Global Warming. Whats your opinion?

[nomadmike]

It just ticks me off people put money and economics in front of a future for their children.

 

 

 

People these days will do anything for an extra $1. Global Warming is happening and those who don't believe it are (insert word here)

[Agunimon979]

<.< It just ticks me off people put money and economics in front of a future for their children.

 

 

 

People these days will do anything for an extra $1. Global Warming is happening and those who don't believe it are (insert word here)

 

 

 

I'm an (insert word here) and I'm (insert word here)ing mad at you (insert word here)'s that think we're all doomed cause we flushed a toilet.

[nomadmike]

:-k How are we doomed flushing a toilet?

 

 

 

Im talking about how for some price a major corporation could reduce polluting the skies by anywhere from 50-90% by buying a filter. They wont.

 

 

 

Its do to that and people wanting more yields of crop that are destroying our world...

 

 

 

Do you want to live surrounded by sludge? :-k

[Agunimon979]

:-k How are we doomed flushing a toilet?

 

 

 

Im talking about how for some price a major corporation could reduce polluting the skies by anywhere from 50-90% by buying a filter. They wont.

 

 

 

Its do to that and people wanting more yields of crop that are destroying our world...

 

 

 

Do you want to live surrounded by sludge? :-k

 

 

 

1. It's an exaggeration

 

 

 

2. I wouldn't count on scientists if I were you, noone can see the future cept for God, who knows what could happen, maybe a flood, maybe somebody will set an atomic bomb off sextuplet the size of Hiroshima's, maybe nothing at all will happen! Who knows but W.B. Mason?

 

 

 

3. Or is out or world that is destroying our crop?

 

 

 

4. No, I know people that get rid of it for me

[nomadmike]

:-k Where they put it(get rid of it) scares me to imagine :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways its hard for me to believe that one great being created this size of a universe. I still say scientists should be trusted. They are the ones creating and discovering new things each day :

[warri0r45]

:-k Where they put it(get rid of it) scares me to imagine :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways its hard for me to believe that one great being created this size of a universe. I still say scientists should be trusted. They are the ones creating and discovering new things each day :

 

 

 

I'm with you. Why shouldn't we trust scientists? They're the only ones who will ever get us out of this mess. For anyone who thinks that they are the ones who got us into it in the first place, I'll burst that bubble before you even type the idea. The people who cause the problems are those who can't see past thier own wallets for any possible consequence to thier actions i.e. CEO's of multinational corporations etc etc.

[darkforaster]

Global warming *sighs*. Humans BIGGEST problem.

 

 

 

If it doesn't cease then we will die out. The heat will dry the oceans up, put more water vapour into the air. Which heats up the planet even more. Causing a cycle which brings too much heat unto this planet. Eventually, this planet will end up in an ice age. But by that time, most of us would be wiped out.

 

 

 

In 2003, there was a heatwave. Many died of it. Well global warming will heat up the planet beyond that heat. So by 2080, 2003 would be considered as a 'cold' year. The year that killed people, considered cold? THAT'S how hot it will be. Our lifespans would be shortened impeccable short. Since we humans are not used to that kind of heat.

 

 

 

We are going to kill ourselves by global warming.

 

 

 

Lighting bolts produce more carbon dioxide then any car does. In fact, the last 3 volcanic eruptions have produced more carbon dioxide then any car has in history. And what do I say to that?

 

 

 

Than any car eh :-s ? But there is not just one car in the world. there are millions of them. MOST of which produce carbon dioxide. All in all, I imagine that it might break even or even produce more carbon dioxide than those events.

 

 

 

P.S. Owned

[Ginger_Warrior]

In my opinion, most of what we know about the world is based on theories anyway. For example, the amount of everyday things we use that have stemmed from the discovery of the Bohr Model of the Atom is staggering, yet that theory itself is exactly that - a theory. Does that stop the world's politicians and economists refining crude oil to make plastics, or to provide feedstock for the petrochemical industries? No, because it makes them billions every year, and it's here where I think the problem with human (or rather, rich humans) attitudes lie.

 

 

 

The fact is humans have gone off 'scientific theories' for ages. The only reason the middle-classes aren't willing to act on those 'theories' now is because at the end of the day, they'll lose money/luxeries for it.

 

 

 

And where economists won't take action, the State has to, but there lies the problem. We can't reduce CO2 emissions while people are driving freely in their cars and taking holidays on a plane half-way around the world! The State has to act on CO2 emissions by attacking these two factors of CO2 emissions especially, but no government ever will through fear of unpopularity.

