Global warming...

[evil_mumm_ra]

Apparently the Sahara desert is growing. Less land for Africans = less Africans able to live there.

Not to mention that the rising temperatures will increase the length of droughts and decrease food production on a continent where starvation is already a huge problem...

So, are we going to give medicine and food to Africans today, helping them live and reproduce, so that their children can suffer through the same poverty, disease and starvation that we tried to save their parents from? Really, the ones we helped are likely to live long enough to have MORE children to suffer...

Oh, and of course there's the issue of warlords confiscating supplies which were meant for the general population, only making their regimes stronger.

 

Maybe we should stay out of Africa and let the Africans handle it? I don't think they'd mind if we managed to make the world a few degrees cooler if it meant stopping the growth of the Sahara and more seasonal temperatures for growing crops.

 

Oh, and anyone who thinks that global warming = more cropland farther towards the poles- ecosystem growth doesn't work that way. It's a very slow process to naturally develop soils into sustainable fertile land.

 

Also- no-one argue with Saruman, he's an expert (he got a 98)

 

DAMN STRAIGHT 98 [bleep] (I didn't make the title page correctly :( )

 

We've been throwing money at GW for decades. And the Sahara is still growing? FASCINATING. Maybe because throwing money at it does nothing? We've learned at least this from Obama.

 

obama has been feeding the sahara money and that's why it's growing? interesting.

[fastortoise]

My favourite scientist, Kary Mullis, pretty much thinks global warming is bogus based on the fact that he thinks scientists are misinterpreting their results. I remember him talking about the fact that the temperature measuring instruments are all in or close to cities, and those cities are always in expansion, adding more cement which sucks up more energy from the sun, making it hotter. Something like that. He's a brilliant guy, and that argument alone (which I only vaguely remember it's arguments) makes me weary about the legitimization of global warming.

 

But even if global warming was a sham, one of the main goals of all the "green" protocols involves becoming independent of oil. Since the planet is obviously going to run out of oil sometime in this century, it's a good idea to start finding other, smarter energy sources before we walk into a huge problem, regardless of the motivations for the protocols.

[Saru Inc]

Apparently the Sahara desert is growing. Less land for Africans = less Africans able to live there.

Not to mention that the rising temperatures will increase the length of droughts and decrease food production on a continent where starvation is already a huge problem...

So, are we going to give medicine and food to Africans today, helping them live and reproduce, so that their children can suffer through the same poverty, disease and starvation that we tried to save their parents from? Really, the ones we helped are likely to live long enough to have MORE children to suffer...

Oh, and of course there's the issue of warlords confiscating supplies which were meant for the general population, only making their regimes stronger.

 

Maybe we should stay out of Africa and let the Africans handle it? I don't think they'd mind if we managed to make the world a few degrees cooler if it meant stopping the growth of the Sahara and more seasonal temperatures for growing crops.

 

Oh, and anyone who thinks that global warming = more cropland farther towards the poles- ecosystem growth doesn't work that way. It's a very slow process to naturally develop soils into sustainable fertile land.

 

Also- no-one argue with Saruman, he's an expert (he got a 98)

 

DAMN STRAIGHT 98 [bleep] (I didn't make the title page correctly :( )

 

We've been throwing money at GW for decades. And the Sahara is still growing? FASCINATING. Maybe because throwing money at it does nothing? We've learned at least this from Obama.

 

obama has been feeding the sahara money and that's why it's growing? interesting.

 

 

o no I meant that throwing money at stuff doesn't help it.

[depresins]

is a natural cycle we are just accelerating.

[i_love_burritos]

If you take the shift in temperature to be like a sin or a cos wave, then accelerating the cycle would be reducing it's period. Which is fine.

 

But I dont think we're doing that, I think we are just increasing it's amplitude.

 

Anyone following ?

[warri0r45]

My favourite scientist, Kary Mullis, pretty much thinks global warming is bogus based on the fact that he thinks scientists are misinterpreting their results. I remember him talking about the fact that the temperature measuring instruments are all in or close to cities, and those cities are always in expansion, adding more cement which sucks up more energy from the sun, making it hotter. Something like that. He's a brilliant guy, and that argument alone (which I only vaguely remember it's arguments) makes me weary about the legitimization of global warming.

 

But even if global warming was a sham, one of the main goals of all the "green" protocols involves becoming independent of oil. Since the planet is obviously going to run out of oil sometime in this century, it's a good idea to start finding other, smarter energy sources before we walk into a huge problem, regardless of the motivations for the protocols.

 

Kary Mullis also denies that HIV causes AIDS.

 

He may have a bit more authority to claim something like that (though I don't think he has expertise in immunology or virology), but he certainly doesn't have the authority or expertise to claim that global warming is nonsense.

 

Agree with your "silver bullet" argument that we should halt excessive use of fossil fuels, though.

