Nasa expert on global warming info.
- Thread starter Ferocious
- Start date
First of all, global warming is a non-issue. It simply isn't a problem. Second, what makes you think it'd be any different under Kerry?
change the name to climate change or something. global warming is really misleading.
according to some really good studies, in the next 5-20 years, parts of europe will be frozen and other parts will be warmer. same goes for the rest of the world. if you look it up, you will find it.
according to some really good studies, in the next 5-20 years, parts of europe will be frozen and other parts will be warmer. same goes for the rest of the world. if you look it up, you will find it.
Look, if it were so certain, why are so many scientists who study this topic concerned? Now, I'm not saying that that neccessarily means that climate change is Armaggeddon, but it does mean that the experts should be free to publish the results of their studies.
Are you so sure of your position that you don't want scientists to study it?
I'm sure enough of it that people don't need to turn it into a big political issue. There is very little evidence that man-made CO2, etc has made any impact on the climate. I'm all for the continued study of it, it would be ignorant for scientists to not continue their research in the area. However, it's ridiculous when people claim that we are going to have a noticeable climate change if we don't stop burning coal/oil/gasoline at our current rate.
It is painfully obvious that you have done no real research on the topic and dont have any idea what you are talking about when you make statements like that.
I have in fact done a fair amount of research on the topic so you need to think twice about making statements like the one you just made.
I agree. I highly recommend "The Skeptical Environmentalist." It slags enviro groups for being the liars that they are, but also addresses in a rational (read fact-based, with data and studies from reputable sources, although a little biased [he uses the World Bank and the WTO a little too heavily for my liking(wow, my english teachers would slap me for this sentence)]) manner the environmental issues we have today. He's very critical of the current tone of the climate change debate, and has some good thoughts on the topic.
There is very little evidence that man-made CO2, etc has made any impact on the climate.
However, it's ridiculous when people claim that we are going to have a noticeable climate change if we don't stop burning coal/oil/gasoline at our current rate.
These are the two parts of your statement I find fault with. There is in fact quite a bit of evidence that there is a strong correlation between CO2 concentrations and climate shifts. If you had there is not enough evidence then You statement would reflect your opinion and would be perfectly valid. Many are unconvinved by the present data, but that is no reason to stifle further research which to your credit you say you support.
Your second statement is ripe for picking apart. Your use of absolutes is discouraging and points towards you having your mind made up already by something other than solid scientific research. Why do you think it is so "ridiculous" that something humans do could affect the environment. We have affected the rivers and oceans and even groundwater systems and the air around our cities. Why is it impossible to believe that nothing we do could possibly affect weather systems?
I am by no means a rabid environmentalist and am disheartened by the statements made on both sides of the fence. Some envirowhackos go running with incomplete science and make a huge deal out of things, while at the same time people who profit from raping the Earth want us to believe that there is no danger ahead. I have done considerable research in this field and have come to the conclusion that like most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. In this case I believe the truth leans towards the side of the environmentalists but is still close to center.
There are certian things that we should be willing to do such as moving towards renewable energy sources. It must be done eventually so why not start making those steps. The innovations that come with these investments will fuel the economy producing a new industry, with tons of service, manufacturing and research positions. The benefits are for everyone. We cant continue to be dependant upon the middle east for our energy. A large portion of every dollar we spend on gas and oil products in the US goes right overseas into the pockets of the tyrants we dislike so much. Reducing our oil useage is good for all americans in many ways.
Billy
However, it's ridiculous when people claim that we are going to have a noticeable climate change if we don't stop burning coal/oil/gasoline at our current rate.
These are the two parts of your statement I find fault with. There is in fact quite a bit of evidence that there is a strong correlation between CO2 concentrations and climate shifts. If you had there is not enough evidence then You statement would reflect your opinion and would be perfectly valid. Many are unconvinved by the present data, but that is no reason to stifle further research which to your credit you say you support.
Your second statement is ripe for picking apart. Your use of absolutes is discouraging and points towards you having your mind made up already by something other than solid scientific research. Why do you think it is so "ridiculous" that something humans do could affect the environment. We have affected the rivers and oceans and even groundwater systems and the air around our cities. Why is it impossible to believe that nothing we do could possibly affect weather systems?
