NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it that in the Presidential elections for the country that emits the most carbon into the atmosphere, that global warming has never really even been mentioned as an issue in the US Presidential elections. Seeing as it's probably the most important issue in the whole world, is this a massive oversight? I mean in my own country of Australia global warming was a massive issue in the last election, and polling indicates a vast majority of us want action of climate change, but in US politics etc it's barely mentioned.

Because all the candidates prioritise the big business vote over the environmentalist vote.

First rule 'bout global warming: don't talk 'bout global warming. ;)

Because all the candidates prioritise the big business vote over the environmentalist vote.

How exactly is GW the 'the environmentalist vote', wouldn't it really be the 'everyone vote'....

How exactly is GW the 'the environmentalist vote', wouldn't it really be the 'everyone vote'....

Search your wallet Luke, you know he speaks the truth!

Australia's not in the middle of a war and a recession. BTW China emits more than us.
But has a higher population. Per capita, the average American emits far more than the average Chinese.

Besides, that's no excuse.

Australia's not in the middle of a war and a recession. BTW China emits more than us.

Because many Americans have perspicaciously determined that global warming is nothing more than an alarmist hoax, perpetrated by the elitist intellectual establishment to accomplish their own selfish ends. This leftist-dominated arena reviles the free market to such an extent that it will perniciously impede its progress by resorting to preposterous theories reinforced by incessant propaganda.

Could be that the US is coming out of a record cold winter while the NE is getting hit with a late winter storm as we speak.

How exactly is GW the 'the environmentalist vote', wouldn't it really be the 'everyone vote'....
Consider the following facts:
1. There is a large movement the denies global climate change exists.
2. America has a rather large population
3. On average, 50% of people are idiots.

Thus, a considerable percentage of Americans firmly believe that climate change is some kind of elaborate conspiracy perpetrated by Al Gore. A few of them even post on NSG. It should be an everyone thing, but too many people are just idiots.

Could be that the US is coming out of a record cold winter while the NE is getting hit with a late winter storm as we speak.

Yes, the doubt manufacturers benefit from unseasonable and unpredictable extremes of cold. The damn thing is, increased unpredictability is supposed to be a consequence of global warming. It's not that it'll never snow again or that Christmas in Minneapolis will feel like Christmas in Atlanta, it's that overall the trend will be for warmer years. And this past year, with its extreme drought in the lower midwest and upper south, certainly fits into that idea.

Pfft, global warming. Everyone knows that once the fresh glaciers melt, that the massive quantities of freshwater added to the oceans will put the oceans' conveyor thing on hold, creating a new ice age. Global warming isn't prioritised because everyone knows it will lead to global cooling and big business loves polar bears, just like politicians love penguins.

Ive seen it talked about once. The Republicans (well, some of them) just denied its existance, and the Dems touched on it briefly. Im with you on that Id like to see it talked about more.

Because all the candidates prioritise the big business vote over anything else.
Fixed.

Because people want to get on my nerves.

Why is it that in the Presidential elections for the country that emits the most carbon into the atmosphere, that global warming has never really even been mentioned as an issue in the US Presidential elections. Seeing as it's probably the most important issue in the whole world, is this a massive oversight? I mean in my own country of Australia global warming was a massive issue in the last election, and polling indicates a vast majority of us want action of climate change, but in US politics etc it's barely mentioned.

I find it funny that everybody calls global warming the most important issue in the world when there are a few thousand other things probably more likely to kill all mankind.

























They're kept in missile silos! :p

I find it funny that everybody calls global warming the most important issue in the world when there are a few thousand other things probably more likely to kill all mankind.

























They're kept in missile silos! :p
Nothing like a global disaster to get those missiles flying about.

Nothing like a global disaster to get those missiles flying about.

Yes, but without the missiles they couldn't get those missiles flying about!

Yes, the doubt manufacturers benefit from unseasonable and unpredictable extremes of cold. The damn thing is, increased unpredictability is supposed to be a consequence of global warming. It's not that it'll never snow again or that Christmas in Minneapolis will feel like Christmas in Atlanta, it's that overall the trend will be for warmer years. And this past year, with its extreme drought in the lower midwest and upper south, certainly fits into that idea.

However I have seen studies that say the average global temp has been dropping the last 5 years. This is why I don't buy into the particular global warming theory but can agree on global weather change.