[Furah]

How can you say it isn't real? Honestly it's a bit obvious it is happening. And no don't tell me its a natural cycle; we didn't have cars back when "Jesus" was born (just an example). So, no, we are speeding up the process of global warming and we should stop. Why would we try and prevent a cleaner, better world anyway?

 

I don't believe the few scientists that carry on about the big hoax. The media shouldn't blow it out of proportion, but it is obvious that it is a major threat to our planet and our society/economies.

That's the whole correlation = causation bull [cabbage] I am sick of, last time I checked, the levels of carbon dioxide levels and average global temperature moved at a similar rate, nearly 400 years between each other. If you can present me with concrete evidence of the max and min temperatures of every day that Jesus was alive, I'll believe you.

 

I'm not saying don't "go green" I'm just sick of how it is 'cool' to be green. If the greener solution is cheaper, you'd have to be stupid to pick the other option, if the other option is cheaper, I'd pick that option, no matter what anyone else picks. Maybe if we worried less about making a global aircon, we fixed curable diseases, the would may end up better, but that will mean more people in the world, so maybe wasting it would be slightly better in the long run....

[Alg]

If you take the shift in temperature to be like a sin or a cos wave, then accelerating the cycle would be reducing it's period. Which is fine.

 

But I dont think we're doing that, I think we are just increasing it's amplitude.

 

Anyone following ?

In that case we have the cooling trend to worry about more? :razz:

I think humans do better in a hotter environment, so a stronger cooling trend would be a bad thing.

[obfuscator]

Instead of throwing trillions of dollars at climate bull [cabbage] maybe we could spending it helping people who are dying in Africa because they don't have access to medicine that costs less than a buck.

 

Or, you know, we could spend trillions making it two degrees cooler for them. I'm sure that's what they need most.

Permission to siggy?

 

Pretty much sums up my feelings about the issue in a nutshell, plus I like your way with words :P

[Rebdragon]

Sure I guess. I really just paraphrased a WSJ Opinion article I read though.

[Saru Inc]

How can you say it isn't real? Honestly it's a bit obvious it is happening. And no don't tell me its a natural cycle; we didn't have cars back when "Jesus" was born (just an example). So, no, we are speeding up the process of global warming and we should stop. Why would we try and prevent a cleaner, better world anyway?

 

I don't believe the few scientists that carry on about the big hoax. The media shouldn't blow it out of proportion, but it is obvious that it is a major threat to our planet and our society/economies.

That's the whole correlation = causation bull [cabbage] I am sick of, last time I checked, the levels of carbon dioxide levels and average global temperature moved at a similar rate, nearly 400 years between each other. If you can present me with concrete evidence of the max and min temperatures of every day that Jesus was alive, I'll believe you.

 

I'm not saying don't "go green" I'm just sick of how it is 'cool' to be green. If the greener solution is cheaper, you'd have to be stupid to pick the other option, if the other option is cheaper, I'd pick that option, no matter what anyone else picks. Maybe if we worried less about making a global aircon, we fixed curable diseases, the would may end up better, but that will mean more people in the world, so maybe wasting it would be slightly better in the long run....

 

 

When it comes to this post; I love you. That's exactly what I was going to say.

[i_love_burritos]

I do agree with your second paragraph, MageMan, but your whole "correlation =/= causation" non-argument is flawed.

 

It's like saying, sure we can say those who smoke have increased chances of getting cancer, but ignore it as there is no empirical, hard data to prove it. We have piles and piles of statistics but no clinical studies. And the clinicals studies that we do have, are also flawed by the presence of a few outliers -- namely people who have smoked their whole lives, and lived healthily to a ripe old age.

 

See how ridiculous that argument is ?

 

I agree that this whole concept of "global warming" and "climate change" is relatively recent, within 20 years, and only 180 years outside of industrialization, but please --

 

No one's arguing with the fact that pumping tonnes of chemicals into our air and water is a bad thing.

No one's arguing with the fact that our finite resources are quickly being used up by our infinite and insatiable human needs.

 

Work your way around that.

[PoorLepRecon]

Instead of throwing trillions of dollars at climate bull [cabbage] maybe we could spending it helping people who are dying in Africa because they don't have access to medicine that costs less than a buck.

 

Or, you know, we could spend trillions making it two degrees cooler for them. I'm sure that's what they need most.

 

Two degree's could have vast consequences on the world's weather patterns and climate conditions. This video (http://www.green.tv/6_degrees) gives a good idea of what could happen if the Earth's temperature raises even 1 degree Celsius.

 

Global Warming is a natural process. We have seen this throughout the history of Earth. But humans are drastically amplifying it. It is hard to deny that the rise in CO₂ is not at all affecting the Earth's atmosphere. What would have taken thousands of years to build up is now building up in just a few hundred years.

