Platy

Honestly, I'm skeptical about it.

To me, the ecological campaigners have forced the governments hand in suggesting that man is entirely responsible for the Earth's warming. It is something that has naturally happened over the course of the planet's history (billions of years unless you're a creationist, then just over 2000). I also find it strange that in this time of global warming that the temperatures recorded seem to be on the decrease, not increase.

What does everyone else think?

__________________

TransparentOpacity

Well, it's not really called global warming now, it's called climate change.

And all the statistics say it's happening, so why not believe it?

__________________

Platy

To make things clearer, I was talking about "Man-made Global Warming" and not the natural global warming/cooling cycle the earth goes through. Climate Change just seems to be a government title awarded to it.

Statistics also prove (assuming you were talking about the same subject I was) that it's not happening. These are rarely published as it would look bad and the ecological campaigners would get rage.

I think it really depends on what you want to think as nothing seems 100% yet.

__________________

TheHunter360

I'm skeptical the earth's had a natural cycle of warming and cooling its a mere coincidence the earth's temp is getting slightly warmer. Consider this. Al Gore is making a fortune off of green technology. I'd be a great business opportunity for him if everyone suddenly cared for the environment.

__________________

Platy

I read a while ago that it could make him a billionaire. I also read about him that his home/land used more electricity than a small town, kinda ironic.

__________________

TheHunter360

Al Gore's entire family had a stake in that industry. Gore is just trying to make more money for himself, and its working.

__________________

WeAre138

I don't have the mental capacity to understand whether it's real or not, man made or not - but here's what I'll say - I don't give a fuck, yeah!

I won't live more than 70 years, what do I give a shit what happens to the Earth after that? Pollute, man!

And not to mention Gore's fucking house.....hypocrite.

beasTer

Just to clarify one thing, in general Creationists believe the world is 6000-12000 years old, up to a possible 20000 max depending on who you talk to. This is assuming they believe that the recounts of creation in Genesis were a literal 7 days and not a figurative 7 days, in which case... who knows.


As far as global warming goes... I honestly believe that this is just a cycle the world goes through, and that while we are a negative influence in several respects... the world will cycle out of it. That doesn't mean we still shouldn't make strides to correct our errors, but I don't think we are going to encounter a doomsday ecosystem just because we are wasteful.

jamesmsv

The whole thing is a media storm because they have to always have something to fall back on when terrorism is having a quiet day.
For some basic earth history, it has been 'heating up' for about 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age, so it is perfectly natural for it to continue to do so.
Does mankind's activity increase the rate at which this is occuring? Probably.
Will humanity come together and fight the problem as one? Highly unlikely.
Even if we stopped all activity today that contributed to raising temperatures, the macro climate of the planet will almost certainly lead us into another period of high temperatures/water levels as it has done more than once in the past regardless of how much CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere.
That said, it still makes sense that it can't be a good thing to pump polluting crap into the air and water without any repurcussions. We should all treat the earth like our own home, unfortunately the earth will not show the same regard to our descendants in future. but any illusions we have that we can alter the massive power of the world's climate significantly is nothing more than a story the media like to use to be dramatic and sell advertising space with.

abc

Your kids? Their kids?

I'm not going to go on forever and say "future blood relatives" as that'd miss the point. My point is would you not feel a slight remorse about bringing your own children into a world of possible hell. Although astoundingly brilliant, this world is atrocious enough without an increasing significance of natural disasters.


Climate Change however is NOT a myth. Global Warming is NOT a myth. However the "warming" part has happened for the time being, we're now on the global cooling part. It'd be naive to assume that because earth's temps have been going down for 5 years in a row now that we are right on the tip of the planet's cycle (ice age/warming) rather just on a wobbly bit of the VERY wobbly (i.e. not a perfect mathematically defined curve) temp/time graph.

Although changes in temperature and the resulting impact on the climate (the weather does not just get hotter. Global warming does not mean Britain will become like spain within 4 years. Global warming means the EXTREMES of the climate get more extreme. Hotter summers, colder winters)


Although losing island nations and more lives to extreme weather is a great tradegy, I am far more scared of what humans will incite on each other in the future than anything nature has to throw at us. Afterall nature is not prejudice or hateful, purely geographical.

