NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I do not believe in Global Warming and the evidence for it is quite unconvincing.

My theory (probably been done before I don't know?):

Based off studies on time, it has been discovered that the Earth experiences an Ice Age approximately every 20,000 years. Now, remembering my "education" on Indigenous Australians there was an Ice Age approximately 10,000 years ago and another some 30,000 years ago as well (around the time the first Indigenous peoples migrated to the Australian continent).

Given this regularity, one can surmise that we are half way between two ice ages. Naturally during an Ice Age one might expect things to be a little colder and of course the weather would be vastly different.

So, we have reached the peak between two ice ages...perhaps we can then attribute the slightly warming temperatures and slow melting of the polar ice caps to nature. Over the next few thousand years things are likely to get slightly colder again.

Just a theory.

Most folks call it "climate change" these days; it's a more exact description of the phenomenon.

The international consensus is that there is evidence enough for concern, but perhaps not of crisis proportions.

This clip if from greenfacts.org, which is an impartial informational site with international input. Notice that links are provided for some opinions which are more alarmist, and for some opinions which are less concerned.
http://www.greenfacts.org/studies/climate_change/

(Q&A 1 through 9 are at the greenfacts site, check it out)


10. What is and is not known with certainty about climate change ?
10.1. The earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.6 °C (1°F) during last century, and human activities are increasing the levels of greenhouse gases which tends to warm the planet.

10.2. How much and how fast temperatures will continue to rise remains uncertain, and the exact impacts of climate change over the 21st century, especially for local regions, remain largely unknown.

10.4. However, global warming poses real risks. Because the exact nature and amplitude of these risks remains uncertain, we have to use our best judgment – guided by the current state of science – to determine what the most appropriate response should be.


Conclusion







11. Conclusion
The earth's climate has changed over the last century (see 1). There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed the last 50 years is attributable to human activities (see 2.3). Evolving computer models (see 2.2.1) are predicting that, because of greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures should continue to rise over the 21st century (see 3), impacting nature and mankind both positively and negatively (see 4. and 5).

The impacts should vary among regions (see 5.3), but they can not yet be predicted accurately, especially for small-scale areas(see 10.3). However, it is expected that:

the more the greenhouse gases are emitted, the higher the tendency for the earth to warm (see 3.2),
the greater and faster the warming, the more the adverse effects will dominate (see 5),
and the higher the possibility, although probably remote, of large-scale and possibly irreversible impacts (see 4.3.2).
Therefore, although an acceptable level for greenhouse gases has not yet been determined, reducing emissions should reduce the risk of adverse effects. Many options for emission reductions are available (see 6.2); their costs need to be balanced with the risks left for future generations.




12. Other views
This study is based on the latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) review, the Third Assessment Report (TAR) (More...). Although it is generally considered as a consensus document (links), some people and organizations propose different views:
(includes www.sepp.org and www.scienceforum.net/climatechange, as well as www.globalwarming.org and www.greeningearthsociety.org)

positions suggesting that Climate Change poses less risk,
click here for some links
(includes http://environet.policy.net/warming/ , http://www.heatisonline.org and http://www.climatehotmap.org and www.climatecare.org as well as as well as the website for the Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/environment/0warming.html
positions suggesting that Climate Change poses more risk,
click here for some links.

The difference between an Ice Age and a thaw age isn't very much - just a few degrees in average global temperatures.

You'd expect that sort of change over thousands of years - not over the timescale people use when referring to global warming, which is the result of human activity since the Industrial Revolution - that is, less than two hundred years. In terms of Ice Ages, that's the blink of an eyelid.

True, there are more minor variations in temperature, which the evidence we've got so far could be written off to at a stretch. But the greenhouse effect is solid science, and you can't ignore the basic principle that atmospheric carbon dioxide is a planetary insulator.

There's no question global warming is happening. The question is how much is attributable to humans and to what extent is it happening.

There's no question global warming is happening. The question is how much is attributable to humans and to what extent is it happening.

This is just a phase...it shall pass. I honestly don't know why some people freak out and panic over it...predicting massive tidal waves, the end of the world etc etc.

Whatever happened to the new Ice age?

I think that, if anything, global warming is reversing. The ozone layer's hole over Antarctica is starting to patch up nicely . . .

I think that, if anything, global warming is reversing. The ozone layer's hole over Antarctica is starting to patch up nicely . . .

*breathes in a nice big breath of ozone*

...

*realizes his error, dies, but somehow manages to get up in order to contribute to the thread*

gobal temperature change is a natural occurance (looking back to the ice age, since it's everyone's favorite example), but pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is definitely accelerating things... a lot.

The climate goes through changes all the time, hot/cold cycles are a given: Whether or not it's entirely due to our ecological damage doesn't change the fact we're still damaging the environment, and should find better ways to do things.

Global Warming is going to be like al-qaeda, we dont realize how much of a problem it is until the problem has snowballed. There are 1.5 Million species that are projected to be extinct by 2050. Thats not natural planet changes, plus the changes have been going on for 150 years polluting for the entire life of the planet. Things dont change that quickly.

