Jump to content


Photo

Global Warming ?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
148 replies to this topic

#1 Zodiac

Zodiac

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 01:30 AM

My view is like this   V

 


This is the Zodiac speaking

 


#2 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,284 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 02:09 AM

Let's run with what George Carlin saying. And yes, I've seen that bit before. Regardless of whether or not the Earth will be here long before us, we still live on it. So if we pollute it or alter it to the point that it's uninhabitable, then we're just screwing ourselves. If even if you don't care about Mother Earth, you surely care about living don't you? Plus let's look at it from the technology side. All of the tech being made to create new energy sources or use our current resources more efficiently definitely benefits us in the short run. It gives us cool new tech in the foreseeable future. And for those of us who have a bit of Star Trek in you, it certainly makes that a possibility as well.

 

So from the moral and ethical side, we win. From the technological side, we win. For the longevity of the human race, we win. So really, what's the problem with dealing with global warming?


  • Furinji Saiga, Kazekage, waleuska and 3 others like this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#3 Tinky Winky

Tinky Winky

    Girly and Distasteful

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • LocationCockaigne

Posted 30 December 2012 - 03:59 AM

Global warming is the biggest hoax of the 21st century; a delusion created by first world countries and corporate giants to market the concept of sustainable innovation and take lunch money from the third world.  


  • Rifle and inzaratha like this

#4 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,284 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 05:03 AM

We'll just ignore the rising waters, rapidly melting ice caps, and increase in smog and CO2. And really? Taking lunch money from the third world? Please explain how.


  • Peleihno, Furinji Saiga, Kazekage and 5 others like this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#5 Tinky Winky

Tinky Winky

    Girly and Distasteful

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • LocationCockaigne

Posted 30 December 2012 - 08:19 AM

We'll just ignore the rising waters, rapidly melting ice caps, and increase in smog and CO2. And really? Taking lunch money from the third world? Please explain how.

 

 

See, this is the problem with most people. They believe what their leaders tell them and what's written in the newspapers. 

 

First of all, the earth is getting warmer because the climate is changing. Climate has always changed and will continue to do so forever. Since the planet went through a little ice age in the 19th century, it has to get warmer.

 

Secondly, it has been known throughout history that humans live better in warm conditions than they do in colder ones. I've heard all this bullshit about the earth getting the hottest in the last 20 years. But the fact is that there haven't been any temperature records below the equator before like 3-4 centuries ago. Also, more than 70 percent of the planet is water, where the temperatures are often not recorded or undergo large variations due to faulty siting, island effects etc. Another thing is that most of the Arctic belt temperature readings have stopped being regularly measured since the fall of Soviet Russia. The only reliable measure of global temperature change is through satellite means which haven't shown any significant change in the global temperature for the past four decades. As a matter of fact, earth temperature has been higher than it is now in 7,000 of the past 10,000 years. 

 

Thirdly, there is this thing about carbon emissions, which has been the focal point of money whoring corporate the past 2 decades. To make it simple for average folks, the greenhouse effect is mainly due to water vapor. Going by the ideology and practices of the EPA, water should be regarded as a pollutant and therefore, regulated. In fact, there hasn't been any solid proof of any direct relation between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global warming. Carbon dioxide is not even a driver of climate change to begin with, and the fact that global temperature went down for some of the past few years despite increasing carbon levels, has been totally made obscure and out of public notice. To think that humans are the reason behind climate change is like the dumbest and most naive thing to ever say. About 75 percent of the temperature change happens because of variations in solar activity, while the rest is dictated by changes in earth's orbital and axial rotation, gamma ray fluctuations in the atmosphere, and volcanic and tectonic activity in the earth's crust. 

 

The urge to save humanity is almost always a facade for the urge to rule it. Global warming is just a propaganda for rich countries to sell their technologies to poor countries by creating a fear of an inevitable depletion of resources and creating a pseudo science around absurd catastrophic scenarios.


  • Rifle and inzaratha like this

#6 SaharaGem

SaharaGem

    N00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • LocationNorth Mexico

Posted 30 December 2012 - 12:12 PM

SOMETHING is happening you can't deny that. And yes, cars have a lot to do with it. But please, don't go: "this is the problem with most people" No, there is obviously something wrong with the weather. Yes, climate does change. But not to the extremes that we are seeing, and not nearly so quickly. So, please don't preach about “climate changes”. Some are natural (like ice ages) while others (emissions, pollution, HUMANS) are not... Humans can't just go about polluting the earth willy-nilly and not expect some repercussions.