Why is it that in the Presidential elections...that global warming has never...been mentioned as an issue in the US Presidential elections.

Maybe because it isn't an issue to anyone but Al Gore? (who has a huge carbon footprint)

Maybe because the scientist can't agree if we are truly in a period of "global warming" or not.

Maybe it is because people don't trust those scientist because they told us 30 or 40 years ago we were heading toward an ice age?

Maybe because the so called global warming is a natural cycle of the earth that none of us can do anything about?

Maybe because all the political talking heads are to busy smoozing the voters they haven't a clue as to what is happening with the earth's natural cycle?

Maybe...just maybee...

But has a higher population. Per capita, the average American emits far more than the average Chinese.

Besides, that's no excuse.

Taint about the "average person." Let's take a look at the total emissions of each COUNTRY. Hell yes, if you put that on a per person basis China will always come out lower. Could that have anything to do with the fact they have a much larger population? :rolleyes:

3. On average, 50% of people are idiots.


That's because about 60 percent of the people are Democrats. :D

FFS it's called bloody climate change! And Celt, we used to think that the plates of the crust never moved, we used to think that smoking was good for you. Ideas change, you know. Just like this climate.

Ooh, just found this:

Human-Induced Changes in the Hydrology of the Western United States (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/319/5866/1080). That's pretty impressive, they've managed to get statistically valid evidence that climate change has affected the Hydrology of the western US during the last 50 year. I know what I'm reading over the weekend.

Ooh, just found this:

Human-Induced Changes in the Hydrology of the Western United States (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/319/5866/1080). That's pretty impressive, they've managed to get statistically valid evidence that climate change has affected the Hydrology of the western US during the last 50 year. I know what I'm reading over the weekend.

Hell I can say that without even conducting a study. I figured that was fairly obvious.

Taint about the "average person." Let's take a look at the total emissions of each COUNTRY. Hell yes, if you put that on a per person basis China will always come out lower. Could that have anything to do with the fact they have a much larger population? :rolleyes:

IIRC, China has only recently passed USA in absolute numbers and they are about 4 times the population of the USA.

Besides, significant pollution is from those export industries making things for USA. :p

Well GW is no longer a 'theory' guys, maybe in the united states of backwardistan it still is, but the rest of us want to preserve the planet.

IIRC, China has only recently passed USA in absolute numbers and they are about 4 times the population of the USA.

Besides, significant pollution is from those export industries making things for USA. :p

China's potential scares me...the US's pollution 4x...

Then if India becomes modernized too...

China's potential scares me...the US's pollution 4x...

Then if India becomes modernized too...
Actually the time frame is very short to do this right, because China and India are still modernizing that means we have the opportunity to get them on renewable energy before they get hooked on fossles like we are. In many cases with China and India it's cheaper to give houses, businesses etc a solar panel than it is to hook them up to the coal-powered-grid. But China and India are only going to move in this direction if the US does, and with their financial help China/India can go quite easily into a renewable power scheme. The reason they must go it before too long is that after China and India are completely modernized it will be alot harder and more painful to get them onto renewables, and plus it could be too late in terms of GW.

Also, the recent scientific report to the Australian government said a raise of only 2% is enough to do massive damage.

There are several reasons why GCC is still debated here in the US and why it isn't considered to be "gospel truth."

First, the movement is led by Al Gore, who, as pointed out before, is pretty hypocritical when it comes to his own theories and carbon footprints and what-have-you (not to mention that he's not much more than a political also-ran).

Secondly, if the necessary steps were to be taken to stop/curb GCC, the entire American economy (which, as it so happens, drives the world economy) would be shot to Hell, and we aren't even going to consider that unless it can be proven that, without a doubt, humans and our emissions are 100% responsible for these changes and that these changes will actually change the direction of GCC (heard enough "change" yet?).

Third, while it is hard to argue against the fact that the climate is probably warming, there is little concrete evidence supporting the idea that it is directly caused by humans and their emissions.

Not to mention, many of us still aren't convinced. For starters, who's to say that our "current" climate is ideal? What if the earth's correcting itself to a more ideal state? Also, as mentioned by a previous poster, earth goes through cycles of climate change. Scientists now say that the climate is getting warmer. However, 26-27 years ago, scientists were predicting ice ages. Who's to say that we aren't just experiencing another (completely natural) climate shift?

Of course, if any of this is incorrect (I have been out of the scientific community ever since school started), I would be happy for NSG to help me out.

