Do you believe in Man Made Global Warming?

American said:

Actually factories of old were spewing out much worst stuff than today.

Click to expand...

At least in the US. However, you are ignoring the huge increase in factory and power plant production in the developing world. One major criticism of Kyoto was that the reductions by the first world would be instantly negated by the production of the 3rd. Merely because there is a decline in one area of the planet does not result in a net decline. China is opening coal plants at the rate of something like one a week. And China's coal plants lack the scrubbers, recapture and other emissions controlling technology mandated by governments in the West.

You exaggerate the number of factories.....millions? Even if there were that many, not all factories spew out pollution. I think maybe you haven't spent much time around a factory.

Click to expand...

Depends what kind of factory. Aluminum production is pretty horrific in pollutions especially when they burn lignite for fuel. I take it you've never been to Beijing?

Factories in the developing world DO spew out massive amounts of pollution.

This poll sucks. Horribly.

The world is indeed warming. The question is how much of a role do we play?

To think that pumping hundreds of billions of tons of Co2 which is known to cause a green house effect into the atmosphere wouldn't do anything is truly insane. And we have evidence that the Permian extinction was directly caused by a series of massive super volcanoes erupting over hundreds of thousands of years emitting hundreds of billions of heat trapping gasses which lead to Anoxification of the oceans.

We're clearly adding to the warming. The real question is just how much and how do we prepare for what comes next?

obvious Child said:

This poll sucks. Horribly.

The world is indeed warming. The question is how much of a role do we play?

To think that pumping hundreds of billions of tons of Co2 which is known to cause a green house effect into the atmosphere wouldn't do anything is truly insane. And we have evidence that the Permian extinction was directly caused by a series of massive super volcanoes erupting over hundreds of thousands of years emitting hundreds of billions of heat trapping gasses which lead to Anoxification of the oceans.

We're clearly adding to the warming. The real question is just how much and how do we prepare for what comes next?

Click to expand...

Kinetic theory of Gases: Proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas

The author of this article might not agree with your assertion.

It seems that labeling Co2 as a greenhouse gas is quite profitable, if not provable.

On a side note I have carbon credits available at rock bottom prices, and they are 100% guaranteed to assuage liberal* guilt.




* These credits have been tested and proven effective for treatment of affluenza in bloated ex-vice presidents.

Why has this become a partisan issue? its science.Al Gore maybe a hypocrit but that doesent mean man made global warming isnt real.It isnt even a political issue.

mikhail said:

Why has this become a partisan issue? its science.Al Gore maybe a hypocrit but that doesent mean man made global warming isnt real.It isnt even a political issue.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't we need to remove man and compare to establish this?

In the seventies the fear tactic was the coming ice age. Which is it?

Tagged N. said:

So, where do the climatologists get their data? I may have incorrectly assumed they would accumulate it, at least in part, from statistical data gathered by meteorologists.

Click to expand...

Ummm no. Meteorologists look at the current weather conditions and make predictions(forecasting). Climatologists study the weather conditions averaged over a period of time. Even if meteorologists weren't able to predict correctly what conditions in the weather will be like tomorrow that has absolutely not bearing on the job of a climatologist because the two have little to do with each other. One deals with the records the other deals with predicting what the records will be like. Your argument is flawed. What you are basically saying is that if somebody who works with Astrophysics is wrong then somebody who works with biophysics is also wrong. The two are not the same fields of science.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JC_comments.doc

This by article from 2007 by John Coleman (founder of The Weather Chanel) in which he states outright that the man-made global warming idea is a scam also...

...left me with the impression that the two groups would work together.

Click to expand...

John Coleman isn't a climatologist. He's not even a METEOROLOGIST. Saying that he the founder of the 'Weather Channel' has anything to offer in this discussion is an appeal to authority. Stop trying. Seriously.

Thank you again, in the future I'll try to be pedantic and insufferable.

Click to expand...

No problem.

Tagged N. said:

Wouldn't we need to remove man and compare to establish this?

In the seventies the fear tactic was the coming ice age. Which is it?

Click to expand...

Well we actually need a copy of earth to run that experiment but unfortuanitly we dont have one so i say lets go with the scientific prediction.

mikhail said:

Well we actually need a copy of earth to run that experiment but unfortuanitly we dont have one so i say lets go with the scientific prediction.

Click to expand...

We shouldn't. Let's go with the Bible/Qur'an/Torah one. Hopefully God destroys the planet and beams us all up like Scotty. Well most of us anyways.

Hatuey said:

Ummm no. Meteorologists look at the current weather conditions and make predictions(forecasting). Climatologists study the weather conditions averaged over a period of time. Even if meteorologists weren't able to predict correctly what conditions in the weather will be like tomorrow that has absolutely not bearing on the job of a climatologist because the two have little to do with each other. One deals with the records the other deals with predicting what the records will be like. Your argument is flawed. What you are basically saying is that if somebody who works with Astrophysics is wrong then somebody who works with biophysics is also wrong. The two are not the same fields of science.



