|Global Warming I
|18:23:28 Dec 27th 07 - Mr. Agent Clamps:
Tis the season for debating I guess =p In another thread I said We don't even know for sure that we're responsible for raising our own planet's temperature, and I realised right away how many people will disagree.
I've heard a lot from each side but I still feel like I don't know anything at all about this issue. Since we're all arguing abut everything else, why not this lol? Also, I only tend to hear about this from Americans and we all know their government is less interested in preventing warming and has less to gain from preventing it, so what does our awsomely multi-national vu community think?
|18:32:48 Dec 27th 07 - Mr. Willem II:
|18:37:19 Dec 27th 07 - Mr. Kassius The Kookie Bandit:
it cant be conclusively proved that we are the force that put this time of global warming in motion, the world ha gone through many cycles like this, we may be exas.....ecsac.........making the problem worse but it will happen anyway, eco nuts and green peace hippies just like to make everything into a doomsday thing
|18:42:58 Dec 27th 07 - Mr. Killer:
It will happen, no-one can prevent it, but can slow it down. All you have to do is not burn loads of fossil fuels, but this isn't going to happen. As Kassius said, the world has gone through many cycles like these, but it will be worse than usual quicker, I'd imagine. If humans die... so what? They've never actually done the Earth any good in making it have a longer future, or more life growing on it, quite the opposite.
|18:43:22 Dec 27th 07 - Mr. Willem II:
|19:38:09 Dec 27th 07 - Mr. Vengence:
Global warming is humans fault. The reasons are that, yes, carbon dioxide was being release into the atmosphere, but the level were low enough for the ozon to cope. but e have upset the naturalk balance of things. we have now unfortunately become very reliant on things that harm the ozone, so it is hard to let go of them. many countries have tried to be green, but it will take time, and (this is the reason it is so hard to persuade many countries) money. But we CAN do something about it. we can slowly stop using these things that are wrecking the planet, and eventually become eco-friendly. but not without effort, time and money.
|20:24:15 Dec 27th 07 - Mr. Haywood Jablowme:
to solve global warming, we must teach our lungs to split CO2 molecules
|20:26:17 Dec 27th 07 - Mr. Willem II:
|21:05:39 Dec 27th 07 - Duke Luta Mor:
Whether or not global warming is humankind's doing, we should try and keep from worsening.
|21:22:29 Dec 27th 07 - Mr. Vengence:
exactly. the thing is, coutries dont want to do it, simply b/c it will cost them money. they should prefer not to burn up i think....
|21:52:25 Dec 27th 07 - Sir Ron Jeremy:
If humans aren't the cause of global warming (which, may I ask, did humans cause global warming when we were exiting the last ice age or did it happen itself? And if it happens by itself back then, why doesn't it hold true today?) then how are we going to be the 'solution' to 'global warming'?
|23:02:05 Dec 27th 07 - Sir XelNaga:
David Keith - surprising idea for solving climate change - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/192
|23:35:10 Dec 27th 07 - Mr. Killstone The Exploiter:
teh real solution to globol warming lies within this psot on teh very next line
stop being fools and relize the hoax that is being shoved forcefully into your naive minds. open your eyes and see the natural cycles of the earth!
i learned in biology when i was in like 7th grade that it is a cycle a 7th grader smarter tahn msot politcal leaders in america is very common now a days. but the earth for decades has fluctuated over the years. the person who wrote my science book believes it ahs something to do with the sun spots on the sun. about every 20-30 years or so the opposite side of the sun is showing. go back 20-30 years ago people were complaining about global cooling and how we were gonig into another ice age. go back anotehr 20-30 years youd probobly find they were worried about global warming again.
OPEN YOUR EYES ITS NOT GONNA HAPPEN! there is a better chance of the movie I Am Legend coming true!
|00:36:09 Dec 28th 07 - Mr. Lelouch:
The term to use is climate change, not global warming, which is misleading in that people believe the only thing that will happen is that the earth will heat up. But that is not true, there are areas which are getting hotter, but there are also areas which are unusually colder.
|01:35:32 Dec 28th 07 - Mr. Roxbury:
I'm far from a scientist, but what I learnt in school was that when you burn carbon based fuels like oil and coal, it ends up in the atmosphere, destroying the ozone layer and blocking the suns rays.
