Poll: Do you believe in Global Warming?

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
There are cycles of global warming and cooling. We are in a cooling period right now. Glaciers are advancing. That doesn't mean that there is abnormal long term warming now, and there is.

-A geography major

omg what school taught you that - glaciers are retreating by all i have read and heard

 

[screw3d]

I'm doing a course on these things now.. and after reading a crap load of stuff, it seems that we human beings don't even release a lot of greenhouse gases as compared to natural causes like volcanoes. The potential ill effects of global warming is just that - a speculative concern. Science has never proven/disprove global warming as a threat.

 

[Palek]

On a slightly (very slightly) related note, if the global warming/cooling cycles are for real, then this is how the new ice age will come. :Q

PS. I wonder what Roland Emmerich has against New York... Didn't the aliens in Independence Day also start with New York?

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: screw3d
I'm doing a course on these things now.. and after reading a crap load of stuff, it seems that we human beings don't even release a lot of greenhouse gases as compared to natural causes like volcanoes. The potential ill effects of global warming is just that - a speculative concern. Science has never proven/disprove global warming as a threat.

Thank you. We had a thread about this like a year ago, and I posted links saying similar things.

 

[Analog]

Originally posted by: screw3d
I'm doing a course on these things now.. and after reading a crap load of stuff, it seems that we human beings don't even release a lot of greenhouse gases as compared to natural causes like volcanoes. The potential ill effects of global warming is just that - a speculative concern. Science has never proven/disprove global warming as a threat.

interesting.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Consider that the Sphinx in Egypt has water erosion, and there was glaciers in central California. Should they still be there? Nope. We're no longer in an ice age. Until 1850, the earth was cooling down, and it was the coldest it had been in a very long time (save 4-5 years after the volcano eruption that lead to the fall of rome). The way I see it, there's more evidence AGAINST global warming than for it. Exactly how much pollution did the forest fires around LA cause compared to LA itself? And why is man-made CO2 somehow different from natural CO2? And why do greenhouses have "CO2 generators" (kerosene burners) that make thier plants grow better?

 

[StageLeft]

Yes. Although world temperatuers are cyclical and that may be the cause behind most of the increase in temp in recent decades I think that I've read quite enough to come to the reasonable conclusion that our pollution is not good for things.

Unfortunately a lot of people pretend otherwise so that they can feel no guilt over the gross overconsumption that our society so readily embraces.

 

[glareman]

Check out this site for an interesting perspective! http://www.globalwarming.org/news/baliunas.html

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Consider that the Sphinx in Egypt has water erosion, and there was glaciers in central California. Should they still be there? Nope. We're no longer in an ice age. Until 1850, the earth was cooling down, and it was the coldest it had been in a very long time (save 4-5 years after the volcano eruption that lead to the fall of rome). The way I see it, there's more evidence AGAINST global warming than for it. Exactly how much pollution did the forest fires around LA cause compared to LA itself? And why is man-made CO2 somehow different from natural CO2? And why do greenhouses have "CO2 generators" (kerosene burners) that make thier plants grow better?

Lol so because they create CO2 in a greenhouse it means that there people have no effect on global temperature? If people have no effect on CO2 levels then why has the amount of CO2 in the air gone up ever year sences the start of the industrial revolution.

 

[Triumph]

As an engineer who has done some studying of environmental engineering, and as a person who has concern for our environment, I do not believe in global warming. Why? Because the environmentalists are breaking the first rule of science: drawing conclusions with not enough available data. We have only been measuring the earth's temperatures for probably the last 100 years, yet the earth is probably a couple of million years old. If this were any other problem, the scientist posing that conclusion would be laughed out of the building. And yet I've heard many people say, "The data is unavoidable!" How the hell can you say that? I just don't understand.

That being said, global warming or not we have a responsibility to take care of our environment. On a global scale, things may not be heating up due to our activities, but it is most definitely measureable, and controllable on a local level. Look at places like LA, Denver, New York, etc. Smog, acid rain, and industrial pollution have immediate effects that can clearly be seen and measured, and those cities have a responsibility to control the pollutants.

 

[Eli]

It is naive to think we have no impact on our planet.

