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

If you believe that global warming exists; what do you think of it's long term impact on the world that we live in?

I believe that it does exist, but I have heard people say that they believed that it was a hoax.

What are your thoughts on this subject? Do you believe that we as a race can overcome this crisis?

It's a scientific fact that the world's average temperatures are completely different from the norm. The only question about global warming really is how much of an impact humans have had on it and what the consequences will be.

As far as a long term impact, sea levels will obviously rise and we'll get a lot more storms and severe weather changes. It's a trickle down effect from there that will influence the ecosystem in tons of ways.

My family believes that global warming is pretty much apart of the global apocalypse, but they're Jehovah's Witnesses, so they'll bandwagon on any concept that supports the idea of the world ending.

Personally, I think global warming will create a lot of inconveniences for us, but it's nothing that humanity can't handle. We'll adapt around it with our technology, like we always do.

It is just a myth. I for one does not think it exist at all.

the earth is getting warmer. I don't think it is different than the norm, and I doubt very much that humans have much to do with it. We went Prehistoric Dino friendly weather to ice ages and now we are headed back again.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

97-98% of the top scientists, with those who are most senior, expert and relevant in the field being most likely, agree with the idea that the Earth is warming and that humans play a major role.

by all means, listen to conservative politicians as if they have some idea, but in terms of the science, the only debate is about how significant the human contribution is.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
It's a scientific fact that the world's average temperatures are different from the . The only question about global warming really is how much of an impact humans have had on it and what the consequences will be.

Corrected. 313



Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Personally, I think global warming will create a lot of inconveniences for us, but it's nothing that humanity can't handle. We'll adapt around it with our technology, like we always do.

I think that, overall, global warming is good for humanity.


I have brought it up multiple times: we have had some of the coldest ice ages in Earth's history with 3-5 times as much carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. I'm not as convinced as most other people that CO2 is the reason for it all.

completely = slightly. Lick it.

what does politics have to do with it? why bring politics into it?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
completely = slightly. Lick it.

I disagree: in the context of water and the weather patterns. Slight temperature changes can have no change to a significant change in weather patterns.

Some areas have not experienced temperature changes, as well. So we can, at best, only say "slight" but not complete.



Wait....there's too much seriousness in my reply.


Here's this ---- >


Originally posted by truejedi
what does politics have to do with it? why bring politics into it?

Because politics has everything to do with this. Just mention "global warming" in an application for some sort of research and you're far more likely to get a grant. Sad, I know...but them's the breaks.

It is impossible to argue that the world is not warming. No sane debate exists about this.

There's no way to predict the exact effects but there seems to be real potential to screw up a lot of people's lives.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree: well your wrong so shut up doughnut man

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html


I do not find Stanford to be a shitty source of information.


Basically, global warming will be a net "good". Sure, millions will be negatively affected, but millions will be positively affected. It is the poor that will be most affected near the coastal equator (we are already seeing this).



Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
well your wrong so shut up doughnut man


What about my wrong? awesome

Originally posted by dadudemon
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html


I do not find Stanford to be a shitty source of information.

But it was written by a person, not Stanford university.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Basically, global warming will be a net "good". Sure, millions will be negatively affected, but millions will be positively affected. It is the poor that will be most affected near the coastal equator (we are already seeing this).

Which still means there are disastrous consequences we need to prepare for.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But it was written by a person, not Stanford university.

Stanford doesn't write anything: its name appears on published works from individuals.


Did...I just make a massive revelation to you?


Before you ask, studies done that are funded and sponsored by universities...are...get this...done by individuals.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which still means there are disastrous consequences we need to prepare for.

Do WE need to prepare for them? Or do the people that will be affected need to prepare for them?

Culpability needs to be proven. We cannot directly prove that global warming is anthropogenic (science shows us that the majority (and some believe all) of it is not man-made. I disagree with the notion that man created all of the recent global warming. There are periods, shorter in length, where global warming was greater in magnitude, before the actions of the industrial revolution.

I still hold that humans are, at least partially, responsible for some of the global warming. I do not know how much. As inimalist has pointed out to me, that little change (if even 1%) could make a gigantic change in the long run. I reject that notion on the grounds that the positive and negative feedback mechanisms are too unknown to make that type of claim. However, I also hold that gambling on the negative feedbook mechanisms as the "self-correcting" mechanisms is a gamble, as well. This is why my position is one of "clean human activity" regardless of my disagreements on "oh ya...definitely humans will ruin everything". We literally do not know enough to make the claim that humans are definitely responsible for everything and that everything will go to shit because of us.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do WE need to prepare for them? Or do the people that will be affected need to prepare for them?