 

 

 

If you ask me, the book doesn't lie with the scientists here, and I think it's all too easy for economists and politicians to blame scientists on the grounds they have no solid evidence of Global Warming, when they're not actually prepared to do anything in the first place. The blame for the lack of action doesn't lie with scientists, they don't own the means of production or control the legislatures. The responsibility lies with politicians and businessmen, and it annoys me when they consistantly neglect this duty.

[warri0r45]

In my opinion, most of what we know about the world is based on theories anyway. For example, the amount of everyday things we use that have stemmed from the discovery of the Bohr Model of the Atom is staggering, yet that theory itself is exactly that - a theory. Does that stop the world's politicians and economists refining crude oil to make plastics, or to provide feedstock for the petrochemical industries? No, because it makes them billions every year, and it's here where I think the problem with human (or rather, rich humans) attitudes lie.

 

 

 

The fact is humans have gone off 'scientific theories' for ages. The only reason the middle-classes aren't willing to act on those 'theories' now is because at the end of the day, they'll lose money/luxeries for it.

 

 

 

And where economists won't take action, the State has to, but there lies the problem. We can't reduce CO2 emissions while people are driving freely in their cars and taking holidays on a plane half-way around the world! The State has to act on CO2 emissions by attacking these two factors of CO2 emissions especially, but no government ever will through fear of unpopularity.

 

 

 

If you ask me, the book doesn't lie with the scientists here, and I think it's all too easy for economists and politicians to blame scientists on the grounds they have no solid evidence of Global Warming, when they're not actually prepared to do anything in the first place. The blame for the lack of action doesn't lie with scientists, they don't own the means of production or control the legislatures. The responsibility lies with politicians and businessmen, and it annoys me when they consistantly neglect this duty.

 

 

 

While I agree with that conclusion I'm wondering if you really know how much weight a theory in the context of science holds. A scientific theory and the public use of the word theory are completely different. A theory in the context of science is a unifying explanation encompassing masses of observations, hypotheses on those observations and experimentation to test the grounds of the hypotheses.

 

 

 

In actuality, the Bohr model of the atom was refined hugely with the ongoing study of quantum physics. As I understand it, the Bohr model has electrons orbiting the nucleus in much the same way planets orbit the sun. Current theories say rather than orbiting, an electron will occupy a certain area or orbital for a statistically determined fraction of the time. I'm by no means a quantum physicist so apologies if this is wrong.

 

 

 

What I'm trying to get at is that saying our entire knowlege of many facets of the universe is based on a theory is misleading. Atomic theory and the current supposed structure of the atom has stood up to inumerable tests of validity. So much so that everything we do these days that encompasses the theory seems to work just fine thus gratifying it. Surprise surprise.

 

 

 

In case you can't tell already, I see the common use of the word 'theory' as a stain on otherwise rock solid science.

[darkforaster]

:-k Where they put it(get rid of it) scares me to imagine :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways its hard for me to believe that one great being created this size of a universe. I still say scientists should be trusted. They are the ones creating and discovering new things each day :

 

 

 

I also agree with you. Scientists are the most reliable source of information (on science anyway) in the world. People can't accept that. So they believe that they are wrong.

 

 

 

P.S. Glad I'm actually agreeing with someone for once :wink: .

[Ginger_Warrior]

In case you can't tell already, I see the common use of the word 'theory' as a stain on otherwise rock solid science.

 

 

 

I agree with that, but I was referring to the fact that many times in the past scientific 'theories' have been worded as 'breakthroughs', and I think usually the difference in social attitudes to the two is whether or not they'll gain from it at the end of the day. You were correct on your explanation of the Bohr Model, an orbital is indeed an area where there is a high probability of locating a specific electron. However, this still hasn't been factually proven, although to all intent and purposes it has, and people have taken that theory and made our lives better from it. Do you see my point?

 

 

 

I'm trying to articulate that there are many things in scientific history which have never been 100% proven, but people have still acted upon those theories in order to better their own quiality of life. Global Warming may only be a theory, but I don't personally see it as much different to this. You're right, it has been all but proven.

 

 

 

The main point is that people are only willing to accept things that might not be true as true if it holds the potential to further their own quality of life. Clearly, acting on Global Warming wouldn't, and so people like to refer to it as an unproven 'theory' rather than a fact. It's a change in social attitude, and we have to change these attitudes to Global Warming and about the neccesity to give up certain things in our life in order to preserve our climate.

[warri0r45]

In case you can't tell already, I see the common use of the word 'theory' as a stain on otherwise rock solid science.

