Global Warming?

[Invert]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060531/D8HUVKSO0.html

[Mephisto]

Welp, that's definitely not good...

[topaz]

Welp, that's definitely not good...

Yeah, the world going through warming and cooling trends naturally is not good.

We'll survive.  And if not, something better will come around.

That's optimistic, but I don't think anyone can deny the fact that the Earth is being destroyed, bit by bit, through human action.

[Mephisto]

Welp, that's definitely not good...

Yeah, the world going through warming and cooling trends naturally is not good.

We'll survive.  And if not, something better will come around.

That's optimistic, but I don't think anyone can deny the fact that the Earth is being destroyed, bit by bit, through human action.

Agree.

Maybe you could be less sarcastic and more realistic, Myndfyre.  The warming-cooling trends take time periods longer than recorded human civilization.

Besides, if we're going to get real, natural global warming/cooling is irrelevant since we are artificially causing global warming at a much faster rate which will inevitably result in disastrious events unless something is done soon to slow it and eventually end it.

[Grok]

I agree with MyndFyre, in that one can deny that humans are at fault for global warming.  I do agree that we are destroying things.  All energy transformations at a macro level tend to destroy at a micro level.  Even as we walk acrosst he floor, we destroy things.  As we transform woodlands to subdivisions, the energy transformations cause destruction of one type but a corresponding construction of another type.

In a closed system, which the Earth is not, the effect on total energy would be null, despite the little destructions we perform every day.  What global warming environmentalists say is our activities have caused additional heat to be trapped in our atmosphere by causing an expanded hole in the antarctic ozone layer, thereby letting additional radiation to get in unblocked.  That is unproven, nice theory, but not a fact.  There are other theories that suggest the hole in the ozone is expanding in relation to changing magnetic flux of the Earth, something much bigger than all of us combined could influence.

One thing that humans have a monopoly on over the animals is our recurring doomsday scenario scares.  We seem to want so badly to destroy ourselves that we predict that we are doing it, we predict other things are doing it, or we just predict it is happening right under our noses, and run around scared telling everyone that the world is coming to and end.

Global warming doomsdayers are pretty easy to spot in this regard, in that they espouse you don't have time to prove the theory, because by the time you do, it'll be too late!  That's a great way to scare people into blind faith the way religions do, and get them to do your will.  Say it enough and people will believe, and even go around prophesizing for you on forums.

[Invert]

I agree with MyndFyre, in that one can deny that humans are at fault for global warming.  I do agree that we are destroying things.  All energy transformations at a macro level tend to destroy at a micro level.  Even as we walk acrosst he floor, we destroy things.  As we transform woodlands to subdivisions, the energy transformations cause destruction of one type but a corresponding construction of another type.

In a closed system, which the Earth is not, the effect on total energy would be null, despite the little destructions we perform every day.  What global warming environmentalists say is our activities have caused additional heat to be trapped in our atmosphere by causing an expanded hole in the antarctic ozone layer, thereby letting additional radiation to get in unblocked.  That is unproven, nice theory, but not a fact.  There are other theories that suggest the hole in the ozone is expanding in relation to changing magnetic flux of the Earth, something much bigger than all of us combined could influence.

One thing that humans have a monopoly on over the animals is our recurring doomsday scenario scares.  We seem to want so badly to destroy ourselves that we predict that we are doing it, we predict other things are doing it, or we just predict it is happening right under our noses, and run around scared telling everyone that the world is coming to and end.

Global warming doomsdayers are pretty easy to spot in this regard, in that they espouse you don't have time to prove the theory, because by the time you do, it'll be too late!  That's a great way to scare people into blind faith the way religions do, and get them to do your will.  Say it enough and people will believe, and even go around prophesizing for you on forums.

Lol, I just posted that because I found it interesting. Nothing to do with prophesizing this on the forums in my case.

[Rule]

Global warming doomsdayers are pretty easy to spot in this regard, in that they espouse you don't have time to prove the theory, because by the time you do, it'll be too late!  That's a great way to scare people into blind faith the way religions do, and get them to do your will.  Say it enough and people will believe, and even go around prophesizing for you on forums.

