Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Mr Sparkle]

I've addressed the issue of "NO impact by the HUMAN race." I have stated several times that I believe that we are harming the environment and could and should do more to protect, preserve and restore it. My stance on the issue is that while human beings do impact the world in which we live, it is not to the degree that many would have us believe. It is also my belief that these doom-and-gloom scenarios are being pushed to further a specific agenda; that agenda being the consolidation of power and money into the hands of the people, companies and governments leading the Global Warming movement.

that's a lot of belief.
I would ask you to look at statistics from the 50's and compare them to now.
then look at rates of growth, deforestation and resource consumption.
I would argue that the " everything's alright" people look at the companies most interested in denying global warming.
look at their CURRENT profits, look at THEIR power RIGHT NOW, not in some imagined scenario.
and then re-evaluate the situation.

 

[Tron5000]

that's a lot of belief.
I would ask you to look at statistics from the 50's and compare them to now.
then look at rates of growth, deforestation and resource consumption.
I would argue that the " everything's alright" people look at the companies most interested in denying global warming.
look at their CURRENT profits, look at THEIR power RIGHT NOW, not in some imagined scenario.
and then re-evaluate the situation.

I will take your words into advisement. I never said "everything's alright." I just don't believe that we are causing climate change to the degree that many would have us think.

Yes, these are a lot of "beliefs." The scientists who push Global Warming "believe" that they are right. I "believe" that they are wrong. These beliefs are based on numerous factors; however, at least I realize that there is an actual debate on this issue, and that nothing is settled.

The word "consensus" is often tossed around regarding AGW. The definition of "consensus" is: "majority of opinion." If these scientists can have opinions, why can I not likewise have beliefs and opinions?

 

[Carcharodon]

no! It's you guys that seem to keep "calling it what you want". You don't know anything. You keep guessing. You keep changing the names. You split hairs with climate and weather. It's really funny! A bunch of Chicken Littles, the lot of you.

"The sky is frikkin' falling!"

Yeah, this from the guy that doesn't believe that pollution is really bad for any reason, simply because we can just move to a new, clean spot.

You'll excuse me if I don't take you seriously enough to actually respond to your rather ignorant post.

Do you know why they change the name? Because biggots and close minded right winged wahoos won't accept it. The Earth is warming period polka dot...hence Global Warming. However, with warming will come cooling, hence Global Climate Change. Either way, it is still bad for us Who wants their summers to go from 95 to 105, have sea levels rise, allow tropical diseases to advance northward, massive animal migrations(the pythons started it), severe and eradic weather patterns, and finally the lovely innevitable Ice Age. Guess what was the precursor for every Ice Age this planet has seen? Global warming from an influx of carbon dioxide from volcanoes, atmospheric disturbances, etc...So guess what is going to happen?

While I mostly agree with this pesudo-rant, I've gotta say something here...

...there's still a measure of uncertainty with respect to climate change and its cumulative causes, as with nearly anything in science. That's just how science works.

...so, while Slim is a complete *****e (yeah, namecalling, "How mature har har har!" ) and does absolutely nothing to further his point in this thread, we really don't know.

We just have a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really good idea (a theory, actually, with multitudes of evidence to support it).

 

[Hotwire]

no! It's you guys that seem to keep "calling it what you want". You don't know anything. You keep guessing. You keep changing the names. You split hairs with climate and weather. It's really funny! A bunch of Chicken Littles, the lot of you.

"The sky is frikkin' falling!"

So, anyone who says we are damaging the enrivronment to point of causing a global crisis is a "Chicken Little"? Well, seeing as you have continued to dodge my question, I'll be a little more direct. You say humans are not damaging the environment and are not causing a global problem, and continue to insult anyone who thinks otherwise. But, what if you are wrong? Try to see the other side of the arguement, instead of simply sticking your fingers in your ears like a 4-year-old. Tell me what happens if you're wrong. If you can't at least make an attempt to do so, then you never had any intentions of actually debating this issue, but rather jump on your stump and try to stir up trouble.

 

[Carcharodon]

Um, just to make sure that we're all clear on this... You do know that climate and weather are different things, right? The general weather patterns of an area, which include yearly cycles of hot to cold and back again, is a climate. The day-to-day changes are what is called weather. This is why news broadcasts don't have Climate Reports right after Sports.