However, the time slice in view is so short, that we simply do not have enough data. Our weather is so complex, we can't even predict it more than 24 - 48 hours in advance. How many times does the 7 day forecast change durig that 7 day period? How do you expect us to know things on a global scale when we can't even get local weather forecasting right 70% of the time?

In the scheme of things, I don't think it even matters. We should be doing our best not to pollute our home regardless of if the consequences could be catastrophic. Obviously it's not good.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Triumph
As an engineer who has done some studying of environmental engineering, and as a person who has concern for our environment, I do not believe in global warming. Why? Because the environmentalists are breaking the first rule of science: drawing conclusions with not enough available data. We have only been measuring the earth's temperatures for probably the last 100 years, yet the earth is probably a couple of million years old. If this were any other problem, the scientist posing that conclusion would be laughed out of the building. And yet I've heard many people say, "The data is unavoidable!" How the hell can you say that? I just don't understand.

That being said, global warming or not we have a responsibility to take care of our environment. On a global scale, things may not be heating up due to our activities, but it is most definitely measureable, and controllable on a local level. Look at places like LA, Denver, New York, etc. Smog, acid rain, and industrial pollution have immediate effects that can clearly be seen and measured, and those cities have a responsibility to control the pollutants.

We don't have enough data, so you can't take a truly empiracle approach and make an accurate conclusion on it for a while yet, but we do have some data, and unlike the effects of oil spills on bird populations (something we can determine the problems with in a short period of time), it's a little irresponsible to wait the 300 years (?) we need to make a truly scientific conclusion about all of this - by then it may be too late to reverse catastrophic damage.

I see your point but it's not a gamble we can afford to lose and erring on the side of caution is sage. ELI is right too, to say that it's silly to pretend that we don't have an effect on our environment.

So: Is global warming a reality? Maybe. Can we afford to be wrong if we pretend it's not until the smoking gun is in front of us? No. _Reasonable_ measures can be taken until we know one way or the other. If it's proven a myth everyone can drive a navigator and eat burgers out of styrofoam containers, but until then I think it's responsible for the population to lower their pollution output until we know, because if it's proven to be something real it may be too late to reverse the damage.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Triumph
As an engineer who has done some studying of environmental engineering, and as a person who has concern for our environment, I do not believe in global warming. Why? Because the environmentalists are breaking the first rule of science: drawing conclusions with not enough available data. We have only been measuring the earth's temperatures for probably the last 100 years, yet the earth is probably a couple of million years old. If this were any other problem, the scientist posing that conclusion would be laughed out of the building. And yet I've heard many people say, "The data is unavoidable!" How the hell can you say that? I just don't understand.

That being said, global warming or not we have a responsibility to take care of our environment. On a global scale, things may not be heating up due to our activities, but it is most definitely measureable, and controllable on a local level. Look at places like LA, Denver, New York, etc. Smog, acid rain, and industrial pollution have immediate effects that can clearly be seen and measured, and those 7cities have a responsibility to control the pollutants.

We don't have enough data, so you can't take a truly empiracle approach and make an accurate conclusion on it for a while yet, but we do have some data, and unlike the effects of oil spills on bird populations (something we can determine the problems with in a short period of time), it's a little irresponsible to wait the 300 years (?) we need to make a truly scientific conclusion about all of this - by then it may be too late to reverse catastrophic damage.

I see your point but it's not a gamble we can afford to lose and erring on the side of caution is sage. ELI is right too, to say that it's silly to pretend that we don't have an effect on our environment.

So: Is global warming a reality? Maybe. Can we afford to be wrong if we pretend it's not until the smoking gun is in front of us? No. _Reasonable_ measures can be taken until we know one way or the other. If it's proven a myth everyone can drive a navigator and eat burgers out of styrofoam containers, but until then I think it's responsible for the population to lower their pollution output until we know, because if it's proven to be something real it may be too late to reverse the damage.

And here lies the problem with people.

98% of the time, we DO wait until the issue is so pressing, that we cannot possibly ignore it anymore. And by that time, it is usually too late.

It's common sense not to pollute our home.

Hmm.. I think one of the differences between the CO2 we spew into the atmosphere and the CO2 a mountain spews into the atmosphere...

