1

Just thought that since this is such a big topid these days and that there are so many threads that have really gotten on to this topic one way or another i should start a dedicated thread on Global warming and what you all think of it.

As i have said on many occasions i have said that i am all for caring for our enviroment and doing our bit to keep the planet in a good condition but that i think this whole global warming nonsense that we have swallowed is BS. I think that even if Global warming was a reality humans are not having as big an impact as all the Greens are trying to tell us.

18
Contributors
101
Replies
104
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by hopalongcassidy
Featured Replies
  • 1

    well said. The climate has been changing for billions of years. Compared to other interglacial periods the climate at the moment is actually rather stable, so taking the very long term view humans may actually stabilise the climate (if you use the same kind of logic the greens use, and … Read More

  • Argument: "Global warming is occurring, because the glaciers are melting." Truth: Statement is affirming the consequent. Argument: "The amount of CO2 in air trapped in polar ice is a lot lower than the CO2 concentration today." Truth: Ice is not a hermetic seal for CO2, which can diffuse through it … Read More

  • 1

    [QUOTE=MidiMagic;463111] Argument: "If the ice on just the polar seas melted, it would raise sea level by 3 feet." Truth: This totally ignores the physics of floating bodies. A floating body displaces its weight. A submerged body displaces its volume. But if the floating ice melted, it would still displace … Read More

  • 1

    You humans are more destructive than you all think. That will be your undoing. Global warming is real. Deal with it. Read More

  • 1

    [QUOTE=MidiMagic;463163]I TEACH physics.[/QUOTE] You teach physics? Well I sure hope it isn't anywhere in america.. I feel bad for your students.. once they take a REAL physics course then they will be behind everyone else. The fact of the matter is you blatantly said that the volume of ice is … Read More

1

well said. The climate has been changing for billions of years. Compared to other interglacial periods the climate at the moment is actually rather stable, so taking the very long term view humans may actually stabilise the climate (if you use the same kind of logic the greens use, and consider human activity the sole cause for everything that's different from the past), helping prevent the onset of the inevitable next ice age.

0

I just don't think that there is enough evidence that the planet is heating up. I think that the main motivation behind alot of it is money. There is money to be made of the movies about it. Money to be made of the "Green Solutions". Money to be made off Carbon Trading. Al Gore by the way has invested in all of these things.

Im not saying that all the Greens are simply out to make money either. There are definatly people out there who simply believe everything they are told when it comes to the enviroment but alot of the big Anti-global warming activists like Al Gore are just in it to make money.

0

I would agree with the general consensus here so far, based on what I've seen elsewhere. I would also like to note something I saw written down that seemed interesting to me.

Several years ago, (sometime in the early 90's if I recall correctly) the 'average' global temperature is supposed to have undergone a massive spike. This seems to have coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Anybody know how many temperature-reading systems were in Soviet-held territory?

0

I agree that global warming is natural but i do believe that mankind is playing a part in it to a small extent

0

I agree that global warming is natural but i do believe that mankind is playing a part in it to a small extent

Nicely worded, I think mankind's contribution is about 1%. The sun's often large fluctuations in energy output has never been incorporated into the computer models of the global warming effect. That would have made the calculations too complex!

0

Nicely worded, I think mankind's contribution is about 1%. The sun's often large fluctuations in energy output has never been incorporated into the computer models of the global warming effect. That would have made the calculations too complex!

In these "global warming" rants, I never see (or hear) anyone mention that the polar ice caps on Mars are shrinking. Sort of looks like either the little green men are the cause of it all or maybe part (a large part) is natural and not a result of anything humans are doing. Whether we can do anything to fix it remains to be seen, but the least we can do is to stop Al Gore from flying all over the world on private jets.

Hoppy

0

In these "global warming" rants, I never see (or hear) anyone mention that the polar ice caps on Mars are shrinking. Sort of looks like either the little green men are the cause of it all or maybe part (a large part) is natural and not a result of anything humans are doing. Whether we can do anything to fix it remains to be seen, but the least we can do is to stop Al Gore from flying all over the world on private jets.

Hoppy

Actually the scientists that are trying to make money off this have an explanation for that one as well. Solar winds are throwing dust up into the atmostphere of mars and therefore causing a greenhouse effect on it. It sounds like BS to me but apparently that was enough evidence needed to disregard it completely.

What ever happend to the holes in the ozone and Global cooling?

0

Actually the scientists that are trying to make money off this have an explanation for that one as well. Solar winds are throwing dust up into the atmostphere of mars and therefore causing a greenhouse effect on it. It sounds like BS to me but apparently that was enough evidence needed to disregard it completely.

