captain awesome 12:

DamienHell:

sneakypenguin:

DamienHell:
Look at the numbers, CO2 causes global warming, humans pump a CRAP LOAD of CO2 into the air. Humans caused global warming

alright since no one looks at links and such(we are lazy ha)
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another....Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so...Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." - . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ

That's just two quotes I can bring up articles that agree to.

Yes yes, every scientist in the world being payed off makes more sense than just those two. Theres a pascals wager about global warming, I don't remeber the name of the video but it basically said. If we act to counter global warming, and we're wrong, no big loss. But if its true and we DON'T act, we're boned. I have no intention of argueing whether global warming is true or not. So don't try and start a pointless debate.

So no big loss if there are caps on Carbon Dioxide use? No big loss to people with jobs that supposedly contribute to Global Warming? No big loss to the economy from cutbacks and regulations on development? No big loss to people forced to change everything they've invested in because some big wig scientist says so? I'm not talking to you directly, just addressing the video quote. The facts on global warming are this, There is no way to measure the global temperature by means other than by satellite. It is impossible to predict with any kind of accuracy the exact temperature of the world even 50 years ago.

"Paleoclimatology," is not an accurate way to look at ancient temperatures. I for one, am not going to go through drastic change and economic hell just because some guy thinks the rings on a fir tree in north England say the temperature was colder 1,000 years ago. And if we cannot know the previous temperatures we cannot say that the average is higher now then it was back then. In 2007, It was stated that the temperature was a startling 1 degree higher than the past hundred years, despite the fact that we don't know what the temperature was a hundred years ago. In 2008, the average world temperature was LOWER than it has been for the past hundred years.

Oh and as for the images of ice calving off of glaciers, that's been going on for as long as we can remember, it isn't anything new. A recent study conducted in the North Atlantic found that a previously dormant line of underwater volcanoes were active again, and that was a big contributor to the increase in sea temperature and the melting of ice.

Finally, saying that humans polluting the air is having an effect on sea temperature is a big load of bullsh**. The air does not warm the sea, it is vice versa. Also, numerous hurricanes and weather events have been blamed on "Global Warming," however this couldn't be further from the truth. Weather, particularly storms, burn off heat in the atmosphere, keeping the Earth at a constant temperature. Much of the "scientific" research that has gone into Global Warming is nothing more than political scaring. Companies that advertise "Carbon Credits" do little with the money received. And as for Al Gore, if he is so concerned with people using too much electricity, why does his house in Tennessee use as much as 238 regular homes?

DamienHell:
I have no intention of argueing whether global warming is true or not. So don't try and start a pointless debate.

captain awesome 12:

nikomas1:
It's well known (to the knowing ones) that the climate changes over the years. Sure, mankind may have speed it up a notch but we have by no means caused it. If there's one thing many scientists agree on it's that eventually theres going to be a new "Ice age" and we *Mankind* Can't do jack about it, nor could we do anything about our climate changes.

Look at this way. Compare how much dirtier all the industry were 50 - 100 years ago to how "dirty" the industry is today, yet the climate is changing ever as quick. Either we caused it and it's to late to do anything or it's just natural.

Fell free to contradict me, but be warned, discovery/science channel are my favorites.

Edit: I'm a sucker for science!
Edit X2: Happy 300th post to me!

Well done man, since 40 years ago on the cover of time magazine there was a picture of an approaching glacier, and the title was about our impending doom since a new ice age was going to destroy all life.

So I guess you were sarcastic then, And sadly enough I weren't around 40 years ago, nor do I read times magazine.

nikomas1:

captain awesome 12:

nikomas1:
It's well known (to the knowing ones) that the climate changes over the years. Sure, mankind may have speed it up a notch but we have by no means caused it. If there's one thing many scientists agree on it's that eventually theres going to be a new "Ice age" and we *Mankind* Can't do jack about it, nor could we do anything about our climate changes.

Look at this way. Compare how much dirtier all the industry were 50 - 100 years ago to how "dirty" the industry is today, yet the climate is changing ever as quick. Either we caused it and it's to late to do anything or it's just natural.

Fell free to contradict me, but be warned, discovery/science channel are my favorites.

Edit: I'm a sucker for science!
Edit X2: Happy 300th post to me!

Well done man, since 40 years ago on the cover of time magazine there was a picture of an approaching glacier, and the title was about our impending doom since a new ice age was going to destroy all life.

So I guess you were sarcastic then, And sadly enough I weren't around 40 years ago, nor do I read times magazine.

