EPA wants to focus on CO_2? Hmmmm.

Follow the money folks. General Electric's CEO is on Obama's energy board. Genral Electric is also a major producer of wind powered turbines. Hmmmmm. Conflict of interest much?

And how much money has Al Gore made off of his speaches, movie, books, etc?

Trust me folks, I am an enviromentalist at heart, (just forum search "SeaGreen" to see my posts on my plans to expand my company into the most environmentally friendly aquaculture facility in the world).

BUT I HATE BEING LIED TO, and Global Warming is frankly a lie.

If anyone want a link to a great web site that has thousands of links about the truth behind Global Warming, PLEASE, PLEASE PM me.

Do your own research. Google search "Al Gore's home/ energy use"- that man does not really care about the environment. He is the ultimate TROLL.

Sorry if I offened anyone here. :embarrassed:

[yojohny]

Hmm, I know that most of the stuff that we're doing sure isn't helping anyone, but I think that I always thought that global warming is a sham. Almost makes me wonder, why go through all the trouble?

[Jay]

I'm jumping to a conclusion before I finish reading here:

Global Warming is all a sham, it is a natural process, the world has heated up before and it has cooled down before, not 40 years ago everyone was saying we were headed for an "Ice Age"; and now it's a melted, wet, flooded age... Whatever.

Now I shall read:

Lol, exactly what I just said, nice work. I'm all for Urban Jungles and what-not though, it is progress and without it I'm sure we would NOT be better off.

Warmin and cooling is a very natural process. Did you know that archeologists found evidence of "ancient agriculture" on GREENLAND? Greenland, by the way, is not green. It's white. 'Cause it's covered in ice. But it used to be warm enough there to sustain agriculture. Hence, the Earth warms and cools.

[Tsyeymzi]

Completely agree with you Jay.

I believe that we should look for alternatives anyway, because that is PROGRESS. I am purely scientifically minded, I do not hinder technological advancement, even if it means killing the "spotted annoyance owl", but if something has an alternative that works better, why not go for it?

...Oh that's right, because we have GOVERNMENTS.

[Jay]

I don’t mean to sound cynical, but the last 10 years have proven to me without a shadow of a doubt that ALL politicians have a price, and election/ re-election is their primary motive.

For example: How come Congress gets a different health care plan than say, the military? Or US Postal employees? Or an FBI agent?

I guess what I’m trying to say is that you should not take things at face value. Do your own research and form your own opinions, (and don’t be afraid to change that opinion down the road if necessary). It was not until my early 20’s until I began to see the world as how it really is. I would sit in class and listen to college professors [blatantly] try to preach their own agenda to students. I listened to politicians make promises that they never kept. And what has changed for the better?!

We need to be our OWN voice for change. We need to educate OURSELVES and form opinions based on fact, not policy.

And don’t ever, ever forget that the US government works for YOU. You do not work for the US government. Be your own advocate.

Oh yeah, this applies to anyone living in any country : )

[Sham]

maybe we dont cause it but we make it even worse :)

[Kenny]

I don’t mean to sound cynical, but the last 10 years have proven to me without a shadow of a doubt that ALL politicians have a price, and election/ re-election is their primary motive.

For example: How come Congress gets a different health care plan than say, the military? Or US Postal employees? Or an FBI agent?




You speak the right words here, I agree completely, those who are actually doing work to sustain the environment aren't getting as much benefits as those who help the goverment parties in debates.

[Jay]

You speak the right words here, I agree completely, those who are actually doing work to sustain the environment aren't getting as much benefits as those who help the goverment parties in debates.

Yup.

If anyone is interested in my idea to help teh enviroment in my own little way, here is a link to my SeaGreen site:

http://tampareef.com/seagreen/

Oh yeah, I did ask Uncle Sam for a liitle bit of that grant $$$ that everyone keeps saying is out there to help business' become more green, (to help with the enormous start up cost of building a solar and wind power system).

He said, "go F yourself". :confused:

For a moment I had given up on it, (the alternative energy) but now I will double my efforts to complete this project. :)

BTW there is no commercial value in this site. It's information only. Not trying to sell anyone anything!!!

[Kenny]

Yup.

If anyone is interested in my idea to help teh enviroment in my own little way, here is a link to my SeaGreen site:

http://tampareef.com/seagreen/

Oh yeah, I did ask Uncle Sam for a liitle bit of that grant $$$ that everyone keeps saying is out there to help business' become more green, (to help with the enormous start up cost of building a solar and wind power system).

He said, "go F yourself". :confused:

For a moment I had given up on it, (the alternative energy) but now I will double my efforts to complete this project. :)

BTW there is no commercial value in this site. It's information only. Not trying to sell anyone anything!!!

You're a scammer! Why is your site asking me to pay to view? Jk lol. Nice stuff though, haha.

[Jay]

You're a scammer! Why is your site asking me to pay to view? Jk lol. Nice stuff though, haha.

The site itself could have been made by a 2 year old, but thanks! I justed wanted to get someting out there to let people know about my idea, and get some feedback from others who have worked on projects like this before.

[Kenny]

The site itself could have been made by a 2 year old, but thanks! I justed wanted to get someting out there to let people know about my idea, and get some feedback from others who have worked on projects like this before.

I haven't exactly been working on a project alike, but I sure gave a little feed back XD.

[Neytiri]

In a world in which it seems you can't trust anyone (if only we all had queues and skin that mimicked our emotions like th Na'Vi), who do you believe? The Global Warming side or the Global Warming is a Scam side? Which one would have more motivation to lie to us, and why? Tell me this. Why would the Global Warming side want to lie to us more than the Global Warming is a Scam side? Until Nature sets us straight by deciding what it WILL do, I will have to trust my gut and side with the Global Warming side. Oh, and has anyone heard about a thinning ozone layer in Antarctica? Yeah, the one that the world unanimously agrees was caused by CFCs. Seriously folks, when both sides come up and tell you that they're the truth, you just have to trust your gut and common sense when you pick a side. BOTH sides can "cherry pick" temperature readings in their own favor, when making temperature histographs. Oh, and ask yourselves people, when it comes down to it, do you really think that we are NOT destroying our planet? What does your gut tell you, when you don't know who to believe anymore?
Lets see, what else... rainforest used to cover 14% of the earth, now it's only 6% due to deforestation. Somebody care to step up and tell us that this is NOT going to affect the oxygen content of the planet? We are killing off species at a rate several times faster than we are identifying them. Somebody care to step up and tell us that this is responsible and informed science? Somebody care to step up and PROMISE us that we aren't recklessly wreaking havoc on our planet, that we have the environmental balance under control? .... Uhm-hum. That's what I thought. So, which one am I going to trust? The camp that tells me that everything is under control, or the camp that sounds like it's aligned with everything else I've heard?

[Kenny]

In a world in which it seems you can't trust anyone (if only we all had queues and skin that mimicked our emotions like th Na'Vi), who do you believe? The Global Warming side or the Global Warming is a Scam side? Which one would have more motivation to lie to us, and why? Tell me this. Why would the Global Warming side want to lie to us more than the Global Warming is a Scam side? Until Nature sets us straight by deciding what it WILL do, I will have to trust my gut and side with the Global Warming side. Oh, and has anyone heard about a thinning ozone layer in Antarctica? Yeah, the one that the world unanimously agrees was caused by CFCs. Seriously folks, when both sides come up and tell you that they're the truth, you just have to trust your gut and common sense when you pick a side. BOTH sides can "cherry pick" temperature readings in their own favor, when making temperature histographs.

Well stated, Ney. The only thing I have to say is that the government would have more reason to lie, to keep attention off the war so that there won't be a revolution of some sort full of peace freaks.

Ask yourself this question, how many times have the ice caps melted before? As a follow up, a better question would be, how come no global warming proponents know the answer to the question? Try asking them yourself! If their biggest fear really is the ice caps melting, wouldn't they have looked it up before?

[ElBartoME]

"Do not trust any statistics you did not fake yourself."


I don't believe what the goverments are telling me. But I DO believe in global warming. But that is not the reason why I made this posting.

We have to change the way we are thinking. Why wasting energy? Why using technologies that are extreme uneffective? We have to back off from fossil fuels. This is doomed and has no future.

We should advance our minds and change our system. Renewable energies is a way that we should take.


Please do not believe everything that people are telling you. Do some research and thinking. ;)

[Ean-a Taronyu]

What I fail to see is why there are still so many people left that actually believe that Global Warming is a Scam. There is enough evidence to show that Humans play an important role in Global warming, although part of it may be natural. It's not like religion where everyone can choose to believe something else because there is no way of telling who is right. I don't see what is gained by those that choose "not to believe" in Global warning except a false sense of not having to lift a finger as it wouldn't make a difference.
Sure, one person achieves little but in our society there's no way a majority of people will start respecting the environment if there are none that even try. "He/She doesn't so why should I?" is the destructive mindset that is to be avoided.

[Neytiri]

Well stated, Ney. The only thing I have to say is that the government would have more reason to lie, to keep attention off the war so that there won't be a revolution of some sort full of peace freaks.

Ask yourself this question, how many times have the ice caps melted before? As a follow up, a better question would be, how come no global warming proponents know the answer to the question? Try asking them yourself! If their biggest fear really is the ice caps melting, wouldn't they have looked it up before?

Sorry but I don't buy the idea that the government is "wagging the dog" so to speak, away from the wars, by trying to inject us with environmental passion. They already have accomplished this task well enough, by filling our lives with (allowing the existence of) booze, porn, gratuitously violent movies, sports, long work hours, outrageous mortgages, crappy fast food, high medical bills, and encouraging a sickeningly reckless consumer culture that eats away at our very souls and personal relationships.

As far as how many times the ice caps melted before, and whether or not scientists can/do/should have a way to know this... look how little science really knows about anything at all! And even of what they DO know, look how little we can trust it. This entire thread is a case in point, all on its own.

In the end, I have to go with what my gut is telling me.

[Sik'Turi]

Global warming = BS, but if it gets people to turn to greener ways, I say let them think it's a feasible occurrence. By that I mean plant your own fruits and vegetables, stop wasting things that, if cared for, could last much longer, etc. Go plant some trees, y 'know, something that you can SEE making a difference, instead of the whole, "Let me buy a green computer that will still end up in the landfill."

[Jay]

I am not going to disagree with any particular point.

There is no doubt in my mind that we have some serious environmental issues on our hands, and I REALLY WANT new, clean sources of energy. The days of fossil fuels are numbered, which is great. They do pollute the air terribly, and strip mining a mountainside for coal is awful. Neytiri and I are in complete agreement her.

As for the rainforest, I would love to see Americans eat less red meat and more fish, (aquacultured of course). Rainforests get torn down mostly for cattle land, and the majority of the meat is consumed by Americans. Hence if we ate less red meat, there would be little incentive to tear down rainforest. Besides, fish is SOOOOO much healthier anyway, (if American ate better, we would have less obesity related disease  which would drive down the cost of health insurance, too).

Don’t even get me started about pollution in the ocean. That’s a can of worms you don’t want to see me open!

The only thing I have trouble with are people like Al Gore. He is a hypocrite to the 10th degree.

“Do as I say, not as I do” right Al?

How much fossil fuel does that guy burn a year? Plus, me has made lot of money off of the global warming issue, which gives him HUGE incentive to fight the mountains of evidence that have come out against global warming.

“The science on global warming is settled”- Al Gore

Not even close. The tide has turned against global warming because soooo many climatologist, biologist, oceanographers, etc have come out against global warming.

We need to focus our resources elsewhere. Yes, build solar plants and wind farms, make bio fuel and algae/ plant based fuel, and explore hydrogen-3 and nuclear fusion. These are all great, but should not come at the expense of our trust in the “science” behind global warming.

Trust me, I very much desire a world that this clean and healthy and I would love to see some MAJOR wildlife restoration projects happen. Want I don’t want is to be told by some fat cat money bags politician type that I’m a dumb*ss because I can see through his BS, (long list of names on both sides of the aisle here).

[Kenny]

What I fail to see is why there are still so many people left that actually believe that Global Warming is a Scam. There is enough evidence to show that Humans play an important role in Global warming, although part of it may be natural. It's not like religion where everyone can choose to believe something else because there is no way of telling who is right. I don't see what is gained by those that choose "not to believe" in Global warning except a false sense of not having to lift a finger as it wouldn't make a difference.
Sure, one person achieves little but in our society there's no way a majority of people will start respecting the environment if there are none that even try. "He/She doesn't so why should I?" is the destructive mindset that is to be avoided.

You can't deny that the government scientists can lie. The fact that they can bribe the media into looking at 3 bad points, not the good points. O myself believe that we aren't the cause and my mind won't change. Thanks for your constructive comment.

[Jay]

This is a great discussion though! I love the fact that we can all get together and talk about stuff like this :party:

[Kenny]

Yeah you're right, I would prefer more argumentative people though, to get us talking more...

[KalaKuival]

Well if you have any interest in this global warming lie then here's a good article. I don't know if someone before has brought it out. But this article talks how hackers stole some data from the University and discovered how scientists were discussing what to say...

http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N57/davidson.html

[Einherjar]

Most of Global Warming is just made up and the real caus of it is natrual changes. The sham is however a good one. We cannot escape the fact that we effect the enviorment with polutions. Even if much of Global Warming is natural pollutions will have effect on the enviorment and we are destroying the planet we live on just so that we can live a good life and overuse the resources of the earth.

An increasing temperature will be devestating for some animals, plants and for the polar ices that would melt. But we are causing alot of devestation to this planet by our destructive living - and polutions, deforestation, ubran expanding etc will give animals less areas to live in.
And if we destroy nature itself what life has this planet got left?

Global Warming isnt 100% caused by man, but our destructive way of living, espicially we in the west but China and India are starting to increase their pollutions as these countries are expanding very much atm, indrustrially that is. Our pollutioning of the earth better stop before it is too late, before we change the ecosystems too much.
I'm radical but I see only two solutions to the problem:
1 - Start living more primitive, for example like the Na'vi. Live as one with the nature and dont destroy it.
2 - Kill of the entire human race as we have got far to advanced.
Now alternative 1 isnt gonna work as you cant convince billions on people to go back to live like cavemen, and alternative 2... well thats not gonna happen, not entierly but almost.
If natural global warming would melt all the polar ice the sea levels would increase soo much (20 meters or something) that 70% of human homes would be covered with water, thus leaving those who dont drown homeless and they will probably starve to death or something.
If that would happen, mankind would be soo reduced that we would no longer be able to pollute as much. I know we would recover sooner or later but still.

There for I think natural Global Warming could solve the problem of our explotaion of the earths resources.

[Kenny]

Well if you have any interest in this global warming lie then here's a good article. I don't know if someone before has brought it out. But this article talks how hackers stole some data from the University and discovered how scientists were discussing what to say...

http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N57/davidson.html

Well constructed. Nice resources, it's pretty intresting the fact that some anonymous people were thought to have stole data from a University.

[Woodsprite]

Agree with OP, 'nough said on my part, except...

Copenhagen was a power play by the Obama administration. China (or was it Japan) promised they'd lowertheir carbon emissions by 22% over the next twenty years, but logistics showed that if they did absolutely nothing over that period, meaning that they'd continue what they've been doing at the same rate, by the end of twenty years they would potentially reduce their carbon emissions by... guess how much? 20%. India said they'd do the same thing only with 10% reduction over that twenty-year period, but you know what? The same logistics show that at the current rate which Indian industrial improvements have been going, they'll have reduced their emissions by 40-50%. Talk about truthful analysis...

