Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Tangled Web]

Uh, the sun is about 93 million miles in the middle of space. There is no real connection between the earth and sun. Any pollution that might have left earth gets dissipated into space.

Uh, the pollution that we produce gets stuck in the atmosphere and causes a wall that traps the suns rays onto the earth.

 

[War Lord]

Uh, the pollution that we produce gets stuck in the atmosphere and causes a wall that traps the suns rays onto the earth.

Now I'm confused.

You were talking about the sun and now you're talking about the sun rays.

Make up your mind.

 

[Spider-Bite]

1. A hypothesis is not a scientific fact.

2. We don't know if what we do will actually help the planet or hurt it. It would be better to get more data before doing some half-assed effort that has unintended consequences.

3. You're pretty sure, but sureness is not a fact.

so let me get this straight. it's perfectly okay to pollute the planet when your not "sure" whether it will help or hurt the planet, but it's not okay to stop polluting when your not "sure" whether that will help or hurt the planet?

 

[Spider-Bite]

I dispute it and so does many scientists.

http://www.climateark.org/articles/2001/3rd/scdipopu.htm

I lived in Kansas for a year. the majority of the people there honestly did not know what evolution was, and I didn't meet a single person who believed it. a lot of people didn't know what DVD players were. this was just 3 years ago.

That place is extremely conservative. and some politicians have rescently begun to use money to currupt science.

 

[sinewave]

Now I'm confused.

You were talking about the sun and now you're talking about the sun rays.

Make up your mind.

I think TW just got some of the phrasing mixed up. If I'm not wrong, I think TW is explaining that carbon dioxide is being trapped within the Earth's atmosphere and therefore it's acting as insulation where the heat from the sun is being trapped within the atmosphere and not being allowed to disperse into space and is thus, having a heating effect on the Earth.

 

[Tangled Web]

I think TW just got some of the phrasing mixed up. If I'm not wrong, I think TW is explaining that carbon dioxide is being trapped within the Earth's atmosphere and therefore it's acting as insulation where the heat from the sun is being trapped within the atmosphere and not being allowed to disperse into space and is thus, having a heating effect on the Earth.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Uh, the sun is about 93 million miles in the middle of space. There is no real connection between the earth and sun. Any pollution that might have left earth gets dissipated into space.

without the sun we would all die, and the earth wouldn't have anything to orbit.

our atmostphere traps gasses, it doesn't let them out. the hole in the O-zone allows more UV rays into our atmosphere, where as the O-zone filters them out. it can't do as good a job, because the whole is bigger than texas, and we created it.

 

[sinewave]

I lived in Kansas for a year. the majority of the people there honestly did not know what evolution was, and I didn't meet a single person who believed it. a lot of people didn't know what DVD players were. this was just 3 years ago.

That place is extremely conservative. and some politicians have rescently begun to use money to currupt science.

yup. this article is a joke. these "scientists" were proven shills for the oil industry. war lord, like the rest of the global warming skeptics, doesn't have a leg to stand on in this debate.

 

[sinewave]

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you.

No problem.

 

[Spade]

Well, I might as well put my feelings about this topic here. On an off-topic tie-in...has anyone here heard of White Wilderness? It's a Disney film that I feel is very similar to the global warming mindset. For those of you who haven't seen it, I'll highlight the reason I'm using it as an example- in the film, the claim is made that lemmings are sometimes found to commit mass suicide. For years no one disputed it; I can still find a few books that cite White Wilderness as the recorded example of how this lemming effect works. Then, the Disney corporation revealed a little tidbit about that film segment...it was faked to add content to the film. In short, they pushed the lemmings straight off a cliff and videotaped it.

Now that I've said that, I hope where I'm coming from is a bit more apparent. Essentially, science has become the hand that pushes us off the cliff, and we the lemming who drowns for the greater design. Everyone asks me the same question when I say this- "but if science is made to create progress, why would they ever want to inflate what you call a non-existent threat?" Simple. The money from grants doesn't grow on a money tree somewhere in Harvard. To get these grants to do the research that we so dutifully believe goes to a greater good of repairing a natural planetary lifestyle one must submit interesting findings. As posters before me have said, they submit a hypothesis. It is through this process that a hypothesis is contorted into a fact, and when the people trust you your facts become theirs.

