Global warming, scam or reality?

[Asper Sarnoff]

Okay, I created this thread for people to discuss the doomsday fanatics new pet peeve.

According to many people, humanity is responsible for letting out so many gasses that increase the greenhouse effetc that the earth will experience a significant and potentially fatal rise in its temperature.

While others, me included, do think that humanitys contributions is just a drop in the ocean and that global warming is a completely natural process, and without it, there wouldn't excist life on earth. At least nothing more than some microscopic bacterias and virus.

Also, saying humanity has contributed to change the fragile balance in this system is also quite the overstatement.

Only 0.28 % of the greenhouse effect can be attributed to humanity and our actions. Directily and indirectly

This doom and gloom some "scientist" are trying to spread is nothing more than a natural process, the like of which the earth has experienced countless times since its creation.

People believe earth itself is constant. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Moder nature walks whereever she wants, and all we can do is hang on as best we can and enjoy the ride.

This does not however mean we should throw caution to the wind, and steamroll ahead like we're used to.

While our emissions doesn't contribute to a global crisis, I'm sure many of those who live in large cities would really like to breathe a little easier. Trying to avoid the exctintion of other races should also be of high priority.

So, if anyone's got any thoughts about the subject. This is where to post them. Keep to the forum rules, especially those regarding discussion of politics. It's easy to get sidetracked to that on this subject.

[Eagle Kammback]

It is not caused by us, I never have believed that we have.

How can you believe anything that the guy who claims to have invented the internet says.

[Sabre]

If there is an issue, we are not solving the problem by turing off the standby on the TV, and using Hybreed cars. The real issue is overpopulation and the sun. No hippy wants to hear that they are trying to save the kids from there very existence. It's all about free love and like big corperations man.

At any rate, this issue is so full of holes. The same sympoms apparently caused by global cooling back in the 70s and 80s, when the trend changed to warm, so did the hippy tune. In the 90s it was the Ozone scare and we all were told using hairspray and deoderent was killing the planet. We still use hairspray and deoderant. There was some long term change that came from this was the replacment of the most enviromentally harmful chemicels, but it was a slow, well researched and global effort where no one stood to make or lose money. Global Warming on the other hand is a very easy con. Climate Gate and Carbon Credits are perfect examples.

While it is true a drop in the ocean can have a serious nagative effect, it's not going change the situation which will sort itself out through technolagy. Not only that, but the sea level was higher and the weather much hotter with less tech then we have now, and people were fine. Any action has to long term and well planned, not a paganistic communist con. If your a hippy who wants to save the planet from humans, kill a baby or 2 and stop building houses near the coast.

[Dermot]

Wow, I've never met a GW skeptic from outside the United States before.

Considering I grew up on an atoll island at sea level in the Marshall Islands, in the one part of the Pacific seeing the greatest thermal expansion from climate change, I think people are responsible for moderating whatever influence they have on it, whether or not it's actually their fault.

At the last climate change conference in Copenhagen, the small flat island countries were just cast aside.  No one influential enough advocates for Maldives, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, etc.

[Kursed]

I belive global warming is a hoax what's truley happening is a normal cycle of the Sol System we live in ,but on top of that Going green isn't a bad idea and trying not to make other animals extint isn't a bad one either We need to devot more resources towards saving the envirment instead of stopping global warming and/or focus on  colonizing other planets to stop overpopulation. While I'm not really certain if we can run out of Oil.. (who knows how much is actually down there.) Steering away from petrol power as far as gas and stuff to do with locomotion is probably a good idea too.

[Dermot]

I'm pretty much with Al Gore on this.  That pretty much sums it up.

[Wolf OConner]

Scam. Also, global warming contradicts itself alot, like saying "It's hot in the winter! GLOBAL WARMING!!!" and "It's snowing in April! GLOBAL WARMING!!!".