Al Gore, of course, refuses to answer any direct questions about the whole issue. In fact, ever since the internet-widespread release of the real scientific data surrounding the planet's climate activity, many are starting to doubt the whole thing altogether. I listen to facts; I listen to evidence. Al Gore's "facts" weren't even thought out straight, and even one of his sources (Dr. Maslowski) claimed Gore misused his data, that it was (quote)

"...unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."
Later, Gore said his statement was a "ballpark figure"; very sneaky, Al. He throws statements around like the earth's core being "millions of degrees." Oh really? Even the sun's outer layer temperature is estimated at (maximum) 11,000 degrees fahrenheit. Lightning can reach about 10,000 degrees.

Sorry if I'm ranting about Mr. Gore, but he just makes me so angry when he spews his usual misinformed, lying crap.

Sure, in "Avatar" the earth is depicted as an urban wasteland... Just the same as in "Wall-E" it's depicted as "trash planet." This "humans wrecking the world" concept isn't new in sci-fi, but that's part of what makes certain sci-fi movies as sci-fi movies! I accept the environmental message in "Avatar" because (as I've said before) it's an "in a world where..." so-and-so is true, concept. It's a fiction, but the movie is still my all-time favorite (under Return of the King); I don't let things like that get to me.

[Ada]

Global climate change has occurred several times in Earth's history, a well-established fact. The impending global warming can either be seen as an naturally driven process, or an effect of anthropogenic activities. If the second is true, I like to think of it as natural selection. Call me a fatalist? If we have accelerated the rate of climate change, we deserve the consequences. The Earth as we know it might not be the same, but adaptations will occur and life will continue.

[uniltìrantokx]

have you talked to Al gore about this? i would think he would want to know.

[Jay]

Wow, guys I thought that I would be alone on this. I'm so glad that the majority of folks here see what I see. It is a power play, for sure. Big government means MORE POWER to the government.

Of all of the destructive things that we as humans do, why would the govenrment focus on the ONE THING that no one can prove to be 100% true? I mean we all know 100% for a fact that oil spills happen, the rainforrest is shrinking, natural habitat loss is causing extinction, etc... but they wanna focus on global warming??!! Oh please. It's a power grab for sure. Just like everything else going on in Congress right now, (and for the last 10 years). Iwant to move to freakin' Pandora and start a new life.

[Jay]

have you talked to Al gore about this? i would think he would want to know.

Oh, I don't think he wants to talk to me...

You guys know what I like to do after I rip off heads... :wink:

[Ada]

Of all of the destructive things that we as humans do, why would the govenrment focus on the ONE THING that no one can prove to be 100% true?

The fact that climate change is so complex and can't be "proved" is one of the reasons that a solution is not politically feasible. Okay time to policy-geek-out!

When data was published indicating that a hole appeared to be forming in the ozone layer over Antarctica, industrial nations of the world sprang to action. The Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987, addressed this issue head on because the issue was clear-cut and relatively cheap to fix:

1. Reagan developed skin cancer in 1987. Less ozone = harmful UV rays reaching Earth's surface = more skin cancer. Long story short, it's a consequence that people could easily relate to, and the science isn't too difficult to understand.
2. The hole in the ozone layer was generally understood to be caused by CFCs. Along with General Motors, DuPont was the inventor of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), and the largest producer of these ozone-depleting chemicals (used primarily in aerosol sprays and refrigerants) in the world (source: wikipedia). It just so happened that as the Montreal Protocol was being signed, DuPont was already years ahead of other companies in developing CFC substitutes, and so benefited financially from the ban on CFCs. It's the economy, stupid!

Got a little off-track here, but suffice it to say, addressing climate change is not and will not be so simple (evidenced by the failures of Kyoto and Copenhagen).

[uniltìrantokx]

Oh, I don't think he wants to talk to me...

You guys know what I like to do after I rip off heads... :wink:

Best inside joke ever.......



.....of all time.

[neytirifanboy]

I am an agnostic in all this. I really don't know. We undoubteldy afect the planet, but the question is by how much. Is it 90%, 5% or something in between.

But the real issue has nothing to do with pollution, carbon emmissions, etc. The real problem is over-population. Lets face it, it wouldn't matter how much carbon or pollution we spewed in the air if there was only 100,000 of us.

But there are what 6 or 7 billion. So how much are we over-populated? I don't know, but perhaps by 5 to 6 billion as a guess. And that is what is really causing the problem.

Now that is a problem, because there is no easy way to reduce population quickly in a non-violent way, nor truly control it.

I hate to be fatalistic, but some day something will happen, either man-made or a natural disaster (which may or may not be partly caused by us) that will kill billions of us. The planet simply cannot support the population we have.

Billions will die anyway. It is an astounding thought that by the year that Avatar issupposed to take place in less than 150 years, all 6 to 7 billion of us will be dead.

[CrashingDoors]

Sorry, I didn't read everyone's posts (I tend to have short attention spans at times).

Global warming, as a PAC, as a movement, is complete BS. It's not teaching people to think for themselves, it's twisting their hands.

Whether or not you believe in anthropogenic global warming is almost moot at this stage. What's important is what you do, and how you treat other people. There's no need to go ape---- on someone because they believe something you don't (a lot of "greenies" have berated me because I don't believe in Al Gore's brand of environmentalism). What's important is that you do things for the right reason.

All I really care about is that people make decisions (ones on which they can act) that will help the environment--actually help the environment, not just the corporations and individuals profiteering on the guilt of modern people. I don't believe in "global warming" as it's commonly understood, but that doesn't mean that I'm anti-environment. I just have a different POV on how to deal with the problems that we face. Just because I don't buy into what the media says doesn't mean that I just pollute as much as I can. I'm just as conscious of my actions on the planet as everyone else; the only difference is that I'm doing it based on my own conclusions about how I affect the natural environment.

I've said this elsewhere, but I think that the size of our population is a much greater problem than global warming. For all the arguments made about deforestation, increased land-use and its effects, etc--why has all this happened? We can't control these things if we don't control our population. If our numbers weren't so large, we wouldn't have had to cut down so many trees, we wouldn't have had to over-fish the oceans, we wouldn't have to have so many businesses that pump so much s--- into the air. Get what I'm saying?

I wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's rights to do what they want, but it seems really irresponsible for couples to have more than 2 or 3 kids. I don't want any kids--partly because of the overpopulation problem, partly because there are so many abandoned kids. Why do I need a kid of my own? To keep the family name alive? Please.

[Kenny]

I am an agnostic in all this. I really don't know. We undoubteldy afect the planet, but the question is by how much. Is it 90%, 5% or something in between.

But the real issue has nothing to do with pollution, carbon emmissions, etc. The real problem is over-population. Lets face it, it wouldn't matter how much carbon or pollution we spewed in the air if there was only 100,000 of us.

But there are what 6 or 7 billion. So how much are we over-populated? I don't know, but perhaps by 5 to 6 billion as a guess. And that is what is really causing the problem.

Now that is a problem, because there is no easy way to reduce population quickly in a non-violent way, nor truly control it.

I hate to be fatalistic, but some day something will happen, either man-made or a natural disaster (which may or may not be partly caused by us) that will kill billions of us. The planet simply cannot support the population we have.

Billions will die anyway. It is an astounding thought that by the year that Avatar issupposed to take place in less than 150 years, all 6 to 7 billion of us will be dead.

Perhaps it's nature which is killing life, just maybe Earth is fighting back against war, against the urban environment. To back this up just think, the weather on our planet has been getting worse in the last 50 years, and the urban environments have been growing extremely fast in that time. It may be that the Earth is alive, and knows exactly what is going on. Expand on what I've just said and think about it.

[neytirifanboy]

Perhaps it's nature which is killing life, just maybe Earth is fighting back against war, against the urban environment. To back this up just think, the weather on our planet has been getting worse in the last 50 years, and the urban environments have been growing extremely fast in that time. It may be that the Earth is alive, and knows exactly what is going on. Expand on what I've just said and think about it.

Oh, that could be true. Who knows. I am certainly not adverse to that theory. But there are far too many people in the world who would be.

But it comes down to the same thing. The earth can't support us the way we are and nature will eventually take everyhting away.

[neytirifanboy]

I've said this elsewhere, but I think that the size of our population is a much greater problem than global warming. For all the arguments made about deforestation, increased land-use and its effects, etc--why has all this happened? We can't control these things if we don't control our population. If our numbers weren't so large, we wouldn't have had to cut down so many trees, we wouldn't have had to over-fish the oceans, we wouldn't have to have so many businesses that pump so much s--- into the air. Get what I'm saying?

I wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's rights to do what they want, but it seems really irresponsible for couples to have more than 2 or 3 kids. I don't want any kids--partly because of the overpopulation problem, partly because there are so many abandoned kids. Why do I need a kid of my own? To keep the family name alive? Please.

Interesting that we said similar things at roughly the same time. I have held the view you have just mentioned for a long time.

[Glorfac]

The whole world could pull a China and limit the number of children per family to 1. I don't really like China (infact I hate China(not the people, just the gov't)) but atleast they got something right. If everyone was only allowed to have 1 child then that would cut the earths population in half. 2 people create 1 child. when all the first generation dies then all thats left is the children, who account for 1/3 of the total population. That would be a non-violent way to solve overpopulation rather swiftly. Thoughts...

[Kenny]

Oh, that could be true. Who knows. I am certainly not adverse to that theory. But there are far too many people in the world who would be.

But it comes down to the same thing. The earth can't support us the way we are and nature will eventually take everyhting away.

Thanks for the constructive comment, I appreciate the fact that you didn't ctiricize me for saying so. It isn't my beliefs however, you've got to believe that there is almost any possibility, each too almost hard to overcome. If you see anything that makes sence then it must be true. No matter what science says.

[Lparsons7641]

I don't buy overpopulation, it is a naturally regulating thing. Not enough food=no growth. More food=more population. There are still vast, vast, vast areas of LAND on the earth that are uninhabited by humans, not to mention that whole 70% we can't/don't tread on.

[neytirifanboy]

The whole world could pull a China and limit the number of children per family to 1. I don't really like China (infact I hate China(not the people, just the gov't)) but atleast they got something right. If everyone was only allowed to have 1 child then that would cut the earths population in half. 2 people create 1 child. when all the first generation dies then all thats left is the children, who account for 1/3 of the total population. That would be a non-violent way to solve overpopulation rather swiftly. Thoughts...

If only we could. But it is volent in a way because you are imposing one rule on the whole human race. How could you do that withourt having some sort of despotic world government. And what would you do with the extra children that would undoubtedly appear? It's just not possible in the current political and social climate.

Apart from that, your suggestion would still take more than a generation which may be too slow. Really we need immediate action. And, not being some sort of cold hearted mass murderer, I can think of no way to solve the issue in a reaonable time.

But what is interesting, is that no one talks about it opnely. No one. It is the main problem, but no one has a solution.

[neytirifanboy]

I don't buy overpopulation, it is a naturally regulating thing. Not enough food=no growth. More food=more population. There are still vast, vast, vast areas of LAND on the earth that are uninhabited by humans, not to mention that whole 70% we can't/don't tread on.

Who knows, you may be right. I am no expert. But is there really that much available land now? I don't think there is without cutting down rain forests and destroying the eco-system. If you read the news you will know that our resources are already over-stretched. In 2008 food prices jumped because of food shortages. There was also a scandal because some economies were using much needed grain to make gassline.

At the moment, humanity is very fragile. All it takes is a minor meteor or a super volcano blocking out the sun and destroying our current food source, or even a world wide famine.

We are too used to getting everything delivered on a plate. If anything distrupts the source or the distribution, billions will starve in a short space of time.

[Kenny]

Hehe. I'm glad my thread is recieving so much attention. The thing is, if I posted this on another forum then there would have been such hatred towards me, I'm glad some people agree, and in a friendly manor, others disagree. I think the fact that we all have watched Avatar has tainted our minds is subconsiously encouraging us to be healthy towards each other. The only bad thing to have occured on the forum is the images posted by a hate player. If I were on any other forum then I would be on the boat to critisism :D

[The Na'vi]

Global warming is not caused by man, I remember reading somewhere that most of it is from the sun alone anyway, and Al Gore is taking the glory from it, I don't have the link for this or I would post it, but we do need to stop saying we are looking into alternative fuel sources and actual do something! The last thing I heard about any alternative fuel was the Hydrogen powered engines and that was at least two years ago, haven't heard anything recently about them...

[OtakuSe7eN]

I See You, Kenny, but I disagree. You do state true facts, but also I have some. We are the cause right now because of cars in the 60s, 70s, 80s. We released alot of CO2, which every CO2 Molecule can destroy thousands of O3 (I think the Ozone is composed of O3 Molecules) So it may be a natural process, but we are causing it prematurely.

[Kenny]

I See You, Kenny, but I disagree. You do state true facts, but also I have some. We are the cause right now because of cars in the 60s, 70s, 80s. We released alot of CO2, which every CO2 Molecule can destroy thousands of O3 (I think the Ozone is composed of O3 Molecules) So it may be a natural process, but we are causing it prematurely.

By this are you simply saying that we're speeding up a process which should take years more? Because Methane releases Co2 into the air, there is Co2 found under Ice in Siberia, I don't completely disagree but I think that we're polluting it ever so slightly, not much at all.

Thanks for your constructive critisism.

[neytirifanboy]

Hehe. I'm glad my thread is recieving so much attention. The thing is, if I posted this on another forum then there would have been such hatred towards me, I'm glad some people agree, and in a friendly manor, others disagree. I think the fact that we all have watched Avatar has tainted our minds is subconsiously encouraging us to be healthy towards each other. The only bad thing to have occured on the forum is the images posted by a hate player. If I were on any other forum then I would be on the boat to critisism :D

I think it is an interesting debate. What the responses show is that everyone is deeply divided in their opinion as to what is the problem, and if there is one, and what is the solution, if there is one. And this is a forum where people disagree politely! :confused:

And what does that mean? Frankly, We are doomed.

[Kenny]

I think it is an interesting debate. What the responses show is that everyone is deeply divided in their opinion as to what is the problem, and if there is one, and what is the solution, if there is one. And this is a forum where people disagree politely! :confused:

And what does that mean? Frankly, We are doomed.

Well, this just shows me that not everyone has been brainwashed by the world leaders.

[CrashingDoors]

I don't buy overpopulation, it is a naturally regulating thing. Not enough food=no growth. More food=more population. There are still vast, vast, vast areas of LAND on the earth that are uninhabited by humans, not to mention that whole 70% we can't/don't tread on.

I completely disagree. "Natural" has hardly anything to do with it, considering most of us get our food from grocery stores, who in turn get their food from mass-breeding facilities. Hardly natural. With advances in technology, we'll always find ways to feed ourselves. (For the poor and malnourished, that's another story altogether. I mean, look at the fertility rate in malnourished countries--even if you factor out the death rate of children 0-1, it's still pretty high. No food, no growth? Tell that to the millions of starving families that continue to have children. India for example ranks highest in the Global Hunger Index, yet it's population has steadily grown over the past 50 years.)

And just because we "don't tread" on the water doesn't mean we leave it alone, either...

You're right that there are still vast areas of land uninhabited by humans, but does that make the negative effects on the other land any less dramatic? Do you think these metropolitan areas were meant for this kind of land use? That's where my argument comes from. Earth may be able to support us, but that doesn't mean it's going to be stable forever, or even for very long. We're overstepping our bounds, we're taking up land because we "need" to, because we can't not have Honestly if the population keeps growing, I have a feeling that those "vast" areas are going to turned into more cities, and we'll pretty much be one giant metropolitan area.

[Jay]

Best inside joke ever.......



.....of all time.

Ha ha! :wink:

All I have to say is that this is the most intelligent thread that I have read yet. I can only assume the majority of you are 22 or younger, (since that seems to be the average age around here), and I am very impressed with your ideas and constructive debate.

My wife likes to poke fun at me for being an Avatarian. Next time she brings it up, I’ll have to show here this thread, and she’ll understand.

I really enjoy intelligent conversation, and clearly, there are some very bright folks on this forum.