__________________
"I don't like new Linkin Park, I don't like old Linkin Park... I JUST LIKE LINKIN PARK"

COD owner - COD expansion pack owner - COD2 owner - COD2: BRO player - COD3 owner - COD4 owner - COD:WaW owner - COD: MW2 owner - COD: BO owner

This is getting repetitive.

blub212212

I was gonna say this yesterday but decided it was too long to write.

What I AM scared off, is global warming yes, but also the moon. It is possible for the moon to be hit by a meteor in 2014 or so..(i forget the year, its in the 2010's or 2020's) and be spun out of our orbit. You know what that means?
Our Earth's rotation will be thrown off its axis, and the world would spin aimlessly. Half the earth (north and south split) would be burning, other side would be freezing. then it'd switch. Instant death to all.

And on top of that, there are also these fish things that eat people and have no natural predators. They migrated all over the world from some sea in Korea or something. AND THEY CAN WALK ON LAND AND RUN AS FAST AS SOME WILD CATS

__________________

OzballO

seriously? Those fish cannot move that fast I'm assuming you are talking about the Snakehead. I'd be more worried about Abaguchies and Chupacabras. (Use google to look these up)

Anyway I don't think man made global warming is as bad as they make it sound. The earth goes through cycles. I don't have the source but there was a report in like the 20's or 30's that was talking about catastrophic global warming, hmm.... I'm not too worried about it cause it won't get that bad with people going green. Also volcanos put more CO2 into the air than anything human-made.

blub212212

well i learned about it last year, my mind is a little rusty. Either way, they freak me out. what are abaguchies and chupacabras. I think i've heard of the latter

__________________

jamesmsv

I wouldn't worry about predators. Any other mammal will suffer the same as humans if our environment deteriorates, and it is likely sea-based life will also suffer greatly (changing temperatures and currents greatly affect the availability of low-level life which cascades up the food chain).
It's insects, arachnids and reptiles that will rule the world. all hail our new lizard leaders. Maybe David Icke was right......

Skuh

Haven't read all the posts but I will say this.
A lot of so called scientists and politicians have come out and said the sea level is going to rise when the ice in the Arctic melts.
Get a glass put some ice in it and fill it with water.
When the ice melts does the water level rise?
No.

jamesmsv

Very true, but I believe a lot of the ice in antarctica is on land, unlike the Arctic where it is indeed floating in the sea. I do agree that it's something often overlooked by the militant believers.
That's the whole problem really - we're fed a load of mis-information and half-truths for whatever reason (corporate dishonesty, scientists looking for sensational discoveries, political whim, the list goes on) and even when a group of obviously intellgent people comes together to discuss the matter it becomes entirely apparent that no-one really knows the whole story.
That's probably what scares the scientists the most - they can't find a definitive answer. Just look at how wrong weather forecasters are one day in advance, and yet they want to predict the earth's climate over the next 100years? What a joke.

Skuh

I feel a bit phoney just dropping comments in the Debate section, but I haven't got time to go into in depth. To reply though, I carefully said the Arctic. This is because it is the area often sited on the news. As regards Antarctica, briefly - there is ice melt here but it isn't clear cut. One of the ice shelves is increasing not melting. Also explorers and scientists have been monitoring the ice on Kilimanjaro melting since the early 1800's. Before any supposed man made global warming.
Also the River thames used to Freeze every year. They used to hold markets on it in winter. This stopped 200 hundred years ago.
8000 years ago britain had a land bridge to Europe and was once a tropical climate. When the romans were in britain they grew olives, (only just been able to do this again). Land mass and the climate both change. To think we can stop the climate changing is naive. Also a lot of countries are looking forward to this if it does happen - Greenland.

EDIT: two more things to bring to everyone's attention.
In the 50's/60's scientists were worried about global cooling.
In the 70's/80's scientists were worried about pollution. One of their answers to combat this was catalytic converters. What do cat's do? Increase carbon. Massively!