 

 

 

I agree with that, but I was referring to the fact that many times in the past scientific 'theories' have been worded as 'breakthroughs', and I think usually the difference in social attitudes to the two is whether or not they'll gain from it at the end of the day. You were correct on your explanation of the Bohr Model, an orbital is indeed an area where there is a high probability of locating a specific electron. However, this still hasn't been factually proven, although to all intent and purposes it has, and people have taken that theory and made our lives better from it. Do you see my point?

 

 

 

I'm trying to articulate that there are many things in scientific history which have never been 100% proven, but people have still acted upon those theories in order to better their own quiality of life. Global Warming may only be a theory, but I don't personally see it as much different to this. You're right, it has been all but proven.

 

 

 

The main point is that people are only willing to accept things that might not be true as true if it holds the potential to further their own quality of life. Clearly, acting on Global Warming wouldn't, and so people like to refer to it as an unproven 'theory' rather than a fact. It's a change in social attitude, and we have to change these attitudes to Global Warming and about the neccesity to give up certain things in our life in order to preserve our climate.

 

 

 

Ahh, I see. 'Theory' is a term of conveniance. When it suits me we'll use it but when it goes against the way I think or what I like, it's 'just a theory.'

 

 

 

Valid observation although it still does annoy me. :x The people who toss out a theory as 'just a theory' to suit themselves seem to forget how much science has done for them.

[Agunimon979]

Well the last 3 volcanic explosions have produced more carbon dioxide then any car has in history. Let me use an example. Let's say that all carbon dioxide made by every single car in history equals 300 kilograms. These last 3 volcanic booms would have made, you guessed it, more than 300 kilograms of carbon dioxide. SO yeah, point made.

[fakeitormakeit]

Warming and cooling of the earth naturally occurs if you look at pervious eras so its something natural, pollution might just be causing it to be faster paced or it could be al in our heads.

[darkforaster]

Well the last 3 volcanic explosions have produced more carbon dioxide then any car has in history. Let me use an example. Let's say that all carbon dioxide made by every single car in history equals 300 kilograms. These last 3 volcanic booms would have made, you guessed it, more than 300 kilograms of carbon dioxide. SO yeah, point made.

 

 

 

PLEASE use correct grammer then.

 

 

 

"Than any car has in history" is singular. meaning one car has made less carbon dioxide that the last 3 volcanic eruptions.

 

 

 

"Than all the cars have in history" is plural. Don't make us confused, then argue against us.

 

 

 

But it's not just cars is it? We add so much more CO2 than just from cars. 1 family of four, (2 adults, two children - For example) produces 60 tonnes of CO2 a year. one tree can absorb only 10 tonnes.

 

 

 

lets add it all up now eh? There are about 6 billion humans alive. Lets say all are living in a family of four or so. 6,000,000,000 / 4 = 1,500,000,000 1,500,000,000 * 60 = 90,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 every year.

 

 

 

Of course these figures are incorrect. As many in poorer countries use less CO2 than the richer countries. But this is an approximation. I would say around 10,000,000,000 or 10 billion tonnes is let off every year by us humans.

 

 

 

BUT! there's more. We are cutting down tree's. And at an alarming rate. This reduces the amount taken in by the planet. So more of the CO2 remains. PLUS! if there's less tree's to absorb water, more water evaporates, causing more global warming.

 

 

 

In fact, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapour. most of our breath contains water vapour.

 

 

 

Surely these factors are all humans at fault? I doubt nature really has done this [bleep]e on the map mentioned earlier in this thread. We humans are to blame. Nature has done nothing wrong.

[redserpent4]

Well the last 3 volcanic explosions have produced more carbon dioxide then any car has in history. Let me use an example. Let's say that all carbon dioxide made by every single car in history equals 300 kilograms. These last 3 volcanic booms would have made, you guessed it, more than 300 kilograms of carbon dioxide. SO yeah, point made.

 

 

 

That proves nothing. The earth's climate exists in a fairly delicate "steady state." Generally that the amount of anything going in is equal to that coming out. For example all of the animals on earth respiring may be balanced by the photosynthesis in plants. The fact is humans may have pushed this out of balance, hence the warming. Bear in mind that those 3 volcanoes have produced a shed load of Carbon Dioxide, but we have produced a shed load more on top.

 

Like others have said, CO2 isn't the most lethal greenhouse gas anyway

 

 

 

I think global warming is our fault and my opinion is that we should moderate our lifestyles whether we believe it is our fault or not.

 

 

 

We will run out of fossil fuels in the next 100 years and we will drive animals and plants to extinction at this rate. Surely turning off a light, walking to school, switching to low energy bulbs, double glazing your windows is all worth it even if it's not our fault the world's getting warmer. The same remedy to two problems.

