TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Global Warming 'very likely' man made.
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jdat Magnetonium stop it with your constant bickering and failed oneupmanship attempts. We can all agree on the fact that there are problems. You are pointing out that the so called perceived problem isn't the most important issue and this discussion is turning into a tit for tat debate. Raising awareness about the issue of "global warming" or whatever semantics you want to use to describe what appears to be known as fact is just an unnecessary call for attention. Also you concentrating on matters of supposed misplaced focus from the media couldn't be farther from the truth for me at least. Ever heard of the Kyoto protocol? Greenhouse effect, acid rain showers etc all these tend to stem from the industrial arena which all have a direct link to fossil fuels in one way or another at varying degrees. Having hopes in the media to educate the masses to better cleaner living is sheer ignorance and I think above it all if you are wanting to make conscious efforts in the domain of green living your education on the matter is surely not going to come from a Wikipedia chart or a television news broadcast. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Without drastic measures and immediate changes, nothing is going to stop global warming, especially after the scientists find out that fossil fuel emission cuts did not bring the reverse of global warming. Its the environment thats at stake here, my friend. And quite frankly, I dont think any major industrial nations and companies who would lose a lot of money on this are going to appreciate it and sway your way. |
While some scientists are talking about global warming, others are talking about the return of the Little Ice Age:
http://www.physorg.com/news75818795.html
quote:
Russian scientist predicts global cooling
A Russian scientist predicts a period of global cooling in coming decades, followed by a warmer interval.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age. During the 16th century, the Baltic Sea froze so hard that hotels were built on the ice for people crossing the sea in coaches.
The Little Ice Age is believed to have contributed to the end of the Norse colony in Greenland, which was founded during an interval of much warmer weather.
Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported. They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060.
"The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times," he said. "The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth's global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol."
This is backed by historical evidence! Our massive expanding population will not survive either the global warming or the global cooling. We're screwed either way!
That does it. I am buying some farmland when I finish college and get a good job. The land will become very important.
We obviously need to address all the different problems Magnetonium, but just because one is getting more attention than others doesn't mean theres a conspiracy to neglect the others. I think your argument of shifting attention is flawed because even focusing on one aspect like global warming can make people more conscious of environmental problems and create curiosity that would lead to awareness about other problems as well. All the problems you've mentioned have started to be slowly regulated, sometimes even by the same companies that created them. Sadly change takes time. True, by the time we change it might be to late but alas that's the way of the world.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium While some scientists are talking about global warming, others are talking about the return of the Little Ice Age: http://www.physorg.com/news75818795.html This is backed by historical evidence! Our massive expanding population will not survive either the global warming or the global cooling. We're screwed either way! That does it. I am buying some farmland when I finish college and get a good job. The land will become very important. |
Just stoking the coals a bit with respect to going against popular belief...
Galileo was just 1 man against many...as were many others. And I just somehow defended Magnetonium. Something odd is going on here.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX Right, 1 scientist against the whole bulk of expert weather scientists. I could see why you have doubts. I guess since you couldn't prove your point you're resorting to creating uncertainty? Seriously, when you have that many scientist with different levels of skepticness all agreeing, what are the chances of them being wrong? I would say chances are pretty low, it is a possibility of course, but i think i'll stick with what they say. Regarding all your graphs from wikipedia, do you think that graphs that are publicly available were not considered? Maybe you just haven't researched hard enough. You should try somewhere that's not as 'accurate' as wikipedia perhaps. |
| quote: |