There are several reasons why GCC is still debated here in the US and why it isn't considered to be "gospel truth."

First, the movement is led by Al Gore, who, as pointed out before, is pretty hypocritical when it comes to his own theories and carbon footprints and what-have-you (not to mention that he's not much more than a political also-ran).

No it's not. Al Gore is just one guy with lots of money who made a movie.

Secondly, if the necessary steps were to be taken to stop/curb GCC, the entire American economy (which, as it so happens, drives the world economy) would be shot to Hell, and we aren't even going to consider that unless it can be proven that, without a doubt, humans and our emissions are 100% responsible for these changes and that these changes will actually change the direction of GCC (heard enough "change" yet?).

The American economy is already shot to hell, or at least nearing that phase. There's a boat load of evidence showing how humans are impacting climate change. Just use Google.

Third, while it is hard to argue against the fact that the climate is probably warming, there is little concrete evidence supporting the idea that it is directly caused by humans and their emissions.

Yes there is. I suppose it is a coincidence that all the sudden changes began with the industrial revolution? Or that it got worse as CO2 levels rose?

Not to mention, many of us still aren't convinced. For starters, who's to say that our "current" climate is ideal? What if the earth's correcting itself to a more ideal state? Also, as mentioned by a previous poster, earth goes through cycles of climate change. Scientists now say that the climate is getting warmer. However, 26-27 years ago, scientists were predicting ice ages. Who's to say that we aren't just experiencing another (completely natural) climate shift?

See above. Go back far enough, and you'll find "scientists" predicting all sorts of things we would find idiotic. Yes the earth goes through these phases, but it is also warming much faster than normal.

There are several reasons why GCC is still debated here in the US and why it isn't considered to be "gospel truth."

First, the movement is led by Al Gore, who, as pointed out before, is pretty hypocritical when it comes to his own theories and carbon footprints and what-have-you (not to mention that he's not much more than a political also-ran).

Secondly, if the necessary steps were to be taken to stop/curb GCC, the entire American economy (which, as it so happens, drives the world economy) would be shot to Hell, and we aren't even going to consider that unless it can be proven that, without a doubt, humans and our emissions are 100% responsible for these changes and that these changes will actually change the direction of GCC (heard enough "change" yet?).

Third, while it is hard to argue against the fact that the climate is probably warming, there is little concrete evidence supporting the idea that it is directly caused by humans and their emissions.

Not to mention, many of us still aren't convinced. For starters, who's to say that our "current" climate is ideal? What if the earth's correcting itself to a more ideal state? Also, as mentioned by a previous poster, earth goes through cycles of climate change. Scientists now say that the climate is getting warmer. However, 26-27 years ago, scientists were predicting ice ages. Who's to say that we aren't just experiencing another (completely natural) climate shift?

Of course, if any of this is incorrect (I have been out of the scientific community ever since school started), I would be happy for NSG to help me out.

I repeat the backwardistan comment, seriously I am sure the rest of the world went through GW 'debate' 2 years ago and now accept it as scientifically true.

Also, whenever someone says 'even the scientists do not agree', that isn't true, the only 'debate' is between the mainstream scientific community who have been talking about this long before it became a world issue, and the pseudo-right-wing-scientists with links to big business.

I am so tired of this shit. :(

I never complain about being tired of shit here. At worst, I may post this comic:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/dilbert1.gif

I am so tired of this shit. :(

its just pandering to swing voters (who in the US case seems to be some sort of evangelical Nazi as opposed to the housewife who hasn't slept with the milkman in the UK)

proportional representation would work out better as the parties would find themselves forced to focus on their representative groups (stereotypes?) instead of this constant bickering over the ignorant middle group

I am so tired of this shit. :(

but just think of all the energy that has been wasted on these debates! if we suddenly stopped it could knock the Earth into the snow days

its just pandering to swing voters (who in the US case seems to be some sort of evangelical Nazi as opposed to the housewife who hasn't slept with the milkman in the UK)

proportional representation would work out better as the parties would find themselves forced to focus on their representative groups (stereotypes?) instead of this constant bickering over the ignorant middle group



but just think of all the energy that has been wasted on these debates! if we suddenly stopped it could knock the Earth into the snow days

:eek: Snowball Earth II :eek:

Why is it that in the Presidential elections for the country that emits the most carbon into the atmosphere, that global warming has never really even been mentioned as an issue in the US Presidential elections. Seeing as it's probably the most important issue in the whole world, is this a massive oversight? I mean in my own country of Australia global warming was a massive issue in the last election, and polling indicates a vast majority of us want action of climate change, but in US politics etc it's barely mentioned.