Can any educated person really say that global warming does not exist? Try taking one environmental studies course, because climate change was pretty much ALL I learned about. Chech this site IPCC.ch (InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

As other people have said, it's not a question whether or not it's occurring, but how much human activities have to do with it. Currently (=last few decades) was, I believe, the second-fastest temperature rise ever.

Global Warming is going to be like al-qaeda, we dont realize how much of a problem it is until the problem has snowballed.
Damn right. A lot of people are still content to bury their heads in the sand about it, but the evidence for climate change is pretty solid. Even the Pentagon accepts it as undeniable reality, and its opinion on the matter is a hell of a lot more radical than that of most climatologists.

The safety of the environment is a hugely important issue that many people don't really take seriously. I think that climate change has definetely been accelerated by humans. Most people and governments, though, aren't willing to make the effort to try and repair the damage. Take the Kyoto Protocol as an example: it was rewritten so many times over eight years of the Clinton administration as to be a shadow of its former self, and then Bush came into power and promptly withdrew the US from it altogether, despite the fact that the US produces more carbon emissions than any other country in the world. Apparently, the only country with a plan to entirely stop carbon emissions by 2020 (I believe that is the year) is Iceland. Congratulations to them, but I guess with the rest of us pumping crap into the atmosphere, they are still going to get screwed. That is the problem with pollution, it doesn't stay put but instead spreads.

The fact is that the Earth's temperature is on a 10,000 year cycle, we were on the low end and are now moving up. (look at the time of the Dinosaurs it was hot then and they didn't have cars or polution)

I think that, if anything, global warming is reversing. The ozone layer's hole over Antarctica is starting to patch up nicely . . .

Er what? Where did you see this?

The fact is that the Earth's temperature is on a 10,000 year cycle, we were on the low end and are now moving up. (look at the time of the Dinosaurs it was hot then and they didn't have cars or polution)

and yet this temp cycle just so happened to start moving up exactly when human activity began pumping enough excess co2 into the atmosphere to have an effect. funny that.

climate change in itself is natural. just like extinction in itself is natural. but the rates of change we are seeing for both right now is well above anything that can be written off as non-human caused.

I think that, if anything, global warming is reversing. The ozone layer's hole over Antarctica is starting to patch up nicely . . .

Er what? Where did you see this?

and more importantly; even if true, what does the ozone hole have to do with climate change?

The fact that scientists who have a vested interest in protecting capitalism and thus their wealth would say that global warming is happening because of us is pretty hard evidence.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Of course global temperature fluctuations are *partly* caused by natural cycles.

But only a fool would blithely imagine that 4 billion people releasing trillions of tons of extra hydrocarbons and CO2 into the air every year would not also be contributing a major effect.

Global Warming is going to be like al-qaeda, we dont realize how much of a problem it is until the problem has snowballed. There are 1.5 Million species that are projected to be extinct by 2050. Thats not natural planet changes, plus the changes have been going on for 150 years polluting for the entire life of the planet. Things dont change that quickly.

The extinction of many species is a result of humans, not "global warming".

Of course there has been a very minimal temperature rise since 1900 yet this is not enough to do all the damage which is being claimed.

The climate we are experiencing now is a cyclical occurance.

The climate we are experiencing now is a cyclical occurance.

The cause is partly cyclic, partly human. What we don't know are the proportions.

Even if it's not completely certain whether human activity is a major cause of global warming, doesn't it make more sense to err on the side of caution and reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses we generate?

We have nothing to lose by being environmentally pro-active and almost certainly everything to lose if we don't. For decades Big Business has been preaching the Big Lie that being environmentally proactive is not economically viable or necessary, when in fact the opposite is clearly true. If we take intelligent action, reducing greenhouse gasses (and all pro-environmental actions) can stimulate economies and be a win-win proposition for everybody.

Global warming is happening. It would happen whether humans were present or not. As a whole, I do not believe that humans cause global warming as it is discussed in mainstream science. I DO, however, believe that humans do have a microeffect that could potentially affect the speed that global warming occurs. I agree that we need to watch what we place in our air, and enviornmental controls do help slow the already natural process of warming and scooling that our planet naturally experiences.

Oh yes, the Kyoto Protocol. That bullshit treaty designed to destroy the American economy. It restricts First-World nations while shitty countries like China and India are allowed to pump out huge amounts of pollutants with their 1950s technology. The Kyoto Protocol was hugely flawed, and deserved to be killed.

Oh yes, the Kyoto Protocol. That bullshit treaty designed to destroy the American economy. It restricts First-World nations while shitty countries like China and India are allowed to pump out huge amounts of pollutants with their 1950s technology. The Kyoto Protocol was hugely flawed, and deserved to be killed.

Indeed. It is seriously flawed.

However, I agree that we should reduce the amount of pollution and it is very economical. I won't give you a big example cause I am keeping it for myself for my own policy initiative. But it is feasible, in Australia to cut CO2 emissions by 60% within the next 20 years (any sooner and it wouldn't be financially feasible.