That hardly sounds like a reoccuring natural phenomenon to me. And if it was, then well the dinosaurs didnt do so well with some of these warming cycles, did they? =P
|04:13:11 Dec 28th 07 - Sir Gaius Aureliae:
"now, there is an overpopulation right? the human race is flexible
enough to survive a huge disaster. most will die and globaly we will
keep around 20 million poeple alive, good to start over with. the
poeple that will survive will be the healthy, strong, smart and skilled
ones and these are genetical ellements. so if these poeple survive we
do a good thing for our race"
|04:44:37 Dec 28th 07 - Mr. Might The God of Cows:
I don't believe in Global Warming.
|07:01:19 Dec 28th 07 - Duke Luta Mor:
"There must be some hidden interests that make them hold any viable solutions they could find."
It's not the scientists, it's money and society. Imagine how costly it will be to convert our energy sources off of coal and oil. People won't want to invest in alternative sources until petroleum becomes unfeasibly expensive, only then will companies fully be willing to begin full-force research into alternative energy.
Organizations like OPEC are largely to blame for gas prices by creating artificial shortages and causing prices to rocket up, then once people invest in alternative energy OPEC lets prices drop and suddenly no one cares about the research anymore. It's acycle of human greed and selfishness and idiocy.
"OPEN YOUR EYES ITS NOT GONNA HAPPEN!"
You know it's happened before, right? The ice caps are melting right now. Fact. Ocean levels are rising because of that. Fact. Billions of humans live near the shore and, depending on how high the ocean rises, will be forced to abandon their homes.
|09:37:46 Dec 28th 07 - Dreadlord Brent Corrigan:
I find it fascinating how people keep bringing up the "itīs happened before" arguement every time this discussion comes up when, in fact, this planet has never before been in a situation even closely resembling this.
Our planet harbors over 6.6 billion people as of sept. 07. 6.6 billion people have needs, 6.6 billion people are taxing their environment and exhausting mother earths resources.
As Roxbury mentioned burning carbon based fuel is a direct threat to our ozon layer and I dont think I will have to go into detail about what exactly that layer is supposed to do.
It is true that the world climate goes through cycles of warmth/cold, but scientists have reached to the conclusion that those cycles never before have been as fast as now. A warming that may have taken thousand fo years is currently happening in mere decades.
As i see it we can either keep on ignoring the lessons history has taught us in regards to other environmental disasters caused by humans or we can take a step back and examine what exactly we are doing and how that could have degenerative effects on the planet we thrive on. And just maybe if we, by some freak accident, manage to put personal gain aside and chip in to make a difference...well just maybe our race has a future.
|10:21:13 Dec 28th 07 - Mr. Haywood Jablowme:
I believe global warming simply because I am experiencing it. I've lived for not a very long time, 28 years to be exact. I live in a tropical country. Only season we have is rainy season and summer.
|17:47:50 Dec 28th 07 - Sir Ron Jeremy:
As i see it we can either keep on ignoring the lessons history has
taught us in regards to other environmental disasters caused by humans
Liiiiike, what Val? What natural disasters beyond forest fires started by an arsonist could be caused by man? Does man directly control nature? How does man cause earthquakes? How does man take a hurricane and make it smash into coastlines? How does man control where rain does fall, or where rain doesn't fall? (flooding and droughts right there). We can't! Unless you have some God complex.
So, yeah, there's ice cap GROWTH at the south pole and the arctic ice cap is about 3% off from normal last I heard and we're now a week into winter here in the north hemisphere. Only Owl Gore can get a Nobel Peace Prize for fear mongering.
|18:02:13 Dec 28th 07 - Dreadlord Brent Corrigan:
Liiiiike, what Val? What natural disasters beyond forest fires started by an arsonist could be caused by man?