  • Kazekage, Lumi and Sithis like this

icon_heart.gif Tardar Sauce (aka Grumpy Cat)


#7 Tinky Winky

Tinky Winky

    Girly and Distasteful

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • LocationCockaigne

Posted 30 December 2012 - 12:27 PM

SOMETHING is happening you can't deny that. And yes, cars have a lot to do with it. But please, don't go: "this is the problem with most people" No, there is obviously something wrong with the weather. Yes, climate does change. But not to the extremes that we are seeing, and not nearly so quickly. So, please don't preach about “climate changes”. Some are natural (like ice ages) while others (emissions, pollution, HUMANS) are not... Humans can't just go about polluting the earth willy-nilly and not expect some repercussions.

Whatever is happening, humans can't control it. To begin with, there is nothing wrong with the weather. Even if there is, it's not because of human influence which is almost like a gnat in the face of a T-Rex. Like I said, there has been no absolute evidence that carbon pollution causes global warming. The government and the EPA only push out the negative figures in public to create a sense of paranoia that something bad is going to happen and we need to join forces under the name of our leader and give our money and freedom to support their cause. The figures that are counter productive to their agenda are obscured in importance and hidden away as unreliable sources biased by scientific errors. 



#8 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,284 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 03:20 PM

See, this is the problem with most people. They believe what their leaders tell them and what's written in the newspapers. 

 

Well though I'm not a scientist, I do try to keep up with the latest goings-on in the scientific community. With that said, newspapers do exist for a reason. I don't think all of these scientists are lying. But go on, I'm sure you are an expert on this subject.

 

First of all, the earth is getting warmer because the climate is changing.

 

Well, yes. Thank you. That much we know.

 

Climate has always changed and will continue to do so forever. Since the planet went through a little ice age in the 19th century, it has to get warmer.

 

So according to your theory, this is the only reason why the Earth is warming? Because of the little Ice Age.

 

Secondly, it has been known throughout history that humans live better in warm conditions than they do in colder ones.

 

I don't understand the point of this. Yes, humans do prefer by far warmer climates. But unbreathable air, polluted waters, receding coastlines, disappearing island nations, and farmland turned parch does what for us exactly? It's not like suddenly everyone is going to be living in a Hawaii-like environment.

 

I've heard all this bullshit about the earth getting the hottest in the last 20 years. But the fact is that there haven't been any temperature records below the equator before like 3-4 centuries ago. Also, more than 70 percent of the planet is water, where the temperatures are often not recorded or undergo large variations due to faulty siting, island effects etc. Another thing is that most of the Arctic belt temperature readings have stopped being regularly measured since the fall of Soviet Russia. The only reliable measure of global temperature change is through satellite means which haven't shown any significant change in the global temperature for the past four decades. As a matter of fact, earth temperature has been higher than it is now in 7,000 of the past 10,000 years. 

 

Now, it's odd that you would rely on scientific data and records to prove your point and then dismiss other scientific data regards to global warming and the overall effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere. You must know that CO2 can warm up the planet at certain levels and cool down the planet at higher levels.

 

Thirdly, there is this thing about carbon emissions, which has been the focal point of money whoring corporate the past 2 decades. To make it simple for average folks, the greenhouse effect is mainly due to water vapor. Going by the ideology and practices of the EPA, water should be regarded as a pollutant and therefore, regulated. In fact, there hasn't been any solid proof of any direct relation between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global warming.

 

Stop with the hyperbole. First you haven't explained this so-called money-whoring from corporations or the "taking lunch money from 3rd world countries". Which is what I asked you to explain in the first place. Second, you haven't made it simple. All you've done is completely pulled a term completely out of context, without explanation, and laid blame to it. Oversimplifying the issue is a vast understatement in terms of what you've just tried to pull here. And yet, you complain about people believing what newspapers tell them.

 

Carbon dioxide is not even a driver of climate change to begin with, and the fact that global temperature went down for some of the past few years despite increasing carbon levels, has been totally made obscure and out of public notice.

 

I can't speak for the rest, but I knew about the cooling of the temperatures. There was a lot of uproar in the anti-warming community about it.

 

To think that humans are the reason behind climate change is like the dumbest and most naive thing to ever say. About 75 percent of the temperature change happens because of variations in solar activity, while the rest is dictated by changes in earth's orbital and axial rotation, gamma ray fluctuations in the atmosphere, and volcanic and tectonic activity in the earth's crust. 