You really need to get your facts right Andaras in 2006 China took over the US as the country with the highest Carbon emissions.

You really need to get your facts right Andaras in 2006 China took over the US as the country with the highest Carbon emissions.

Either way, your avoiding the point.

Taint about the "average person." Let's take a look at the total emissions of each COUNTRY. Hell yes, if you put that on a per person basis China will always come out lower. Could that have anything to do with the fact they have a much larger population? :rolleyes:
Which was my point.

You really need to get your facts right Andaras in 2006 China took over the US as the country with the highest Carbon emissions.
But - as I said earlier - China's per capita emissions remain lower than that of the United States. Unless one expects China and the United States to have the same total emissions as Monaco and Liechtenstein, total output is a pretty crude and useless method of comparison.

Global Warming is a Conspiracy to stop us buying Oil from the Arabs. Then George Bush can attack Iran without any effect on the USA.

but what about the poor Venezuelans!?

Global Warming is a Conspiracy to stop us buying Oil from the Arabs. Then George Bush can attack Iran without any effect on the USA.

However I have seen studies that say the average global temp has been dropping the last 5 years. This is why I don't buy into the particular global warming theory but can agree on global weather change.

It hasn't.

I made these a while ago, based on publicly available data listed in the comments on the spreadsheet (yes, my first name is Daniel. I was intending to make it a collaborative effort on the spreadsheet, so I figured people should at least know who wrote what).

Spreadsheet (currently only Office 2007 format, but Novell OpenOffice can open them with the Open Office XML converter):

http://78.110.162.175/Climate.xlsx

Graphs:

http://78.110.162.175/global_combined_1880-2007.JPG
http://78.110.162.175/global_land_1880-2007.JPG
http://78.110.162.175/global_ocean_1880-2007.JPG
http://78.110.162.175/msu_l-t_anom_1978-2008.JPG

There is a clear warming trend that continues to this day.

Maybe because it isn't an issue to anyone but Al Gore? (who has a huge carbon footprint)

Maybe because the scientist can't agree if we are truly in a period of "global warming" or not.

Maybe it is because people don't trust those scientist because they told us 30 or 40 years ago we were heading toward an ice age?

Maybe because the so called global warming is a natural cycle of the earth that none of us can do anything about?

Maybe because all the political talking heads are to busy smoozing the voters they haven't a clue as to what is happening with the earth's natural cycle?

Maybe...just maybee...

It's an issue to me. It's an issue to most people on this planet. It's an issue to the scientific community as a whole.

Scientists can and have agreed. Look up Naomi Oreskes.

The scientists didn't, the media did. Try doing some research.

It isn't a natural cycle. The present interglacial has already lasted significantly longer than usual; we can infer from this that by now we should be heading into a new ice age. As it is, for over a century and a half, we haven't.

The political heads are too busy 'smoozing the voters' to actually pay attention to the science and realise 'crap, we really need to do something about this'.
At least, they were. I take some hope from the climate change bill in the UK.

Consider the following facts:
1. There is a large movement the denies global climate change exists.
2. America has a rather large population
3. On average, 50% of people are idiots.

Thus, a considerable percentage of Americans firmly believe that climate change is some kind of elaborate conspiracy perpetrated by Al Gore. A few of them even post on NSG. It should be an everyone thing, but too many people are just idiots.
Point in case:
Maybe because it isn't an issue to anyone but Al Gore? (who has a huge carbon footprint)

Maybe because the scientist can't agree if we are truly in a period of "global warming" or not.

Maybe it is because people don't trust those scientist because they told us 30 or 40 years ago we were heading toward an ice age?

Maybe because the so called global warming is a natural cycle of the earth that none of us can do anything about?

Maybe because all the political talking heads are to busy smoozing the voters they haven't a clue as to what is happening with the earth's natural cycle?

Maybe...just maybee...

And you could add: People who refuse to listen to the evidence.

but what about the poor Venezuelans!?

If they ain't yankees then Yankees don't care.

FFS it's called bloody climate change! And Celt, we used to think that the plates of the crust never moved, we used to think that smoking was good for you. Ideas change, you know. Just like this climate.

so you admit it is an idea?

