Global warming? True or false

It's because the years are so close together and the temp increase is like 3 degrees on the whole graph. It's highly misleading, like most graphs shown about global warming.
 
im open to any global warming debates ive done plenty of research on the topic and im reading State of Fear by Michael Crichton (has REAL evidence that global warming is bs).

heres my little contribution. 5 years ago the sea levels were said to rise. did they rise? not at all.

heres some more food for thought. in state of fear (all legit, researched, unbiased and sourced info btw), a man named something hanlan or something like that, the guy who first called out global warming in 1989 (if you know his real name please sya because i cant remember) estimated that in 10 years (1999), the temperature would increase .35 degrees farenheit. the temperature (and sourced in the footnote) increased only .11 degrees farenheit. his estimate was off by around 300%. when you have an estimate thats off by that much, its not very accurate and further displays how unpredictable the climate is, and how foolish it is to predict that the world will heat up astronomically and sea levels will rise significantly. im not even going to bother saying more everyone hates on me for not going with the flow and calling me a wannabe badass for disagreeing with al gore. ive done research, ive read lots, and my conclusion is: you just cannot predict global warming and there is absolutely NO documented evidence of such that in 50 years from now the world will be warmer and sea levels will rise. im open to hate.
 
watch it, then read other articles and documented research that ISNT biased. then make your decision my youn padewan
 
i appreciate you so much for this right now. hearing one thing from somewhere random and using it to back up everything you stand behind.... just isnt right.

 
glad you quoted me because it made me realise i didnt analyse that graph very well. what i observed from it is that in the past 150 years, the global temperature (over fluctuations) increased .5 degrees celcius. i hope theres no idiot out there who can blame that on "global warming". you can blame it on global warming when you can prove fully that it wasnt natural!
 
i already didnt believe in global warming before reading state of fear. that book just further made me realise how fucking idiotic people are. another thing brought up in the book:

media owns. the onyl reason global warming is viewed as such a threat is because of the media coverage. how many of you believe crime has gone up in the past 12 years? im sure most of you. well fact: crime has gone down significantly. why do we feel there is more crime? more coverage and more exageration by the media. the only reason i watch the news is to see how much crap theyre feeding.
 
the volcanoe part is true. im not sure if 10 years is accurate but the amount of aerosols in volcanic ash significantly affects the temperature
 
yeahh im just looking at it like this: in respect to how often they happen... it isnt an accurate way of thinking about it. if you work it out with time it isnt comparable with human pollution.
 
whether you believe in global warming or not, is it really such a bad thing to try and preserve the environment we live in? for such a large group of people who love the outdoors, why be so destructive to it when there are other solutions?
 
i forgot to add per capita. volcanic ash and aerosols compared to emissions dispensed per capita, i can definately see 10 years as somewhat accurate. and its not so much a matter of how often it happens, its just a comparison, that one volcanic eruption is approximately equivilant to 10 years of human pollution.
 
I wasn't really trying to make it look like you didn't know. I was just mostly saying the graph is ridiculously skewed.
 
oh im all about that. im not a tree hugger or anything but i think kyoto is a great thing. not to fend off global warming but reducing emissions is excellent for public health. vehicular emissions lead to respiratory deseases such as pneumonia and brochitis and reducing emissions reduces these health hazards.
 
no i know just when you quoted me i started thinking hey maybe i should look at that graph better. i tend to skim over things too much
 
anyways i must retire, for i must wake up bright and early for school tomorrow. i look forward to anymore contributions. without further endo, peace out!
 
Volcanoes erupt in many different sizes. The pollution from a volcano is different than the pollution produced by factories and automobiles.

Volcanic_injection.jpg


This shows the chemical breakdown of a volcanic eruption. The volcanic eruption compounds are usually disintegrated much faster than man-made pollution. Given a large pollution can take decades to fully disappear from the tropo/Stratosphere while man-made pollution (mostly CO2, while volcanic pollution is SO2) can take more decades to disintegrate.
 
but nuclear creates waste thats toxic and has to be gotten rid of somehow and its proven it doesnt really live up to its expectaions of CLEAN energy

and fuck yea global warming is real you wanna debate that bitch?

ask mr. al gore he knows
 
yeah, im not a tree hugger either. i dont think anyone would label me as such and im going to be an environmental studies major, go on to green design and oh yeah... i do believe in global warming.
 
i can't believe this is still a debate.

Go to shanghai china, or maybe even LA and tell me the air doens't suck ass and is all smoggy and polluted. tell me it doesn't feel hot stinky and like a big shit whole.  now isn't it possible that there could be a similar effect to this happening globally but liek a  kabillin times smaller?  the answer is a simple.....yes, i would also like to add that most of china and LA suck cock. 
 
I contributed a fair share, I'm allowed to make some comments.

Besides you're just jealous you aren't involved in my horseplay.
 
You Win.

i could not agree more. im willing to admit that i don't know enough about the situation to start debating about it, but i still think it's about time people started bringing attention to the fact that the world ain't doing to well. people just take it for granted and i think it's better that all this hype started (even if it BS) because now more people might actually think about what they're doing.
 
did.... did you just quote a michael crichton novel... NOVEL... as scientific evidence?

do you see fucking dinosaurs walking around? or clouds of mind-controling, predatory nano-machine clouds floating around? or when was the last time a massive epidemic hit your small american town? michael crichton is a very intelligent guy and writes very entertaining stories, that he researches well, thats why theyre entertaining... but you my friend are a fucking sucker, and stupid to boot. read the guys biography... its entertaining too... he can see his aura, can you?
 
I agree with this statement i have no problem helpin the enviroment and most ppl shouldnt...but lets not throw it behind a wall of bull shit like climate change or global warming...we dont know enough about our earths history or patterns to judge so....LEts just do it for the good of ppl!!
 
copypaste!!

