Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I know human actions are a part of the cause of Global Warming.

I also know that Global Warming is a natural thing, happening on it's own (hurricane Katherina)

But is it true that Global Warming is natural or man-made?

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

Natural, I think... but speed of it happening increased by human interference?

isnt there a global warming thread already

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t387560.html

Originally posted by jaden101
isnt there a global warming thread already

Mine is innovative though.

Originally posted by Syren
Natural, I think... but speed of it happening increased by human interference?

Maybe.

it's natural. We humans think too much of ourselves. Our planet undergoes natural heating and cooling cycles......which results in massive changes in our planets ecosytems and inhabitants. The cycle has been going strong for billions of years........long before the first aresol can was invented. The cycle will continue for billions more years after our species has gone extinct, too fragile to survive in the changed environment. We'll be right there with the mamoth.......and global warming and global cooling will still be going on.

It's natural, but part of it is because of humans.

Which one does G.W. rely on most?

I always understood it to be a natural process--the planet self heats and cools itself--however, I've always thought that human actions (i. e., burning of harmful fossile fuels) sped up the process at an unnatural rate.

there's no evidence to support that as we humans do not know what the natural rate is. We were not at the technological stage of being able to record temperature data at the end of the last ice age..........

Well there is that HAARP System.

Originally posted by H. S. 6
I always understood it to be a natural process--the planet self heats and cools itself--however, I've always thought that human actions (i. e., burning of harmful fossile fuels) sped up the process at an unnatural rate.

^co-sign

Humans don't help global warming, but it's not necessarily true that they're the cause either.

Global warming has long been presented as a man-made notion of fancy, greeted with rolled eyes. However, if one considers the 92+% of credible scientists that have observed that it is the #1 threat facing humanity, then you have to take it as a scientific fact. However, if you've already placed your head between your knees and resolved to pray while you kiss your ass goodbye, then there's nothing left to say to you. Keep thumping your bible until the events in revelations happen because of mankinds tendancy to pollute and destroy. I think that's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

#1. If you've read any of my posts at all......you'll find I'm not religious, much less Christian.

#2. Nobody's debating if Global Warming exists. It certainly does. Those scientists are very correct and it is a great threat to our species. The question posed was about cause. As you stated, it's a threat to our species......it was also a threat to many species who died due to it's affects before our species ever walked the earth. Why try to blame something natural on humans?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well there is that HAARP System. Doesn't anybody care about the HAARP System??

what does it have to do with the subject at hand?

Originally posted by Evil Dead
#1. If you've read any of my posts at all......you'll find I'm not religious, much less Christian.

#2. Nobody's debating if Global Warming exists. It certainly does. Those scientists are very correct and it is a great threat to our species. The question posed was about cause. As you stated, it's a threat to our species......it was also a threat to many species who died due to it's affects before our species ever walked the earth. Why try to blame something natural on humans?

My post was not directed at you. It was only a general post.

But, to address your first point, if there are so many non-religious conservatives, when are they going to do something about the hi-jacking of their party by the christian right? I guess that's off topic, but it's something I've thought about often.

non-religous conservatives?........that's like an oxymoron...........

I myself am a democrat......beyond that, I don't believe in labels to group myself in with other people.......I think for myself on every issue, no need for any label.......

due to separation of church and state, republican is just the politically correct way to refer to a Christian.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
#1. If you've read any of my posts at all......you'll find I'm not religious, much less Christian.

#2. Nobody's debating if Global Warming exists. It certainly does. Those scientists are very correct and it is a great threat to our species. The question posed was about cause. As you stated, it's a threat to our species......it was also a threat to many species who died due to it's affects before our species ever walked the earth. Why try to blame something natural on humans?

Evil dead, isn't global warming a heat age? correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
what does it have to do with the subject at hand? Because of it's use, it destroys the ozone layer, which could contribute to global warming.

Originally posted by mailedbypostman
Humans don't help global warming, but it's not necessarily true that they're the cause either.

Yes we do. We speeden up the process actually.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Evil dead, isn't global warming a heat age? correct me if I'm wrong.

A heat age? Did you make that term up?

Look, I'm not going to debate the science of global warming. Because I am unfortunately not a scientist. But all the science to which I've been exposed supports the facts. According to paleoclimatology, out of the last 10 years, all 10 rank in the top 15 hottest years on record, and the other five are spread out and non-consecutive.

Let's for a moment go with the natural aspect of it. Why would any rational person ignore the indesputible fact that greenhouse gases and human pollution are only going to increase the speed with which nature wipes us out? And it's not just us. It's animals and plants too. Big Evil, if you dismiss the science that says that humans are the major source of this issue, you can't denounce the science that says we are speeding up the process. That's like realizing your brakes are out while you're heading towards a brick wall and hitting the gas because the brakes don't work.