The Year With No Summer 16.08.06 11:30 "I had a dream, which was not all a dream. The bright sun was extinguish'd, and the stars Did wander darkling in the eternal space, Rayless, and pathless, and the icy earth Swung blind and blackening in the moonless air; Morn came and went - and came, and brought no day..." These are the opening lines of Lord Byron's poem "Darkness". But what could have prompted such a bleak vision? Fever? Too much absinthe? No. It is more likely that the infamous "year with no summer" of 1816 was the inspiration. That mass of particles floating around in the atmosphere is bound to have an effect but it didn't become apparent until the following year when dust and sulphur dioxide had spread across much of the northern hemisphere's sky. It is well documented that global temperatures can be affected in the aftermath of an eruption but 1816 stands out. Worst affected were the north-eastern USA and eastern Canada, where crops failed due to frosts in May and even snowstorms in June, falling to a depth of 25 centimetres in New England. Lakes and rivers froze as far south as Pennsylvania during July and August. Meanwhile in northern Europe the cold, gloom, frosts and abnormal rainfall also led to food shortages, with food riots breaking out in France and Britain. France's grape harvest was almost non-existent; brown, red and yellow snow fell in eastern Europe; across Ireland, rain fell on 142 days through the summer, leading to famine and typhoid; starving Germans baked straw and sawdust into loaves of "bread"; and in Switzerland desperate people started eating moss. Terrible as these events were, the pampered writers sequestered on holiday at Lord Byron's summer rental, "Villa Diodati", near Lake Geneva, made the most of them. Among the visitors were Percy Bysshe Shelley and his betrothed, Mary. Byron's poem sprung forth as a result, and the "wet, ungenial summer", as Mary Shelley described it in her diary, drove the wordsmiths indoors. There they entertained one another with ghost stories, and the stygian atmosphere inspired Mary Shelley to pen "Frankenstein". Less well known is the work of another guest that summer, John Polidori - understandably, perhaps, as he was Byron's personal physician rather than a novelist. He wrote "The Vampyre", which was expanded from a fragmentary play by Byron. Although clearly making little impact on the annals of literature itself, this tome did provide the stimulus for Bram Stoker's later work "Dracula". Back in England the atmospheric ash caused spectacular sunsets, famously incorporated by J.M.W. Turner into many of his Impressionist paintings. Meanwhile, the German aristocrat Karl Freiherr von Drais was being more pragmatic; with a shortage of oats he got down to inventing his own horseless transportation, the "Draisine" - also known as the velocipede, which, of course, evolved into the bicycle. Necessity truly is the mother of invention. By: Stephen Davenport |
| quote: |
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling occurring after a warmer era known as the Medieval climate optimum. Climatologists and historians find it difficult to agree on either the start or end dates of this period. Some confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th to the mid-19th centuries while others suggest a span from the 13th to 17th centuries. It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals [1]. There is no agreed beginning year to the Little Ice Age, although there are a frequently referenced series of events preceding the known climatic minima. Starting in the 13th century, pack ice began advancing southwards in the North Atlantic, as did glaciers in Greenland. The three years of torrential rains beginning in 1315 ushered in an era of unpredictable weather in Northern Europe which did not lift until the 19th century. There is anecdotal evidence of expanding glaciers almost worldwide. In contrast a climate reconstruction based on glacial length [3] shows no great variation from 1600 to 1850, though it shows strong retreat thereafter. For this reason, any of several dates ranging over 400 years may indicate the beginning of the Little Ice Age: 1250 for when Atlantic pack ice began to grow 1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe 1315 for the rains and Great Famine of 1315-1317 1550 for theorized beginning of worldwide glacial expansion 1650 for the first climatic minimum In contrast to its uncertain beginning, there is a consensus that the Little Ice Age ended in the mid-19th century. The Little Ice Age brought bitterly cold winters to many parts of the world, but is most thoroughly documented in Europe and North America. In the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, gradually engulfing farms and crushing entire villages. The River Thames and the canals and rivers of the Netherlands often froze over during the winter, and people skated and even held frost fairs on the ice. The first Thames freeze was in 1607; the last in 1814, although changes to the bridges and the addition of an embankment affected the river flow and and depth, hence the possibility of freezes. The freeze of the Golden Horn and the southern section of the Bosphorus took place in 1622. The winter of 1794/95 was particularly harsh when the French invasion army under Pichegru could march on the frozen rivers of the Netherlands, whilst the Dutch fleet was fixed in the ice in Den Helder harbour. In the winter of 1780, New York Harbor froze, allowing people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing that island's harbors to shipping. The severe winters affected human life in ways large and small. The population of Iceland fell by half, but this was perhaps also due to fluorosis caused by the eruption of the volcano Laki in 1783 [4]. The Viking colonies in Greenland, however, clearly died out (in the 1400s) because they could no longer grow enough food there. In North America, American Indians formed leagues in response to food shortages [5]. "In many years, snowfall was much heavier than recorded before or since, and the snow lay on the ground for many months longer than it does today [6]." Many springs and summers were outstandingly cold and wet, although there was great variability between years and groups of years. Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of death and famine (such as the Great Famine of 1315-1317, although this may have been before the LIA proper). Viticulture entirely disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused massive flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent losses of large tracts of land from the Danish, German, and Dutch coasts [7]. The extent of mountain glaciers had been mapped by the late 1800s. In both the north and the south temperate zones of our planet, snowlines (the boundaries separating zones of net accumulation from those of net ablation) were about 100 m lower than they were in 1975 [8]. In Glacier National Park, the last episode of glacier advance came in the late 18th and early 19th century [9]. In Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, large temperature excursions during the Little Ice Age (~1400-1900 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (~800-1300 AD) possibly related to changes in the strength of North Atlantic thermohaline circulation [10]. In Ethiopia and Mauritania, permanent snow was reported on mountain peaks at levels where it does not occur today. Timbuktu, an important city on the trans-Saharan caravan route, was flooded at least 13 times by the Niger River; there are no records of similar flooding before or since. In China, warm weather crops, such as oranges, were abandoned in Jiangxi Province, where they had been grown for centuries. In North America, the early European settlers also reported exceptionally severe winters. For example, in 1607-8 ice persisted on Lake Superior until June [11]. Antonio Stradivari, the famous violin maker, produced his instruments during the LIA. It has been proposed that the colder climate caused the wood used in his violins to be denser than in warmer periods, contributing to the superb tone of Stradivari's instruments. The Little Ice Age (Basic Books, 2000), by anthropology professor Brian Fagan of the University of California at Santa Barbara, tells of the plight of European peasants during the 1300 to 1850 chill: famines, hypothermia, bread riots, and the rise of despotic leaders brutalizing an increasingly dispirited peasantry. In the late 17th century, writes Fagan, agriculture had dropped off so dramatically that �Alpine villagers lived on bread made from ground nutshells mixed with barley and oat flour.� Finland lost perhaps a third of its population to starvation and disease. Life was particularly difficult for those who lived under the constant threat of advancing glaciers in the French Alps. One, the Des Bois glacier on the slopes of Mont Blanc, was said to have moved forward �over a musket shot each day, even in the month of August.� When the Des Bois threatened to dam up the Arve River in 1644, residents of the town of Chamonix begged the bishop of Geneva to petition God for help. In early June, the bishop, with 300 villagers gathered around him, blessed the threatening glacier and another near the village of Largentie. For a while, salvation seemed at hand. The glaciers retreated for about 20 years, until 1663. But they had left the land so barren that new crops would not grow. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Just stoking the coals a bit with respect to going against popular belief... Galileo was just 1 man against many...as were many others. And I just somehow defended Magnetonium. Something odd is going on here. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Oh, yeah, global warming ... lets drop the global warming talk and concentrate on ending human destruction of the planet, shall we? Decrease of fossil emissions will by no means end the disasterous destruction of rainforests, pollution, overpopulation, aquifer depletion, etc. Hehehe, I am not so "bad". I am not all one-sided you know ;-) I have my own version and view of common sense |
) aquifer depletion ( caused by sea temperatures on the rise as well as excessive fishing) etc etc
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jdat I really don't know where you are going with this ... all of these things are interlinked and if one is to have a discussion about stopping global warming they would have to take into account all these things. The scientific basis isn't "there is global warming ... let us all humans gather around holding hands singing kumbaya and hope that it will suddenly stop ". global warming is caused and/or accelerated by rainforest destruction ( major contributor of the oxygen for the planet, less oxygen means less replenished air leading to build up of toxic gases leading to destroyed ozone layer etc etc ) pollution ( governements need to become more strict about e-industrialism ), overpopulation ( the chinese are doing there part to try and keep it down ) aquifer depletion ( caused by sea temperatures on the rise as well as excessive fishing) etc etcThese are just a few of the cause and effects of global warming ... to slow down the warming up all these various causes need to be dealt with seriously. |
| quote: |
An aquifer is an underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock or unconsolidated materials (gravel, sand, silt, or clay) from which groundwater can be usefully extracted using a water well. Most land areas on Earth have some form of aquifer underlying them, sometimes at significant depths. Fresh water aquifers, especially those with limited recharge by meteoric water, can be over-exploited and, depending on the local hydrogeology, may draw in non-potable water or saltwater (saltwater intrusion) from hydraulically connected aquifers or surface water bodies. This can be a serious problem especially in coastal areas and other areas where aquifer pumping is excessive. Aquifers are critically important in human habitation and agriculture. Deep aquifers in arid areas have long been water sources for irrigation (see Ogallala below). Many villages and