Originally posted by Bardock42
No, we have not proven it. At least not in the way you want. In fact, the evidence indicates that Global Warming is not influenced by humans and history shows us that warm periods have always been very great and fruitful periods.
Most scientists now agree that the problem is caused by us. Even the UN has stated so. Is that proof enough for you? You say the evidence bla blah.. What evidence? You you don't have any evidence as far as I can see.
Yes there have been warm periods but the mid temperature has raised then over a few hundred years. Now we're talking 3-4 degrees warmer in a matter of decades. And that may not sound much but it means polar ice melting - the ocean rising several meters drowning entire countries. 3-4 degrees means starvation in countries that already are warm. You can't just say **** Africa and the third world because I don't live there, That's inhuman.
You like hyseria, don't you? No proof at all to back it up. Cute.Well, you are right, lets not allow the third world to use oil and coal...I am sure the children dying will appreciate that you think you saved someone.
Let me just ask you what you're talking about? Hell I clearly stated that if we continue to live the way we do, then we can't forbid other countries to do so. That's why we have to change our way of life. If you didn't get it then read it again and think before you speak.
Not really. But good job lying there.
Originally posted by Fishy
The real question is, is the chance that we caused global warming and the chance that we can still stop or even reverse the effect, worth our economy and hundreds of millions of lives?
Hundreds of millions of lives? Since when. How can stopping, or trying to stop a catastrophe kill hundreds of millions?. Simple answer; it can't. Not letting the third world expand uncontrolled. Decreasing the use of greenhouse gasses all over the world, but especially in the west and not burning down rain forest will not kill millions of lives, It will save lives.
Originally posted by vanice
Most scientists now agree that the problem is caused by us. Even the UN has stated so. Is that proof enough for you? You say the evidence bla blah.. What evidence? You you don't have any evidence as far as I can see.
Yes there have been warm periods but the mid temperature has raised then over a few hundred years. Now we're talking 3-4 degrees warmer in a matter of decades. And that may not sound much but it means polar ice melting - the ocean rising several meters drowning entire countries. 3-4 degrees means starvation in countries that already are warm. You can't just say **** Africa and the third world because I don't live there, That's inhuman.
There is evidence to the contrary, hard evidence. What is there to support this political theory of global warming?
Multiple scientists named on the report of the IPCC have spoken out against it and stated that they were not named. The findings indicate a reverse corellation between CO2 and Temperature, the Antarctic did not increase in temperature a bit. The earth had always had climate changes...and no, humans did not die out the last time. Up until 30 years ago it was believed that we would have the next ice age soon.
Man, you are just buying into the hysteria. There is no problem, it's just the millions of people that benefit from pretending Global Warming is man made that keep it going as well as sheep like you.
And you are ****ing Africa. You basically tell them not to advance. They will die by the hundreds of millions because of environmental fascists that are so far up their own ass that they can't even see hard scientific facts.
Originally posted by vanice
Let me just ask you what you're talking about? Hell I clearly stated that if we continue to live the way we do, then we can't forbid other countries to do so. That's why we have to change our way of life. If you didn't get it then read it again and think before you speak.
Yeah, but, see, the problem is that is a lie made up by stupid ****ing moron assholes, like you.
Originally posted by vanice
OK give me the upside of it then. Tell me what's so good about global warming? I can tell you this. There is nothing good in global warming, what so ever. And you can't just ignore a problem of this size.
There is no problem. You are making it up.
We won't drown, the people won't starve any more than they do already (well, they might in case people like you go through with the ridiculous "protecting of the environment"😉
Originally posted by vanice
Hundreds of millions of lives? Since when. How can stopping, or trying to stop a catastrophe kill hundreds of millions?. Simple answer; it can't. Not letting the third world expand uncontrolled. Decreasing the use of greenhouse gasses all over the world, but especially in the west and not burning down rain forest will not kill millions of lives, It will save lives.
Haha, an idiot.
You don't know anything about global warming. Have you ever seen the opposite side, or just what you have been told by Al Gore?
Man, do yourself a favour and watch lets say the Global Warming Swindle and then research it.
I am not saying that the documentary is 100% accurate, it's probably not, it is populistic and biased, but it has very good points, made by actual scientists.
Just watch it, give it a chill for a few days and consider...if maybe, just maybe...there is a point that the opponents of the Global Warming scare are making.
why don't people promote civilization adapt technologies and society to warmer temperatures and higher oceans rather than just destroy itself trying to fight the environment?
