Global Warming Skepticism

No, it has nothing to do with Al Gore being a Democrat. It has to do with Al Gore being a psycho and also him having a complex that has the carbon footprint way bigger than any other person in the USA's carbon footprint is.
 
I pretty much based my opinions of the subject off of those pics. Good work.Don't worry about the hate. The truth must get out
 
guys, is it just me or is it really difficult hearing about all the bullshit "controversy"
I know there are some skeptics floating around on this site I have seen the posts for several years. If so please read this because i would like to know what you think.
It's not about people's opinions about Al Gore or any person, I am so damn sick of seeing those posts. Yeah yeah I know this is the internet and someone will probably hit me back after this post with the "intehnet serius busness" cat picture, but you can still get a rough idea of most people's opinions on here which is worth reading.
Anyway, i feel like this is pretty basic stuff and what it comes down to is the future conditions of the planet we live on. The more Carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere, the more energy that will be bounced back to the surface for heating resulting in the greenhouse effect. That is in no way a lie, and to me doesn't seem that difficult to understand. Is it?
Given that, I feel that anyone that honestly still thinks the human race continually pumping several billion tons of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere every year over a long period of time won't slowly raise the earth's average temperatures should really think of taking a science class or at least read a book to gain a general understanding of Carbon Dioxides roll of absorption and readmission of energy to the earth's surface.
Agreed?
 
Of course he's got a huge carbon footprint, no kiddin' . But he's been using it to lower thousands of others wich, ultimatly, puts his way lower than yours or mine. But hey maybe thats a bit too much for you to understand.

Look at it that way: lets say I wanna make things better. I'm going to construct 20 eolien(?) for my city to consume less fossil energy. Indeed MY carbon footprint will be huge compared to others caus' constructing those badass propellers wasn't free or easy. BUT in the end, I helped my city lowered its own carbon footprint.

See what I mean?
 
i understand your point, however to say that 'our pumping out of emissions isn't going to lead to the destruction of life' is blatantly false.

As it seems you're pointing out it's not the case that the C02 will be the direct cause of the end of life BUT it is everything that surrounds emissions that IS (right now) killing life.

The roads we drive on slice through ecosystems rendering them incapable of sustaining the life they contain. The collection and processing of natural resources to build our cars (etc) and to run them is destroying habitats and killing life through the general development of the infrastructure necessary to manufacture and transport these 'goods." And as the Al Gores like to point out the pollution whether a result of accident, general manufacturing, or consumption of these goods that are all contributing factors to the destruction of life on the planet.

To speak broadly our ability to spread and sustain our populations through the use of technology all is intertwined in an inseparable equation that sums to us destroying the earth. Our current global culture is certainly the most wide spread destruction the earth has ever seen from any of its organism, and arguably our current times are the most destructive compared to the course of history.

I think it's worth pointing out that I see this debate as being so much older than the hybrid car -- I can see it in the story of original sin. Do we live by the hand of 'God' or Earth's rules of natural selection if you will, or do we live by our own hand fighting earth -- 'conquering' it.

Now I'm not sure that we can make that choice, that we have the option to do one without the other. Which puts us back to the ridiculousness of this debate... What part of human nature do we have control over? How should we live? Even if we recognize the trouble we're causing doesn't mean we'll ever be able to not cause that trouble.
 
My issue, my biggest issue with this whole "green movement" stuff is that being only 21 I still drive the car my parents got me in high school. Which is a 1984 Ford Bronco. All these people with their hybrids and electric cars try to give me shit for it in parking lots, at stop lights, and other places. The people trying to get in my face is what makes me completely indifferent to what happens.
 
how does that work?

and I'd give you shit to... seriously, who do you think you are?

oj_simpson_chase2.jpg


 
Too bad my Bronco is better.

No, it is just when these pompous jackasses try to tell me I am a douchebag and that I should go buy a Hybrid or some shit and my retort is "I can't afford one cause of college" wanna know what their response is?

"Then drop out of college and buy something to protect the environment" (swear to God, some hipster douche said this to me) is when I take offense and want to key their car.
 
so key their car -- that's not hurting the environment

but there's no reason to let pompous jackasses make you not care about the place you live in with a few snide remarks.
 