[Me_Hate_Libs]

All I'm gonna say is this. Are there some people who have a legitimate cause they believe in? Yes. However I am of the opinion that after the Soviet Union fell many of the Communists of the world needed somewhere to go. I think they went into the enviromental movement and are currently using it to achieve their goals. <_<

[Furah]

No one's arguing with the fact that pumping tonnes of chemicals into our air and water is a bad thing.

No one's arguing with the fact that our finite resources are quickly being used up by our infinite and insatiable human needs.

Of course nobody argues it's a bad thing, whether or not it causes this prolonged heat is another thing.

Anyone not agreeing with the fact that our needs are infinite while resources aren't, what needs to be done is to use the cheapest option until the cheapest becomes and infinite resource, then problem is solved. Rarity will force this to happen, once oil becomes (for example) $2,000US a barrel, a cheaper option will be used, if you believe in Global Warming then you want solar panels and hydro electric dams to be the cheapest.

[SeanCalibur]

My view on global warming is that human interference is the main cause. Yes the Earth naturally goes through a cycle of changing its' climates and goes through multiple 'Ice Ages', but it happened at a much slower rate and human interference is casuing it to speed up dramatically. People who deny global warming is happening need to open their eyes a bit more, it's happening right in front of us, but to be honest i think we've missed our chance to make a dramatic change, hopefully the global summit at Copenhagen can contribute as much as possible, rather than America backing out again.

[Range_This11]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma9xDJCa9m0

 

Just watch this and tell me that it's not humans. For christ's sake...

[cryztalwing]

This seems to back up a report from September. The Cap and Trade that is going throw the Senate will make it were you have to get a License for your Home. You wont be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of the bill. I am sure some of you might see it as a good thing to force people to "fight" global warming, but I am sure most home owners wont like it.In effect, the bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.

 

 

 

Yet another scientific scandal has come to light which knocks another whopping crater in the already shattered theory of anthropogenic global warming. Eight peer-reviewed studies, which for years have played a significant supporting role behind the IPPCs claims of AGW, have been shown to be fraudulent

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/print.html

[magekillr]

"Why don't we fund things into Africa instead?"

 

This is why:

 

US researchers found that across the continent, conflict was about 50% more likely in unusually warm years.

Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), they suggest strife arises when the food supply is scarce in warm conditions.

 

Climatic factors have been cited as a reason for several recent conflicts.

 

One is the fighting in Darfur in Sudan that according to UN figures has killed 200,000 people and forced two million more from their homes.

 

Previous research has shown an association between lack of rain and conflict, but this is thought to be the first clear evidence of a temperature link.

 

The researchers used databases of temperatures across sub-Saharan Africa for the period between 1981 and 2002, and looked for correlations between above average warmth and civil conflict in the same country that left at least 1,000 people dead.

 

Warm years increased the likelihood of conflict by about 50% - and food seems to be the reason why.

 

"Studies show that crop yields in the region are really sensitive to small shifts in temperature, even of half a degree (Celsius) or so," research leader Marshall Burke, from the University of California at Berkeley, told BBC News.

 

"If the sub-Saharan climate continues to warm and little is done to help its countries better adapt to high temperatures, the human costs are likely to be staggering."

 

Conflicting outcomes

 

If temperatures rise across the continent as computer models project, future conflicts are likely to become more common, researchers suggest.

 

Their study shows an increase of about 50% over the next 20 years.

 

When projections of social trends such as population increase and economic development were included in their model of a future Africa, temperature rise still emerged as a likely major cause of increasing armed conflict.

 

"We were very surprised to find that when you put things like economic growth and better governance into the mix, the temperature effect remains strong," said Dr Burke.

 

At next month's UN climate summit in Copenhagen, governments are due to debate how much money to put into helping African countries prepare for and adapt to impacts of climate change.

 

"Our findings provide strong impetus to ramp up investments in African adaptation to climate change by such steps as developing crop varieties less sensitive to extreme heat and promoting insurance plans to help protect farmers from adverse effects of the hotter climate," said Dr Burke.

 

Nana Poku, Professor of African Studies at the UK's Bradford University, suggested that it also pointed up the need to improve mechanisms for avoiding and resolving conflict in the continent.

 

"I think it strengthens the argument for ensuring we compensate the developing world for climate change, especially Africa, and to begin looking at how we link environmental issues to governance," he said.

 

"If the argument is that the trend towards rising temperatures will increase conflict, then yes we need to do something around climate change, but more fundamentally we need to resolve the conflicts in the first place."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8375949.stm

[nerdboyxxx]

How can you say it isn't real? Honestly it's a bit obvious it is happening. And no don't tell me its a natural cycle; we didn't have cars back when "Jesus" was born (just an example). So, no, we are speeding up the process of global warming and we should stop. Why would we try and prevent a cleaner, better world anyway?

