nmmoore13:
Solution: realize global warming is not man made.

Solution: Don't allow people who don't know anything about global warming share their opinions.

Realize Al Gore and some Hippies made it up for money.

goodman528:
I only just realised how many people have posted on this topic, without ever thinking about it for a single moment, and just believes whatever Bush, Christianity or the conservative media has told them, and repeats it:

....

P.P.S. China's energy demand is doubling every few years, look up compound interest to realise what this means, most of that energy is produced by coal. India, Brazil, formal communist block, etc, also growing rapidly, but at a slower rate. You think we are not living in the industrial revolution right now?

Uh... that's not what I said. You want me to forget my GCSE level geography, physics, biology, and chemistry?
No, what I said was that we are not making CO2. I know how temperature works, I know how the sun works, what I'm saying is that we are only putting back what was there in the first place.

All this carbon existed in some form or another anyway however many thousands of years ago it was. This carbon has for the most part remained, whether it be in the atmosphere, life, or the copious amounts of water.

Humans are responsible, but only in the sense they are putting back what was taken out by natural processes.

Please don't be so condescending next time. Neither to me or the others, ok?

its sort of pointless for us to be arguing over the science of this since i doubt anyone here, myself included, is actually qualified. if you dont believe that global warming is man-made than you are saying that the foremost experts in the field are wrong, and that either you or the scattered articles that you find are right. the fact is that the scientific world as a whole believes that global warming is man-made.

Danny Ocean:

goodman528:
...(stuff)...

...etc...

No, what I said was that we are not making CO2. I know how temperature works, I know how the sun works, what I'm saying is that we are only putting back what was there in the first place.

...etc...

Humans are responsible......

...etc...

Please don't be so condescending next time. Neither to me or the others, ok?

Right, take another look at the box, the fossil fuels coming out of the ground is also being put into the box.

Having read your new post, I now understand that you do agree humans are causing global warming. So I'm sorry for misunderstanding you the first time, which led to the condescending bit (thanks for pointing that out). But for people who have obviously never thought about this, then think it's a good idea to repeat something that's incorrect, it's pretty difficult to explain a very simple line of thought without sounding condescending. I'll try harder in the future, but no promises.

Jerious1154:
its sort of pointless for us to be arguing over the science of this since i doubt anyone here, myself included, is actually qualified. if you dont believe that global warming is man-made than you are saying that the foremost experts in the field are wrong, and that either you or the scattered articles that you find are right. the fact is that the scientific world as a whole believes that global warming is man-made.

Hey! I'm qualified!... or... will be in a couple of years... hmmm... maybe I'm not that qualified...

The only thing to do is adjust to the changing climate. There is nothing anyone can really do to reverse or alter the climate of the earth. All these experiments and policies and plans people are wasting millions of dollars on will ultimately fail. The earth's climate is constantly changing and has been changing ever since the Earth was first here. People will just have to migrate to places on the earth that are more hospitable for them if the climate where they are living becomes too hard to deal with. Mankind has done it before back when "transportation" meant a domesticated animal you could ride or hook a cart up to. We can certainly do it again. According to anthropologists, the "Native Americans" in the continental U.S. migrated to where they are now from Asia to escape the coldest areas of the past ice ages. With all the tools and technology at our disposal now, we ought to be even better at adapting to the climate than they were.

Too many modern day people have gotten too soft and lazy to deal with truly difficult times. If the cozy climates where most people currently live shift to other parts of the earth, we'll have to get over that and deal with it if we want to survive.

edit: screwed up the quoting. sorry

Kukul:

goodman528:
...stuff...

(I won't quote your entire post, cause its too long.)

There are just as much or more serious scientists, who claim that the glasshouse effect does not significantly affect our climate, as the ecologists (usually much more poorly educated) who claim otherwise. Saying that people who disagree with you (but have a full right to do so) have been brainwashed, is just beign an arogant d**k.

You are no better when you are repeating so called "liberal" (I bet Ludwig von Mises is rolling in his grave when he hears that socialists are called liberal now) media's agenda.

Also i find your avatar offensive. I live in a country which suffered a lot from soviet opression and a red army soldier's image is just as appropiate for an avatar as a portrait of Adolf Hitler in my opinion.