[highlanders]

I think its a serious issue and that the governments should wake up and do something. Individual people are asked to make a contribution, while business companies are not being monitored and do an enourmous amount of waste and governments societies, just the same. A month ago, we heard that public libraries have throw to the gabarge more than 50 000 books that could have still been used, or recycled. It's just outrageous.

[Agunimon979]

Well the last 3 volcanic explosions have produced more carbon dioxide then any car has in history. Let me use an example. Let's say that all carbon dioxide made by every single car in history equals 300 kilograms. These last 3 volcanic booms would have made, you guessed it, more than 300 kilograms of carbon dioxide. SO yeah, point made.

 

 

 

That proves nothing. The earth's climate exists in a fairly delicate "steady state." Generally that the amount of anything going in is equal to that coming out. For example all of the animals on earth respiring may be balanced by the photosynthesis in plants. The fact is humans may have pushed this out of balance, hence the warming. Bear in mind that those 3 volcanoes have produced a shed load of Carbon Dioxide, but we have produced a shed load more on top.

 

Like others have said, CO2 isn't the most lethal greenhouse gas anyway

 

 

 

I think global warming is our fault and my opinion is that we should moderate our lifestyles whether we believe it is our fault or not.

 

 

 

We will run out of fossil fuels in the next 100 years and we will drive animals and plants to extinction at this rate. Surely turning off a light, walking to school, switching to low energy bulbs, double glazing your windows is all worth it even if it's not our fault the world's getting warmer. The same remedy to two problems.

 

 

 

No, don't make assumptions before it actually happens, typical liberal. Scientists say "Omg were gona die in 80 years humans r so baaaad" but what do you think could happen in 80 years. Think about it/ Fossil Fuel burning rates are going down, and we're starting to use more effishient (sp whatever) energy devices, such as hydro, solar, etc. I also had the idea of sound wave energy, that probably could work. Convert sound waves to energy mebbe? There's always sound waves and there will never be no soundwave. darkforaster, You say when humans breathe we release water vapour. That is natural. What do you want us to do, stop breathing? Well, Mr. I know it all, feel free to stop breathing anytime.

[hohto]

Well the last 3 volcanic explosions have produced more carbon dioxide then any car has in history. Let me use an example. Let's say that all carbon dioxide made by every single car in history equals 300 kilograms. These last 3 volcanic booms would have made, you guessed it, more than 300 kilograms of carbon dioxide. SO yeah, point made.

 

 

 

And...

 

 

Objection: One decent-sized volcanic eruption puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than a decade of human emissions. It's ridiculous to think reducing human CO2 emissions will have any effect.

 

 

 

Answer: Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of [bleep]es -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend

 

 

 

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72

 

 

 

Also, so what if some of those cause more of it than cars? We can't stop them, but we can stop our own pollution and cars aren't even the only source. Yes, climate changes every now and then, but we are currently speeding it up and thus digging our own (or even better, the following generations') graves.

 

 

 

We also could already use other power sources than oil. Alcohol for example could be used in cars in other places too than Brazil + randomly in some bananacountries. Currently in most western countries it just isn't worth it to even build new things because of ridicilous taxing.

 

 

 

Good thing you got the idea of soundwaves, now just do something to speed up it. You aren't the first one to think about it and if you try to get it to work, you aren't the first one in that either.

[warri0r45]

Well the last 3 volcanic explosions have produced more carbon dioxide then any car has in history. Let me use an example. Let's say that all carbon dioxide made by every single car in history equals 300 kilograms. These last 3 volcanic booms would have made, you guessed it, more than 300 kilograms of carbon dioxide. SO yeah, point made.

 

 

 

That proves nothing. The earth's climate exists in a fairly delicate "steady state." Generally that the amount of anything going in is equal to that coming out. For example all of the animals on earth respiring may be balanced by the photosynthesis in plants. The fact is humans may have pushed this out of balance, hence the warming. Bear in mind that those 3 volcanoes have produced a shed load of Carbon Dioxide, but we have produced a shed load more on top.

 

Like others have said, CO2 isn't the most lethal greenhouse gas anyway

 

 

 

I think global warming is our fault and my opinion is that we should moderate our lifestyles whether we believe it is our fault or not.

 

 

 

We will run out of fossil fuels in the next 100 years and we will drive animals and plants to extinction at this rate. Surely turning off a light, walking to school, switching to low energy bulbs, double glazing your windows is all worth it even if it's not our fault the world's getting warmer. The same remedy to two problems.

