NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not sure right now if i am convinced that global warming is happening to the degree as reported or that it is as bad a thing as reported. People say, "How can you not be conviced of a theory that was formulated by the scientific method." But that is my problem w/ the popular science of global warming. The scientific method invovles experiments but with global warming there have been no experiments. The way that global warming is "proved" is by showing past data and making a corollary between two data points. That is not science and is no better than arguing any other historical event.

Typically, the view that is most widely agreed with is the view of the person with control of the media. That obviously has some play in the "science" of global warming. Hell, there was a movie about it. Now there are plenty of other scientists who point out that there are data points and corollaries that suggest something other than global warming but they don't get the media attention and thus their view is dismissed.

There is always a big prediction that experts say has to be true but nearly always turns out to be false. In the mid to late 1900's there was talk about how by now, there would be mass food shortages so that even 1st world countries would starve. That was until one discovery was made and it was all gone. Recently, we were thought to be on our last 100years of oil. It turns out however, that there may be twice the amount of oil as once thought. So what is it going to be next? These views were once regarded as irrefutable truth but ended up being false. Is global warming next?

I, for one, await with glee the time when everyone lives in a supertanker being ruled by a guy with one eye.

I'm not sure right now if i am convinced that global warming is happening to the degree as reported or that it is as bad a thing as reported. People say, "How can you not be conviced of a theory that was formulated by the scientific method." But that is my problem w/ the popular science of global warming. The scientific method invovles experiments but with global warming there have been no experiments. The way that global warming is "proved" is by showing past data and making a corollary between two data points. That is not science and is no better than arguing any other historical event.

Typically, the view that is most widely agreed with is the view of the person with control of the media.

I stopped reading when I got to that sentence.

please: take off your tinfoil hat.

there is no mind controlling media overlord.

I, for one, await with glee the time when everyone lives in a supertanker being ruled by a guy with one eye.

That movie was one of the worst two hours of my life. Waterworld...psh.

That movie was one of the worst two hours of my life. Waterworld...psh.

It really is shit

I'm not sure right now if i am convinced that global warming is happening to the degree as reported or that it is as bad a thing as reported. People say, "How can you not be conviced of a theory that was formulated by the scientific method." But that is my problem w/ the popular science of global warming. The scientific method invovles experiments but with global warming there have been no experiments. The way that global warming is "proved" is by showing past data and making a corollary between two data points. That is not science and is no better than arguing any other historical event. Oh no? Experiments are based on observation. In effect, experiments are only controlled events that are observed. Besides, the scientific method is in use to prove global warming: There's a hypothesis that can be falsified. If it is, then you look for a new answer.

Typically, the view that is most widely agreed with is the view of the person with control of the media. That obviously has some play in the "science" of global warming. Hell, there was a movie about it. Now there are plenty of other scientists who point out that there are data points and corollaries that suggest something other than global warming but they don't get the media attention and thus their view is dismissed.Not quite true. Yes, the view that is most widely agreed upon by the public is influenced by the opinions circulated in the media. That's why more people not involved in meteorological or atmospherical research will be skeptical of global warming than those that do.

There is always a big prediction that experts say has to be true but nearly always turns out to be false. In the mid to late 1900's there was talk about how by now, there would be mass food shortages so that even 1st world countries would starve. They were earlier, shortly before the 1900's and damn valid at the time. Discovery of the Haber-Bosch process in the early 1910s changed that, since now nitrogen could be gained from the atmosphere to produce fertilizers, without which the majority of the world's population could not be sustained.
That was until one discovery was made and it was all gone. Recently, we were thought to be on our last 100years of oil. It turns out however, that there may be twice the amount of oil as once thought. So what is it going to be next? These views were once regarded as irrefutable truth but ended up being false. Is global warming next?Predictions are never regarded as irrefutable proof. That's why there's usually several scenarios as part of a prediction.

The globe warmed 1.0 F during the 20th century and it was the most prosperous time in the history of mankind.

with global warming there have been no experiments.

yes there have

All I have to say is, it makes me want to throw up when Wisconsin in Nov. is like 60 degrees. Also, now that it is cold I want to throw up, however I do not fear for the environment as much.

The globe warmed 1.0 F during the 20th century and it was the most prosperous time in the history of mankind.I know. We've never had as high cancer, obesity, AIDS or other nasty rates.

I can see where EP's coming from. Throughout the entire history of the Earth, which, if you're a creationist, it could be as little as a few thousand years (which means we haven't had enough time to gather information to form a hypothesis in the first place, never mind the first great scientific thinkers), or if you believe in Big Bang/Evolution is billions of years in length.

Either way, it means that in the history of Earth, it could be just a natural cycle. Granted, CO2 levels are higher than ever, but it could be a natural shift in the Earth's orbit around the sun, pushing us closer, so naturally, things get hotter. Eventually, the orbit could change to another route which is further from the sun. Those changes are commonly accepted as major factors which lead to Ice Ages in the past few thousand years.

We've only been truly studying the planet Earth as a body in space for a few hundred years at most. As far as planetary movement in space goes, our knowledge is minimal at best.

I can see where EP's coming from. Throughout the entire history of the Earth, which, if you're a creationist, it could be as little as a few thousand years (which means we haven't had enough time to gather information to form a hypothesis in the first place, never mind the first great scientific thinkers), or if you believe in Big Bang/Evolution is billions of years in length.

Either way, it means that in the history of Earth, it could be just a natural cycle. Granted, CO2 levels are higher than ever, but it could be a natural shift in the Earth's orbit around the sun, pushing us closer, so naturally, things get hotter. Eventually, the orbit could change to another route which is further from the sun. Those changes are commonly accepted as major factors which lead to Ice Ages in the past few thousand years.