I think you lost on this one the moment you mentioned the word "Scientists", if all you can do is hide behind a bunch of other people with impressive titles (who may or may not exist), instead of justifying the reasons for your views, or the reasons why my views are flawed. Then you have to question yourself, why do you believe what you believe? Just because someone else told you so?

I'm not repeating anyone else's views, I have never heard of Ludwig Von Mises, (unless he has something to do with the Von Mises failure criteria for structures).

You live in a country which suffered a lot from soviet oppression? Well, I've lived in China for a large part of my life, and if I go back a few generations most of my family were killed in very brutal ways by the communist party. My old neighbour went to a labour camp, and survived, he's now mentally insane. I've seen all the photos of students who've been shot in '89, and as a student, I really believe I would've been one of them if I was born 20 years earlier. How much do you know about the ideal of communism? I suspect not a lot, you are probably just blindly following the majority opinion of hating alll things communist, I.E. someone else's opinion.

And going back to the topic, my hometown is a major coal producer in China, as a result, the sky is literally grey all of the time. The air is so polluted with coal dust, you can rub it off your face every time you walk for a few minutes outside, and your nostrils are black all of the time. The river that used to run through it has totally dried up, so the local government redirected another water source through the town to boost image of the town. Corruption is the rule, not the exception, to get anything done you need many bribes. Officials often beat up small stall owners when they don't pay up. Any education at all cost money, compulsary education means you have to pay that money (instead of free education). Most schools are rubbish, and offer no real chance of going to a decent university; The good schools cost a small fortune to get into, the sort of money 90% of the people don't have. I cringe at the thought China is meeting its ever increasing energy demand with coal, I can smell still the coal dust in my nose. And you suffered a lot under communism?

[quote=Kukul post=18.73528.829504]
There are just as much or more serious scientists, who claim that the glasshouse effect does not significantly affect our climate, as the ecologists (usually much more poorly educated) who claim otherwise. Saying that people who disagree with you (but have a full right to do so) have been brainwashed, is just beign an arogant d**k.

thats not actually true. the official international report on climate change, compiled by the most well respected and qualified experts in the field says that climate change is caused by man. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm click on the faq page and go to page 8 of the pdf to see where it states that.

i dont really see you as disagreeing with me or other people on this forum, i see you as disagreeing with people who actually know stuff about global warming (who are actually scientists, not ecologists). thats why i think that although you havent been brainwashed you are being intellectually dishonest.

raemiel:

guyy:

Why do I keep doing this...

About 800,000 years. (And this is from 2006.) Plenty of data if you ask me, considering this new effect is supposed to happen over only a few decades.

In fact data reaching back that far (and much much further) using ice cores and other geophysical techniques is what supports the global warming as a natural process side of the argument. The Earth experiences massive time-scale cycles of temperature variation. Recently (as in over the last few million years) the Earth has experienced an ice-age (remember all those woolly mammoths) and has since moved into a more temperate temperature range. The natural progression (which has gone through numerous cycles over billions of years) now is movement to a hotter global temperature. This increase in temperature is not going to be at the rate all the newspaper 'scientists' yell at you, it is a process which takes millions of years.

Also, claiming that 800 000 years is plenty of data is just plain incorrect. The Earth is over 4 billion years old and the cycle of global warming and cooling takes tens of millions of years at least. 800 000 years is barely anything on geological timescales and is not as conclusive as you state.

All of this is a moot point. The climate is shifting at a far faster pace then nature ever intended it too. But what ever, ignore the fact that most of the credible scientists of the world all agree that global climate change is happening t an ever increasing rate. You must be more of a genius then all of them combined. Listen to the Right Wing Spew machine yammer on and on about how we have NOTHING to do with it all. It is ok, because it will all happen if you believe it or not.

Jerious1154:

That's not actually true. the official international report on climate change, compiled by the most well respected and qualified experts in the field says that climate change is caused by man. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm click on the faq page and go to page 8 of the PDF to see where it states that.

They will not look, because their ignorance is willful.

