NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious to what people think about global warming. I think it will benefit mankind. However, that's just me.

I'm curious to what people think about global warming. I think it will benefit mankind. However, that's just me.

Obviously you don't live near the beach :p

No, New Mexico

Obviously you don't live near the beach :p
Maybe he lives next to the...SUN!!!

I am against global warming because it is too hot in the summer. From April to September we should disable all factories and cars. Then turn them on again to keep winter from being too cold.

It would benefit Germany, because we would no longer have to travel to warmer climes. But the tropical areas threatened by desertification and a lot of coastal areas are going to suffer immensely.

I'm infering from the poll that most people here think it will cause harm to the planet. Care to explain?

global warming does not mean it gets warmer everywhere. there will be uncalculable effects and thus in some parts of the world it might even get colder and it is very likely that there are more natural disasters. no joy for anyone!

I'm infering from the poll that most people here think it will cause harm to the planet. Care to explain?
No, you're implying. You infer something from what someone else has said.

I'm infering from the poll that most people here think it will cause harm to the planet. Care to explain?
Assuming that it does happen, I would think it could cause various things such as:
Causing the sea level to rise due to melting icecaps
Wiping out many non-heat-tolerant species
Rather large climate change

Now, one could argue that it wouldn't be wrecking the environment, it's just changing it drastically. But I am rather sure that it would at least harm humans, and regardless of what else it would do, that on its own I would say makes it bad.

EDIT:
What I'd be interested to know is, why is it that you think it would be good? I haven't heard this viewpoint yet.

Not especially. I know what happens to people around here who say Global Warming is a threat. They get pit-bulled by Corneliu.

And I'd just as soon avoid being repeatedly told that things are cooler now than in the Middle Ages, and other odds and ends Corneliu apparently picked up in his tenure as a child meteorologist.

It just starts to grate after a while, you know?

global warming does not mean it gets warmer everywhere. there will be uncalculable effects and thus in some parts of the world it might even get colder and it is very likely that there are more natural disasters. no joy for anyone!

You say that parts of the world will cool. How does that theory make since. CO2 distributes itself evenly around the globe. If CO2 causes warming as is said, how will it cause cooling in parts of the world. The cooling would be caused by variations in climate. But then why couldn't warming be produced form the same effect?

Hmmm... on second thought, I suspect a puppet-at-work.

Not especially. I know what happens to people around here who say Global Warming is a threat. They get pit-bulled by Corneliu.

And I'd just as soon avoid being repeatedly told that things are cooler now than in the Middle Ages, and other odds and ends Corneliu apparently picked up in his tenure as a child meteorologist.

It just starts to grate after a while, you know?
It'll be hard for him to defend that position now that all G8 states recognized it as a threat and influenced by human behavior, which would include Bush.

What I'd be interested to know is, why is it that you think it would be good? I haven't heard this viewpoint yet.

1: More CO2 in the air would result in increased crop yeilds, resulting in more food for the planet. Although some say the increased temperature would result in more crop failures, more heat would move the growing areas closer to the poles. Also an experiment showed that iwith a CO2 increase of 600ppm, plant growth was enhanced by over 250% relative to current environmental conditions. I'll post the reference once I find it again.

2: It is said that more heatstroke deaths would occur if warming is intensified. However, deaths from cold is 3 times as common as heat deaths. Thus warming would reduce deaths. This data was from the book Climate of Fear, a scientific book containing many other reasons (mostly economic)global warming would benefit us, not to be confused with State of Fear, which is fiction by Micheal Crichton.

1: More CO2 in the air would result in increased crop yeilds, resulting in more food for the planet. Although some say the increased temperature would result in more crop failures, more heat would move the growing areas closer to the poles. Also an experiment showed that iwith a CO2 increase of 600ppm, plant growth was enhanced by over 250% relative to current environmental conditions. I'll post the reference once I find it again.

2: It is said that more heatstroke deaths would occur if warming is intensified. However, deaths from cold is 3 times as common as heat deaths. Thus warming would reduce deaths. This data was from the book Climate of Fear, a scientific book containing many other reasons (mostly economic)global warming would benefit us, not to be confused with State of Fear, which is fiction by Micheal Crichton.

But what of the hundreds of millions of people living in coastal regions, and countries such as Bangladesh, which would be entirely wiped out?

1: More CO2 in the air would result in increased crop yeilds, resulting in more food for the planet. Although some say the increased temperature would result in more crop failures, more heat would move the growing areas closer to the poles. Also an experiment showed that iwith a CO2 increase of 600ppm, plant growth was enhanced by over 250% relative to current environmental conditions. I'll post the reference once I find it again.
That's fine and dandy, but not when there's no rain. If its that hot, any water reservoirs will dry up rather quickly as is happening now in Spain and Portugal. Plants won't grow without water. Global warming is going to hasten desertification, and its a real bummer growing stuff in a desert.

2: It is said that more heatstroke deaths would occur if warming is intensified. However, deaths from cold is 3 times as common as heat deaths. Thus warming would reduce deaths. This data was from the book Climate of Fear, a scientific book containing many other reasons (mostly economic)global warming would benefit us, not to be confused with State of Fear, which is fiction by Micheal Crichton.Heat deaths hit an all time high in France, England, and Italy last year. A lot of the places that get cold enough to kill you won't change temperature enough for it to matter.

I found the reference.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba256.html

Buggering around with climate is never a good idea. Melting icecaps, as already pointed out, is bad for coastal/island regions. Increased severity and number of storms is also a bad thing.

However, I've always found trembling at CO2 to be misplaced priorities. Considering how much sulfuric acid, nuclear waste, and pesticides we put out, we should be more scared of... I don't know... rain that dissolves the roof? Three headed babies? Cancer?