Global warming itself as we define it isnt natural, but there are massive climate shifts that occur naturally as others have mentioned.

The thing is, in natural events, things always go back to normal at some point. Humid>ice age/whatever>humid climate....etc... But the problem is, with the way we do things now, things might not go BACK to normal, thats the bad thing.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Because of it's use, it destroys the ozone layer, which could contribute to global warming.

Haarp is used for long range communication, it creates an ion bubble which is reflective and allows high frequency waves to travel long distances. This ion bubble is created by heating up the ionsphere.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Global warming itself as we define it isnt natural, but there are massive climate shifts that occur naturally as others have mentioned.

The thing is, in natural events, things always go back to normal at some point. Humid>ice age/whatever>humid climate....etc... But the problem is, with the way we do things now, things might not go BACK to normal, thats the bad thing.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Haarp is used for long range communication, it creates an ion bubble which is reflective and allows high frequency waves to travel long distances. This ion bubble is created by heating up the ionsphere. Yes, and from what I've read on it (got the book btw), everytime they use it, it damages the ionsphere.

I think Global Warming is natural.

Because... ?

It's a natural process, but us humans speed it up.

A natural process unnaturalized by humans. Its no coincidence that the extreme industialization of the world in the last hundred plus years is coinciideing with climate change.

I recommend that everybody sees the movie An Inconvenient Truth I started a thread in the movie forum about it too.

Some scientist have explicity chosen to debate the nature of global warming and have even pointed out that Global warming is not even man made. Some scientist speculate that Global warming is a natural process andd C02 is not the real reason behind it. It is believed that in the year 2100, we can have double the C02 in the atmosphere and it would not have a significant impact on the enviroment.
Links for the source:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
Some snippets from both:









This article is pretty damn important to
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

Quote of Importance

Regardless of the correct or incorrect nature of the claims, inhibiting our increasing the rate of global warming is still an important thing.

I'm not completely convinced that Global Warming is all man made but I do think we contribute. We've basically only had reliable satellites for the last 30-40 years and I'm not sure that is enough time to come to a definite conclusion. That being said, I'm all for cleaning the air, water and land from soot, chemicals, garbage and any other pollutants. We've been using coal fired electric plants and gasoline (petroleum) powered engines for over 100 years. There has to be cleaner, safer and more efficient ways to power our cities and transports.

Regardless of the level of our involvement, we certainly don't help anything.

And the argument that it's cyclical by the right-wing pseudoscientists is bullshit 31

Global Warming would've happened eventually. We're just speeding up the whole heating-up process.

Just like the human race to shift the blame

Regardless of its cause, human activity has been and is a major contributor.

history repeats itself is what i godda say. it happened once and it will happen again. the question is when?

Originally posted by Syren
Just like the human race to shift the blame

Originally posted by Strangelove

And the argument that it's cyclical by the right-wing pseudoscientists is bullshit 31

How does this thing come from right-wing scientist anyways? A group of scientist who expresses skepticism on the IPCC is pretty much AGAINST what the government is saying. Does that sound like a right-winger to you?





Hmmm. The only major contributor that I can think of is C02. And that only contributes for about 5% of the greenhouse effect on the earth. There is even circulation of debate that our contributions of CO2
emmisions is a matter of fact cooling the earth. We may have made our contributions but I dont believe it to be C02. Rather, I would put the culprit on Chloroflourocarbons instead, which act as a direct catalyst for the destruction of the ozone.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Also scroll down to the title that says "The Global Warming Hypothesis" and look two charts down. You can see a contrast between scientific analysis and IPCC fabrication of results.


And i'm not the only skeptic either: There is actually a list of scientist on this link that shows those who express skepticism on man's contribution to global warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens
us

well ofcourse it's not all manmade........if it were we'd still be living in an ice age. Earth goes through climatic shifts every few thousand years. There's nothing we can do to stop them. Are we helping? No.......but it's going to happen eventually, that's nature. Wouldn't our time be better spent implimenting plans for adaptation when it occurs?

It has been LONG debated wheather man is or is not a cause of global warming.

For sure, man is not improving the situation, wheather the majority of global warming is man-made or not.

However, research suggests that it is more and more likely that man is a primary cause of global warming.

Originally posted by Badabing
I'm not completely convinced that Global Warming is all man made but I do think we contribute. We've basically only had reliable satellites for the last 30-40 years and I'm not sure that is enough time to come to a definite conclusion. That being said, I'm all for cleaning the air, water and land from soot, chemicals, garbage and any other pollutants. We've been using coal fired electric plants and gasoline (petroleum) powered engines for over 100 years. There has to be cleaner, safer and more efficient ways to power our cities and transports.


Sums it up nicely, thanks.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
well ofcourse it's not all manmade........if it were we'd still be living in an ice age. Earth goes through climatic shifts every few thousand years. There's nothing we can do to stop them. Are we helping? No.......but it's going to happen eventually, that's nature. Wouldn't our time be better spent implimenting plans for adaptation when it occurs?