Dude, it's been explained to him so many times...just don't bother.

 

[moraldeficiency]

much as I dig hearing the exact same two arguments again and again, I thought I'd throw a question out there as far as these massive natural disasters go:

What is the most dangerous current envirnmental concern to people today and in the future? And how would you rank the threats today?

Contenders:

Climate Change/Global Warming - Science's current hot button issue
Supervolcanic Eruptions (yellowstone) - big boom, everyone dies, it's overdue
Species Extinction - take out one key species set like algae and everyone dies
Geomagnetic Reversal - the maverick unknown, cave men got through this but we live in an electronic age...
Biological Epidemics - plagues are bad.

Now while one of these can certianly lead to others which is the thing you're most worried about and why?

 

[Captain Planet!]

Do you know why they change the name? Because biggots and close minded right winged wahoos won't accept it. The Earth is warming period polka dot...hence Global Warming. However, with warming will come cooling, hence Global Climate Change. Either way, it is still bad for us Who wants their summers to go from 95 to 105, have sea levels rise, allow tropical diseases to advance northward, massive animal migrations(the pythons started it), severe and eradic weather patterns, and finally the lovely innevitable Ice Age. Guess what was the precursor for every Ice Age this planet has seen? Global warming from an influx of carbon dioxide from volcanoes, atmospheric disturbances, etc...So guess what is going to happen?

Agreed.

 

[Tron5000]

much as I dig hearing the exact same two arguments again and again, I thought I'd throw a question out there as far as these massive natural disasters go:

What is the most dangerous current envirnmental concern to people today and in the future? And how would you rank the threats today?

Contenders:

Climate Change/Global Warming - Science's current hot button issue
Supervolcanic Eruptions (yellowstone) - big boom, everyone dies, it's overdue
Species Extinction - take out one key species set like algae and everyone dies
Geomagnetic Reversal - the maverick unknown, cave men got through this but we live in an electronic age...
Biological Epidemics - plagues are bad.

Now while one of these can certianly lead to others which is the thing you're most worried about and why?

I'll go with "Supervolcanic Eruptions" for $1000, Alex.

And the reason is just as you stated: it is long overdue. 1 major SVE would likely block out the sun for years. And, as we know, life on this planet kinda needs the sun to survive.

But tops on my list = Crazy people getting their hands on nukes, killing a significant number of people, and starting a nuclear war. I believe a rogue nuke being detonated by terrorists is likely to happen very, very soon. I just hope it's not on US soil.

 

[sinewave]

Global Warming's name causes confusion but the extreme climate change phenomenon is real.

"hi everybody!"

 

[chaseter]

So Tron does his own research???

 

[chaseter]

much as I dig hearing the exact same two arguments again and again, I thought I'd throw a question out there as far as these massive natural disasters go:

What is the most dangerous current envirnmental concern to people today and in the future? And how would you rank the threats today?

Contenders:

Climate Change/Global Warming - Science's current hot button issue
Supervolcanic Eruptions (yellowstone) - big boom, everyone dies, it's overdue
Species Extinction - take out one key species set like algae and everyone dies
Geomagnetic Reversal - the maverick unknown, cave men got through this but we live in an electronic age...
Biological Epidemics - plagues are bad.

Now while one of these can certianly lead to others which is the thing you're most worried about and why?

And which of those can we prevent and/or slow???

We can greatly slow climate change from our carbon dioxide emissions and cutting down the only resource that converts it to oxygen.

We can't stop a super volcanic eruption so we are dead...same goes for any natural cause (meteor, black hole, sun implosion, etc...) But we can stop radiation overexposure...guess who is responsible for that? MAN

Hey...man is responsible again for most species extinction.

Geomagnetic reversal will not destroy mankind...may set us back...but we can survive.

Once again, we are a huge cause of biological epidemics. Antibiotic resistance, mutated strains of pathogens, etc... But hey, some humans might have resistance to some of those.


So out of all of those, why not side with caution and lets try to prevent these things from happening?

 

[Warhammer]

I'll go with "Supervolcanic Eruptions" for $1000, Alex.