Zeke109:
We all know what WE can do to stop global warming. Buy a solar panel, Drill for geothermal power,put up a small windmill, even put up buy a hybrid.
BUT: We can also buy totally air-powered cars, which are $3,000 less than conventional cars, and only costs 3 cents to fill up.

Also, scientists have been thinking up ingenious ways to solve this problems, From sending lenses into space to dilute the sun's rays, to making clouds shinier.

You got a solution?

yes stop talking about it, in fact stop breathing it makes CO2 and according to al gore(who charges 50k for a poverty speech, has a private jet, and whose home uses more electricty in a month than the average americans dose in a year)thats bad for the enviroment, even though plants take it and use it to make oxygen, global warming isnt real get over it we just had the coldest winter in years the ice shelf is bigger than ever recorded and us michiganders are still freezeing our asses off....

Ha, I love how I've only posted one time and yet I've been getting quoted the most. Yay for inflammatory comments with no substance!

In all seriousness, the burden of truth is on the believers to prove that man contributes significantly to global warming. Lets stop quoting random scientists, sometimes, the majority is not always correct. Especially when global warming has been forced out of the field of science and stuck into the political spotlight.

Earth has underwent many climate shifts over time, from highs to lows. Our current "spike" is actually far lower than most spikes seen over the millenia.

nmmoore13:
Ha, I love how I've only posted one time and yet I've been getting quoted the most. Yay for inflammatory comments with no substance!

In all seriousness, the burden of truth is on the believers to prove that man contributes significantly to global warming. Lets stop quoting random scientists, sometimes, the majority is not always correct. Especially when global warming has been forced out of the field of science and stuck into the political spotlight.

Earth has underwent many climate shifts over time, from highs to lows. Our current "spike" is actually far lower than most spikes seen over the millenia.

lol another quote for you
if you look at the report i linked to, i didnt quote random scientists, i quoted a report compiling the results of pretty much ALL scientists that concludes that global warming is man made. this is as definitive as it gets.

axia777:
SNIP
All of this is a moot point. The climate is shifting at a far faster pace then nature ever intended it too. But what ever, ignore the fact that most of the credible scientists of the world all agree that global climate change is happening t an ever increasing rate. You must be more of a genius then all of them combined. Listen to the Right Wing Spew machine yammer on and on about how we have NOTHING to do with it all. It is ok, because it will all happen if you believe it or not.
SNIP

I'm sorry, but - "The climate is shifting at a far faster pace then nature ever intended it too." Really? Besides mangling grammar, nature has no intent. If you can't acknowledge G-d, then at least don't attribute god-like cognizance and planning to a randomly occurring, randomly evolving system. And if you cannot manage even that much consistency, then at least refrain from insulting the intelligence of others whilst displaying your own lack thereof. The unintentional irony is far too heavy for a gaming site.

goodman528:
SNIP
You live in a country which suffered a lot from soviet oppression? Well, I've lived in China for a large part of my life, and if I go back a few generations most of my family were killed in very brutal ways by the communist party. My old neighbour went to a labour camp, and survived, he's now mentally insane. I've seen all the photos of students who've been shot in '89, and as a student, I really believe I would've been one of them if I was born 20 years earlier. How much do you know about the ideal of communism? I suspect not a lot, you are probably just blindly following the majority opinion of hating alll things communist, I.E. someone else's opinion.

And going back to the topic, my hometown is a major coal producer in China, as a result, the sky is literally grey all of the time. The air is so polluted with coal dust, you can rub it off your face every time you walk for a few minutes outside, and your nostrils are black all of the time. The river that used to run through it has totally dried up, so the local government redirected another water source through the town to boost image of the town. Corruption is the rule, not the exception, to get anything done you need many bribes. Officials often beat up small stall owners when they don't pay up. Any education at all cost money, compulsary education means you have to pay that money (instead of free education). Most schools are rubbish, and offer no real chance of going to a decent university; The good schools cost a small fortune to get into, the sort of money 90% of the people don't have. I cringe at the thought China is meeting its ever increasing energy demand with coal, I can smell still the coal dust in my nose. And you suffered a lot under communism?