This pretty much sums it up, now could all forms of media please move on to more relevant subjects? I don't think some dingleberry journalist in New York City knows Geology from his Cornhole. Best to leave this to ones that actually know what the hell is going on. If media wants to continue competing with Tylenol PM as far as the sleep aid market is concerned, I'd like to see more coverage on future asteroid collisions and Earth Core implosions.

There is already a thread on global warming LOL

Originally posted by mysticpeach
I recommend that everybody sees the movie An Inconvenient Truth I started a thread in the movie forum about it too. Seconded, it is very enlightening

It will happen in a vry long time, not when we are all around.

primary cause?

global warming is defined as a steady planetary increase in temperature over a period of time. Who was the primary cause for the global warming that ended the last ice age around 10k years ago? Or the ice age before that....etc. etc. etc.

we aren't helping the situation......but to say that humans are the primary cause of warming trend that occurs naturally every several thousand years is just ridiculous.

It's all my fault, I'm so sorry.

I hate cold weather GO GLOBAL WARMING. everyone should spray hair spray at the sky.

It is man's fault, there is no way of getting around it, it would be nowhere near where it is today if it weren't for humans. Think about it: we cause so much green house gases, one big example of this is that soooo many people in the world use cars, that contributes A LOT to global warming.

Originally posted by dirkdirden
I hate cold weather GO GLOBAL WARMING. everyone should spray hair spray at the sky.

Its not natural though, the ecosystem won't sit well with it.

Originally posted by General G
It is man's fault, there is no way of getting around it, it would be nowhere near where it is today if it weren't for humans. Think about it: we cause so much green house gases, one big example of this is that soooo many people in the world use cars, that contributes A LOT to global warming.

So, what started the warm up after the last ice age?

After the meteor hit, all the dust and crap rose and was just kind of floating in the air blocking the sun's rays for however long the ice age was. And then the dust particles, etc. began to settle allowing more light to pass through, therefore heating the earth back up

Originally posted by General G
After the meteor hit, all the dust and crap rose and was just kind of floating in the air blocking the sun's rays for however long the ice age was. And then the dust particles, etc. began to settle allowing more light to pass through, therefore heating the earth back up

So, the ice age was started by a meteor? I've never heard that theory. What started the 4 ice ages before the last one?

I love how everyone is so worked up about global warming. O noes our planets temperature will rise by 4 degrees in 100 years. Hey Einstein we will be lucky if we are still here 100 years from now. There are much more impending matters that need our attention like war, famine, threats from space (asteroids etc and imo should be our biggest worry), natural disaster prevention and detection. I mean jesus christ global warming is not gonna kill us but our Governments are investing millions in to research and the like when there is so much more we need to do. And In no way are we the cause, the earth has its own planet weather system in which it heats up and cools down several times in the course of a few hundred thousand years. I say start pouring our resources in to things which negate the effects of global warming because we wont be here for it to effect us.

I figured I should post this up as well if anyone doesn't want to bother with scouring that website that i posted up before.
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h223/threatcon_1/fig11.gif
Note the contrast between the IPCC and the scientifically recorded levels of temperature.

Originally posted by doan_m
I figured I should post this up as well if anyone doesn't want to bother with scouring that website that i posted up before.
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h223/threatcon_1/fig11.gif
Note the contrast between the IPCC and the scientifically recorded levels of temperature.

Oh! no, we are causing global cooling.

Shaky pointed out the major flaw in most of these global warming advocates. Most of them know nothing at all about the history of our planet. That one guy up there insenuated that one of the two astroid hits our planet suffered hundreds of millions of years ago was responsible for one ice age that lasted a few thousand years, ending around 10-12 thousand years ago........while seemingly not knowing that our planet has gone through warming/cooling cycles since it first cooled 4 billion years ago.

for those who know nothing of the history of Earth...

There have been many ice ages in the past. Each re-formed the shape of out planet's ecosystems by making numerous species of animal and plant life extinct as they could not adapt. This has happened over and over......reshaping the surface of the earth, the landmass of the earth, the species living on the earth. The planet warms again.....ending the ice age......only to cool for thousands of years resulting in another ice age.

The planetary cycle of heating and cooling is close to that of our own yearly seasonal cycles. Winter and summer are direct opposites. The last ice age ended around 10 thousand years ago.....we are now in the spring. The temperature of our planet will steadily rise again until it is summer..............only to be followed by autumn and eventually winter again.

there's nothing we can do to stop the process. We should be spending out time anticipating adaptations necissary to survive.......to stave off being just another one of those countless number of species who have gone extinct from the extreme temperature changes our planet goes through.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
there's nothing we can do to stop the process. We should be spending out time anticipating adaptations necissary to survive.......to stave off being just another one of those countless number of species who have gone extinct from the extreme temperature changes our planet goes through.


