Forums: News/Documentary: Do you actually belive in man-made global warming?

 

Do you belive greenhouse gases are the cause of rising temperatures?

  • Avatar of Pi

    Pi

    [21]Nov 17, 2007
    • member since: 08/03/05
    • level: 10
    • rank: Holy Level 10!
    • posts: 103
    Why do people constantly spew propaganda and incorrect statistics? Seriously, before you formulate an opinion and state it as fact, read both sides of the debate and decide which you think has a more valid point. A huge problem in this country is pseudo-scientists and average joes spitting out statistics that are not properly confirmed scientifically or simply made up, then others reading them, assuming they are fact, and spreading the rumor. And as these rumors get passed along, it becomes just like the game we used to play in grade school where children would line up, then whisper a story to one another. By the end of the line, it was totally different than the one it began as.

    A vast majority of scientists, and nearly all of the most highly regarded researchers in the world agree global warming is caused by man. Of course temperatures fluctuate normally, and we are not yet out of that range of fluctuation. But by the time we are, it MAY be too late to fix it. Much of the research pointing to global warming isn't even based on the temperature increase. We know emissions destroy ozone...a proven FACT. Our atmoshere is composed of ozone. There is a hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica already. The hole is growing. Our emissions are increasing. The ozone layer protects the Earth from radiation and ultraviolet rays. More radiation and ultraviolet rays reaching the Earth means it will warm. The ice in extreme regions of the Earth is melting at an alarming rate, moreso than would simply be caused by natural warming cycles (majority opinion). What is the logical outcome here, given these FACTS? At some point we are going to reach a tipping point at which there is no going back. Scientists can only speculate at where this tipping point lies. Again, as stated before, people don't concern themselves with ANYTHING that isn't directly effecting them at that very moment. We love to wait until we are touched by the problem to act, but then we sure like to cry and snivel about it and wonder why our leaders didn't fix it ages ago.

    The vast majority of scientists believe global warming is having an adverse effect on the Earth that will continue to get worse until we can no longer correct the problem. Virtually the only studies that refute this are those commissioned by companies that have a stake in businesses that release these emissions, and by the government officials that support them. Our government officials are PAID by these companies and their election campaigns FUNDED by them. That obviously gives them incentive to side with the company rather than doing the right thing for the future of the Earth. After all, by the time climate changes, they won't be around anymore, hahaha!

    Now there are several types of people that refute the majority opinion. The first and most valid are the very small number of legitimate scientists that say we cannot yet make a determination on whether the warming is due to human emissions or simply natural fluctuation. The second are those involved in politics or industry whose profit depends on emitting as much foulness as possible. The third are some religious groups that believe God, Jesus, or whomever their beliefs dictate, will come down to take us all away within their lifetimes. In my opinion, these people are religious fanatics. Now, I'm never one to criticize another person's beliefs, and won't even mention mine here for fear of turning this into a religious debate. But studies show between 25% and 50% (in various polls) of people believe their "savior" will come back to Earth within their lifetime. Now, don't take this as fatc, but I'm sure those numbers have stayed pretty much the same over the ages.....everyone wants to believe their God or savior will return to Earth in their lifetime, yet it hasn't happened yet. Their view tends to be, and remember, I'm in no way talking about ALL religious people here....."we're going to all be in -insert your word for "Heaven" here- anyway, so who cares what becomes of the Earth? -Insert name of your "God" here- put it all here for the sole purpose of us to pilliage anyway!". I see this as completely irresponsible and foolish. Should we bet our lives on these beliefs? And I'm not talking about the religious beliefs in general, instead our own personal beliefs that the world will soon end anyway. Should we bet our children's lives on this? They're, after all, the ones that will suffer. People have been claiming that the world will end on certain dates throughout the ages. It hasn't ended yet. In fact, no religious text I know of declares a specific date or method with which we can discern when the event will supposedly occur. The fact is, no one can possibly know or predict when or if this will ever occur, and we should not bet our lives, our children's lives, our grandchildren's lives, and other families lives on pure speculation.