[Jay]

Oh, and I don’t often compliment people’s intelligence

[Woodsprite]

Overpopulation?

Well, as I see it, the the county of Jacksonville in Florida is about 25 billion sq. ft. You could fit all 7 billion people in Jacksonville and they'd have room to move around, still. So no, overpopulation doesn't really look like a problem we should have for the next... say, 100,000 years. IMHO, of course. :wink:

[Uniltìranyu]

Overpopulation?

Well, as I see it, the the county of Jacksonville in Florida is about 25 billion sq. ft. You could fit all 7 billion people in Jacksonville and they'd have room to move around, still. So no, overpopulation doesn't really look like a problem we should have for the next... say, 100,000 years. IMHO, of course. :wink:
And how would you feed them if they were so packed?

[Einherjar]

I'm not a religious man or anything but Pope Paul VI once said:

“Somebody should tell us, right at the start of our lives, that we are dying. Then we might live life to the limit, every minute of every day. Do it! I say. Whatever you want to do, do it now! There are only so many tomorrows.”

Perhaps that would make us appreciate our planet more and live less devestating?
I believe that over population will eventually hurt our race. And there really is not that much land where more people could live and grow their own crops.
Humans prefer to live in humid coast and sub tropic climates. You cant have that many people living in the desert, cutting down the rainforest for living space is a no no. We have Siberia, but with the long and cold winters and relativly short growing seasons I doubt that many people could live there by growing their own food. Also a huge ammount of coal/wood/oil would be used to warm up all the homes during winter and in northern Siberia there is permafrost all year around.

Siberia and also Antarctica could be made habital areas if the world temperature would increase alot - I also heard scientists believe the Sahara desert might become a forst again or something - but then all glaciers would have melted and taking away alot of land from us.

I'm not sure but seems humanity is doomed to some Black plauge like extermination sooner or later - but these are just my thoughts.

[Woodsprite]

And how would you feed them if they were so packed?
:wink: I was just saying there'd be room, not that the whole population could actually live in one county in Florida. :rotfl:

[Jay]

I wonder is some disease will come by and wipe out half of Earth's population. Kind of like a natural population control. Not that I want that to happen. It's just a thought.

[Kenny]

I wonder is some disease will come by and wipe out half of Earth's population. Kind of like a natural population control. Not that I want that to happen. It's just a thought.

I recon that the only way to whipe the majority of humans out would be by major disasters, meaning earth quakes, volcanoes etc...

[CrashingDoors]

:wink: I was just saying there'd be room, not that the whole population could actually live in one county in Florida. :rotfl:

Maybe it comes down to personal preferences then. Personally, I'd hate that! Ha. God, being crammed in would drive me bonkers. I don't know if it's true but I remember hearing that in China they had these little "cubby hole" type beds in hotels or something--always a big scare when I was a kid.

That's kind of my point though, again; whether or not we can do it isn't necessarily an issue. At least it's not the issue I'm talking about. In fact, I'm sure we could figure out how to sustain 15 million, 25 million people if we absolutely had to. We could eventually figure out how to fight off the effects of natural disasters and widespread disease. But what's the point? Why go through all of it? How will all these billions of people be really "living" if they're shuffling through life like that?

I'd rather have as much open space as possible. People would be more comfortable, the environment would be able to breath a lot more.

[Jay]

Maybe it comes down to personal preferences then. Personally, I'd hate that! Ha. God, being crammed in would drive me bonkers. I don't know if it's true but I remember hearing that in China they had these little "cubby hole" type beds in hotels or something--always a big scare when I was a kid.

That's kind of my point though, again; whether or not we can do it isn't necessarily an issue. At least it's not the issue I'm talking about. In fact, I'm sure we could figure out how to sustain 15 million, 25 million people if we absolutely had to. We could eventually figure out how to fight off the effects of natural disasters and widespread disease. But what's the point? Why go through all of it? How will all these billions of people be really "living" if they're shuffling through life like that?

I'd rather have as much open space as possible. People would be more comfortable, the environment would be able to breath a lot more.

Yeah, China does have cubby-style hotel rooms that are little pods stacked up on top of each other. Each "cubby" has a bed, flip down TV and tiny nightstand. You have to crawl into them beacuse they are not high enough to stand in. The bathrooms are common bathrooms shared by everyone staying in the hotel.

[Kenny]

Yeah, China does have cubby-style hotel rooms that are little pods stacked up on top of each other. Each "cubby" has a bed, flip down TV and tiny nightstand. You have to crawl into them beacuse they are not high enough to stand in. The bathrooms are common bathrooms shared by everyone staying in the hotel.

It's not China as such which is the problem, I do however agree with you in saying that it's the urban areas of china which cause most pollution. The cities of China are far too condensed. We can only hope that they solve their own problems. Don't forget though, India are almost equil in polution levels, the population of India is also similar, with 1.1 billion people there is only 200 Million less then China, I think.

[Jay]

It's not China as such which is the problem, I do however agree with you in saying that it's the urban areas of china which cause most pollution. The cities of China are far too condensed. We can only hope that they solve their own problems. Don't forget though, India are almost equil in polution levels, the population of India is also similar, with 1.1 billion people there is only 200 Million less then China, I think.

which means we need to be nice to the Chinese and the Indians :rotfl:

[Neytiri.]

I kind of skimmed through this and noticed how your talking about people density, so here it goes

did you know that you could fit every human being in earth in the state of texas? Everyone. Weird huh?

[Kenny]

I kind of skimmed through this and noticed how your talking about people density, so here it goes

did you know that you could fit every human being in earth in the state of texas? Everyone. Weird huh?

It's not really weird, considering Texas is like the same size of England. We don't really use much land anyway, think of how much space is between every person, then imaging how many more people you could fit in that space.

[Uniltìranyu]

I kind of skimmed through this and noticed how your talking about people density, so here it goes

did you know that you could fit every human being in earth in the state of texas? Everyone. Weird huh?

Texas is big, you could fit everyone on the Swedish island of Gotland. Not that I would recommend it.

[Tsyal Makto]

Who cares about how many people fit wherever, the problem is resource consumption. Speaking of Sweden, if every person on the planet were to live like the average Swede, it would require two more earths to supply the necessary resources.

We either cut down our consumption, or our reproduction, or somethings gonna give.

Food for thought
YouTube- Overpopulation - The Agenda with Steve Paikin 1/5

[Jay]

Mars, here we come.

There is nothing there but rocks, sand and bad weather, but I'm sure we'll find some way to f*ck you up like we did Earth, LOL

[G.A.Pster]

I don’t know if your post was related to Avatar or not but global warming wasn’t mentioned in Avatar it was habitat destruction (eg all the trees were cut down).

But anyway I believe we are responsible,
But even if we’re not it won’t hurt to conserve resources there are way too many people on the planet already and there are only going to be more, and out of them and there will be more middle class who will consume more resources like water, fuel, and food, compared to poor peasants.

[Einherjar]

If we send everyone to Texas I think everyone would die of dehydration in the desert, would solve the pollution and consumption part though :P

I know alot of you are from America and I dont want to offend you but the thing is USA almost release as much carbondioxide (not sure about other greenhouse-gases and pollutions) as China, but China has about 4 times your population.

[Woodsprite]

I know alot of you are from America and I dont want to offend you but the thing is USA almost release as much carbondioxide (not sure about other greenhouse-gases and pollutions) as China, but China has about 4 times your population.
I agree, America's pretty polluting. The question is, is the pollution actually affecting the entire planet? Broader scale: is the pollution from every part of the world affecting the planet?

I don't believe it is. I believe we're contributing about less than 1% to the CO2 in the atmoshere. Moreover, I believe the other 99% isn't hurting the planet. However, we do still need to be good stewards to the earth.

[G.A.Pster]

If we send everyone to Texas I think everyone would die of dehydration in the desert, would solve the pollution and consumption part though :P

I know alot of you are from America and I dont want to offend you but the thing is USA almost release as much carbondioxide (not sure about other greenhouse-gases and pollutions) as China, but China has about 4 times your population.


No offence taken it’s the truth.
It’s like I was saying peasants are more “green”.

[CrashingDoors]

Who cares about how many people fit wherever, the problem is resource consumption. Speaking of Sweden, if every person on the planet were to live like the average Swede, it would require two more earths to supply the necessary resources.


Yes, no matter that we have tons of free space--we waste so much flipping energy... we waste so much food, it's disgusting, which leads into....


I know alot of you are from America and I dont want to offend you but the thing is USA almost release as much carbondioxide (not sure about other greenhouse-gases and pollutions) as China, but China has about 4 times your population.

This is just a small personal example but here it goes. I worked at Six Flags in Chicago (well, near Chicago). We'd make so much food, and if it didn't sell (and a lot of times not even HALF of it would) we'd just pitch it. They wouldn't let us take any home, they wouldn't let us eat any of it, they wouldn't let the other workers from other departments eat it. Why? Because if we ate it, we wouldn't spend money on the Cafe food.

People in this country throw away so much stuff, and that's one thing I've never understood. I come from a fairly modest family and I'd say that we do not represent the typical wasteful American. (Also when I worked at Six Flags, I worked with lots of international students and one thing they'd usually mention is that Americans waste a lot.) I think it comes out of ignorance, about not caring, etc. Putting the whole Global Warming debate aside--it's just not good to waste so much stuff. I don't know why Americans think it's okay, but I think it's just plain wasteful and in a way, very egotistical.

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2010/01/27.png

BTW Here's a global "Greenhouse Gas Per Capita" image. The redder it gets, the worse. Keep in mind, this doesn't take into account individuals or other extenuating data, all it takes into account is #of people and #of greenhouse gas. (Still, I was kind of surprised to see Australia in the red)

[Elyannia]

I don't think that humans are the cause of the planet dying, but we sure aren't helping the Earth.

[Uniltìranyu]

(Still, I was kind of surprised to see Australia in the red)

Surprised? I thought Australia was the worst with all the coal they use.

[Navi's saviour]

Surprised? I thought Australia was the worst with all the coal they use.

Come on you got to give the us some credit.

I mean it isn't easy killing the earth:ncry:

[CrashingDoors]

Surprised? I thought Australia was the worst with all the coal they use.

That just means you know more than I do about Australia :embarrassed: or maybe I just have a highly idealized version of Australia, which I do, I don't know why...

[Einherjar]

We all know that there only live kangaroos and koala bears on Australia, right?

[Uniltìranyu]

I just have a highly idealized version of Australia, which I do, I don't know why...

It's them Koalas, they are insidious. :nwink:

[uniltìrantokx]

i hear the reason there's a hole in the ozone over australia is because of japan and their smog and aerosol.

[Neytiri.]

i hear the reason there's a hole in the ozone over australia is because of japan and their smog and aerosol.

That might be true, i heard that when they held the olympics near there, that all the athletes had to wear masks so they wouldn't inhale all the polutants, kinda gross huh

[uniltìrantokx]

That might be true, i heard that when they held the olympics near there, that all the athletes had to wear masks so they wouldn't inhale all the polutants, kinda gross huh

i believe that was china.

[sullyjakes14]

That might be true, i heard that when they held the olympics near there, that all the athletes had to wear masks so they wouldn't inhale all the polutants, kinda gross huh

half of ur technology are find or made by japan...if u drive an imported car ..it is japan..after all..if there are no japan..we would not survive the market...

[Kenny]

half of ur technology are find or made by japan...if u drive an imported car ..it is japan..after all..if there are no japan..we would not survive the market...

Who said anything about getting rid of Japan? Not all imported cars are made Japan you know. Oh and I think he was actually referring to China.

[Neytiri.]

half of ur technology are find or made by japan...if u drive an imported car ..it is japan..after all..if there are no japan..we would not survive the market...

duh. :p

and it was probly china.

[uniltìrantokx]

Who said anything about getting rid of Japan? Not all imported cars are made Japan you know. Oh and I think he was actually referring to China.

Yeah the olympics thing is china, but my friends in australia say the hole in the ozone is because of japan.

[Einherjar]

There are alot of industries and vehicles on a small area in Japan and China, thus making the air close to the ground very polluted. The pollutions will howerver spread eventually through diffusion to even out the concentrations. Im not entierly sure how long it takes for the molecules to be spreaded over the world.
But I have heard that if you take a breath anywhere in the world it will theoretically contain the molecules from the air that Napoleon brethed - so less then 250 years or something.

[Orcakat]

We may not be causing Global Warming, but we certainly aren't helping. We produce a lot of CO2, which is good for the planet in small doses but can easily become a problem. When we spew this greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, it only worsens things. (Not to mention ocean acidification and other problems associated with CO2 emissions being too high). By emitting this into the air we are speeding up the natural process that is "Global warming".

We shouldn't blame ourselves for global warming... but we should "Man up", so to speak, and take responsibility for our actions.

[HufweMakto]

Yeah the olympics thing is china, but my friends in australia say the hole in the ozone is because of japan.

I did read some stuff, and apparently China has a lot of coal burning factories. Now if know anything about coal, when it's burned it releases a lot of carbon into the atmosphere, which is also speeding up global warming. My sister went to China recently (around the times of the Olympics) and noted that around the cities it was pretty polluted, especially the air. In fact air pollution has become a problem in China as of late, especially in dense cities.

I can't say much for Japan as I haven't gone there as of late, but a recent explosion in the population of a certain kind of jellyfish has been attributed to pollution. In any big city you are going to notice air pollution and smog, no matter where you are, where it is in Los Angeles, when I went to the Getty, I find myself being surprised by the general difference in air quality when I go there, or in another city in some other part of the world.

[nìftxavang]

Things like these "problems" create jobs and is good for the economy. While it may be true or false, we cannot know for sure. But it would seem that even the scientists don't find the evidence conclusive, given those e-mails that were hacked recently (you may have heard about this, check out google news)

[Carborundum]

I'm not too sure about global warming. It may be that we are causing it, it may be that we aren't. I don't know for sure, and neither does anyone else. What if we are, though? Wouldn't it suck pretty badly to find out a hundred years from now that we are indeed the cause, and that we could have prevented a bunch of nastiness had we acted today? Regardless of whether we are causing GW, we are over-exploiting our planet (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint), and the very same measures that would help fix that problem will also diminish carbon dioxide emissions. Why not kill two birds with one stone (I strongly dislike that expression) and take the necessary steps? There are so many little things everyone of us can do to help, so let's do them, as a precaution if nothing else.

[tireafya’o]

Generally and I dont like to generalise but Ignorance is no excuse..

[Kenny]

Generally and I dont like to generalise but Ignorance is no excuse..

Could you expand on your opinion?

[Meerkat]

Am I the only one here who thinks global warming is real? (And even if it weren't, we can't spend all our time cutting down trees or throwing our trash into landfills until they burst.)

[~ViperSB1~]

Am I the only one here who thinks global warming is real? (And even if it weren't, we can't spend all our time cutting down trees or throwing our trash into landfills until they burst.)

No, I believe it is real as well. I just know how things work and its soo incredibly simple that I believe it because it makes sense to me, not because anyone has told me to believe it. There is just too much evidence to ignore. I could go into all the FACTS and why they make sense to me but I wont. People believe what they want to, thats just the way it works. If someone doesnt believe in global warming you wont be able to talk them into it so why bother. Just make sure you know the FACTS and not just what people are saying and then make the decision for yourself.
"Good Science Is Good Observation"

[Uniltìranyu]

Am I the only one here who thinks global warming is real? (And even if it weren't, we can't spend all our time cutting down trees or throwing our trash into landfills until they burst.)

It's real, the question is more if we're the cause or if it's a natural process. Personally I do not believe that we are the cause of it, but we are a catalyst.

[Meerkat]

I think we're the main cause. Who else would pump so much CO2 into the atmosphere? Does breathing cause global warming? *eyeroll*

[Jay]

Global environmental issues are very real, but man-made global warming is a power grab. You guys really want a world government telling you what your thermostat can be set at? Or how many gallons of gas you are "allowed" to use each week? Or what you can drive? Or how much meat you can eat? How many kids you can have? Were you can practice your religion? Etc, etc, etc.