We have billions of little oxygen conversion pumps. They suck in oxygen, and pump out CO2(amongst other things). When a mountain erupts, it may increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere, but that is not decreasing our net oxygen content.. just diluting it. Not sure if that makes any sense, but it seems plausible...

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Eli
We have billions of little oxygen conversion pumps. They suck in oxygen, and pump out CO2(amongst other things). When a mountain erupts, it may increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere, but that is not decreasing our net oxygen content.. just diluting it. Not sure if that makes any sense, but it seems plausible...

And another thing is who cares about volcanoes anyway? We can't do anything about them, but we can do something about our cars. And unless we represent a pathetic portion of pollution (like 2%), then it does make it a worthwhile endeavour.

 

[Triumph]

Skoorb: Controlling local environments is basically the best we can do. And when you control all the locales, you're basically doing what you propose. So in the end I guess it's all good. But I still don't believe in global warming. Also you have to remember that Mother Nature always finds a way to fix things.

 

[glareman]

Scoorb: Please read this:http://www.globalwarming.org/brochure.html . Your 2% figure was right on the mark. We need to worry a lot more about pollution than global warming. This site: http://www.globalwarming.org/sciup/index.htm can lead you to alot of information about this subject.

 

[screw3d]

CO2 actually represents a very small contribution to global warming.. Can't remember which are actually the main contributors apart from the obvious ones like CFC and HCFC.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Triumph
Skoorb: Controlling local environments is basically the best we can do. And when you control all the locales, you're basically doing what you propose. So in the end I guess it's all good. But I still don't believe in global warming. Also you have to remember that Mother Nature always finds a way to fix things.

Mother nature looks out for herself. I don't want her doing what she did to the dinos

You can control your local environment and force others to do the same with laws, education, etc.

Your 2% figure was right on the mark

Damn! Maybe I do need to read that

 

[glareman]

Originally posted by: screw3d
CO2 actually represents a very small contribution to global warming.. Can't remember which are actually the main contributors apart from the obvious ones like CFC and HCFC.

CFC's and HCFC's are more a factor in the concern over the "Hole in the ozone layer", another enviromental issue altogether. There are more variables in the global warming issue, but the one that is most commonly mentioned is an increase in atmospheric CO2.

I happen to believe that solar activity is the largest contributor to changes in the average temperature of the earth!

http://www.888webtoday.com/rasmussen2.html
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/01-weather.html

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: screw3d
I'm doing a course on these things now.. and after reading a crap load of stuff, it seems that we human beings don't even release a lot of greenhouse gases as compared to natural causes like volcanoes. The potential ill effects of global warming is just that - a speculative concern. Science has never proven/disprove global warming as a threat.

winner!!!

theories are theories, greenies need to chill out

and i agree with Triumph and Eli's statements

polluting should be avoided, but being anti-technology to "save the earth" is being extremist

 

[gistech1978]

if you have a pretty hefty computer
run this Text and maybe answer this question.
i dont like your poll choices...it IS a natural cycle, BUT i dont think all the greenhouse gases are helping the matter either.

 

[datalink7]

I believe that it is at least part of a natural cycle, and possibly part man caused though there isn't enough data yet to decide how much.

BUT...

We should act like it is completely man caused on the off chance that it is, and there is something we can do about it. Global warming is a big threat (natural or not), and if we can help prevent part of it by getting our act together and being more friendly to the environment, we should do so.

Besides the fact that it would be nicer to have clean air anyway.

 

[woodie1]

I've read the pro and con stories and am not really sure. The Greenpeace zealots don't help or add anything useful to the discussion.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Spoooon
I think that, since it may be due to man-made emissions, we should be smart about it and learn to do things cleanly and efficiently just in case.

Yes, that's right, we must live or lives in fear.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Spoooon
I think that, since it may be due to man-made emissions, we should be smart about it and learn to do things cleanly and efficiently just in case.

Yes, that's right, we must live or lives in fear.

Fear?

It doesen't have anything to do with fear.

It's our damn home. We aren't going to be leaving anytime soon. How can you argue with the logic that we need to at least TRY and keep it clean?