It's funny when the word consensus is used in science. Saying there is no debate. Things like that. Even when there are real scientists who have done loads of research saying otherwise. The ipcc is such a bullshit organization.

Nobody cares about the environment anymore. Dumping waste into the oceans is legit, as long as you buy some carbon credits. It's like the church selling indulgences.

such a joke
 
Haha dude :) , thats the first "legit" reason to be indifferent to global warming I've read in this thread so far... So yeah I've no problem anymore with you .
 
i'm in the middle of that movie actually. max just returned with the semi and now he's dippin out.

"two days ago i saw a vehicle that would haul that tanker. you want to get out of here? you talk to me"
 
the point would be that while al gore has good intentions perhaps, his doomsday idiocy, and the hypocrisy of his private jet and other crap all while he criticizes people who arent "gree" makes him impossible to take seriously. i am a strong believer in global warming, or man made climate change, or whatever you want to call it. al gore doesnt help the cause most of the time, he hurts it.
 
when i stand on our highest mountains, i can see a lot of other lower summits, but at one point, i cant see further.

to say that the earth is round gives me the best explanation of this thing.

but i know that this wasnt your point
 
ok. so my personal experience is not enough. but gravity seems like a pretty big argument PRO. if the earth was flat, than gravity would be lower on the edges. when i was in turkey, i didnt felt any difference
 
i dont know about the science but when it rains more days in feb here (MA) than it does snow there has to be something wrong
 
well think about it, if gravity is what it seems to be, the power towards a fat object, it has to be directed towards ONE point. would be a little weird on a flat earth.
 
and actually, we would all be pulled towards the center, resulting in us sliding over the surface.

and thx for the grammar hate. i know, i am not a native speaker. and sometimes i just write the shit instead of checking it twice
 
as i said, i believe there is man made global warming, i just dont think he helps the cause a lot of the time.
 
i know where you stand, and your point is true. It's just too bad people think that the message and the messenger have to be consistent in order for the message to be true.
 
I am pissed everyone is so concerned about global warming when we have REAL environmental concerns to work on. We have damns fucking up the ecology of rivers all across america. shit tons of people are moving to arid regions with no water. China is raping the shit out of mongolia (and regions to the southwest) via agriculture and its creating a dust bowl effect that sweeps dust across china picking up polluntants, such dust storms have reached the US. Invasive weeds such as leafy spurge, knapweed, phragmites, and tamarisk fuck up the drainage and the general ecology of the intermountain west. Soybean farmers are STILL fucking up the amazon. The asian countries of the pacific are fishing the shit out of the pacific and Indian oceans. Fungal blight is fucking up rubber trees across sri lanka and indonesia; they produce most of the worlds natural rubber. Sweet jesus the problems go on and on and i didnt even mention the effect of the massive barage in north korea.

Sorry for taking up your time ns. i know why global warming is portrayed as the most important evironmental concern: MONEY.
 
Its not often I feel this way, but I have a distinct inclination to punch everyone in this thread in the clavicle, save a few individuals.
 
Just think about it, ice ages happen every once and a while.Why cant the oceans freeze?Because of the salt in it, but if the polar icecaps melt, the oceans will be diluted by all the melting fresh water. Now the oceans can freeze throwing the world into another ice age and that could mean year round skiing!!!
 