Indeed

Originally posted by doan_m
I figured I should post this up as well if anyone doesn't want to bother with scouring that website that i posted up before.
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h223/threatcon_1/fig11.gif
Note the contrast between the IPCC and the scientifically recorded levels of temperature. Which website exactly is this? The veracity seems dubious.

These are figures taken from a 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/1161/wg1ar4spmplenaryapprovehx5.th.jpghttp://img413.imageshack.us/img413/5558/wg1ar4spmplenaryapproveda0.th.jpg
And show a net rise in recorded global temperature, as well as conformation to models both regionally and globally.

we did have a ice age thousands of years ago wich means history can repeat itself when nature takes its course. so nature is the actually thing in this global warming issue.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Which website exactly is this? The veracity seems dubious.

These are figures taken from a 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/1161/wg1ar4spmplenaryapprovehx5.th.jpghttp://img413.imageshack.us/img413/5558/wg1ar4spmplenaryapproveda0.th.jpg
And show a net rise in recorded global temperature, as well as conformation to models both regionally and globally.

The original quoted chart is unsourced and hence, yes, useless.

However, that policy maker's summary is also a pile of horse manure- and doesn't even match up with the science in the main body itself.

The source of the discrepancy is simple- the Summary is using surface temperature readings. These are notoriously inaccurate due to the problem of urban heat islands; most sensors are in disproportionate areas.

The original chart is much more likely to be based on satellite data.

Originally posted by jaden101
so what does that tell you?...that clearly carbon dioxide has no effect on temperature...given that levels (claimed) have been stable during 7 cooling and heating cycles....and all we're going through is another cooling and heating cycle...then why all the fuss about CO2

No, it tells us that carbon dioxide emissions are related to temperature. On a similar graph they demonstrated that the temperature during the ice ages was also relatively constant, also going through a cycle. But when the line hits the 21 centaury the temperature also shoots up. Like the other graph, at a very high angle. The line is far above the normal temperature during those seven ice ages. Please, have a look at the film, and then you can make a judgment.

Originally posted by Hydrono
No, it tells us that carbon dioxide emissions are related to temperature. On a similar graph they demonstrated that the temperature during the ice ages was also relatively constant, also going through a cycle. But when the line hits the 21 centaury the temperature also shoots up. Like the other graph, at a very high angle. The line is far above the normal temperature during those seven ice ages. Please, have a look at the film, and then you can make a judgment.

so the film says that the amount of CO2 during but not between the ice ages is similar?...and that the temperature during but not between the ice ages were similar?

why bother making that spurious point?...

the CO2 levels in the atmosphere 400 years ago were signicantly lower than today but the temperature was significantly higher....so where is the correlation?

answer...there is no correlation...the only problem is that, as i've mentioned before, the changes of the earths temperature cycle will now affect our social structure more than it has ever done...economies will crumble and the worlds superpowers with them...and thats why they're freaking out and trying any little thing to stem the tide...

perhaps you should stop getting your information from films..........especially those with biased agendas to promote.

ofcourse the CO2 levels went up drasticly starting with the industrial revolution. we are slightly speeding the process. Instead of 1000 years for a 10 degree temperature differential it's only going to take 750. Doesn't change the fact that it's a natural process that it unavoidable...can not be stopped so needs to be adapted to. When you've got a ball thrown at your head.....you worry about adapting your position to lessen the damage, not slowing the ball down.

The planet goes through regular cycles of warming and cooling. HOWEVER, all the greenhouse gases being emitted by humanity, especially carbon dioxide, are accelerating warming much faster than it should be.

As I have stated before CO2 emissions by man is in all likelihood not the cause of Global warming. That was the reason why I started the thread(but ended up merged with the Inspectors thread). Anyways, make a reference to the second page, and find my post. There is a list of links that I used to start off the re ignition of this arguement.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
perhaps you should stop getting your information from films..........especially those with biased agendas to promote.

ofcourse the CO2 levels went up drasticly starting with the industrial revolution. we are slightly speeding the process. Instead of 1000 years for a 10 degree temperature differential it's only going to take 750. Doesn't change the fact that it's a natural process that it unavoidable...can not be stopped so needs to be adapted to. When you've got a ball thrown at your head.....you worry about adapting your position to lessen the damage, not slowing the ball down.

How can you make a judgment on the film when you have not watched it? The film addresses the exact thing you are talking about. Every single one of 938 articles published in peer-reviewed journals supported the rise of global temperature as a result of human activity (100%). 53% of pieces presented in popular culture expressed skepticism about warming. If you are truly interested in global warming, you are doing yourself no harm by having a look at the opposition. If you just have a look at it, we will save lots of time that would be spent debating.