 

So by your calculations, humans, at most, are responsible for 25% of the climate change. Fair enough.

 

The urge to save humanity is almost always a facade for the urge to rule it. Global warming is just a propaganda for rich countries to sell their technologies to poor countries by creating a fear of an inevitable depletion of resources and creating a pseudo science around absurd catastrophic scenarios.

 

Yeah, because there are all sorts of poor countries buying up green tech.... Most of the countries pushing for green tech are the ones being immediately effected by global warming and/or pollution. Namely, US, China, Japan, Western Europe. Other countries invite the technology only because it makes them less reliant on petroleum and allows them to export more of it. And guess who they are exporting it to.... That's right. Poorer countries.


Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#9 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,863 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 30 December 2012 - 04:56 PM

Whatever is happening, humans can't control it. To begin with, there is nothing wrong with the weather. Even if there is, it's not because of human influence which is almost like a gnat in the face of a T-Rex. Like I said, there has been no absolute evidence that carbon pollution causes global warming. The government and the EPA only push out the negative figures in public to create a sense of paranoia that something bad is going to happen and we need to join forces under the name of our leader and give our money and freedom to support their cause. The figures that are counter productive to their agenda are obscured in importance and hidden away as unreliable sources biased by scientific errors. 

You are right one gnat is nothing to the T-Rex but we are 7 Billion strong.

 

So 1 gnat<< 1T-Rex

 

7 billion gnats >> 1T-Rex


  • DarkNemesis likes this

p5Y5w8P.jpg


#10 Furinji Saiga

Furinji Saiga

    Luffy X Zoro

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,996 posts
  • LocationYami HQ

Posted 30 December 2012 - 04:59 PM

We are accelerating this climate change, so its definitely a fault of humans. 


Edited by Furinji Saiga, 30 December 2012 - 05:09 PM.

  • Kazekage, waleuska and Sithis like this

tumblr_o0lugkgNBf1qfjt74o2_r1_500.jpg
Credit to Miss Coquine :aww:


Mihawk's Title you OMForumers

Spoiler


Let us pray for Lawl's death

Spoiler


Matt's repentance
Spoiler

#11 Tinky Winky

Tinky Winky

    Girly and Distasteful

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • LocationCockaigne

Posted 30 December 2012 - 09:22 PM

Look you are just refuting what I said in a contextual manner rather than being objective about it. I would shut the fuck up if you give me some scientific theories and prove your point, but you are just repeating what Obama does in his rallies. Another thing, I don't know how to write between quotes so I'm just highlighting your text and replying to each part, so bear with it, ok.

 

Well though I'm not a scientist, I do try to keep up with the latest goings-on in the scientific community. With that said, newspapers do exist for a reason. I don't think all of these scientists are lying. But go on, I'm sure you are an expert on this subject.

 

Recently, a report was published by the US senate that quoted a team of about 400 scientists who had originally worked on the global warming in the 1980s and responsible for creating the hoax that they do not believe in global warming anymore. The one who published the report, Senator Inhofe, was a minor Republican and he was told to shut the fuck up by the Democrats. 

 

As a matter of fact, a team of NASA research scientists resigned because some of their coworkers were dismissed for not supporting the global warming hoax. But you might not know that because it was not published in the newspapers. 

 

The global warming hoax was created by a series of poorly done mathematics that has been clearly disproved. However, the hysteria has not subsided because politicians and some major financial institutions have been profiting from it and they don't want it to stop. So any scientist who denies the global warming bullshit has his funding cut off or his job taken.

 

 

Well, yes. Thank you. That much we know.

 
I don't think you do. You think climate is changing because of me and you. I'm saying it's changing because it has to change. It's a natural phenomena. 
 

So according to your theory, this is the only reason why the Earth is warming? Because of the little Ice Age.

 

Did you read the entire post before writing this? I explained some of the major reasons why earth is warming. Ice Age is not the reason why Earth is warming, but it's a landmark in the trend of temperature change, showing that it went to a minima, after which it has to go up.

 

I don't understand the point of this. Yes, humans do prefer by far warmer climates. But unbreathable air, polluted waters, receding coastlines, disappearing island nations, and farmland turned parch does what for us exactly? It's not like suddenly everyone is going to be living in a Hawaii-like environment.

 

 

We are not talking about air and water quality here. Like I explained and will explain again below, air and water pollution are not drivers of global warming. Yes, coastlines are receding and islands are disappearing, but that's part of the the climate change cycle, something you cannot stop. Most of the islands, as they are now, were covered with water centuries ago. While, some of the water you see now used to be habitable cities before they were flooded. It's not because I am smoking a cigarette or using fossil fuel. 

