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

I'm not one of those Global Warming deniers but I disagree with nearly everyone about the what where and why of it. Here's my thoughts on why global warming as you know it is totally false.. I'd like to know what you think of it.



The one major problem with denying global warming is that pesky little fact that the globe is absolutely warming up.



The question is "why?". Are humans to blame as the sole culprate? My research leads me to say no....and greenland is the key. Here's why:



Currently approx 80% of greenland is frozen and covered in perma frost. Although thawing at an alarming rate, it is mostly a frozen desert. If this is true, then why the name Green land? Did the vikings, who named it 1000 years ago, name it ironically?



No, because 1000 years ago green land was the most lush and fertile place on earth -continued....

and the inhabitants had on problem farming the land, in fact, green land harvested more than twice the amount of grain and other produce than england. This lasted for 500 years until the entire earth entered into a mini ice age. The global temp dropped 12% in two years, leaving the once lush paradise covered in ice. Most of the inhabitants starved or left in the first year. This earth has been slowly warming up ever since. We've only been keeping record of this for less than 150 years, so we don't know if it has accelerated recently or if it is right on schedule.

In summary, I believe the globe is indeed warning up, but not fully because of our stupidity, but mostly due to the fact we are coming out of a mini ice age. If a person from a 1000 years ago were to come to the present day, he wouldn't comment on the heat, but the cold. Anyway, tell me what you think of my conclusion.

Well, global warming IS real.


What you really mean to says is "man-made" global warming isn't real.


At that, we don't fully agree. I say that man as contributed somewhere in the ballpark of 0-2% of the current global warming trend. I'm not the only person to think that: much smarter people say the same. Even something like .5% is a big deal from a global perspective as that shit adds up.


I definitely do not believe in the run away greenhouse effect that people fear-monger about, though. That's just asinine bullshit, imo. We have a long way to go before we reach some of the global temperatures in the past...a past that had MUCH more greenhouse gases (methane, water vapor, and CO2) in the atmosphere than we do now...and we still went into multiple ice-ages afterwards. However, we shouldn't be "helping" it along with our pollution.

Well, no, I think we may have helped it along, but we didn't start it. The mini ice age and the return to pre ice age temps are not theories, it's absolute fact. It's just that no one has ever linked it as being behind global warning. We didn't start it, and no matter what we can't halt or reverse it. It's natural.

I've known a lot of people who dismiss Human-induced climate change because they know it under the umbrella term of "global warming". They view it as you do; a phenomena whose name and hype suggest it's recent, man-made, and is focused on a planetary "heating up" process.

I'm all for people conserving resources and looking after the environment. But Global Warming is a stupid description they should call it global climate change which is mostly due to nature seeing how every time the Earth's climate has gotten hotter it's followed by an ice age.

Originally posted by long pig
It's just that no one has ever linked it as being behind global warning.

man, how did the people who spend their lives, as in their day job, studying all this miss something that was so blatantly obvious?

wait... didn't you just use your background in theology as an argument for why people should believe what you say about the bible in the "Atheism" thread?

so, in conclusion, believe what theology majors say, because they are right, but don't trust science

Up to this point I don't believe that man has influenced global warming in a significant manner. From the studies i've read and the theories i've listened to it seems that there is no physical evidence that suggests man has had a significant influence over the climate. I don't think anyone argues that man does, however, affect their environment. It doesn't take a superior perception to understand this. Considering this and also how we are currently taking our planet for granted and using our resources in a most frivolous manner. It's only a matter of time before we begin to affect our climate in a significant manner. I think once we address these issues we can then argue what caused it.

I can't speak for outside cultures or societies but it seems much of the Western culture is losing perspective due to the global warming argument. Whether or not man has influenced climate change, it is changing. What started this isn't so much important as to how we are going to evolve with it along with how we are going to deal with our over population problem and our over consumption of natural resources and open land.

Originally posted by inimalist
man, how did the people who spend their lives, as in their day job, studying all this miss something that was so blatantly obvious?

wait... didn't you just use your background in theology as an argument for why people should believe what you say about the bible in the "Atheism" thread?

so, in conclusion, believe what theology majors say, because they are right, but don't trust science

Please, inimalist, his Aramaic ain't too bad, who else you gonna trust?

It is a myth that people are so into beliveing but like you said it is not true.

should the earth be warming because the sun is slowly expanding in size and it will eventually become a red giant?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
should the earth be warming because the sun is slowly expanding in size and it will eventually become a red giant?

