Does Global Warming Exist?
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.
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 [slightly] different from the [recent past]. 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.
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.
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.htmlI 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).
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.