Impassioned argument. Unfortunately nearly all of these "real world issues" can be traced directly back to climate change. Not to mention that it's not just about climate change. It's about every environmental issue that's plaguing this world here and now. We're getting better, but we have a long way to go.
"We have damns fucking up the ecology of rivers all across america."Hate to break it to you, but these dams provide megawatts upon megawatts of clean, renewable energy. Hydroelectric power is clean, efficient, and fairly reliable. It is used as a major source of energy all across the country, but especially in the Northwest. While there are several arguments against hydroelectric power (dams in specifics), and each one has a right to be discussed, there are ways to construct dams without completely damaging the ecosystems of the lakes and rivers that they lie on. Fish routes, secondary routes, seasonal openings are a few notable ways that we can make hydropower even more environmentally friendly. Ironically, climate change poses a threat to hydropower production in the Northwest due to declining amounts of snowfall (and thus, declining spring runoff).
"shit tons of people are moving to arid regions with no water."Simply put, more and more regions are at risk of this happening due to climate change. Areas in the middle East, middle Africa, the American West, Mexico, areas of South America, and areas of China and Asia, are especially at risk here. Seattle, WA gets most of its drinking water from mountain runoff. So does Salt Lake City, UT. With increased temperatures and lower overall average snowfall, decreased runoffs will cause massive water shortages and disputes.
"China is raping the shit out of mongolia (and regions to the southwest) via agriculture and its creating a dust bowl effect that sweeps dust across china picking up polluntants, such dust storms have reached the US."This would not have happened 25 years ago, most likely. While China is definitely to blame for its abusive agricultural processes, in many ways the so-called "dust-bowl effect" would still be going on in that region even with more responsible methods of farming. Agrarian societies did it before us. So can we; we can create efficient and technologically-advanced agrarian practices that can do a lot to help. But this region of China is undergoing a massive change in climate right now. Desertification is to blame. Agriculture is one reason why this is occurring; climate change is the other.
"Invasive weeds such as leafy spurge, knapweed, phragmites, and tamarisk fuck up the drainage and the general ecology of the intermountain west."Climate change plays a role here too. I'll take the pine beatle as an example as it affects ski resorts nationwide. As temperatures gradually warm (on average), these species need a place to go where they can maintain their life processes. Because adaptations can take hundreds of years to complete, these species instead move upward in elevation. Thus, the ski resorts are heavily at risk for an influx of invasive species that will overwhelm their own ecosystems.
Then there's the comparative environmental issue at ski resorts themselves. Has it ever occurred to you the great undertaking it is to build a ski resort and the resulting environmental consequences? This is one reason I prefer treeskiing--it takes less of a toll on the environment and is generally more fun anyway. Think about what your favorite resort must have looked like before it was deforested. Right now, Breckenridge is proposing a one-lift, 450-acre expansion onto Peak 6. The area has been known to be a prime habitat for lynx, a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately, the development will most likely go through, pushing the lynx into all of the non-existent habitat in the Front Range.
"Soybean farmers are STILL fucking up the amazon. The asian countries of the pacific are fishing the shit out of the pacific and Indian oceans. Fungal blight is fucking up rubber trees across sri lanka and indonesia; they produce most of the worlds natural rubber."These are both huge issues that I agree should be handled swiftly and efficiently. But they are still related to climate change. For an answer to Quote #1, see Answer #3. For an answer to Quote #2, see Answer #4.
I can say that I do agree with you on the notion that these issues should be fixed, but the Earth is a vast and interconnected place--even where one may think there are no interdependencies, there are. So please consider what I have lain before you. Climate change is related to all of these problems--and then some.
With regards to the thread, I am pleased to see some lively discussion. I like seeing NS go at it respectfully over a topic. I hope that this can continue. But am I the only one confused about which side (Anthropogenic Climate Change vs. non-Anthropogenic Climate Change) that OhMyBosh is on?
 
what we have here children is the militant environmentalist. commonly recognized by their instinctive resort to violence upon distention from the ranks of global warming believers. lolz
 
I'm far more concerned about the real environmental issues that the environmental movement doesn't seem to give a shit about anymore.
 
update:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_summary.pdf

We update the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis of global surface

temperature change, compare alternative analyses, and address questions about perception and

reality of global warming. Satellite-observed nightlights are used to identify measurement

stations located in extreme darkness and adjust temperature trends of urban and peri-urban

stations for non-climatic factors, verifying that urban effects on analyzed global change are

small. Because the GISS analysis combines available sea surface temperature records with

meteorological station measurements, we test alternative choices for the ocean data, showing that

global temperature change is sensitive to estimated temperature change in polar regions where

observations are limited. We use simple 12-month (and n×12) running means to improve the

information content in our temperature graphs. Contrary to a popular misconception, the rate of

warming has not declined. Global temperature is rising as fast in the past decade as in the prior

two decades, despite year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Nino-La Nina cycle of

tropical ocean temperature. Record high global 12-month running-mean temperature for the

period with instrumental data was reached in 2010.

I'll say that again 2010 -- hottest year ever recorded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top