[Dermot]

I'm not actually here to debate this.  People who believe in it, believe in it.  People who don't, don't.  Many people have drawn their own conclusions for themselves.  My foremost concern is that there will still be a Marshall Islands in 100 or 200 years.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

It's a big scare tactic scam by stuck up wannabe-intellectual leftist dork uber-liberal bullies and whiny environmental extremists and nitwit celebrities wanting attention.

Carbon offsets are a joke.

Global warming IS real, but not in the way those aforementioned dunces describe it, G. W. takes eons to process.  Ask any REAL SCIENTIST.

[fox1235]

My grandfather dosnt believe in it says the Earth goes cycles were just living in the warm part of the cycle. I kinda of believe him so I think its a scam. BUT my school dosnt it has 3 enviormental clubs.

If tou ever read the novel Jurassic Park you might remeber what Malcolm said We dont need to save the Earth millions of years of ago oxygen was a poison but life evolued to have us. Its just natural part of life, we will evolue.

[Matt Macdowel]

i think global warning might be real but i highly doubt it although there is evidence that susports global warning!

["User"]

A careful look at global warming, as a topic, shows that there is a great deal of disagreement about the facts and substance of climate change. Those who blame man for climate change often disagree about what facts lead them to that conclusion. Those who hold man totally innocent of it often ignore established facts. Experience and research leads us to believe that warming is, in fact, occurring; however, there is little to no objective evidence that man is the cause, nor that the effects will be catastrophic. The idea of earth “wearing out” is an apt analogy.

Global warming “facts” are notoriously hard to come by. One of the few facts universally agreed upon is that the current average temperature of Earth is indeed rising at this time. According to most estimates, this increase in temperature amounts to about 0.4-0.8 °C (0.72-1.44 °F) over the last 100 years. Data regarding times before that is not only highly theoretical, but very difficult to obtain with any accuracy. The very methods used to obtain historical temperature records are controversial, even between the most ardent supporters of the theory of human-caused climate change. The facts leading one to believe that humans are not responsible for the current change in temperature are as follows:

• Global temperature changes from past millennia, according to available data, were often severe and rapid, long before man supposedly had any impact at all. That is, the current climate change is not as unusual as some alarmists would like to believe.

• Recent recorded history mentions times of noticeable global warming and cooling, long before man had any ability to produce industrial emissions.

• Water vapor, not CO2, is the most influential greenhouse gas. It is difficult to determine what effect, if any, mankind has on worldwide water vapor levels.

• Given the small percentage of human-produced CO2, as compared to other greenhouse gases, human impact on global temperature may be as little as 1%.

• Global temperatures are known to be influenced by other, non-human-controlled factors, such as sunspot activity, orbital movement, volcanic activity, solar system effects, and so forth. CO2 emission is not the only plausible explanation for global warming.

• Ice-age temperature studies, although rough, frequently show temperatures changing before CO2 levels, not after. This calls into question the relationship between warming and carbon dioxide; in some cases, the data could easily be interpreted to indicate that warming caused an increase in carbon dioxide, rather than the reverse!

• Computer simulations used to “predict” or “demonstrate” global warming require the assumption of human causation, and even then are not typically repeatable or reliable. Current computer weather simulations are neither predictive nor repeatable.

• Most of the global temperature increase of the last 100 years occurred before most of the man-made CO2 was produced.

• In the 1970’s, global temperatures had actually been dropping since 1945, and a “global cooling” concern became prominent, despite what is now dismissed as a lack of scientific support.

• The “consensus” claimed by most global warming theorists is not scientific proof; rather, it is a statement of majority opinion. Scientific majorities have been wrongly influenced by politics and other factors in the past. Such agreement is not to be taken lightly, but it is not the same thing as hard proof.

• This “consensus,” as with many other scientific theories, can be partially explained by growing hostility to those with differing viewpoints, making it less likely that a person without preconceived notions would take on the subject for research. The financial and political ramifications of the global warming debate are too serious to be ignored, though they should not be central to any discussion.

