Poll, Is Global Warming real?

[audtatious]

Your gassyness will simply cause global vomiting and not a heating of the earth

[Looneybomber]

Wow, I just saw this thread, so if I repost something which has already been covered, just say "STFU Noob"

It's a near unnanimous (I'm not spell checking, I'm half drunk. And shut up about it being noon) decision that the earth has to warm up. We just came out of an ice age and, glaciologically speaking, we're still in one! So the question is not if global warming is real, because it is, but instead if man is accelerating the natural tendency to warm up?

I believe yes, we're accelerating things, but unless we want to get rid of electricity and fossil fuels, kill off 4-4.5 billion people, and live off the land like we once did prior to the industrial revolution, everyone should just SHUT THE F UP! We all brought this on ourselves, but are not willing to make the ultimate sacrifice and put things back to the way they were, before man had an impact on the world. The only way to counteract any global warming we're causing, is to no exist. The world will fix itself (because it's smarter than we are) and continue on with a homeostasis in which all animals can tolorate.

Technology, naturalistically speaking, is the worst thing that ever happend to our planet. If we want a natural planet, we've gotta get rid of technology. And us humans, again, naturalistically speaking, have well over populated this planet...but you know what, I like my car, my loud stereo, and my internet, so I'm willing to put up with some harsher winters and hotter summers.

[audtatious]

I believe yes, we're accelerating things, but unless we want to get rid of electricity and fossil fuels, kill off 4-4.5 billion people, and live off the land like we once did prior to the industrial revolution, everyone should just SHUT THE F UP! We all brought this on ourselves, but are not willing to make the ultimate sacrifice and put things back to the way they were, before man had an impact on the world. The only way to counteract any global warming we're causing, is to no exist. The world will fix itself (because it's smarter than we are) and continue on with a homeostasis in which all animals can tolorate.

Yes and no. There is so much we do not know about the earth and atmosphere even saying we are effecting it can be true or false or both. If true, it is relatively minute in comparison to weather patterns, the sun and cycles. If false, then the earth can take what we give it via CO2 and shrug it off. If both then we may impact it to the point that the earth adjusts and shrugs it off. Thus far, all the doom and gloom environmentalists have done is press their belief to be a fact when there is no conclusive proof that it is. The IPCC hockeystick, that we have not shown any warming since 1998 and that we have had a record winter does not substantiate their claims. It's easy for them to say in 100 years "X" will be the outcome because they will not be around to have to back-peddle (tho they won't just like they never apologized for the new ice age scare of the 1970's).

Going back to pre-industrialized lifestyles will result in the whole world looking like China does from space. A land mass covered in gray smoke from wood fires.

[Looneybomber]

Going back to pre-industrialized lifestyles will result in the whole world looking like China does from space. A land mass covered in gray smoke from wood fires.

But with 4-4.5 billion less people, we wont have that problem. Killing 2/3 of all people will solve our problems, but I'm not willing to die, are you? No, none of us are. What's working against us is not CO2, which would be even less of a problem if we had more vegitation and less cement/urbanization, but other very harmful gases (like SF6 which is 25,000x more powerful) and other, non global warming, pollutants. Technology is the downfall to a naturalistic planet, but is the hallmark to an urbanized planet - so, pick your lifestyle.

Technology can also help us clean up our own pollutents and clean up greenhouse gasses from the air. The thing is, people need to accept a certain lifestyle. No longer are we going to live in Little House On The Prairie. We're trending towars a globalization, an ever more modern and urban life. We need to accept it and come up with plans to support that lifestyle. And, we need the whole world involved, not just the US and UN.

*EDIT*Ok, I just watched this movie, The 11th Hour. Whether you believe in global warming or not, it's certainly a good watch.You can download it in this link below.zer...d=209
Modified by Looneybomber at 4:18 PM 4/18/2008

[audtatious]

No arguements from me. Wonder if there are any enviro-whacko's trying to develop a super-virus to wipe out the majority of the worlds population

[audtatious]

Here is an interesting series from Lawrence Solomon of the National Post:

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part IWarming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part IIThe hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part IIIPolar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IVThe original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part VThe sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VIWill the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VIIThe limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIIILook to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IXLimited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part XEnd the chill -- The Deniers Part XIClouded research -- The Deniers Part XIIAllegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIIIThe heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIVUnsettled Science -- The Deniers XVBitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVILittle ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVIIFighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIIIScience, not politics -- The Deniers XIXGore's guru disagreed -- The Deniers XXThe ice-core man -- The Deniers XXISome restraint in Rome -- The Deniers XXIIDiscounting logic -- The Deniers XXIIIDire forecasts aren't new -- The Deniers XXIVThey call this a consensus? -- Part XXVNASA chief Michael Griffin silenced - Part XXVIForget warming - beware the new ice age -- Part XXVIIOpen mind sees climate clearly -- Part XXVIIIModels trump measurements -- Part XXIXWhat global warming, Australian skeptic asks -- Part XXXIn the eye of the storm of global warming -- Part XXXIFrom chaos, coherence -- Part XXXIIThe aerosol man -- Part XXXIIIThe Hot Trend is cool yachts -- Part XXXIVYou still need your parka in Antarctica -- Part XXXVIPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save -- Part XXXVIWhy melting of ice sheets 'is impossible' -- Part XXXVIIClimate change by Jupiter -- Part XXXVIII

[rn79870]

This may be interesting. I got through part 1, and was disappointed in that he didn't allow Michael Mann to respond. He seems interested in challenging the results of a scientist because he did not have the appropriate credentials as a statistician. Like I said, I'm disappointed Mann didn't respond. (yet?)

Although I believe the warming is more related to a natural cycle than man, I believe man has played a small part in it. A + B = C. It's going to take some time to get through these.

[audtatious]

He does make some comments concerning replies in later articles (an apology is listed in "Will the sun cool us?").

[Looneybomber]

Here is an interesting series from Lawrence Solomon of the National Post:

Wow, I get them read...maybe. Homework first. In the mean time, I'll be content with my 2hr movie, The 11th hour, that I posted a link to above.

[Leuthesius]

Look up the Holocene Maximum and ask "where the f*ck are the cars?" Three THOUSAND years of higher heat and no fraggin' cars.

Global warming is a fraud.

[audtatious]

So, of those who selected "Yes, clearly supported by the evidence", have any of you changed your mind in the least?

Just curious

[Leuthesius]

Most libs don't think. They go on emotion. Therefore, since they "feel" that global warming is reality, it is. Nevermind facts or logic....

[rn79870]

Most libs don't think. They go on emotion. Therefore, since they "feel" that global warming is reality, it is. Nevermind facts or logic....

Could you point to an example of that? Global warming is a reality. The question is whether the cause is cyclic or induced by man.

[themadscientist]

exhibit 1

I'm just glad he had time while conconcting his goofy opinion to invent the internet.

[rn79870]

Again, global warming is accepted by most of scientific communities. What is in dispute is whether it is caused by mans activity alone, or whether this is a natural cycle that the Earth is going through.

It appears(from the latest reports) that we are headed for a decade long mini cycle of cooling and then a return to the warming period. This has nothing to do with being a liberal, or what liberals feel. As far as I know, mother nature's philosophy is pretty middle of the road, and she is calling the shots.

My previous comment was directed at Leuthesius blanket libs don't think statement. one I doubt can be backed up.

[audtatious]

Actually I would change that to "all scientists agree" that there is a such thing as global warming. Not to be confused with "all scientists agree" about man made global warming

[rn79870]

I thought that is what I said, meant to say?? It's early, I can't think before a cup of coffee anyway.

[audtatious]

I was taking a shot at the MMGW people with that post

[Leuthesius]

Sure, ask an liberal about global warming. They will make the commentary (typically) that they "feel" it is real. If you point out facts that go against it, or point out that the IPCC's own scientists have filed lawsuits against the U.N. to take their names off the lists, or that Patrick Moore [co-found of Green Peace] refers to the environmentalist movement as a bunch of neo-marxists, or the history of earth's temperature such as the Holocene Maximum, they will say that they still "feel" like it is real and manmade.

Does global warming exist? Yes. It's cyclical. Has the warming over the last decade been completely erased in average because of this last winter? Yes. Does that mean that it's manmade? No. So does this last winter mean that we're now going into global cooling? Quite possibly. Are the environmentalists going to now claim that it's "climate change" instead of "global warming" that is manmade because mothernature kicked their faces in by doing an about face with the temperature this last winter? Yes. Are they going to continue their political agenda with it because of the fact that most of these nuts and whackos are too stupid to look at cold hard facts? Yes.

Global Warming is/was a political agenda and nothing more. Anything that has a political agenda behind it such as this is automatically classified as something to the effect of hoax or fallacy.

[AZhitman]

I'm a couple days late here, but re: polar bears....

There are several at the Phoenix Zoo, and the Wildlife World Zoo near my house.

It reaches 122 degrees in Phoenix. Their "pond" is nowhere near Arctic temps, and they're just normal, fluffy white, cuddlyass polar bears.

Guess they're not planning on getting extictified (at least not before Algore).