The people who are likely going to be affected seem to be the ones least able to do anything about it. I guess we can fault them for that but, well, there's a reason I'm not a Libertarian.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The people who are likely going to be affected seem to be the ones least able to do anything about it. I guess we can fault them for that but, well, there's a reason I'm not a Libertarian.

Yes, how dare we blame people for remaining in the same area when humans have been migratory for thousands of years. It is like their sentimentality for their "home lands" is forcing them to remain in the same area and this results in their potential early deaths.


Really, though, I think the US should be taking care of its own people before taking care of some people slowly being flooded out in Africa. This is my position and I would appreciate it if you would not strawman my points (which seems to be your primary MO in any discussion).

why can't they do something about it? That's ridiculous to act like they are incapable! it's borderline racist as well....

Originally posted by truejedi
why can't they do something about it?

Does not the US government have a responsibility to saving the lives of their own people, first and foremost, before saving the lives of citizens in another country?

We have a rampant "death via infection" in our hospitals and it is one of the reasons US healthcare is such shit in the US compared to other countries.


What about our homeless? What about our failing education?


In this particular regard, the US Citizens should be, independently, saving the African peoples affected by global warming. Not the US Government.


Originally posted by truejedi
That's ridiculous to act like they are incapable!

You're correct: some are pulling their heads out of their asses and moving. Good on them.

Originally posted by truejedi
it's borderline racist as well....

It's racist only if you're on an idiotic witch-hunt.

Since I hold the same position for those in the wetlands in Louisiana, it cannot possibly be racist but rather, only specific to humans in certain types of locations. I praise those that move and criticize those that stay to their detriment. If you do not have the means to stay or have no scientific interests, why stay when it is known that your area will be flooded in a few years? That's just stupid. And why should my tax dollars be spent on them? I have no obligation, with my tax dollars, to them. I would rather spend it on my children for school or healthcare for my country: NOT other people in other nations.

As I have said in the past and it pisses libtards off: **** 'em.

The context, of course, is when it comes to my tax dollars. If I want to volunteer my time it help them move or clean up, I will. But that's my time, not the government's time.

dadudem, my post was referring to the third world countries. let them fix their own problems.

Originally posted by truejedi
dadudem, my post was referring to the third world countries. let them fix their own problems.

you would be cool to let people die even if it were possible to do something?

how are we "letting them die?" Why don't they keep themselves from dying? they have just as good a chance of saving themselves as we do of saving them. It's racist to pretend that we are more capable of dealing with THEIR problems than they are.

Originally posted by truejedi
how are we "letting them die?" Why don't they keep themselves from dying? they have just as good a chance of saving themselves as we do of saving them. It's racist to pretend that we are more capable of dealing with THEIR problems than they are.

fair point, let me rephrase:

you would be happy to sit by and watch as other people die even though you might have the ability to help

Originally posted by truejedi
how are we "letting them die?" Why don't they keep themselves from dying? they have just as good a chance of saving themselves as we do of saving them. It's racist to pretend that we are more capable of dealing with THEIR problems than they are.

It's not racist to admit that the west has a ridiculous amount of money and technology.

and, as ddm points out, face much fewer problems from the outcomes of global warming than do unstable places where resources are scarce already

how can you be okay with using resources that could be allocated to taking care of American homeless and jobless to prevent the same thing in another country. I agree with ddm that if we had 0 percent American homelessness, we could save lives elsewhere.

How about we match every dollar that China spends on the problem? Sound fair?

Originally posted by truejedi
how can you be okay with using resources that could be allocated to taking care of American homeless and jobless to prevent the same thing in another country. I agree with ddm that if we had 0 percent American homelessness, we could save lives elsewhere.

that is a fair point, but why are you making a dichotomy between green reforms and employment?

Originally posted by truejedi
How about we match every dollar that China spends on the problem? Sound fair?

that is a complete strawman, and in the end, do you want to paint yourself as the moral equivalent of the chinese government? surely you can aim for better

Originally posted by inimalist
that is a fair point, but why are you making a dichotomy between green reforms and employment?



Green reforms by us will do nothing to save third world countries from global warming. It will take direct interference. What you and I are talking about is massive relief efforts, NOT united states energy changes, which at this point, simply don't matter anymore.




Since when should a government care about morality? Legislation on morality is generally considered unconsititutional.

Originally posted by truejedi
Green reforms by us will do nothing to save third world countries from global warming. It will take direct interference. What you and I are talking about is massive relief efforts, NOT united states energy changes, which at this point, simply don't matter anymore.

well, obviously I'd disagree with the fact that American domestic energy policy wouldn't matter, if you really want to debate that, we can start another thread. EDIT: I guess this would be the appropriate thread... I'll do a proper response to this if you want, America by far is the greatest contributer to global warming, though I'm not sure on the numbers off the top of my head.