• The data being used to support anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is typically based on small data sets, single samples, or measurements taken in completely different regions. This creates an uncertainty in the results that rarely gets the attention that alarmist conclusions do.

While the above list is not exhaustive, it does include several of the major points that raise doubts about mankind’s actual effect on global temperatures. While no one can deny that warming is occurring, “overwhelming evidence” of any objective type does not exist to support the idea that global warming is significantly influenced by human actions. There is plenty of vague, short-sighted, and misunderstood data that can be seen as proving “anthropogenic” global warming theory. All too often, data used to blame humans for global warming is far less reliable than data used for other areas of study. It is a valid point of contention that the data used in these studies is frequently flawed, easily misinterpreted, and subject to preconception.

[Guest DRL]

I think we should sepearte

it from "Contamination".

Extensive amounts of Contamination

do exist for human reasons,

and if you do not believe me, search

"Riachuelo Argentina" in google.

Global Warming...

Our own scientists say that

we really can not affect it, not

matter how much we try.

Unless we 'somehow' get the technology

to Terraforming, I do not believe

we can affect the planet.

[Sylum]

Yed global warming is real, in the sense that the earth is warming up naturally. We have no major hit in it. The earth goes through cold and hot cycles hence why we have ice ages repeating and hot spells repeating. We're stuck in a hot spell right now. There is no threat, we are not the cause, it's natural.

[Kursed]

A careful look at global warming, as a topic, shows that there is a great deal of disagreement about the facts and substance of climate change. Those who blame man for climate change often disagree about what facts lead them to that conclusion. Those who hold man totally innocent of it often ignore established facts. Experience and research leads us to believe that warming is, in fact, occurring; however, there is little to no objective evidence that man is the cause, nor that the effects will be catastrophic. The idea of earth “wearing out” is an apt analogy. This entire world has been continually decaying since the fall.

Global warming “facts” are notoriously hard to come by. One of the few facts universally agreed upon is that the current average temperature of Earth is indeed rising at this time. According to most estimates, this increase in temperature amounts to about 0.4-0.8 °C (0.72-1.44 °F) over the last 100 years. Data regarding times before that is not only highly theoretical, but very difficult to obtain with any accuracy. The very methods used to obtain historical temperature records are controversial, even between the most ardent supporters of the theory of human-caused climate change. The facts leading one to believe that humans are not responsible for the current change in temperature are as follows:

• Global temperature changes from past millennia, according to available data, were often severe and rapid, long before man supposedly had any impact at all. That is, the current climate change is not as unusual as some alarmists would like to believe.

• Recent recorded history mentions times of noticeable global warming and cooling, long before man had any ability to produce industrial emissions.

• Water vapor, not CO2, is the most influential greenhouse gas. It is difficult to determine what effect, if any, mankind has on worldwide water vapor levels.

• Given the small percentage of human-produced CO2, as compared to other greenhouse gases, human impact on global temperature may be as little as 1%.

• Global temperatures are known to be influenced by other, non-human-controlled factors, such as sunspot activity, orbital movement, volcanic activity, solar system effects, and so forth. CO2 emission is not the only plausible explanation for global warming.

• Ice-age temperature studies, although rough, frequently show temperatures changing before CO2 levels, not after. This calls into question the relationship between warming and carbon dioxide; in some cases, the data could easily be interpreted to indicate that warming caused an increase in carbon dioxide, rather than the reverse!

• Computer simulations used to “predict” or “demonstrate” global warming require the assumption of human causation, and even then are not typically repeatable or reliable. Current computer weather simulations are neither predictive nor repeatable.

• Most of the global temperature increase of the last 100 years occurred before most of the man-made CO2 was produced.

• In the 1970’s, global temperatures had actually been dropping since 1945, and a “global cooling” concern became prominent, despite what is now dismissed as a lack of scientific support.