In a nutshell- the Earth has been around much longer than any of us. No one here seems to understand the near-perfect cycle it upkeeps to maintain our way of life. If the Earth only got slightly closer in planetary distance, we would feel the heat of our nearby star acutely. The Earth has been naturally creating this buildup over the years. 'Greenhouse gases' are hogwash excuses- the amount of hazardous material one volcano can let off is infinitely more massive than the pollutants we accumulate over decades. And yet you don't see our ozone layer scattering to the winds when an eruption occurs. It's the same cycle of decay and rebirth that the Earth goes through all the time to maintain the perfect balance.

There is nothing wrong with the Earth or global warming. It's just that over a few thousand years the Earth has managed to support a race that actually gives a hoot as to what it's been doing since water first splashed onto it's bedrock.

 

[War Lord]

so let me get this straight. it's perfectly okay to pollute the planet when your not "sure" whether it will help or hurt the planet, but it's not okay to stop polluting when your not "sure" whether that will help or hurt the planet?

Nobody is saying it's ok to pollute the planet.

The issue is how much of the global warming is really do to man.

 

[sinewave]

Well, I might as well put my feelings about this topic here. On an off-topic tie-in...has anyone here heard of White Wilderness? It's a Disney film that I feel is very similar to the global warming mindset. For those of you who haven't seen it, I'll highlight the reason I'm using it as an example- in the film, the claim is made that lemmings are sometimes found to commit mass suicide. For years no one disputed it; I can still find a few books that cite White Wilderness as the recorded example of how this lemming effect works. Then, the Disney corporation revealed a little tidbit about that film segment...it was faked to add content to the film. In short, they pushed the lemmings straight off a cliff and videotaped it.

Now that I've said that, I hope where I'm coming from is a bit more apparent. Essentially, science has become the hand that pushes us off the cliff, and we the lemming who drowns for the greater design. Everyone asks me the same question when I say this- "but if science is made to create progress, why would they ever want to inflate what you call a non-existent threat?" Simple. The money from grants doesn't grow on a money tree somewhere in Harvard. To get these grants to do the research that we so dutifully believe goes to a greater good of repairing a natural planetary lifestyle one must submit interesting findings. As posters before me have said, they submit a hypothesis. It is through this process that a hypothesis is contorted into a fact, and when the people trust you your facts become theirs.

In a nutshell- the Earth has been around much longer than any of us. No one here seems to understand the near-perfect cycle it upkeeps to maintain our way of life. If the Earth only got slightly closer in planetary distance, we would feel the heat of our nearby star acutely. The Earth has been naturally creating this buildup over the years. 'Greenhouse gases' are hogwash excuses- the amount of hazardous material one volcano can let off is infinitely more massive than the pollutants we accumulate over decades. And yet you don't see our ozone layer scattering to the winds when an eruption occurs. It's the same cycle of decay and rebirth that the Earth goes through all the time to maintain the perfect balance.

There is nothing wrong with the Earth or global warming. It's just that over a few thousand years the Earth has managed to support a race that actually gives a hoot as to what it's been doing since water first splashed onto it's bedrock.

interesting theory, but i'll stick with the experts on this topic.

 

[Spade]

interesting theory, but i'll stick with the experts on this topic.

How is it a 'theory'? Every hole in the ozone that we have found has been naturally repaired over the course of time. We know for a fact that the Earth has been replenishing the ozone layer and cooling/ heating itself for eons. That isn't so much theory as it is scientific fact, one that most scientists choose to avoid.

 

[sinewave]

How is it a 'theory'? Every hole in the ozone that we have found has been naturally repaired over the course of time. We know for a fact that the Earth has been replenishing the ozone layer and cooling/ heating itself for eons. That isn't so much theory as it is scientific fact, one that most scientists choose to avoid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

[Spade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

1) The Wiki can be written by anyone and is often mired by POV.

2) If you're going to believe what's available on an online encyclopedia that praises the fact that anyone can edit it, then you have no qualms about this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

 

[sinewave]

i linked it as a quick response. call it laziness. i still don't buy your theory that the scientific community got together and agreed on this topic just to bilk more money from unsuspecting rubes.

 

[Spade]

i linked it as a quick response. call it laziness. i still don't buy your theory that the scientific community got together and agreed on this topic just to bilk more money from unsuspecting rubes.

I'm not saying it's done vindictively by every member of the scientific community, just that one shouldn't blindly believe the variables they put out and then simply chalk it all up to global warming. If you stripped the argument down to the bulk emissions that humans create and stack them against the bulk emissions that the Earth has naturally produced upon itself without simply lumping both statistics into the same category you can see that even if we consciously wanted to destroy the atmosphere with greenhouse gases it would take a tremendous amount more time than what the scientific community's stance expects us to believe.