 

 

 

No, don't make assumptions before it actually happens, typical liberal. Scientists say "Omg were gona die in 80 years humans r so baaaad" but what do you think could happen in 80 years. Think about it/ Fossil Fuel burning rates are going down, and we're starting to use more effishient (sp whatever) energy devices, such as hydro, solar, etc. I also had the idea of sound wave energy, that probably could work. Convert sound waves to energy mebbe? There's always sound waves and there will never be no soundwave. darkforaster, You say when humans breathe we release water vapour. That is natural. What do you want us to do, stop breathing? Well, Mr. I know it all, feel free to stop breathing anytime.

 

 

 

1) Scientists don't use emotion to win you over. They don't give a damn how you feel.

 

 

 

2) Thier predictons are rather dire, so wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry? Think of the two options - Either we heed the warning, clean up our act and avert a disaster of cataclysmic proportions or keep choking the planet by cutting down masses of trees and pumping masses of greenhouse gasses in the air resulting in our extinction. That's a no brainer for me, personally.

 

 

 

3) The one smart thing from your post is the idea to try and ween ourselves off of fossil fuels as going gung-[garden tool] right to the last drop would more or less lead to the demise of the western world and indeed the whole world as we know it.

[JeremyM]

To the first post who said they had just seen An Inconvinient Truth, my Dad said when they show it to me in school, for me to ask them if we could change it to something where we could actually learn something, I am thinking about renting the movie now. And I dont know why I said any of this...

[vivimancer]

I think its a serious issue and that the governments should wake up and do something. Individual people are asked to make a contribution, while business companies are not being monitored and do an enourmous amount of waste and governments societies, just the same. A month ago, we heard that public libraries have throw to the gabarge more than 50 000 books that could have still been used, or recycled. It's just outrageous.

 

 

 

The governments are already doing something about global warming..

 

http://www.carnicom.com/mgr1.htm

 

 

 

And if you really want to do something to stop carbon release, try binding more books and building more roads.

[darkforaster]

Well the last 3 volcanic explosions have produced more carbon dioxide then any car has in history. Let me use an example. Let's say that all carbon dioxide made by every single car in history equals 300 kilograms. These last 3 volcanic booms would have made, you guessed it, more than 300 kilograms of carbon dioxide. SO yeah, point made.

 

 

 

That proves nothing. The earth's climate exists in a fairly delicate "steady state." Generally that the amount of anything going in is equal to that coming out. For example all of the animals on earth respiring may be balanced by the photosynthesis in plants. The fact is humans may have pushed this out of balance, hence the warming. Bear in mind that those 3 volcanoes have produced a shed load of Carbon Dioxide, but we have produced a shed load more on top.

 

Like others have said, CO2 isn't the most lethal greenhouse gas anyway

 

 

 

I think global warming is our fault and my opinion is that we should moderate our lifestyles whether we believe it is our fault or not.

 

 

 

We will run out of fossil fuels in the next 100 years and we will drive animals and plants to extinction at this rate. Surely turning off a light, walking to school, switching to low energy bulbs, double glazing your windows is all worth it even if it's not our fault the world's getting warmer. The same remedy to two problems.

 

 

 

No, don't make assumptions before it actually happens, typical liberal. Scientists say "Omg were gona die in 80 years humans r so baaaad" but what do you think could happen in 80 years. Think about it/ Fossil Fuel burning rates are going down, and we're starting to use more effishient (sp whatever) energy devices, such as hydro, solar, etc. I also had the idea of sound wave energy, that probably could work. Convert sound waves to energy mebbe? There's always sound waves and there will never be no soundwave. darkforaster, You say when humans breathe we release water vapour. That is natural. What do you want us to do, stop breathing? Well, Mr. I know it all, feel free to stop breathing anytime.

 

 

 

 

I was just saying that we release water vapour when we breath. There is no solution to it, you feel that humans have done nothing wrong. But we're the main culprits. I have explained why.

 

 

 

80 years eh? I think I've previously mentioned 2080, the boiling year. By that time we humans would think 2003 is a cold year. THAT'S how hot it is.

 

 

 

Scientists base thier predictions on facts and scientific evidence. Don't insult them. There smarter than you'll ever be.

 

 

 

You've been questioning our ages. So I'm going to question yours. How old are you? because from your posts I can't see any maturity there.

[Tigra00]

I really don't know what all the discussion is about. Mars is also heating up. It's obviously the Sun doing something different.

[JIMMIE]

There is no 100% proof that ive seen. To be honest, id rather go around polluting everywhere than drive an electric car.

 

You can call me an ignoble savage, but i dont care. Everyone else can reduce their emissions, i dont want to, its my planet as well.

 

 

 

~Jimmie