    Now, assume for just a moment that most scientists don't agree man is causing global warming trends. In fact, assume that in 50 years it turns out global warming isn't even real at all, as some have suggested. Isn't it better to be, as the old saying goes, safe than sorry? Isn't it better to take steps to protect our children's and grandchildren's future from a very real threat? How will they feel, if it DOES turn out to be true down the road? What if, by then, it is too late to reverse, as many scientists suggest will happen? Our best and brightest minds are telling us.....pleading actually.....that there is a very real danger and we are laughing it off and ignoring it because, again, it isn't changing our lives RIGHT NOW. There is no excuse not to take action NOW.

    And finally, in response to those that complain about all the money it will cost, and how it will damage our economy.....yes, it probably will a little. But is our own comfort for a few years worth the extinction of life on Earth? Is the threat that it MIGHT happen worth ignoring so that we don't have to sacrifice a little to change? Throw the global warming debate out the window for a moment. Pollution is at an all time high. Population is increasing at an exponential rate. Cancer rates are at an all time high per capita due to chemicals and pollution we expose ourselves to. Oil is running out quicker than we all seem to realize. Why not get out ahead of these things and start the process now, rather than when we reach the dire straits that are so obviously coming? We will all be better for it, of that there is no debate! And think of our children....they will CERTAINLY be better off for our action now, even IF global warming turns out simply to be a natural phenomenon.

    Something to think about. And please, please......stop speaking on the subject if you haven't researched both sides thoroughly......and stop spouting off incorrect or simply fabricated statistics to enforce your misinformed point. You're doing the world, yourselves, and your children a GREAT disservice......
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of EJamison

    EJamison

    [22]Nov 17, 2007
    • member since: 07/09/05
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 7,237
    Pi wrote:
    Oil is running out quicker than we all seem to realize.
    This is incorrect. We are running out of easily obtainable oil. There is a lot of oil left but it's too expensive to get to it. But if we need it enough, we can decide to give up other things and spend the money. But, since it would be so expensive, alternatives begin to look more attractive.

    So please stop speaking on the subject if you haven't researched the facts thoroughly, and stop spouting off incorrect or simply fabricated statistics to enforce your misinformed point. You're doing the world, yourselves, and your children a GREAT disservice.

    Otherwise, I agree with what you said.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of RaijinPaladinix

    RaijinPaladinix

    [23]Nov 18, 2007
    • member since: 03/25/06
    • level: 52
    • rank: Guzzlefish
    • posts: 3,813
    EJamison wrote:
    Pi wrote:
    Oil is running out quicker than we all seem to realize.
    This is incorrect. We are running out of easily obtainable oil. There is a lot of oil left but it's too expensive to get to it. But if we need it enough, we can decide to give up other things and spend the money. But, since it would be so expensive, alternatives begin to look more attractive.


    The U.S. wants to import as much as it can before it wants to use the oil buried under Alaskan permafrost. I guess Washington'll think it will have the monopoly to control the world economy then.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Pi

    Pi

    [24]Nov 18, 2007
    • member since: 08/03/05
    • level: 10
    • rank: Holy Level 10!
    • posts: 103
    How can I be wrong on that point when I mentioned no timeline for how long we have before oil runs out? You just like to argue and pick at minute details of other people's posts, as evidenced on other threads. It is a subjective statement, with no statistics stated, therefore you cannot state that I am "wrong". I was referring to the fact that many people don't realize oil will some day run out, and rather think it will last forever. Often, people don't realize that oil is a limited resource, as evidenced by many conversations I've had and many statements I've seen on the web. As I said, though, I stated no timetable that you could possibly label as flat out "wrong".

    And yes, there is oil we haven't tapped into yet, but do we really want to go drilling in protected areas such as Alaska? And do we really want prices to go up further when there are several other alternatives to oil that would be far better for the environment and less costly if we begin to implement them now? I was making the point, again, that people like to wait until the last minute so as to not inconvenience themselves now, when in fact waiting can result in a crisis and far more inconvenience down the road.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Pi