To be fair, China's suffering under Communism is inflicted by China. You had a revolution; that's the side most Chinese picked. Poland's suffering under Communism was inflicted from without. First the German National Socialists came in with guns and killed a quarter of the people, then the Soviet Socialists came in and killed another quarter. China was plundered for the benefit of the Chinese; Poland was plundered for the benefit of Russia. Not quite the same thing.

axia777:

raemiel:

guyy:

Why do I keep doing this...

About 800,000 years. (And this is from 2006.) Plenty of data if you ask me, considering this new effect is supposed to happen over only a few decades.

In fact data reaching back that far (and much much further) using ice cores and other geophysical techniques is what supports the global warming as a natural process side of the argument. The Earth experiences massive time-scale cycles of temperature variation. Recently (as in over the last few million years) the Earth has experienced an ice-age (remember all those woolly mammoths) and has since moved into a more temperate temperature range. The natural progression (which has gone through numerous cycles over billions of years) now is movement to a hotter global temperature. This increase in temperature is not going to be at the rate all the newspaper 'scientists' yell at you, it is a process which takes millions of years.

Also, claiming that 800 000 years is plenty of data is just plain incorrect. The Earth is over 4 billion years old and the cycle of global warming and cooling takes tens of millions of years at least. 800 000 years is barely anything on geological timescales and is not as conclusive as you state.

All of this is a moot point. The climate is shifting at a far faster pace then nature ever intended it too. But what ever, ignore the fact that most of the credible scientists of the world all agree that global climate change is happening t an ever increasing rate. You must be more of a genius then all of them combined. Listen to the Right Wing Spew machine yammer on and on about how we have NOTHING to do with it all. It is ok, because it will all happen if you believe it or not.

You know you could make an effort to be less abusive and actually attack people's points instead of attacking your perception of the person. If you must know I don't listen to any 'Right Wing Spew machine', my studies over the last three years have informed my view on the climate change question as they are inextricably tied together.

Additionally, how is the data and concept of palaeoclimate a moot point? Could you provide some data or evidence that the climate is changing at a faster pace then nature ever intended? Exactly what speed is climate change meant to occur at? (as apparently determined by nature which one could argue is the process of this climate change)

Also, stating 'most of the credible scientists of the world' support the view that climate change is occuring is not supporting to your argument. If they support the view that climate change is occuring it does not follow that they think it is anything other then a natural process. Who are these 'credible scientists' anyway? In my experience all scientists I have talked to (from a variety of areas) support the natural process argument.

Any evidence to support your points would be useful. Otherwise your argument, when combined with your assumption that I blindly follow the right-wing, seems to just come off as you having a misinformed, evidence-lacking, and angry perspective.

goodman528:
I only just realised how many people have posted on this topic, without ever thinking about it for a single moment, and just believes whatever Bush, Christianity or the conservative media has told them, and repeats it:

I don't listen to Bush, I reject Christianity and I watch the right-wing media as much as the left-wing media.

Which makes me more skeptic towards global warming, or any political issue, than average. You should try it some times, in stead of blindly following the Global Warming Is Superserial-camp.

Kukul:

There are just as much or more serious scientists, who claim that the glasshouse effect does not significantly affect our climate, as the ecologists (usually much more poorly educated) who claim otherwise.

Citation please. I've yet to meet or read about a single scientist (who has the qualifications to make an informed decision) who denies that Global Warming is a problem.

werepossum:

goodman528:
...stuff...

To be fair, China's suffering under Communism is inflicted by China...etc...

Kukul:

goodman528:
...stuff...

....etc... I still think communism is unfair (and it will never be ideal, because every time you give more power to the goverment it uses it to enslave you and steal from you. Thats because power corrupts.) ....etc....

Let's not discuss communism in this thread, it's off topic. There's a lot of communism that's simply undefensible. I disagree with the dictatorship of the proletariant, and planned economics. Big government, and interventionism, simply doesn't make sense as far as I can see. (I picked my avatar because it looks like a cool gaming pic, I like Red Alert a lot, not that much to do with my politics.) As for China and communism, that's even more complicated, there were two Chinese revolutions, 1912 Republican, and 1949 Communist, The civil war was won by the communists, that wasn't a democratic choice, it was a war determined by the stronger military side. As for the tragedy of Eastern Europe, Britain and USA were just as responsible as USSR.