Yes, anyone who does that doesn't deserve to be listened to.  But, I haven't heard anyone who believes mankind is partly responsible for global warming use this tactic.  Besides, what on earth would be the motivation to use such a bully tactic?  What power is gained? I've seen charts of global climate trends, and I don't think in the last 30,000 years or so global temperatures have changed nearly (e.g. even 1/1000th) as quickly as they have in the last 100 years.

[Grok]

Global warming doomsdayers are pretty easy to spot in this regard, in that they espouse you don't have time to prove the theory, because by the time you do, it'll be too late!  That's a great way to scare people into blind faith the way religions do, and get them to do your will.  Say it enough and people will believe, and even go around prophesizing for you on forums.

Yes, anyone who does that doesn't deserve to be listened to.  But, I haven't heard anyone who believes mankind is partly responsible for global warming use this tactic.  Besides, what on earth would be the motivation to use such a bully tactic?  What power is gained? I've seen charts of global climate trends, and I don't think in the last 30,000 years or so global temperatures have changed nearly (e.g. even 1/1000th) as quickly as they have in the last 100 years.

Who was taking precise temperature measurements in the last 30000 years?  Those can be nothing but derived estimates.

[Ringo]

I wunder if they tolk into consideration that continental plate drifting could have been the reassion it may have been hotter there 55 million years ago 

[Rule]

Global warming doomsdayers are pretty easy to spot in this regard, in that they espouse you don't have time to prove the theory, because by the time you do, it'll be too late!  That's a great way to scare people into blind faith the way religions do, and get them to do your will.  Say it enough and people will believe, and even go around prophesizing for you on forums.

Yes, anyone who does that doesn't deserve to be listened to.  But, I haven't heard anyone who believes mankind is partly responsible for global warming use this tactic.  Besides, what on earth would be the motivation to use such a bully tactic?  What power is gained? I've seen charts of global climate trends, and I don't think in the last 30,000 years or so global temperatures have changed nearly (e.g. even 1/1000th) as quickly as they have in the last 100 years.

Who was taking precise temperature measurements in the last 30000 years?  Those can be nothing but derived estimates.

Well, I think the estimates are pretty good but I'm not an expert.  I saw an (added) exhibit on global temperatures at the Royal Museum over here, and the presentation of estimates/facts seemed to suggest that man was moderately responsible for the global warming that we've been seeing.  They never said this or tried to suggest it (the exhibit was intended to be fairly general and educational I think), it's just something that seemed to show through the data. 

I don't really have a strong opinion on this -- I don't know much about it.  In most cases I just don't see what could be gained by someone who is trying to manipulate people into thinking that we've been moderately responsible for global temperature increases.  It's one of the few arguments around that doesn't have an obvious self-serving agenda (except maybe in a few special cases); most people who think that we're accelerating global warming would probably rather not believe this.

In any case, I think it would be prudent to seek cleaner alternatives, and to try and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as is practical.

[CrAz3D]

Besides, if we're going to get real, natural global warming/cooling is irrelevant since we are artificially causing global warming at a much faster rate which will inevitably result in disastrious events unless something is done soon to slow it and eventually end it.

Thats almost where I stand.  I believe warming/cooling is natural, I also believe we are speeding up the processes...but what happens if we make it too hot too quick?......you cant live everywhere where we live right now, oh well, population control....people keep claiming gayness is a good population control, flooding towns works too

Either way, we didnt start it, but we're helping it.



EDIT:The thinning of the ozone is what is bothersome

[topaz]

Thats almost where I stand.  I believe warming/cooling is natural, I also believe we are speeding up the processes...but what happens if we make it too hot too quick?......you cant live everywhere where we live right now, oh well, population control....people keep claiming gayness is a good population control, flooding towns works too

Either way, we didnt start it, but we're helping it.

Flooding livable areas also reduces the amount of places humans can live live in.

EDIT:The thinning of the ozone is what is bothersome

Thinning of the ozone? Wherever you're getting your information from, it's very, very outdated.

[CrAz3D]

Thinning of the ozone?  outdated?  How so?

[Stealth]

Thinning of the ozone?  outdated?  How so?

Because it appears to be no longer thinning.

[topaz]

Thinning of the ozone?  outdated?  How so?

Because it appears to be no longer thinning.

It was fixed solong ago, nobody talks about the ozone layer being broken unless they're a democrat or ignorant.