No I wasn't being sarcastic, I was agreeing with you, and I wasn't around that long ago either. I was just remarking on how the climate changes, since now on the cover of the same magazine is the picture of the Polar Bear on the thin ice, talking about global meltdown. But no I was being totally serious and applauding your insight.

captain awesome 12:

nikomas1:

captain awesome 12:

nikomas1:
It's well known (to the knowing ones) that the climate changes over the years. Sure, mankind may have speed it up a notch but we have by no means caused it. If there's one thing many scientists agree on it's that eventually theres going to be a new "Ice age" and we *Mankind* Can't do jack about it, nor could we do anything about our climate changes.

Look at this way. Compare how much dirtier all the industry were 50 - 100 years ago to how "dirty" the industry is today, yet the climate is changing ever as quick. Either we caused it and it's to late to do anything or it's just natural.

Fell free to contradict me, but be warned, discovery/science channel are my favorites.

Edit: I'm a sucker for science!
Edit X2: Happy 300th post to me!

Well done man, since 40 years ago on the cover of time magazine there was a picture of an approaching glacier, and the title was about our impending doom since a new ice age was going to destroy all life.

So I guess you were sarcastic then, And sadly enough I weren't around 40 years ago, nor do I read times magazine.

No I wasn't being sarcastic, I was agreeing with you, and I wasn't around that long ago either. I was just remarking on how the climate changes, since now on the cover of the same magazine is the picture of the Polar Bear on the thin ice, talking about global meltdown. But no I was being totally serious and applauding your insight.

Then sorry for that, but seriously, I'll say it again. We are much cleaner, like 300% (or more) cleaner than 50 years ago, still the climate change. There's the hint.

I'm way to used to being contradicted, not agreed with.

I'm going with the last option, "Man hasn't caused it but has contibuted." Global Warming isn't something new, but it's never been this bad. We didn't start Global Warming, but we did accelerate it. People, Global Warming has always been happening, it's just never gotten this bad this fast.

So, let's say it is happening, and man has caused it (not my view, bare with me). Are we to take opportunity away from those who have not tasted the luxury we all have? I have always believed that this is a rich white man's problem. When people are wealthy enough to "offset" their "footprint", which, I don't even know what the hell that means, but, does that make it ok to continue to consume at such a high rate? Wouldn't it be better for them to live less, and offset other peoples imprint that are less fortunate? I don't know, I would be more open to climate change alarmist arguments if they were made by folks living in grass huts...

Have you ever heard about the boy who cried wolf? The media is so full of BS that its hard to tell what is true and what is false.

I have no intention of argueing whether global warming is true or not. So don't try and start a pointless debate.

Technically YOU started that debate with an all sweeping statement that was devoid of any and all forms of actual intelligence. The question would be, given your total lack of desire for debate why didn't you just vote and then go seal yourself in a room where you could bask in the glow of your all conquering self proclaimed correctness?

Anyway anyone else like the sunspot theory?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

*puts hand up*

Sorry sir!

James Raynor:

PatientGrasshopper:
Just look at their spokesperson Al Gore who is an idiot on the subject. No I do not think man creates global warming, yes humans do cause problems but there is no proof we cause temperature increases and in fact the planet has been warmer in other times in history.

It's called Global Climate Change now.

Remember in the 70's that people thought it would cause a new ice age, that was because we were still learning what it was, then changed to warming, but since we still didn't completely grasp it and it was a confusing name they changed it to global climate change, short term it can get colder, long term it will get warmer.

I do remember like 10 years ago everything was blamed on EL Nino, things that were very similar to what they have been calling global warming or global climate change. The Earth goes through hot and cold phases irregardless of human activity. Water vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2 anyway. Also cows produce a lot of methane. So really it doen't matter so much what humans do as far as climate is concerned, however I do believe we have to control pollution. It also seems the people who complain about pollution the most do so as they sit their smoking. So hypocrisy abounds.

PatientGrasshopper:
Also cows produce a lot of methane.

Yeah. That's anthropogenic.

-- Alex

Alex_P:

PatientGrasshopper:
Also cows produce a lot of methane.

Yeah. That's anthropogenic.

-- Alex

How is that anthropogenic I thought cows farting was a natural occurrence?

Who cares what caused it?

It's a problem that needs fixing, all this banter over the cause wastes time.

Ultrajoe:
Who cares what caused it?