I'm infering from the poll that most people here think it will cause harm to the planet. Care to explain?

melting polar caps + salt water + ocean currents = severe reduction in water circulation = bad

this link basicly sums up why global warming is bad.. doesnt take much to figure out that if we keep up with current trends we're going to be in for a lot of hurt laterhttp://www.issues2000.org/askme/ice_caps.htm

watch the "The Day After Tomorrow" and you'll get an extreme version of what could happen

I dont see how its good

Since many of you have mentioned sea level rise please look at this article.
http://www.junkscience.com/jan02/476.pdf

If you can not be bothered to read it or do not have Adobe Reader, here is the final paragraph:
The positive imbalance we observe and
the trend toward a potentially larger imbalance
are evocative of an ice sheet in advance
rather than in retreat. There is ample evidence
for a large retreat of the West Antarctic ice
sheet over the last several thousand years (3,
4). The observed positive imbalance developed
within just the last two centuries as a
result of the stoppage of Ice Stream C and
slowdown of Whillans Ice Stream. If the
current positive imbalance is not merely a
part of decadal- or century-scale fluctuations,
it represents a reversal of the long-term Holocene
retreat.

Since many of you have mentioned sea level rise please look at this article.
http://www.junkscience.com/jan02/476.pdf

If you can not be bothered to read it or do not have Adobe Reader, here is the final paragraph:
The positive imbalance we observe and
the trend toward a potentially larger imbalance
are evocative of an ice sheet in advance
rather than in retreat. There is ample evidence
for a large retreat of the West Antarctic ice
sheet over the last several thousand years (3,
4). The observed positive imbalance developed
within just the last two centuries as a
result of the stoppage of Ice Stream C and
slowdown of Whillans Ice Stream. If the
current positive imbalance is not merely a
part of decadal- or century-scale fluctuations,
it represents a reversal of the long-term Holocene
retreat.

That's one ice sheet. Shifting weather patterns could cause that ice sheet to grow while others slowly melt. And in fact, sea levels ARE increasing. Several pacific island nations such as Tuvalu are already encountering problems.

http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/twosubpa.htm

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/levels.htm

:cool: HOw bOuT We MaKe bIG MaChInEs tHat SuCk It uP AnD mAkE PoWeR aNd eVeRyboDy wILL bE HaPY!!!1!!!111!!!!!!!11111...

I Think that global warming isn't a problem... yet...

The world will most certainly benefit from the species Homo sapiens sapiens (a.k.a. "human race") being eliminated from this planet which it has destroyed beyond anyone's wildest imagination in an extremely short time in global terms.

The world will most certainly benefit from the species Homo sapiens sapiens (a.k.a. "human race") being eliminated from this planet which it has destroyed beyond anyone's wildest imagination in an extremely short time in global terms.

Based on what?

The last Ice Age? Or tilt change? Are we worst than that?

The world will most certainly benefit from the species Homo sapiens sapiens (a.k.a. "human race") being eliminated from this planet which it has destroyed beyond anyone's wildest imagination in an extremely short time in global terms.
E. Coli won't....poor bacteria.

Since many of you have mentioned sea level rise please look at this article.
http://www.junkscience.com/jan02/476.pdf

If you can not be bothered to read it or do not have Adobe Reader, here is the final paragraph:
The positive imbalance we observe and
the trend toward a potentially larger imbalance
are evocative of an ice sheet in advance
rather than in retreat. There is ample evidence
for a large retreat of the West Antarctic ice
sheet over the last several thousand years (3,
4). The observed positive imbalance developed
within just the last two centuries as a
result of the stoppage of Ice Stream C and
slowdown of Whillans Ice Stream. If the
current positive imbalance is not merely a
part of decadal- or century-scale fluctuations,
it represents a reversal of the long-term Holocene
retreat.
This would only stop the raising of sea levels if, and only if, these ice sheets grew at the same rate as the others shrunk. This is highly unlikely and, as NASA pointed out in October 2004 (over a year and a half later than this article) there has been an extremely large decrease in the size of the Arctic Ice Caps in only just over 2 decades, not to mention that the thickness of the ice sheet has shrunk from "15 feet in the 1980s to 8 feet in 2003"

That's one ice sheet. Shifting weather patterns could cause that ice sheet to grow while others slowly melt. And in fact, sea levels ARE increasing. Several pacific island nations such as Tuvalu are already encountering problems.

Okay, so some islands are being flooded. Although that is not happening everywhere, I have a new reason global warming benefits mankind. Precession is essentially "wobble" in the Earth's orbit, going through various cycles every 22000, 41000, and 100000 years. The 22000 year cycle has been found to correspond to glacial (ice ages) and interglacial periods. Halfway through the 22000 year cycle, ice ages will generally begin, lasting until the cylce completes. The current cycle began approximately 10000 years ago. Thus, we should be in the middle of an ice age. However, 8000 years ago, the ancient Chinese began farming, creating more CO2 and methane emmissions, which began reversing the cooling trend. Global warming began 8000 years ago, and if it hadn't we would either be in an ice age, or extinct.

This would only stop the raising of sea levels if, and only if, these ice sheets grew at the same rate as the others shrunk. This is highly unlikely and, as NASA pointed out in October 2004 (over a year and a half later than this article) there has been an extremely large decrease in the size of the Arctic Ice Caps in only just over 2 decades, not to mention that the thickness of the ice sheet has shrunk fromOriginally Posted by NASAaitnessjournal
"5 feet in the 1980s to 8 feet in 2003"


The thickness SHRUNK(?) from 5 feet to 8 feet? :eek:

Isn't that growth? :p

The thickness SHRUNK(?) from 5 feet to 8 feet? :eek:

Isn't that growth? :p
Whoops, I messed that up!

That should have read:

15 feet in the 1980s to 8 feet in 2003.

:eek: :confused:

Whoops, I messed that up!

That should have read:

15 feet in the 1980s to 8 feet in 2003.

