Global Warming and the End Of The World....

[thegamerslink]

zeruel you clearly don't get the point of the subject....there are cyclic changes taking place that part is not in dispute, the fact that changing your light bulbs, forcing everyone back to a pre-industrial state or slowing your rate of exhaling and the idea of buying offsets. That is what is in heavy dispute. Those actions would be like taking a grain of sand off a beach as far as having any effect...if in fact it would have any affect at all. The climate change is something that this planet has and will continue to cycle through since it's creation. Same for the sun, which unless I am mistaken has a lot to do with our planetary temperature as well.

[zeruel]

Well yeah, you have a point there Sir... We just have to deal with it.

[ewomack]

The real debate behind "global warming" isn't that the earth's climate changes, but whether or not human activity has contributed to the recent rise in mean temperature. I haven't heard any arguments for going back to a pre-industrial state (though huge parts of the world still operate that way; many people in Africa, Eurasia, and South America continue to live on subsistence), but if industrial activity does lead to more warming during a natural warming trend (and this is the heart of the controversy) then we would do good to examine what we do because natural cycles plus human intervention could tip the climate scale to a dangerous degree. Climate change could easily wipe us out. True, it would take a while, but the earth becoming uninhabitable is one feasible extinction scenario. So saying "it's just cycles" doesn't give the entire story. If humans are contributing to warming (and, as I said, this is the controversy), then we'd be remiss not to do something to reduce those parts of our activities that contribute to that warming. That does not entail "going back to nature" but replacing climate compromising technologies with more climate friendly ones. The debate continues.

[thegamerslink]

We should continuously be seeking better means of providing for the industrial needs of our society. Be that alternate fuel sources alternate manufacturing methods etc. However it has been proven that our industrial practices have not had that much of an immediate impact on global climates.

[ewomack]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

However it has been proven that our industrial practices have not had that much of an immediate impact on global climates.

That's the controversy. Different groups have different things to say about it. Nothing has been proven or disproven, depending on who you ask. What I've seen (and I haven't seen much) is that academic scientists tend to think anthropogenic warming does exist and is significant and non-academic scientists tend to think it doesn't. Notice that I used the words "tend to." Neither side seems to have delivered a knock-out blow to the other, but each thinks they're correct beyond question. The extremes on both sides think the opposing side is trying to destroy the world: one by ignoring global warming and the other by stifling development. We're humans, we like to take sides, so it seems. But propoganda on both sides clouds the issues.

[thegamerslink]

Check these links out.....

http://www.livescience.com/environme...arth_tilt.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/10804
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm
There was also a recent article about the top 4 global temperature monitors one of which was NASA recording a decrease in global temperature in the last year of .7+ celcius degrees which effectively wipes out all global warming caused by carbon emission since 1900. In one year....there is credible science out there to counter the global warming alarmists, there are hard COLD facts in fact. It's just no one wants to hear it.

[StrongInTheArm]

One measurement don't make a trend.

I saw a documentary the other day about Bangladesh, where many in low lying areas are now living in virtually permanent flood conditions. One example was of a school that was cut off from its children, they had to take rides in boats to reach the school. Looking at the rises in water level the teacher reckoned the only remaining functional class room would be under water by next year. The kids where getting foot rot from having their feet constantly wet.

[thegamerslink]

Hmm...I believe that is what one of the articles was saying.....the measurements that the global warming alarmists are basing their entire reasoning behind was a measurement in glaciers actually 2 of them 5 years apart, and the study of the article showed that glacier drastically changed from year to year so basing a study from measurements 5 years a part would not necessarily be correct. Without a long study over a span of years can't say for sure it's entirely incorrect either. But the basis of the global warming alarmists is in the very least flawed.

Bangladesh’s geographical position and topography have always made it vulnerable to the regional climate, especially storms and flooding.