No it's not. Al Gore is just one guy with lots of money who made a movie.

And a political also-ran. He was Clinton's VP, then he decided to run on his own ticket and lost to Bush on 2000 (the election even went to the Supreme Court). He's been politically irrelevant ever since.

The American economy is already shot to hell, or at least nearing that phase. There's a boat load of evidence showing how humans are impacting climate change. Just use Google.

When I said "shot to Hell," what I meant was, "become virtually non-existent." And while we may be in a recession (which I doubt), we are quite far from "shot to Hell."

I did and saw a promising site (link (http://www.globalwarming.net/)), but they had little substance, other than a nice little chart showing the increasing number of powerful hurricanes. Do you have a site where data is actually presented to the reader?

Yes there is. I suppose it is a coincidence that all the sudden changes began with the industrial revolution? Or that it got worse as CO2 levels rose?

Maybe. But since we only have one industrial revolution to collect data from, who's to say that another such warming trend wasn't occurring right then?

See above. Go back far enough, and you'll find "scientists" predicting all sorts of things we would find idiotic. Yes the earth goes through these phases, but it is also warming much faster than normal.

Once again, who's to say that that's not a phase in itself?

I repeat the backwardistan comment, seriously I am sure the rest of the world went through GW 'debate' 2 years ago and now accept it as scientifically true.

That's because roughly 95% of the work will fall to the US and we want to be damned sure that our actions will actually stop GW. Our economy will be comparable to any third world country once we go through the necessary steps to curb GW.

Also, whenever someone says 'even the scientists do not agree', that isn't true, the only 'debate' is between the mainstream scientific community who have been talking about this long before it became a world issue, and the pseudo-right-wing-scientists with links to big business.

Which is not true. Many a scientist have lost their funding from corporations when they express their doubts over the extent of the human involvement in the warming trend we are seeing now.

And besides, don't make generalizations. Every time a bad generalization is made, a kitteh dies. Think of the kittehs!

And a political also-ran. He was Clinton's VP, then he decided to run on his own ticket and lost to Bush on 2000 (the election even went to the Supreme Court). He's been politically irrelevant ever since.

also-ran refers to people who get an insignificant amount of votes. it isn't applied to the second place candidate except in complete and utter landslides. and it certainly isn't applied to candidates that won by any reasonable measure.

Maybe. But since we only have one industrial revolution to collect data from, who's to say that another such warming trend wasn't occurring right then?

we do have some idea of what can cause climate change, you know? and all those processes leave this thing we like to call 'evidence'. what other processes do you believe we have evidence of that could be big enough to overwhelm the signal of anthropogenic carbon emissions and land-use changes? no hand waving. name the processes you believe are responsible, along with citations to peer-reviewed journals backing your claims up.

Our economy will be comparable to any third world country once we go through the necessary steps to curb GW.

evidence?

Many a scientist have lost their funding from corporations when they express their doubts over the extent of the human involvement in the warming trend we are seeing now.

names, dates, publications that got them fired, etc?

The scientists didn't, the media did.
I read the occasional scientific journal/magazine, and it's interesting to compare the stance they take to that of the press.

It's because they're funded by big oil corporations, they don't like the global warming ideas one little bit.
I thought a good point was the nuclear weapons. I'm not sure how you pioneer for freedom with a nuclear warhead.

I think they should do a big battle on Medieval 2 between the main parties, the one who is the last man standing wins!;)

Because many Americans have perspicaciously determined that global warming is nothing more than an alarmist hoax, perpetrated by the elitist intellectual establishment to accomplish their own selfish ends. This leftist-dominated arena reviles the free market to such an extent that it will perniciously impede its progress by resorting to preposterous theories reinforced by incessant propaganda.

I honestly can't tell whether this is sarcasm or not.

I read the occasional scientific journal/magazine, and it's interesting to compare the stance they take to that of the press.

Indeed.
Have you ever read any of Hansen's papers, incidentally?
Very tedious but also very rewarding in improving your understanding of both the climate itself and what climatologists do.

I simply hate it when people accuse climatologist of being alarmists. The scientific papers aren't alarmist at all.

Have you all been watching a different campaign that I have? "Green jobs" and environment are big parts of both Democratic candidates platforms. The only reason not more is made of them is because they are not much different from each others and therefore not really a contention point in deciding between them. Even the Republican candidate has an environmental platform, all three left in the race have the environment as a prominent part of their campaign...are you sure you're not getting re-runs of some 80s campaign where Reagan thought the problem came from trees?