:eek: :confused:


No problem. Glad we got it fixed. :D

Did a little research on it for an article I'm writing. In a nutshell:
"We're screwed."
(Slightly bigger nutshell adds the words "if we don't do something very fecking drastic about it right now.")

1: More CO2 in the air would result in increased crop yeilds, resulting in more food for the planet. Although some say the increased temperature would result in more crop failures, more heat would move the growing areas closer to the poles. Also an experiment showed that iwith a CO2 increase of 600ppm, plant growth was enhanced by over 250% relative to current environmental conditions. I'll post the reference once I find it again.

And it's a double bonus because as increased asthma results in increased infant mortality we'll have fewer people to feed and more food to feed them with. And as obesity related diseases kill growing percentages of the remaining people, food stores will grow, and prices drop, making cheap food available to all. :D

Yay Global Warming.

not to be confused with State of Fear, which is fiction by Micheal Crichton.
Fiction backed by heavily researched scientific data. Just look at the Bibliography:

Abupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (Report of the Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, National Research Council).

Andderson, J. B. And J. T. Andrews. "Radiocarbon Constraints on Ice Sheet Advance and Retreat in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica." Geology 27 (1999): 179-82

Bohm, R. "Urban bias in temperature time series--a case study for the city of Vienna, Austria." Climatic Change 38 (1998): 113-28

Braithwaite, Roger J. "Glacier mass balance: The first 50 years of international monitoring." Progress in Physical Geography 26, no. 1 (2002): 76-95.

Braithwaite, R. J., and Y. Zhang. "Relationships between interannual variability of glacier mass balance and climate." Journal of Glaciology 45 (2000): 456-62.

Fagan, Brian. The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850. New York: Basic Books, 2000.

Just to name a few of the articles/books he researched for his book that are relevant to global warming. The conclusions he drew from all that research is quite interesting


We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause.
We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four-hundred-year cold spell known as the "Little Ice Age."
Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon.
Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.
Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows.
Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better.
I conclude that most environmental "principles" (such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the developing world. It is a nice way of saying, "We got ours and we don't want you to get yours, because you'll cause too much pollution."
The "precautionary principle," properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh.
In the thirty-five odd years since the environmental movement came into existence, science has undergone a major revolution. This revolution has brought new understanding of nonlinear dynamics, complex systems, chaos theory, catastrophe theory. It has transformed the way we think about evolution and ecology. Yet these no-longer-new ideas have hardly penetrated the thinking of environmental activists, which seems oddly fixed in the concepts and rhetoric of the 1970s.
We haven't the foggiest notion how to preserve what we term "wilderness," and we had better study it in the field and learn how to do so. I see no evidence that we are conducting such research in a humble, rational, and systematic way. I therefore hold little hope for wilderness management in the twenty-first century. I blame environmental organizations every bit as much as developers and strip miners. There is no difference in outcomes between greed and incompetence.
We need a new environmental movement, with new goals and new organizations. We need more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens. We need more scientists and many fewer lawyers.
We cannot hope to manage a complex system such as the environment through litigation. We can only change its state temporarily--usually by preventing something--with eventual results that we cannot predict and ultimately cannot control.
Nothing is more inherently political than hour shared physical environment, and nothing is more ill served by allegiance to a single political party. Precisely because the environment is shared it cannot be managed by one faction according to its own economic or aesthetic preferences. Sooner or later, the opposing faction will take power, and previous policies will be reversed. Stable management of the environment requires recognition that all preferences have their place: snowmobilers and fly fishermen, dirt bikers and hikers, developers and preservationists. These preferences are at odds, and their incompatibility cannot be avoided. But resolving incompatible goals is a true function of politics.
We desperately need a nonpartisian, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware whom they are working for. Those who fund research--whether a drug company, a government agency, or an environmental organization--always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering the results the funders desire. As a result, environmental organization "studies" are every bit as biased and suspect as industry "studies." Government "studies" are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. No faction should be given a free pass.


One major part of the book, by the way, was an island nation preparing a law suit against the US for its contribution to global warming, because the rising sea levels would eventually sink their island, but the case was eventually dropped because the team working on the case concluded that they could not prove global warming was even occuring and knew they would lose if they took it to court.

My answer to the poll would be "It is not the threat it is made out to be and a whole hell of a lot more non-biased research is needed."

I know that State of Fear was heavily researched. I just didn't want someone getting that instead of Climate of Fear and saying that my conclusions were based on a work of fiction. I love the book, personally.

I'm good with it. Lets me sit up on the high mountains of Scotland, eating tropical fruit whilst watching the English drown. :P

[For the record, I hold no ill will to the English :D]

I know that State of Fear was heavily researched. I just didn't want someone getting that instead of Climate of Fear and saying that my conclusions were based on a work of fiction. I love the book, personally.
Well, when it's honest-to-Eris science fiction based on heavily researched scientific fact, I find it a little more acceptable to base your conclusions on such...

i say it is harming the planet, it is getting worse here, i have noticed it myself, scotlands weather is getting steadily worse, but when the sun does come out it is one major heat wave!!! :( now all the politicians and that say to reduce the problems get rid of cars and all that stuff that puts gases into the atmosphere, but if you get rid of the gases we pump up there, there is less protection from the sun, 1. we have a depleted ozone layer that cant withstand the heat coming through it, 2. the gas we put up in the ait can also absorb and deflect heat, so if we take away the gases all we have is a depleted ozone so it will get unbearably hot for about seventy years till the ozone starts repairing itself, and even then it will only be in starting stages, and will take a good 300 years to get back to a comfortable level.

i base this theory on the experiments done by the dude after september 11th attacks, all ar traffic over america was grounded for 3 days and since there was the loss of the plane trails in the sky the temperature had a rapid increase of 3 degrees centigrade, not much you may say but that is enough to start cataclismic melting of the ice caps, compared to the natural cycle.

that is all i have to say on the matter, any questions and i will try to answer them, but as i have said before i am only a fifteen year old "kid" still in school.

