Can we revive the GLOBAL WARMING question?

[busmaster11]

Here's a new article from CNN, and might I add, its very alarming, and packed with facts:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science/07/12/global.warming/index.html

It contains "the most up-to-date research and forcasts" by the IPCC and the world's formost climatologists...

Now, I gather from previous threads that people whose stance is against treaties such as 1997 Kyoto, that it is due to the fact that America's economic burden is known to be great, whereas, the impact humans have on the climate is relatively unknown, correct?

I wonder how much longer it'll take before we can put that excuse to rest... And as long as people are selfishly accusing others to be "tree-huggers" and making this into a partisan issue, we'll never get past this smokescreen...

 

[viewton]

<< Can we revive the GLOBAL WARMING question? >>



sure, why not?

 

[ToBeMe]

No...................It's To Damned HOT Right Now!!!

 

[Pyro]

Bush to Cheyney: &quot;Wow, according the the UN the climate is becoming hotter. We'll need more coal powerplants for the extra airconditioning&quot;

sadly, the above joke is not far from the truth.




All the environmentalist bashers are far too short sighted and thus cannot be argued with. When people say things like &quot;we might not be causing it, we dont know, so we shouldn't do anything&quot; it really gets me mad. Have these people ever thought that it COULD be us and our emisions? If they were to have their way and in 50-75 years we discover that we WERE causing it, what will they say? &quot;Oh well, we didn't know back then, but its to late now&quot;.

Isn't better to be safe than be sorry later?

 

[Pacfanweb]

That UN report is very much full of it. They have teams of scientists on both sides of the argument, and they basically ignore the ones who disagree with the &quot;treehugger&quot; view.
I heard a professor from UVA on a local radio station yesterday who is part of the UN group, and he says the reports like this are basically BS. Doesn't surprise me much.
Funny how many of the same &quot;experts&quot; who just 20 years ago were predicting a new ice age are now crying about global warming. None of them really know.

 

[mrchan]

the problem is there are extremist on both ends. i definitely believe global warming is happening, but some people take it to an extreme level. on scientist in the new yorker a couple years back said global warming would increase high latitude rainfall, and melt glaciers. this makes the ocean colder. warm water currents like the north atlantic current that takes warm water from the gulf up to europe would stop. this causes europes climate to decline, eliminates their ability to grow food, creates starvation, starts food wars, and lead to an end to the planet. how can you not doubt that? =P

 

[busmaster11]

Pacfanweb, do you have any URLs that says the UN is ignoring the other half of the experts panel?

 

[Pacfanweb]

<<Pacfanweb, do you have any URLs that says the UN is ignoring the other half of the experts panel? >>

No, I heard the guy yesterday on the radio. He was on the UN panel of scientists and basically said that the info from the report was issued before they had even finished it.
Bottom line is, there is just as much info to contradict global warming as there is to support it. Whether people like you choose to hear the other side is really up to the individuals.
You linked to an article that was &quot;packed with facts&quot;, but do you really know that they are truly all &quot;facts&quot;? No, of course you don't.

 

[Pr0Hawk]

Global Warming...Pffft :disgust:

 

[Deeko]

Global Warming is just something for enviromentalists to complain about. Yes, the average tempurature is rising, but it is a part of the natural cycle of the planet...if you look back at what the tempurature has been, you see it gradually heats up, and then drops off sharply. Granted no one was around to record that data, but I would imagine they have fairly accurate ways of figuring that stuff out.

 

[busmaster11]

Pacfanweb, I'd say that an article from CNN is a better source of facts than something someguy heard said on the radio...

Like I said, as long as we keep hiding behind the guise of &quot;not enough info&quot; no one every has to get anything done, right?

 

[Pacfanweb]

<<Pacfanweb, I'd say that an article from CNN is a better source of facts than something someguy heard said on the radio... >>

I wouldn't. The guy was a professor who is on the UN's evironmental panel. Obviously he knows what he's talking about. You don't need to have an internet link for something to be true.
Given the UN's past history, I'd tend to give a fair amount of credibility to someone on their panel that says the UN isn't quite on the up and up.
If you choose to simply believe something you read on CNN, then that's your choice. I never said we should do nothing. I say that we should do something that makes sense, not just do something for the sake of doing it. I've read several articles tonight that say that even global warming advocates generally agree that the Kyoto treaty wouldn't help anyway. If we're going to do something, let's at least do something that will help.
As far as whether we NEED to do anything, that is very debatable. We do know that nature puts thousands of times the amount of greenhouse gases that humans do, always has, and the planet is just fine. There is plenty of evidence that this is a normal trend as far as the life of this planet goes. I see no need to act rashly until we can come up with more solid proof that we even need to do anything. We can't kill the planet. It will be here long after we are gone.

