Global Warming: Humans or Nature?

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.

Note the contrast between the IPCC and the scientifically recorded levels of temperature.

These are figures taken from a 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

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.

I just watched a film on global warming (An Inconvenient Truth) and I must say the film is truly amazing. They showed how in the last 7 Ice Ages the level of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere has remained almost constant, doing a similar cycle after each Ice Age. Then when the graph reaches the 21 centaury, the levels of carbon-dioxide shoot straight up (off the charts) almost vertical. Have a look at the film, that’s all I have to say.

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

These are figures taken from a 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

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 Hydrono
I just watched a film on global warming (An Inconvenient Truth) and I must say the film is truly amazing. They showed how in the last 7 Ice Ages the level of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere has remained almost constant, doing a similar cycle after each Ice Age. Then when the graph reaches the 21 centaury, the levels of carbon-dioxide shoot straight up (off the charts) almost vertical. Have a look at the film, that’s all I have to say.

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

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...

Originally posted by jaden101
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...

You are misunderstanding me. They demonstrated between and during the ice ages. The line still goes off the charts when it reaches the 20-21 centauries. I can’t memorize all the information in the film, so please have a look at it.

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.

Originally posted by Alliance
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.

Oh, sorry, wrong choice of words. (I can't remember everything like a text book, the film had lots of information) 😮 Anyway, the point remains that to think that man plays no role in global warming is absurd. I can't continuously speak on behalf of the film, that’s why I recommend that you watch it. My vote was both contribute.

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.

Every single one of 938 articles published in peer-reviewed journals supported the rise of global temperature as a result of human activity (100%).

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.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
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.

You are an idiot aren’t you? You claim that you have seen the film, yet what you say contradicts the information given forward. You either have concentration problems or you are mentally retarded. The film does not deny that the planet goes through cycles, r-tard. But what they do argue is the rate at which the earth is heating is not following that cycle anymore. In the film itself, they display the corruption of information regarding global warming because of political reasons. The thing is, a few degrees change can have a detrimental effect on our planet, but if you had watched the film, you would have known all this, yet you lack the mental power to understand this. I see the name “emotional idiot” tattooed on your forehead.

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.

You are an idiot aren’t you? You claim that you have seen the film, yet what you say contradicts the information given forward. You either have concentration problems or you are mentally retarded.

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.