JoLo

Global Warming/Climate Change

My thoughts are (all politics aside) there is nothing at all wrong with trying to find clean fuels, more healthy and eco friendly alternatives as long as it is reasonably priced and thoroughly safe. I also think that humans, although more highly evolved, are also just another organism on this planet and being that highly evolved species it is our duty to protect and nurture our home and all its inhabitants. ( I know very hippy-dippy)

With that said, I do not believe that human’s industrial technologies have single handedly sparked a global climate change. I think it could have contributed some, but not entirely. I am not a creationist so I fully believe that we are a very short blip in Earth’s LONG history. I believe the planet has been through much ebb and flow and the rise and fall of many organisms and species have been seen over billions of years while the Earth was heating and cooling.

I think because we are so young and only have ice core samples to decipher what it is the earth has gone through for millions and sometimes billions of years, we will have to see what happens. But there is nothing wrong with trying to keep this place, Earth and our home as clean and universally friendly (to the other creatures we share it with) as possible for not only our future generations but for all future generations.

Also...the Hopi (Native American Tribe) believe that the Earth was already destroyed 3 times because of the wickedness of men. Much like the stories in religions all over the world.

__________________

Skuh

Another thing I was thinking (though this is not evidence for or against. Just something to think about) of is this. We are told that climate change is the biggest problem that faces humanity (convenient how this changes a lot) and one of the biggest causes is the automobile. There is an advert in the uk that tells you to drive less because of this.
BMW and Honda both have production hydrogen cars available now. The emissions (after the car has been built and delivered) are zero. There is nowhere to fill this up and the government has no plans to change this. It is the same picture accross much of europe.
Why? I know there is the economical answer but id it really is THE biggest threat to humanity..........
I agree with jolo about the pollution side of things though. On that side it makes perfect sense to switch to some other fuel i.e hydrogen.
Tax and other government revenue is far more important than any threat to humanity, real or otherwise.

JoLo

They have a few hydrogen refueling stations in California, I think the Governator drives a hydrogen car...or at least just has one. You can purchase the refueling station to be at your house, but it costs a fortune much like Hydrogen cars do. To be able to have water as your by product of a vehicle is amazing, and it's revolutionary technology that can be applied to MANY forms of transportation effectively. However ,the technology is so new, it's costs too much for the everyman to afford it. And lets be honest the 3% of the world that can afford it aren't the issue in emissions its the fact that the rest of the world can not and therefore must use, less evironmentally friendly but more cost effective forms of transportation.

__________________

Skuh

The thing is the developed world could use these cars. Yes they are expensive,
biggest threat to humanity > expense though.
The developing world I exempt from this but not the developed world. Okay so everyone cannot afford them. When Honda first introduced a Hybrid car into the UK. it was sold as a loss. Everyone of them. IIRC it cost the customer around half of the true cost. The shortfall was made up by the government and Honda.
When LPG first became available there was not the delay in introducing it at the Petrol station. Nor unleaded. other schemes such as car share (where you use a car in the city park it, and later somebody else uses it and so on) could incorporate these vehicles quite comfortably. If there were anywhere stations to fill them. Stateside I don't know about, but what is the situation like outside of California as they are a very green thinking state (or so it seems from outside).

p.s We are also told we must do "our bit" even if the developing world cannot.

jamesmsv

sorry, didn't catch that you'd already disclaimered that bit! That's the peril of trying to read a forum that's not work-related when at work..... and yes, it does make debating something like this very difficult.

Skuh

Yeah thats the same problem I have.
back OT...

Platy

On the topic of the hydrogen car. The Honda Clarity is priced around the same as an ordinary family car. However, the problem from stopping them taking over the world is the hydrogen. It's the most abundant element in the universe, the problem is it's always stuck to something else. The guy who finds a way to seperate it and store it the easiest (cheapest) way will become very, very, very, very, very rich.

__________________

R0YAL FITZ

You cant see the level change with the naked eye at this small of amounts. frozen ice is more dense then its liquid. (water). when the ice melts in LARGE amounts scientist will say that the water is rising, but i highly doubt the water level change will greatly effect how people live. maybe push the beachs back a mile? oh well. more vacation spots

__________________


I have quit my job with Microsoft, and now working for Sony