Spinozaad:

goodman528:
I only just realised how many people have posted on this topic, without ever thinking about it for a single moment, and just believes whatever Bush, Christianity or the conservative media has told them, and repeats it:

I don't listen to Bush, I reject Christianity and I watch the right-wing media as much as the left-wing media.

Which makes me more skeptic towards global warming, or any political issue, than average. You should try it some times, in stead of blindly following the Global Warming Is Superserial-camp.

I know you sound really smart saying I follow stuff blindly just like you do. But there is the subtle difference I can justify my position with a clear line of thinking, and without quoting random stats or impressive sounding people. Skepticism is a good thing, but if you attack everything you ever hear, without a clear and logic line of thought to back up your attacks, then you are just being cynical.

nuclear energy

goodman528:

I know you sound really smart saying I follow stuff blindly just like you do. But there is the subtle difference I can justify my position with a clear line of thinking, and without quoting random stats or impressive sounding people. Skepticism is a good thing, but if you attack everything you ever hear, without a clear and logic line of thought to back up your attacks, then you are just being cynical.

Oh, you got that part right. I am a cynic. In the seventies and eighties there was a 'Global Cooling' scare. You can look it up if you want to, I read an article that mentioned it (titled: 'Society of Fear') in de Nieuwe Revu (a Dutch magazine) this summer. I'm sure the information about 'global cooling' can be found on the interwebs.

I'm not denying that global warming is happening. I never denied that. I'm just too much of a skeptic to buy into the near-apocalyptic qualities we're assigning to this upcoming 'global warming'. Vikings lived on Greenland, Romans kept vineyards in England, etc. Global temperature fluctuates all the time. Yet I doubt Eric the Red bothered about climate shift (admittedly, the vikings living in the Greenland settlement might beg to differ) and Constantine the Great never assembled the Bishops of the Empire to discuss a change in the climate. Yet, currently we're hyping over it.

Why?

Because people can gain from it, especially politicians. And of all the 100 things politicians do, 99 of them are -at least- to further their own ends. That's why I'm a cynic.

So even if -this- fluctuation is man-helped (not made, I do not give Man so much credit), trying to fight it is a waste of time. You'd have to change society to an extent that is impossible.

If it's going to doom us all, it's going to doom us all.
But I'm too cynical, even about that.

werepossum:
I'm sorry, but - "The climate is shifting at a far faster pace then nature ever intended it too." Really? Besides mangling grammar, nature has no intent. If you can't acknowledge G-d, then at least don't attribute god-like cognizance and planning to a randomly occurring, randomly evolving system. And if you cannot manage even that much consistency, then at least refrain from insulting the intelligence of others whilst displaying your own lack thereof. The unintentional irony is far too heavy for a gaming site.

So you will accept the theory of directed cause-and-effect in the market system (The invisible hand/Supply and Demand), but you refrain from acknowledging the same application of Le Chatelier's principle to ecology?

holy shitballs.....I've been gone a week and this is still on the front page...

Global warming is an entirely natural occurence and therefore out of our control. Carbon dioxide emmisions are natural, but I must agree that they are excessive. Maybe if everyone would shut up about global warming, they'd go back to being reasonable

:)

Zeke109:
We all know what WE can do to stop global warming. Buy a solar panel, Drill for geothermal power,put up a small windmill, even put up buy a hybrid.
BUT: We can also buy totally air-powered cars, which are $3,000 less than conventional cars, and only costs 3 cents to fill up.

Also, scientists have been thinking up ingenious ways to solve this problems, From sending lenses into space to dilute the sun's rays, to making clouds shinier.

You got a solution?

just re-posting the origional thingy so this thread doesnt go craaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzyyyyyyy
EDIT: oh, wait, It already has.

Fondant:

werepossum:
I'm sorry, but - "The climate is shifting at a far faster pace then nature ever intended it too." Really? Besides mangling grammar, nature has no intent. If you can't acknowledge G-d, then at least don't attribute god-like cognizance and planning to a randomly occurring, randomly evolving system. And if you cannot manage even that much consistency, then at least refrain from insulting the intelligence of others whilst displaying your own lack thereof. The unintentional irony is far too heavy for a gaming site.