Iīll provide a local example. Sweden is a nation with tons of trees, we like to cut those trees down to make a few bucks every now and then. Since we want to make money in the future as well, we then plant new trees. But do we plant the same kind/mix of treeīs we cut down? Nope we dont.
As a result certain animals migrate and the balance shifts. Other animals that used to be food for those thrive. Ironically amongst those vermin that thrive is some form of bug that like to much away at our trees, making them rather worthless after a while.
Thats one example with a direct cause by humans...just open your eyes and look around! And tone down the scepticism a tad, not everything is a giant conspiracy to mutilate capitalism..
|18:44:06 Dec 28th 07 - Mr. Might The God of Cows:
1. Is global warming occurring? Have the forecasts of global warming been confirmed by actual measurements?
There is no proof that significant man-made
global warming is taking place. The computer models used in U.N.
studies say the first area to heat under the "greenhouse
gas effect" should be the lower atmosphere - known as the
troposphere.1 Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite
data have shown absolutely no such tropospheric warming. There
has been surface warming of about half a degree Celsius, but
this is far below the customary natural swings in surface temperatures.2
2. Are carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels the primary cause of climate change? Can the Earth's temperature be expected to rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit in this century as has been reported?
There are many indications that carbon
dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming. Richard
Lindzen, Ph.D., professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and one of the 11 scientists who prepared a 2001 National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) report on climate change, estimates that a
doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would produce a
temperature increase of only one degree Celsius.3 In
fact, clouds and water vapor appear to be far more important
factors related to global temperature. According to Dr. Lindzen
and NASA scientists, clouds and water vapor may play a significant
role in regulating the Earth's temperature to keep it more constant.4
3. Under the Berlin Mandate, developing nations are to be exempt from any emission reduction requirements agreed to in Kyoto. What effect will this have on overall greenhouse gas emissions over the next thirty years?
Undeveloped countries such as China, India and Brazil are included in this exemption. However, they are projected to produce 16 percent more carbon dioxide by the year 2020 than the United States, even if the Kyoto Protocol is not in place.5
4. Would a modest increase in the temperature of the planet necessarily be bad? Are there any potential benefits?
According to the World Bank, one-third of the world's population already suffers from chronic water shortages. The Worldwatch Institute predicts that this situation will be exacerbated further by the addition of an estimated 2.6 billion people to the world's population over the next 30 years. By 2025, the group claims, some three billion people -- or 40% of the world's population -- could be living in countries without sufficient water supplies, leading to crop failures, diminished economic development and even to regional conflicts as nations find it necessary to fight for control over scarce water resources.
While the scientific community is divided over many aspects of the global warming theory, the effect of global warming on precipitation levels is not one of them: Global warming would mean more condensation and more evaporation, producing more and/or heavier rains. Global warming, therefore, could offer the answer to the water scarcity problem that the Worldwatch Institute has been seeking.
If history is any indication, greater precipitation may be only one of many benefits of global warming. For example, between the 10th and 12th Centuries, when the temperature of the planet was roughly 0.5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today, agriculture in North America and Europe flourished and the southern regions of Greenland were free of ice, allowing cultivation by Norse settlers. Evidence of this was found in 1993 when scientists from the National Science Foundation-sponsored Greenland Ice Sheet Project II extracted an ice core from Greenland's ice sheet that spanned more than 100,000 years of climate history. Samplings from the core suggest that a Little Ice Age began between 1400 and 1420, blanketing the Vikings' farms in ice and forcing them to abandon their farms in search of more hospitable climates. Prior to the onset of this Little Ice Age, temperatures were comparable to the temperatures general circulation models used by the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have projected for 2030-2050. Yet, the world's leaders stand poised to take dramatic steps to curb the risks of this kind of climate change.