    Pi

    [25]Nov 18, 2007
    • member since: 08/03/05
    • level: 10
    • rank: Holy Level 10!
    • posts: 103
    Oh, and then to use my own words referring solely to incorrect or fabricated statistics and pseudo-scientific claims to ridicule a subjective statement is just arrogant and unnecessary. It simply shows you're more interested in mocking my posts than discussing legitimate topics due to a grudge borne against me from our talks here on other subjects. I wouldn't mind if you disagreed with my assessment of people in general, but to ridicule my statement when you have no idea what timetable was meant by my use of the word "quicker", nor what my experience discussing this subject with others in the past has been is, again, quite insolent...
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of neon2farmer

    neon2farmer

    [26]Nov 19, 2007
    • member since: 08/24/06
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 161
    Anyone that believes "Global Warming" is a very serious problem here's a suggestion of a site to visit: www.heartland.org. Oh, and Debating_Diva, you obvisously didn't look on the U.S. Senate Commitee on Environment and Public Works website very hard, if you couldn't find where it says that 95% of meteorologists don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, so next time, before you crictize me for "making a vague refrence"to a website, maybe you should look harder.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Debating_Diva

    Debating_Diva

    [27]Nov 20, 2007
    • member since: 12/11/05
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 1,264
    neon2farmer wrote:
    Anyone that believes "Global Warming" is a very serious problem here's a suggestion of a site to visit: www.heartland.org. Oh, and Debating_Diva, you obvisously didn't look on the U.S. Senate Commitee on Environment and Public Works website very hard, if you couldn't find where it says that 95% of meteorologists don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, so next time, before you crictize me for "making a vague refrence"to a website, maybe you should look harder.


    Fine I looked again as you obviously aren't going to provide links, and actually it says that a panellist predicts 95% don't believe in it based on his experiences. Yeah because that is a really accurate way of getting statistics :rolls:

    And that site is just like all other Climate Sceptic sites, full of unscientific crap
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of EJamison

    EJamison

    [28]Nov 20, 2007
    • member since: 07/09/05
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 7,237
    In my experience, 75% of tv.com users who believe that 67% of the people who believe that global warming has a 85% chance of becoming a serious problem do not know what the word "anthropogenic" means at least 95% of the time.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of nmantzios

    nmantzios

    [29]Nov 20, 2007
    • member since: 07/30/05
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 2,501
    EJamison wrote:
    Pi wrote:
    Oil is running out quicker than we all seem to realize.
    This is incorrect. We are running out of easily obtainable oil. There is a lot of oil left but it's too expensive to get to it. But if we need it enough, we can decide to give up other things and spend the money. But, since it would be so expensive, alternatives begin to look more attractive.

    So please stop speaking on the subject if you haven't researched the facts thoroughly, and stop spouting off incorrect or simply fabricated statistics to enforce your misinformed point. You're doing the world, yourselves, and your children a GREAT disservice.

    Otherwise, I agree with what you said.


    Oil is not running out, were running out of cheap oil. We have tons and tons of minerals that can be turned into oil. This will last well past out lifetime. And why our we talking about oil?
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of nmantzios

    nmantzios

    [30]Nov 20, 2007
    • member since: 07/30/05
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 2,501
    EJamison wrote:
    In my experience, 75% of tv.com users who believe that 67% of the people who believe that global warming has a 85% chance of becoming a serious problem do not know what the word "anthropogenic" means at least 95% of the time.


    Lot of percentages, but anthropogenic is something that's caused or made by humans. Yeah, I'm in the small 5% Uh huh
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of RaijinPaladinix

    RaijinPaladinix

    [31]Nov 21, 2007
    • member since: 03/25/06
    • level: 52
    • rank: Guzzlefish
    • posts: 3,813
    nmantzios wrote:
    EJamison wrote:
    In my experience, 75% of tv.com users who believe that 67% of the people who believe that global warming has a 85% chance of becoming a serious problem do not know what the word "anthropogenic" means at least 95% of the time.


    Lot of percentages, but anthropogenic is something that's caused or made by humans. Yeah, I'm in the small 5% Uh huh


    Well, with the 'anthro', meaning 'people.' attached as a prefix, I'm surprised 95% of us don't know what it means.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of oopswrongplanet

    oopswrongplanet

    [32]Dec 3, 2007
    • member since: 12/03/07
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 5

    Please, those with an open mind, do a search for global warming lies. There is an excellent report done by an Aussie group, called 9 Lies About Global Warming, that exposes the flawed science they use to convince the world it's a reality.

    I don't fear it. It's all propaganda to make the U.S. give money to other countries. That is the master plan, global socialism.