We've only been truly studying the planet Earth as a body in space for a few hundred years at most. As far as planetary movement in space goes, our knowledge is minimal at best.Global CO2 concentrations and average temperature match very well over the course of the past tens of thousands of years.

There is simply no disputing that golbal warming is occurring - the global temperature is rising, as the temperature records show. The question is whether or not we are contributing to it, and what effects will it have.

By burning fossil fuels, we are most likely influencing global temperature. However, I am not convinced that we are raising it significantly. The global temperature is rising naturally - fossil records show that global temperature has followed a pattern for millions of years, and we are approaching a small peak. In all honesty, I don't think reducing CO2 emissions will stop it. However, I do still support a reduction in energy wastage and funding for alternative forms of energy because fossil fuels cause far more obvious environmental damage than global warming - just look at the Los Angeles smog or the South East Asian haze.

I know. We've never had as high cancer, obesity, AIDS or other nasty rates.

Nor have we ever had such high diagnosis rates...lol, AIDS caused by Global Warming, listen to yourself.

By burning fossil fuels, we are most likely influencing global temperature. However, I am not convinced that we are raising it significantly. The global temperature is rising naturally - fossil records show that global temperature has followed a pattern for millions of years, and we are approaching a small peak.The pattern the temperatures have been following is that of CO2 concentrations. Look it up if you don't believe me.

The question is whether or not we are contributing to it

and the answer is an unequivocal 'yes, we are'

The pattern the temperatures have been following is that of CO2 concentrations. Look it up if you don't believe me.

I believe you. What I'm not convinced of is that it is the only factor, that it is the most important factor, or that we are the ones causing it to rise significantly.

and the answer is an unequivocal 'yes, we are'

But are we contributing significantly, or are we just adding a little weight to an unstoppable force?

Nor have we ever had such high diagnosis rates...lol, AIDS caused by Global Warming, listen to yourself.Diagnosis rates don't account for the drastic increases, especially not the continued increases, especially in breast cancer rates. I was merely trying to point out that not all was good just because we were prosperous. Ethyl was very prosperous for while, even though they were making money by ensuring that gasoline contained neurotoxins.

Besides, only an idiot would assume that I claimed AIDS was caused by global warming. ;)

I know. We've never had as high cancer, obesity, AIDS or other nasty rates.

Thank you for making global warming supporters look stupid. :rolleyes:

Actually, in some ways, the obesity rate is a GOOD thing. See, if we're able to be obese, that means we have far fewer people going hungry. Certainly a good accomplishment, yah?

As for global warming: of course it's occuring. What's more, we're accelerating it. We're not putting anywhere near as much CO2 in the atmosphere as a large volcanic eruption would do, true, but that's not the issue. See, over time, through the evolution of plant species and the ongoing development of its atmosphere, a natural system of coping with CO2 build-up has arisen. Problem is, that system only works if we don't add to it. What we're putting on is on top of everything already contributed, and THAT is what is accelerating global warming, because the Earth cannot cope with the additional stress.

Whelp, time for me to go by that beachfront property in Maine... It's going to look great with palm trees!

Actually, in some ways, the obesity rate is a GOOD thing. See, if we're able to be obese, that means we have far fewer people going hungry. Certainly a good accomplishment, yah?




Hahaha, there really isn't anything good about obesity, the people who are hungry are still going hungry. Obese people are just consuming more than necessary, maybe they could share the food with the hungry, and it could become a good thing...yah?

Besides, only an idiot would assume that I claimed AIDS was caused by global warming. ;)

In a roundabout way, it could be a contributing factor. Rising temperatures means that crops fail, meaning that cows don't get as much food, meaning that people have to turn to alternate food sources, like bushmeat.

Diagnosis rates don't account for the drastic increases, especially not the continued increases, especially in breast cancer rates. I was merely trying to point out that not all was good just because we were prosperous. Ethyl was very prosperous for while, even though they were making money by ensuring that gasoline contained neurotoxins.

Besides, only an idiot would assume that I claimed AIDS was caused by global warming. ;)

Increasing cancer rates are also because we're dying less of other diseases earlier in life like tuberculosis, influenza and pneumonia. Although breast cancer incidence has increased, it's because of better mammography screening. Only about 15 percent of women in the early 80s were screened while in the 90s, it jumped to around 65 percent. Mortality from breast cancer has also decreased.

The only cancer that's incidence hike is significant is lung cancer, due to...you guessed it, smoking.

Hahaha, there really isn't anything good about obesity, the people who are hungry are still going hungry. Obese people are just consuming more than necessary, maybe they could share the food with the hungry, and it could become a good thing...yah?

I know that. I was trying to put a positive spin on the situation.

CthulhuFhtagn: I swear, if anyone were to actually claim something like that in reality "Global Warming Caused By AIDS" I would shoot them in the face. I would seriously take a gun and shoot them. In. The face.

Fortunately, no one is going to be that stupid. (So please don't hurt me mods!)

Increasing cancer rates are also because we're dying less of other diseases earlier in life like tuberculosis, influenza and pneumonia. Although breast cancer incidence has increased, it's because of better mammography screening. Only about 15 percent of women in the early 80s were screened while in the 90s, it jumped to around 65 percent. Mortality from breast cancer has also decreased.

The only cancer that's incidence hike is significant is lung cancer, due to...you guessed it, smoking.Nice try, but that would only if mammography screening was the only way to determine if a woman had breast cancer. Mammography screening is a way to figure out if its cancer before it develops, but if it does, you don't really need a mammography screening anymore to tell.

What you're basically saying, if I catch it right, is that an increase in early diagnosises of breast cancer actually causes an increase in cancer rates, when in fact, a screening will only help determine that a woman has breast cancer before its obvious.

I know that. I was trying to put a positive spin on the situation.

CthulhuFhtagn: I swear, if anyone were to actually claim something like that in reality "Global Warming Caused By AIDS" I would shoot them in the face. I would seriously take a gun and shoot them. In. The face.