Maybe when this is all over Greenland will actually be green.

My answer to the poll would be "It is not the threat it is made out to be and a whole hell of a lot more non-biased research is needed."

That needs to be said about so many things.

It is a natural part of the earth cycle. Ever hear of Glacial-Pluvial periods?

Maybe when this is all over Greenland will actually be green.

:D But will Iceland be all ice? :eek:

Much as I would love to study climate change for many a decade more, the issue is that we just don't have the luxury of time. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that global climate change is happening, is mostly the result of human activity, and poses a very serious threat. So we have to make a decision here: continue to wait and do nothing but research the issue, at a rather large risk to human life and the stability of the global environment, or do we take action now, acknowledging that we could be wrong (however unlikely that is), and attempt to mitigate the problem? Faced with the catastrophic damage likely to result from climate change, I would argue taht we have to do something immediately, rather than risk: the flooding of many low-lying areas (thus creating tens of millions of climate refugees), severe weather of epic proportions (anyone else notice that the hurricane season last year was one of the worst on record? and that this years' is shaping up to be just as brutal? or that it snowed in YEMEN last year?), nasty droughts and food shortages...the list goes on and on.

At any rate, I think that the scientific consensus is in, and we need to do something now to safeguard the future prosperity of humankind.

(and am I the only one who noticed that the studies people cite against human-induced warming usually come from groups linked either with conservative think tanks or the energy industry?)

My research on the interweb indicates that carbon dioxide levels are higher now than they have been in twenty million years - since the Eocene period. That certainly can't be good. We're not all gonna die off, no, but when I retire, could well be that 10% of the world's agricultural land is useless.

Personally, I think it is the ultimate in human arrogance that with only a century of(incomplete) weather data that we can accurately predict the future climate of the Earth. Hell, just 30 years ago, the big 'threat' was Global Cooling!

The bottom line is that there is no established proof that the increase in carbon dioxide is a strong factor in global climate. More to the point, even if it is, we have absolutely NO idea how the Earth will naturally respond to such an increase. The Earth has been self-monitored for a very very long time, and screwing with that self-regulation is just asking for trouble.

The one thing we know for sure is that we have a very long and sad history of making environmental matters worse rather than better with our interference.

Much as I would love to study climate change for many a decade more, the issue is that we just don't have the luxury of time. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that global climate change is happening, is mostly the result of human activity, and poses a very serious threat. So we have to make a decision here: continue to wait and do nothing but research the issue, at a rather large risk to human life and the stability of the global environment, or do we take action now, acknowledging that we could be wrong (however unlikely that is), and attempt to mitigate the problem? Faced with the catastrophic damage likely to result from climate change, I would argue taht we have to do something immediately, rather than risk: the flooding of many low-lying areas (thus creating tens of millions of climate refugees), severe weather of epic proportions (anyone else notice that the hurricane season last year was one of the worst on record? and that this years' is shaping up to be just as brutal? or that it snowed in YEMEN last year?), nasty droughts and food shortages...the list goes on and on.

At any rate, I think that the scientific consensus is in, and we need to do something now to safeguard the future prosperity of humankind.

(and am I the only one who noticed that the studies people cite against human-induced warming usually come from groups linked either with conservative think tanks or the energy industry?)

Anyone else notice that those cites people site that say Global warming is caused because of Humans have a major Liberal think tank or Eco-terrorist group backing them? It goes both ways, there is no unbiased opinion on this subject.

To the poster that sited a movie for proof the most extereme, please it is a, ready for this, MOVIE. MADE UP DID NOT HAPPEN PROBABLY WILL NOT HAPPEN. No wonder the yutz of today are so messed up can not tell Hollywood fantasy from real life research.

Meh, ignore the troll puppet. If people lack sufficient conviction to post their opinion under their main, they can STFU as far as I'm concerned. :rolleyes:

Personally, I can see that global warming is a result of human activity and will prove devastating, however I do not believe there is anything that can be done about it. Not even the most radical action to which people are capable of agreeing will do anything to offset the changes being driven by demographics. There are 6.4bn people in the world, that number will grow to 7.5bn within 15 years at the current rate - this isn't even taking into account that half the world's population are kids. More than 2bn people are living in the most rapidly industrialising countries the world has ever seen.

I think the situation is, we are like bacteria in a petri dish, about to hit the limits of our environment, with corresponding die-off. And for all our individual free will, as a community, we have about as much influence on the outcome.

Looking on the bright side, here in the wealthy and militarised West, it's going to be fun to watch. I do feel privileged. :) And looking on the bright side, maybe half a century from now, leaner, more stable civilisations will emerge, lacking the energy resources to ever grow to our stage.

Meh, ignore the troll puppet. If people lack sufficient conviction to post their opinion under their main, they can STFU as far as I'm concerned. :rolleyes:

Personally, I can see that global warming is a result of human activity and will prove devastating, however I do not believe there is anything that can be done about it. Not even the most radical action to which people are capable of agreeing will do anything to offset the changes being driven by demographics. There are 6.4bn people in the world, that number will grow to 7.5bn within 15 years at the current rate - this isn't even taking into account that half the world's population are kids. More than 2bn people are living in the most rapidly industrialising countries the world has ever seen.

I think the situation is, we are like bacteria in a petri dish, about to hit the limits of our environment, with corresponding die-off. And for all our individual free will, as a community, we have about as much influence on the outcome.

Looking on the bright side, here in the wealthy and militarised West, it's going to be fun to watch. I do feel privileged. :) And looking on the bright side, maybe half a century from now, leaner, more stable civilisations will emerge, lacking the energy resources to ever grow to our stage.