[audtatious]

Polar bear stuff is complete FUD. Man Made Global Warming activists have all bases covered by stating that MMGW causes drought while it also causes severe rain; it causes warm temps while it also causes cold temps; it causes more tornados and hurricanes while it also limits tornados and hurricanes.

[nzmoman]

im coming in to this really late and I have not read everything because there is a ton...

I am one of those people that think we can and will sit and argue all day long about it. Whether or not its caused by men or its natural (which I believe), we still need to take care of our planet. Our nastiness is just going to promote illness and spread of disease in the future. So I am a believer in flex fuels, recycling and finding cleaner ways to live, not to the extent of Gore, but i believe we should lead the world by trying to be a cleaner society. Not only that. our dependence on foreign oil is absolutely insane, but that's another topic

[themadscientist]

I bet some caveman back in the day saw the melting glaciers in europe and blamed SUVs

It's a natural phenomenon and the way people rush to assume responsiblity for it is less of an act of concern as it is a leap of pride.

The thing that truly separates man from animal is pride, not thumbs, not language, not the internet; pride. Only a species as self-involved, stubborn and boastful as humans could arrive at such a leap of "logic". People want to beleive that global warming is all our fault because it feeds a ner-acknowledged need to feel superior. We are deep down very proud of our cleverness and to think we can affect the climate of an entire planet feeds that pride. Do you think a lion is debating the moral issue of killing a gazelle? He knows not to **** in the drinking water though and in that respect he eclipses man in intelligence.

It's in the rhetoric, "we are destroying the planet".Let take a serious look at that statement and compare it to what is actually occuring. The planet is fine. It continues to spin around it's axis, it still orbits the sun, techtonic plates keep shifting subducting crust in places and blossoming new crust in others. We are destroying nothing except perhaps the planet's ability to support us. I think if you cold called the planet and posed the question it likely wouldn't give a **** about it.

[rn79870]

There is little doubt that man has contributed to global warming. When a man lights a cigarette, the temperature of the earth climbs ever so slightly. Did man cause the current global warming crisis?

There is no proof. There is even no evidence. There is suspicion, no more. All we know is that the world's temperatures have increased over the past two hundred years and that man has released vast quantities of CO2 - a greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere. No link between the released CO2 and global warming has yet been proven and there is much effort being expended to prove it.

It was quite warm around AD 1000. Then the average temperatures fell for a few hundred years, bottoming out around 1650, known as The Little Ice Age The era finished arounf the mid 19th century, and temperatures have been rising ever since.

How much CO2 is being released into the atmosphere by humanity is very quantifiable. You can look up the numbers yourself by visiting the Department of Energy's website. According to the IPCC report, the historic high point for CO2 in the atmosphere is ~300ppm and we're at 379ppm, where the range was always between 180-300. To be 79ppm above the historical maximum where the total spread itself was only 120ppm difference (180-300) is pretty impressive.

There is little doubt that we are currently in a period of global warming. The dispute is about the cause of the current warming. Some people think that carbon emissions are contributing to the rise. Others think its just the natural cycle. Some people think the rise will cause distster in a few decades time, other people think that the world has survived global warming before, and will again.

[themadscientist]

Some people think the rise will cause distster in a few decades time, other people think that the world has survived global warming before, and will again.

The world has survived EVERYTHING so far. We just might wind up a cosmic anecdote like the dinosaurs is all, the planet is fine.

[rn79870]

The planet is doomed. 5 to 6 billion years from now you'll understand what I mean.

[themadscientist]

I better bring a book, that's longer than a trip to the DMV

[audtatious]

I better bring a book, that's longer than a trip to the DMV

Bring a reading lamp too because that is the expected life of the sun

[stopcamping]

If anyone thinks the world revolves around them, the neocons do. Come live near the Capitol for a while and you'll see.

seriously, I know a lot more conservatives who are damn pompous.

Quote »Anyway, back to the original topic. My personal belief is that global warming is probably occurring. A lot of the disbelievers can't seem to grasp the concept that there can be warming and cooling cycles, while the mean temperature still trends upward. Most "skeptics" of the theory tend to be uncomfortably close to corporate sponsors with a vested interest in unregulated CO2 emission.

What is the fallout if we address a non-existent global warming issue? Not much. What is the fallout if we fail to address a real global warming issue? Life may suck. Seems that we should take the safer route (but we won't - humans tend to be reactive and selfish rather than proactive and selfless).[/quote]^ couldnt have stated it better. this guy knows what hes talking about, a lot of you can learn from this brilliant guy.

[audtatious]

seriously, I know a lot more conservatives who are damn pompous.

and I talk to a lot of liberals that spew forth what they hear instead of being intelligent enough to find out the truth for themselves. The expressions on their faces when I challenge their claims based on fact is priceless.