Actually, thats incorrect.

Those articles did NOT say that the rise in global temperatures is a result of human activity, but rather influenced by human activity.

There is a differencea and that difference should be respected, even on public forums where science is continuously bastardized.

who said I didn't watch the film? I own the f-cking dvd tard. I bought it thinking it was going to be a real informative presentation of the subject...........instead I got a politician on stage force feeding his agenda......like a state of the union address.

god damn your a moron.....diarhea of the keyboard......typing all those keys for naut as your entire premise was based on an illogical assumption, that I did not know the topic I was actively participating in a debate about.....or that I had not watched a "film" that I was actively posting about.



so again I ask you. Our last ice age ended 10-12 thousand years ago.......what were humans doing then to support the rise of global temperature being a result of human activity.

Out of curiosity, if one is to compare the global cooling and warming to the cyclical yearly seasons, is there an actual phenomenal reason for this seasonal global cooling and warming as there is for the yearly seasons i.e. axial tilt.

hey kid.......just 'cause you see something in a movie does not make it truth. Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't really a cyborg from the future sent back to save mankind. Tim Curry isn't really a transvestite from the planet transexual in the galaxy Transylvania. Perhaps you were confused becasue the movie had "truth" in the title. The movie is not an unbiased look at the issue. It is an editorial of one POV....one side.......that's called propoganda.

by your logic, Al Gore could stand on stage with a big ass screen telling how aliens from Andromeda are currently infiltrating the CIA and FBI and it would be truth.......'cause Al Gore said so on a film. Hell.....if he called it, "an inconvenient alien truth".....it would be irrefutable 'cause it has "truth" right there in the title.

think for yourself sheep.......anybody who get's opinions, ideas or political stances given to them in a motion picture is a moron. You've done no research. You've read no scientific journals. You watched a dvd of a guy on one side of the issue telling you what to think and bought it.............I nominate you for 2007's biggest douche in the universe award. John Edwards, look out.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
hey kid.......just 'cause you see something in a movie does not make it truth. Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't really a cyborg from the future sent back to save mankind. Tim Curry isn't really a transvestite from the planet transexual in the galaxy Transylvania. Perhaps you were confused becasue the movie had "truth" in the title. The movie is not an unbiased look at the issue. It is an editorial of one POV....one side.......that's called propoganda.

by your logic, Al Gore could stand on stage with a big ass screen telling how aliens from Andromeda are currently infiltrating the CIA and FBI and it would be truth.......'cause Al Gore said so on a film. Hell.....if he called it, "an inconvenient alien truth".....it would be irrefutable 'cause it has "truth" right there in the title.

think for yourself sheep.......anybody who get's opinions, ideas or political stances given to them in a motion picture is a moron. You've done no research. You've read no scientific journals. You watched a dvd of a guy on one side of the issue telling you what to think and bought it.............I nominate you for 2007's biggest douche in the universe award. John Edwards, look out.

You act as if you possess this great wealth of knowledge while what you say demonstrates otherwise. The manner in which you respond to my comments is truly immature and pathetic. You have emotional outbursts and while you do that you drift farther and farther away from the topic in hand. You have just proven your own stupidity. You sir have just won the biggest douche in the universe award.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Out of curiosity, if one is to compare the global cooling and warming to the cyclical yearly seasons, is there an actual phenomenal reason for this seasonal global cooling and warming as there is for the yearly seasons i.e. axial tilt.

there are several other mechanisms that influence temperature variations other than axial tilt....there is solar minimum and maximum activity...a process with an 11 year cycle

there are changes in the earths orbit around the sun on a cycle of 90,000-100,000 years

there is also a axial tilt mechanism known as precession which has a 22,000 year cycle and means that the seasons gradually shift...10,000 years ago the northern hemisphere was tilted toward the sun in december.

Dr Sami Solanki also proposes that sun is burning more intensely now than it has done in the past 1000 years and that this may have a cyclic nature and thus affect temperatures on earth in a cyclic manner

there was also a period of global cooling between the 1940's and 1970's when industrialisation of the western world was at its highest pollutant production....yet is not easily explained as to why it had the opposite affect as alleged global warming now.

Originally posted by jaden101
there are several other mechanisms that influence temperature variations other than axial tilt....there is solar minimum and maximum activity...a process with an 11 year cycle

there are changes in the earths orbit around the sun on a cycle of 90,000-100,000 years

there is also a axial tilt mechanism known as precession which has a 22,000 year cycle and means that the seasons gradually shift...10,000 years ago the northern hemisphere was tilted toward the sun in december.

Dr Sami Solanki also proposes that sun is burning more intensely now than it has done in the past 1000 years and that this may have a cyclic nature and thus affect temperatures on earth in a cyclic manner

there was also a period of global cooling between the 1940's and 1970's when industrialisation of the western world was at its highest pollutant production....yet is not easily explained as to why it had the opposite affect as alleged global warming now. Interesting. hmm

Wow, you don't see flame wars about the weather that much anymore.