Why is it that in the Presidential elections for the country that emits the most carbon into the atmosphere, that global warming has never really even been mentioned as an issue in the US Presidential elections.

Because Global Warming is an overhyped lunacy that has been disproven too many times.

Because Global Warming is an overhyped lunacy that has been disproven too many times.
Care to elaborate?

Because Global Warming is an overhyped lunacy that has been disproven too many times.

So not just man-made global warming but all global warming?
I might point you to my earlier post with several links in, four of which are graphs. In what way, then, has the Earth's temperature not increased given the data shown?

And, assuming you were simply being silly and not adding any conditionals to your post when they were in fact in your mind, care to give me a disproof of man-made global warming?

Having debated with sceptics for quite a while now I am all agog to hear how you have overturned all my hard work in attempting to learn about and understand our climate and in attempting to show why the arguments of the sceptics are wrong or do not disprove the theory.

Care to elaborate?

See, GLOBAL WARMING was invented by Al Gore, who is, as everyone knows, a leftist commie Nazi Islamo-fascist reptoid Jew from Mars. Also he's gay. Ergo, global warming is false.

It isn't a natural cycle. The present interglacial has already lasted significantly longer than usual; we can infer from this that by now we should be heading into a new ice age. As it is, for over a century and a half, we haven't.Yellowstone National Park is a few thousand years overdue a Super eruption, doesn't mean its anything humans have done that’s caused its late eruption that will wipe out a hell of a lot of life on Earth

These things do not have exact timeframes, its not possible to just say we are overdue this happening so it must be this that is causing it

The only impact humans have had on the climate is to slightly speed up the warming process, if humans had not started to produce Co2 this warming would still have happened it would have just taken a few hundred to maybe a thousand years longer which within the Earth's timeframe is nothing

All those calling for action to be taken should get the right message across and that is not try to stop it as it would/is happening regardless of what humans do (we are just acting as an accelerator) but start preparing for the effects of it which is going to be the Ice Age that is already overdue

Humans need to realise we are not some almighty species who everything that happens on/to the Earth revolves around regardless of what our egos tell us, Earth has survived much worse then what we can throw at it and while some animal species will die off due to what is happening others will simply take their places and the world will move on and adapt as it has to everthing that has ever happened to it BEFORE humans arrived and will continue to do AFTER humans have gone

See, GLOBAL WARMING was invented by Al Gore, who is, as everyone knows, a leftist commie Nazi Islamo-fascist reptoid Jew from Mars. Also he's gay. Ergo, global warming is false.

Venus. Where there is no global warming either.

See, GLOBAL WARMING was invented by Al Gore, who is, as everyone knows, a leftist commie Nazi Islamo-fascist reptoid Jew from Mars. Also he's gay. Ergo, global warming is false.
Don't forget 'abortionist'.

That's because about 60 percent of the people are Democrats. :D
If that's true then I'd hate to be a republican.
I am so tired of this shit. :(

I never complain about being tired of shit here. At worst, I may post this comic:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/dilbert1.gif

I am so tired of this shit. :(
Know what really sucks? These threads are getting so old that that pic is starting to get old.
And you could add: People who refuse to listen to the evidence.

I think idiots covers people who refuse to listen to the evidence.

No, it's not. It's not even close to "overdue". Or "due". Or anything remotely similar.


I'd say that the best you can say is there hasn't been one for a while.
Try several billion years.
Several billion? An exaggeration for effect?

Yellowstone National Park is a few thousand years overdue a Super eruption,
No, it's not. It's not even close to "overdue". Or "due". Or anything remotely similar.

The only impact humans have had on the climate is to slightly speed up the warming process, if humans had not started to produce Co2 this warming would still have happened it would have just taken a few hundred to maybe a thousand years longer which within the Earth's timeframe is nothing
Try several billion years.

No, it's not. It's not even close to "overdue". Or "due". Or anything remotely similar.It is little known that lying underneath one of America's areas of outstanding natural beauty - Yellowstone Park - is one of the largest supervolcanoes in the world. Scientists have revealed that it has been on a regular eruption cycle of 600,000 years. The last eruption was 640,000 years ago... so the next is overdue.