Fortunately, no one is going to be that stupid. (So please don't hurt me mods!)Says the global warming supporter... :p

I'm not sure right now if i am convinced that global warming is happening to the degree as reported or that it is as bad a thing as reported. People say, "How can you not be conviced of a theory that was formulated by the scientific method." But that is my problem w/ the popular science of global warming. The scientific method invovles experiments but with global warming there have been no experiments. The way that global warming is "proved" is by showing past data and making a corollary between two data points. That is not science and is no better than arguing any other historical event.

Typically, the view that is most widely agreed with is the view of the person with control of the media. That obviously has some play in the "science" of global warming. Hell, there was a movie about it. Now there are plenty of other scientists who point out that there are data points and corollaries that suggest something other than global warming but they don't get the media attention and thus their view is dismissed.

There is always a big prediction that experts say has to be true but nearly always turns out to be false. In the mid to late 1900's there was talk about how by now, there would be mass food shortages so that even 1st world countries would starve. That was until one discovery was made and it was all gone. Recently, we were thought to be on our last 100years of oil. It turns out however, that there may be twice the amount of oil as once thought. So what is it going to be next? These views were once regarded as irrefutable truth but ended up being false. Is global warming next?

Lets see, the tempreture has gone up nearly 2 degrees in the past 40 years, The ten top hottest years ever recored happened in the past 15 years. The ice caps are melting and large pieces of ice are floating to the equater. There have been major deadly heat waves in north america and europe in the past 5 years. Deadly hurricanes that is fueled by warm water have increased in power and frequency. Gee, is the world warming up?

By the way, we only have about 30-40 years of oil left....

Says the global warming supporter... :p

...

Point made. Point made.

Arronax: Depending on who you believe, we may have already reached a point where the amount of oil we can take out of the ground is less than the demand for oil, so that technically it doesn't matter whether we can have oil for the next fifty years, it's whether we have enough. This theory is referred to as Peak Oil, and for more on it you can speak to PsychoticDan of these forums.

...

Speaking of PD, where the hell has he been lately?

Nice try, but that would only if mammography screening was the only way to determine if a woman had breast cancer. Mammography screening is a way to figure out if its cancer before it develops, but if it does, you don't really need a mammography screening anymore to tell.

What you're basically saying, if I catch it right, is that an increase in early diagnosises of breast cancer actually causes an increase in cancer rates, when in fact, a screening will only help determine that a woman has breast cancer before its obvious.

Huh?

EDIT: You do know "In Situ" cancer is only detectable by mammography and benign tumors are factored into incidence rates.

Arronax: Depending on who you believe, we may have already reached a point where the amount of oil we can take out of the ground is less than the demand for oil, so that technically it doesn't matter whether we can have oil for the next fifty years, it's whether we have enough. This theory is referred to as Peak Oil, and for more on it you can speak to PsychoticDan of these forums.

When anyway the point is that we will run out of oil before you grow a grey hair

When anyway the point is that we will run out of oil before you grow a grey hair

Look up the Alberta Tar Sands. And when we do run out of economic oil, we have hundreds of years of coal still sitting beneath us.

Huh?Mammographies get used to figure out if a woman has breast cancer while still in its early stages, not whether a woman has breast cancer. If anything, increased mammographies correlate to a decrease of cancer rates.

Look up the Alberta Tar Sands. And when we do run out of economic oil, we have hundreds of years of coal still sitting beneath us.

I would rather risked radiation then use coal

I love people who put quotations around the word science, in an attempt to delegitimize it . It can be really be used around anything.

Sure, evolution is a valid theory...if you believe "biologists".

Look up the Alberta Tar Sands. And when we do run out of economic oil, we have hundreds of years of coal still sitting beneath us.
mother nature shed a tear as you wrote that.

Look up the Alberta Tar Sands. And when we do run out of economic oil, we have hundreds of years of coal still sitting beneath us.
Tar sands aren't true oil. They require a lot of processing and energy put into them to make them worthwhile, and they cannot supply the amount of oil demanded. That said, they can still be useful, so long as we ration the dwindling oil supply and move our power plants over to nuclear and other alternative energy sources--nuclear being the primary source--in preparation for a switchover to fusion power once it is available. We can get past even the worst the Peak Oil peeps would have us believe in if we plan this effectively.

In the best case scenario, there won't be an operational fusion power plant until 2050. Hopefully we'll last until then.

In the best case scenario, there won't be an operational fusion power plant until 2050. Hopefully we'll last until then.

Which is why we need to move to nuclear, solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources NOW, while we still have the manuverability to do so. Of course, it won't help that hippies and miseducated people like my parents will complain the whole way through about nuclear energy. :(

If I may, I'd like to join in on this. New forum member, but not new to internet discussions. :cool:

On global warming: There is in fact no doubt that the globe has warmed up significantly since we started measuring temperatures. The facts are right there, and 100 percent irrefutable. Average temperature today, hotter than average temperature, 1900. The debate here is in fact how extreme it can get, and whether or not we're playing a role. If possible, try looking up the theory of global dimming. It's very interesting. Turns out that more efficient factories may actually make global warming worse by decreasing the number of particulates (but it is healthier...)

On cancer detection: not global warming, but for my two cents, we need a timeline. It could be that at one point, breast cancer was unrecorded due to bad records. But UV rays and mutations will increase our rates of breast cancer, albeit not too dramatically.

On oil: Oil is a nonrenewable resource. Don't assert when it will run out, because the credible sources are still out on this one. It could be 40 years, it could be 100. What does matter is that we WILL run out, and we need to be looking ahead. When Saudi Arabia starts looking for other markets, that's when you need to worry. The gulf of mexico is capable of bearing oil, as are Canada and Alaska, although environmentalists will restrict that (not that i am choosing sides here) which will make the oil drilling there limited, and thus less helpful

On fusion reactors: ... ? A more viable option is an efficient nuclear fission plant that runs on stirling engines rather than steam engines.