'Cause that's what's coming if we let the wool cover our eyes.

Where's the transparency we were promised, (closed door Senate sessions, anyone?) How ‘bout that Patriot Act? Or “no lobbyists in my administration”? Halliburton? (Notice I’m taking examples of both the current and previous administration). This list could go on FOREVER…

[The Na'vi]

Global environmental issues are very real, but man-made global warming is a power grab. You guys really want a world government telling you what your thermostat can be set at? Or how many gallons of gas you are "allowed" to use each week? Or what you can drive? Or how much meat you can eat? How many kids you can have? Were you can practice your religion? Etc, etc, etc.

'Cause that's what's coming if we let the wool cover our eyes.

Where's the transparency we were promised, (closed door Senate sessions, anyone?) How ‘bout that Patriot Act? Or “no lobbyists in my administration”? Halliburton? (Notice I’m taking examples of both the prior and previous administration). This list could go on FOREVER…

I agree, I remember reading somewhere that its all a conspiracy to take control over the population. You may not see it at first but its coming. Global warming cannot be stopped, not by us at least since we are not the cause of it.

[Neytiri.]

I have the highest belief that global warming is real, a large part of it is due to the polutants that we ourselves have introduced into the atmoshpere, the climate does shift but not as durasticly as this, it takes a push, and we as human beings gave that push.

[Killery96]

maybe we dont cause it but we make it even worse :)

I agree, if animals fart they'll contribute to Global Warming, and uh... I must also agree that earth does do some of this on its own, so...

[uniltìrantokx]

I have the highest belief that global warming is real, a large part of it is due to the polutants that we ourselves have introduced into the atmoshpere, the climate does shift but not as durasticly as this, it takes a push, and we as human beings gave that push.

whether you like him or not, Al Gore had a great representation of this showing the fluctuation of heat naturally (i.e. post ice age) and the rise in heat now, and the difference is staggering

[Grif]

I think we may be accelerating the cycle of climate shift.

I think what really is important that we start improving our negative output on the Earth. Reasons are immaterial, they could be simply that you prefer not breathing in smog or that you think your saving the planet. It's like when people started trying to find out whose fault the Katrina disaster instead of doing something about it. We can all agree that we are polluting and that it would be better if we don't, can't we just agree to do something about it instead of debating over why we are doing it?

[Ean-a Taronyu]

I have the highest belief that global warming is real, a large part of it is due to the polutants that we ourselves have introduced into the atmoshpere, the climate does shift but not as durasticly as this, it takes a push, and we as human beings gave that push.

This is true. I'm glad to see that there are at least a few out there who don't believe in some far fetched conspiracy to justify their own wasteful lifestyles.

A lot of people see the temperature outside and go: "This is one of the coldest winters in a long time, global warming is BS" These people never looked at the general trend over a longer length of time which is still pointing upwards.

[Einherjar]

It is most likely a natural process that we are speeding up with our CO2, CH4 emissions.

And in the long run our wasteful western lifestyle can not in any way be good for the earth. So if telling the population that we are the caus of GW and making restrictions will help the earth. But making restrictions will just slow down the process, we cant live 100% green, we will always pollute alittlebit.

Im also concerned that things happen so slowly, like "we will reduce our CO2 emissions by 10% over the next 20 years" - imo things should be made alittle faster.

[Meerkat]

We'll be able to live without pollution. We've been doing it for 10,000 years+; we can do it now.

[~ViperSB1~]

In debate to the thread title... YES WE ARE! :)

[AvatarSkeptic]

Dude... it's not called "Global Warming" anymore, it's called "Climate Change," and it is happening. Get your science straight. Here's Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)

[SmackDeuce]

Really, I think all this chatter about the subject is more about getting people to understand waste and conservation. I think that's the underlying truth that nobody is really seeing.

This is an element of that.

We have been talking about the issue for some time. There IS evidence of ice shelves melting and things related, that much is fact. There is not enough in even science to see that there are things going on.

The thing is everything that we are seeing up this point on a lot of issue are all new.

Look at technology; there are always new findings or evidence of something, somewhere, some place. There isn't enough time to even let nature do it's thing and let us see the reaction of something first.

The truth is, we really don't know. Also, we won't know, so long as we keep finding new things to worry about in science everyday. We have to treat earth like a time capsule and let things have time to naturally come about as they should.

Believe it or not negative and positive changes are going to happen, no matter what.

The earth going to be here Looooong after we are gone and waste is our biggest problem. Technology only seems to find a way to hide things and make things easier for us to treat. We produce chemicals that we use everyday and have no real idea as to what the reaction time is, because we use that tech we think double negatively, thinking it's OK when it just might not be.

Things are so close to instant and real time, technologically, that we are using computers to fix our everyday problems.

We should worry when we get to an age where computers fix computers, the robot age. An age, where humans begin to mean less and less next to things like automation. Which is something even more scary. Sounds weird, but it takes energy to do even replies like this, sending emails, cisco and it's so called Human Network, etc.

There is a level of control going on, but I don't think people's heads are in the right place. We are thinking about things like Global Warming.

I think there is even more to it and we won't see it, until it hits.

[Elyannia]

Dude... it's not called "Global Warming" anymore, it's called "Climate Change," and it is happening. Get your science straight. Here's Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)

This seems...harsh

[Einherjar]

How much is it that the sea level would rise of the pilarices would melt?

[Kenny]

MUST WATCH
YouTube- George Carlin on Global Warming

[Jay]

Does anyone disagree with the fact that the Earth has been warming and cooling naturally for billions of years?

Does anyone disagree that pollution (chemical, nuclear, household, industrial) has negative effects on the planet?

Great! We’re all on the same page now :rotfl:

So, what are we going to do about it?

[Kenny]

Jay, watch that video all the way through :D

[Jay]

Jay, watch that video all the way through :D

Yeah, I've seen this video before. It's funny, but I would like to be a little more... proactive than that! LOL

[Jamza]

I am with most of you on the fact that Climate Change is not man made due to the fact it has happend many times before, and the notion that its being used as a distraction is believable, its been proven that governments have used distraction techniques before, who says they still don't.

When I say I am against man-made Climate Change, many people get angry saying we all need to cut down on pollution and emissions, but I am in complete agreement that we do need to cut down on emissions and pollution, that we should be much more respectful of our planet. This confuses most people somehow the notion of being against man-made climate change but want to emit less.

Also, the thing that annoys me most is people saying the Ice Caps will melt, yes I agree they are, but I personally doubt that sea levels will rise. 1) Because each time the ice caps have melted there hasn't really been an increase 2) Its a simple Archimedes Principle that the Mass of fluid displaced by an object is equal to the mass of the object displacing the fluid, like the level of water in a glass will not changes if you let an ice cube melt. Same thing applies to the ice caps melting, think of the ocean as the glass of water and the ice caps as the ice cube, when they melt the same thing happens, they wont rise. They teach that in Standard Grade/GCSE so most people in the UK have been taught it, shame not many remember it.

[Einherjar]

well alot of ice is placed above the sea, or most importantly on mountaits (glaciers) and lets not forget that the ice of Antarctica is acctualy resting on a continent.

[ftx]

I believe that noone knows and noone can be certain what % of man-made pollution accounts for climate change or global warming. It can be true or not.

What can be true however is both : earth may indeed well be in a "natural" warming peak in its cycle but it may also be that man's pollution will add to it and make it even worse.

We do know we're polluting and whether or not there is this climate change or global warming : doing something about it to lessen the bad effects of pollution is really something we need to react about.

[Fkeu'itan]

I believe we're not the cause, but we're sure as hell not doing anything to help it.

[Shatnerpossum]

Regardless of whether or not global warming is manmade, we should be going green. Its better for a plethora of reasons.

[Aquaplant]

Oh boy.. Get them tinfoil hats before the Illuminati can read your thoughts.

Not to take any part in the charade that has become the debate regarding global warming, but come on, this is getting ridiculous.

Why would anyone purposefully lie about something like that? I mean if it were like "You must pay X amount for producing greenhouse gasses" or whatever it would bloody obviously be a scam. But there aren't any demands or fines put around on normal people, so why in the world would these people go through all the trouble of setting up elaborate scheme, when they have nothing to gain from it.

Of course this is all pointless speculation, since there's no way anyone could know all the facts involved in the complex modern society. Sure they could make a deal with gasoline companies to increase prices at the moral of global warming or whatnot, and get their share of the profits.

However I really don't give a damn, because I would go permanently insane if I would start think about all the worst possible ways of being fooled at any given instance. I rather at least try to believe, that there is some human decency left in our society, that you don't get dagger in your back the moment you stop looking over your shoulder.

[TheWordlessPhilosopher]

Oh boy.. Get them tinfoil hats before the Illuminati can read your thoughts.

Not to take any part in the charade that has become the debate regarding global warming, but come on, this is getting ridiculous.

Why would anyone purposefully lie about something like that? I mean if it were like "You must pay X amount for producing greenhouse gasses" or whatever it would bloody obviously be a scam. But there aren't any demands or fines put around on normal people, so why in the world would these people go through all the trouble of setting up elaborate scheme, when they have nothing to gain from it.

Of course this is all pointless speculation, since there's no way anyone could know all the facts involved in the complex modern society. Sure they could make a deal with gasoline companies to increase prices at the moral of global warming or whatnot, and get their share of the profits.

However I really don't give a damn, because I would go permanently insane if I would start think about all the worst possible ways of being fooled at any given instance. I rather at least try to believe, that there is some human decency left in our society, that you don't get dagger in your back the moment you stop looking over your shoulder.

Interesting thoughts but if the people before us weren't speaking in such a way would it lend more credence to the argument that Global Warming may indeed be fake?

These types of plans are highly complex with people who can "shake things up" so to speak, so i can understand why some people distrust the notion that man is responsible for global warming, its not to far fetched honestly.

Why would they want to do this? Well micromanaging the worlds resources would be a pursuit, If a committee sets limits on industrialization/production of goods its taking away all power of the worker and its union.

We are being blamed for bloated Capitalism and the hazards it creates, well industry goes into maximum to fix the losses. The sad thing is people actually think we are the problem well the real people who do damage to the earth pass out hush money, its all big business, and maybe a bigger frontier to exploit if such green laws were placed.

But you know what? I don't think it will pass anytime soon. The day we accept to pay for farts is the day Mexican bean shops open up in a massive protest.

[Prometheus]

Here's a question for you all...How many of you actually understand the science behind global climate??

Do any of you understand how GCM's (Global Climate Models) are calculated and modeled??

Do you know how the atmosphere works both on a regional and global level??

Do you know about the ocean/atmosphere interface and how heat is conducted between both media??

Do you know about how the Sun affects climate and drives periodic changes in global circulation patterns??

Do you know why CO2 input heats up the atmosphere, and why water vapour and other greenhouse gases are even more important, but also why creating an imbalance can cause problems

Do you understand the Carbon Cycle and other natural cycles which help regulate both life, hydrology, geology and climate??

Do you understand the impact of man on the surface of this planet...not only to the natural environment but also to his own??

Do you understand how climate/weather measurements are taken and what exactly is being measured??

Do you understand how palaeoclimates are derived and how they relate to our present??

That's just for starters....

If you don't then it's understandable that you can't make up your minds as to whether global warming is happening or not. It's a hard enough job for those that do know these things, but when they say that something is happening and that we have a role in it happening, then you just don't dismiss it out of hand because you don't agree with it. You need to be able to understand all that I have mentioned in order to have a truly considered opinion. Otherwise you're just operating on speculation and misinformation.

That's why there's such a huge debate and so much confusion within the public.

[navifox]

I agree with you Prometheus. So many people have a view on this but don't understand the complicated science behind it (I'm guilty as well). However, I'd believe the scientists before the politicians ANY DAY. Through time scientist have been mocked & ridiculed when what they say threatens people's beliefs or profits, and in some instances even killed. The scientists have absolutely no reason to lie, what would be their impetus? I have read a lot on this subject and I believe that Global Warming and Climate Change are being impacted exponentially by humans in one way or the other. Yes, as many have said - this has occurred throughout the earths history naturally, but at this time our collective carbon footprint is huge and definitely has played a factor - the data shows this. Living sustainably can totally help and I believe that if everyone does even a little it will help a lot. Together we can save the planet but not if we are divided.

[Prometheus]

The scientists have absolutely no reason to lie, what would be their impetus?

They're just as human as anyone else. Unfortunately, where governmental and industrial grants and support are concerned, scientist can be just as mercenary about getting their hands on money as anyone else. That includes falsifying information, withholding information and results, decrying other scientists and trying to wreck academic careers...the list can go on. It's happened in the climate debate as well as other fields of science. However, for the most part, scientist are honest and reliable people when it comes to their work, and most are very ethical people. It's just when money, influence and power come into play there are some who are less than scrupulous. Case in point would be the controversy over cold fusion. That was a complete and utter debacle. There's still legal, financial and ethical ramifications coming out of that mess. As well as a shake up of academia and how it performs as a whole.

[Spartan Tickler]

No matter if Global Warming is our fault or not, or if it can be proven to be real(I personally do,I'm just playing the devil's advocate here). We still need to take action before it's too late, once we go over that threshhold it will take much greater investments of time.money and effort to reverse something that could be remedied much easier right now.

I myself feel ashamed of our government and opposition in Australia, apparently we are waiting to see what China and India do first but really it comes down to this, someone has to make the first move, I'm not talking about a 5% reduction which has been put forward by us I'm talking about serious cuts, 40% and above. If the entire Western world sits on our hands for another decade like it has already we are really going to be up **** creek without a paddle.

[Prometheus]

No matter if Global Warming is our fault or not, or if it can be proven to be real(I personally do,I'm just playing the devil's advocate here). We still need to take action before it's too late, once we go over that threshhold it will take much greater investments of time.money and effort to reverse something that could be remedied much easier right now.

I myself feel ashamed of our government and opposition in Australia, apparently we are waiting to see what China and India do first but really it comes down to this, someone has to make the first move, I'm not talking about a 5% reduction which has been put forward by us I'm talking about serious cuts, 40% and above. If the entire Western world sits on our hands for another decade like it has already we are really going to be up **** creek without a paddle.

Totally agree with you...it's better to be safe rather than sorry afterwards. If we don't do something now to reign everything in, the cost later on to remedy the situation is going to be too high to afford...and not just on a monetary basis.

Rudd and Co are no better than any of the other jokers in Parliament. They talk great deeds and such but in the end they're only in there for themselves. Only for the fact that it's a serious problem, they'd just ignore it in the hope that it'd go away. They're all frightened that if they upset the big business in Oz that they'll lose their seats at the next election..and they will if they do that. But what they don't want to see and they know for a fact, is that if they don't do what has to be done, they'll lose a lot more than their seats in parliament. But like all pollies, they'll just pass the buck onto some other poor fool who will have to do all the hard work in the future. "Nah, not my problem. She'll be right, mate. We'll fix it later".

They make me sick...all of them.

[Palulukan]

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2010/01/177.gif

[Inny Binny]

It seems to be a widely believed untruth that global warming skeptics think that global warming is a scam. That skeptics think global warming is made-up.

This is not true. The position of the skeptic is that the science is not settled. That we simply do not know if this current period of climate change is largely anthropogenic or not. They do not think it to be a political hoax to garner money - merely a scientific puzzle that has not been solved.

It also seems to be a widely believed untruth that skeptics deny the following:

- The earth has warmed over the last few decades
- Carbon emissions cause a greenhouse effect
- Humans are causing some amount of warming

These are all clearly true, and skeptics know that. The earth has warmed. Carbon emissions do cause a warming effect. Humans are emitting carbon, which causes warming.