It's a problem that needs fixing, all this banter over the cause wastes time.

but if it isn't mankind and is just a cycle, then we either can't fix it because it's nature or shouldn't fix it because it's what obviously what is apparently needed to happen to keep the planet alive. i don't particularly subscribe to the theory that it's a cycle, just playing devil's advocate :]

PatientGrasshopper:
How is that anthropogenic I thought cows farting was a natural occurrence?

That's like saying chopping down a forest to make new farmland is a "natural occurrence" because you're going to plant some wheat there.

Where do you think the world's 1.3 billion cattle come from? How many do you think would be around if we weren't using them for food and labor?

It's not "cows farting", by the way. Most of the methane they produce is released through their mouths.

-- Alex

Alex_P:

PatientGrasshopper:
How is that anthropogenic I thought cows farting was a natural occurrence?

That's like saying chopping down a forest to make new farmland is a "natural occurrence" because you're going to plant some wheat there.

Where do you think the world's 1.3 billion cattle come from? How many do you think would be around if we weren't using them for food and labor?

It's not "cows farting", by the way. Most of the methane they produce is released through their mouths.

-- Alex

I think there would still be a great deal of cows, they seem to reproduce fine on their own. Also think about it we harvest cows for food, so a majority die off sooner, now in the wild this would happen due to predators, but some cows would be able to escape, not like in a farm,or ranch where they are corralled and can't get away.

PatientGrasshopper:
I think there would still be a great deal of cows, they seem to reproduce fine on their own. Also think about it we harvest cows for food, so a majority die off sooner, now in the wild this would happen due to predators, but some cows would be able to escape, not like in a farm,or ranch where they are corralled and can't get away.

Nope. That's a ridiculous assertion. Go ahead and ask a biologist. It's pretty simple: we produce their food supply. A billion cattle can't survive without human agricultural technology just like a billion people can survive without agriculture.

Also, since you acknowledge methane produced by cattle as an environmental problem, you should probably read up on methane produced by energy industries and methane produced by rice agriculture.

-- Alex

sneakypenguin:
Now to me this brings about the question, if man made global warming is a myth then does modern science lose credibility? I personally think it's all a money play by scientific community and also a political issue for some to rally around.
Reason I feel dissent on this issue is a good thing is because look at all the legislation that will require lesser emissions, cap and trade etc. Many of which can be harmful to economies (which we do not need in todays economic climate)

So your thoughts?

Given that modern science is required to prove it and disprove it, you can hardly say the scientific method loses credibility. It is just politically influenced, what would you expect, look at the violent video game debate, parental agencies pay for studies that always seem to coincidentally prove violent video games cause violence, gaming interest pays for studies that always seem to coincidentally disprove it. No one else cares.

money play by the scientific community == bull****, total paranoid nonsense, there isn't enough money in science for me to to believe the scientific community could even process the concept of "money play"

The reason I never put too much stalk in the whole global warming thing is because I was continually hearing the message "If we don't make immediate drastic changes, the planet is doomed" I have never seen any immediate drastic change, and on last assessment the environment seemed on the mend. I don't like reactionaries. And it makes no sense that a complex ecosystem like planet earth is so reactionary.

However, I do have to comment on:

sv93:
Can you add an option like "Man didn't make it, but they aren't helping to get rid of it" ? Then, and only then, shall I vote.

It sounds like you are all for human interference in a natural ecological process. If Global warming is a natural occurring process, why should mankind interfere? Isn't the idea that humanity was interfering with the natural processes of the world what environmentalists have bitching about for years?

sea ice levels same as 1979
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Why is is so hard to believe that its possible that this is a normal weather pattern, coupled with extra solar output? The Earth has been hotter then this in the past, and cooler in the past. Just b/c it isn't the same temp as it was 75 years ago or 150 years ago doesn't mean that human changed it?

The temps on Mars are warmer now then our first readings. Did our little solar powered probe do that?

sneakypenguin:
sea ice levels same as 1979
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Ha I looked at that. I Just love the first comment about Seals should be put on the endangered species list. Seriously, I think we humans give ourselves way more credit than we deserve,yes we do create the most trash, but we aren't God.

Brockyman:
Why is is so hard to believe that its possible that this is a normal weather pattern, coupled with extra solar output? The Earth has been hotter then this in the past, and cooler in the past. Just b/c it isn't the same temp as it was 75 years ago or 150 years ago doesn't mean that human changed it?

The temps on Mars are warmer now then our first readings. Did our little solar powered probe do that?

Exactly there is another good point, Mars is going through "Global Warming". Also,the if you look back more than 200 years which is as far back as any of the charts Al Gore will show you go the Earth was actually hotter. The charts show the Earth coming out of a sort of Ice Age.

