CBS News Confirms... Global Warming is MAN MADE!

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Would you rather be an environmentalist or a warmongering capitalist?

Anyhow.. what is the worthless argument?

Global warming is real or not real

Humans are responsible for accelerating the rate of Global Warming or not

I rather be a capitalist because they will not risk their environment for short term gains. If you look around the world the most ecological damage EVER done were by government controlled economies.

I do not believe humans can accelerate global warming short of a heavy nuclear war. CO2 levels have been higher in the past than now, and they are cyclic. Just like temperatures (which were trending down from the 40s to the 80s... )

So Global Warming is real, mankind isn't powerful enough to relevant.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Even if it is a partially natural occurence.. could anyone believe that we are not helping to speed it along?

tear down forests
pollute the hell out of oceans and raise their temps
build heat conductiing roads everywhere
build giant heat conducting buildings everywhere
pollute the skys and atmosphere

What do we do that would have a cooling effect on the planet?

roads are not a significant contributors to the temperature in the local area, unless you count the space between the lines.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: dahunan

Would you rather be an environmentalist or a warmongering capitalist?

Anyhow.. what is the worthless argument?

Global warming is real or not real

Humans are responsible for accelerating the rate of Global Warming or not

I rather be a capitalist because they will not risk their environment for short term gains. If you look around the world the most ecological damage EVER done were by government controlled economies.

I do not believe humans can accelerate global warming short of a heavy nuclear war. CO2 levels have been higher in the past than now, and they are cyclic. Just like temperatures (which were trending down from the 40s to the 80s... )

So Global Warming is real, mankind isn't powerful enough to relevant.

QFT

I pretty much said the same thing, in different words. Thanks for mirroring my thoughts 😉

 

[KlokWyze]

HYPE.

 

[idiotekniQues]

obviously because we as humans can have such a profound effect on our environment by polluting our water, air & land in a very serious manner, or the fact that we can trigger a nuclear holocaust at a moment's notice, or that we can genetically modify life with science - all this is simple enough proof for all those who say *gasp* there is no way we can affect climate duh.

i mean hello.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
obviously because we as humans can have such a profound effect on our environment by polluting our water, air & land in a very serious manner, or the fact that we can trigger a nuclear holocaust at a moment's notice, or that we can genetically modify life with science - all this is simple enough proof for all those who say *gasp* there is no way we can affect climate duh.

i mean hello.

No kidding, some people can't hear/see anything it seems.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
I do not believe humans can accelerate global warming short of a heavy nuclear war. CO2 levels have been higher in the past than now, and they are cyclic. Just like temperatures (which were trending down from the 40s to the 80s... )

So Global Warming is real, mankind isn't powerful enough to be relevant.

CO2 levels have indeed been higher in the past. However, the rising CO2 levels of today (which can be attributed to man) are higher than anytime for which we have good data. (Ice cores dating back 650 thousand years) Much lower quality data seems to indicate that we have not had CO2 levels so high for the past 10 or so million years; prior to the glacial/interglacial periods.

The rapid rise in temperature and CO2 of today are not seen anywhere in the 650k year old record we have. And while the earth did cool during the 40s - 70s, much of this cooling can be attributed to human pollution in the form of aerosols which raise the planets albedo (more sunlight is reflected).

We are burning hydrocarbons that have been stored in the earth for millions to hundreds of millions of years. This carbon has been locked out of the atmosphere for this time and releasing it does have consequences.

 

[irwincur]

I can't trust anyone that has essentially built a $14 billion dollar trust fund industry off of the taxpayers backs from essentially nothing a decade ago. Global warming is nothing more than a money laundering racket for researchers and enviro-corps looking for handouts.

Plus, it makes great doom and gloom news, they will never drop it from the rotation...

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
obviously because we as humans can have such a profound effect on our environment by polluting our water, air & land in a very serious manner, or the fact that we can trigger a nuclear holocaust at a moment's notice, or that we can genetically modify life with science - all this is simple enough proof for all those who say *gasp* there is no way we can affect climate duh.

i mean hello.

No kidding, some people can't hear/see anything it seems.