John Coleman isn't a climatologist. He's not even a METEOROLOGIST. Saying that he the founder of the 'Weather Channel' has anything to offer in this discussion is an appeal to authority. Stop trying. Seriously.



No problem.

Click to expand...

Wow, this is tedious, can you put your mom on the phone please?

They are one community of thought which fails to recognize their own limitations. This was dealt with in the link...maybe you could have someone read it to you.

Tagged N. said:

Wow, this is tedious, can you put your mom on the phone please?

They are one community of thought which fails to recognize their own limitations. This was dealt with in the link...maybe you could have someone read it to you.

Click to expand...

That link was just a long ad hominem

Tagged N. said:

Kinetic theory of Gases: Proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas

The author of this article might not agree with your assertion.

Click to expand...

The author needs to go back to school.

The carbon dioxide greenhouse - is it effective?: a lab ICT test

A simple experiment shows how Co2 vs O2 retains significently more amounts of heat.

I think the environment is cyclical, but I also do believe we do have some impact on it. The scope of that impact is more up for debate, and I'd wager its on a low to low-moderate side of things.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to improve the planet. Conservation is not a bad word. Clean, renewable forms of fuel are not bad. We should strive for such things, each and every citizen.

That said, I think the global warming crowd on the extreme end have taken this too far, forming a cataclysmic apocolypic scenario to scare people into doing what they want which is generally instilling a far more "Fair" in their mind and in general socialist life style. I do not believe that we need the government to take gigantic steps to completely revamp the way forcefully that we live our life, but instead we should focus more on educating people and giving people incentives to work towards being more pollution and waste conscious rather than punishing them for not doing it.

I don't know.

But the way it was presented to the public was so incompetent that I tend to not believe them.

What impact we have even on carbon dioxide is pretty much negligable when compared to the natural expulsion of CO2 from various sources.

That said, humans are capable of tremendous ecological destruction, in manufacturing, pulp and paper, GMO's, HAARP, energy production, chemicals in the water, and so on... It's more the results of the ABUSE of plastics, abuses in mass production, not to mention coal and oil production.

GMO's have not been adequately studied. and so on.

The correlation on climate is primarily a result of solar activity, global cloud cover, cosmic radiation.

Then there is the issue of 'chemtrails' (for lack of a better term)... you can't deny they don't exist... look at the sky. (Hint : Natural clouds do NOT form X patterns).

The issue with 'Global warming' or 'Climate change' (as they have to call it now), and using CO2 as a culprit is inevitably going to be used for Carbon TAXES... these will be crippling for the average person, and sets the precedent that 'humanity is BAD' 'living is bad' because eventually these carbon taxes will account for the CO2 you expell when you breath.

So... the answer to the question :

YES... humans are having a negative impact on our climate.
NO... It's nothing to do with CO2 (which is at best barely mentionable as the overall culprit that humans are creating)

I am skeptical of the whole Global Warming thing especially with the evidence coming out that global temperature has been dropping since 2001 and will probably continue to drop for the next 30 years.
Anyone remember Global Cooling?

It's called climate change, not global warming. There is a big difference.

zimmer said:

Do you?

It means, if we can warm the climate, we can cool it too.

Do you really think man can accomplish this intentionally or not?

Click to expand...

I think humans have a duty to protect this world for future generations [Contrary to the popular opinion the Earth is not going to "fix" itself by magic and no - We do NOT have a spare Earth tucked away], perhaps we did not do this intentionally but now we know we have a negative impact - we should be doing all we can to lower the rate it is moving.

It's all well and good for old people [let's face it, they are the main sceptics] to say scientists are lying and Governments want to tax more, they are the ones that are going to pop their clogs and leave the mess for my generation to clean.
All the animals and landscape, beauty that is here for this generation should be preserved for the next.

And i must say, the one nation i thought that would be the most welcoming to enviromental protection - i figured it'd be US as many are Christians and so what happened to preserving God's beauty?

Laila said:

I think humans have a duty to protect this world for future generations ...

...All the animals and landscape, beauty that is here for this generation should be preserved for the next.

And i must say, the one nation i thought that would be the most welcoming to environmental protection - i figured it'd be US as many are Christians and so what happened to preserving God's beauty?

Click to expand...

Absolutely we have a duty to be good stewards of what we have been given.

We owe our children and grandchildren a debt of courtesy, if nothing else, to pass on what we have been given, in as good or better condition than we found it. But along with the environment there is the matter of freedom. If we over react we may wind up giving them neither.

As Christianity is continually marginalized in the public forum any positive effect it has on societal behavior is simply lost. Unfortunately if we can't call ourselves a Christian nation in a <insert topic here> debate, we can't in an environmental debate either.

Orius said:

It's called climate change, not global warming. There is a big difference.

Click to expand...

You mean the natural process of the planets changing climate???

Ya... we GOTTA stop THAT.... no matter what the cost.

zimmer said:

Do you?

It means, if we can warm the climate, we can cool it too.

Do you really think man can accomplish this intentionally or not?

I think if we made an all out effort one way or the other it would never work.

In 15th Century Europe they had a mini Ice-Age. How would the enviromanics react to that today? Like the Chicken Littles they are?