No, it is the degree to which these are happening. It is possible feedbacks that could add complexities to the system. The climate is a very complex system, skeptics say. Complex enough that our supercomputers are not yet powerful enough to model it. Complex enough that we couldn't insert the formulae due to lack of knowledge, even if they were. And this is also an undeniable fact, otherwise there would be no debate right now.

I am a global warming skeptic, and I don't have a clue as to whether anthropogenic global warming on a significant and dangerous scale is a reality or not. And if you feel fairly certain on the issue either way, you have not looked hard enough at the merits of the other side's arguments.

Someone asked why we don't take action now. They said that even if it turned out to be wrong, there's no harm done, right? Cutting emissions can only be a good thing.

Well, there is something that could, and would go wrong if we started forcibly cutting emissions. The economy. The scale of the project is such that it would cost an incredible amount to not just the government, but to the companies who rely on carbon emissions to run their processes.

A blanket cut is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Why not get the government to invest a little more in some R&D? For solar power or for emissionless transport? It is only a fraction of the cost, advances scientific discovery, and reaches the same goal!

I am all for reducing emissions indirectly. I'm all for alternative power. Because all that pollution being pumped into the cities is nasty. Take a look at Beijing, take a look at London. And solar IS better. It won't run out, has higher efficiency and can run the entire world.

But because global warming is such a hot topic at the moment, government bodies are focusing on the quickest way to cut emissions. And this I have the problem with. The science is not settled. It is entirely up in the air. We should be developing alternative technology for the sake of having better technology, and for the sake of reaching targets that are set in stone. Not for trying to reach a goal that we are not sure even needs to be reached, as this just creates excessive cost and bloat to the whole thing that can cause severe detriment to both the economy, and the companies residing within it. And we all know what happens when the economy struggles - people struggle.

-----

I'm quite surprised there's even a debate about this on an Avatar forum. I would have thought the whole place would have been sure AGW is a certified fact! :p

[Shatnerpossum]

Here's a question for you all...How many of you actually understand the science behind global climate??

Do any of you understand how GCM's (Global Climate Models) are calculated and modeled??

Do you know how the atmosphere works both on a regional and global level??

Do you know about the ocean/atmosphere interface and how heat is conducted between both media??

Do you know about how the Sun affects climate and drives periodic changes in global circulation patterns??

Do you know why CO2 input heats up the atmosphere, and why water vapour and other greenhouse gases are even more important, but also why creating an imbalance can cause problems

Do you understand the Carbon Cycle and other natural cycles which help regulate both life, hydrology, geology and climate??

Do you understand the impact of man on the surface of this planet...not only to the natural environment but also to his own??

Do you understand how climate/weather measurements are taken and what exactly is being measured??

Do you understand how palaeoclimates are derived and how they relate to our present??

That's just for starters....

If you don't then it's understandable that you can't make up your minds as to whether global warming is happening or not. It's a hard enough job for those that do know these things, but when they say that something is happening and that we have a role in it happening, then you just don't dismiss it out of hand because you don't agree with it. You need to be able to understand all that I have mentioned in order to have a truly considered opinion. Otherwise you're just operating on speculation and misinformation.

That's why there's such a huge debate and so much confusion within the public.

I'm familiar with some basics, but I make no claim to be am expert.

I do know them however. A good friend is a scientist with NASA.

[Prometheus]

Sorry for not quoting your whole post, Inny Binny. but I just wanted to concentrate on one section I was interested in replying to (not that the rest wasn't)...


Someone asked why we don't take action now. They said that even if it turned out to be wrong, there's no harm done, right? Cutting emissions can only be a good thing.

Well, there is something that could, and would go wrong if we started forcibly cutting emissions. The economy. The scale of the project is such that it would cost an incredible amount to not just the government, but to the companies who rely on carbon emissions to run their processes.

A blanket cut is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Why not get the government to invest a little more in some R&D? For solar power or for emissionless transport? It is only a fraction of the cost, advances scientific discovery, and reaches the same goal!

I am all for reducing emissions indirectly. I'm all for alternative power. Because all that pollution being pumped into the cities is nasty. Take a look at Beijing, take a look at London. And solar IS better. It won't run out, has higher efficiency and can run the entire world.

Action should be taken now to reduce emissions. However, to cut out industries completely in the short term that emit CO2 is not feasible, nor should it be done. Why?? Because it will take time, in any case, to do so. It is going to take at least 20-30 years to phase out all coal burning powerplants and replace them with reliable other sources of energy. Maybe even longer in some cases...50 years. This will get rid of them as soon as we can without putting a too large a burden onto the society as a whole. People have to think...if you try to phase out these powerplants immediately, the societal cost will be enormous. It would cause more problems than it solved and would most certainly cut the rug out from any program of change you wanted to engender. That would be guaranteed to happen. Any industry as large as these which emits CO2 will have to be treated according to their make up and function. Some can be phased out quicker than others. But all this must be done sensibly. In the meantime, what we have to do is ensure we have alternative technologies which can replace these old style plants and the economies associated with them. Also, make sure no more of the old style plants are built again. With the other industries reliant on using processes which emit CO2, we have to find new ways to power them, with as little emissions as possible. Some industries may fall by the wayside and that will just be it. Some may be redeemable, but others won't be. But new industries will arise and this will take time as well.

What is urgently need is massive R & D funding to find new sources of energy and to advance the alternative sources we can tap into now. Solar energy production, as it stands, will not be efficient enough to power our societies. Solar cells just aren't efficient enough at capturing the solar energy required to do so at present. Most have efficiency ratings of between 10 to 25%, which maybe OK for a house (even there it's not terribly good) but not for peak power generation and industry. You will need efficiencies of up to 75% or more of light captured in order to get the power needed. Then you also have the problem of power storage...current technology is woefully inadequate. This one area that really need the research done to get things going right. Even solar furnaces aren't particularly efficient at storing the captured energy for power generation, but they can be used as generators of power for some industries.

Much more money should be poured into research into both forms of fusion power generation...cold and hot. Also more exotic forms of energy generation such as matter/antimatter and zero point energy should be investigated more thoroughly.

I could talk about wind generation and such, but that will take too long and take up a lot of room here.

As for cars and such. We've had the capability to use water as a fuel for 50 years, and yet nothing has been done about it. Same with hydrogen, although more has been done with that in the last 20 or so years. One thing you may not know and will be surprised to hear, is that the internal combustion engine almost never got its start. When they first came out, over 100 years ago, electric cars were also debuting and if it was not for the fact that the battery technology wasn't so good and the oil companies pressured the governments and car manufacturers into using internal combustion, our cars may have been clean almost right from the start. Once they started to produce petroleum for dirt cheap prices and deliberately stifled research into electric motor and battery power storage technology, that was it. The oil and car companies went hand in hand from then on. People even then knew the oil companies and such were grand manipulators and that whilst the internal combustion engine would turn out reliable, it had major problems...namely pollution. The oil companies (or should I say company, Standard Oil, which was the industry at the time...Exxon and all them are offshoots of Standard Oil) knew what they were doing and couldn't care less, just so they made a profit.

What we now need is a lot of R&D done on hydrogen fuel cell technology and other technologies. Some that have a shorter lead time, like hydrogen and modern electric cars, should be brought into production and the internal combustion engine phased out as soon as possible. The more exotic forms of motive power, such as gravitomagnetic motors and maglev technology will take some time to research and perfect. But I can't see why they couldn't be fully introduced within 30-50 years at the very latest.

Well, that's about it for now. I'll let someone else have a say. Over to you:nsmile:

[Nibiru]

Global warming is normal.
Why?......

1.we were in the ice age (Global Freezing)
2. we are heading into the Heating stage(Global Warming).
3. i thousands of years more we are going in the Ice Age Again.

[OMEGA]

Sure it's not totaly our fault but from the last 30 or so years we sure haven't helped in any way.

[Scott]

Rome was not one of mankind's first cities, I believe that distinction belongs to Jericho. Also, prior to recording our history, we just don't know when true war first reared it's ugly head. But killing, well there is evidence that homosapiens were killing Neanderthal man.

As to global warming, I am no scientist, but I cant help but look at all the exhaust just our cars pump out everyday and think were doing terrible things to our planet.

[Prometheus]

Rome was not one of mankind's first cities, I believe that distinction belongs to Jericho. Also, prior to recording our history, we just don't know when true war first reared it's ugly head. But killing, well there is evidence that homosapiens were killing Neanderthal man.

As to global warming, I am no scientist, but I cant help but look at all the exhaust just our cars pump out everyday and think were doing terrible things to our planet.

Jericho is one of the oldest....there are a couple of other around the same age....Catal Huyuk, Harappa, Benares and a new one they just found....can't remember the name, but it's older than the others, including Jericho.

[Shatnerpossum]

Jericho is one of the oldest....there are a couple of other around the same age....Catal Huyuk, Harappa, Benares and a new one they just found....can't remember the name, but it's older than the others, including Jericho.

Most Sumerian cities take the cake for oldest. Like Eridu, Ur, or Akkad.

[Prometheus]

Most Sumerian cities take the cake for oldest. Like Eridu, Ur, or Akkad.

Catal Huyuk was already old by the time those cities were founded, and Jericho is a good 2000 years older still. Now they've found an even older site in Turkey (I think it's in)...I'll have to go find the name of it again, but it's up to 4000 years older than Jericho!!!

Actually, Catal Huyuk was already abandoned by the time the earliest of those other cities (Eridu) was founded....had been for over 400 years. At its height, there were 10000 people living there.

[Shatnerpossum]

Catal Huyuk was already old by the time those cities were founded, and Jericho is a good 2000 years older still. Now they've found an even older site in Turkey (I think it's in)...I'll have to go find the name of it again, but it's up to 4000 years older than Jericho!!!

Actually, Catal Huyuk was already abandoned by the time the earliest of those other cities (Eridu) was founded....had been for over 400 years. At its height, there were 10000 people living there.

In the middle east the first cities rose up in Mesopotamia. I think the key is to differentiate between settlement and city. There might have been settlements all over, but full scale cities with everything that entails? I'm not so certain since I've never heard of Catal Huyuk mentioned by any historian.

Mesopotamia is still the cradle of civilization.

[Chococat]

It's not the fact that it's happened before, it is the rate at which it is happening. A rate that is so swift that animals and nature cannot adapt.

CO2 does contribute to the degradation of the ozone layer, that cannot be denied. As does the destruction of forests and other plant life that naturally filter C02, and that cannot be denied.

The corporations and politicians that want people to believe that Global Warming is a "sham" do so because it messes with their bottom line. Oil and coal consumption as it is, is terrible for the environment, do you think these companies that earn billions of dollars every quarter give a crap about the environment or the welfare of future people? I think not.

[Prometheus]

In the middle east the first cities rose up in Mesopotamia. I think the key is to differentiate between settlement and city. There might have been settlements all over, but full scale cities with everything that entails? I'm not so certain since I've never heard of Catal Huyuk mentioned by any historian.

Mesopotamia is still the cradle of civilization.

How big were Eridu and such....2000 to 10000 people.

I think you need to go and reread your history. Catal Huyuk is well known. Eridu and the others were in the far future when Catal Huyuk was a thriving centre of 6000-10000 people.

Jericho would make Eridu and the others look like a new housing development :p :)

Eridu, which is the earliest of the settled towns in Mesopotamia dates back to about 5400BC....Catal Huyuk dates back to about 7500BC. Jericho to 9000BC.

[Shatnerpossum]

How big were Eridu and such....2000 to 10000 people.

I think you need to go and reread your history. Catal Huyuk is well known. Eridu and the others were in the far future when Catal Huyuk was a thriving centre of 6000-10000 people.

Jericho would make Eridu and the others look like a new housing development :p :)

Eridu, which is the earliest of the settled towns in Mesopotamia dates back to about 5400BC....Catal Huyuk dates back to about 7500BC. Jericho to 9000BC.

Strange considering I've never heard of these places mentioned in any history course I've taken. Who told you about it?

[Prometheus]

Strange considering I've never heard of these places mentioned in any history course I've taken. Who told you about it?

What course in history have you taken??

I've known about the archaeology of Catal Huyuk and quite a few other places for years. Type the name into Google, that'll tell you a bit about it for a start.

[Shatnerpossum]

In high school I took AP World. No mention in the course or the textbook.

In college I've taken two courses on Asian history, never a mention.

So when you brought it up it was new to me. Where did you first learn about it?

[Prometheus]

I first learnt about Catal Huyuk more than 20 years ago. Reading about Middle Eastern history in a journal paper and the name came up...so I did a bit of research and found out about it. At that time, they weren't do too much with it, but since then they've really done some good work on the site. So I've kept up with some of the work being done there.

It's been a known archaeological site for about 50 years.

Many of your textbooks are woefully out of date, as are many of the courses you take. Even science courses at uni don't keep up with the latest, unless you go to an university that is on the cutting edge of your field (which I was lucky enough to have done so...as a geologist).

I also like archaeology/history, so I try to keep abreast of what's happening, when I can.

[Shatnerpossum]

I first learnt about Catal Huyuk more than 20 years ago. Reading about Middle Eastern history in a journal paper and the name came up...so I did a bit of research and found out about it. At that time, they weren't do too much with it, but since then they've really done some good work on the site. So I've kept up with some of the work being done there.

It's been a known archaeological site for about 50 years.

Many of your textbooks are woefully out of date, as are many of the courses you take. Even science courses at uni don't keep up with the latest, unless you go to an university that is on the cutting edge of your field (which I was lucky enough to have done so...as a geologist).

I also like archaeology/history, so I try to keep abreast of what's happening, when I can.

Well, my texts are under 20 years old. So it seems more like being intentionally left out than being outdated.

Georgetown isn't a bad school for history either.

[Prometheus]

Well, my texts are under 20 years old. So it seems more like being intentionally left out than being outdated.

Georgetown isn't a bad school for history either.

There's texts which are only a few years old that are missing info...it really all depends on the "world view" of those that write them. What they specialise in and what they actually believe. Unfortunately, it's not all for the sake of knowledge. There's a lot of politics that goes into textbooks, or can be.

[ToKatz]

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2010/02/361.jpg
This is a diagram of a certain Oxygen-isotope's concentration in earth atmosphere for the last 500 million years.
The "Zero" on the y axis seems to be the median over all that time, and every digit up or down relates to approximately 1.5 degrees (C) of earth's temperature.
You can see that we are right now still somewhere around 3 degrees (Celsius!) below average.
You may notice that along the x axis they show when one or both poles had ice on them (the blue boxes, the lighter one is there because in that time due to continental shift there were no ice caps, when there should have been). You may notice further that more often both poles were free of ice.

If this diagram is correct (and that is what i dont know), we should at least see that ice-free poles are quite normal.
I do not deny the possibility of this diagram being wrong, or that humans can influence climate.
I just say that big changes in temperature and sea-level will happen anyway (accelerated by us or not), and that we should think about coping with them, e.g. by protecting people (or allow them to resettle) living in coastal regions, changing crops, and such.
Blowing exhaust gases into the atmosphere in big numbers is a silly idea, though. Climate changing or not.

[ToKatz]

About Prometheus' remark about textbooks:
Seems hard to believe, but i know that to be true.
Here in Germany every schoolbook goes through a lot of departments in the government - not only the educational, but the military, economic and diplomatic parts too. And i know of some of the changes that are made - mostly omit parts, some times demanding them to be rewritten...

[Shatnerpossum]

There's texts which are only a few years old that are missing info...it really all depends on the "world view" of those that write them. What they specialise in and what they actually believe. Unfortunately, it's not all for the sake of knowledge. There's a lot of politics that goes into textbooks, or can be.

Thats a sensible explanation.