EDIT: Also, I feel obligated to post this any time the Global Warming Swindle comes up: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070425_globalwarm_film.html
I'd still recommend it more than mr. Gore's film, but it is true that there will never be something without human bias 🙁
Originally posted by inimalist
why don't people promote civilization adapt technologies and society to warmer temperatures and higher oceans rather than just destroy itself trying to fight the environment?EDIT: Also, I feel obligated to post this any time the Global Warming Swindle comes up: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070425_globalwarm_film.html
I'd still recommend it more than mr. Gore's film, but it is true that there will never be something without human bias 🙁
Yeah, I know it is very biased.
The problem I see is that I have not seen the really important argument the movie made challenged. Apparently CO2 does indeed FOLLOW Temperature by 700 years.
That alone is just amazing, it throws the whole argument Al Gores film made over board.
Claim: Ice cores show that during earlier periods in the Earth’s history, rises in carbon dioxide followed increases in temperature, and therefore the current rise in greenhouse gas concentrations has not caused the recent increase in global average temperature.
Misrepresentation: It is well established that analyses of ice core from Antarctic show that local temperature rises during the transition from glacial to interglacial periods, which are triggered by regular fluctuations in the Earth’s orbit (and hence its distance from the Sun), were followed some time later by increases in the local average concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide by up to 100 parts per million. However, the conclusion drawn in the programme that this means the recent rise on concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could not be responsible for the recent increase in global average temperature is counter to the evidence presented in the scientific peer-reviewed literature.
In particular the programme misrepresented the contents of a paper by Nicolas Caillon and co-authors which was published in the journal ‘Science’ in March 2003. The paper by Caillon and co-authors examined the timing of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperatures during the Termination III deglaciation event about 240,000 years ago. The authors found that “[t]he sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800+/-200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation”.
The programme presented a graph to illustrate the results of the work by Caillon and co-authors (to whom it was directly attributed), but which appeared nowhere within the paper. This graph was presented in support of the argument that rises in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide are the result of, rather than the cause of, increases in temperature. However, Caillon and his co-authors concluded in their paper that “the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase”, noting that “the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first”.
In fact, the paper suggested that a fluctuation in the Earth’s orbit initiated the increase in surface temperatures in Antarctica, and was followed by a gradual warming of the oceans, which released substantial volumes of carbon dioxide (the volume of carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water decreases with increasing temperature). It also indicated that the carbon dioxide released by the oceans added to the warming of the atmosphere, and contributed to the deglaciation of the Northern Hemisphere. The paper stated that the sequence of events during Termination III is “still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing”.
A paper by Urs Siegenthaler and co-authors, published in the journal ‘Science’ in 2005, described evidence from the Dome C Antarctic ice core for lags of 800, 1600 and 2800 years between deglaciations at terminations V to VII and rises in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, respectively. However, the programme failed to point out that the record of temperature increases followed by rises in carbon dioxide concentration, which are described in the papers by Caillon and co-authors and Siegenthaler and co-authors, all relate to episodes of deglaciation. The last deglaciation on Earth occurred 12,000 years ago, but the current rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, started during the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century ie more than 11,000 years after the last deglaciation.
Furthermore, the programme failed to point out that the rise in temperature and carbon dioxide levels during Termination III occurred over a period of about 5000 years, much longer than the period since the start of the recent rises in temperature and gas concentrations in the 18th century. It also failed to acknowledge the findings of the paper by Siegenthaler and co-authors that “the atmospheric concentration of CO2 did not exceed 300 ppmv [parts per million by volume] for the last 650,000 years before the preindustrial era”. As the IPCC Third Assessment Report in 2001 pointed out, the scientific evidence shows that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide prior to the Industrial Revolution was 280+/-10 parts per million, and has risen continuously ever since, reaching 377 parts per million in 2006 ie the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has risen in the last 250 years to a level today that is 25 per cent higher than the maximum recorded during a period of at least 650,000 years before the Industrial Revolution.
The programme clearly misrepresented the conclusions of the paper by Caillon and his co-authors, as well as the evidence that the recent increase in global average temperature is following a rise in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
from: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3
which is the site that the group who are challenging the documentary made. I honestly found it moments ago, so I haven't read it other than to know it says the swindle is wrong 🙂
The big problem I see with global warming is that the factions that do most of the arguing are the ones that are most removed from the science itself. There are specific things we know, and it does sort of lend to the idea that we are probably making things worse, but for environmentalists to take that and turn it into bizarre doomsday scenarios is just as bad as someone to say it isn't happening.
Originally posted by inimalist
Claim: Ice cores show that during earlier periods in the Earth’s history, rises in carbon dioxide followed increases in temperature, and therefore the current rise in greenhouse gas concentrations has not caused the recent increase in global average temperature.Misrepresentation: It is well established that analyses of ice core from Antarctic show that local temperature rises during the transition from glacial to interglacial periods, which are triggered by regular fluctuations in the Earth’s orbit (and hence its distance from the Sun), were followed some time later by increases in the local average concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide by up to 100 parts per million. However, the conclusion drawn in the programme that this means the recent rise on concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could not be responsible for the recent increase in global average temperature is counter to the evidence presented in the scientific peer-reviewed literature.