If anyone's up for it, I'd like to start a debate about whether or not the sun can melt a DVD that sits in your dashboard for 30 minutes in August.

That's a valid question, Shaky. My favorite are these junior members (PVS excluded) who post a thread that resembles:

"Hey everybody!

omg I just saw the best trailer in the world! I saw it at the local cinema and it just looks awesome!!! I just wonder if anyone else is excited about Garfield III:Litter Box Lunch as I am! Who wants to chat about this movie! I can't wait until it comes out on August 23rd at 4:16 PM in 5 select cities that will soon be expanded to 438 markets!!!!"

Originally posted by botankus
That's a valid question, Shaky. My favorite are these junior members (PVS excluded) who post a thread that resembles:

"Hey everybody!

omg I just saw the best trailer in the world! I saw it at the local cinema and it just looks awesome!!! I just wonder if anyone else is excited about Garfield III:Litter Box Lunch as I am! Who wants to chat about this movie! I can't wait until it comes out on August 23rd at 4:16 PM in 5 select cities that will soon be expanded to 438 markets!!!!"

What? I am merely impressed by the film.

Originally posted by botankus
That's a valid question, Shaky. My favorite are these junior members (PVS excluded) who post a thread that resembles:

"Hey everybody!

omg I just saw the best trailer in the world! I saw it at the local cinema and it just looks awesome!!! I just wonder if anyone else is excited about Garfield III:Litter Box Lunch as I am! Who wants to chat about this movie! I can't wait until it comes out on August 23rd at 4:16 PM in 5 select cities that will soon be expanded to 438 markets!!!!"

They try to hide and be just some poster who saw the movie and liked it, but they stand out like a sour thumb.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They try to hide and be just some poster who saw the movie and liked it, but they stand out like a sour thumb.

This topic is finally going down the shit hole thanks to you...

Originally posted by Hydrono
This topic is finally going down the shit hole thanks to you...

Don't be thanking me, your the broken record.

Now, please try to answer the question that has been asked before: In your opinion, what caused the last 4 ice ages? In other words, how is the warming period that we are currently going through different from the last 4 warming periods? Also, if humans are the cause for this warming period what was the cuase for all of the other warming periods that have happened in the past?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don't be thanking me, your the broken record.

Now, please try to answer the question that has been asked before: In your opinion, what caused the last 4 ice ages? In other words, how is the warming period that we are currently going through different from the last 4 warming periods? Also, if humans are the cause for this warming period what was the cuase for all of the other warming periods that have happened in the past?

Before you ask me questions, educate yourself at go watch the film, Jezuz!

Originally posted by Hydrono
Before you ask me questions, educate yourself at go watch the film, Jezuz!

I never said I did not see the movie. I have never given you my opinion about the movie. All I've done was ask you questions. Think about the questions I've ask you, and do your own research.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never said I did not see the movie. I have never given you my opinion about the movie. All I've done was ask you questions. Think about the questions I've ask you, and do your own research.

If you had watched the film, you would have known the answer to your question you stupid moron.

Originally posted by Hydrono
If you had watched the film, you would have known the answer to your question you stupid moron.

The movie does not address my question, and I am not the stupid moron.

Shaky, I never realized you were a moron. Why didn't you tell anyone?

Originally posted by botankus
Shaky, I never realized you were a moron. Why didn't you tell anyone?

I guess I was too stupid to know.25_turkey

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you know what I am getting at? You have not answered my questions. Man is contributing to global warming, but what is causing global warming? Do you have any idea? I have an idea what it is, and I'm not telling you until you try to answer.

Factors include solar activity, volcanic emissions, variations in the earth's orbit (orbital forcing) and greenhouse gases etc. What is your point?

Originally posted by Hydrono
Factors include solar activity, volcanic emissions, variations in the earth's orbit (orbital forcing) and greenhouse gases etc. What is your point?

Why did it take you so long to get to those answers?

Solar activity is the 800 lbs gorilla setting in the room. We have always thought that the sun was stable and never changing. Here is an article to consider:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why did it take you so long to get to those answers?

Solar activity is the 800 lbs gorilla setting in the room. We have always thought that the sun was stable and never changing. Here is an article to consider:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html

Did that reply take any longer than my other replies? I have never denied that there are other factors in global warming...Notice how the info in the link you gave was posted on 30 September 2005. This is not a new scientific breakthrough, yet you assume I have not heard of it. The fact remains, 938/938 reports conclude man is contributing to global warming, to deny it is pathetic. You have just lost this argument.