Will they have tacos?

Will they have tacos?

If not tacos, will they have Chalupas?

Will they have tacos?
Unless communities survive in the southwestern parts of North America and are able to subsequently form a viable civilisation, unlikely.

considering the planet has been through a shit load of climatic changes over billions of years (sorry creationists) since its formation, and the fact that these changes were more drastic than the one we are supposedly dealing with (ice age!) there is nothing we can do about it. the climate is/was going to change even if people weren't here.
There is archeological evidence that the romans planted vast vinyards in britain, and the vikings built farms in greenland. So theoretically, on a large enough scale, we are cooling down.

Unless communities survive in the southwestern parts of North America and are able to subsequently form a viable civilisation, unlikely.

Okay, we'll have to plan ahead...

...what we'll need to do is to develop a simple to understand and decipher language that can be translated into whatever language they are using then. We'll take about a thousand titanium plates and we'll inscribe the recipe for tacos onto them. Then we scatter them around the world. So even if civilization crumbles, The taco will live on! :)

Sigh... the end of the debate is right here for those who want to read it. The ultimate proof that there is o-zone depletion, but it causes no serious problems.

About a decade ago, Mt. Pinatubo erupted. It sprayed into the o-zone 1000 times the florocarbons that man has created in his entire exsistence. This volcano and others like it have been around for FOUR BILLION YEARS! The eruption caused a 4-6% depletion of the o-zone, which later repared itself.

Argue with those facts, go ahead, I dare you!

Meh, ignore the troll puppet. If people lack sufficient conviction to post their opinion under their main, they can STFU as far as I'm concerned. :rolleyes:


I did post my opinion on this, it goes both ways, and there is no unbiased opinion on this subject. if you can show me an unbiased scientist on the matter that proves either side of the debate I will be more willing to believe what they have to say. Till then I have conjecture by those that have an issue to grind on both sides of the spectrum. Both stink and do absolutely nothing to help the subject.

I do what I think is right, including driving hybrids and planting trees, Maybe next time I will try a more direct approach as it seems one can not read the post and decipher the exact opinion one projects. I apologize for your inablity to read between the lines.

Sigh... the end of the debate is right here for those who want to read it. The ultimate proof that there is o-zone depletion, but it causes no serious problems.

About a decade ago, Mt. Pinatubo erupted. It sprayed into the o-zone 1000 times the florocarbons that man has created in his entire exsistence. This volcano and others like it have been around for FOUR BILLION YEARS! The eruption caused a 4-6% depletion of the o-zone, which later repared itself.

Argue with those facts, go ahead, I dare you!
The fact is, the summer of Hong Kong has been getting hotter and hotter and hotter by year and the winters warmer and warmer. I forgot the last time which we had "cold" weather, talking about 5 to 6 degrees Celsius. Winter has been non existent from Hong Kong for several years now.

You argue with the facts.

Sigh... the end of the debate is right here for those who want to read it. The ultimate proof that there is o-zone depletion, but it causes no serious problems.

About a decade ago, Mt. Pinatubo erupted. It sprayed into the o-zone 1000 times the florocarbons that man has created in his entire exsistence. This volcano and others like it have been around for FOUR BILLION YEARS! The eruption caused a 4-6% depletion of the o-zone, which later repared itself.

Argue with those facts, go ahead, I dare you!
If you can't even spell ozone, and are incapable of providing a single source, I fail to see how anyone can listen to you.

The fact is, the summer of Hong Kong has been getting hotter and hotter and hotter by year and the winters warmer and warmer. I forgot the last time which we had "cold" weather, talking about 5 to 6 degrees Celsius. Winter has been non existent from Hong Kong for several years now.

You argue with the facts.

It's been getting hotter and hotter in the Houston area every year, as well.

I think the last time there was a truly *cold* Winter was back in 1996. I'm not talking about just one day where it manages to get below freezing, either. I'm talking at least a month of cold weather.

Last Winter was way too warm. The average temperature was about 70 degrees...

I did post my opinion on this, if you can show me an unbiased scientist on the matter that proves either side of the debate I will be more willing to believe what they have to say.

I guess almost every single scientist in relevant disciplines are biased then. If you want to listen to people who aren't scientists above the people who are scientists, go ahead. Just don't expect to have an informed opinion on the subject.

It's been getting hotter and hotter in the Houston area every year, as well.

I think the last time there was a truly *cold* Winter was back in 1996. I'm not talking about just one day where it manages to get below freezing, either. I'm talking at least a month of cold weather.

Last Winter was way too warm. The average temperature was about 70 degrees...


Yeh. We have the facts.

The fact is, the summer of Hong Kong has been getting hotter and hotter and hotter by year and the winters warmer and warmer. I forgot the last time which we had "cold" weather, talking about 5 to 6 degrees Celsius. Winter has been non existent from Hong Kong for several years now.

You argue with the facts.

It's called climate change... it's been happening for the last 4 billion years.

Between the years 1000 and 1500, the average temperature skyrocketed. After this followed a minor iceage. This is what happens, things change. The arctic ice caps are loosing ground and the antarctic icecaps are growing larger. Things change

If you can't even spell ozone, and are incapable of providing a single source, I fail to see how anyone can listen to you.

I love how people use typos or differences in spelling as an argument.

Anyway, the facts have all been reported, there just hasn't been too many people willing to draw a conclusion.

It's been getting hotter and hotter in the Houston area every year, as well.

I think the last time there was a truly *cold* Winter was back in 1996. I'm not talking about just one day where it manages to get below freezing, either. I'm talking at least a month of cold weather.

Last Winter was way too warm. The average temperature was about 70 degrees...

Yeah, we're in the middle of a heat-wave too. And we had one of the coldest winters on record with record snowfall a few months ago. Anacdotal evidence is not a good judge, especially when the climate change has been only one degree over the past hundred years.