That will happen, but not for another 2 billion years.

Greenland the most fertile place on Earth? Lol. Right there your theory loses any credibility it might have had.

Even 1000 years ago Greenland was covered 80-90% by glaciers and perma-frost. That's why the vikings only settled near the coast and never pushed inland: there simply was no profit from trying to make homesteads on ice sheets.

The extent of Norse settlements in Greenland:

http://www.yorku.ca/kdenning/vikings/greenlandmapofsettlements.jpeg

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Greenland the most fertile place on Earth? Lol. Right there your theory loses any credibility it might have had.

Even 1000 years ago Greenland was covered 80-90% by glaciers and perma-frost. That's why the vikings only settled near the coast and never pushed inland: there simply was no profit from trying to make homesteads on ice sheets.

But his point is still correct in the fact that Greenland was warmer then today.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But his point is still correct in the fact that Greenland was warmer then today.
Granted, but it was by no means the "most fertile place on Earth"

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Granted, but it was by no means the "most fertile place on Earth"

Granted. But I don't think that was the important part of the commit.

Another point: We all know that Hannibal marched over the Alps into Rome. The route he took (believed route) cannot be crossed today, because of glaciers. If this is true, then it also supports the idea that it was warmer in the past then today.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Granted. But I don't think that was the important part of the commit.

Another point: We all know that Hannibal marched over the Alps into Rome. The route he took (believed route) cannot be crossed today, because of glaciers. If this is true, then it also supports the idea that it was warmer in the past then today.

It may suggest that it was warmer in the past in the Alps. It says little about the global effect.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It may suggest that it was warmer in the past in the Alps. It says little about the global effect.

It is only one piece of the puzzle.

Yay! A non-believer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is only one piece of the puzzle.

One that climate scientists would obviously take into account, unless it's a huge conspiracy ha-son

The "little ice age" ended a few hundred years ago.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It may suggest that it was warmer in the past in the Alps. It says little about the global effect.








I'm still not convinced global warming is a, one the whole, a bad thing.


If we move to temperatures that are much closer to what they were in the past, why is that bad?

It's considered bad because of the potential disruption of human settlement/life in certain areas. I recall the underwater signing of a climate change commitment by an island nation somewhere. They're worried about flooding from melted ice caps.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Bottom line: a warmer Earth would be better for humans. Less death, more food, more "easily" livable areas.

There's a balance that must be kept and while a warming Earth isn't bad in of itself(as your points dictate), the rate of warming can be a problem, which is what I believe is a key argument of the GW nuts.

E.G. Earth heats up too fast and ahead of schedule, a mass death of bees could happen; if that happens, there goes the "more food" argument.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Down the list: the Disease "myth" is complete bullshit. It has been destroyed long ago. I don't understand why they keep harping on this malaria bullshit. Where was the most destructive malaria epidemic? Do mosquitos live in the arctic? The answers to those two questions make the malaria disease argument complete shit. And, if it were that big of a deal, people living in the tropical zones would be dying at extreme rates.Smallpox is the only human infection to have been destroyed.

According to Wikipedia's entry on malaria: "Each year, there are more than 250 million cases of malaria, killing between one and three million people, the majority of whom are young children in sub-Saharan Africa."

Global warming is not the issue. I mean 12,000 years ago, were I am at, would have been very near the edge of a glacier a mile think. The Earth has been getting warmer. The law of nature says, adapt of die. I don't believe global warming is caused by humans, so what are we going to do? Adapt or die...

Originally posted by dadudemon
If we move to temperatures that are much closer to what they were in the past, why is that bad?

it depends on where you live

if you are a rancher in Arizona, or depend on the sea, especially in poor areas, you are ****ed. If you run a ski resort on the West coast of Canada, you are ****ed.

If you are a farmer in Saskatchewan, things are probably going to be ok

wait... do you really think there are no negative consequences to serious climate change.

Like, forget the question of why it is happening, you see absolutly no reason to be alarmed?

So basically, the whole substance of your argument is that because the norse called it "greenland", it obviously must have had no ice? That doesn't seem very sound.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So basically, the whole substance of your argument is that because the norse called it "greenland", it obviously must have had no ice? That doesn't seem very sound.
It's almost as bad as when people try to debunk Global Warming by pointing to one region having the coldest winter in a century, as if that has any real significance on global climactic conditions.

or as if it isn't actually predicted by models of climate change

god, I'm sure I'm going to get sucked into it, but I HATE this debate. Even more than creationism, its a debate that is entirely of a scientific nature (maybe not the "what to do about it" question) that is almost entirely discussed by people with a near hostility toward the scientists involved...