What ever happend to the holes in the ozone and Global cooling?

That's interesting, I've not heard that before. However, wouldn't it be logical to presume that the same solar wind that is hitting Mars is also hitting Earth (only more so since the Earth is both closer and larger). The conclusion is still the same! At least part of any global warming is due to natural causes. And part of it is caused by all the hot air from Al Gore.

By the way, what ever happened to the flap about the ozone hole in Antarctica. Did it close up and go away? If not, why is it no longer being talked about?

0

That's interesting, I've not heard that before. However, wouldn't it be logical to presume that the same solar wind that is hitting Mars is also hitting Earth (only more so since the Earth is both closer and larger). The conclusion is still the same! At least part of any global warming is due to natural causes. And part of it is caused by all the hot air from Al Gore.

I know it is a lame way of saying we know we could be wrong but this is why we are not. They could be hitting us as well however because of the vegitaion etc of earth we do not have a very dusty surface which means that there is not that much being thrown into the atmosphere causing the same "greenhouse effects" that we are seeing on Mars.

By the way, what ever happened to the flap about the ozone hole in Antarctica. Did it close up and go away? If not, why is it no longer being talked about?

Did a bit of research on this and it seems that the main ingredient in spray cans meant to be causing the holes in the ozone are no longer used. I would say the holes have started to close up by now. If they have not i would say the reason we have not been hearing anything about it is because there is no money to be made off it.

0

Believe it or not planting a tree would be a more effective method of reducing CO2 emissions then shooting down a Lear Jet. Planes do not release CO2 into the atmosphere but rather Sulfur. Sulfur was actually looked at about a decade ago as a method of combatting global warming because it reflects the heat of the sun. The downfall of sulfur is that it causes acid rain and this is why flying 1000's of planes at once was rejected as a solution for global warming.

0

But if sulfur creates acid rain which in turn kills trees which can no longer suck up carbon dioxide which will cause global warming, then it must follow that Lear jets cause global warming. No?

0

The amount Currently being released into the atmosphere is not anywhere near enough to start killing trees. The main problem with Acid rain is corrosion in bridges and other structures.

0

If the causes and effects are still debatable, is it worth a substantial portion of a country's productivity and people's standards of living to be sacrificed for a "cure"?

0

If the causes and effects are still debatable, is it worth a substantial portion of a country's productivity and people's standards of living to be sacrificed for a "cure"?

In some cases then i think the answer is Yes. In the case of Global warming however i think the answer is No. There has not been any solid evidence presented by anyone to say that Global Warming is caused by man and is not a natural occurance.

BTW 800 posts!

0

The amount Currently being released into the atmosphere is not anywhere near enough to start killing trees. The main problem with Acid rain is corrosion in bridges and other structures.

Actually, its killing trees in forests in scandinavia, scotland and siberia

0

yeah, it killed whole lakes in norway and sweden, they have to carpet bomb them with lime to neutralise it

0

If little understanding not comes to human beings then a day is not much far when nature shows its reality....and then no excuses to nature, for a example is Dubai where no one can live without A.C.

0

It seems to me that the question or whether or not global warming is or was caused by people.

The important questions are these:

Is global warming good or bad? So far, I've heard precious little evidence for either answer. If it's good, what can we do to increase it? If it's bad, what can we do to reduce it? What is the cost? Is the cost worth the benifit? Is all the hot air being generated by speeches by the self appointed experts on the subject the cause of most of it? Will someone wake me when it's over?

Hoppy

0

I think it is more that alot of the "followers" of Global warming do not actually know the evidence for it they just believe what they have been told. Even though there is more evidence supporting that it is a natural occurance and not a man made one.

A perfect example of this happend to me last night.

I was down at the shops buying a few things from the supermarket while waiting for my Burgers and Chips to finish being cooked at a Take-a-way joint across the road. I Was of course wearing my favorite shirt to wear in public sporting the phrase "Al Gore did not invent the internet, but he did make up Global warming".

So i was wandering through the isles basking in the usual smiles and glares directed at the topic of my shirt, when a girl of about my age took a deep breath and approached me. I was suddenly hit by a blast of harsh words (and a little spittle) about how Al Gore is a saint and im going to burn in hell because Global warming is real and how it's people like me who are holding this whole fight against Global Warming back.

Wiping the Flecs of bodily fuid off my Glasses i responded. " And what evidence can you give me that Global warming is acctually a man made occurance and not just a load of garbage spewed out by Al Gore that you and so many others so readily swallowed without so much as thinking twice?"

"I Fucking thought so." I Responded to the her non existant reply and walked off to finish my shopping.