Credit: BBC.co.uk

Care to take back what you just said about that?

And as for "try billion years" try not talking crap, it would be thousands of years at most

Yellowstone National Park is a few thousand years overdue a Super eruption, doesn't mean its anything humans have done that’s caused its late eruption that will wipe out a hell of a lot of life on Earth

These things do not have exact timeframes, its not possible to just say we are overdue this happening so it must be this that is causing it
Whatever is, or isn't, happening at Yellowstone is irrelevant, insofar as there is no scientific evidence to show that human activity is altering the volcanic processes at Yellowstone. There is, however, scientific evidence to show that human activity is primarily responsible for the changes to our climate, some of which are linked to in Ilaer's post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13475657&postcount=42).

The processes which effect our climate do not have the same affect on volcanoes. To suggest that human activity does not affect one because it does not affect the other is plainly wrong.

The only impact humans have had on the climate is to slightly speed up the warming process, if humans had not started to produce Co2 this warming would still have happened it would have just taken a few hundred to maybe a thousand years longer which within the Earth's timeframe is nothing

All those calling for action to be taken should get the right message across and that is not try to stop it as it would/is happening regardless of what humans do (we are just acting as an accelerator) but start preparing for the effects of it which is going to be the Ice Age that is already overdue
Then you should have no problem producing reliable scientific evidence to prove this assertion.

Humans need to realise we are not some almighty species who everything that happens on/to the Earth revolves around regardless of what our egos tell us, Earth has survived much worse then what we can throw at it and while some animal species will die off due to what is happening others will simply take their places and the world will move on and adapt as it has to everthing that has ever happened to it BEFORE humans arrived and will continue to do AFTER humans have gone
In a small way, you're right. Most scientific reserach indicates a small amount of 'natural' climate change, which is likely to be a part of a natural cycle of the Earth's climate. However, this does not mean that the vast bulk of climate change is not caused by mankind, as scientific research indicates. Claiming that this research is simply 'ego' is not a valid scientific argument against scientific research. Earth may well survive climate change, but that does not mean that humanity is guranteed to survive with it it or to survive without a degree of suffering or hardship. The Stern Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review) is an attempt to quantify this.

I think idiots covers people who refuse to listen to the evidence.

I was trying to be kind to some posters ;)

Is it just me or do the right-wing anti-science crowd seem incapable of separating science and personalities? The Creationists love to claim that Hitler was influenced by Evolution and that Darwin was a puppy-kicking racist (yes, the Discovery Institute really did try to discredit Evolution by accusing Darwin of cruelty to animals...), while the Global Warming deniers love to focus on Al Gore and accuse him of hypocrisy, even though he's a relative newcomer to the environmentalist lobby and isn't even a scientist.

A cynic might suggest that this reliance on personal attacks is a result of their inability to understand the actual science...

Credit: BBC.co.uk

Care to take back what you just said about that?
Well, since you didn't bother to give a link, and the source you used isn't actually a scientific publication, you really did nothing. Plus, volcanoes aren't exactly periodical things. Especially when the last eruption vastly changed the terrain, resulting in a constant venting of gas. Simply put, it is no longer an exploding volcano.

And as for "try billion years" try not talking crap, it would be thousands of years at most
Nope. The present rate of warming far outstrips anything we've seen in the past. We won't see anything approaching it until Sol begins its final death throes. Even the current temperature is around the highest it has ever been since the Earth solidified, so we won't be seeing those until Sol switches from Hydrogen fusion to Helium fusion. In other words, several billion years.

Several billion? An exaggeration for effect?

Nope.

Is it just me or do the right-wing anti-science crowd seem incapable of separating science and personalities? The Creationists love to claim that Hitler was influenced by Evolution and that Darwin was a puppy-kicking racist (yes, the Discovery Institute really did try to discredit Evolution by accusing Darwin of cruelty to animals...), while the Global Warming deniers love to focus on Al Gore and accuse him of hypocrisy, even though he's a relative newcomer to the environmentalist lobby and isn't even a scientist.

Way to generalize. Nobody is "anti-science," just like nobody is pro-abortion. I was simply using Gore because he is the primary figurehead for the global warming school of thought here in America, having made a great deal of movies and speeches on the subject.

A cynic might suggest that this reliance on personal attacks is a result of their inability to understand the actual science...