Aside from that, sure. Most of these nations we already have some form of aide to. If you want to talk about the most effective use of aide money, I'm with you, I'd rather a much more regionally based narrow focus rather than this trickle into many issues that never get dealt with. However, that is a far cry from just saying "well, their own fault for being poor and born in a geographically crappy place"

Originally posted by truejedi
Since when should a government care about morality?

surely you don't agree with that statement, else why not invade Venezuela and Alberta for their oil supplies? The **** are the Canadians going to do?

Originally posted by truejedi
Legislation on morality is generally considered unconsititutional.

im sorry, what? not to point to the 10000 pound elephant, but the drug war by chance is a good counter example

I think the whole constitution is a great counter example to legislation based on morality being unconstitutional.

ba dum bum, tsssss

Originally posted by truejedi
dadudem, my post was referring to the third world countries. let them fix their own problems.

My bad. I had no idea where you were coming from. After re-reading your post, that was my fault and I took your post waaaaay out of context.

Originally posted by inimalist
you would be cool to let people die even if it were possible to do something?

If and only if we had done almost as much as possible for our own dying people: our own citizens that deserve more of my state's time and tax dollars (if it is from the state) than citizens in other countries.

I would still like to indicate that the individual can volunteer his or her time in another country without the aide of their originating state and, for me, that is perfectly acceptable.

The counter to my perspective: no man is an island. Meaning, no country is completely and wholly independent from all other nations. This means that all countries should have an active interest in the others that matter to them. That ends up being a slippery slope and borders on offensive imperialism. This is why I say states should make it as easy as possible to do humanitarian aide without investing too many resources into it. Tax breaks and stream-lined processes (visas) for aide workers are what I had in mind. The counter to that is this: isn't giving a tax break the same thing as allocating state resources? SURE! I can admit when my position becomes one of arbitrariness. It makes it seem as though I am making an ethical stance that is, at best, convoluted. I do not view it entirely like that, of course. A tax break is technically shifting a tax burden to someone or something else...which is the "hole" in my argument. But, at the same time, you can still claim that you are not allocating any funds directly to the aide projects. It is still not quite "you can have your cake and eat it too", but it is close. At least you can say your state never directly funded foreign aide programs when you had thousands of preventable deaths in your own country. So, in conclusion, I still like the idea of tax breaks for foreign aide groups and workers, but I do not like foreign aide to be given directly by the state when we still have thousands, nay, millions of early, preventable, deaths occurring in our own country. If our people can prosper more, then that allows for more people to have the chance to help others. I am not sure if that position is perfectly supportable because it becomes one of "trickle down". I don't like that idea.

Originally posted by truejedi
how can you be okay with using resources that could be allocated to taking care of American homeless and jobless to prevent the same thing in another country. I agree with ddm that if we had 0 percent American homelessness, we could save lives elsewhere.

Yes, exactly.

Homelessness is an inevitable early death. Our homeless programs could be vastly improved. That's just one example of many things that are wrong in the US that we should be funding here instead of helping citizens in other countries.

It is not as "romantic" and "sexy" to do that, however. I have never seen a commercial on TV to donate to the local homeless shelter. Nor have I seen an advertisement to volunteer my time at the local homeless shelter. But you cannot escape from the commercials about African babies, children, and "feed the Africans" n'stuff. It's just sexier. People want to feel good about themselves. We are no different than the pharisees that Jesus preached against: we like filling our metaphorical robes up with "good deed" beads, too. How much of it is virtue ethics and how much of it is trying to look good for society? Obviously, some are doing it just because it is good. Why aren't they doing anything in their home land? Surely they could do just as much good? Well, some believe there is far more good that can be done and I tend to agree. Even a little bit helps them.

I've seen commercials and advertisements about "local" charities in both Britain and Germany. I think there could be enough funding for both though and I don't think that the fact that someone was born within the same arbitrary lines as you were makes it necessary better to spend money on then.

Originally posted by inimalist
America by far is the greatest contributer to global warming, though I'm not sure on the numbers off the top of my head.



Turns out it is actually China:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7347638.stm

and per capita:

Britain, with China fast on their heels.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8793269/China-population-to-become-worlds-biggest-polluters.html



The countries we are talking about are not in a geographically crappy place. They are ran by dictators that squander the resources. So in a way... yeah, it's their own fault for never joining the modern world in doing away with dictatorships.