[Prometheus]

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2010/02/361.jpg
This is a diagram of a certain Oxygen-isotope's concentration in earth atmosphere for the last 500 million years.
The "Zero" on the y axis seems to be the median over all that time, and every digit up or down relates to approximately 1.5 degrees (C) of earth's temperature.
You can see that we are right now still somewhere around 3 degrees (Celsius!) below average.
You may notice that along the x axis they show when one or both poles had ice on them (the blue boxes, the lighter one is there because in that time due to continental shift there were no ice caps, when there should have been). You may notice further that more often both poles were free of ice.

If this diagram is correct (and that is what i dont know), we should at least see that ice-free poles are quite normal.
I do not deny the possibility of this diagram being wrong, or that humans can influence climate.
I just say that big changes in temperature and sea-level will happen anyway (accelerated by us or not), and that we should think about coping with them, e.g. by protecting people (or allow them to resettle) living in coastal regions, changing crops, and such.
Blowing exhaust gases into the atmosphere in big numbers is a silly idea, though. Climate changing or not.

That graph is pretty much accurate. What's even more telling is the atmospheric CO2 content and temperature for the last 600Ma.

Global CO2 Levels and Temperature Over Geological Time

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2010/02/29.gif

Click on the image to see it properly (with the values on the graph being visible)

Today's present CO2 level (380-400ppm) is one of the lowest levels it's ever been in the history of our planet. Global temperatures are also at one of their lowest ever periods. Despite the low levels for most of the Carboniferous Period, it's average ppm of CO2 for the period was 800ppm, nearly 2.5 times what it is at present.

[Forjen]

Most of Global Warming is just made up and the real caus of it is natrual changes. The sham is however a good one. We cannot escape the fact that we effect the enviorment with polutions. Even if much of Global Warming is natural pollutions will have effect on the enviorment and we are destroying the planet we live on just so that we can live a good life and overuse the resources of the earth.

An increasing temperature will be devestating for some animals, plants and for the polar ices that would melt. But we are causing alot of devestation to this planet by our destructive living - and polutions, deforestation, ubran expanding etc will give animals less areas to live in.
And if we destroy nature itself what life has this planet got left?

Global Warming isnt 100% caused by man, but our destructive way of living, espicially we in the west but China and India are starting to increase their pollutions as these countries are expanding very much atm, indrustrially that is. Our pollutioning of the earth better stop before it is too late, before we change the ecosystems too much.
I'm radical but I see only two solutions to the problem:
1 - Start living more primitive, for example like the Na'vi. Live as one with the nature and dont destroy it.
2 - Kill of the entire human race as we have got far to advanced.
Now alternative 1 isnt gonna work as you cant convince billions on people to go back to live like cavemen, and alternative 2... well thats not gonna happen, not entierly but almost.
If natural global warming would melt all the polar ice the sea levels would increase soo much (20 meters or something) that 70% of human homes would be covered with water, thus leaving those who dont drown homeless and they will probably starve to death or something.
If that would happen, mankind would be soo reduced that we would no longer be able to pollute as much. I know we would recover sooner or later but still.

There for I think natural Global Warming could solve the problem of our explotaion of the earths resources.


What I fail to see is why there are still so many people left that actually believe that Global Warming is a Scam. There is enough evidence to show that Humans play an important role in Global warming, although part of it may be natural. It's not like religion where everyone can choose to believe something else because there is no way of telling who is right. I don't see what is gained by those that choose "not to believe" in Global warning except a false sense of not having to lift a finger as it wouldn't make a difference.
Sure, one person achieves little but in our society there's no way a majority of people will start respecting the environment if there are none that even try. "He/She doesn't so why should I?" is the destructive mindset that is to be avoided.
^ these two posts pretty much sums up my views. Technically humans can't "kill" Earth, as anything we take from it will be regained given enough time, for example, the incident at Chernobyl will leave the entire area uninhabitable for tens (or is it hundreds) of thousands of years, but the Earth's got time, it is only us the animals that have such short lives, and so we are short-sighted. Right now it's more of a choice to extend our own time on Earth. If we make the right moves, our race may even survive to see interstellar colonization.

[Wildfeatures]

11 pages =too much to read.

It is pretty easy to see that human activities are, to a large extent, responsible for the recent global warming. We are currently releasing 27 gigatonnes, 27,000,000,000 tonnes, annually. This equates to 137 tonnes/square mile worldwide. Of course it is going to have an effect.

It can also be seen by looking at the isotops of Carbon. The ratio of carbon-12, -13 and -14 are quite different when comparing atmospheric CO2 with the CO2 released from burning forests and fossil fuels. Therefore, it is clearly shown that the change in CO2 levels is largely attributed to human factors.

Here is an article about it.
RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/)

And yes, natural causes have/are/will occur affecting the Earth's climate. Those effects are taking place more slowly though, typically. To attribute the current global warming phenomena to either natural or anthropogenic causes is not valid science. It is a mix of the two.

[TheAsatruar]

I was a believer in man made global warming until the hack that lead to the climategate scandal, and then the emerging facts that some of the advisors on climate change had links to carbon trading companies.

The Copenhagen summit was also a concern for me. Ban Ki-moon was going on about global governance (what does that have to do with climte change) and the introduction of global taxes with the introduction of 500 new bodies to the UN for climate change which these taxes would then fund.

To me the summit wasn't about climate change at all. I didn't hear about plans to deal with displaced populations, how to secure the rainforests and over endangered habitats, how to get clean technologies intoduced quickly and so on.

Also in the UK there seems to be more and more dodgy data coming to light every month.

Right now i don't know what to believe. All i know is man made or not, if a city gets flooded, it gets flooded and we need to prevent that no matter who caused it.

[sunnyside]

Wow. This has been an interesting thread to read (despite that fact that I'm probably arriving shortly after everyone has gooten tired of it and it's about to die).

I'd have figured that because this is an Avatar forum belief in the horrers of man made climate change would have been nearly universal.

However I tried keeping a tally as I went through the thread, and, by a narrow margine, most either don't believe in AGW or otherwise don't really support the CO2 cuts.

Anyway if you'd like more info, I like the EPA's website as they have a reasonable "state of knowledge" section.

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html)

Most sites you could visit on the subject tend to blend the known, the poorly analyzed, and the speculative aspects of the issue together.

Personally I think I'd rather see the massive efforts related to global warming put toward ecological preservation and technological development/loan guarantees.

Right now cutting small percentages off of our industries carbon output is very painful. However if we just got a decent electric car and a fleet of advanced nuclear power plants our emissions would plummet.

[Zapgun]

I too am going to jump in without reading everything, mostly because you had me until you used the word 'brainwash', then I became totally turned off to your argument.

There is no global warming, it is not the result of human processes, but is a natural cycle that the earth goes through. Simply because we have yet to experiance the full cycle does not in any way mean we are the cause of it. Although I do feel bad for Micronesia.

And on another note, I am hopeful this time around that car manufacturers will finally develop a viable and workable electric car, improving our power distribution infrastructure also would not hurt.

I believe that the current trend is a drift in support of nuclear power.

[Wildfeatures]

There is no global warming, it is not the result of human processes, but is a natural cycle that the earth goes through. Simply because we have yet to experiance the full cycle does not in any way mean we are the cause of it. Although I do feel bad for Micronesia.

And on another note, I am hopeful this time around that car manufacturers will finally develop a viable and workable electric car, improving our power distribution infrastructure also would not hurt.

I believe that the current trend is a drift in support of nuclear power.

Claim 1. There is no global warming.

Claim 2. It is not the result of human processes.

Claim 3. It is the result of natural cycle.

Right there it tells me that you haven't thought this throw.

[Olaf]

So far I have noticed is that people believing in conspiracy sites are people having the first signs of some psychic problems that will surface sooner or later. Conspiracy sites is like a drug, you get addicted to them and without knowing you are killing your social life, your girlfriends leaves you and people laugh at you because you are so weird.



The other conspiracy promoters are actually smart people. They do it for the power, to get stupid followers that would believe anything you invent. You can charge tem big money to buy your nook and have additional secret information. The believers are in a sect without realizing that they are part of a sect.
So if you are one of these anti global warmists, stay away for 1 month or so from any conspiracy site and notice how addicted you are.



The funny thing is that the real conspiracy is the conspiracy itself. The conspiracy is to make people believe that global warming is false and people fall for this joke. The conspiracy is that the anti global warmists leaders want to sell their books and suck you dry from your money.

[Navi]

Im skeptical about enchanted global warming. Without global warming we could not live on this planet, however, humans make this global warming worse. At least, thats the theory.

But I agree 100% with this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Even if the change is less then 1% on planet earth getting totally screwed by the cause humans, we should go green.

Im actually going to study environmental science next year :party:

[Snark]

Meh. Scientists tell me global warming is real, and that we're the cause of it. I don't know about you guys, but I'm gonna trust the dudes in labcoats whose jobs are to understand this crap.

[Olaf]

There is no doubt global warming is busy and humans are causing it.
All claims that it is not happenng follows the typical conspiraty craziness and gets debunked easily.

BUT assuming that humans do not cause it (The sun is clearly not the cause and this is scientific fact because they measured the solar radiation output on many different wavelengths and it stays constant).
Asume that some unknow source is heating up the earths.

Does this mean that we can sit back and do nothing?
Does it not mean that humanity is doomed and that we have no control over it?
Does it mean that we can keep on emitting exhaust in pour cities?

Of course not! it does not matter it is human cause or not, the fact is that we can control it by reducing our emissions. And revert this planet back to the green planet with forrests and clean air and clean water.

Basically the anti global warmist want to make this planet into an polluted, poisiness world with all living wilde life killed. They don't care about clear air, they don't want clean water, they don't want green forrests, they want to drive their polluting SUV and build more coal plants to get more power.

You must realize one thing. Bad people will misuse global warming to get more taxes or con artists will try to get your money using global warming.

[Olaf]

You have to realize that any conspiracy theorist has to uphold his story to the very end, and invent new stuff. Because if people start to realize that they have been lied to by a conspiracy theorist, they would hang him to the highest tree.

So once you become a conspiracy theorist and start to promote the conspiracy, there is no road back. Admitying that you are wrong or misguided will put you into serious troubles. For most people starting to believe a conspiracy means the same thing as a drugs addict, it kills of your relationship, you lose your friends and people start to laught at you. It is a trap.

[Migg3006]

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2010/01/177.gif

I know a little bit about the global warming and about what I know, this graph is fake. It have been modify to make us believe that the CO2 was the first cause of the global warming, in truth the CO2 effect on the global warming is less then 1% of all green hose gas, I thing I don't remember precisely.
In real, it is the rise of the temperature who make rise the CO2 level in the atmosphere. What is appending is exactly the same when you open a Coke bottle, when you let get it warm the CO2 is release of the drink. When the Earth get colder the water absorb the CO2 and release it when it come hotter.
What we see on that graphic is good but the CO2 curve have been slided to fit with the other curve, but it suppose to have approximately 800 years of difference between the 2 curves.

And the a cause of the global warming, research from the physicist, who have never be listening. The comics ray are the have an large effect on the global warming.

If there have patient people who like read and who know a little in physic, there a link who explain what research is presently made at the CERN ( European Organization For Nuclear Research)

WARNING! HIGHT SCIENTIFIC CONTAINMENT
(do not put eyes in front of this radiation output) :
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_proposal.pdf

[Migg3006]

ah if you want there a link to the site of the CERN : CERN - the European Organization for Nuclear Research (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/Welcome.html)

And watch out, this is a hight scientific containment to.

[Olaf]

And the general cause of the global warming, research from the physicist, who have never be listening. The comics ray are the first cause of the global warming.
Come on people! This is BS and you know it!

So you cliam, let's pollute this world, pollute the air, water and distroy all forrests since global warming is caused by cosmic rays and we are not responsible for it? Let people drive more SUV's?

[Migg3006]

Come on people! This is BS and you know it!

So you cliam, let's pollute this world, pollute the air, water and distroy all forrests since global warming is caused by cosmic rays and we are not responsible for it? Let people drive more SUV's?

Yo dude calm down, I never mean the Human is not destroying his own world, I am perfectly in agreement whit that fact, what I was saying is the CO2 is not the cause of the global warming. If you want argue with me go read the link I have post. This is a true experiment who is lead by the CERN and don't know any organization who can contradict the CERN.

[Olaf]

WARNING! HIGHT SCIENTIFIC CONTAINMENT
(do not put eyes in front of this radiation output) :
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_proposal.pdf

Yes I know this scientific paper.
Cosmic rays can add in the formation of the clouds.

BUT cosmic rays have been CONSTANT over hundreds of years so there is ZERO relationship with global warming.

And aparently you are afraid of scientific reading? Why?

[Migg3006]

Yes I know this scientific paper.
Cosmic rays can add in the formation of the clouds.

BUT cosmic rays have been CONSTANT over hundreds of years so there is ZERO relationship with global warming.

And aparently you are afraid of scientific reading? Why?

OO I am not afraid by scientific paper, I am my self a student in physic and I know it's not all people who like read this paper that's why I put the warning.:nwink:

And sure clouds have a direct influence in the global warming, I don't remember the number, but the water vapour Is a hight reflector, this is what is reflecting or absorbing the most the energy who came from the sun or from the Earth.

[Migg3006]

And watch out, for crazy people, I don't say this is the only cause of the global warming. this is one of a lot of phenomena who related to weather.

[Migg3006]

Yes I know this scientific paper.
Cosmic rays can add in the formation of the clouds.

BUT cosmic rays have been CONSTANT over hundreds of years so there is ZERO relationship with global warming.

And aparently you are afraid of scientific reading? Why?


There is the diagram you can find in the doc I give you the link.

4211

[Olaf]

And watch out, for crazy people, I don't say this is not the only cause of the global warming. this is one of a lot of phenomena who related to weather.
Yes that is it, global warning is a bit more complicated.

It has a natural component and a human component.
This cosmic rays can acording to the paper indeed trigger cloud formation.
The question is this indeed true has been tested by others?

I simplified the "constant" cosmic rays. The rays do change over periods of tens thousands of years depending how the earth moves into differnt regions of space. And once in a while when stars explode. There is indeed a change cause by the solar cycle. The solar wind pushes cosmic rays more or less back.

The annoying thing about AGW is that they stop at the first thing that sounds logoical and ignore all other potential causes that could cause global warming.

One thing I do know, is that if golbal warming has a minimal cause by humans, but we threathned as it were case by humans then we get this bonus that we have green forrests, clean air, pure water and a lot more respect for our planet.

[Olaf]

There is the diagram you can find in the doc I give you the link.

4211

Yes I know, I oversimplified the cosmic ray explanation.
I thought you were a CT nut. :party:

[Migg3006]

Yes that is it, global warning is a bit more complicated.

It has a natural component and a human component.
This cosmic rays can acording to the paper indeed trigger cloud formation.
The question is this indeed true has been tested by others?

I simplified the "constant" cosmic rays. The rays do change over periods of tens thousands of years depending how the earth moves into differnt regions of space. And once in a while when stars explode. There is indeed a change cause by the solar cycle. The solar wind pushes cosmic rays more or less back.

The annoying thing about AGW is that they stop at the first thing that sounds logoical and ignore all other potential causes that could cause global warming.

One thing I do know, is that if golbal warming has a minimal cause by humans, but we threathned as it were case by humans then we get this bonus that we have green forrests, clean air, pure water and a lot more respect for our planet.


I am totally agree with that. Like you say, It's is not directly the cosmic rays it more the sun wind who push or not this rays, so correction, it is the sun radiation activity who are the direct cause of the cloud formation.

[Olaf]

Have you access to the temperature reading of the last 100 years?
There is something interesting to see when you look at average yearly temperatures for each city.

Cities near the westcoast of North and South America for example Vancounver tend to cool down.
Australia some stay constant, but all others raise.

The global warming is pretty complex and hard to measure. For example US and Europe got it very cold but that is cause by the sea current moving direct to greenland. It is a natural phenomena but it complicates things to measure the warning effect.