Global warming could also mean greater agricultural productivity and greater water conservation. CO2 acts as a fertilizer on plant life while reducing plant transpiration (the passage of water from the roots through the plant's vascular system to the atmosphere). Thus, with global warming, agricultural output could be expected to increase while making less demands on the water supply.6
5. What would be the economic impact of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol?
If the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified by the U.S., the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates gasoline prices would rise 14 to 66 cents per gallon by the year 2010, electricity prices would go up 20 to 86 percent7 and compliance with the treaty would cost the United States economy $400 billion per year.8
6. If the United States can meet the targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions with little or no costs, why haven't corporations done so on their own?
This question is irrelevant, since abiding
by the Kyoto Protocol would be devastating to our economy. However,
supposing it was economically responsible to adopt it, we still
must never base environmental actions on anything but sound science.
We have ample experience of doing more harm than good with environmental
regulations based on unsure science. For example, the Clean Air
Act mandated oxygenates in gasoline and we ended up with no improvement
in air quality but now have the oxygenate MTBE polluting wells
in 31 states.9,10,11
7. Are the burdens of meeting the demands of the Kyoto Protocol are distributed fairly?
No, the burdens of meeting the demands of the Kyoto Protocol would fall most heavily on minorities. A study commissioned by six African-American and Hispanic organizations found that the increased costs forced by the treaty would cut minority income in the United States by 10 percent (in contrast, white incomes would go down only 4.5 percent) and 864,000 black Americans and 511,000 Hispanics would lose their jobs.13
8. Is there scientific consensus that global warming is underway? If so, how was this consensus determined?
Dr. Lindzen has said there were a wide variety of scientific views presented in the NAS report and "that the full report did, [express a wide variety of views] making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."14 The same is true of the all of the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change's studies on which the notion of global warming is based.Claims that scientific opinion is nearly unanimous on the subject of global warming are wrong. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received signatures from over 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, to a document saying, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."15
|18:55:53 Dec 28th 07 - Lord Clone IX:
Very nice and all, but where did you get this from? If there is one place that is not to be trusted right away, its the internet.
|18:59:23 Dec 28th 07 - Mr. Might The God of Cows:
|21:27:10 Dec 28th 07 - Dreadlord Brent Corrigan:
"Dr. Lindzen has said there were a wide variety of scientific views presented in the NAS report and "that the full report did, [express a wide variety of views] making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."
Lots of text for absolutely nothing -.-
|09:02:40 Dec 29th 07 - Mr. Agent Clamps:
Does anyone know anything about the study Gore mentions where they look at whether there is a real scientific debate? He said that there was such and such a study which reviewed all scientific journals who mentioned climate change and that it reported zero as having disagreed that global warming was happening. If that is true I'd be really interested to know why there is not a single peer-reviewed source saying that it isn't. (Not that I believe everything in these articles, but seriously, WHY is it that we hear of a debate when really there is none, if in fact that study was true)
|11:23:38 Dec 29th 07 - Mr. Kassius The Kookie Bandit:
its kinda obvious global warming/climate change is happening, i dont think anyone has said it isnt, the debate is about wether or not its our fault
|14:13:46 Dec 29th 07 - Sir Ron Jeremy:
Um, Val? That's no disaster. The things I mentioned are disasters. Now in your cited example, did the logging industry screw up? Well, yeah. However that can be fixed. Still, how do vermin infested trees effect 'climate change'? After cutting those trees, how many degrees did the temperature increase? What makes those trees more important than the billions around the world?
|18:41:58 Dec 29th 07 - Mr. Willem II:
|18:53:25 Dec 29th 07 - Mr. Haywood Jablowme:
What makes those trees more important than the billions around the world?
|19:07:21 Dec 29th 07 - Mr. Willem II:
|19:10:05 Dec 29th 07 - Mr. Lelouch:
I think he means Willem, is that people who have more money are able to prepare better for eventual disasters, like Bush owning a fully self sustainable farm somewhere in Texas with it's own electricity generator or something.
|14:36:21 Dec 30th 07 - Sir Gaius Aureliae:
"uhm... if so many poeple die money is useless... nations will fall and
money will be good for nothing. if it gets really cold only poeple who
can provide for food for there familie's will survive. if you can't you
|[Top] Pages: 1
My bookmarksOld forum design