I'm not understanding you guys. Maybe teh batteries are dead in my sarcasm meter?

But if you're saying that the fact that we can genetically modify life proves we can significantly affect the climate, well that's silly. What does the one thing have to do with the other?

It's similar to saying because I can bench press 250lbs that proves I can pass a French language test.

Frern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ericlp
What do we do that would have a cooling effect on the planet?

Lets all agree on a date to leave our refrigerator doors....... That outta help cool things down.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: dahunan
What do we do that would have a cooling effect on the planet?

I would think that the particulate matter (pollution), generated by electrical plants, and released into the atmosphere would have a cooling effect.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
obviously because we as humans can have such a profound effect on our environment by polluting our water, air & land in a very serious manner, or the fact that we can trigger a nuclear holocaust at a moment's notice, or that we can genetically modify life with science - all this is simple enough proof for all those who say *gasp* there is no way we can affect climate duh.

i mean hello.

No kidding, some people can't hear/see anything it seems.

I'm not understanding you guys. Maybe teh batteries are dead in my sarcasm meter?

But if you're saying that the fact that we can genetically modify life proves we can significantly affect the climate, well that's silly. What does the one thing have to do with the other?

It's similar to saying because I can bench press 250lbs that proves I can pass a French language test.

Frern

no, your analogy is as shortsighted as those you are defending. to be expected.

it is the fact taht so many people simply come out and say 'no, humans cannot affect climate change we dont have that power' with little or NO scientific evidence to back that up. they refute entire studies with that simple statement.

but yet we as humans can make our air unbreathable, our water undrinkable and our land unliveable. we can completely detroy life on the planet and we can alter the very essence of life via genetic engineering.

quite simply, the simpleton argument that 'humans have no power to affect climate' is idiocy.

continue.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

no, your analogy is as shortsighted as those you are defending. to be expected.

Bwahahahah. Who the heck am I defending? I'm merely pointing out the illogic of your assertion.

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues


but yet we as humans can make our air unbreathable, our water undrinkable and our land unliveable. we can completely detroy life on the planet and we can alter the very essence of life via genetic engineering.

I don't question the veracity of the above (well, I don't think that we can completely destroy life on the planet), but I still refute that their existence proves humans can have a significant effect on climate.

You'll have to look elsewhere for that proof if you wanna be pursuasive.

Fern

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
So sad all the people that so vehemently deny that we caused global warming. It's a fact, it's our man made destiny, if you don't believe it, fine, keep your head up your ass, but it's the truth and more information is being disclosed and discovered that confirms this. Check out the front page of USA Today if you get a chance.

Wasn't global cooling a "fact" a couple of decades ago? Wasn't it a "fact" that the world was flat a few centuries ago?

Dont forget another fine example of mans ego.

The sun circled the earth and the entire universe did as well.

These comments are irrelevant. If you don't use the information science gives you, then it's worthless. If you don't like the data you are getting, use scientific measures to disprove it.

No comment on the GW issue, though 😛

 

[Comanche]

This arguement over global warming gets old. Try googling global cooling and you get almost as many hits as you do for global warming.

But more to my point. Scientists are in now way in aggreement about global warming. They are now saying that methane may have more of an impact than CO2.
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/20...d_be_far_worse_than_carbon_dioxide.htm

And something that most people never talk about is water vapor. Water vapor makes up 95% of greenhouse gasses, but we can't test that.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html

And finally, even though this article says that sunspot activity isn't a proven catalyst, it seems that as sunspot acitvity goes up so do the temps. During the little ice age sunspot activity was at a minimum, for the past 70 years it has been at a high.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sunspot_record_041027.html

What it all comes down to is that nobody knows. Nobody knows what will be in the future and especially nobody knows how we will react. 100 years ago we had no idea that people would be flying in planes that could hold 500 people. 100 years ago we had no idea that we would have medicines that could cure venerial disease. 100 years ago we had no idea that in 60 years we would be landing on the moon.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Comanche
This arguement over global warming gets old. Try googling global cooling and you get almost as many hits as you do for global warming.