Which is why we need to move to nuclear, solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources NOW, while we still have the manuverability to do so. Of course, it won't help that hippies and miseducated people like my parents will complain the whole way through about nuclear energy. :(

The main problem with Wind and Nuclear power is the massive initial costs involved, which most cannot afford, and those that can see no profit for a very, very long time, which reduces interest. The government could, and probably should, step in and subsidize some of the cost... but meh, that's another debate.

And in all actuallity, Nuclear power is quite safe, and the hyppies have no idea what they are talking about. It is amazingly clean, the by product, although dangerous, still gives off a form of energy, which could be used for fuel at a later date, and frankly placing it in a hole in the ground is not going to screw much of anything, if anything, up, if you choose the right location.

On fusion reactors: ... ? A more viable option is an efficient nuclear fission plant that runs on stirling engines rather than steam engines.

Second new person today to actually be a smart person able to join in debate. Nicenice.

The reason we want to move over to fusion is that regardless of how efficient we make nuclear fission, it is still mildly unsafe and we do still produce amounts of waste, however much we may reduce it. Problem is, fusion won't be worthwhile for some time, which is why I agree with you in that we need to move to nuclear for the short term, with an eventual long term movement to fusion.

Seangoli: The expense is the issue, and why it hasn't been done yet. Thing is, we can't put it off for too long because then we run into the potential of severe energy sources while we try to move over as quickly as we can. Of course, people have constantly and consistantly shown they have no real ability to think too far into the future, which is sad.

2012 it will be to late to stop Global Warming.
Tests where made thanks to the terror attacks on WTC, when all airports where cut off and not a single airplane was in the air. And did you know that when not a single airplane was in the air it was 4 degrees warmer?

So big is the effect of global warming RIGHT NOW. The CO in the air that came off the airplanes protects the air from heat, but in long term effects it destroys the atmosphere and causes the earth to get even warmer. So if we would shut down every car now, every single thing, it would get atleast 4-5 degrees warmer, maybe even worse, especially in lands like China that has ALOT of cars.

I've read up on this subject and I believe that if we don't do anything I and all the youth may suffer for it, let's say in like 30 years or so.

2012 it will be to late to stop Global Warming.
Tests where made thanks to the terror attacks on WTC, when all airports where cut off and not a single airplane was in the air. And did you know that when not a single airplane was in the air it was 4 degrees warmer?

So big is the effect of global warming RIGHT NOW. The CO in the air that came off the airplanes protects the air from heat, but in long term effects it destroys the atmosphere and causes the earth to get even warmer. So if we would shut down every car now, every single thing, it would get atleast 4-5 degrees warmer, maybe even worse, especially in lands like China that has ALOT of cars.

I've read up on this subject and I believe that if we don't do anything I and all the youth may suffer for it.

Damn double post, sorry. Well, indeed there is no doubt that the earth has warmed significantly, actually, we should be entering a new "Ice age" but instead chnopping down the forests and the cars and everything has prevented this from happening, the new problem is not an approaching ice age, but it's an approaching death for millions of people.

Seangoli: The expense is the issue, and why it hasn't been done yet. Thing is, we can't put it off for too long because then we run into the potential of severe energy sources while we try to move over as quickly as we can. Of course, people have constantly and consistantly shown they have no real ability to think too far into the future, which is sad.

Indeed. With Peak Oil coming sometime in the near future, and demand always growing, we really need to start moving and fast on alternate energy. We are already having demand issues, and massive costs for oil. It won't be long until oil starts getting rather unaffordable, and energy prices will sky rocket. I'm a strong advocate of Wind and Nuclear energy(A bit less so for solar, but not against it, just not as for it as the other two for a few reasons), and it really is sad that nobody seems to have any thought past the here and now, and not the there and then. I tried talking to one of my co-workers about energy problems(It was a gas station), and he brought up the Tar flats saying we have hundreds of years of oil sitting there, so it's not going to be a problem. Of course, he didn't take into account how much energy is needed to extract anything useful, the cost of extraction, and the fact that it would not be able to keep up with demand...

Man, I love pointing out misinformation. Hell, I even love it when people point out my own(usually accidental) misinformation. Best part of the learning process is the actual learning of fact.

No one can stop the global warming, truly.

But, if the leaders of both the developed and developing countries are trying to stop the global warming by shutting down industries and reduce more cars, then it will slow down the global warming.

Oh, until this day, the most developed country that is the United States is still reluctant to sign the Kyoto Protocol. :rolleyes:

China, Japan, India, and even the UED has signed the treaty. They're struggling to find any ways to slow down the global warming. However, in fact, none of them really want to solve this problem. They only care about economy...economy...and economy.

Just remember that when all animals and plants have been destroyed, people can't eat money. ;)

Damn double post, sorry. Well, indeed there is no doubt that the earth has warmed significantly, actually, we should be entering a new "Ice age" but instead chnopping down the forests and the cars and everything has prevented this from happening, the new problem is not an approaching ice age, but it's an approaching death for millions of people.

Well, the thing is, Global Warming and Global Cooling are naturally occuring process. We know this much. However, the problem is, we don't know to what extent we are affecting it(which we are, there is no getting around that), nor how it will affect us. The effects would have been drastic either way, however we are not sure our involvement is going to affect it.

No one can stop the global warming, truly.

But, if the leaders of both the developed and developing countries are trying to stop the global warming by shutting down industries and reduce more cars, then it will slow down the global warming.

Oh, until this day, the most developed country that is the United States is still reluctant to sign the Kyoto Protocol. :rolleyes:

China, Japan, India, and even the UED has signed the treaty. They're struggling to find any ways to slow down the global warming. However, in fact, none of them really want to solve this problem. They only care about economy...economy...and economy.