And the reason is just as you stated: it is long overdue. 1 major SVE would likely block out the sun for years. And, as we know, life on this planet kinda needs the sun to survive.

But tops on my list = Crazy people getting their hands on nukes, killing a significant number of people, and starting a nuclear war. I believe a rogue nuke being detonated by terrorists is likely to happen very, very soon. I just hope it's not on US soil.

I doubt that.

 

[chaseter]

So I'm a "bigot" and a "close minded [sic] right winged [sic] wahoo" for having different beliefs than you; beliefs that were derived through hours upon hours of studying the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming? Thanks for that.

Definition of bigot: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." This, sir, directly relates to you and your feelings of others who disagree with you belief system.

I base my beliefs simply on the research I have done on the issue, which is plenty. I've also already posted articles and graphs in here showing that CO2 levels increase after warming occurs. It is caused by warming. It is not the cause of warming. Also, this rise in CO2 levels is considered by many to be to the benefit of animal- and plantlife on this planet.

Also, years ago, people were talking about how the earth was going to warm to the point that life could no longer be easily sustained here. Now, however, that we see that the earth is entering a cooling period, the GW crowd has changed the terms and the rules.

I would say I would rather listen to my ecology and bio prof with PhD's along with the majority of established and reputable science than your own 'hours of intense studying.'

And yes, people who cannot see that global climate change is happening are biggots, close minded people who for some damn reason think everything is fine and dandy. Bone up on some ice core sample research. If you would have read that...guess when the influx of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere started...DUN DUN DA DUN...The Industrial RevolutionGuess what else the ice core samples revealed...it is still increasingGuess who was around during this time...MAN

Why would carbon dioxide benefit animals? It is harmful to use and we cannot utilize it And sure it is beneficial to plants, they need it...but what good is it if we are clear cutting 1/2 of them along with deforestation and 'slash and burn' agriculture

I also already mentioned a cooling period after warming, that is natural. But why the f-k do you want to live in an Ice Age. 99% of life on the planet will go extinct

 

[Carcharodon]

And the reason is just as you stated: it is long overdue. 1 major SVE would likely block out the sun for years. And, as we know, life on this planet kinda needs the sun to survive.

Not all life needs the light provided by the sun. There are entire ecosystems that thrive away from the sun as an energy source.

But yeah, bad news for everybody else.

 

[Memphis Slim]

I would say I would rather listen to my ecology and bio prof with PhD's along with the majority of established and reputable science than your own 'hours of intense studying.'

And yes, people who cannot see that global climate change is happening are biggots, close minded people who for some damn reason think everything is fine and dandy. Bone up on some ice core sample research. If you would have read that...guess when the influx of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere started...DUN DUN DA DUN...The Industrial RevolutionGuess what else the ice core samples revealed...it is still increasingGuess who was around during this time...MAN

Why would carbon dioxide benefit animals? It is harmful to use and we cannot utilize it And sure it is beneficial to plants, they need it...but what good is it if we are clear cutting 1/2 of them along with deforestation and 'slash and burn' agriculture

I also already mentioned a cooling period after warming, that is natural. But why the f-k do you want to live in an Ice Age. 99% of life on the planet will go extinct

Nice smilies.

 

[Zero_Vault]

He doesn't use any.

 

[Hotwire]

Nice smilies.

So you really have no capacity for debate. I've asked you more than twice to explain your thought on what the results would be if you were wrong. You've dodged it. The best thing you can come up with for your side is an overused chart, and childish remarks. You started this thread, people have come here and made some intelligent arguements against your theory and you respond by calling everyone "Chicken Littles", getting on them for the terminology they use, and admiring the smilies. At this point I feel I can safely assume that you are only doing what your doing to aggrivate the rest of us who are actualy discussing the issue.

 

[Tron5000]

So Tron does his own research???

Yes, I do my own research!!!

re·search /rɪˈsɜrtʃ, ˈrisɜrtʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-surch, ree-surch] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc

So while I may not have drilled into ice cores, or conducted atmospheric experiments, I have done my own research.

I suppose you can only research anthropology if you've actually done the digging and the dusting then? Can you only research another individual if you have actually interviewed them? Can you only research a war if you were actually there?

