|Pages: 1  3 4 5|
Posted 11/15/07 5:00:00PM
Here's something to read
Posted 1/8/08 10:08:00AM
my own personal view is if the damn icebergs are melting, i really dont care if its the methane cow farts or donkey burps or volcanoes fault... I just know that "we" are inclined to fix the problem... Not say ah well its natural, let it go... (dont believe this but go with me here).... So either liberal or conservative view still needs human intervention to stop whatever the cause is... screw the arguing of whos exact fault it is and start to fix it (cough republicans haha)
Posted 11/15/07 5:00:00PM
Nobody is saying "screw it. Theres nothing we can do to fix it." While if we aren't the cause (or primary cause) then there is nothing to guarantee that we can fix the problem. However, I, and every other human I've ever met, am in support of doing what may help to fix the problem. But... as stated before, if we can't prove what we're doing is causing the problem, how can we know that things we do will fix the problem?
Posted 1/24/07 7:44:00PM
The Earth does seem to be heating, the warming itself isn't really up for debate.
It's the cause of the heating is what the debate is over.
It's unfortunate that the debate has broken down into people arguing over business and hiding it as a global warming debate. It's too bad that it's become a nonsensical left/right issue (both sides are to blame) because of money.
Posted 1/21/07 9:47:00PM
Posted 2/3/07 10:04:00AM
I've never heard this "metal things are heating up the planet" theory, but not getting into greenhouse gas effects seems to be deliberately avoiding the crux of the topic you opened, because it's greenhouse gas emissions that are (or are not, depending on your view) contributing to global warming.
We humans manipulate our environment. It's what we do.
- Forests in parts of the United States don't have any young trees because the ground cover is too thick; the ground cover is too thick because there haven't been any big forest fires for the last 50+ years; there haven't been any forest fires because we've adopted a policy of putting them out instead of letting them burn.
- The city of New Orleans is getting hit with hurricanes because the Mississippi delta wetlands are shrinking; the wetlands are shrinking because the river is no longer carrying enough silt to rebuild them; the river isn't carrying enough silt because we've built so many concrete embankments along its length.
- The Mississippi River valley is flooding worse and worse every year; part of the reason is because the land along its banks isn't absorbing enough rainfall; the land along its banks isn't absorbing enough rain because we've replaced the grasses that used to grow there with concrete and food crops that don't use water as efficiently as the grass did.
- Plants absorb water and sunlight to produce energy in a process called photosynthesis; the sunlight is used to process the water and carbon dioxide into sugar, expelling leftover oxygen, which we animals then breathe and turn back into carbon dioxide. The Amazon rain forest, the largest concentration of plant life on the planet, has been described as "the lungs of the world." By some estimates, we've destroyed as much as 20% of the Amazon rain forest.
That's just four examples, off the top of my head (sorry, I don't have any links handy), of the massive impact that people have on the Earth. Even if there was no evidence of a human role in global warming, I think it would only be logical to assume that we have one, and then put the burden on science to prove that we aren't at least partly responsible.
Posted 1/30/07 10:59:00AM
I used the metal things argument as a very simple explanation of something extremely simple that can be overlooked. Basically what I was alluding to is the fact that any minute changes we make to the earth can make very small adjustments to the environment which no doubt has an effect.
I live in the desert. The airport is generally where local media outlets take the temperature. However, if you were to go out and take the temperature in a desert field outside the city it would often times be even up to 5 or 10 degrees less. So one cannot deny the conduction heat effect that structures add to their environments.
As for greenhouse gas effects- I didn't want to go there because people will steer it into a political debate. It's my personal belief that should we fill the earth with so many greenhouse gases that we choke the life out of all humans we will simply die or find a way to stop producing them. Either way, I believe mother nature will live on long past that day and will naturally adapt to the changes in the environment. However, I don't see it ever getting to that point. Mother nature will rise up and squash our pathetic asses.
Posted 7/7/07 7:03:00PM
I firmly believe in Global Warming simply due to the fact that North America was once completely covered in ice and over the course of thousands of years has melted due to ,get this: the Sun. So the Antartic ice shelf's that are melting are supposed to melt. Maybe human involvement may be speeding up the process, but it was going to happen whether we advanced as a civilization or were still huddled in caves drawing wooly mammoths on the wall.
This may be a simplistic view, but why does it need to be more complicated? Oh yeah, b/c we're modern humans and we can't stand the thought of the world not revolving around us.
If you check record temperatures you may find that alot of those holding the record or runners-up are early 20th century, long before mass automobile/industrial production.
Posted 1/31/07 10:42:00PM
Global Warming is such a narrow yet broad term, I find it incorrect to use it. The word implies that the global temperature is increasing, yet it is often used synonymously with anything to do with a negative impact on the environment.
Do I believe the global temperature is increasing? Yes, but I am not convinced that we understand/know enough of the world's temperature cycles that we can be convinced for the reason it is increasing. Hell, scientists say the world is over 4.5 billion years old. Our existence as a species is only a fraction of that. To what do we compare our tiny frame of time?