Just remember that when all animals and plants have been destroyed, people can't eat money. ;)

You're not a hyppie, are you? :D

Seriously though, the US has done quite a bit to reduce emitions. Many factories voluntarily reduce emitions, as well, as it is bad for "public affairs" to not do so.

Not getting into the importance of economics, I'll move onto the next...

Now, I'm not sure if you are one of those people who spouts off the crap about "50,000 species go extinct every years!"(Which is untrue, as there is no study in the world which claims such, and they forget about speciation among insects, which usually are the ones to go "extinct", can be remarkably fast), but in truth animals and plants should be fine. Mass extinction is nothing new, and the world always recovers. And quite frankly, Global Warming is naturally occuring, however there is no doubt that humans are effecting it a bit this time around.

THAT being said, believe it or not, I'm an environmentalist. Not the hyppie tree loving type, whom do more bad for environmentalism than they can ever imagine with their blatantly hypocratic ways, but instead on a more conservative(Yes, there is such a thing as a conservative environmentalist, durn it!) and careful type. The environment is important, but the hyppies have no idea what the hell they are talking about half the time.

China, Japan, India, and even the UED has signed the treaty. They're struggling to find any ways to slow down the global warming. However, in fact, none of them really want to solve this problem. They only care about economy...economy...and economy.

UED? You mean UAE? United Arab Emirates?

As for the cares about the economy...it's a simple fact that humans just don't truly understand something unless it's staring them in the face. This is true about all of us. It's definitely true of me, on more that one personal issue. So of course they won't be truly convinced. You have to talk to them in a way that will appeal to them. Speak of efficiency, for one. Efficieny saves money and improves profits. They'll llisten to that. Say what they want to hear while still getting what you want. It's sad, but it's the way you have to work to get anything done. It's human nature.

Lets see, the tempreture has gone up nearly 2 degrees in the past 40 years, The ten top hottest years ever recored happened in the past 15 years. The ice caps are melting and large pieces of ice are floating to the equater. There have been major deadly heat waves in north america and europe in the past 5 years. Deadly hurricanes that is fueled by warm water have increased in power and frequency. Gee, is the world warming up?

By the way, we only have about 30-40 years of oil left....

Where has the temp gone up? Not in the U.S.. There has really been no warming trend to speak of in the united states which also happens to be the country with the highest output of Co2. Hmmm, thats interesting. There have only been 200 years that have been recorded. Thats not that exciting. Wait, ice is melting!!!! Runs for the hills. There have always been heat waves. Last year there were like 3 hurricanes in the U.S..

Where has the temp gone up? Not in the U.S.. There has really been no warming trend to speak of in the united states which also happens to be the country with the highest output of Co2. Hmmm, thats interesting. There have only been 200 years that have been recorded. Thats not that exciting. Wait, ice is melting!!!! Runs for the hills. There have always been heat waves. Last year there were like 3 hurricanes in the U.S..

STOP!

Education time!

I suggest you do some research and try again before acting like you know everything. Scientists who know more than you and have studied it for a lot longer than you have say it's occurring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming

Just the beginning to your research, mind.

I know. We've never had as high cancer, obesity, AIDS or other nasty rates.
Assuming you live in a developed nation I really hope you realise the stupidity of this statement:

1. Life expectancy is much longer than it was, due to lower rates of disease and better treatment.
2. Small Pox anyone?
3. Like being able to get your water without worrying about cholera?
4. Typhoid common where you are?
5. Dysentry (spelling) kill many in your neighborhood?
6. Cancer rates are higher in no small portion due to people living longer and therefore having more chance of developing cancer in their lifetime. It is also better diagnosed.
7. Skin cancer is a bit of an exception. In the west the rise is in no small part due to people wearing much much much less clothing than previously and traveling to climates that have far stronger sun than european skin is built for.
8. Obesity is a growing problem (pun not intended), due to the imporved nutrition and quality of life available. I think that without the improvements that make obesity such a problem then we would have bigger problems with disease and mal-nutrition.
9. AIDS - It's a growing problem. Although I think it is worth remembering that plagues that have killed more people have occured in centuries past. Black Death?
10. Do you like being able to have an operation without a HUGE chance you'll die of infection afterwards? Or would you rather the idylic byegone era where if your appendix went funny you were almost certain to die?


Now - There are some diseases that Global Warming is making a more serious issue - Like Malaria, which with warming of regions around the tropics could spread into what are currently more temperate areas.

Heh it both amuses and saddens me, the amount of nasayers that still do not belive global warming is real.

I have a way to test for you. if you are in the norten hemisphere then undoutedly it is getting cold where you are, and indeed we are a few weeks a way from xmas, so most definatly the season is winter. Look out of the window, look at them trees out side, you see them things on them. They are called leaves, and normaly by now, they would all be off the trees and on the floor.

Why are they still there, in the dead of winter? Have a think about that.

No one can stop the global warming, truly.

But, if the leaders of both the developed and developing countries are trying to stop the global warming by shutting down industries and reduce more cars, then it will slow down the global warming.

Oh, until this day, the most developed country that is the United States is still reluctant to sign the Kyoto Protocol. :rolleyes:

China, Japan, India, and even the UED has signed the treaty. They're struggling to find any ways to slow down the global warming. However, in fact, none of them really want to solve this problem. They only care about economy...economy...and economy.

Just remember that when all animals and plants have been destroyed, people can't eat money. ;)


I've read the Kyoto Protocol (exciting reading...truly...) and the problem with it lies in Article 11, which is the only reason why even I wouldn't ratify it. It basically states that if another country wants some technology of yours, you have to give it to them.

The problem with this is it removes the ability of an american research firm to make profit from an idea they've invested in, which removes their incentive to do any research in the first place, making us in fact less capable of solving the problem.