 

[Pacfanweb]

<<Yes, the average tempurature is rising, but it is a part of the natural cycle of the planet...if you look back at what the tempurature has been, you see it gradually heats up, and then drops off sharply>>

Correct. We had a rise in temps. back in the 1930's, followed by a drop from the 50's to the 70's, and it was rising from the late 70's to 1990.
I'd bet that if the avg temperature where I live (NC) was higher in the 90's than the 80's, it was due to the temps in the early 90's. The avg. temp in the late 90's to now has been lower. Our summers were absolutely unbearable in the early 90's, got into the 90's in May and stayed there until September.
Now the last few years it hasn't gotten hot and stayed hot for more than a week or two at the time.
We'll see in a few years I guess.

 

[busmaster11]

<< I wouldn't. The guy was a professor who is on the UN's evironmental panel. Obviously he knows what he's talking about. You don't need to have an internet link for something to be true.
Given the UN's past history, I'd tend to give a fair amount of credibility to someone on their panel that says the UN isn't quite on the up and up.
If you choose to simply believe something you read on CNN, then that's your choice. I never said we should do nothing. I say that we should do something that makes sense, not just do something for the sake of doing it. I've read several articles tonight that say that even global warming advocates generally agree that the Kyoto treaty wouldn't help anyway. If we're going to do something, let's at least do something that will help.
As far as whether we NEED to do anything, that is very debatable. We do know that nature puts thousands of times the amount of greenhouse gases that humans do, always has, and the planet is just fine. There is plenty of evidence that this is a normal trend as far as the life of this planet goes. I see no need to act rashly until we can come up with more solid proof that we even need to do anything. We can't kill the planet. It will be here long after we are gone. >>




Would this one professor somehow possess more credibility than the majority of scientists and experts represented by the CNN article? Furthermore, I've known about this possible phenomenon since sixth grade, where I wrote papers on it, (I'm 24) well before I even heard of CNN.

As far as nature is concerned, thats all true, but nature is part of the natural cycle, and humans are not. Cars alone generate more than 10 tons of solid pollution a year. Each. Whats' the volume of gas a ton of solid pollution takes up?

If you think the evidence posted in the article can suggest only normal climactic patterns such as those throughout history, thats fine. You can't distort facts, but you do have the freedom to distort interpretations of them. What we are seeing are changins in a few dacades time, less than a blink of an eye in geologic terms - and I'm telling you, changes don't happen this quickly in nature.

Yeah, the planet will be here when we're gone... it may look like Venus's runaway greenhouse effect, but it'll be here.

 

[Pacfanweb]

<<What we are seeing are changins in a few dacades time, less than a blink of an eye in geologic terms - and I'm telling you, changes don't happen this quickly in nature>>

Obviously you didn't read my post that mentioned that we had rises in temps during the 30's, followed by cooling from the 50's to the 70's......exactly the changes you say &quot;don't happen in nature&quot;...you know, a &quot;few decades time, less than a blink of an eye in geologic terms&quot;.

So much for that theory.

 

[busmaster11]

actually I missed your post cuz I was posting.

I'm not sure how much you understand regarding these issues, so no disrespect intended, but one thing that most climatologists agree on is the climate will be harder to predict. It will fluctuate more, within a shorter period of time, due partially to our influence...

 

[TripleJ]

I saw an article in the Guardian newspaper that said rich nations such as the US could be sued by climate change victims such as Bangladesh(they get bad floods) for billions of dollars. Hmmm.

 

[etech]

Myths and Meteorology

It's late and I had a long day, please read the above article and I'll join in later tonight.

 

[busmaster11]

Hey Etech... I tried not to bring partisanship into this, but you showed up with a link to a place with the most ultra-right-wing agenda... Of all the sites you can cite from. Well, I'm not going to argue it, since I believe they're biased, and that not one word uttered from Bush in that said speech came from the heart...

What? CNN's biased too? Okay, I give up...

Peace.