My research involves searching for, studying, analyzing and interpreting information. So again, yes, I have done, and will continue to do, my own research.

 

[Tron5000]

I would say I would rather listen to my ecology and bio prof with PhD's along with the majority of established and reputable science than your own 'hours of intense studying.'

And yes, people who cannot see that global climate change is happening are biggots, close minded people who for some damn reason think everything is fine and dandy. Bone up on some ice core sample research. If you would have read that...guess when the influx of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere started...DUN DUN DA DUN...The Industrial RevolutionGuess what else the ice core samples revealed...it is still increasingGuess who was around during this time...MAN

Why would carbon dioxide benefit animals? It is harmful to use and we cannot utilize it And sure it is beneficial to plants, they need it...but what good is it if we are clear cutting 1/2 of them along with deforestation and 'slash and burn' agriculture

I also already mentioned a cooling period after warming, that is natural. But why the f-k do you want to live in an Ice Age. 99% of life on the planet will go extinct

The fact that you put the above bolded statement in quotes implies that this was a statement that was made by me. I hope you do not believe this is the case, as I never said those words. But I guess misquoting/misinterpreting/outright misrepresentation of things that are said that may be contrary to certain beliefs is par for the course on this thread.

 

[chaseter]

The fact that you put the above bolded statement in quotes implies that this was a statement that was made by me. I hope you do not believe this is the case, as I never said those words. But I guess misquoting/misinterpreting/outright misrepresentation of things that are said that may be contrary to certain beliefs is par for the course on this thread.

Lets put together the different types of research shall we? Someone can read a book and study other's work...which is what you have done. Scientists can go out in the field, gather information, and piece it together. That is another form of research. So what have you really done to become a important figure in the ever hot debate of global warming??? 'Hours of intense studying.'

 

[Tron5000]

Lets put together the different types of research shall we? Someone can read a book and study other's work...which is what you have done. Scientists can go out in the field, gather information, and piece it together. That is another form of research. So what have you really done to become a important figure in the ever hot debate of global warming??? 'Hours of intense studying.'

When did I ever describe myself as an "important figure in the ever hot debate of global warming"? I am merely stating my beliefs based on the evidence that I have seen and studied.

Sorry, but it sounds like you are a delusional human being, based on your gross misrepresentations and manipulations of statements that were (never) made. Have fun in ImaginationLand. I hear it's great this time of year.

 

[Tron5000]

Also, I would recommend that you check out my previous posts regarding the thousands of scientist who met last week to dispel the theory of AGW. These scientists have, to slightly change your words, gone out in the field, gathered information and pieced it together. But I guess these guys are probably bigots, or right-wing wahoos. Hell, they may even have been paid off big Big Oil!

 

[Hotwire]

Also, I would recommend that you check out my previous posts regarding the thousands of scientist who met last week to dispel the theory of AGW. These scientists have, to slightly change your words, gone out in the field, gathered information and pieced it together. But I guess these guys are probably bigots, or right-wing wahoos. Hell, they may even have been paid off big Big Oil!

Not trying to discount anything you or anyone else is saying, but if this were the case, it would not surprise me.

 

[Tron5000]

Not trying to discount anything you or anyone else is saying, but if this were the case, it would not surprise me.

Have you any idea of the level of discrepancy between the amount of funding currently being received by GW skeptics as opposed to GW supporters? I assure you, sir, that the money to be made in the GW movement far surpasses that made by GW doubters. Many GW skeptics have been ostracized by the political and "scientific" communities, yet they choose to speak out knowing that they risk losing funding. They do so because they believe that they are correct. The money to be made on this issue is currently being made by supporters, not skeptics. That's where the funding is.

 

[Hotwire]

Have you any idea of the level of discrepancy between the amount of funding currently being received by GW skeptics as opposed to GW supporters? I assure you, sir, that the money to be made in the GW movement far surpasses that made by GW doubters. Many GW skeptics have been ostracized by the political and "scientific" communities, yet they choose to speak out knowing that they risk losing funding. They do so because they believe that they are correct. The money to be made on this issue is currently being made by supporters, not skeptics. That's where the funding is.

Not doubting that, just saying it would not surpirse me to find out big oil was supporting more than a few of the scientists who say GW is BS. That's all.