I understand that that's a huge claim, so later tonight I'll get you guys the actual quote from the protocol.

East Pusna: Wow, no warming in the U.S. It's almost like there are prevailing winds...or that GLOBAL warming is...how do we say...global.

There were only 3 hurricanes this year. Seattle Times reported today that that's actually likely because of El Nino (an odd warm-ocean weather pattern) which has actually gotten stronger over the years...I wonder how that could have happened...

"There have always been heat waves." Yes, but the way they are? Since you were born? I could argue that humans have always had writing, since all of our history is recorded in writing. (It's a bad metaphor, and I don't believe in it, so don't attack the metaphor if you disagree with me, attack the point.)

I've read the Kyoto Protocol (exciting reading...truly...) and the problem with it lies in Article 11, which is the only reason why even I wouldn't ratify it. It basically states that if another country wants some technology of yours, you have to give it to them.

The problem with this is it removes the ability of an american research firm to make profit from an idea they've invested in, which removes their incentive to do any research in the first place, making us in fact less capable of solving the problem.

I understand that that's a huge claim, so later tonight I'll get you guys the actual quote from the protocol.

East Pusna: Wow, no warming in the U.S. It's almost like there are prevailing winds...or that GLOBAL warming is...how do we say...global.

There were only 3 hurricanes this year. Seattle Times reported today that that's actually likely because of El Nino (an odd warm-ocean weather pattern) which has actually gotten stronger over the years...I wonder how that could have happened...

"There have always been heat waves." Yes, but the way they are? Since you were born? I could argue that humans have always had writing, since all of our history is recorded in writing. (It's a bad metaphor, and I don't believe in it, so don't attack the metaphor if you disagree with me, attack the point.)

Hehe shit yeah, its always about money huh!

I'm not defending corporate greed by any stretch of the imagination. But passing a law that keeps them from making any profit from their research means that there IS less incentive to implement research into the discussion.

And while there are problems with the extent to which a company pursues a profit, they should be allowed to see something for their efforts (sadly, the survival of humans isn't good enough for them.:headbang: )

Basically, all I'm saying is that if the US adopts the Kyoto Protocol as it stands, we're less likely to see our companies helping find solutions to the global warming problem.

It's never easy.

Inhofe Offers Parting Shot on Global Warming

Listen to this story... by Elizabeth Shogren

Morning Edition, December 7, 2006 · The chair of the Senate's environment committee spent the past four years campaigning against environmentalists and the media. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) says they have played the "greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people" by supporting the idea that humans are responsible for global warming.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6591614&ft=1&f=1003

At least one Senator has it right. http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/w00t.gif

never ceases to amaze me how stupid humanity can be. There is no doubt global warming is happening at an alarming rate and some action has to be taken to stop or at least control it. If not there is disaster of unimaginable consequences in the not to distant near future. But what do we do? debate endlessly on what is causing it...it doesn't matter what caused really but that we can still do something about it.

It's the warmest fall in the UK in 347 years and a tornado touched down in London today. Now add that to the long list of typhoons, cyclones, record heat waves and forrest fires, Boston floods, melting glaciers, thinner polar bears, an unscheduled El-Nino and deadly droughts of this year. Throw in Katrina and Wilma from last year, then Ivan and the others from the year before that and if you look very close you might be able to see some kind of pattern........... Okay! Okay! That's a lie! You don't have to look very close to see a pattern.

James Inhofe (R-OK) says...

"look at me everybody - i'm militantly ignorant!"

we're here,
we're dumb,
too bad for you!

Inhofe Offers Parting Shot on Global Warming

Listen to this story... by Elizabeth Shogren

Morning Edition, December 7, 2006 · The chair of the Senate's environment committee spent the past four years campaigning against environmentalists and the media. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) says they have played the "greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people" by supporting the idea that humans are responsible for global warming.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6591614&ft=1&f=1003

At least one Senator has it right. http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/w00t.gif


Actually, coming from an Environmentalist, he's pretty much right. Humans are not causing global warming, as it IS a naturally occurring process, just as global cooling is. HOWEVER humans obviously have an effect on it, but the degree of which is largely unknownf(It very well could be miniscual).

That being said, I hate the hyppie Environmentalists. They do far more harm to Environmentalism as a whole than any corporation could ever do. I get extremely angered at all of their rallies, and the complete BS they spew out, not to mention their complete and total hypocracy.

never ceases to amaze me how stupid humanity can be. There is no doubt global warming is happening at an alarming rate and some action has to be taken to stop or at least control it. If not there is disaster of unimaginable consequences in the not to distant near future. But what do we do? debate endlessly on what is causing it...it doesn't matter what caused really but that we can still do something about it.

You know, I always find it odd that people think we can actually stop global warming. Simply put, we can't. It was going to happen, it is happening, and there is no way to actually stop it. However, there is plenty we can do to make sure the effects of which are not devastating, but hey, nobody wants to hear about those, as everyone is in "Save the World Mode" these days.

It was going to happen

what do you mean by that exactly?

what do you mean by that exactly?

The Earth goes through periodic changes in cooling and warming. There is evidence that we were in a period of cooling up until about a few hundred years ago... if things aren't getting cooler... they're getting warmer. Thus, Global Warming was going to happen, there is no way to change that.

However, it does seem that this time around it is happening very quickly, and having much more widespread effects. It is quite possible, and even fairly likely, that this part of Global Warming is caused by human activity. We should not concern ourselves any longer on "If it is Happening", "When it is happening", or "How do we stop it(As there is no way to stop it)", but instead on "How are we going to make sure it is not devastating."

Reduction of emissions is a good thing, for many reasons. However, that is only a very tiny part of what should be done. We are focusing to much on the here and now, and forget that it is happening, and there is not now, nor was there anything, we could do to stop it. So we need to focus on how we are goinog to react to the effects when they do occur.