0

It seems to me that the question or whether or not global warming is or was caused by people.

Not unless mankind was also responsible for previous incidences of global (that is, apparently world-wide) warm spells, and for the cold spells that seem to come between them.

The important questions are these:

Is global warming good or bad? So far, I've heard precious little evidence for either answer.

I'm not an expert on it, but from what I have read on the issue, historically global warming has been a good thing; warmer weather meant more time for crops to grow and ripen, increasing the viable agricultural territory. (An area that might otherwise be incapable of getting a full crop out before frosts hit, for a hypothetical example.)

And that's assuming we're really undergoing a true warming period, as opposed to simply having measurements taken across the warmer parts of the world. Cities, for example, are notorious as 'heat islands' with a warmer average temperature than the nearby countryside.

If it's good, what can we do to increase it? If it's bad, what can we do to reduce it?

Not that much either way, really. Mankind's impact on the temperature of the world is neglible.

What is the cost? Is the cost worth the benifit?

Of global warming? Unknown.
Of trying to fight global warming the way most enviros* seem to want? A fair-sized chunk of the United States' economy. The real impact of the Kyoto treaty would have been to have little, if any, effect on temperatures, but to at least cripple the US economically. I'm not sure about the countries of the EU, but from what little I've seen, the third-world countries that seem to be responsible for most of the production of the 'greenhouse gasses' get a bye on the issue.

*Note: I am not referring to true environmentalists here, those who actually study the environment and the conditions around it with an open mind. I am referring to those who spout off the quick warnings of 'mankind si killing teh earf!' without providing any kind of true evidence. Or worse, those who simply swallow and regurgitate those claims without even bothering to look at the available data.

Is all the hot air being generated by speeches by the self appointed experts on the subject the cause of most of it?

Heh...nice one.

0

It seems to me that the question or whether or not global warming is or was caused by people.

The important questions are these:

Is global warming good or bad? So far, I've heard precious little evidence for either answer. If it's good, what can we do to increase it? If it's bad, what can we do to reduce it? What is the cost? Is the cost worth the benifit? Is all the hot air being generated by speeches by the self appointed experts on the subject the cause of most of it? Will someone wake me when it's over?

Hoppy

Hoppy, you couldn't have said it ay better!

0

The problem is that the global warming advocates haven't proved anything, especially about whether man caused it. It';s the environmentalist religion's mantra that man causes all environmental problems.

These advocates (especially Al Gore) used bad science and faulty argument modes(mostly the fallacy of affirming the consequent).

Using their faulty logic, I could "prove" that you had to be driving drunk, because you were in an accident, and drunk driving causes accidents. That's an example of affirming the consequent.

People keep telling me to show proof of my statements. I want to see actual proof (without bad science or faulty argument modes) from these advocates.

Meanwhile, scientists are observing global warming on Venus, Mars, and Europa.

I'd say we are returning to the warm climate like that of the time of the Roman Empire.

0

What specific faulty arguments has Gore and his scientists made? Do you even know or do you just go along with the flow of things?

2

Argument: "Global warming is occurring, because the glaciers are melting."

Truth: Statement is affirming the consequent.

Argument: "The amount of CO2 in air trapped in polar ice is a lot lower than the CO2 concentration today."

Truth: Ice is not a hermetic seal for CO2, which can diffuse through it by combining chemically with H2O to form H2CO3. This will especially happen if the ice is in contact with rock or sea water, for the H2CO3 will react with the minerals present to produce carbonates.

Argument: "If the ice on just the polar seas melted, it would raise sea level by 3 feet."

Truth: This totally ignores the physics of floating bodies. A floating body displaces its weight. A submerged body displaces its volume. But if the floating ice melted, it would still displace the same amount of water, because it is water. So the sea level does not change. On the other hand, ice sitting on LAND would raise the sea level if it melted.

Argument: Man is causing global warming.

Truth: If this is so, how is man causing global warming on Venus, Mars, and Europa?

Argument: The average temperature has increased 1/2 degree F since the 1700s.

Truth: The standards we use today were not defined accurately enough in the 1700s to make such a claim. They degree F was also changed in 1901 by an international treaty, so the old values must be adjusted.

Argument: Greenland has not been ice-free for tens of thousands of years.

Truth: The Vikings recorded that southern Greenland was ice-free when they discovered it. That's why they named it Greenland, and why they settled it. Then the weather changed, and they had to abandon their colony.

Votes + Comments
If I recall correctly from what I've read, some glaciers are actually growing at the (eon.moment). Any evidence on this?
Well Done
This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.