25 Jul 07
Originally posted by Nemesio1/3 of the flora and fauna indiginate to the norther region has dethawed emitting 10x more greenhouse gasses than humans. That was on ABC News. Global warming started from the beginning of the last ice age. Get over it. It's nature. Mankind survived the last one. We have a billion times the knowledge and technology since the last. Hopefully only the idiots will die this next one.
To those who doubt it:
What scientific data would suffice to get you to believe that global warming
is transpiring?
and
What scientific data would suffice to get you to believe that humans are
contributing to it?
Nemesio
25 Jul 07
Originally posted by winslowreference?
1/3 of the flora and fauna indiginate to the norther region has dethawed emitting 10x more greenhouse gasses than humans. That was on ABC News. Global warming started from the beginning of the last ice age. Get over it. It's nature. Mankind survived the last one. We have a billion times the knowledge and technology since the last. Hopefully only the idiots will die this next one.
25 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhitehead1. good point. What are the effects of the measures we take now over the long run. Are e really contributing?
Does anyone who thinks that it is not caused by humans think:
1. that we can do nothing about it.
2. that we should simply take it as it comes?
3. we should try to reverse it.
2. perhaps. Could be another cycle in time????
3. lets go back in time....
25 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioI have no doubt that "global warming" is occurring. In fact, it's probably occurred at least 600 times during the history of the planet. This is a good thing because it staves off "global cooling" which in the past has resulted in the "Ice Age."
To those who doubt it:
What scientific data would suffice to get you to believe that global warming
is transpiring?
and
What scientific data would suffice to get you to believe that humans are
contributing to it?
Nemesio
The objection most of us have with the current "global warming" hysterics is that they overplayed their hand with all their talk about "the debate is closed!" Also, we take issue as to the cause of "global warming." To us, it's not an issue of: "Is global warming occurring?" but rather: "To what extent is man responsible?" Lastly, until there's conclusive proof, we'd rather not destroy the economy to salve the ego of hypocrites like Al Gore.
25 Jul 07
Originally posted by winslowmankind survived the dark ages. that doesn't mean it was pleasurable or we wouldn't have been better without it.
1/3 of the flora and fauna indiginate to the norther region has dethawed emitting 10x more greenhouse gasses than humans. That was on ABC News. Global warming started from the beginning of the last ice age. Get over it. It's nature. Mankind survived the last one. We have a billion times the knowledge and technology since the last. Hopefully only the idiots will die this next one.
25 Jul 07
My problem with the global warming issue is the number of governments - and my experience is the UK and EU - are raising taxes, and harming industry to be "green". I would prefer to get tax relief to choose the greener alternative (this makes me suspicious from the start)
The "proof" is not by any means conclusive that the warming is man made. Warming is happening at the moment but, from what I have read at no greater rate than it has done before.
The big problem is of course what if it is to do with our CO2 emissions shouldn't we do something first.
I would highly recommend "the chilling stars" by Henrik Svensmark.
Read with an open mind I think it raises some very interesting points.
One of his main points is that there are many good reasons to reduce CO2 emissions - though in his opinion global warming is not one of them.
I did read on Sunday "A graph of satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that, over the past eight years, average global temperatures have flattened out well below their peak in 1998. The 2007 figures to June show a dip to a level first reached in 1983, 24 years ago."
I haven't seen this graph mind but it does make you wonder.
I believe anybody who believes either side of the argument and has no interest in the other side is a fool.
25 Jul 07
Originally posted by Mat KelleyAlthough that is a rather vague statement which could mean almost anything, would you care to back it up as every chart I have seen shows a marked increase at the end so I wonder where you read otherwise.
Warming is happening at the moment but, from what I have read at no greater rate than it has done before.
25 Jul 07
Originally posted by Mat KelleyThe difficulty Svensmark's work is that according to other researchers the effects of solar radiation on the earth's climate should have been causing a cool down over the last couple of decades, not a warm up. Here is the reference: http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/ unfortunately in order to read the whole thing you have to subscribe, and the abstract doesn't say anything I didn't.
I would highly recommend "the chilling stars" by Henrik Svensmark.
I think your "keep an open mind" position is in general right. However the evidence for the anthropogenic theory of global warming is pretty overwhelming. The only real uncertainty is in the extent of the change. DerSchwarzeRitter's above post (DSR: you were sounding almost reasonable for once, I hope you're not ill 😉 ) asks the question: "to what extent?" to answer this they omitted human CO_2 emissions from the models and found that they could not explain the current period of warming without it there is a good FAQ from NASA's earth observatory about this (2nd question) which gives references if you want more detail: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/
All science involves uncertainty, if it doesn't it's engineering. With global warming the uncertainty is to do with the extent, the climate model's predictions are expressed in terms of confidence intervals. As the models improve (they already "predict" what has already happened quite well - you can find links on www.metoffice.gov.uk about this) the confidence intervals should tighten.
25 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioWhat really bugs me is that the left won't identify evil as evil and even goes so far as to hamper genuine efforts to fight evil, but it will shoot it's load over something nonsensical like "global warming," and then demand that everyone join in the circle jerk.
To those who doubt it:
What scientific data would suffice to get you to believe that global warming
is transpiring?
and
What scientific data would suffice to get you to believe that humans are
contributing to it?
Nemesio