• The “consensus” claimed by most global warming theorists is not scientific proof; rather, it is a statement of majority opinion. Scientific majorities have been wrongly influenced by politics and other factors in the past. Such agreement is not to be taken lightly, but it is not the same thing as hard proof.

• This “consensus,” as with many other scientific theories, can be partially explained by growing hostility to those with differing viewpoints, making it less likely that a person without preconceived notions would take on the subject for research. The financial and political ramifications of the global warming debate are too serious to be ignored, though they should not be central to any discussion.

• The data being used to support anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is typically based on small data sets, single samples, or measurements taken in completely different regions. This creates an uncertainty in the results that rarely gets the attention that alarmist conclusions do.

While the above list is not exhaustive, it does include several of the major points that raise doubts about mankind’s actual effect on global temperatures. While no one can deny that warming is occurring, “overwhelming evidence” of any objective type does not exist to support the idea that global warming is significantly influenced by human actions. There is plenty of vague, short-sighted, and misunderstood data that can be seen as proving “anthropogenic” global warming theory. All too often, data used to blame humans for global warming is far less reliable than data used for other areas of study. It is a valid point of contention that the data used in these studies is frequently flawed, easily misinterpreted, and subject to preconception.

Since the fall? the fall of what?

["User"]

Since the fall? the fall of what?

lol sorry, that part shouldn't have been in my post.  Just disregard it.  I really got to proofread things before I post

[Guest FoXXX]

humanity is responsible for letting out so many gasses that increase the greenhouse effetc that the earth will experience a significant and potentially fatal rise in its temperature.

This was going to happen regardless. The world isn't going to face a "fatal" rise in temperature.

Not to get religious, but whoever put the Earth here isn't going to let it get destroyed. Lol

It's a big scare tactic scam by stuck up wannabe-intellectual leftist dork uber-liberal bullies and whiny environmental extremists and nitwit celebrities wanting attention.

Carbon offsets are a joke.

Global warming IS real, but not in the way those aforementioned dunces describe it, G. W. takes eons to process.  Ask any REAL SCIENTIST.

^This

["User"]

It's a big scare tactic scam by stuck up wannabe-intellectual leftist dork uber-liberal bullies and whiny environmental extremists and nitwit celebrities wanting attention.

I'd throw in socialists there as well :P

[Kursed]

I'd throw in socialists there as well

most likely.

[Sarita]

This was going to happen regardless. The world isn't going to face a "fatal" rise in temperature.

A rise in the average temperature of the Earth by just 6 degrees Celsius is enough to melt the polar ice caps and take out every coastal city in the world.

Though it isn't likely to happen in our lifetime, I think we should worry about it. So that our kids still have a planet to live on when we die.

[Kursed]

A rise in the average temperature of the Earth by just 6 degrees Celsius is enough to melt the polar ice caps and take out every coastal city in the world.

Though it isn't likely to happen in our lifetime, I think we should worry about it. So that our kids still have a planet to live on when we die.

so explain to me how we're suppose  to do anything if we're not causing it?

[Sarita]

so explain to me how we're suppose  to do anything if we're not causing it?

You always come off as being defensive. Chill out.

And I never said we weren't at least helping a little. There are lots of things you can do, which would only help significantly if you got every person in America to do it, which will never happen. So there's no need to discuss it unless you feel like starting an environmental movement in your community.

[Matt Macdowel]

unless they make it law sisi and if they break well i hope they like big bubba (i meet the guy) jk jk

but if temperature increases and the ice is melting witch increases the ocean witch could make floods!

[CrypticQuery]

Meh, whatever happens, happens.  Either way, the human race is going to die off someday.  Oh, and I'm much more worried about supreme overpopulation, to where the human race goes above the Earth's carrying capacity. 

[Matt Macdowel]

Meh, whatever happens, happens.  Either way, the human race is going to die off someday.  Oh, and I'm much more worried about supreme overpopulation, to where the human race goes above the Earth's carrying capacity.

no we would make laws prevented more population like there doing in china!