What I DO know is that any politician out there will misuse it to get more taxes.
Also bad people are will misuse it. There is a story here of some company that solde cheap solar pannels. People had to pay in advance a certain sum and the company dissapears.

[Migg3006]

Have you access to the temperature reading of the last 100 years?
There is something interesting to see when you look at average yearly temperatures for each city.

Cities near the westcoast of North and South America for example Vancounver tend to cool down.
Australia some stay constant, but all others raise.

The global warming is pretty complex and hard to measure. For example US and Europe got it very cold but that is cause by the sea current moving direct to greenland. It is a natural phenomena but it complicates things to measure the warning effect.

What I DO know is that any politician out there will misuse it to get more taxes.
Also bad people are will misuse it. There is a story here of some company that solde cheap solar pannels. People had to pay in advance a certain sum and the company dissapears.

No I dont have access to the temperature reading of the last 100 years, I am not very interested by the science of the global warming, I was knowing the cosmic ray effect only because 1 of my teacher, a Swiss physicist, speak a lot about that.

And yeah, I don't believe in that theories of a conspiracy, but I hear about, the university in Europe who was supposed to recored all the results of the temperature, didn't want to collaborated with any science institute, they never want to give their results. But a lot of countries have pay them for collecting this result. I don't know if that is true but, it sound strange.

[Olaf]

I am totally agree with that. Like you say, It's is not directly the cosmic rays it more the sun wind who push or not this rays, so correction, it is the sun radiation activity who are the direct cause of the cloud formation.

Note I have dyslexia and I am not native English speaking. Sory for typing errors.

I acted a bit too quick, assuming you were a CT.
I had one AGW that claimed that there are more cosmic rays because we are crossing some galatic plane and some other wierd explanations. Astronomy is my area so I did some calculation and we are between 5 and 30 parsecs from the center if I remember correctly then it would take 25.000 of years to cross that plane assuming that we are only 5 parsec away. You would barely notice any cosmic radiation change. This is what I menat constant. Unless you get some gamma ray burst.

The cosmic rays descriped in the document, if tested and turns out to be true will have some component of global warming.

But even if this were to be true, we humans have still some control to slow the global warming a bit down.

[Olaf]

No I dont have access to the temperature reading of the last 100 years, I am not very interested by the science of the global warming, I was knowing the cosmic ray effect only because 1 of my teacher, a Swiss physicist, speak a lot about that.

And yeah, I don't believe in that theories of a conspiracy, but I hear about, the university in Europe who was supposed to recored all the results of the temperature, didn't want to collaborated with any science institute, they never want to give their results. But a lot of countries have pay them for collecting this result. I don't know if that is true but, it sound strange.

If you have access to Wolfram Mathematica you have access to weather data live measured mostly on airports I think. .

But this will do too but miss the possibility to see the statistical curve of all the plot points
Wolfram|Alpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com)

type in "average temperature for last 100 years in Antwerp"

average temperature for last 100 years in Antwerp - Wolfram|Alpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average+temperature+for+last+100+years+in+Antwe rp)

If I were you then I should recheck what your teacher is actually saying.
He might actually believe it to be true, he is human so he might be misguided.
And I have known some professors that actually became CT! Wierd.

Also I do know that many reports in newspapers or made by politicians are not scientifically to be trusted. Some of then are plain wrong. Not because of some CT but becaus the journalist have no clue of science.

And also the "Inconvienient truth film"? Total BS.
If you look at the film you see all the tricks in the book of manipulating people just like a CT would do.
Al Gore used it for his own political gain. He happens to be right just by luck.

Time to sleep for me.

[Wildfeatures]

I know a little bit about the global warming and about what I know, this graph is fake. It have been modify to make us believe that the CO2 was the first cause of the global warming, in truth the CO2 effect on the global warming is less then 1% of all green hose gas, I thing I don't remember precisely.

CO2 stands for 9 - 26% of the total green house effect (the variance in the numbers is due to spectral overlaps with other absorbers. So, no, that is not the truth.



In real, it is the rise of the temperature who make rise the CO2 level in the atmosphere. What is appending is exactly the same when you open a Coke bottle, when you let get it warm the CO2 is release of the drink. When the Earth get colder the water absorb the CO2 and release it when it come hotter.
What we see on that graphic is good but the CO2 curve have been slided to fit with the other curve, but it suppose to have approximately 800 years of difference between the 2 curves.

There is no definitive first and second here - we've seen both situations. Historically there have been some natural forcing such as changes in ocean currents and thereafter albedo, or in incoming solar radiation. The increased temperature has typically released more CO2, and other greenhouse gases, which has altered the climate even more.

What we are currently seeing is the release of CO2 without the prior warming. Human activities are releasing CO2 which has an effect on the climate. On this there is no doubt.

When the Earth's temperature rises (regardless of reason) this increase will result in an increase of CO2 (and other radiative forcers) threw carbon cycle feed backs. Ice and snow acts as mirrors reflecting incoming solar radiation (about 90%) back out in to space. When it melts (Arctic) the water beneath it will be exposed and only reflect back about 10% absorbing the other 90%.

We can determine what happens up until these major factors gets triggered but when they do nature will pretty much run its course until it finds a new equilibrium. This is known as the tipping point.

The reason we have seen an 800 year delay (roughly) historically between an initial temperature rise and the subsequent rise in CO2 levels is because the Earth takes a long time to heat up. The natural variances have to saturate for instance the oceans (due to ocean currents). It is like putting a pot with water on a hot stove - it takes a while for all of the water to become hot and start boiling. Since the Earth is so big it takes around 800 years.

[Migg3006]

If you have access to Wolfram Mathematica you have access to weather data live measured mostly on airports I think. .

But this will do too but miss the possibility to see the statistical curve of all the plot points
Wolfram|Alpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com)

type in "average temperature for last 100 years in Antwerp"

average temperature for last 100 years in Antwerp - Wolfram|Alpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average+temperature+for+last+100+years+in+Antwe rp)

If I were you then I should recheck what your teacher is actually saying.
He might actually believe it to be true, he is human so he might be misguided.
And I have known some professors that actually became CT! Wierd.

Also I do know that many reports in newspapers or made by politicians are not scientifically to be trusted. Some of then are plain wrong. Not because of some CT but becaus the journalist have no clue of science.

And also the "Inconvienient truth film"? Total BS.
If you look at the film you see all the tricks in the book of manipulating people just like a CT would do.
Al Gore used it for his own political gain. He happens to be right just by luck.

Time to sleep for me.

Thanks for the link.

But sincerely this teacher is a really good reference, If there is got some mistake, there have higher chances it's me who have misunderstand him.

[Migg3006]

CO2 stands for 9 - 26% of the total green house effect (the variance in the numbers is due to spectral overlaps with other absorbers. So, no, that is not the truth .

Yeah I make a mistake there, I didn't want to mean 1% of the green hose gas, but 1% of the global warming effect in comparison with the other green hose gas. In big CO2 have a very small effect on global warming.

And maybe I am not wright, It's just something I have hear somewhere, what I right is what I know.

But we have to be careful because it have a lot of sources who are fake.

[Wildfeatures]

Yeah I make a mistake there, I didn't want to mean 1% of the green hose gas, but 1% of the global warming effect in comparison with the other green hose gas. In big CO2 have a very small effect on global warming.

And maybe I am not wright, It's just something I have hear somewhere, what I right is what I know.

But we have to be careful because it have a lot of sources who are fake.


That is its effect, radiative forcing, in comparison with other GHG's (Green house gases) and not in terms of mass. So that amount, 9 - 26%, is how much CO2 is responsible for the green house effect.

I could probably dig up some credible links for you, if you want?

[Migg3006]

That is its effect, radiative forcing, in comparison with other GHG's (Green house gases) and not in terms of mass. So that amount, 9 - 26%, is how much CO2 is responsible for the green house effect.

I could probably dig up some credible links for you, if you want?


Yeah I would like to have credible link please.

[Migg3006]

Go see this link, this are my credible link to prove the CO2 isn't the cause of global warming.
the video is in different parts, I can't find part 1 but it's said enough in part 2
Dailymotion - Part.02 La grde arnaque du rechauff.clim - une vidéo Hi-Tech et Science (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xnpy_part02-la-grde-arnaque-du-rechauffc_politics)
Dailymotion - Part.03 La grde arnaque du rechauff.clim - une vidéo Hi-Tech et Science (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xqey_part-03-la-grde-arnaque-du-rechauff_tech)
Dailymotion - Part.04 La grde arnaque du rechauff.clim - une vidéo Hi-Tech et Science (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xqo1_part-04-la-grde-arnaque-du-rechauff_tech)
Dailymotion - Part.05 La grde arnaque du rechauff.clim - une vidéo Hi-Tech et Science (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xrpe_part-05-la-grde-arnaque-du-rechauff_tech)
Dailymotion - Part.06 La grde arnaque du rechauff.clim - une vidéo Hi-Tech et Science (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xsb4_part06-la-grde-arnaque-du-rechauffc_politics)



And there 2 other are in french:

RECHAUFFEMENT CLIMATIQUE : le mensonge... - Dailymotion - Strimoo.com (http://www.strimoo.com/video/16828497/RECHAUFFEMENT-CLIMATIQUE-le-mensonge-Dailymotion.html)

France-Info Vincent Courtillot sur le rechauffement climatique | Free Activism & Non-Profit Videos - Watch Activism & Non-Profit Videos Online | Veoh (http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/activism_non_profit/watch/v19477452nx4EzRcF)

[Wildfeatures]

Go see this link, this are my credible link to prove the CO2 isn't the cause of global warming.
the video is in different parts, I can't find part 1 but it's said enough in part 2
Dailymotion - Part.02 La grde arnaque du rechauff.clim - une vidéo Hi-Tech et Science (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xnpy_part02-la-grde-arnaque-du-rechauffc_politics)
Dailymotion - Part.03 La grde arnaque du rechauff.clim - une vidéo Hi-Tech et Science (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xqey_part-03-la-grde-arnaque-du-rechauff_tech)
Dailymotion - Part.04 La grde arnaque du rechauff.clim - une vidéo Hi-Tech et Science (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xqo1_part-04-la-grde-arnaque-du-rechauff_tech)
Dailymotion - Part.05 La grde arnaque du rechauff.clim - une vidéo Hi-Tech et Science (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xrpe_part-05-la-grde-arnaque-du-rechauff_tech)
Dailymotion - Part.06 La grde arnaque du rechauff.clim - une vidéo Hi-Tech et Science (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xsb4_part06-la-grde-arnaque-du-rechauffc_politics)



And there 2 other are in french:

RECHAUFFEMENT CLIMATIQUE : le mensonge... - Dailymotion - Strimoo.com (http://www.strimoo.com/video/16828497/RECHAUFFEMENT-CLIMATIQUE-le-mensonge-Dailymotion.html)

France-Info Vincent Courtillot sur le rechauffement climatique | Free Activism & Non-Profit Videos - Watch Activism & Non-Profit Videos Online | Veoh (http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/activism_non_profit/watch/v19477452nx4EzRcF)


Oh no, not the "Great Global Warming Swindle". I actually wrote a lot before I realized which movie it was that you linked too. Here is what I wrote:

I can say briefly that the reason the temperatures dropped between 1940 - 1970 is because of yet another pollution - aerosols in combination with other forcings. These tiny particles were released in huge quantities throw fossil fuels. The adverse effects on human health led to the Clean Air Acts which were started around 1960. This led to reduced levels of aerosols and the effect of the CO2 emissions were more clearly seen.

There are other human activities then CO2 emissions that effect the global climate. One of the other huge factors is land usage. It is first when we take a look at all of these factors, coupled with the natural forcings -solar radiation, weather systems, volcanic eruptions etc - that we get a full understanding of what is happening.

Here is a nice graph, it begins at 2:48.
YouTube - Debunking "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxw3_XBvm94)

Or this one: The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century (http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html)



Think of for instance the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 as a slowly rising gradient in a graph with other forcings -solar cycles etc - as waves upon this slowly rising gradient. These waves are what have caused the apparent discrepencies mentioned in the video. This, plus the huge impact of aerosols that masked the impact of CO2 between the years 1940 - 1970.


The reason that the atmosphere does not warm as quickley as the linear CO2 theory given in the video stipulates is because of the depletion of Ozone, yet another Green house gas. Higher up the cooling trend clearly indicates that CO2 has intercepted the radiation lower in theatmosphere and sent it back to Earth.
RealClimate: The sky IS falling (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/)

[Wildfeatures]

Here is what Professor Carl Wunsch, who appeared on the program had to say:



Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP

10 March 2007

Dear Mr. Green:

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change--- in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be
so tendentious, so unbalanced?

I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does
not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or "swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved.

I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change,
and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Source: RealClimate: Swindled! (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/comment-page-3/#comments)



Hardly a credible source of information when a participant is considering legal action using statements such as: "close to fraud", "deeply embarrassing", "grossly distorted by context" and an "out-and-out propaganda piece", wouldn't you say?


The Media Regulator, Ofcom "has ruled that Channel 4 breached broadcasting codes on impartiality and was "unjust and unfair" in the way it represented individuals in its controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle."
Channel 4 ruled 'unjust and unfair' in climate change documentary | Media | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/21/channel4.ofcom)

[Olaf]

Thanks for the link.

But sincerely this teacher is a really good reference, If there is got some mistake, there have higher chances it's me who have misunderstand him.

WOW this is what I call a real scientist mentality!
Doing a reality check that you might be mistaken. :)

But you must also realize that you might be right and the teacher is worng. Never blindly accept any claims by anyone even the biggest scientist in the world. Always check the claims. There is a 99% chance that your teacher is right but there is also the 1 % chance that he is mistaken.

I had one physics teacher that had a hard time to explain relativity. He actually was wrong in his explanation. Yeah I did give my physics and electronics teacher a hard time back then. I forced them to press their limits in they knowledge. :party:

I see that Wildfeatures, is pretty good in the global warming issue! :good:

[Wildfeatures]

That is its effect, radiative forcing, in comparison with other GHG's (Green house gases) and not in terms of mass. So that amount, 9 - 26%, is how much CO2 is responsible for the green house effect.

I could probably dig up some credible links for you, if you want?


Yeah I would like to have credible link please.


I've had some trouble digging up those numbers since most focus on the changes in (Radiative Forcing) instead. Here's what I've come up with:



First an interesting and important take on water vapours role compared to llghg's such as CO2.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf


Page 135.
Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour. Indirectly, humans have the potential to affect water vapour substantially by changing climate. For example, a warmer atmosphere contains more water vapour.So if we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we are also seeing an effect on the amount of water vapour.

Page 203 graph A is pretty good. It covers anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing (No water vapour). It also shows the importance of cloud cover. Cloud forms around aerosols so if we have many, like we did before the Clean Air Acts, we would see a lot of cloud cover that lower the temperature (the dip between 1940 - 1970).
(I had to go to a different site,Future Geographies: Radiative Forcing and the Earth's Heat Balance (http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/energy/future_geographies_radiation_balance.html) , to retrieve the image from).

4602



Here are some links:

RealClimate: Water vapour: feedback or forcing? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/)


http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf Page 7.


Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas (http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm)


Reason for edit: inserted graph.

[Migg3006]

And sure clouds have a direct influence in the global warming, I don't remember the number, but the water vapour Is a hight reflector, this is what is reflecting or absorbing the most the energy who came from the sun or from the Earth.

Is that I was saying, about water vapour.
Any ways I don't know enough to continue to argue on that subject. Thanks for the links

[Kenny]

Bump -- I found this to be an intresting argument, and I love the fact that I wrote this while drunk :D

[Grifff]

ever watch the inconvenient truth?

[josie20]

ever watch the inconvenient truth?
Inconvenient Truth was just a convenient way to make money from a bunch of chumps.