Alex_P:

PatientGrasshopper:
I think there would still be a great deal of cows, they seem to reproduce fine on their own. Also think about it we harvest cows for food, so a majority die off sooner, now in the wild this would happen due to predators, but some cows would be able to escape, not like in a farm,or ranch where they are corralled and can't get away.

Nope. That's a ridiculous assertion. Go ahead and ask a biologist. It's pretty simple: we produce their food supply. A billion cattle can't survive without human agricultural technology just like a billion people can survive without agriculture.

Also, since you acknowledge methane produced by cattle as an environmental problem, you should probably read up on methane produced by energy industries and methane produced by rice agriculture.

-- Alex

I do acknowledge humans create pollution. What I am saying is that it doesn't have the effect people are saying, how do you explain Mars getting warmer in the same way? Now about cows, you don't think cows could find good grazing fields in the wild?

PatientGrasshopper:
What I am saying is that it doesn't have the effect people are saying, how do you explain Mars getting warmer in the same way?

I'm actually gonna have to go with "giant fuckin' coincidence" on this one. The solar system contains eight planets and at least five dwarf planets, after all.

Mars has its own weather and climate cycles. Because the atmosphere is thin and it lacks a large satellite to stabilize its orbit, they're more variable than Earth's.

Mars getting warmer is suggested as an evidence that solar activity is the main cause of climate change. Yet solar irradiance has decreased recently. So, what's the theory here? What's the sun doing to cause Martian climate change? You could name all sorts of factors but, well, the one that people have been actively naming seems to be on the decline.

PatientGrasshopper:
Now about cows, you don't think cows could find good grazing fields in the wild?

Not in a quantity that supports 1.3 billion cattle or anything close.

This "Nu-uh!"/"Uh-huh!" thing is pointless. Go read Livestock's Long Shadow or something.

-- Alex

Global warming regardless of how it is caused is going to screw us.
At our level of technology, we need to control our environment.
this is a global problem, do not try to take one year as the mark of a trend, look for trends over decades... or centuries.

we are deeply fubared

You see the whole problem I have with the man made global warming theory is that the guys who are force feeding this bull keep changing their minds when new information appears disporving their theories.

First we had global warming, which then became climate shift after it was found out that the globe hadn't actually warmed up by any significant level.

Now it turns out that climate change is cyclical and was going on for thousands of years before man had any way of 'influencing' it.

So now we are in the it's a natural occurrence but we are accelerating it phase. So what's gonna happen when it turns out that this is as full of shit as the other two theories that went before it?

walker.au:
Global warming regardless of how it is caused is going to screw us.
At our level of technology, we need to control our environment.

No. We need to live in harmony with our environment. There's a difference.

Us trying to actually control the environment is like a virus or a disease trying to control the animal playing host to it. The virus can live in the animal, parasitically draw from it, hell even kill it. But it can never control it. The animal is too vast in comparison, and will, until the day it dies, be subject only to its own whims, and to the laws if the natural world.

EDIT

Incidentally, I like this guy.

One think people fail to take into account when they trash-talk man's effect on the environment is that we are burning millions of years worth of carbon dumps in the form of oil, gas and coal. I'm not arguing against the existence of natural ice age cycle or the influence of other natural factors, but we are essentially releasing into the atmosphere a ton of greenhouse gasses that had long ago been removed from the atmosphere without implementing any measure to offset that release. You cannon it back in your 4x4 and go 'We're not changing anything significant' - naturally very little, if any, of that petrol/diesel in your tank would have ever seen the light of day again.

When the vast body of scientists investigating this say there is a problem that if not addressed soon will have vast, far reaching consequences for the fate and survival of our species on this planet (yay for drama:D ) I for one am inclined to listen. Sure, a couple of degrees differenece doesn't sound like much, but if a large chunk of polar ice disintegrated suddenly (and bear in mind that it is already disintegrating much faster than scientists had predicted - look for info on the Antarctic shelf) then we would see a significant rise in sea levels. If the Gulf Stream shifts, Britain will be fucked, and the climate across the entire European continent will change. Thousands of acres of farmland could be lost. We take the availability of food for granted - it comes from supermarkets, right? Huh, yeah - tell that to the Africans. One of the scenarios that I remember ends up with Africa being one of the few places able to be farmed - wouldn't that be ironic, if we had to crawl on our hands and knees to them for food handouts?