Yeh. We have the facts.

I was watching a report on CNN World News a few months back. They showed how Hong Kong has become "dim" in the past ten years or so.

It is *very* polluted and nasty to look at from a distance.

The fact is, the summer of Hong Kong has been getting hotter and hotter and hotter by year and the winters warmer and warmer. I forgot the last time which we had "cold" weather, talking about 5 to 6 degrees Celsius. Winter has been non existent from Hong Kong for several years now.

You argue with the facts.

Argue I shall. 50 years ago the population of Hong Kong was slightly over 2,000,000 people. Now it is over 6,800,000 people. That is a 240% increase over the last 50 years. Since human beings give off heat and heat is reflected by concrete and other building materials, is it logical to blame the temperature increase of Hong Kong on ozone loss or Co2, or is it logical that Hong Kong is hotter because it is much, much bigger?

Yeah, we're in the middle of a heat-wave too. And we had one of the coldest winters on record with record snowfall a few months ago. Anacdotal evidence is not a good judge, especially when the climate change has been only one degree over the past hundred years.

Even when the local news stations were reporting record highs for December (as well as records for how long the highs were held)?

Climate change is right --- The refineries, chemical plants, mills, and factories in Houston are to blame for my area's shitty climate nowadays.

Argue I shall. 50 years ago the population of Hong Kong was slightly over 2,000,000 people. Now it is over 6,800,000 people. That is a 240% increase over the last 50 years. Since human beings give off heat and heat is reflected by concrete and other building materials, is it logical to blame the temperature increase of Hong Kong on ozone loss or Co2, or is it logical that Hong Kong is hotter because it is much, much bigger?

Hong Kong is hotter and darker than ever before because of all the exhaust particles in the air. The sky there is hazier than Los Angeles.

Even when the local news stations were reporting record highs for December (as well as records for how long the highs were held)?

Climate change is right --- The refineries, chemical plants, mills, and factories in Houston are to blame for my area's shitty climate nowadays.

But you see, here we had a very, very cold winter. I'm sure many other places had a very mild one. Buffalo was really screwed last season, but maybe it was fine in Texas, I don't know.

This is my point, actually. Anicdotal evidence is not proof.

But you see, here we had a very, very cold winter. I'm sure many other places had a very mild one. Buffalo was really screwed last season, but maybe it was fine in Texas, I don't know.

This is my point, actually. Anicdotal evidence is not proof.

The fact that rainwater hasn't frozen during Winter in this area in almost nine years means nothing, I guess.

You're in Texas... we don't expect you to have cold temperatures anymore than you expect a snowless season for us in New York. Climate change is natural and unavoidable, and every area goes through hot and cold spells. Globally, however, it stays nearly the same.

I believe Global warming is probably happening, I also believe it has nothing whatsoever to do with Humans, and that whatever the consequences of it, it is completely unavoidable.

The world will most certainly benefit from the species Homo sapiens sapiens (a.k.a. "human race") being eliminated from this planet which it has destroyed beyond anyone's wildest imagination in an extremely short time in global terms.

Well, of course, in that way the world would benifit, but...

I believe it will be devastating to all life on the Earth, and I´ve never doubted it´s existance.

There´s someone around here talking about "natural climate changes". The changes around here are too extreme to be natural. About 20 years ago, we could have -25C and 3 metres of snow here, and the snowing would often begin early november. Now we have tops -15C and 3 DECImetres of snow, and it starts mid-december. The summer heat has spiked the same way, and it rains more and more here. This can´t only be because of natural changes.

To a certain extent, global warming is natural. The global average temperature would be -18C instead of +15C, as it is now. But it´s proven that it´s rising, and certain scientists believe that the last iceage was made because of warm weather (it rains more than the polar ice melts, the rain freezes and build up the ice caps).

My sources: Tacticus (http://www.tacitus.nu/index.html) Naturvårdsverket (http://www.naturvardsverket.se/dokument/klimat/pdf/oh_pdf/s27.pdf) Cicero (http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext_print.asp?id=2205&lang=no) SNF (http://www.snf.se/verksamhet/klimat/vaxthuseffekten.htm) Kanenergi (http://www.kanenergi.se/energi_miljofakta/miljo/5_vaxthus_ozon.html)

I find this entire thread utterly hilarious.

Well if global warming continues, and the ice caps do melt.

Say good by to New York, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Dublin, Sydney, and every other major coastal city on Earth.

Care to explain how that's a good thing?

Well if global warming continues, and the ice caps do melt.

Say good by to New York, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Dublin, Sydney, and every other major coastal city on Earth.

Care to explain how that's a good thing?

Because then we get to float around in catamarans and piss off Dennis Hopper!



DRY LAND IS NOT A MYTH!

Global warming began 8000 years ago, and if it hadn't we would either be in an ice age, or extinct.

I called puppets on page one.

Just FYI.

Still think I'm right.

Global warming doesn't exist in so much as it does.

The environmental alarmists always picture the world as having a steady state environment, which is an incorrect assumption about the world. During the earths existance, the planet has gone throught global volcanic eruptions, magnetic storms, global flooding, pole reversals, asteroid collisions, planetary collisions, planet wide fires, sun flares, sun spots, tsunamis, wind and erosion. Claiming that 150 years of industry is causing the earth to die is like saying that pouring a glass of water into the ocean will cause a global flood.

If the earth is going to warm up, and it would even if man wasnt here, then it will warm up.

"Together, these natural sources release about 150 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, far outweighing the 7 billion tonnes of man-made emissions" (http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Global_Warming/Older/Emissions.html)

Well if global warming continues, and the ice caps do melt.

Say good by to New York, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Dublin, Sydney, and every other major coastal city on Earth.

Care to explain how that's a good thing?

You forgot something: The Netherlands! It would be a huge pool if the polar ice melt (the defenses would show, but the land around it would be flooded).