    Carbon Dioxide is a *good* thing, not a bad thing. It helps plants grow big and strong, we have a larger yield of food, etc. Keep your minds open, and do the research, don't just take the words of "the majority of the world's scientists," because their jobs depend on politics. If you don't go along with the status quo, you could lose your livelihood.

    However, I suspect the overwhelming majority of the world population to swallow it all hook, line, and sinker. That's how propaganda works.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of oopswrongplanet

    oopswrongplanet

    [33]Dec 3, 2007
    • member since: 12/03/07
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 5

    I would like to add, that I do believe in taking care of the planet and being responsible citizens. Just because I don't believe in global warming doesn't mean I don't want to be "green."

    We should take care of the planet. We should reduce emissions, if only for the pollution aspect and using our resources more wisely.

    But I still think the global warming issue is a scare tactic, and it's really all about getting the U.S. to give major dinero to help poorer countries. Please read the 9 Lies pamphlet, it's an eye opener.

    Disclaimer:

    I am not an expert, just an average person. I don't wish to get into a virtual wrestling match with those who disagree with me...you are free to believe whatever you want, I don't feel the need to convert you to my way of thinking. I just wanted to add my two cents, since that's what was asked for in the original post.

    Thanks!

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of oopswrongplanet

    oopswrongplanet

    [34]Dec 3, 2007
    • member since: 12/03/07
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 5

    quote///Those that aren't do not represent mainstream scientific view and their view is about as relevant as the view of those scientists who believe in the creation of the earth and all life upon it in 6 days. ///quote

    Actually, we don't really know all there is to know in the universe and space time continuum. I saw a really interesting program on PBS years ago, I think it may have been a NOVA special, about Einstein's theories and how 6 days way out in space could be millions of years here on earth...it was very deep and too much to go into here.

    But basically the theory is that time slows down the farther away one gets, so one person's millions of years could be another person's week, with enough distance between the two.

    I prefer to keep an open mind on that. We know very little of what has happened in eons past. Geesh, only 50 years ago an ipod would have been unimaginable. So I listen to the scientific theories and remember that they are just that, theories.

    -----

    From A Distance Lyrics (Bette Midler)

    Bette Midler - From A Distance Lyrics



    From a distance the world looks blue and green,
    and the snow-capped mountains white.
    From a distance the ocean meets the stream,
    and the eagle takes to flight.

    From a distance, there is harmony,
    and it echoes through the land.
    It's the voice of hope, it's the voice of peace,
    it's the voice of every man.

    From a distance we all have enough,
    and no one is in need.
    And there are no guns, no bombs, and no disease,
    no hungry mouths to feed.

    From a distance we are instruments
    marching in a common band.
    Playing songs of hope, playing songs of peace.
    They're the songs of every man.
    God is watching us. God is watching us.
    God is watching us from a distance.

    From a distance you look like my friend,
    even though we are at war.
    From a distance I just cannot comprehend
    what all this fighting is for.

    From a distance there is harmony,
    and it echoes through the land.
    And it's the hope of hopes, it's the love of loves,
    it's the heart of every man.

    It's the hope of hopes, it's the love of loves.
    This is the song of every man.
    And God is watching us, God is watching us,
    God is watching us from a distance.
    Oh, God is watching us, God is watching.
    God is watching us from a distance.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of LSyd

    LSyd

    [35]Dec 3, 2007
    • member since: 11/24/05
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 4,418
    Carbon dioxide is a good thing at certain levels. It's not exactly the best thing to have too much of in the atmosphere. Too much oxygen is a bad thing as well - it makes people go funny and it's a fire hazard.

    I don't quite see why it's just to get rich countries to give money to poorer ones. Nearly all of the research to support global warming comes from the rich countries in question which stand to be taken down a notch under this alleged global socialism. Everyone has to do their bit to use less, but the onus really is on the rich countries which use more fuel per capita. I have noticed that as of a few hours ago, the US now stands alone in the developed world for having not ratified the Kyoto Protocol specifically because they are a country that is expected to cut a bigger share than the poorer countries are meant to.

    The fact is that wealthy countries do have money which they can figuratively burn. At the moment, a good way to spend it is research and investment in non-polluting energy sources. I don't expect the US to hand out free money left, right and centre, but would it really be so bad if American companies started building non-polluting power sources in the poorer countries and charged the locals for the electricity coming out of them?