So you will accept the theory of directed cause-and-effect in the market system (The invisible hand/Supply and Demand), but you refrain from acknowledging the same application of Le Chatelier's principle to ecology?

I accept the theory of directed cause and effect in the market only to the extent that humans plan and direct; the market itself has no intelligence, no capability for planning. The environment is the same; it too has no intelligence, no capability for planning. For each or both you can accept G-d and say "It's G-d's will." But that yields little guidance for either, no understanding of the pace at which either should change, and little sense of direction.

Spinozaad:

...etc...
Because people can gain from it (Global Warming), especially politicians. And of all the 100 things politicians do, 99 of them are -at least- to further their own ends. That's why I'm a cynic.

So even if -this- fluctuation is man-helped (not made, I do not give Man so much credit), trying to fight it is a waste of time. You'd have to change society to an extent that is impossible....etc...

Actually of the 100 things politicians do, 100 of them are to further their own ends. If a politician did something that wasn't in their best interests... well, we shouldn't even discuss this if, 'cos that's never gonna happen.

However, there is no "if" in man made global warming, of course climate fluctuates and all that, but all we are interseted in is deviations from the norm, and global warming is man made. Fact. Backed up by the clear line of thought I posted earlier. And we really can do something about it, we have the technology, we have the money, we can make a difference, but we are not doing it.

Why don't we switch to nuclear power?

Why don't USA place more realistic CO2 restrictions on cars?

Why don't we stop using Air conditioning and heating? (not including the old people who really do need the heating.)

Why don't we plant more trees?

Precisely because of the selfishness of those in charge. If either Obama or MacCain proposed to change 95% of USA's energy production to Nuclear within the next 20 years, then that would make him unelectable. However, technically, we easily achieve that, without any changes to anybody's daily life.
If they proposed more restrictions on cars, they would be unelectable.
If they proposed some way of cutting back air conditioning and heating in homes, they would be unelectable.
If they proposed a government program to plant trees on the edges of USA's deserts, they would be unelectable.

Who is electing the next president? Will you be electing someone whose best interests coincides with yours? Or will the big corporations be electing someone whose best interests coincides with them?
What matters more in an election? Really wanting to change the world for the better? Or more campaign funding?

You are saying we are not willing to make some changes now to our habits, on the totally blind assumption global warming is not as bad as it seems, because it's impossible to change society too much. How many smokers you know are trying to quit smoking? I know a few smokers, for one of them smoking more as well be his life, and all of them are trying to quit smoking. Maybe they shouldn't quit smoking, on the blind assumption maybe it won't cause cancer.

Marcosco:
Global warming is an entirely natural occurence and therefore out of our control. Carbon dioxide emmisions are natural, but I must agree that they are excessive. Maybe if everyone would shut up about global warming, they'd go back to being reasonable

:)

Ok, everytime someone says that either global warming is a myth, or that it's not anthropogenic, I have to ask them:

Do you have more expertise and knowledge in the subject than the overwhelming majority of leading climatologists and the IPCC?

nmmoore13:
Solution: realize global warming is not man made.

Because science has been so wrong about so many things already!

easy fix. stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible and stop cutting down trees.
this has to happen eventually anyways, since they will run out - trees and fossil fuels.
whichever country puts the most effort into researching and implementing renewable energies gets to export their results to the rest of the world and make a mint.
hopefully we'll get this done before it's too late.
for you "it's not man-made"-ers - congrats, you've just proven your ability to assimilate and regurgitate lies.
Human caused climate change has been a scientifically accepted phenomenon since the 80s. Denying it is pretty much like denying that the earth is round.
so - Way to go! your blissful ignorance will no doubt go down in history.

Marcosco:
Global warming is an entirely natural occurence and therefore out of our control. Carbon dioxide emmisions are natural, but I must agree that they are excessive. Maybe if everyone would shut up about global warming, they'd go back to being reasonable

:)

yes, completely natural, like cars, and trains, and industrial pollution.

zachbob2:
Realize Al Gore and some Hippies made it up for money.

oh yeah, cause they're making bank off all those dvd sales.