In particular the programme misrepresented the contents of a paper by Nicolas Caillon and co-authors which was published in the journal ‘Science’ in March 2003. The paper by Caillon and co-authors examined the timing of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperatures during the Termination III deglaciation event about 240,000 years ago. The authors found that “[t]he sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800+/-200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation”.
The programme presented a graph to illustrate the results of the work by Caillon and co-authors (to whom it was directly attributed), but which appeared nowhere within the paper. This graph was presented in support of the argument that rises in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide are the result of, rather than the cause of, increases in temperature. However, Caillon and his co-authors concluded in their paper that “the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase”, noting that “the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first”.
In fact, the paper suggested that a fluctuation in the Earth’s orbit initiated the increase in surface temperatures in Antarctica, and was followed by a gradual warming of the oceans, which released substantial volumes of carbon dioxide (the volume of carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water decreases with increasing temperature). It also indicated that the carbon dioxide released by the oceans added to the warming of the atmosphere, and contributed to the deglaciation of the Northern Hemisphere. The paper stated that the sequence of events during Termination III is “still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing”.
A paper by Urs Siegenthaler and co-authors, published in the journal ‘Science’ in 2005, described evidence from the Dome C Antarctic ice core for lags of 800, 1600 and 2800 years between deglaciations at terminations V to VII and rises in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, respectively. However, the programme failed to point out that the record of temperature increases followed by rises in carbon dioxide concentration, which are described in the papers by Caillon and co-authors and Siegenthaler and co-authors, all relate to episodes of deglaciation. The last deglaciation on Earth occurred 12,000 years ago, but the current rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, started during the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century ie more than 11,000 years after the last deglaciation.
Furthermore, the programme failed to point out that the rise in temperature and carbon dioxide levels during Termination III occurred over a period of about 5000 years, much longer than the period since the start of the recent rises in temperature and gas concentrations in the 18th century. It also failed to acknowledge the findings of the paper by Siegenthaler and co-authors that “the atmospheric concentration of CO2 did not exceed 300 ppmv [parts per million by volume] for the last 650,000 years before the preindustrial era”. As the IPCC Third Assessment Report in 2001 pointed out, the scientific evidence shows that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide prior to the Industrial Revolution was 280+/-10 parts per million, and has risen continuously ever since, reaching 377 parts per million in 2006 ie the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has risen in the last 250 years to a level today that is 25 per cent higher than the maximum recorded during a period of at least 650,000 years before the Industrial Revolution.
The programme clearly misrepresented the conclusions of the paper by Caillon and his co-authors, as well as the evidence that the recent increase in global average temperature is following a rise in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
from: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3
which is the site that the group who are challenging the documentary made. I honestly found it moments ago, so I haven't read it other than to know it says the swindle is wrong 🙂
The big problem I see with global warming is that the factions that do most of the arguing are the ones that are most removed from the science itself. There are specific things we know, and it does sort of lend to the idea that we are probably making things worse, but for environmentalists to take that and turn it into bizarre doomsday scenarios is just as bad as someone to say it isn't happening.
I think GGWS did not deny that humans contributed to CO2, but lets be fair here, Al Gore's movie is basically only that. He has a graph where he shows that CO2 and Temperature are linked...but he doesn't state in what way, you know what I mean?
I wonder whether a letter like this http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/1 was send to Gore, too by those guys. Because he as well did not in any way portray the true scientific data.
I haven't seen Al Gores film. And trust me I have seen both sides of the issue. I can't get why you don't accept scientific prof and see the problem instead of saying "I'm too lazy to give a crap and who cares if it's true, I'll be dead by then anyway."
I don't bother to argue with an imbecile who can't answer questions with other things then calling me "moronic *******" and such.
I would love to see your face in 30 years when you realise you've been wrong all the time.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think GGWS did not deny that humans contributed to CO2, but lets be fair here, Al Gore's movie is basically only that. He has a graph where he shows that CO2 and Temperature are linked...but he doesn't state in what way, you know what I mean?
100% man, you are preaching to the choir
Gore's film is retarded, and is really just him trying to salvage his image for a possible second run at the Whitehouse.
Doesn't he drive around in a Hummer during the film, and doesn't he have a carbon footprint like 26 times that of the average north american?
Its really hard to make "we can be about 90% sure that we are 95% sure that humans cause anywhere from 1%-99% of the current warming trend" as entertaining and marketable as "We are all going to die because the big corporations hate the environment"
Originally posted by Bardock42
I wonder whether a letter like this http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/1 was send to Gore, too by those guys. Because he as well did not in any way portray the true scientific data.