    And just a little correction - Einstein's theory was that time changed due to the difference in speed rather than distances and it does make sense when you understand the physics behind it (all of it hinging on the speed of light being constant in all inertial environments, which has for most purposes been proven).
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of EJamison

    EJamison

    [36]Dec 3, 2007
    • member since: 07/09/05
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 7,237
    If a person were to spend there entire life in a spaceship going at the speed of light then an enormous amount of time would have passed on Earth, but the person on the ship would only have experienced their normal lifespan. Then can return to Earth and "experience" the past as a history lesson, but we can experience the past in the same way. A difference is that, perhaps, we currently have methods for better recording that history. However, if you returned to Earth you'd be limited in your ability to experience all that was recorded, so you'd only be able to touch on the main points. Of course, it is possible that in the future they'll have invented some method of downloading all that information into a synthetic brain and they could give you a brain transplant and you'd have all of that in your head. Or you could return to Earth and find that civilization is gone because of global warming. Perhaps the whole planet will be completely dead. I am not an expert, so I have to decide which experts to listen to. You can always find someone who calls themselves an expert who will support the opposite side. It doesn't mean they really know what they are talking about. But it's possible that no one really knows the truth. We have to try our best to deal with the data we have and continue to learn as much as possible, as a species, and hope that we don't accomplish just the opposite of what we intended.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of oopswrongplanet

    oopswrongplanet

    [37]Dec 3, 2007
    • member since: 12/03/07
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 5

    Back to global warming...

    For those who have a high-speed connection, check out this video.

    http://www.youtube.com/v/XDI2NVTYRXU&rel=1

    DemandDebate.com and JunkScience.com have some interesting information.

    If you can't view it, it explains that there is no proof that Carbon Dioxide causes global warming. In fact, it seems that warmer temperatures actually raise the carbon dioxide levels...with the levels lagging behind, catching up to the temp change within a couple of hundred years.

    It's amazing what one can skew with a graph!

    Sorry, I cannot seem to add a working link or insert a video, and copy/paste is disabled. What's up with that?! Go to YOUTUBE.com and search AL GORE DEBATES GLOBAL WARMING. It's the first hit, uploaded by JunkScience.com.

    Edited on 12/03/2007 1:53pm
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Debating_Diva

    Debating_Diva

    [38]Dec 3, 2007
    • member since: 12/11/05
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 1,264
    oopswrongplanet wrote:
    If you can't view it, it explains that there is no proof that Carbon Dioxide causes global warming. In fact, it seems that warmer temperatures actually raise the carbon dioxide levels...with the levels lagging behind, catching up to the temp change within a couple of hundred years.


    "This is largely true, but largely irrelevant. Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years - a timescale associated with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly driven by wobbles in the Earth's orbit. However, the situation today is dramatically different. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere (35% increase over pre-industrial levels) is from human emissions. Levels are higher than have been seen in 650,000 years of ice-core records, and are possibly higher than any time since three million years ago."
    From BBC
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of RaijinPaladinix

    RaijinPaladinix

    [39]Dec 6, 2007
    • member since: 03/25/06
    • level: 52
    • rank: Guzzlefish
    • posts: 3,813
    oopswrongplanet wrote:
    If you can't view it, it explains that there is no proof that Carbon Dioxide causes global warming. In fact, it seems that warmer temperatures actually raise the carbon dioxide levels...with the levels lagging behind, catching up to the temp change within a couple of hundred years.


    Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to an increase in temperature. The greenhouse effect? The entire atmosphere of the planet Venus, where the CO2-caused greenhouse effect causes the planet to be hotter than 850 Fahrenheit?

    And the greenhouse effect from C02 not only creates warmer temperatures from the rising heat to be pressurized in the atmosphere, acid rain is caused from it as well. This is a problem in the northeast U.S. Rain usually has a pH of 5.7, but they've had rain as low as 2.5 to 3 in West Virginia and Pennsylvania since the '80s.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of EJamison

    EJamison

    [40]Dec 8, 2007
    • member since: 07/09/05
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 7,237
    ^^ Well, Venus is also closer to the sun and Venus is different in other ways. I'm not sure that it can be used to prove anything about global warming on Earth.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.