But more to my point. Scientists are in now way in aggreement about global warming. They are now saying that methane may have more of an impact than CO2.
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/20...d_be_far_worse_than_carbon_dioxide.htm

And something that most people never talk about is water vapor. Water vapor makes up 95% of greenhouse gasses, but we can't test that.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html

And finally, even though this article says that sunspot activity isn't a proven catalyst, it seems that as sunspot acitvity goes up so do the temps. During the little ice age sunspot activity was at a minimum, for the past 70 years it has been at a high.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sunspot_record_041027.html

What it all comes down to is that nobody knows. Nobody knows what will be in the future and especially nobody knows how we will react. 100 years ago we had no idea that people would be flying in planes that could hold 500 people. 100 years ago we had no idea that we would have medicines that could cure venerial disease. 100 years ago we had no idea that in 60 years we would be landing on the moon.

Water Vapour, Methane, and other Gasses have been known to also be GHGs for a long time. CO2 is just the biggest problem and requires the most effort.

"Hits" on a Search engine means nothing.

 

[IGBT]

..cbs? you guys still watch that crap? with their sliding/spiraling down viwer ship how do they stay on the air?

 

[Comanche]

[/quote]

Water Vapour, Methane, and other Gasses have been known to also be GHGs for a long time. CO2 is just the biggest problem and requires the most effort.

"Hits" on a Search engine means nothing.[/quote]


I guess the concept was too much for you to grasp.

Try this
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Comanche

Water Vapour, Methane, and other Gasses have been known to also be GHGs for a long time. CO2 is just the biggest problem and requires the most effort.

"Hits" on a Search engine means nothing.[/quote]


I guess the concept was too much for you to grasp.

Try this
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm



[/quote]

I grasp the concept just fine. Garbage In, Garbage Out

 

[Coldkilla]

What? CBS has something to say? *Flips channel*

Gooooooooo Global Warming!

 

[pauldovi]

I think you need to add Dan Rather to the title of this thread.

If you truly believe that people are the cause for the earth warming, you have no appreciation for science. The magenetic field is moving, the moon is moving, ect, ect.

 

[dredd2929]

It IS true that on average Earth is warmer than it was 300 years ago. However, it is also true that on average Earth is colder than it was 1000 years ago. In view of these facts, how can it be concluded that man is the cause of this recent warming trend?

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: dredd2929
It IS true that on average Earth is warmer than it was 300 years ago. However, it is also true that on average Earth is colder than it was 1000 years ago. In view of these facts, how can it be concluded that man is the cause of this recent warming trend?

Where did you read that the earth is colder than it was 1000 years ago?


Edit: Well, even if you do have evidence of a warmer earth 1000 years ago, this does not disprove anthropogenic global warming. The rate of increase of CO2 is unprecedented for at least 600 thousand years and the rate of warming appears to be just as much of an anomaly in the climate record.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: dredd2929
It IS true that on average Earth is warmer than it was 300 years ago. However, it is also true that on average Earth is colder than it was 1000 years ago. In view of these facts, how can it be concluded that man is the cause of this recent warming trend?

Where did you read that the earth is colder than it was 1000 years ago?


Edit: Well, even if you do have evidence of a warmer earth 1000 years ago, this does not disprove anthropogenic global warming. The rate of increase of CO2 is unprecedented for at least 600 thousand years and the rate of warming appears to be just as much of an anomaly in the climate record.

Thats right. Because science is irrefutable, and our knowledge of earth's condition 500, 1000, or a million years ago is absolutely clear.

And carbon dating is 100% accurate too

 

[dredd2929]

Originally posted by: shoegazer
Well, even if you do have evidence of a warmer earth 1000 years ago, this does not disprove anthropogenic global warming. The rate of increase of CO2 is unprecedented for at least 600 thousand years and the rate of warming appears to be just as much of an anomaly in the climate record.

A theory that has never been proven does not need to be disproven. Obviously the Industrial Revolution greatly accelerated the release of CO2 into the atmosphere; this does not mean that it is the primary cause of the earth warming up. Statistical claims that reach back 600,000 years should be viewed with skepticism. The calculation of that data incorporates several assumptions provided by those analyzing the empirical data.