[VanyahaHeights]

IN truth, there are MANY things that we do NOT know about, not even anything about the big bang theory. And temperatures long time ago weren't perfectly recorded. we can now depend on measuring ice, the carbon atoms in the ice as layers as they go deeper. But I don't even trust that, do the amount of carbon atoms in the future 100% mean anything global warming?

So, I'd like to put this on "stalemate" mode. We may be responsible too, but whatever the case, if we are really ruining the atmosphere, or nature is toying around for some particular reason, I'm still gong green no matter what. NOT painting myself with green paint! But doing contributions...

[jassmine12]

Well, dear it was really a long thread. i could not read the whole topic but i realized that u are talking about the global warming which is getting increased day by day. now this is time not to blame anybody, we all have to step ahead to prevent this giant problem.

[Bobster]

Shut up. We ARE the cause of global warming.

[Olaf]

IN truth, there are MANY things that we do NOT know about, not even anything about the big bang theory.
The big bang theory is irrelevant here.


And temperatures long time ago weren't perfectly recorded. we can now depend on measuring ice, the carbon atoms in the ice as layers as they go deeper. But I don't even trust that, do the amount of carbon atoms in the future 100% mean anything global warming?
No trust is required, the highest level ever found in the ice is 300 ppm. We reached 280 ppm in 1950 and are now way above the highest ever found levels. We are currently at 380 ppm.


So, I'd like to put this on "stalemate" mode.
100 ppm increase in only 60 years that is a breaking record ever! It is not a stalmate.


but whatever the case, if we are really ruining the atmosphere, or nature is toying around for some particular reason, I'm still gong green no matter what. NOT painting myself with green paint! But doing contributions...
That is a wise choice. It is irrelevant if the global warming is true or not. Clean air, unpoisoned water is what we need.

[applejuice]

Remember that warning about the Himalayas melting by 2030? Well, those who made it admitted that it was a political statement.
Something similar happens with the scare of Global Warming. Remember those "stolen" e-mails revealing that Jones (the head of IPCC then, IIRC) and some of his collaborators discussed how the data sets actually showed a decline in the trend of Global Warming during the last five years (IIRC)? Well, they also manipulated data in order to keep the trend of Global Warming, despite the data showing that the temperatures decreased during the last five years (again, IIRC). We might have a part in the change climate we are living, but to say that we, and only we, are the cause of it, it's just non-sense. Can't really remember where I saw a plot of the Solar Activity and the temperature of Earth, but I remember that those curves looked like a copy of each other...

[Olaf]

Remember those "stolen" e-mails revealing that Jones (the head of IPCC then, IIRC) and some of his collaborators discussed how the data sets actually showed a decline in the trend of Global Warming during the last five years (IIRC)?...

Blablablah...
Subscribe to this podcast and learn to think for yourself instead if just copy catting the same meaningless mantra 10.000 other people already have claimed.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

[Aihwa]

Shut up. We ARE the cause of global warming.


What an insightful and well thought out post supported by clear and definitive evidence.



EDIT: And Olaf? They're repeated because they're truth.

[Replica]

Whether or not global warming exists is irrelevant. Cleaning up the environment and all that stuff is the most important message out of all this. See if we do all that and it turns out global warming does exist then hooray, we've done the right thing and saved ourselves. If it turns out that global warming doesn't exist then we've gotten a better enviornment and better world out of it anyway.

[Tsyal Makto]

Whether or not global warming exists is irrelevant. Cleaning up the environment and all that stuff is the most important message out of all this. See if we do all that and it turns out global warming does exist then hooray, we've done the right thing and saved ourselves. If it turns out that global warming doesn't exist then we've gotten a better enviornment and better world out of it anyway.

This. This is really one of those "better safe than sorry" situations. Plus there's lots of non-global warming-related environmental issues out there, like pollution, deforestation, lack of biodiversity, etc., that one really can't doubt the existence of. Though I'm personally one to believe that it is real, because the people who deny it's existence are the same people who have money to be made by keeping us going down the same road.

[applejuice]

Blablablah...
Subscribe to this podcast and learn to think for yourself instead if just copy catting the same meaningless mantra 10.000 other people already have claimed.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/
Why should I??? Wasn't I supposed to think by myself???



Whether or not global warming exists is irrelevant. Cleaning up the environment and all that stuff is the most important message out of all this. See if we do all that and it turns out global warming does exist then hooray, we've done the right thing and saved ourselves. If it turns out that global warming doesn't exist then we've gotten a better enviornment and better world out of it anyway.

And this is probably the best solution: to ensure clean air, water and safe food for all the inhabitants of Earth (humans and not humans).

[_Omaticaya_]

I agree, You made it pretty clear. It's two separate things, one is Global Warming, and it's basically the brainwash, while i'm of the opinion it's simply the natural cycle of Earth or however it's called, and on the other side, is the real problem, which doesn't really create global warming, but it doesn't help for sure, it's all the pollution, deforestation, and all the hundreds, thousands of other problems in the world, regarding nature, flora and fauna exploitation and destruction. Our crap food, industrial world, and all that... It's all too spread out now and it doesn't help the Earth, but most of all, it doesn't help our health! which is very bad... I mean, all this crap we breathe and eat and drink over the years is damaging us, and our future sons and daughters...

[HufweMakto]

Brainwash? Do you know what you're talking about!? It's clearly evident that the temperature of summer is increasing every year and that increases in highly violent storms are actually caused by the increase in ocean temperature. This further causes the acidification of the oceans which is killing off the coral reefs (by a sinister process called coral bleaching, look it up, folks), and fishes. And furthering this is the fact that our oceans help regulate the temperature and the stability of the Earth's atmosphere. A six degree difference may not seem too much for you at first, but for everything on this Earth will suffer, with the collaspe of ice shelves in the arctic and antarctic. Likewise, I think we need to change the name of "global warming", since waaay too many idiot seem to think it's only a "summer" or "heat thing" and make it "climate change". We are in some dire straits people, as James Cameron has already noted himself, especially behind Avatar and a lot of his recent works.

It is noted by many scientist and environmental experts that we are causing a good amount of global climate change. The one way I could say we could lessen it is by driving less, using public transportation, and trying to use our a/c less often, or using applicances that use less.

[_Omaticaya_]

Brainwash? Do you know what you're talking about!? It's clearly evident that the temperature of summer is increasing every year and that increases in highly violent storms are actually caused by the increase in ocean temperature. This further causes the acidification of the oceans which is killing off the coral reefs (by a sinister process called coral bleaching, look it up, folks), and fishes. And furthering this is the fact that our oceans help regulate the temperature and the stability of the Earth's atmosphere. A six degree difference may not seem too much for you at first, but for everything on this Earth will suffer, with the collaspe of ice shelves in the arctic and antarctic. Likewise, I think we need to change the name of "global warming", since waaay too many idiot seem to think it's only a "summer" or "heat thing" and make it "climate change". We are in some dire straits people, as James Cameron has already noted himself, especially behind Avatar and a lot of his recent works.

It is noted by many scientist and environmental experts that we are causing a good amount of global climate change. The one way I could say we could lessen it is by driving less, using public transportation, and trying to use our a/c less often, or using applicances that use less.

I said that I agree with trying to prevent further damage, altough i think it's impossible, because a few solar panels and recycled shopping bags won't change the world after decades of pollution and crap like that. It's good to do, but, still I think the whole Global warming thing is a brainwash, and you know why? Because no one gave a crap before Al Gore did his little show and scared the whole planet. You can give me all the stats you want, but i don't see any difference at all, matter of fact, my last 3 summers seem to be cooler, i remember back in 2003, when it was REALLY hot, these last 2 summers, it was almost autumn weather sometimes. Anyway I know it's just small examples, and you're talking on a wider scale, but I won't change my mind... Brainwash or not, 'going green' is another machine to make more money and new technology and advertisements, but will you ever see the difference? Do you think a bunch of engineers will change the planets temperature? Haha, it's like the 700's, people like you believe in anthropocentrism too much, you can't just change the world like that, it's too much of an issue...

[Sanjwale]

About the summer. now I'm thinking about it. you are right. the last few summers aren't that hot.

[HufweMakto]

I highly disagree, even if the summers don't seem hot to you, it's still effecting places like the arctic and the antarctic. Polar bears are actually drowning because the ice shelves are melting too fast for them to use to hunt. Added to this are the islands in the Pacific and the Atlantic that at risk from rising ocean levels. There are more and more risks associated with anthropogentic global climate change than ever before. What you don't understand is, it's not just warmer summers, it's also extreme winters. Because you don't seem to see them in your area does not contest that they do not happen in other areas. In fact, there's a HUGE drought in Texas at the moment which is taking a huge toll on animal and plant life, as well as the health of people who live there. To brush it off as "well it's not happening here so it's not happening everywhere else" is a sad contridiction.

You know, for a group of fans who appreciate nature and the messages of Avatar, no one here seems to take environmental science too seriously here. Maybe except for me. But then again, I try to avoid this thread whenever possible.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

i agree that we're experiencing climate change(s) brought on by both mankind and natural cycles of nature,though i'm more inclined to believe that mankind's idiocy and gross consumption of fossil fuels is the more prevalent of the two. however,i am disgusted by the self-serving faceman of the 'global-warming/climate change' media,the two-faced hypocrite known as al gore. this cretin makes millions off his speeches,appearances,videos,and politicals hacks who rake in more millions in donations which do not go to these 'help the enviroment' causes,and while this pompous political clown demands that we consume less,recycle more,and buy more green products made in foreign countries that have no materials quality/lead/asbestos inspections (yeah,that's you,china),this rich bastard has four huge mansions in three states,private jet,and monthly electricity bills in the thousands of dollars,and never flies commercial jets. he asks us to do as he say,but not as he does. lol. hypocritical buffoon. the climate-change movement needs a new spokesperson who is not a has-been political hack who is in bed with hollywierd and the corportist structure.

al gore is as big a clown as that sheryl crow fool asking us to use one square of toilet paper at a stting,to help save the forests,while she is a majority stock-owner of three tabloid magazines and owner of a publishing house in Washington state. do you honestly believe that sheryl crow only uses one square of toilet paper?! LOL stupid hollywierdos


31464

[Tsyal Makto]

I wish Al Gore would have just stayed out of environmentalism/climate change science all-together. Climate change science was a respected, legitimate science before him, and all he managed to do was de-legitimize it and rake in millions in the process. He very well could have set the environmental movement back decades, all because he couldn't stand being out of the limelight after losing the 2000 election. Damn him sooo much.

[HufweMakto]

^ You should still read "An Inconvenient Truth", in fact I think everyone should, it's a basic notation on how global ocean levels will rise and what kinds of consequences will occur. Other than that I blame the whole misunderstanding of global warming/climate change squarely on Roland Emmerich's "The Day After Tomorrow." I swear if it was not for that movie, people wouldn't take climate change as a joke. Just add some Hollywood trying to be catastrophic, god awful special effects no real cohesion to ruin a perfectly good science.... Although I have to say I did laugh during one part of the movie (you probably know which one I'm talking about).

[Tsyal Makto]

Being chased by coldness? (Literally :ntongue:)

I have read it, BTW. And, yeah, the guy might have a decent head on his shoulders, but when he tries to put that mind into action, things usually don't end well, and it seems he does more harm than good for the movement.

I think Bill McKibben is a much better face for the environmental movement.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

that being chased by coldness lolness reminded me of the death thing in Final Destination,lol. day after tomorrow was a ludicrous movie,but i liked the russian frieighter floating down 5th avenue,the sheer irony of americans crashing the mexican border LOLOLOL,and this crappy movie did feature one of my favorite male actors,Dennis Quaid,and a fabulous older actress by the name of Sela Ward as the doctor wife. Dennis Quaid,no matter what he does in movies,will always be the great dad from the 1998 Parent Trap remake,to me. love that movie. R.I.P. Natasha Richardson.:nsad: she played the British mom.


*movies always derail me from the topic,lol*

[Replica]

You know what, in the end, it doesn't really matter. Everyone's argument here is irrelevant because regardless or whether global warming exists or not, you would have to convince countries like China and India to start going green to get any sort of change happening and with their massive economic drive right now, does anybody really think that's going to happen!?

[tm20]

^yeah, that's never going to happen :| that's just the way it is over there.

[Ja'k Dawsiin]

^ i agree. sadly,even in the one in a billion chance that human-rights violator china and tiger-murdering india might want to go green,they couldn't because they have far too many mouths to feed. don't you effin people know what birth control is?!! *shaking my head*

[tm20]

while china's population in decreasing, india's is increasing :| so they cancel each other out

[HufweMakto]

that being chased by coldness lolness reminded me of the death thing in Final Destination,lol. day after tomorrow was a ludicrous movie,but i liked the russian frieighter floating down 5th avenue,the sheer irony of americans crashing the mexican border LOLOLOL,and this crappy movie did feature one of my favorite male actors,Dennis Quaid,and a fabulous older actress by the name of Sela Ward as the doctor wife. Dennis Quaid,no matter what he does in movies,will always be the great dad from the 1998 Parent Trap remake,to me. love that movie. R.I.P. Natasha Richardson.:nsad: she played the British mom.


*movies always derail me from the topic,lol*

Actually it was the part when everyone was crossing into Mexico. I swear, the entire theater was laughing it's head off during that part. But yes, being "chased by coldness" and the random wolves just really pushes the movie up the ludicious scale, or why the main character never thought to use all of the WOODEN shelves which are a better heat conductor than books are (oh why do I have the image of Nazis burning books whenever I see that scene from the movie, that's disturbs me to no end). Ugh, well that's Roland Emmerich for you, pushing the ridiculous disaster movie level to the limit. I'm convinced that 2012 will not be the last disaster movie from him... God help us with the one about Shakespeare being fake or something like that. Heck, that entire Shakespeare controversy is crazy if you look it up on Wiki (there's a least three big essays on that one issue alone)...

But I'm going far off topic, even though I have to admit most people use that movie for their opinions on global warming/climate change. That is also disturbing, it's almost like saying that you get all of your information about NASA from Armageddon. There's Hollywood for you, pulling things out of porportion, though you normally see that with ANY so-called topical issue. Heck, especially considering natural disasters (remember that supervolcano scene from 2012? They actually underscored that considering that the entire cast of characters would've been incinerated once that first explosion started).

[FoxGhost]

Here's the thing: It doesn't matter wether its true or not.This sword of Damocles has brought about more positive changes than any other enviromental disaster before it. It doesn't matter if its a tinfoil hat conspiracy where governments keep the great unwashed down.All the changes have been good for the planet.That is the only thing that matters.You may whine about how expensive this or that has become because of all the regulations but in the end your discomfort does not matter.
The planet matters.
It is laziness and selfishness that shouts 'it's not our fault!'. It doesn't matter what caused the fire when you are locked in a burning building.You either do something about it or die.While we cannot prevent the cataclysm that will come about when global climate change has reached its full potential, we can at least try to slow it down and prepare and maybe have a chance of surviving.
Or you can repeat the mantra 'its not my fault' and do nothing.

[_Omaticaya_]

Here's the thing: It doesn't matter wether its true or not.This sword of Damocles has brought about more positive changes than any other enviromental disaster before it. It doesn't matter if its a tinfoil hat conspiracy where governments keep the great unwashed down.All the changes have been good for the planet.That is the only thing that matters.You may whine about how expensive this or that has become because of all the regulations but in the end your discomfort does not matter.
The planet matters.
It is laziness and selfishness that shouts 'it's not our fault!'. It doesn't matter what caused the fire when you are locked in a burning building.You either do something about it or die.While we cannot prevent the cataclysm that will come about when global climate change has reached its full potential, we can at least try to slow it down and prepare and maybe have a chance of surviving.
Or you can repeat the mantra 'its not my fault' and do nothing.

Good post mate... I agree.