So let me get this straight: I say "Al Gore," you say I'm "anti-science." Yet it's somehow right of you to turn around and say that I'm unable to understand science? I'll admit, I'm not the smartest guy around here by a long shot, but I know a double standard when I see one.

So let me get this straight: I say "Al Gore," you say I'm "anti-science." Yet it's somehow right of you to turn around and say that I'm unable to understand science? I'll admit, I'm not the smartest guy around here by a long shot, but I know a double standard when I see one.

I don't believe anyone said anything about you. But Agenda07 is right. In almost every global warming thread at least one person will argue against Al Gore and the things he says, rather than the actual science. Something similar happens in evolution threads, someone will come along and start pointing out all the ways Darwin was wrong, and flat out ignoring anyone who tells them that this proves nothing.

heres something to think about:

a single volcano eruption, say mt st helens, emits more greenhouse gases than all of mankind in 100 years.

now will everyone please shutup about this global warming fad. the weather channel cant predict next months weather so how can al gore predict it centuries from now? btw thats the only reason this global warming hype exists is bc of him.

if you dont believe me take a look at this graph
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide3.png

from this website
http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm

heres something to think about:

a single volcano eruption, say mt st helens, emits more greenhouse gases than all of mankind in 100 years.

now will everyone please shutup about this global warming fad. the weather channel cant predict next months weather so how can al gore predict it centuries from now? btw thats the only reason this global warming hype exists is bc of him.

if you dont believe me take a look at this graph
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide3.png

from this website
http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm

Fun fact. There is not a single sentence in that entire post that is even remotely close to reality.

heres something to think about:

a single volcano eruption, say mt st helens, emits more greenhouse gases than all of mankind in 100 years.

you wouldn't happen to have a peer reviewed source for that, would you?

Nope.

Nope. The present rate of warming far outstrips anything we've seen in the past. We won't see anything approaching it until Sol begins its final death throes. Even the current temperature is around the highest it has ever been since the Earth solidified, so we won't be seeing those until Sol switches from Hydrogen fusion to Helium fusion. In other words, several billion years.

Ahh, is this what you were talking about? A couple of points, then, if I may.

I'm not sure about the rate of warming, I suppose that's entirely possible, but the climate resolution for most of the earth's past is a bit low resolution to say that with any confidence. The first thing that springs to mind is the Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum), with a very rapid increase in temperature. Its also relevant to your second point, that the current temperature is around the highest it has ever been since the Earth Solidified. It's really not. We're in an Glacial-Interglacial stage here, and much of the Cenozoic has been warmer than it is now, on average. Furthermore, much of the Cretaceous was also considerably warmer that today's average temperature.

Ahh, is this what you were talking about? A couple of points, then, if I may.

I'm not sure about the rate of warming, I suppose that's entirely possible, but the climate resolution for most of the earth's past is a bit low resolution to say that with any confidence. The first thing that springs to mind is the Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum), with a very rapid increase in temperature. Its also relevant to your second point, that the current temperature is around the highest it has ever been since the Earth Solidified. It's really not. We're in an Glacial-Interglacial stage here, and much of the Cenozoic has been warmer than it is now, on average. Furthermore, much of the Cretaceous was also considerably warmer that today's average temperature.

Huh. The numbers I've always seen for the Cretaceous peg it at around the same average global temperature today. It's entirely possible (hell, probable) that I'm wrong, though. Been a long time since I've looked at them.

Huh. The numbers I've always seen for the Cretaceous peg it at around the same average global temperature today. It's entirely possible (hell, probable) that I'm wrong, though. Been a long time since I've looked at them.

Well here we go, it's a slightly roundabout way of going about it, as the paper is discussing ice sheets being present during the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum, but it still has the current estimates of tropical ocean temperatures being 10C higher than today. Its an interesting read if you can get a copy of it.

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=865

The new study in the Jan. 11 issue of the journal Science titled, "Isotopic Evidence for Glaciation During the Cretaceous Supergreenhouse," examines geochemical and sea level data retrieved from marine microfossils deposited on the ocean floor 91 million years ago during the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum. This extreme warming event in Earth's history raised tropical ocean temperatures to 35-37°C (95-98.6°F), about 10°C (18°F) warmer than today, thus creating an intense greenhouse climate.

Because Global Warming is an overhyped lunacy that has been disproven too many times.

There we have it. Global warming is unimportant for humanity, stopping gay marriage is. So go out voting for something important !

*wonders why US politics are not considered a comedy*