Originally posted by Hydrono
Did that reply take any longer than my other replies? I have never denied that there are other factors in global warming...Notice how the info in the link you gave was posted on 30 September 2005. This is not a new scientific breakthrough, yet you assume I have not heard of it. The fact remains, 938/938 reports conclude man is contributing to global warming, to deny it is pathetic. You have just lost this argument.

"lost this argument"? Your priorities are misplaced.

Man is a small part of the problem. I'm all for cleaning the air, but when I see people singing the praises of the alarmists, I just shake my head. It is like a person handing out flyers in support of the lumber harvesting probation. The paper they are handing me is made from wood, and they are oblivious to that fact. How much green house gases were created in making the movie An Inconvenient Truth? The truth is that movie has little to do with science, and everything to do with money and politics.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"lost this argument"? Your priorities are misplaced.

Man is a small part of the problem. I'm all for cleaning the air, but when I see people singing the praises of the alarmists, I just shake my head. It is like a person handing out flyers in support of the lumber harvesting probation. The paper they are handing me is made from wood, and they are oblivious to that fact. How much green house gases were created in making the movie An Inconvenient Truth? The truth is that movie has little to do with science, and everything to do with money and politics.

I hope I don't make myself sound like an ass right now, but I've been reading Voltaire and it's late so I apologize if I say something idiotic.

You can (all, not just Shakya) sit there at your computers all you want and b*tch about how Al Gore's a hypocrite, or about the "alarmists", or about how everything has to do with money and politics, or whatever you want. But doing so won't fix a goddamned thing. It doesn't even matter if you believe in global warming or not, or whether humans are the cause of it. Whichever side of the argument you take, it accomplishes absolutely nothing. No, Al Gore really isn't reading this, and even if he was, it really isn't going to change the fact that a lot of greenhouse gases were probably produced while he was making his movie. You're likely, depending on what kind of electricity your house runs on, doing exactly the same thing right now.

There's no f*cking point in pointing fingers at anybody. Lincoln ended slavery, but he also fought the bloodiest war in American history. Everybody does good things and bad things, and there's nothing to be accomplished in complaining about what other people are doing. All we can do is deal with what we have control over. You could stop driving. Or stop using paper. I doubt if you've done either.

Frankly, the issue isn't even how much of global warming humans are responsible for, it's that the only reason there's an argument is money. I'm not claiming one way or the other whether there are any reasonable objections to humans being the cause of global warming; what I mean is that it wouldn't even be that difficult for us to reduce or eliminate our greenhouse gas emissions. There are lots of clean or at least cleaner technologies that we could all be using were it not for energy and car companies insisting that petroleum is the best source of energy. There's really no reason why we couldn't be running everything on clean energy. So how much of global warming we are responsible for is basically a non-issue, because it would be relatively easy to eliminate even the possibility that we are causing it.

I hope that bore some semblance to a coherent statement...............

Also, out of curiosity, how many of you have actually seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? Not that it represents the be-all and end-all of scientific knowledge of global warming, but if you're claiming all these things about it, you better have at least seen it........ A lot of people in here are saying things that just aren't true, pertaining to knowledge about global warming in general, as well as the film itself....

You are not very good at following that article are you? Those were the points that the skeptics were making against the article. Those were merely from the IPCC. And to add on to that you have quoted that yourself as well.


As you will notice, this part of the article states the points that the skeptics are against and they summarize the points that the other sides are making. Your not a very keen reader are you?

Sorry, you just got owned.

So tell me did you even bother reading all of that article or not? especially that part of the article which coherently gives a list of people who say that the global warming process is natural? Or were you to quick to jump the gun and go mudslinging just so you can?

Global Warming (from my point of view): 65% humans / 35% nature.

'nuff said.

Originally posted by doan_m
And it still does. Most of the meteorologist that I have seen on the net still cry bullocks over this matter and says its all politics. They also say that people don't know how this really works. Some of them who do speak out are being directly oppressed.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
this article comes straight from a meteorologist himself who had to say this:





Under what circumstances? Remember, most climatologist needs money direct from the government in order to stay alive. Otherwise you will be stripped of your title like this guy:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html


The majority of those who are not being fed money through an umbilical cord.

Is that the only argument you are left with? That they are being paid to lie... Do yourself a favor and go read how the bush administration is funding scientists to debunk The ICPP report. "According to an article in the Guardian, scientists and economists have been offered large bribes by a lobbying group funded by ExxonMobil. The offers were extended by the American Enterprise Institute group, which apparently has numerous ties to the Bush administration. Couched in terms of an offer to write 'dissenting papers' against the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, several scientists contacted for the article refused the offers on conflict of interest grounds." According to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, oil company ExxonMobil 'has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.' The report compares the tactics employed by the oil giant to those used by the tobacco industry in previous decades, and identifies key individuals who have worked on both campaigns.

Who cares of you have the opinion that more scientists believe it is 'bullocks". The fact is, the majority accept the three point given forward. Now that we have finished this "umbilical cord" debate, you have no argument left...