Do I believe that humans cause a threat to the overall well being of the global environment? Yes, I do. If you look at human activity, especially in the last couple hundred years, there is no other species in the world that causes as much damage to the Earth as humans. Everything from carbon emissions, dumping toxic and unnatural waste, killing off floral and fauna at an alarming rate, etc. The world has an amazing resilience. Like our own bodies, it can adapt to rather large insults. However, there comes a time where things cannot be compensated for and the straw breaks the camel's back.
Can we stop it? I don't think we can, but I think we can slow it down. It is ironic that humans are clear cutting rain forest to get to oil, but in the process they kill of fungi that secrete gasoline (yes this is a fact). Humans may be the straw that causes the next extinction event.
Posted 1/25/07 12:53:00PM
I hate the thought of big money going into fixing something that is not scientifically proven while thousands ofpeople starve and die of preventable diseases every day.
If it's proven someday, and shown that we can make a significant impact for the better, then great, spend away. But until then, I'd rather my money go somewhere else where it can (and does) have an immediate effect.
Posted 1/30/07 10:59:00AM
damn it... you pretty much said my exact views on this subject. Damn you for being smart enough to put it all into one paragraph!
Posted 3/24/07 5:29:00PM
Proof that Global Warming doesn't exist
Posted 12/17/07 8:56:00PM
Great post! I was going to write something along the same lines. Granted I probably would have made some sort of gay joke that would ruined my point but I agree with pretty much everything you said.
I'v been thinking a lot about this in work and trying to remember some of the good points my girlfriend had told me.
Another way to look at this is with the huge economic boom in the east. Countries such as China, Japan and many of the middle eastern countries are using huge amounts of fossil fuels. I'm unsure of the exact figures but if i recall correctly combined they have used in the last decade what the west has used in the last 100 years. (Don't quote me on that, I'll check it out when Sarah gets here and maybe edit it) Add to this the constant use the west uses and it is without doubt having a impact on the earth.
This will have a huge effect on the amount of gasses trapped in the future. Which in turn will speed up the melting of the ice caps, which has a effect on how much land people have to build, farm, live and many other things upon. Then theirs the fact that the earths atmosphere is clogging with poisonous gasses produced solely from us. This has never happened before and scientists are unsure how the earth will react.
As Rush said above the phrase "global warming" is a very narrow yet broad term.
Many people don't realize the over all effect of the planet warming up. It doesn't just mean warm winter evenings and longer summers.
If the world doesn't wise up to the fact that the planets climate is changing the way we live will have to drastically change.
The best example I'v ever heard of the human effect on global warming was something along the lines of this...
"Imagine the earth as a athlete for years its been training, evolving its game to near perfect level, then its introduced to drugs."
This basically means we are poisoning the earth. Many off the effects of global warming as a whole are natural and as its proven the earth moves in cycles, but add to this the alarming amount of waste we produce coupled with a upswing in temperature and we are alarmingly close to a disaster.
This is a subject I am very interested in so I can't wait to read more on it.
Posted 6/23/07 7:57:00PM
I have ready many times that the number produced by humans is low I remebered the 3% from a guy that was on the episode os Penn and Teller Bullshit.
There is a great deal of scientific evidence that refutes global warming. The general scientific community should be screaming at how this branch of science seems to have been hijacked by eco-freaks.
Report from the European Space Agency:
"New evidence has emerged that a large plate of floating ice shelf attached to Antarctica is breaking up, in a troubling sign of global warming, the European Space Agency (ESA) said on Thursday.
"Images taken by its Envisat remote-sensing satellite show that Wilkins Ice Shelf is "hanging by its last thread" to Charcot Island, one of the plate's key anchors to the Antarctic peninsula, ESA said in a press release.
"Since the connection to the island... helps stabilise the ice shelf, it is likely the breakup of the bridge will put the remainder of the ice shelf at risk," it said.
"Wilkins Ice Shelf had been stable for most of the last century, covering around 16,000 square kilometres (6,000 square miles), or about the size of Northern Ireland, before it began to retreat in the 1990s."
How this presentation is flawed: Part of Antarctica HAS BEEN warming: The Antarctic Peninsula. But the Peninsula -- to which this ice shelf is attached -- in actuality represents only 2% of the Antarctic Continent. The rest of Antarctica (that's 98% of it) has seen flat and even declining temperatures. Don't believe me? Go here and check out the temperature data yourself:
Data from http://vortex.nsstc.auh.edu where you'll find more numbers that show that the southern hemisphere does in fact have a trend of cooling.
Posted 1/21/07 10:08:00PM
It's absolutely moronic to believe global warming is a farce. There is scientific data to support global warming. Research it. If you don't believe, suffer the consequence of Al Gore melting your face off with global goring. He invented the internet , he's watching.
|Pages: 1  3 4 5|