I get extremely angered at all of their rallies, and the complete BS they spew out, not to mention their complete and total hypocracy.

Maybe you should find some different rallies to go to, then?

Actually, coming from an Environmentalist, he's pretty much right. Humans are not causing global warming, as it IS a naturally occurring process, just as global cooling is. HOWEVER humans obviously have an effect on it, but the degree of which is largely unknownf(It very well could be miniscual).

Considering that A: the Earth is warming, and B: It's supposed to be entering an Ice Age, I'm willing to bet that humans have an extremely large effect on it. And I'll be damned, because the climatologists agree with me.

if things aren't getting cooler... they're getting warmer.

really?

Random thought:

Global Warming is good for crops because the increased climate means longer growing seasons and more rains. This leads to increased nutrition.

In the 70's everyone was worried about global cooling, now its global warming, next it will be shark attacks, anything to rile people up and take their attentions off of the important things going on in our world like the depletion of our national supply of cranberries. The only way we can really affect our environment significantly on a global scale is through the use of nuclear weapons, and all of the speculative science is done in a very irresponsible manner.

Besides, I am pretty sure that George W. Bush's ancestors shifted the earth on it's axis millions of years ago through a crystal and that's what is causing it.

Random thought:

Global Warming is good for crops because the increased climate means longer growing seasons and more rains. This leads to increased nutrition.

The "more rain" will be coming from hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones. When they destroy crops you get less nutrition! When the effects from too many droughts kicks in, the end result will be less nutrition. As our water gets more polluted there will be less fish for us to eat= less nutrition. Google "Global Warming" for more accurate and less random thoughts.;)

Considering that A: the Earth is warming, and B: It's supposed to be entering an Ice Age, I'm willing to bet that humans have an extremely large effect on it. And I'll be damned, because the climatologists agree with me.

There is evidence to show that we actually experienced a mini Ice Age not to long ago(A few hundred years ago). The climate in the middle ages was far cooler than it is now.

In the 70's everyone was worried about global cooling, now its global warming, next it will be shark attacks, anything to rile people up and take their attentions off of the important things going on in our world like the depletion of our national supply of cranberries. The only way we can really affect our environment significantly on a global scale is through the use of nuclear weapons, and all of the speculative science is done in a very irresponsible manner.

Besides, I am pretty sure that George W. Bush's ancestors shifted the earth on it's axis millions of years ago through a crystal and that's what is causing it.

I think you will find the whole global cooling thing came down to one article in TIME magazine... not exactly the forefront of scientific literature.

What about the hole in the ozone layer I hear you say? "That problem just went away.. those silly scientists have no idea what they are talking about.... "

Actually an international effort managed to limit the production and release of CFCs (the chemicals that were breaking down ozone in our atmosphere) and so the ozone layer was able to repair. If that had not happened the ozone hole would have been much larger. ..

dispite the fact that we only just recently avoided a series of serious issues to do with us effecting the atmosphere.. Acid rain... Ozone layer .. etc etc... you still hear people saying "humans couldn't possibly be responsible for something that could effect the atmosphere. All that pollution we pump out just gets dealt with. It really has no effect at all. It is the height of hubris to think that we might be able to effect our environment...."

except .. oh yeah.. thats what humans do. Its what gives us our edge. Its what has enabled us to so totally overpopulate the world.. we change our environment to suite our needs. Its fundamentally what makes us so dominant over the other species on the planet.

To think we can continue to take actions and never expect any consequences is simply childish.. I can't believe there are grown adults arguing that our actions have no possible consequences....

Climate change is here... and there is uncertainty how much of it we are responsible for... but there is really no doubt that we are responsible for some. Considering the consequences should we really just ignore the problem and hope it will go away.

Seangoli is right we do need to plan on what to do when climate changes dramatically... but maybe it might be a good idea to try and ensure that that change is as minimal as possible. The less we have to deal with the better.

I am not one of those hippies who thinks that just because its natural its good and because its unnatural its bad...

Change is not necessarily a bad thing... but change that happens too rapidly is!

Sure farming potential may improve in some areas.. and may decrease in others... but the point is we have so much infrastructure in place to take advantage of farming potential where it is currently.... if it changes too fast it will be enormously difficult to relocate all that infrastructure to somewhere new.. especially if its uncertain for how long that area will be viable for.

Our whole agricultural setup relies on consistency.. if we don't have some level of consistency then it may well become a real issue.

I really don't think its the end of the world as Dragontide seems to profess. I don't think we are all going to be swallowed up in a flood of biblical proportions... but we may have to deal with some massive disruptions to our quality of life.

Why risk that when we can do something about it.

I understand it takes money that could be spent elsewhere .. but there are so many benefits I wouldn't be surprised if the whole process could be done at close to neutral cost in the long term.

I mean sure we might manage to achieve the magic bullet of controlled fusion or the like and all our problems might go away, as they often have in the past... but I think its just folly not to at least work out some solution that doesn't rely on that particular outcome.

Just my 2 cents worth...

Random thought:

Global Warming is good for crops because the increased climate means longer growing seasons and more rains. This leads to increased nutrition.

It also means droughts in many farm areas, and floods in others. Neither of which are good for crops.

I'm not saying Global Warming isn't a problem, or that humans aren't affecting it, just that we need to focus on how we're going to make sure we aren't devastated by it now that it is happening.

I think you will find the whole global cooling thing came down to one article in TIME magazine... not exactly the forefront of scientific literature.