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/images/solar_irradiance_1.gif
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the trend of BOTH of those lines is up...
900 scientific articles were taken at random, and 0 of them were saying global warming is not real. The same survey was done with social articles, and about half of them said it was not real.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif This shows that we are doing something differently.

Originally posted by Hydrono
Is that the only argument you are left with? That they are being paid to lie...
care to bring up proof that no one is being payed to lie?


And just exactly how does this even refute my argument? The only thing it points out is that there are more people siding with dissent over man made global warming. What just because Bush is behind it, its automatically a bad thing?


So did you just blatantly ignore the fact that the government controls the money of meteorologist and climatologist and pay them to directly say that CO2 directly influences Global warming?


Says who? You have made no real rebuttals to any of my points or hell, anybodies points. Everybody is bringing up hard scientific or political facts which you have made no attempt to refute.

articles were taken at random, and 0 of them were saying global warming is not real.
No one is denying global warming. There merely denying that its manmade.

Originally posted by True Geek
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif This shows that we are doing something differently.

The problem with this gas is that it merely states the rise in temperature but does not even address the CAUSE of the rises.

i'm simply countering your points...which so far have been entirely composed of blaming man for global warming





did i quote an entire report?...no...merely one table from one set of findings

you critice my report for being 2 years older than the report you cite...2 years...its a long time in meteorology isn't it?...no...it isn't




read my last post again....i said it has a political agenda...so stop paraphrasing...you're making yourself look silly...and a liar...again

the technical aspects of the film, from a scientific standpoint, are completely null and void due to conflict of interest...they may be entirely accurate...but using them as "evidence" is completely useless...because conflict of interest is a major factor in determining what is credible...hence a film with a clear political agenda isn't a credible source



no...allow me to humiliate you



very little of what i've posted has been my opinion...its been thouroughly researched by respected scientists throughout the world...



way to miss the point genius...

posted by King Nothing
My question is, is it absolutely sure that this harmful consequence from global warming will never happen in this generations life time? Today 20 year olds and younger are safe from it, right?

i watched "5 ways to save the world" last night...some weird and wonderful ideas from some top scientists

here's a brief summary

http://www.a2mediagroup.com/?c=137&a=12958

i particularly liked the synthetic trees idea

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2004/images/synthetic_trees_400.jpg

although they would likely be as controvertial as wind farms...why not just mix them with wind farms...alternate windmill and "tree"

They look like giant kitty litter scoopers.

I voted for both but I think Humans have a larger impact.

am I the only one who thinks "Hydrono" is Al Gore's message board screen name?

Let's all hope he doesn't watch the Terminator........then come in here talking about how a war with machines is coming. He'd take the movie as truth........after all, Arnold Schwartzenegger is a politician.

Now that you mention it, the resemblance is uncanny...

so why keep mentioning it?...the film isn't any different from any michael moore film...it takes part facts and truths that are generally out of context...dont show the opposing evidence and present it as if it is unbiased...hence its about the least credible source of evidence for a debate that you could possibly get...its actually a stretch to claim its a documentary



you're right...you did it all on your own...well done





says the man who uses a film as a source of information

owned.

so once again...why keep refering to it as if it is a valid place to get information




hahaha...you did it again...




the IPCC doesn't actually back up your claims though does it

for example it found that CO2 atmospheric concentrations were only about 30% higher now than in pre-industrial times.

it also says methane has only went up 12 parts ber billion in the last 15 years...

nitrous oxide has only went up 49 parts per billion since pre industrial times

not to mention this lovely little tidbit that you failed to mention

Facts and numbers aside, the dude is a noob who uses personal slander to try to convince himself he's winning an argument. That speaks for itself.

true.

what's funny is that when you look at the arguments...they're both essentially the same...only the degree of what effects global warming more is disputed...and the IPCC report doesn't make bold claims one way or the other.

it states that it's likely but not conclusive that humans are accelarating global warming...but it is happening regardless so only the time scales are debatable and even then they are relatively short time scales over meteorological and geological relativity.

it states that there are likely political upheavals as a result...which is the driving force behind most desicions being made...

I vote "neither" on this one. All I know is that it was colder than normal this past winter and hotter than normal this past summer.

Global warming is more of a long term thing. You have to think more than a day or two ahead and behind, which can be difficult for some people.

Global warming also doesn't mean that everyplace onteh globe gets warmer.

Originally posted by Alliance
Global warming is more of a long term thing. You have to think more than a day or two ahead and behind, which can be difficult for some people.

Global warming also doesn't mean that everyplace onteh globe gets warmer.

true...quite the opposite in places....reduced salinity in the gulf stream would mean that western Europe, which relies on the warm water from the south atlantic to create its temperate climate, would be plunged into the same temperatures as Northern Russia and Canada