I've seen things like them on the internet, but never as scathing as that one, but to be honest I've never looked. Unfortunately a lot of scientists seem to have the "his heart was in the right place" conception of the film. Not to start another topic, but a lot of that probably has to do with Bush.
3 posts in a row!!!!!
Originally posted by inimalist
100% man, you are preaching to the choirGore's film is retarded, and is really just him trying to salvage his image for a possible second run at the Whitehouse.
Doesn't he drive around in a Hummer during the film, and doesn't he have a carbon footprint like 26 times that of the average north american?
Its really hard to make "we can be about 90% sure that we are 95% sure that humans cause anywhere from 1%-99% of the current warming trend" as entertaining and marketable as "We are all going to die because the big corporations hate the environment"
Yeah, it seems dogmatic to me. I feel we are basically constantly lied to. I mean the argument really goes "We have this evidence that Global Warming is man made - No, you made that up, we have this evidence that it isn't - No, you are the liars we have this.... etc."
It's slightly ridiculous and seems very, very unscientific.
Originally posted by vanice
I haven't seen Al Gores film. And trust me I have seen both sides of the issue. I can't get why you don't accept scientific prof and see the problem instead of saying "I'm too lazy to give a crap and who cares if it's true, I'll be dead by then anyway."I don't bother to argue with an imbecile who can't answer questions with other things then calling me "moronic *******" and such.
I would love to see your face in 30 years when you realise you've been wrong all the time.
I didn't say that once. I do care for the future of humanity (to some degree) and I think, for one allowing people to get energy so they don't....die....seems reasonable.
You do not see both sides, you bought in into the Armageddon myth, that is factually just not true. We won't die out because of Global Warming.
Originally posted by vaniceHundreds of millions of lives? Since when. How can stopping, or trying to stop a catastrophe kill hundreds of millions?. Simple answer; it can't. Not letting the third world expand uncontrolled. Decreasing the use of greenhouse gasses all over the world, but especially in the west and not burning down rain forest will not kill millions of lives, It will save lives.
You just answered your own question..
Stopping the growth in Africa and controlling it will kill millions of people, hundreds of millions of people. Poverty is the single greatest cause of death on this planet. To weaken the economy's of poor nations and stop their growth would be the same as signing a death warrant for hundreds of millions of people that already have nothing. They need energy and water, and they need to pollute in order to get that. We have it easy saying nature is incredibly important while we are sitting here comfortably with water and food and housing and electricity.
In Africa they don't have those luxuries and you can't blame them for thinking survival of them is more important then the environment especially if things aren't clear cut proven yet. What kind of government would say let my people die for an unproven theory? That's insane.
as usual, the truth likely lies in the middle somewhere. whether it is through human intervention (which seems likely to at least be a contributing factor to warming temperatures, if not the primary cause) or whether you feel the warming is natural. a more controversial proposal says the warming is primarily due to cloud cover activity, which in itself is dependent on solar activity.
i'd say it's a little of everything, though i do think we are contributing, though the extent of our contribution is still uncertain in my mind. not sure how it can be denied that a warming trend is and has been existing for some years now though. greenland's ice shelves are dwindling, and what's worse is that as they dwindle, meltwater slips through cracks to lubricate the shelf further causing the rate of melting to increase far more quickly than anyone had anticipated. there is also the issue of reflectivity that is increasing the speed of the melting that is happening. it's true that the effects are being felt much more strongly in the north, but certain shelves in antarctica have also been affected. it's not hard to find images of galciers from even 50 years ago to compare with their appearance today. in some cases it is shocking. national geographic recently had a good, fair imo, article on global warming.
am i personally concerned about potential impacts of global warming? yes i am.
Originally posted by Fishy
What kind of government would say let my people die for an unproven theory? That's insane.
i wonder just what kind of 'evidence' would be sufficient for most people? the sides are so split and so entrenched, it's hard to imagine ANY evidence would be enough to sway someone on either side. 😬
i suppose the only suitable evidence will be the shape of the planet in 75-100 years.
Behold. A freaking spamful of articles that refute the global warming claim. If any of you actually bother to read every single link then I personally congratulate you for time well wasted.
Originally posted by leonidas
i wonder just what kind of 'evidence' would be sufficient for most people? the sides are so split and so entrenched, it's hard to imagine ANY evidence would be enough to sway someone on either side. 😬i suppose the only suitable evidence will be the shape of the planet in 75-100 years.
Hard to say, but I'd imagine that the weaker, heavily growing and declining economy's would completely refuse to do anything. Which unfortunately consists of some of the most polluting country's in the world.