even large cities draw their water supply from wells in aquifers. Municipal, irrigation and industrial water supplies are provided through large wells. Multiple wells for one water supply source are termed "wellfields" Wellfields may withdraw water from confined aquifers or unconfined aquifers. Using ground water from deep, confined aquifers provides more protection from surface water contamination. Some wells, termed "collector wells" are specifically designed to induced infiltration of surface (usually river) water. Aquifers that provide sustainable fresh groundwater to urban areas and for agricultural irrigation are typically close to the ground surface (within a couple of hundred meters) and have some recharge by fresh water. This recharge is typically from rivers or meteoric water (precipitation) that percolate into the aquifer through overlying unsaturated materials. |
| quote: |
| REVIEW & OUTLOOK Climate of Opinion February 5, 2007; Page A16 Last week's headlines about the United Nation's latest report on global warming were typically breathless, predicting doom and human damnation like the most fervent religious evangelical. Yet the real news in the fourth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be how far it is backpedaling on some key issues. Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled. The document that caused such a stir was only a short policy report, a summary of the full scientific report due in May. Written mainly by policymakers (not scientists) who have a stake in the issue, the summary was long on dire predictions. The press reported the bullet points, noting that this latest summary pronounced with more than "90% confidence" that humans have been the main drivers of warming since the 1950s, and that higher temperatures and rising sea levels would result. More pertinent is the underlying scientific report. And according to people who have seen that draft, it contains startling revisions of previous U.N. predictions. For example, the Center for Science and Public Policy has just released an illuminating analysis written by Lord Christopher Monckton, a one-time adviser to Margaret Thatcher who has become a voice of sanity on global warming. Take rising sea levels. In its 2001 report, the U.N.'s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. Lord Monckton notes that the upcoming report's high-end best estimate is 17 inches, or half the previous prediction. Similarly, the new report shows that the 2001 assessment had overestimated the human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third. Such reversals (and there are more) are remarkable, given that the IPCC's previous reports, in 1990, 1995 and 2001, have been steadily more urgent in their scientific claims and political tone. It's worth noting that many of the policymakers who tinker with the IPCC reports work for governments that have promoted climate fears as a way of justifying carbon-restriction policies. More skeptical scientists are routinely vetoed from contributing to the panel's work. The Pasteur Institute's Paul Reiter, a malaria expert who thinks global warming would have little impact on the spread of that disease, is one example. U.N. scientists have relied heavily on computer models to predict future climate change, and these crystal balls are notoriously inaccurate. According to the models, for instance, global temperatures were supposed to have risen in recent years. Yet according to the U.S. National Climate Data Center, the world in 2006 was only 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in 2001 -- in the range of measurement error and thus not statistically significant. The models also predicted that sea levels would rise much faster than they actually have. The models didn't predict the significant cooling the oceans have undergone since 2003 -- which is the opposite of what you'd expect with global warming. Cooler oceans have also put a damper on claims that global warming is the cause of more frequent or intense hurricanes. The models also failed to predict falling concentrations of methane in the atmosphere, another surprise. Meanwhile, new scientific evidence keeps challenging previous assumptions. The latest report, for instance, takes greater note of the role of pollutant particles, which are thought to reflect sunlight back to space, supplying a cooling effect. More scientists are also studying the effect of solar activity on climate, and some believe it alone is responsible for recent warming. All this appears to be resulting in a more cautious scientific approach, which is largely good news. We're told that the upcoming report is also missing any reference to the infamous "hockey stick," a study by Michael Mann that purported to show 900 years of minor fluctuations in temperature, followed by a dramatic spike over the past century. The IPCC featured the graph in 2001, but it has since been widely rebutted. While everyone concedes that the Earth is about a degree Celsius warmer than it was a century ago, the debate continues over the cause and consequences. We don't deny that carbon emissions may play a role, but we don't believe that the case is sufficiently proven to justify a revolution in global energy use. The economic dislocations of such an abrupt policy change could be far more severe than warming itself, especially if it reduces the growth and innovation that would help the world cope with, say, rising sea levels. There are also other problems -- AIDS, malaria and clean drinking water, for example -- whose claims on scarce resources are at least as urgent as climate change. The IPCC report should be understood as one more contribution to the warming debate, not some definitive last word that justifies radical policy change. It can be hard to keep one's head when everyone else is predicting the Apocalypse, but that's all the more reason to keep cool and focus on the actual science. URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117063707532997789.html |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jdat The scientific basis isn't "there is global warming ... let us all humans gather around holding hands singing kumbaya and hope that it will suddenly stop ". global warming is caused and/or accelerated by rainforest destruction ( major contributor of the oxygen for the planet, less oxygen means less replenished air leading to build up of toxic gases leading to destroyed ozone layer etc etc ) |