South Bavaria was a wine region up to 500-years ago. It's too cold to be a wine region today. Shouldn't we be warmer then?

Math for the warmest period during the last 100 years was recently corrected by a 14-year old math geek. The last decade was the hottest using Algore math, but falls down the list when people add 1+1.

The Hockey stick curve was also exploded. It was a fixed program.

In models they cannot factor in the role of water vapor accurately... clouds... because they don't know what it does.

Global Warming Hoax: NASA Revises Temperature Data - 1930's warmest on record!

Click to expand...

Al Gore is a spokesMAN, a politician, not a climate scientist..
I do believe man may have warmed the planet, via the emissions of greenhouse gasses...
As the climate is always in a state of flux, this is difficult to prove..
But I'd sooner heed what a majority of scientists avow and ignore the politicians..

There is an absolute consensus in the scientific community that man-made global warming is a reality. Well, not quite absolute, but comparable to say the consensus that gravity is a reality.
One might suspect that global warming deniers should be treated the same as gravity deniers: simply as fools unable to recognize reality, completely unaware of the facts around them. But in fact it is far more sinister, as most global warming deniers are well aware that it is occuring but are partisan political hacks in the pockets of the businesses inflicting this damage on the entire earth.
As the damages of global warming continue to mount to the catostrophic level, being a global warming denier will become akin to being a holocaust denier, and all those who did will have a legacy of shame and disgrace.

faminedynasty said:

There is an absolute consensus in the scientific community that man-made global warming is a reality. Well, not quite absolute, but comparable to say the consensus that gravity is a reality.

Click to expand...

So, groups like NASA that say that the 'consensus' is inconclusive...

Bottom line : Co2 as a culprit is at the least an oversimplification.

One might suspect that global warming deniers should be treated the same as gravity deniers: simply as fools unable to recognize reality, completely unaware of the facts around them. But in fact it is far more sinister, as most global warming deniers are well aware that it is occuring but are partisan political hacks in the pockets of the businesses inflicting this damage on the entire earth.

Click to expand...

It's those 'partisan political hacks' that are proposing global carbon taxes to 'combat climate change'... when, IMO at least, that kind of tax, putting a few extra cents in the pockets of some bankers or government beaurocrats is hardly anything remotely approaching a solution to the REAL environmental damage that humans are causing.

As the damages of global warming continue to mount to the catostrophic level, being a global warming denier will become akin to being a holocaust denier, and all those who did will have a legacy of shame and disgrace.

Click to expand...

Um... according to 'global warming theory' or the 'hockey stick curve' shouldn't the ice caps have melted and the world be drowned in floodwaters already??

It's the catastrophism of 'global warming/ CO2 theory' that takes away all the credence... also having 'CO2' as the bad guy in all this, it takes away from discussion of the treatment of corporations / industries that are pumping out toxic chemicals into the waterways, the GMO 'foods' that are taking over from 'heirloom' varieties of the same foods, our reliance on oil and coal production (MORESO than it's consumption), mass deforestation, and other REAL environmental concerns.

What is presented by 'Al Gore' and the 'supposed' consensus (I can't find the source, but many of the 'consenting' scientists disagreed with AGH, but had been used... not to mention the opinion of reviewers and so on. I forget the name of the book that Al Gore helped 'co-author' that said it plainly that environmental crisis would be used to usher in a global tax that will form one of the controlling aspects of a one world government.

I don't get why global warming would be a bad thing? When the dinosaurs lived on this planet, it was 6 degrees Celsius warmer and we had the largest animals to ever exist vs. the last ice age that nearly destroyed all life and 98% of all plant life. I know, I know, we rather have it as is, as the status quo but still...

I almost wish there was a planet just like earth but had 100 times the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere so we could get this over with, I mean come on, right?

And also, I would like to give a warning, of my own. The Bible is infamous for being used as a tool of manipulation and propaganda to get people to believe in some one's else cause. The same can be done with science. Believe, but not blindly. Remember, if you are a university professor, if you don't bring in grants to your school, you will get fired. Consider who is doing the research.

faminedynasty said:

There is an absolute consensus in the scientific community that man-made global warming is a reality. Well, not quite absolute, but comparable to say the consensus that gravity is a reality.

Click to expand...

About that whole consensus thing...

Evolution News & Views: Is There a “Consensus� in Science? Remembering the Late Michael Crichton

”I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Click to expand...

Now this is just Michael Crichton's opinion but it casts a little doubt on the gravity analogy.

We are only having to call it a consensus because there are political hacks disputing the obvious facts and they have an audience with those upon whom scientific facts have no sway. It is, in fact, an undeniable and demonstrable fact.
Thus it is a consensus in the same sense that gravity is a consensus. Which is to say indisputable fact, or sound scientific theory, at least according to those who base their reports on loyalty to the truth and not partisan politics or the belief that we may hasten the rapture by fueling global warming.
It seems apparent based on the data in the same sense that gravity or relativity does. It seems in fact, obvious. I think it would be wise, therefore to believe in it. Unless of course we want to get philosophical and assert that an evil deity may be deceiving us. Which is entirely possible.