Maybe the impact of human activity was exaggerated, and it was only because we had finally colated enough data to understand that there were big changes occurring that we became worried. But maybe it wasn't, and those scientists who have devoted their lives to understanding the climate rather than, say, banking or managing, are perhaps on to something here and we should listen to them. Follow the advice of the people with an understanding of what they talk about, not some alarmist (like me, heh) or a cynical conservative reactionary in denial that they could ever have done anything wrong.

The worst thing about this is that if we all sit back in denial and turn out to be wrong, then as civilisation is destroyed we'll be sat there going 'well, what could I have done? I'm too insignificant to have made a difference'.

Laughing Man:
You see the whole problem I have with the man made global warming theory is that the guys who are force feeding this bull keep changing their minds when new information appears disporving their theories.

First we had global warming, which then became climate shift after it was found out that the globe hadn't actually warmed up by any significant level.

Now it turns out that climate change is cyclical and was going on for thousands of years before man had any way of 'influencing' it.

So now we are in the it's a natural occurrence but we are accelerating it phase. So what's gonna happen when it turns out that this is as full of shit as the other two theories that went before it?

That's how science works mang, if your hypothesis is shown to be faulty you correct it.

the last 6 years the earth has been cooling
not warming

Al Gore lied his way to the public eye once again

Ive seen an inconvenient truth twice, its full of crap, besides I live in wisconsin, I want global warming, its freaking cold up here.

I also hear this argument a lot:
If it rains too much its global warming
If it snows too much its global warming
If it does not rain enough its global warming
If its too sunny its global warming
if thier is not enough snow its global warming
if its too cloudy its global warming
If the ice caps melt more than the last year its global warming
if the ice caps freeze over too fast its global warming
If its too hot its global warming
If its too cold its global warming

^ that's usually from the same person

ITS WEATHER YOU CANNOT PREDICT IT, ITS LIKE TAKING STATISTICS OF A ROULETTE WHEEL

However I DO agree that we need to take care of the planet and I fully support energy independence with bio-fuels and solar/wind power because I am a cheap son-of-a-bitch. Keep moving forward with that, Auto emissions in California are so bad that it causes damage to kids lungs, that needs to stop, yet California thinks they can smite other states for "Carbon Foot Prints"

The Kyoto Accord runs out in 2012, China who has signed that accord passed us in 2007 for emissions standards based off of thier plan to build 5 coal fired plants a week to sustain thier plastic burning factories. That means one thing, the Kyoto Accord is BS. Not one country that has signed it has done any follow up, NOT ONE, they talk about it like they have but they have NOT. The US however has started to look into ways on how to make gasoline burn cleaner for the short term and use Natural gas and solar/wind to become more independent WITHOUT signing the accord and this was under the Bush administration. Unfortunately we cant use nuclear power because the price of gas has dropped so now congress is sweeping that under the rug.

That's how science works mang, if your hypothesis is shown to be faulty you correct it.

Indeed but to convince everyone that they have to change their lives in a massive way based on a faulty theory is frankly amazing. Can anyone else provide an example of attempted mass change based solely on a theory that has so little evidence to back it up?

Here's a theoretical question. What do you think would happen if tomorrow a scientist came forward with incontrivertible proof that mankind is having and will never have any effect on the climate? How many people would lose their job in that instant, how many businesses would go under? You get a lot of people saying that people who decry climate change are simply on the books of the big industry giants but just how many billions are invested in Earth saving projects?

Huh, would you look at that...

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?1ad63198-0a1f-4b5b-8fb8-96df07d70d41

Finally, someone who brings up the PDO and AMO. When will people wake up?

Global warming is natural, man has always thought they were all-powerful

Can you fix the spelling please. " Man never belived it " I might be wrong but isnt it believed?

Are people still debating this? Are people still debating that the earth is flat?

Railu:
Are people still debating this? Are people still debating that the earth is flat?

Do you have proof of man made global warming? If so please present it. Also the idea that medieval society thought the earth was flat is a myth.

Deadlydorito:
Can you fix the spelling please. " Man never belived it " I might be wrong but isnt it believed?

fixed

Railu:
Are people still debating this? Are people still debating that the earth is flat?

Yes people still debate this. Perhaps you care to explain why sea ice levels have now rebounded to 1979 levels?

"Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region"

Look at your hockey stick graph all you like, it doesn't make global warming so. Acting like there is no other side to the theory does not make the other side correct.

People don't say the earth is flat cause we can see it's not.
Global warming on the other hand is not so cut and dry, even if some say it is.