And you can't just look at a limited history of someplace and call it permanent global warming or cooling....by limited time I'm talking 40-100 years. The earth is a lot older than that and there are proven cycles that take a lot longer than that to go through, while we haven't recorded things long enough to know the actual cycles personally the earth itself tells us what to expect and at the same time we know by the axis of the earth and it orbiting habits that these cycles will be occurring regardless of life on the planet.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

Check these links out.....

http://www.livescience.com/environme...arth_tilt.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/10804
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm
There was also a recent article about the top 4 global temperature monitors one of which was NASA recording a decrease in global temperature in the last year of .7+ celcius degrees which effectively wipes out all global warming caused by carbon emission since 1900. In one year....there is credible science out there to counter the global warming alarmists, there are hard COLD facts in fact. It's just no one wants to hear it.

In favour of short studies?

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

And you can't just look at a limited history of someplace and call it permanent global warming or cooling....by limited time I'm talking 40-100 years. The earth is a lot older than that and there are proven cycles that take a lot longer than that to go through, while we haven't recorded things long enough to know the actual cycles personally the earth itself tells us what to expect and at the same time we know by the axis of the earth and it orbiting habits that these cycles will be occurring regardless of life on the planet.

Not in favour of short studies?


Which is it?

[thegamerslink]

A quick answer would be, you have the short studies to refute the short studies that the alarmists are basing their entire life changing theories on. And then you have to back that up with the it doesn't really matter because all the theories you have are based on short term studies any how so you again have nothing to base anything on, but then again I don't on my side either except for the ground core sample studies and the like of course.

[thegamerslink]

Not to mention the small little fact that just 30 short years ago we were all doomed and we would never see 2010 because the human race was going to be nearly wiped out and the world changed as we know it by the new "Ice Age" mostly caused by the industrial emissions of modern man. I just don't understand how that could go in a 180 degree turn in just 30 years?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

One measurement don't make a trend.

I saw a documentary the other day about Bangladesh, where many in low lying areas are now living in virtually permanent flood conditions. One example was of a school that was cut off from its children, they had to take rides in boats to reach the school. Looking at the rises in water level the teacher reckoned the only remaining functional class room would be under water by next year. The kids where getting foot rot from having their feet constantly wet.

Sea levels have been rising for years, and will continue to rise. Attempting to make an argument by innuendo that rising sea levels is caused by man is a rather specious way of debating, and silly on top of it. The glaciers that once covered Oregon and Washington state are almost entirely gone, and they were melting long before the industrial age.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Sea levels have been rising for years, and will continue to rise. Attempting to make an argument by innuendo that rising sea levels is caused by man is a rather specious way of debating, and silly on top of it. The glaciers that once covered Oregon and Washington state are almost entirely gone, and they were melting long before the industrial age.

Hey, dude, no fair! I don't know what specious means. Hang on a minute!

Websters: "having deceptive attraction or allure"

Well, I like you too, you know, but I am a married man John.

I merely made mention of a documentary I saw. It was a real documentary, talking to real people, showing real conditions. I'm sceptical by nature apparently, so I rarely take these things without a pinch of salt. The school was real and had been thus enclosed by water for three years with the water rising each year.

I was merely passing on something I saw for consideration. I made no mention of what I believed to be the cause.

I might add that I mentioned Bangladesh as far back as post 24 originally and this as much as anything follows on from that. At that point it was in relation to the displacement of populations, which according to the afore mentioned documentary is actually happening. Sand bars that some Bangladeshi used to live on are being washed away and people are already having to re-locate. Currently the relocation is restricted to within the country itself.

[John Scott]

I was merely passing on something I saw for consideration. I made no mention of what I believed to be the cause.

That's why I call it "argument by innuendo". It's like the people who post the picture of the glacier-covered "before" picture, and the green valley "after" picture in global warming threads. The innuendo is that global warming caused it to melt.

[ewomack]

[quote=thegamerslink;846876]Check these links out.....

http://www.livescience.com/environme...arth_tilt.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/10804
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm[\QUOTE]

The first link didn't work for me (it said "article no longer available"). The second link has a clear agenda with its tagline "exposing and combating liberal media bias." That pretty much begs the question as to their position. More important, the article he links to is not conclusive to the extent he claims. In other words: he's stretching. The third link was more about Timothy Ball's complaining about the politics behind "global warming" than about "global warming" itself. He presents no data apart from "it's not happening." He just states, he doesn't prove or disprove anything. He's passionate, though. I'll give him that.