Global warming doesn't exist in so much as it does.

Umm...Okay...

The environmental alarmists always picture the world as having a steady state environment, which is an incorrect assumption about the world. During the earths existance, the planet has gone throught global volcanic eruptions, magnetic storms, global flooding, pole reversals, asteroid collisions, planetary collisions, planet wide fires, sun flares, sun spots, tsunamis, wind and erosion. Claiming that 150 years of industry is causing the earth to die is like saying that pouring a glass of water into the ocean will cause a global flood.

If the earth is going to warm up, and it would even if man wasnt here, then it will warm up.

"Together, these natural sources release about 150 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, far outweighing the 7 billion tonnes of man-made emissions" (http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Global_Warming/Older/Emissions.html)
So your argument is that we have nothing to do with it because the Earth releases 150bn tonnes of CO2 and we only release 7. Ok, but that's yearly, so we've been industrialising for 150yrs+, and been burning resources before that.
Agreed, we may not be solely responsible, but we aren't exactly slowing it down now are we. Just think, every year we pump out 7bn tonnes extra CO2 into the atmosphere (using your figures). That's 7bn that wouldn't be there if it weren't for us, so it's obviously going to have some effect, no?

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that global climate change is happening, is mostly the result of human activity, and poses a very serious threat.

Nope.

Claims that scientific opinion is nearly unanimous on the subject of global warming are wrong. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received signatures from over 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, to a document saying, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."15

15 The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, "Petition Project," available on the Internet at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm.

Global warming exists, but is not a threat. It's happened before. There is no way I'll stop having my bonfires and driving my car just because some people hate hot weather.

Effin' deal with it!

There is no way I'll stop having my bonfires and driving my car just because some people hate hot weather.
Effin' deal with it!

Okay.

Don't get riled when you can't buy a gas-powered anything in a few years, then.

think it was said already, but...

its not that global warming is happening, its the rate that it is happening at- way too fast for ecologies (and societies) to adjust.

i cant remember what the term is for it, but there have been studies done on the rate at which 'ecosystems' or plant populations(like forests) 'migrate' its pretty much dependant on seed dispersal and growth rates, if i remember correctly.

anyways, the studies were showing that they cant keep up with the pace of climate-warming, ie, the trees cant 'grow' north (or south if your in the southern hemisphere, but i think most of the studies were done in the us/canada(not sure though)) as fast as the temperature is climbing, and this will cause a _major_ ecological upset, that we cant even begin to predict the effects of. (despite all our science and studies, ecosystems are still a bit too complex for us to predict the repercussions of the removal of one or two seemingly unimportant species, let alone the base of a whole ecosystem(the vegetation))

but, to concede a point, yeah, climate change has happened before, and will happen again, and most of earths history (unless your a yec...) ice caps have not even been present...

but, its the rate that is a concern, and ive heard the counterarguments about it being good for plant growth, will make more usable cropland, etc, but i dont think they are taking into consideration the now-usable cropland that will become unusable desert, or all the crop land that will be lost due to lowland flooding.

and i did read an interesting article on how the sudden warming, melting the icecaps will mess with ocean currents, and cause a bit of a 'knee-jerk' reaction by the planet, very rapidly dropping us into another iceage...

rather interesting, and worth reading, even if you do believe it is biased or liberal tree-hugging nonsense.

Okay.

Don't get riled when you can't buy a gas-powered anything in a few years, then.


I won't actually. I just don't like being lectured on global warming and abortion and whatnot. I like to have my own opinions without everyone saying I can't have them because they don't agree with me.

I was watching a report on CNN World News a few months back. They showed how Hong Kong has become "dim" in the past ten years or so.

It is *very* polluted and nasty to look at from a distance.

Very very sadly, it is. On a recent local survey, 25% people gave the air in Hong Kong "0". Part of the problem is transborder. The increasing industrialisation in Guangdong contributes to the air pollution problem across the region, especially during winter, when the northeasterly winds blow it all south towards us.

*sick* :gundge:

Argue I shall. 50 years ago the population of Hong Kong was slightly over 2,000,000 people. Now it is over 6,800,000 people. That is a 240% increase over the last 50 years. Since human beings give off heat and heat is reflected by concrete and other building materials, is it logical to blame the temperature increase of Hong Kong on ozone loss or Co2, or is it logical that Hong Kong is hotter because it is much, much bigger?
In other words, global warming due to increased urbanisation and industrialisation?

Nope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John P. McGovern M.D. Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs of The National Center for Public Policy Research
Claims that scientific opinion is nearly unanimous on the subject of global warming are wrong. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received signatures from over 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, to a document saying, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."15

15 The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, "Petition Project," available on the Internet at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm.

Ah yes, the infamous Oregon Petition. How many of the signers are, you know, CLIMATOLOGISTS? Well, only 13% of them were trained in physical or environmental scientists. A small subset of those 13% were climatologists. Hence, probably >90% of the signers are not qualified to talk about global climate change. Furthermore, the petition itself (the one people read and signed onto) only talked about catastrophic warming, which is obviously going to be more controversial than climate change in general.

Here's a better little stat for you: the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is comprised of government and academic scientists (several thousand of them, all with expertise relevant to climate change) from many different nations (including the US, Britain, and Saudi Arabia, just to name a few). In their reports, they have concluded that climate change is human-induced and a serious threat. Every report has been unanimously approved! And this isn't some petition, this is good science, peer-reviewed science that these reports are based off of.

So when a colossal international panel of experts all agree that we should do something about climate change, I think we should maybe, I don't know...LISTEN!

In other words, global warming due to increased urbanisation and industrialisation?

Obviously you didn't read correctly. That's why the temperature has risen in Hong Kong - or why it rises in CITIES. Urban heat effect != global warming.