Because of the international fallout, the probability of guerrilla war that would limit the use of those resources, and the political fallout in our own country over the death of our soldiers in a non-necessary war.



And who agrees the drug war is a good idea? Find one person.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think that the fact that someone was born within the same arbitrary lines as you were makes it necessary better to spend money on then.

When it comes to my tax dollars, yes it does. When the concept of a state dissolves and we end up with a pure anarchy system (the good kind) that you are implying, sure, you'd be right.

Until that happens, you're dead wrong. There does not exist this make-believe 'we are all part of Gaia" bullshit. That's the path your line of reasoning leads down. We are individual states. My tax dollars should be used by the state to help those that are defined as being part of the state: citizens and legal aliens.


Originally posted by truejedi
The countries we are talking about are not in a geographically crappy place. They are ran by dictators that squander the resources. So in a way... yeah, it's their own fault for never joining the modern world in doing away with dictatorships.


Well, I'll have to disagree and state that there has been hundreds of years of civil wars just because of that...in Africa. One overturning results in another dictator. It's cyclic. Some do not have the means to overthrow the militaristic dictatorships.



Originally posted by truejedi
And who agrees the drug war is a good idea? Find one person.

Tons of Christians that think they have rights over your body. I'm sure you can guess that these same Christians are against abortion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I've seen commercials and advertisements about "local" charities in both Britain and Germany. I think there could be enough funding for both though and I don't think that the fact that someone was born within the same arbitrary lines as you were makes it necessary better to spend money on then.

so why should i have to pay taxes,simply because i was born in some arbitrary line where they pay taxes?

Originally posted by dadudemon
When it comes to my tax dollars, yes it does. When the concept of a state dissolves and we end up with a pure anarchy system (the good kind) that you are implying, sure, you'd be right.

Until that happens, you're dead wrong. There does not exist this make-believe 'we are all part of Gaia" bullshit. That's the path your line of reasoning leads down. We are individual states. My tax dollars should be used by the state to help those that are defined as being part of the state: citizens and legal aliens.

Why let an arbitrary declaration (that you apparently disagree with) decide that sort of thing?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why let an arbitrary declaration (that you apparently disagree with) decide that sort of thing?

Because, it isn't arbitrary as I have clearly indicated. It is less arbitrary than the alternative.

Originally posted by truejedi


and per capita:

Britain, with China fast on their heels.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8793269/China-population-to-become-worlds-biggest-polluters.html


Careful about how you read things there. Britain is nowhere near the top per capita polluter, which is generally the US (if only counting those countries above a certain total level, as these things tend to do). That article only implies that the UK is currently above China, not that it is number 1.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Careful about how you read things there. Britain is nowhere near the top per capita polluter, which is generally the US (if only counting those countries above a certain total level, as these things tend to do). That article only implies that the UK is currently above China, not that it is number 1.

Exactly: the UK is only half, per capita, of what the US is.


UK: 8.1 tons per person, annually.

US: 16.9 tons per person, annually.


I'd say that was fairly clear the the US has the UK beat.

Originally posted by truejedi
so why should i have to pay taxes,simply because i was born in some arbitrary line where they pay taxes?

I agree with you. But if you refuse you will be punished by the forces in your region, you should try to work that out with them.

Regardless, there are non-sentimental reasons (though I won't discount those either) for helping other nations, and even then, you guys falsely assume that only government aid and tax dollars can be used to help people even though the initial point I replied to was about advertisements, which are usually done by non-profit organizations.

okay, sorry about the misleading link, i misread that. however, i did find this one:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_car_dio_per_cap-pollution-carbon-dioxide-per-capita

which tells me that the U.S. is not by far the biggest polluter in the world as it is accused of, above.

China is number one in total pollution, and the U.S. is highest per capita, but not by an overwhelming margin, and that is simply the result of being one of the most developed nations.

All of that is, of course, conceding that Carbon emissions directly impact global warming on a measurable scale, which, if you remember my initial post in thread, i by no means do.

ice melting at the both poles of the globe?

is that proof enough?

Originally posted by StarCraft2
ice melting at the both poles of the globe?

is that proof enough?

you obviously missed everything before the last post. : ) cute.

no one is questioning if the earth is warming or not.

dont believe in it

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
well your wrong so shut up doughnut man

how funny!

Originally posted by StarCraft2
ice melting at the both poles of the globe?

is that proof enough?

Not on both poles.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

Originally posted by tsscls
Not on both poles.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

lolz

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

though, if you do ask only that small margin for their opinions, I'm sure you can come up with bizarre tales

It does after I eat chili.

Global warming is a huge lie created in order to destroy mankind through demand and supply of food.