 

 

You must know that CO2 can warm up the planet at certain levels and cool down the planet at higher levels.

 

No I mustn't. 

 

Firstly, carbon dioxide is not a significant greenhouse gas. About 95% of the greenhouse bullshit is due to water vapor, like I said before. Secondly, carbon dioxide is a very important trace gas needed in the atmosphere. The planet needs it more, rather than not, as it is very helpful in increasing vegetation, improving the quality of crops, thereby feeding me and you. Lastly, all temperature datasets recorded through reliable means in the recent past have shown that carbon dioxide is not causing global warming and is, in fact, lagging temperature change. In simpler terms, the cart is not pulling the donkey here. 

 

So by your calculations, humans, at most, are responsible for 25% of the climate change. Fair enough.

 

 
:facepalm: 
 
It's not even 1 percent. Did you even read what I said? It's majorly due to solar activity, and secondarily due to other natural activities. Human contribution is not significant to affect the grand cycle of things.  

 

 

 

 


Yeah, because there are all sorts of poor countries buying up green tech.... Most of the countries pushing for green tech are the ones being immediately effected by global warming and/or pollution. Namely, US, China, Japan, Western Europe. Other countries invite the technology only because it makes them less reliant on petroleum and allows them to export more of it. And guess who they are exporting it to.... That's right. Poorer countries.
 
Poor countries are not being forced to buy green tech, but are also enforced with foreign investment from international agencies such as EPA, IPCC, DOE, etc.,in the manufacturing sector so they produce green products and pay a share to the first world. A good example of this is the biofuel technology. If executed and implemented correctly, this would have a terrible effect on the global food supplies and prices. By simple economics, the rich countries will get richer and the poor countries will get poorer. 
 
In short, there is no climate crisis that endanger us. The global warming paranoia is just a mental disorder. 

  • inzaratha likes this

#12 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,284 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:23 PM

1 - From the NOAA.

 

2 - From the National Geographic.

 

For everyone's perusal. Since neither ghassassin nor myself provided any proof for our claims whatsoever, I pulled two articles from credible sources.


Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#13 Tinky Winky

Tinky Winky

    Girly and Distasteful

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • LocationCockaigne

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:47 PM

1 - From the NOAA.

 

2 - From the National Geographic.

 

For everyone's perusal. Since neither ghassassin nor myself provided any proof for our claims whatsoever, I pulled two articles from credible sources.

Well, thanks for ignoring what I said and presenting data from reports published by the government and calling it credible.

 

I think I have given enough proof and described everything in terms of basic science rather than some lame agency reports. I am even giving you names to prove my point that any claim that disapproves global warming is faced with hostility and tyrannical behavior  Search climate scientist Mark Albright, Congress Senator Inhofe, NASA scientists Harrison Schmitt, Walter Cunningham. I can give you 50 more names if you want that proves that government reports are bullshit and the data is heavily biased to support political propaganda. 


Edited by ghassassin, 30 December 2012 - 11:56 PM.

  • Rifle likes this

#14 Kazekage

Kazekage

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,404 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 02:31 AM

Saying that larger countries are trying to get a profit out of smaller 3rd World Countries is just laughable. I come from one myself.  Energy efficient and environmentally friendly sources haven't been profitable sources of income compared to gas, oil and natural gas. It's like trying to sell someone ice cream during winter when they could be buying hot coca at a much cheaper price.  

 

I for one believe that global warming is real and the increasingly chaotic weather patterns are simply proof of that.   



#15 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,284 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 02:02 PM

Well, thanks for ignoring what I said and presenting data from reports published by the government and calling it credible.
 
I think I have given enough proof and described everything in terms of basic science rather than some lame agency reports. I am even giving you names to prove my point that any claim that disapproves global warming is faced with hostility and tyrannical behavior  Search climate scientist Mark Albright, Congress Senator Inhofe, NASA scientists Harrison Schmitt, Walter Cunningham. I can give you 50 more names if you want that proves that government reports are bullshit and the data is heavily biased to support political propaganda.


 
And I can point to the Climate Change report that was heavily watered down during the Bush administration to keep the anit-warming credible. All you're doing is name-dropping people in the anti-warming camp and repeating everything that they say. And they too are government officials. Let's just agree to disagree.
 