I am by no means a rabid environmentalist and am disheartened by the statements made on both sides of the fence. Some envirowhackos go running with incomplete science and make a huge deal out of things, while at the same time people who profit from raping the Earth want us to believe that there is no danger ahead. I have done considerable research in this field and have come to the conclusion that like most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. In this case I believe the truth leans towards the side of the environmentalists but is still close to center.
There are certian things that we should be willing to do such as moving towards renewable energy sources. It must be done eventually so why not start making those steps. The innovations that come with these investments will fuel the economy producing a new industry, with tons of service, manufacturing and research positions. The benefits are for everyone. We cant continue to be dependant upon the middle east for our energy. A large portion of every dollar we spend on gas and oil products in the US goes right overseas into the pockets of the tyrants we dislike so much. Reducing our oil useage is good for all americans in many ways.
Billy
Well, if they don't study it, they could never prove him wrong.
I think anyone born in Indiana is a genius. I don't want anyone to study that either. This is fun!
Yes, CO2 does have an impact on climate. However, 98% of CO2 gases are natural(read: NOT CAUSED BY MAN).
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
I thought we needed to get off the oil teet anyway. If you won't do it for "mother earth" do it to fight "terrorism."
I call BS on your 98% statistic.
"Prior to the industrial revolution, concentrations were fairly stable at 280ppm. Today, they are around 370ppm, an increase of well over 30%." http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html#cd
Seems like we have had alot to do with the increase in CO2 concetrations.
At the same time, CO2 is only one of many Greenhouse Gasses that may lead to trouble. Granted it is the most abundant accountinf for about 1/2 of all greenhouse gasses.
Billy
I read that crummy little site and there is no referece to your 98% although it does contain a figure close to that. There is no explanation of how he deternimes natural vs anthropogenic sources of CO2. He atributes most of the increase since the industrial revolution to natural sources yet gives no explanation why this is true. If you are gettin your information from sites like that I suggest you find some other sources to sompare your information. You will find that many other sources will give you more insight into the methodology and have less bias that that one. You might find that when presented in a more neutral fashion the facts sway you in a different direction.
Billy
We could go back and forth posting references, but I'm not going to bother because you're not going to sway me and I'm not going to sway you. I'll just leave all the environmental stressing to you while I'm out in the country breathing clean air.
I have to agree that we are not going to convince each other of anything. But do realize I am not one of the guys flipping out about anything. I said repeatedly that there is a middle ground.
Id also like to note that your second source is from the Natural Gas Industry. They have a very big stake in keeping fossil fuels burning so I would suggest you read some stuff from the IPCC. If you truly have an open mind about this stuff and are looking for the truth rather than what you want to hear then you will need to do some further research. Otherwise, oh well. You arent much different than the majority of americans who dont want to do enough research to have a truely informed opinion.
Billy
Id also like to note that your second source is from the Natural Gas Industry. They have a very big stake in keeping fossil fuels burning so I would suggest you read some stuff from the IPCC. If you truly have an open mind about this stuff and are looking for the truth rather than what you want to hear then you will need to do some further research. Otherwise, oh well. You arent much different than the majority of americans who dont want to do enough research to have a truely informed opinion.
Billy
I thought I pretty much was at the middle ground. If you see in one of my above statements I said global warming wasn't a huge issue that people need worry about, but that didn't mean we shouldn't continue researching the subject. From everything I've read and heard, I just simply haven't been convinced that it's something we should be worried about, honest opinion.
Either way, since when did being informed matter on P&N.
Here's the thing.
People who actually pay attention to things like the plants and wildlife in their own regions are all reporting changes, including entire species beginning to disappear. You won't notice it if you aren't looking for it. If you are mostly focused on stuff like college, a tech job, chasing tail, etc, you probably won't think it's a big deal. But if plants that used to be prolific in your own back yard now wither and die because the climate has changed, you've started to get very, very alarmed.
<----been alarmed for 20 years
People who actually pay attention to things like the plants and wildlife in their own regions are all reporting changes, including entire species beginning to disappear. You won't notice it if you aren't looking for it. If you are mostly focused on stuff like college, a tech job, chasing tail, etc, you probably won't think it's a big deal. But if plants that used to be prolific in your own back yard now wither and die because the climate has changed, you've started to get very, very alarmed.
<----been alarmed for 20 years
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
People are missing the point, which is about this administration supressing scientific evidence. You can believe in warming or not. That's not the issue. This administration is trying to prevent research from coming to light, and this is not the only instance.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter