CLIMATE CHANGE !!

E

east

Active member
OK...I apologize to anyone who thinks this is stupid but if you didn't want to read it you wouldn't have opened it...and yes I know there are other threads...

Ok a few, obviously controversial points that I wanted to open for discussion....

-Climate Change, I hate using ' 'global warming', has been ongoing forever, if the Earth's climate wasn't cyclical how the hell did glaciers end up covering then retreating to present day locations in the northern hemisphere...not too mention all the other periods of glaciation in Earth's history

-Hurricanes....yes there are way more now....BUT is it just that there are way more reported because we can spy them 1000's of miles off the coast with satellite imagery? Many of these 'hurricanes reach hurricane strength for only a few hours and are classed as hurricanes based on remote data. How do we know (aside from land based sand deposits and other methods) that there weren't numerous hurricanes in the deep ocean in the past that are unrecorded in the geology....

-Has anyone ever showed a graph of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and concentration of life, I would love to see one.

-If you want to stop greeenhouse gas emmisons you'd better start finding ways to stop plate techtonics and convection. Yes, I hate when people neglect natural factors that contribute enourmously to climate change especially volcanos.

-Do any of you understand Milankovich Cycles, I really don't want to get on that topic but it's another 'natural' process that the propaganda lovers try to ignore....

-How many of you know that in many parts of Canada (and many other parts of the northern hemisphere) the land is actually rising. Yes the weight of 4km of ice is gone and the land is rebounding after being depressed. So in some places relative sea level is actual falling as the land is rising faster then the sea is. This is somewhat irrelevant but brings up the topic of dumb humans living near the coastline. What do developers and home buyers expect when they build near a beach? Has that beach remained the same for 25/50/100years, NO. Our coastlines are extremely dynamic, if you want a stable place to build a house that won't get destroyed by that thing called Mother Nature, don't build 20ft from the ocean....idiots....

Anyway, don't take this the wrong way. I definitely think we need to focus on more renewable and clean enerygy. BUT I think that as responsible scientists (AND AL GORE IS NOT A RESPONSIBLE SCIENTIST) we all need to weigh both sides of the argument. I agree climate change is occuring, and yes it may be occuring at a more rapid rate, but remember that the way we measure today's rate is alot different then the way we measure the paleo-temp change rate. All of this is theory, nobody was walking around with the Mammoth's and before them with the Dinasaurs measuring temperature, all we can do as scientists is make a best guess using clues tied up in ice and sunburned rocks (cosmogenic nuclieds)...

Sorry for the rant....I just wanted to lay out some other arguments that are often neglected by the media and others....

Cheers.

 
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.

More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no

convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,

methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the

foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s

atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite

readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists

predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming

since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to

within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only

land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these

stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat

generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.

All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not

historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions

that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to

“flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of

doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global

warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.

Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations

organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s

latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about

predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics

is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in

initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the

detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in

the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the

forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such

predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our

ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.

Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD),

which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland,

were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The

period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was

even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first

civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study

for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer

climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our

own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the

year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher

energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million

jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household

income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would

decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales,

and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by

all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year

2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.

After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s,

states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90

billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing

unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New

Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to

fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no

impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs

and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.”

The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global

warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in

atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the

future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime,

investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such

investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy

is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration

has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each

year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American

businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for

reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
 
one hurricane, one tropical storm and three tropical depressions struck the United States this Hurricane Season. Wow, that seems down from last season.
 
How in the hell does 17000 scientists count as most scientists.

By that logic there can only be at most, 33999 scientists on this planet.
 
haha, yeah, that can only be like .15%.. tops, of all scientists on earth. nice try tho. percentages are given by the opposing side. and they are far more convincing than #s. but nice try CO.
 
the fact that there are more Hurricanes is a huge argument against global warming. but somehow the media and people who want to use nature to make us follow their agenda have made alot of people beleive that global warming will cause more storms, hurricanes and other bad wether affects.

here is something you should have learned if you payed attention in basic science in school:

weather 101: wind, and hurricanes are caused where hot air and cold air colide. the bigger the difference in temperture the bigger the weather affect.

if the world warms up, their wont be as big of a differnce between hot and cold places which means fewer natural disasters, not more.
 
"Has anyone ever showed a graph of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and concentration of life, I would love to see one."

oh, my naive friend, you have no idea. There are numerous scientists who travel around the world showing evidence of this. I have personally seen and researched (my major in college was integrated science and technology with a sector in environmental studies) these trends. There is literally an increase of thousands of percents since 1980 (why this time frame? The number of industrialized nations skyrocketed in the 1980s, therefore drastically increase motorized transportation, as well as the industrial sector of energy use).

I don't have it off hand, but I guarantee that if "you would love to see one", you could quite easily find it on the internet.

On a further note, it isn't just Carbon dioxide, it is also NOx and SOx as well which from the industry and transportation sectors.
 
thank you, and yeah,

if you cant find a graph of CO2 concentrations over the past few decades, i have no clue how you figured out how to use NS
 
StartFragment1.Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’sclimate. aforementioned: bythat logic there can only be at most, 33999 scientists on this planet. 2.Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.
Satellite_Temperatures.png
Soyeah, shut up. 3.Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. FluxCorrections was only used on early climate model systems and this is not longera valid argument regarding climate modeling. Furthermore the system did not work as described by yoursource, or kern. 4.The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.Theipcc has released a new report, I highly suggest you read that instead of copypasting information from other websites 5.A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to thenatural world and to human civilization. Thisoutlook is insanely stupid, and foolishly human centric. Sustaining the earthrather than shifting it should be the focus, not fucking the system up so wecan have more resorts for fat Midwesterners to drink pina coladas on. 6.Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly andwould not stop Earth’s climate from changing. 7.Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even moreexpensive and threaten to bust state budgets. 8. Thebest strategy to pursue is “no regrets.”Responses6 7 and 8 highlight an incredibly dangerous environmental ethic that impliesprofit should be placed higher on the bracket than the welfare of the planet. People,who believe in this, like you, are the embodiment of everything that is wrongwith policy making today. EndFragment
 
The fact is, most of the people who waste their time copy pasting fact sheets on how global warming is fake are doing it for one reason:

They are lazy.

They refuse to accept a world in which the wellfare of the planet requires them to drive less, consume less, and generally be more aware individuals. They have grown up in a society that glorifies lethargy and sloth, that congratulates people for consuming goods as fast as they can shit them out. You will fight global climate change tooth and nail because you fear having to wake up and realize the ramifications of your existence.

God forbid you are less able to drive to taco bell to stuff your face with as many chili cheese burritos as you can.
 
Not true at all! I think it is fake due to other reasons. I am far from lazy!! It's Newschoolers, I don't care what you think!
 
or maybe we just like human progress and are tired of stupid hippies trying to stop human progress and backpedal to backward times that they feel is better.

their extremely successful in third world countries able to stop development at such an early stage. but less successful in Europe and America, where we have grown accustomed to not starving, not dying of 100s of diseases and not dying before the age of 15. if only they could convince us that all these things are useless. then maybe well stop contributing our 3% CO2 to the earth and go on being hungry, cold, and sick.
 
Since there are a lot of global warming threads on here recently I figure I might as well give my opinion. Yes i know that the earth goes through cycles and yes it is currently warming...However, from what I have seen I am not convinced that humans are having a significant enough effect on global temperature to warrant politicians telling me how I can live my life.

They want me to believe that because of the things us "greedy" americans do that the earth will end in some sort of a spectacular explosion, that the sun is going to melt us all and a huge mega storm will destroy all civilizaion. They are all alarmist if you ask me.

All the laws and regulations environmentalists want to enact will end up costing a fortune for individuals and the economy and will result in negligible results. It will end up making my life more expensive and therefore less enjoyable. So call me selfish, I don't care. I am just looking at it from a practical standpoint. Global warming is being made into a larger issue than it should be so politicians can benefit from it.

 
While i think we are not helping the environment, and am all for renewable energy, alternative energy sources (windmills, tidal dams) i am not sure we know enough about whats going on to accurately know how much impact we are having(humans think we're alot smarter then we are im afraid), and how much the earth can sustain. Its tough to know if this warming trend or whatever you want to call it is just mother nature balancing herself out, or if we are iirrepairably harming her.

Extinction rate is commonly brought up as a key indicator or changing climates and human intervention. On NG the other day i heard the extinction rate was 1000x the natural rate, this is no doubt extremely high, then again i think its a little ignorant that the earth could keep sustaining life at the pace is has been. Looking back the last several thousand years this planet has been supporting more life then ever before, and also been plentiful with vegetation and prey. At some point certain animals don't fit in, or they havent adapted well enough to the climate.

fuck poachers.
 
Yeah human progress certainly hinges around the use of coal and finite energy sources.

Lets take a look at your assertion that if we somehow used nuclear, wind, solar, or any other resource than coal, gas, and oil that society would descend into some sort of medieval dark ages.

You argue that if we cut down less trees, polluted less, used no coal, gas, or oil that we would go sick, hungry, and cold. If you dont mind, let me go ahead and explain why you are terribly wrong.

First, you argue that if we did the aforementioned things we would go hungry. This is somewhat silly because if we were to limit the pollutive capacity of oil and coal, plant life would benefit. Air pollution has a negative impact of the ability of plants to grow and as such we would actually see a growth in the capacity of food resources. Furthermore soil pollution is often tied to the introduction of pollutants into the ecosystem by way of any number of things, be it the already said air pollution, wastewater pollution, car waste and leaking oil, and even large scale events such as oil spills. None of these things benefit the ecosystem in the slightest.

In fact the argument can be made we would go less hungry if we used non pollutive resources. For example, wind energy often takes place over a large single area, below which little tall buildings can be installed, this is why surprisingly enough, farms are often put on the same land. So really if we were to embrace wind energy we would be able to use more land for farming.

Then you move on to argue that we would some how be cold if we didnt heat our homes with oil or natural gas. This wont take a long time to prove wrong considering that home heating with water can be done with any form of electricity. Maybe you thought that somehow only coal and natural gas could heat things... or something.

Wait, maybe you meant something to do with clothing... well probably not because its clear that if you simply used less oil for gasoline we could increase the use of said petroleum in the garment industry while still reducing our overall net consumption of oil.

Finally you argue that you and I would all go sick, either from the bubonic plague or aids or maybe whooping cough. This is, for lack of a better term, probably the most insane line of bullshit you have bothered to shit out of your mouth today.

The bulk of the pharmaceutical industries developments come from the synthesis of alkaloid plants, alkaloid plants flourish in tropical areas, which are often the target of most industrial tree harvesting. This is obviously inherently tied to the climate change argument by way of its relationship to the ability of the natural world to process the human produced and natural co2 levels.

Virtually every major pharmaceutical breakthrough, from the headache medicine you consume to the pills you will take when you are 70 so you can still jerk off, come from alkaloids.

 
Really though, every time you talk its when someone else says something that "owns" someone. Be a little more creative!
 
Shit, I dunno. I was copy and pasting like everyone else was. I don't believe in Global Warming. people can call me whatever. I really don't care. I believe what I believe and it's not Global Warming, that's for sure.
 
I think your last point is completely irresponsible, yet human. We dont tend to do shit as a species until it starts hurting us.

Heres the problem. When you fuck with climate and ecological systems, usually by the time shit starts getting noticeably bad, its already completely fucked. The idea that 'we'll change when we need to' is a nice and somewhat more realistic take on what inevitably will happen, but its a shitty policy thats going to get us in a world of shit.
 
Yeah dude I like to shape my beliefs around ctrl and v

You are exactly the kind of person I am talking about, you refuse to rationalize your arguments, and you refuse to think for yourself, you simply decided to believe in something, than google searched till you had evidence to support it.

 
hahahahahahahahaha

Dude, that whole argument dosen't make any sence whatsoever. You're basically saying that if we did more things that would benifit the environment we would be transformed into a 3rd world country.

Please explain to me how that makes any sence at all.
 
Lets take a look at your retarded rebuttle.

Before i say anything, i think you are a very misguided regression oriented charlatan. You use big words to make yourself sound smart but your underlying ideology shows that you have completely skipped out on 9th grade world history. You seem to have missed the years 3,000 BC- 2007 AD, a time where modern trade with some sort of monetary currency is employed and things dont magically sprout out of the ground.

First of all, the amount of air pollution created in major city has 0 effect on the ability to produce agriculture. Even if the emissions from cars can travel to farms, the amount is soooo negligible. If we stopped polluting at every factory, were not gonna all of a sudden produce 25 foot high stalks of corn and wheat with several billion grains per stem. We already produce agriculture at a maximum capacity with a surplus versus how much we need. We dont need more farms.

On the other hand, switching from oil and natural gas to wind, and building all those ridiculous looking windmills would take so much money that people would start to starve because the government will tax us into poverty in order to make such a massive change.

Natural gas and oil are better for heating our homes. By the way, our nations electrical system isnt harvested by using a big fishing net trying to catch lightning. It isnt generated by people riding stationary bikes or hamsters running on wheels. It is by burning coal or turning hydro turbines which still require some amount of coal. so there is no difference besides natural gas is cleaner.

original alkaloid plants were found by aztecs running through their forests. Thankfully, humans have progresed enough to plant and harvest them ourselves. The next phase of medicine really doesnt come from natural plants but more through genetics. Genetics takes huge machines and computers that need electricity to run. Im sorry but we cant go looking for that mysterious flower and grinding it up and drinking it to cure cancer.

 
^ if you're going to make this a true rationale and include the whole project lifecycle.....hydroelectric power usually requires the construction of a dam.....incurring a large amount of coal required to excavate and construct the dam....and those huge turbines didn't cast themselves magically

but on a daily basis, possibly a little with the turbine bearing lubrication oil systems
 
reducing emissions by .14% or watever it was will do a lot because that is only about 4 years away and imagine the effect that could have over 200 + years and would reduce much more.....also, i agree about the natural cycle and we do have to help a little but humans have been on the earth for a very samll amount of time compared to the history of the earth and its not goin to affect the earth to much what humans do because well prob make ourselves go exstinct before we do any huge damage to the earth
 
dumbass, reBlocke shut down your idiotic copying and pasting in another thread, please don't post BULLSHIT like this ever again.  your information is directly from heartland.org. ReBlocke put this in another thread that I made, but just so everyone knows, the heartland institute has received $791,000 from Exxon Mobil since 1998.
 
Any argument that asserts that involves the assertion that not using finite resources for energy is related to the overall food production capabilities of anywhere is false and misguided.

On the other had a very clear line can be drawn between water quality and the capacity of soil to produce crops.

Natural gas and oil are not better for heating our homes, if that was the case, large buildings would not be using steam heat, which very very many do, steam heat does not need natural gas or oil. If you think that hydroelectric turbines are somehow more effective than wind turbines that doesn't make any sense, considering it is more or less the exact same technology

Original alkaloid plants were not "found by the aztecs" they exist all over the planet and have been used for millions of years by many cultures. They have been, are, and will continue to be a very vital aspect of pharmaceutics for years to come, this has nothing to do with whatever ad hominem attack you want to make (calling me a hippy ect), I know it because I work with a relations office that acts as funding and grant liaison for five different pharmaceutical research labs in the midwest. So spare me your wikipedia bullshit.

In spite of this, the effectiveness of said research has nothing to do with what produces its electricity. Be it wind, nuclear, solar, coal, natural gas, oil, or "someone riding a stationary bike"

You bullshit all day about how money doesn't grow on trees. We subsidize oil companies and cover the overhead of hundreds of coal plants in the US, that my friend, is a waste of taxpayer money.

 
Awesome, I'm to lazy to read all those arguments but I'm not blind and i can see the smog, regardless of what possible causes there may be (I'm pretty sure all that shit we put into the air isnt good), the sad thing is its not going to be stopped until its to late. Plans plans and plans no one is going to do anything about it because its going to cost money and people are greedy.
 
preaching anti global warming shpeils on this site is like going into a gaybar and yelling "fag"

dumb fuckin idea. i have a feeling we will never see COskibum again
 
YEAH dude GLOBAL warming is a CONSPIRACY. for sure dudezzz . pollution is NOT real TOO. Two billion vehicles does absolutely nothing... LOL ROFLMAO LMAOBORGHINI its soooo not real.. just ask my texan friends ,after we go shoot some goffers for fun its so not real... its LIES so that toyota can make you buy more hyrids... WHOOOO DIESEL guzzling pick-up trucks 4-LiF
 
I nominate you for favorite low-post noob of the month. I like your angles, and I'm too tired to help you argue. Maybe tomorrow.
 
dudez thats so ilzz does your pick-up truck have a 300l diesel tank in the back with real bullet holes in teh tail gate to be legt? YA DUDE
 
I think it is naive and ignorant to believe that there is not enough evidence to prove global climate change as a result of increased GHG's. Warming aside, studies in SLC show that in the last decade, wintertime viral illness has increased nearly 4 fold. Coincidentally so has our air pollution. There are more impending issues than no snow.
 
to bad not every scientest on this earth studies climate change. so the majority of them know just ask much as we do, and the sruvery was taken in a certain location not across whole world.
 
The "Survey" was a petition, and as such, was completely optional if someone wanted to sign onto it, this of course means it is not quantitive data and cant comment regarding percentages of scientists who believe what ect.

Furthermore the petition makes no comment as to what type of scientists signed on, rather just saying scientists, so they very well could be from any field of science, so you have no idea who was signing on to that, be they climatologists or material physicists.

I am willing to bet the majority of scientists know more than you or I do about climate change regardless of their field of study, but considering neither you or I know, lets stick to facts rather than useless speculation. But, unfortunately, if we do that your entire post was useless.
 
all i can say is that the weather in my area has been FUCKED UP in the past year or two

we have broken records for hottest temperature i think at least 3 consecutive years in a row now.

last year we had record rainfall i think.

last year we had a record windstorm (almost a hurricane i think)

the temperatures change dramatically from day to day, and the temps are what they should be (i could see my breath at the end of june, last sunday was like 0 degrees, and monday was 12 degrees.)

this is vancouver.
 
ummmmm...................

without much media attention......

According to NASA's newly published data:

-- The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;

-- The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;

-- Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and

-- Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse

gas emissions during the last century occurred.

Fig.D_lrg.gif


basically they messed up in their data analysis

read more about it here:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

(actual NASA site not secret pro or anti global warming "think tank")

 
you know it doode, i also have NRA tatooed on my forhead. i kill polar bears for fun. and you know how bees are dissapearing.... yeah, i took em. i also got my truck raised up like 3 feet. i need a ladder to get in. its FUCKIN AWSOME.

hick life, for life
 
It snowed 14inches in Georgetown Colorado (near Loveland ski area) and they say atleast a few more feet by Sunday. Man, so much for Climate change. Im looking outside now and see it dumping snow!!!
 
actually, part of climate change is greater amounts of precipitation in some places. more el nino type stuff. also more extremes in weather. so.. you're wrong.. again. ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top