Global Warming
- Thread starter Norseone
- Start date
Shoot To Thrill
Chieftain
Global warming as we know it is a sham, nothing more. The earth has always gone through cycles of temperature change, and it always will.
To beleive that 300 years of Inudstrialization has had such an adverse affect on something as powerful as Mother Earth... just seems illogical to me.
To beleive that 300 years of Inudstrialization has had such an adverse affect on something as powerful as Mother Earth... just seems illogical to me.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Gosh, that is such a powerful argument, I mean, it must be trueShoot To Thrill said:
"I don't see how it can be, so, well, the whole world must be wrong and it must be a sham"
newfangle
hates you.
storealex said:
Is it actually a majority? If so, does it really matter?
Yes and yes.newfangle said:
There's almost no scientists left who denies the existance of human caused global warming. What they argue about now is how much humans actually cause, not wether we cause it or not.
And of course the majority matters. It could be wrong, sure, but if nine out of ten people who studies something comes to the same conclusion, chances that they're right are pretty good, wouldn't you say?
Akka
Moody old mage.
Only if their conclusion agree with what one wish to. If not, even a single heavily biased sold-out self-styled "specialist" is sufficient to have justified doubts.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Most people consider it infuriating to lose, not boring.storealex said:
Always remember THAT.
Back to topic: A while back (in this thread or the other Global Warming one, I forget which), I posed the question of whether Earth would take hours or centuries to warm up in response to a spike in greenhouse gases. Any ideas what the world's scientists say about this? Also, how accurate is the data we have on planetary average temperature and greenhouse gas levels from the past (obtained from geological samples if I remember)?
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
Basketcase, it depends all on the quantity of greehhouse gases released. As for testing temperatures, they use geological samples (which runs the risk of contamination through the ages, as well as regional discrepencies) and Antarctic ice (very reliable as Antarctica has been frozen for so long).
I guess you stop being a infuriated loser once you get used to itBasketCase said:
I read something about this in highschool, but I forgot most of it again. However, as far as I remember, the data from the past is quite accurate, and it takes "some time" for the gasses to heat of the Earth, so what we're seeing now is the result of pollution "some time ago"BasketCase said:
But don't hang me on this, because I really don't remember.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
I'll have to take you at your word on that.storealex said:I guess you stop being a infuriated loser once you get used to it
In the end, it probably boils down to a question of how accurate our data on Earth's past is. How exactly can we measure when this or that spike in CO2 or temperature happened? Can we measure closely enough to be sure which trails the other? I've found "conclusive" proof to back either the yes or no argument on this, the science people are still arm wrestling each other over it.
newfangle
hates you.
I agree Basketcase. I mean, I honestly believe that there IS a problem. You'd have to be pretty ignorant not too. I just find it offensively arrogant when someone claims that there is no chance beyond a shadow of the doubt that the world is going to blow up and its 100% our fault. You can jump on the net and find 100 websites each devoted to the opposite sides of this issue. Some seem valid, some don't.
I think I'd rather sit back and enjoy my relatively low-impact lifestyle and not take notice of the chicken little fearmongers.
I think I'd rather sit back and enjoy my relatively low-impact lifestyle and not take notice of the chicken little fearmongers.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
I'm going to enjoy my car which is emitting very low levels of pollutants, I'm going to play Civ3 on my PC, which will require a few ounces of fossil fuels or maybe a couple milligrams of uranium to power it, and I'm going to order another cholesterol-filled pizza for dinner. 
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
I pay an extra US$0.01/ per Kwh for my electricity to make sure it comes from wind and water.
What are YOU doing to clean up this mess?
What are YOU doing to clean up this mess?
onedreamer
Dragon
Akka said:Gosh, that is such a powerful argument, I mean, it must be true
"I don't see how it can be, so, well, the whole world must be wrong and it must be a sham"
Actually the majority of scientists DO NOT agree with the cause of global warming being pollution from human beings. The most convincing theory (IMO) is that it's a natural process. Change of the inclination of Earth's axis as of lately, etc... stuff like this.
onedreamer said:
Hm, ask someone who's part of the scientific community and he will tell you that
most sicentists KNOW that global warming is caused by human-caused greenhouse gas rises.
The oil industries try claim what you do, but the bible thumpers also claim that a significant portion of scientists say evolution doesn't happen. Ask them for proof and they clam up.
So, get us a list showing proof that 'the majority of scientists DO NOT agree with the cause of global warming being pollution from human beings'.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Going off topic for a moment: anti-evolutionists generally don't clam up, they have a lot of plausible-sounding reasons why they think evolution didn't happen. One of their favorites is to point out all the gaps that do, in fact, exist in the fossil record.
I personally am a sound pro-evolutionist.....but let's face it, if God suddenly appears out of thin air and zaps me with a lightning bolt for being pro-evolution, I'm gonna feel pretty damn stupid......
Edit:
I personally am a sound pro-evolutionist.....but let's face it, if God suddenly appears out of thin air and zaps me with a lightning bolt for being pro-evolution, I'm gonna feel pretty damn stupid......
Edit:
I posted one such study earlier. I don't have the time to surf for 407 of them to get a representative sample.
BasketCase said:I posted one such study earlier. I don't have the time to surf for 407 of them to get a representative sample.
a) read my post! I said 'if asked for proof' for a certain statement - they DO clam up about that lie!
b) one - exactly! ONE!
There is, after all, as posted by betazed on CFC OT, a group that believes the tsunami was caused by the US for political reasons. ONE group of nuts!