What about the hole in the ozone layer I hear you say? "That problem just went away.. those silly scientists have no idea what they are talking about.... "

Actually an international effort managed to limit the production and release of CFCs (the chemicals that were breaking down ozone in our atmosphere) and so the ozone layer was able to repair. If that had not happened the ozone hole would have been much larger. ..

but nooo... you still hear people saying "humans couldn't possibly be responsible for something that could effect the atmosphere. All that pollution we pump out just gets dealt with. It really has no effect at all. It is the height of hubris to think that we might be able to effect our environment...."

except .. oh yeah.. thats what humans do. Its what gives us our edge. Its what has enabled us to so totally overpopulate the world.. we change our environment to suite our needs. Its fundamentally what makes us so dominant over the other species on the planet.

To think we can continue to take actions and never expect any consequences is simply childish.. I can't believe there are grown adults arguing that our actions have no possible consequences....

Climate change is here... and there is uncertainty how much of it we are responsible for... but there is really no doubt that we are responsible for some. Considering the consequences should we really just ignore the problem and hope it will go away.

Seangoli is right we do need to plan on what to do when climate changes dramatically... but maybe it might be a good idea to try and ensure that that change is as minimal as possible. The less we have to deal with the better.

I am not one of those hippies who thinks that just because its natural its good and because its unnatural its bad...

Change is not necessarily a bad thing... but change that happens too rapidly is!

Sure farming potential may improve in some areas.. and may decrease in others... but the point is we have so much infrastructure in place to take advantage of farming potential where it is currently.... if it changes too fast it will be enormously difficult to relocate all that infrastructure to somewhere new.. especially if its uncertain for how long that area will be viable for.

Our whole agricultural setup relies on consistency.. if we don't have some level of consistency then it may well become a real issue.

I really don't think its the end of the world as Dragontide seems to profess. I don't think we are all going to be swallowed up in a flood of biblical proportions... but we may have to deal with some massive disruptions to our quality of life.

Why risk that when we can do something about it.

I understand it takes money that could be spent elsewhere .. but there are so many benefits I wouldn't be surprised if the whole process could be done at close to neutral cost in the long term.

I mean sure we might manage to achieve the magic bullet of controlled fusion or the like and all our problems might go away, as they often have in the past... but I think its just folly not to at least work out some solution that doesn't rely on that particular outcome.

Just my 2 cents worth...


All very true. I advocate reducing emitions to reduce the effect humans have as much as possible, as well as setting up a system to ensure we are not caught with our pants down when the effects become more severe. It most definately won't end the world, but it will have massive effects, and mostly it will on the farming industry, which as you said, relies on consistency. If we do not put plans into place now, we will not be prepared for what is goinog to happen. However, it appears that far to many people are concerned with what is going on now, and not focusing on the future. They are worried about profit today, and not massive loss in the future, which is going to happen if a strong plan is not put into place.

The only way we can really affect our environment significantly on a global scale is through the use of nuclear weapons, and all of the speculative science is done in a very irresponsible manner.



Why would you think that? Humanity is a massive force...you just need to look at one of those pictures of the the Earth from space at night; we've lit it up like a Christmas tree. And compared to the size of the Earth, the atmosphere is microscopically thin.

It isn't just the media and politicians talking about global warming...the consensus among all the climate scientists in the world IS that the world is warming up because of human carbon dioxide emissions, and it will continue as long as they continue. The global cooling hypothesis just never got to that stage. My understanding is that's because of three observations:

1. Carbon dioxde levels have risen to the highest level in 800,000 years, and more importantly, they've done so very, very fast. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0905-06.htm). If this is natural, it's either a massive statistical anomaly or there's some seismic geological change going on we don't know about.

2. Carbon dioxide levels correlate to temperature. (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/20/21248/499). Actually, if you look at the link, it suggests that carbon dioxide levels initially rise because of higher temperatures generally, but then feed back into still higher ones, which is even worse.

3. Global temperatures have also risen significantly over the last 100 years, enough to be a major statistical anomaly.

I agree with what people have been saying that global warming is already happening, and we need to get on and deal with it. However, carbon emissions aren't staying still, or even rising linearly, they're rising exponentially, since economies grow exponentially. So unless we take action to decouple our economic growth from CO2 as soon as possible, things will get worse very quickly. That isn't even reckoning with the positive feedback mechanisms some scientists suggest. And as for fusion power...it's a hope, but I've heard a saying among scientists that you can always count on fusion to be 40 years away.

All very true. I advocate reducing emitions to reduce the effect humans have as much as possible, as well as setting up a system to ensure we are not caught with our pants down when the effects become more severe. It most definately won't end the world, but it will have massive effects, and mostly it will on the farming industry, which as you said, relies on consistency. If we do not put plans into place now, we will not be prepared for what is goinog to happen. However, it appears that far to many people are concerned with what is going on now, and not focusing on the future. They are worried about profit today, and not massive loss in the future, which is going to happen if a strong plan is not put into place.

I am surprised how much difficulty business has with this concept....

I mean what large company doesn't purchase insurance? It seems crazy not to spend a small amount of money now to avoid spending large amounts of money later.

The problem is the separation of tasks (its a pretty common problem with capatalism) the company that has to spend money is not the compnay that is likely to lose money. Why should oil companies take a lose of millions so that the agricultural companies can avoid a lose of billions.

It doesn't make sense...

Hence it will never happen without government intervention. The private sector is never gonna fix a problem that isn't a problem for them.

Governments move slowly... these days they rarely make moves on a moral or ethical basis.. its purely on the polls.. whether they think it will get them votes or not..

I saw an excellent cartoon of a scientist with a fancy anti global warming machine all cranked up and Little Johhny (our prime minister here in Australia) was looking at it quizically... he asks.. "looks fancy, but where do the votes come out?"

hence the scare mongering. the only way you can get the government moving on something is getting the people moving on it.. and the only way the media knows how to do this is scaring the crap out of them... can't say I agree with it.. but if it works... what the hey.

I worry that there is a certain degree of " the boy who cried wolf" effect causing total apathy in the electorate, and in this case the longer we leave it.. the more difficult the cleanup will be.