With that said, I allowed myself to get into a tangent with you and away from my main point. Which was:
 
 

 
Let's run with what George Carlin saying. And yes, I've seen that bit before. Regardless of whether or not the Earth will be here long before us, we still live on it. So if we pollute it or alter it to the point that it's uninhabitable, then we're just screwing ourselves. If even if you don't care about Mother Earth, you surely care about living don't you? Plus let's look at it from the technology side. All of the tech being made to create new energy sources or use our current resources more efficiently definitely benefits us in the short run. It gives us cool new tech in the foreseeable future. And for those of us who have a bit of Star Trek in you, it certainly makes that a possibility as well.
 
So from the moral and ethical side, we win. From the technological side, we win. For the longevity of the human race, we win. So really, what's the problem with dealing with global warming?
 


 
But I will concede one point that you made that was in fact a good one and true. The ethanol push has in fact caused staple foods in poorer countries to go unnecessarily high. And that has in fact hurt poorer countries.


Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#16 Tinky Winky

Tinky Winky

    Girly and Distasteful

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • LocationCockaigne

Posted 01 January 2013 - 06:16 AM

All you're doing is name-dropping people in the anti-warming camp and repeating everything that they say. And they too are government officials. Let's just agree to disagree.
 
 

That's hardly a part of what I'm doing. I'm trying to prove in a scientific way that the drivers of global warming, as explained by government agencies, and as known to common man, are untrue. And that if you try to expose the scam, you're gonna got get. 

 

I'm afraid I've said too much. If I stop replying to your posts, consider me dead. 



#17 inzaratha

inzaratha

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 942 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 01 January 2013 - 03:29 PM

I agree with ghassassin.     I believe that most changes are part of a natural cycle, such as there have been far warmer periods as in the time of the dinosaurs and far colder periods as in the ice age.   And while the temperatures have increased in some areas they have decreased in others, there is less ice in the north artic and More ice in the Antarctic  which is signs of a shift.   You do know that the continents have moved around and that there have been times in earth's timeline with little ice at all right?  Most of the reports complete ignore the biggest cause of global temperatures - the sun.  Solar radiation and sun spot activity is the BIGGEST cause of any seen changes.   

 

Also when I was studying this several years ago and we had snowflakes in Phoenix that day and it was warmer in NYC than Phoenix that day,   and I wanted to see how the changes were in other places like where the paths of cold and hot air were.   

I actually caught the weather sites TAMPERING with the data....  myself.... 

They showed ( and this was on an American website weather.com ) that Inverness Scotland was 100 degrees F several days in January, but all the towns surrounding it were normal January temps...   None of these days are seen after the month was over.   And they then show a monthly average not the data for any particular day.    The day totals disappear off the site.  However that change of one of two days so drastically effects the monthly average so the site can make it look like the monthly averages were higher than they were.      I did take screen shots of the data and sent them to Senator Inholfe - Myself.     Now I am sure they did not think any Americans would happen to be looking at the daily temps in Inverness Scotland cause no one goes there in January and if they did they would look at Scotish / Brittish websites with temps in C not on American sites.   

But me and my bf both saw it and saw their lie.     SO after that there is Nothing I am going to believe because you never know if what you are seeing is the truth or a lie. 

 

I do believe the Earth is being polluted - but that is a completely different subject than Global warming.  

I do believe there is climate change  but that is also not the same thing as global warming.  

I do believe that city areas and certain regions and areas are warmer but that is also not global warming. 

 

I for one and not going to believe what they tell me when I saw how they twist the "facts" - With My Own Eyes. 

 

Anyway the main cause of climate change is the huge fact of Overpopulation.  

In 1900 there were 1 billion people while now in just 112 years that has increased to 7 billion.    So the world has about 5 or 6 billion more people than it should. 

Most of the growth has been in third world countries while first world countries have had a decline in birth rates. 

Therefore while medicine has made people live longer and less people die and such it which is good for humans that many humans is bad for the earth.  

Plagues and warfare used to reduce the population,  now the 20th century saw huge amounts of death in war and through communist dictators but that did not decrease the population as much as regular diseases and dying of old age used to .   

Therefore the best way to reduce any global warming or climate change would be to eliminate about 5 billion people.  

 

However since I do not want to be one of them I will not say anyone else should die.    

 

Hopefully as third world comes up to first world standards they will have less kids.  

But the overpopulation problem is not going to go away and it is the only real reason for the pollution and such.   

So since I don't want to die - I would think we just need to come up with better ways to deal with that   -  rather than using blame and pointing fingers when each person is breathing air and contributing to problems and to say otherwise is just hypocracy. 