| quote: |
overpopulation ( the chinese are doing there part to try and keep it down ) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka And I just somehow defended Magnetonium. Something odd is going on here. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX seriously, though; its been a good run for the human race, its just our turn to go bye bye. and thats the only conclusion to this... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium I admire the societies of "very primitive" Indians, because they have lived for tens of thousands of years with harmony with environment, and have been so good they hardly left any trace of their existence. And I am not talking about Mayas or Incas here ;-) |
| quote: |
| These true natives, who have been mostly wiped out from face of the Earth, were the ones who really appreciated the environment, had much more luxury time and family time, lived relatively stress-free lives, and in cases of most of these societies like Shoeshone's, and/or Bushmen (sorry if I got the name wrong) they didnt even have the word war in their dictionary! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka "tens of thousands"? Who are you talking about? Moses? They also lived far shorter lives, spent their time walking from place to place, didn't enjoy the luxuries of air-conditioning, central heating, umbrellas or a nice BMW 5-speed. Sure, they may have been good at self-sustainence, but then again they aren't lining up at my door right now to prove me wrong! |
OK Magnetonium, you had me do some research. Now here is what scholarly reviewed papers say that your 'wikipedia' neglects. All those 'warming' periods where preceded by large amounts of CO2 release into the atmosphere. Then it was due to natural phenomena, now it is due to humans.
| quote: |
| Section: SPECTRUM Global warming 55 million years ago suggests that the Earth's climate is highly sensitive to carbon dioxide, according to research led by Mark Pagani, associate professor of geology and geophysics at Yale University. Scientists have known for years that a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere caused the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) global warming event 55 million years ago. The questions of how much carbon affected temperature and where that carbon came from have remained unanswered. The geologic record shows that the greenhouse effect resulting from atmospheric carbon heated the planet as a whole by about 9�F in less than 10,000 years, at a time when average global temperatures were 9�F warmer than those of today. That temperature increase lasted about 170,000 years, altering the world's rainfall patterns, acidifying the oceans, affecting plant and animal life in the seas and on land, and creating the conditions for the dawn of our primate ancestors. According to the new study, if burning plant material caused the PETM global warming event, then the Earth's sensitivity to carbon dioxide is more than 4.5�F per carbon dioxide doubling (when atmospheric carbon dioxide doubles, the average temperature increases by 4.5�F). If methane caused the warming, then Earth's climate must be extremely sensitive to carbon dioxide--increasing average temperatures by more than 10�F per carbon dioxide doubling. According to Pagani, PETM is an example of "carbon-dioxide induced global warming and stands in contrast to critics who argue that the Earth's temperature is insensitive to increases in carbon dioxide." These findings suggest that Earth's temperature will rise substantially in the middle of this century, when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are expected to double. --Yale University press release, 7 December. (M.H.P.) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium I admire the societies of "very primitive" Indians, because they have lived for tens of thousands of years with harmony with environment, and have been so good they hardly left any trace of their existence. And I am not talking about Mayas or Incas here ;-) These true natives, who have been mostly wiped out from face of the Earth, were the ones who really appreciated the environment, had much more luxury time and family time, lived relatively stress-free lives, and in cases of most of these societies like Shoeshone's, and/or Bushmen (sorry if I got the name wrong) they didnt even have the word war in their dictionary! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX OK Magnetonium, you had me do some research. Now here is what scholarly reviewed papers say that your 'wikipedia' neglects. All those 'warming' periods where preceded by large amounts of CO2 release into the atmosphere. Then it was due to natural phenomena, now it is due to humans. Source: Environment; Jan/Feb2007, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p7-7, 1/3p Now there's some more papers that show the same thing and more detail. If you want them ill download the pdf's and send them your way. Now would you please stop using wikipedia, there is a reason it is not accepted anywhere as a reliable source. I also found funny that reply you made where you bolded a quote with 'citation needed' at the end, i mean doesn't that just hint that that claim is a bit dodgy and your highlighting it yourself? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Actually, today's carbon dioxide levels are very low compared to other eras of Earth's history. Oxygen levels are smaller now for crying out loud than millions of years ago (read above). Its the nitrogen you should be worried about, its composition of the atmosphere has been increasing steadily - because most of carbon dioxide is trapped in soil, water, plants. If there would be no CO2 in atmosphere, and ALL of it would be trapped in the ground, nitrogen levels will increase and eventually become intolerable amount for breathing. Carbon dioxide is what increases the oxygen levels because plants convert it to oxygen. Kapish? Global warming shlobal warming. Right now its significantly cooler than lets say 50 million years ago. We all know back then there was a llot of CO2 in the atmosphere, which actually encouraged explosion of plant life, diversification, warmer temperatures, and more oxygen in the atmosphere! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX You know, thats all find and dandy. Nevermind that you keep using wikipedia, but what your not taking into account is that the levels needed to sustain life of us humans, and the levels that have existed millions of years ago are not the same. The same for many other species. You fail to take into account that we dont need an explosion of life, we already have one and the levels to conserve all this life is what is at stake. We are warming the globe, and i think you havent shown otherwise. Fuck, you've even acknowledged it by saying that the earth did warm up before due to increases in CO2 levels. Now im not saying that global warming is the only issue needed to resolve in order for us to survive as a species without destroying the earth, that would be silly and myopic. What you can not do is say that we humans are not heating the earth up due to all the CO2 we are releasing. There is no evidence that can be used to deny this phenomena. Also your little theory of 'we need CO2 in the atmosphere', well yes genius we do, but we have too much right now which is the problem. So dont go bringing straw men into this discussion. And also, please point me to a source other than wikipedia where i can confirm your facts, namely that the amount of CO2 we are releasing is negligible. |
Can you see the light at the end of the tunnel?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium The true natives I am talking about are the ones who are still untouched by civilization far and deep in rainforests, south africa's semi-bush deserts, mountains, etc. The rest have been killed, assimilated and converted to our lifestyle ;-) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium I already made my points clear. You're leaning toward greenhouse emissions, some of which like carbon dioxide are actually good for Earth. Life will die without CO2 in the atmosphere! And there's less and less of it up there! And it is significantly cooler right now than the last time we had 35% oxygen in atmosphere. There is no evidence that humans are causing global warming, its just speculation. Just like you cant prove humans caused the Little Ice Age in medieval times! On the other hand, historic records, ice core samples provide ovewhelming evidence that climate change is happening, happened many time over, and will continue to happen. It will coontinue to warm, cool, doesnt matter if humans are around or not. As a matter of a fact, the population boom of the 1800s happened at the end of the Little Ice Age, development of oil as fossil fuel, and social/medicinal developments. Many people fail to notice that humans have actually developed into a civilization BECAUSE OF WARMING, THE END OF THE LAST ICE AGE, AND CONTINUOUS "GLOBAL WARMING" HAS MADE US A CIVILIZATION. Cant you see it? Did humans cause the glaciers to melt and retreat at the end of the last ice age? Can you see the light at the end of the tunnel? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Do you wear Birkenstocks? Sure you don't just want to use a blowgun? I've found them! Aaaaahhh....this is the life! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX I have presented evidence that explains your points, and i can find more from scholarly peer reviewed journals. You have yet to show one reliable source backing up your ideas. The only source you can come up with is wikipedia, which is not accepted even in first year university courses, or even worse high school courses. Now you can state you opinion all you want but without hard data to back them up its nothing more than opinion. What im stating is the consensus of the scientific community on how to interpret the data we currently have. So you keep on speculating all you want, global warming has been proved, but i guess we can't expect much from you anyways, maybe if i stated that aliens are the ones involved in global warming you would be more inclined to accept it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Since you dont like encyclopedias, I also obtain a massive load of my information and knowledge from books, I have a collection: Al Gore - Earth In The Balance Thom Hartmann - Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight Fragile Earth - Views of a Changing World A Brief History of Globallization COLLAPSE: How societies chose to fall or succeed Guns, Germs and Steel Weather Makers These are main books on this environmental stuff. But I bet since you dont believe encyclopedia, you wont find these credible either. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.