And yet we still blindly pay them for their findings. Hence my conclusion that we don't know whether this 'research funding for the truth' is misused, let alone if the products of their musings are 100% accurate to the situation at hand.

 

[sinewave]

I'm not saying it's done vindictively by every member of the scientific community, just that one shouldn't blindly believe the variables they put out and then simply chalk it all up to global warming. If you stripped the argument down to the bulk emissions that humans create and stack them against the bulk emissions that the Earth has naturally produced upon itself without simply lumping both statistics into the same category you can see that even if we consciously wanted to destroy the atmosphere with greenhouse gases it would take a tremendous amount more time than what the scientific community's stance expects us to believe.

And yet we still blindly pay them for their findings. Hence my conclusion that we don't know whether this 'research funding for the truth' is misused, let alone if the products of their musings are 100% accurate to the situation at hand.

i'm on to your scheme now. you're just trying to get me to do more reading, aren't you?

 

[Spade]

i'm on to your scheme now. you're just trying to get me to do more reading, aren't you?

I wouldn't call it "scheme"...more along the lines of an "evil mastermind plot".

 

[Spider-Bite]

1) The Wiki can be written by anyone and is often mired by POV.

2) If you're going to believe what's available on an online encyclopedia that praises the fact that anyone can edit it, then you have no qualms about this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

they have a staff which reviews every change visitors to the site make. The staff edits it for truthfullness. The theory of evolution has been corrected by staff members 1 million times in the last couple years, because a lot of religous fanatics go in there and try to mess with it.

some topics get fixed quicker than others. if you make an unjust change on the topic of evolution expect it to be fixed within minutes. if you make a change to a movie, then expect it to be changed in a days, possibly weeks.

 

[Tangled Web]

How is it a 'theory'? Every hole in the ozone that we have found has been naturally repaired over the course of time. We know for a fact that the Earth has been replenishing the ozone layer and cooling/ heating itself for eons. That isn't so much theory as it is scientific fact, one that most scientists choose to avoid.

Yeah, that was when the main powers of the world decided it was a problem and did something about it. Notice how the US is the only major country who hasn't ratified the Kyoto protocal?

 

[HUMAN]

So... can nobody explain what happened with the ice age? Was that a natural event or one caused by ancient oil refineries and Taco Bell cups on the side of the road?

 

[Corinthian™]

So... can nobody explain what happened with the ice age? Was that a natural event or one caused by ancient oil refineries and Taco Bell cups on the side of the road?

stop being an idiot. The Ice age was something natural it happened. What we are doing here is not stoping anything, we are killing the environment.

I will pay you 10 bucks if you go to a place with high smog concentration and tell me it's not damaging our environment

 

[Spade]

Yeah, that was when the main powers of the world decided it was a problem and did something about it. Notice how the US is the only major country who hasn't ratified the Kyoto protocal?

...You do know that the major powers usually do so unwillingly as a method of appeasing fanatics, and that in the example you provide the entire continent of Australia is against the treaty as well? No one seems to be blaming the Outback for greenhouse emissions. Even if it is dwarfed by our own emissions, one has to admit that they are indeed present in other places and that other countries have decided to revoke the protocol.

So... can nobody explain what happened with the ice age? Was that a natural event or one caused by ancient oil refineries and Taco Bell cups on the side of the road?

One cannot explain the Ice Age until one comes to the realization that not every single form of pollutant the human race creates is contained within the grounds of the ozone layer. Another misconception is that air quality is irrevocably connected to the thinning of the ozone layer, when it is only trace amounts of chemical residue from the pollution that rise up to the atmosphere while still retaining their ozone-depleting qualities. By what modern science would have us believe, everything under the sun damages the ozone layer beyond repair.

 

[Corinthian™]

...You do know that the major powers usually do so unwillingly as a method of appeasing fanatics, and that in the example you provide the entire continent of Australia is against the treaty as well? No one seems to be blaming the Outback for greenhouse emissions. Even if it is dwarfed by our own emissions, one has to admit that they are indeed present in other places and that other countries have decided to revoke the protocol.



One cannot explain the Ice Age until one comes to the realization that not every single form of pollutant the human race creates is contained within the grounds of the ozone layer. Another misconception is that air quality is irrevocably connected to the thinning of the ozone layer, when it is only trace amounts of chemical residue from the pollution that rise up to the atmosphere while still retaining their ozone-depleting qualities. By what modern science would have us believe, everything under the sun damages the ozone layer beyond repair.

I love it how people think that modern science wants you to believe everything they want you to and disregard the fact that modern science does is proving facts.