The combustion of fossil fuels leads to the release of pollution into the atmosphere. A typical coal plant produces:[2]

* 3,700,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming.

* 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), the leading cause of acid rain

* 500 tons of small airborne particles, which result in chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, in addition to haze-obstructed visibility.

* 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), leading to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.

* 720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), resulting in headaches and additional stress on people with heart disease.

* 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.

* 170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.

* 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

* 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.

 
i quoted what was sourced in a footnote which was properly sourced, quoted, and documented. i searched on google out of sketpticism and it was legit. if you knew anything about crichtons writing you would know that he puts twists on what is actually real. he SOURCES all of his evidence planning against global warming. theres fucking 6 pages of over 100 sources in the back of the book and your going to tell me he made all that shit up? i also found much of the evidence in that book BEFORE i read it on grolier. are you going to sit there and tell me grolier lies? sorry dude but im going to trust a harvard graduate's opinion and writing over yours.
 
yes like i said before i support preserving the environment and reducing emissions. not for global warmning, because there isnt enough evidence to prove and estimate it, but for health and nature preservation.
 
for all those paranoid about global warming i strongly suggest you read this debate between James Hansen (original man who called out global warming) and Dr. Lindzen (a scientist againt global warming). There is evidence on both sides in this debate, but they both concluded that there is too much uncertainty in predicting global warming.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/gwdebate.pdf
 
fuckk, this is exactly the thing that pisses me off. its not my fault hoe! and i dont think there is much of a problem either! i dont care about animals which dont affect my life, sorry but its true, i have my goals and a few less animals dont stand in my way of seeking a happy future.
 
it seems as though everyone here should be worried about climate change since we depend on snow. whether or not human activity is the cause of the warming is not fully known yet, but the earth is warming.

who all uses compact fluorescent light bulbs. this is probably the easiest was to use less energy - and it will save money on the electric bill down the road.
 
global warming is clearly happening scietists are positive of that, its the causes that is causes a little bit of a debate.
 
Yep the causes are up for debate (for example most methane released into the atmosphere comes from natural sources - ruminates (cows etc) - whereas most of the other gases are produced mainly by us they are also produced by volacanoes etc). I have seen a graph that shows the earths warming and its relationship to the other factors. These coorrelated until the 1850's (industrial revolution) when they couldn't keep up with the rate of warming, which indicates other factors. When Greenhouse gases are placed on the graph they coorrelate with it and in part can show that we are helping global warming along. However although it looks bad, I don't think that it is as bad as the scienctists are making it out to be.
 
Great facts bravo but if your so worried turn off ur computer get rid of ur cell phone dont get in a vehichles dont even ride a bide becuase of the metal and rubber and how it was produced dont use ur skis for the same reason dont go skiing cuz the chairlift uses electricity...

MY point is whether its happening or not isnt the issue find a solution for better emmisions safer vehicles and on and on...becuz none of us including u extremists who say its out of control are goin to give up ur electricty and cars and everything else!!
 
in this age its almost impossible to live without electricity... the point is more to get it known so everyone can work together on making things like more efficient cars and sources for electricity instead of them being shot down and failing.
 
what a retarded argument....it's already been shown that we don't have to stop using electricity. theres just better ways of doing things, and now that we know that our current ways are contributing to global warming, we should use some of the technology THAT WE ALREADY HAVE DEVELOPED to lessen our impact.

thats like saying, "oh shit, bananas give me gas. i guess i'll just have to stop eating and kill myself."
 
actually, the loss of certian animals and the explosions of other populations due to environmental distruction and ecological change does effect your life. because lossing one animal or having a population decrease or increase can cause sever egosystem changes. whether it is because of temperature change or other human causes. and these ecoological changes do effect your life... you just may not realize it yet.
 
the fact that this is a moral debate seems odd to me... each side is out to claim that the other side's experts are only in it for the money. if you want to make a philosophical practice of environmentalism, it does indeed contradict some foundational elements of traditional, western, christian, capitalist society. so it's offensive to many who have accepted the primacy of individuality and the effectiveness of markets. very few seem to have put the two together... even the talk of trading environmental credits hasn't been effectively put into practice... so people get scared and environmentalism is given a sort of black mark as the new communism... which scares people. and, since people are then affraid to believe the science behind it, it is easy to paint those scientists or other academics as new religious figures for an environmentalist faith to iscredit them. but what it comes down to, i think, is the asumption that the land is there, ordained for our use and manipulation... and subsequently abuse. and denying that puts a person into the popular commie category.

so, im sure no one either read that or followed it, but in my head it works. and if were going to be working from moral imperatives... the 'right' touting freedom and property rights, and the 'left' the social and moral necessity for environmental upkeep... then we might as well take it all back to the very basis of western christendom... treat your neighbor as yourself... have some humility. thats a basic truth. look at it economically... the website i posted that no one actually looked at suggests it, environmental damage is a public cost, a huge externality... call it long term accounting, i dont know, the point is it benefits you to think of the consequences of your lifestyle. and, whether or not you believe the data or not (which i would say youre a fool not to at this point... unaffiliated, international study groups claim 90% accuracy..??) think about it... the earth does not have infinite anything, there is a limit to how much waste you can dump into any part of it. and if you say, well get off your computer and dont drive and dont... etc... fantastic, if just once you decide to ride a bike or take the bus or ...whatever, youve contributed that much. its quite simple. just do it.

thats far too serious for ns so... uh... blow me.
 
as the kid above you said... a group of unaffiliated international scientists have delcared that they are 90% positive that not only does global warming exist, but it is because of human causes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top