 

I am most likely not going to respond at all since you are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours and it's just using too much hot air. 



#18 Milareppa

Milareppa

    Live Long and Prosper

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,094 posts

User's Awards

2         

Posted 01 January 2013 - 05:33 PM

See, this is the problem with most people. They believe what their leaders tell them and what's written in the newspapers. 

Some of us did neither and actually trained in the relevent scientific fields, years before most politicians and newspapers cared about the subject, and have stayed abreast of the science ever since.
 
First of all, the earth is getting warmer because the climate is changing. Climate has always changed and will continue to do so forever. Since the planet went through a little ice age in the 19th century, it has to get warmer.

You appear to misunderstand the basic issue. It is not 'man-made warming' versus 'no warming at all' and it's not 'man-made warming' versus 'natural warming'. It's 'natural alone' versus 'a combination of natural and man-made', with the man-made impact being measured to understand both its scope and its role but definitely without ignoring or diminishing the importance of studying the natural cycle.

I don't know if this will surprise you or not but scientists are well aware of things like the Little Ice-Age, as well as many other things you haven't mentioned.
 
Secondly, it has been known throughout history that humans live better in warm conditions than they do in colder ones. I've heard all this bullshit about the earth getting the hottest in the last 20 years. But the fact is that there haven't been any temperature records below the equator before like 3-4 centuries ago. Also, more than 70 percent of the planet is water, where the temperatures are often not recorded or undergo large variations due to faulty siting, island effects etc. Another thing is that most of the Arctic belt temperature readings have stopped being regularly measured since the fall of Soviet Russia. The only reliable measure of global temperature change is through satellite means which haven't shown any significant change in the global temperature for the past four decades. As a matter of fact, earth temperature has been higher than it is now in 7,000 of the past 10,000 years. 

Your post as a whole appears to be confusing global warming with climate change. They're not the same thing.

Global warming is a sustained increase in global average surface temperature across a defined period of time.

Climate change itself studies a huge variety of changes across a defined period of time (usually decades) across a defined locality (be it a small local area, a much wider geographic area, or a global scale). Changes include humidity, precipiation, sunshine, cloud cover, rainfall, snowfall, temperature levels at a variety of atmospheric heights, extreme weather conditions (floods, hailstorms, droughts, etc.). Global warming is only one aspect of climate change. 
 
Thirdly, there is this thing about carbon emissions, which has been the focal point of money whoring corporate the past 2 decades.

When I was training in the field, scientists had a rather cynical attitude about what was likely to happen in the future. The belief was that climate change is a society-wide issue, but societies only get involved when pressured via political policy. Politicians only get involved if they can raise money and to do that, they need something to tax. As soon as there's a political will and policy-based taxation, the support of the society is lost because no-one trusts the political machine.

This is exactly what has happened.

Another problem that was very easily predicted and which has also become true is what the politicians would focus on for taxation and policy (for example, carbon emissions). Things like carbon emissions can be easily measured and monitored. If it can be easily measured and monitored, it can be taxed. It was obvious politicians would latch onto things like this.

However, that doesn't make carbon emissions useless to the study of climatology. What it means is that politicians and scientists will be interested in such things for different reasons and will be using them in different ways. The media both have a tendancy to focus more on what the politics are than the science and to misreport the science when they do pay attention to it.

Climatology requires decades of study and covers such a wide-range of factors and interactions that most of the subject is far outside the scope of political (or media) interest because there are no easy soundbites and very little that can be latched onto for taxation purposes. It's also too long-term for the short-term needs of media/political careers.
  • m1hawkgsm, Peleihno, Kazekage and 2 others like this

#19 kame d. kaze

kame d. kaze

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,834 posts

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:55 PM

At this point in time I don't think there is any room to deny global warming. We can see the evidence.


  • Kazekage likes this

#20 Sauce-K

Sauce-K

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 08:28 AM

Having been raised in a scientific environment I can tell you for sure that Jim Inhofe is a loser and a champion of pseudo-science (he is not an expert - he is a politician) and that right now it's really hard to present a case against man-made climate change scientifically.  The common scientist doesn't have ulterior motives, so there isn't a "giant conspiracy" as some critics have suggested (the right wing has a lot of conspiracy theories).  The scientists are just doing their job.  Right now the data leads to man-made climate change and there is a lot of money to be made and lost.


  • Shiroi likes this

eyes_3.png

"Place tacky quote here."





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users