Originally posted by inimalist
wait... do you really think there are no negative consequences to serious climate change.

Like, forget the question of why it is happening, you see absolutly no reason to be alarmed?


I didn't say that, at all.

There are going to be lots of deaths due to climate change. That's just the sad state of man: some have and some have not. The have nots will see more deaths due to climate change and almost everyone else will be fine. Lots of species will die out, lots of humans will die. But everything will be better, on the whole.



Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Smallpox is the only human infection to have been destroyed.

According to Wikipedia's entry on malaria: "Each year, there are more than 250 million cases of malaria, killing between one and three million people, the majority of whom are young children in sub-Saharan Africa."


No, the ARGUMENT was destroyed, NOT diseases.

And, yeah, the most destructive epidemic was in Russia, which was supposed to be a "rhetorical" question, hoping someone else around here would remember that from a history class.

And, thanks for helping my point by pointing out that the poor die from diseases much more often than those of higher income classes. That's one of the reasons the point was utterly destroyed from the GW tards.


Yes, there are GW tards. There are also anti-GW tards.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I didn't say that, at all.

There are going to be lots of deaths due to climate change. That's just the sad state of man: some have and some have not. The have nots will see more deaths due to climate change and almost everyone else will be fine. Lots of species will die out, lots of humans will die. But everything will be better, on the whole.

so, you are saying something more like: whenever we adapt to the current climate trends, things will be better than they are now?

again, I'd say that is entirely relative to what it is you do and who you are. Farming and fishing communities are going to be the hardest hit. In fact, given how sensitive the seas are to even modest changes in climate/environment, it can't help but impact even you or I, who have almost no connection to the water in terms of our everyday survival.

I do sort of agree, if we can discover a way for society to be adaptable to climate change, that will be a positive, I just have a hard time saying we will be better, considering even you admit lots of people are going to suffer due to climate alone.

Though, I'm sure we'd agree, as Bjorn Lumburg points out, that money spent directly on the local infrastructure of developing nations will do more to combat the negative effects of climate change than will these "anti-oil" and "anti-corporate" measures that the green movement loves. That "corporations are the evil assholes destroying the planet" narrative is so appealing to people though, its got everything, heros, villians, etc.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/Underwear.jpg

Originally posted by inimalist
so, you are saying something more like: whenever we adapt to the current climate trends, things will be better than they are now?

No, I'm saying that we are already adapted to the "new" climate, but some of the changes will adversely affect some settlements. On the whole, though, it will be better.

Consider that more people die from cold than hot weather, greater "arable" climes, and more plant and animal life (humans need that shit, yo, lol) then it looks like a more positive future for my children.

I'm not very worried about global warming. I'm worried about pollution. If my grandchildren inherit an Earth that is warmer, that's great...but if it's too polluted to be livable in many places, WTF did I do to my children's children and why did I do it?

Global warming is the mistaken identification of the natural cooling/warming phases that the earth has always gone through.

The required green-house gases to create a noticeable climate effect would be astronomically greater than we produce now. Aside from that, it's been proven that c02, while having a long lifetime as a GHG is the least dangerous GHG, and it would take even larger quantities than even possible to create a difference that is as dramatic as some would have you believe.

enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Global_warming_potential

replace "dot" with ".", please.

What's a culprate?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/Underwear.jpg 2000's have a G-string then. And so for the 2010's that must mean... aw yeah!

Well all those mass amount of chemical emissions gotta have some effect on the environment.

I think we'll die from lack of oxygen due to the utter shit they put in the air before we all burn to death.

Originally posted by Liberator
Well all those mass amount of chemical emissions gotta have some effect on the environment.

I think we'll die from lack of oxygen due to the utter shit they put in the air before we all burn to death.

That's sort of where my point was going.

I'm much more worried about the "poison" than I am the greenhouse gases.

Reminds me of a comic. The punchline is something like:

"What if Global Warming is a big hoax and we make the world a better place for nothing?"

Originally posted by JacopeX
Yay! A non-believer.

Yay, a new religion!
Let's stone the non-believer!