Basically, yes. I also read a rather interesting article that said that global warming would actually increase the amount of snow that fell here in the rockies, but since overall temperatures would rise, it would melt much earlier in the spring, and much quiker too. what are the side effects of that?

Basically, yes. I also read a rather interesting article that said that global warming would actually increase the amount of snow that fell here in the rockies, but since overall temperatures would rise, it would melt much earlier in the spring, and much quiker too. what are the side effects of that?
Two words: epic floods.

Ah yes, the infamous Oregon Petition. How many of the signers are, you know, CLIMATOLOGISTS? Well, only 13% of them were trained in physical or environmental scientists. A small subset of those 13% were climatologists. Hence, probably >90% of the signers are not qualified to talk about global climate change. Furthermore, the petition itself (the one people read and signed onto) only talked about catastrophic warming, which is obviously going to be more controversial than climate change in general.

Here's a better little stat for you: the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is comprised of government and academic scientists (several thousand of them, all with expertise relevant to climate change) from many different nations (including the US, Britain, and Saudi Arabia, just to name a few). In their reports, they have concluded that climate change is human-induced and a serious threat. Every report has been unanimously approved! And this isn't some petition, this is good science, peer-reviewed science that these reports are based off of.

So when a colossal international panel of experts all agree that we should do something about climate change, I think we should maybe, I don't know...LISTEN!

Look:

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.

In other words, a petition of scienists holding degrees. Not "some petition" as you call it.

Also note:

There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming. Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the 11 scientists who prepared a 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on climate change, estimates that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would produce a temperature increase of only one degree Celsius.3 In fact, clouds and water vapor appear to be far more important factors related to global temperature. According to Dr. Lindzen and NASA scientists, clouds and water vapor may play a significant role in regulating the Earth's temperature to keep it more constant.4

3 Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences, "Scientists' Report Doesn't Support The Kyoto Treaty," The Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2001.
4 James K. Glassman and Sallie Baliunas, The Weekly Standard, June 25, 2001.

In addition to that:

Half or more of 20th century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century,5 before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide observed in the 20th century).6

The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, not carbon dioxide.7

Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does.8

(6) "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," Oregon Institute of Science and Health, 2001, http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm.

(7) See "The Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Gases: An Overview," Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy (available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/pubs_html/attf94_v2/chap2.html) for a good summary of this issue understandable to the layman.

(8) "Frequently Asked Global Change Question: What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?," Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, March 2004, available at http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html as of February 8, 2005.

And two selected quotes about your UN group you talked about:

There is no serious evidence that man-made global warming is taking place. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the "greenhouse gas effect" should be the lower atmosphere - known as the troposphere.1 Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no such tropospheric warming. There has been surface warming of about half a degree Celsius, but this is far below the customary natural swings in surface temperatures.2

1 James K. Glassman and Sallie Baliunas, The Weekly Standard, June 25, 2001.
2 Ibid.


Despite popular perception, the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not show that human activities were responsible for global warming. Its conclusions were based on computer models of the earth's climate. However, the problem is so complex that the art of constructing such models is still in its infancy. The uncertainties are so great that the claim by the IPCC that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" is "likely" to be unfounded. We do not yet understand the earth's climate well enough to be able to assess the long-term effect of the carbon dioxide that comes from burning fossil fuels.

The earth has been warming erratically for 10,000 years. That has been good, up to now, because it is what made the non-equatorial latitudes habitable. We can expect that warming trend to continue, no matter what we do about carbon dioxide.

Oh, about that.
Here is the link to that "National Center for Public Policy Research"

http://www.nationalcenter.org/

:rolleyes:

Not exactly a credible source.

Oh, about that.
Here is the link to that "National Center for Public Policy Research"

http://www.nationalcenter.org/

:rolleyes:

Not exactly a credible source.

All sources are cited by them to credible sources. I never said it was a direct source. They cite facts, and also cite where the facts come from. All quotes should be judged as my opinion (quoted only to avoid plagarism), supported by the quoted footnotes with factual evidence.

All sources are cited by them to credible sources. I never said it was a direct source.
You know, I did the same thing once with the Brady foundations and gun laws. No one bought it.
Why?
Because these interest groups are selective in gathering evidence, in doing surveys, in making comparisons and in their conclusions.

Fact is that the majority of governments on this planet apparently believe there is a problem, and that those governments are supported in this claim by thousands and thousands of scientific advisors, and by the academic world.
If climate change really is so natural, then I just cannot understand why it would be accelerating at such a rate. In 20 years or so, the spring of the Ganghes won't* exist anymore for example...the locals are quite outraged.

* = EDIT

It's obvious that the world is slowly warming. But I don't care. The more people dead from heatstroke, the better.

...supported in this claim by thousands and thousands of scientific advisors, and by the academic world.
If climate change really is so natural, then I just cannot understand why it would be accelerating at such a rate. In 20 years or so, the spring of the Ganghes would exist anymore for example...the locals are quite outraged.

Two things:

1. They are not supported by "the academic world". The so-called academic world is devided over this issue. There are thousands of scientists on both sides.

2. Now that you claim my sources are bad, you don't even cite a source! :) Looking on my own, I found that the temperature rose 1/3 F from 1979 to 1999 (http://www.ucar.edu/communications/newsreleases/2003/wigley2.html).

In all honestly, I think I've wrote all I can write on this topic for now. You guys (and girls) are free to debate this (obvisouly) without me.

It would benefit Germany, because we would no longer have to travel to warmer climes. But the tropical areas threatened by desertification and a lot of coastal areas are going to suffer immensely.

We are not all Germans, das ist auch richtig ! :gundge:

Two words: epic floods.


AWESOME!!! Sounds like loads of fun. Just get everyone to live on big huge boats with a tree on them.

Man, I tire of doing this.

Behold, the TalkOrigins of Global Climate Change.

http://www.realclimate.org/