 

I don't believe the few scientists that carry on about the big hoax. The media shouldn't blow it out of proportion, but it is obvious that it is a major threat to our planet and our society/economies.

That's the whole correlation = causation bull [cabbage] I am sick of, last time I checked, the levels of carbon dioxide levels and average global temperature moved at a similar rate, nearly 400 years between each other. If you can present me with concrete evidence of the max and min temperatures of every day that Jesus was alive, I'll believe you.

 

I'm not saying don't "go green" I'm just sick of how it is 'cool' to be green. If the greener solution is cheaper, you'd have to be stupid to pick the other option, if the other option is cheaper, I'd pick that option, no matter what anyone else picks. Maybe if we worried less about making a global aircon, we fixed curable diseases, the would may end up better, but that will mean more people in the world, so maybe wasting it would be slightly better in the long run....

 

Yeah I'm really looking forward to 2050 :thumbup: My house should be underwater. I'll be right next to the beach!

 

And when was the last time you checked?

 

I'm doing homework at the moment, I'll get back to you on concrete evidence. If you provide some that is ;)

 

Lets keep this clean ppl.

[Furah]

How can you say it isn't real? Honestly it's a bit obvious it is happening. And no don't tell me its a natural cycle; we didn't have cars back when "Jesus" was born (just an example). So, no, we are speeding up the process of global warming and we should stop. Why would we try and prevent a cleaner, better world anyway?

 

I don't believe the few scientists that carry on about the big hoax. The media shouldn't blow it out of proportion, but it is obvious that it is a major threat to our planet and our society/economies.

That's the whole correlation = causation bull [cabbage] I am sick of, last time I checked, the levels of carbon dioxide levels and average global temperature moved at a similar rate, nearly 400 years between each other. If you can present me with concrete evidence of the max and min temperatures of every day that Jesus was alive, I'll believe you.

 

I'm not saying don't "go green" I'm just sick of how it is 'cool' to be green. If the greener solution is cheaper, you'd have to be stupid to pick the other option, if the other option is cheaper, I'd pick that option, no matter what anyone else picks. Maybe if we worried less about making a global aircon, we fixed curable diseases, the would may end up better, but that will mean more people in the world, so maybe wasting it would be slightly better in the long run....

 

Yeah I'm really looking forward to 2050 :thumbup: My house should be underwater. I'll be right next to the beach!

 

And when was the last time you checked?

 

I'm doing homework at the moment, I'll get back to you on concrete evidence. If you provide some that is ;)

 

Lets keep this clean ppl.

Just loading up some data now for you, at 8K all pages seem to be evil. Especially when your av program needs to update it's virus definitions to the latest.

 

As I suck at finding what I'm looking for exactly on Google, I got you this little gem instead....

 

Carbon Dioxide Irrelivent In Climate Debate

[Range_This11]

There's more to global warming than carbon-dioxide, you know.

[1230abcz]

She said there's been a cooling trend as of the past few years, but that's all statistical nonsense. If you go back a few years and take a regression line, it shows a decrease in temperature; if you go back a bit more, it shows an increase. If someone claims that, overall, there's been a period of cooling, it's all coming out of their [wagon]. I wont argue that CO₂'s effects haven't been over dramatized, but saying that there's been a cooling when your base sample is one of the highest recorded temperatures in the century is stupid. These past few years we've had, by far, the hottest years out of this century, and this year is going to make the top 10 (just like the past few years) if the climate continues to behave like this. Taking a regression line from a few decades back shows an absolutely clear increase, no matter how many +/- years you go back and forth. I'm also not arguing whether global warming is man-made, I'm just saying that that lady's graphs are wrong.

[Barihawk]

Sure it's all a bunch of bullcrap. But that doesn't mean that going green isn't a bad thing. Not only does it protect the environment and make us healthy, but it lines our wallets with green as well.

 

The motivation was made up (and Al Gore should give back the damn peace prize) but I think we can start thinking about making the world better for better reasons than saving our own [wagon].

[Alg]

but I think we can start thinking about making the world better for better reasons than saving our own [wagon].

I was at a museum today that had a large exhibit about why we should stop global warming. Most of the reasons were that it inconvenienced humans in some way (Usually sea level rise destroying coastal areas, which makes sense because the city it's in would probably be the first to go in that case). Let's be honest here, the rest of nature would probably do better if humans managed to kill themselves off, but being humans, we don't want to hear that :razz:

Of the very little that did center around environmental damage, I just see it altering things. Yes, low lying areas such as wetlands and coasts will be flooded, but guess what? Now there's a new one in what used to be the inland area. And just because people are too stubborn to leave doesn't mean that other organisms won't move in... Nothing is constant, is it?

Still, people should be going green anyway. That same city happens to be extremely smoggy most of the time, and that can't be healthy even if it isn't warming the place. And if it saves the planet from a watery and overheated grave too, that's a very cool side effect.