A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics

G1eet

New member
Mar 25, 2009
2,090
0
0
I'm concerned with all the capitalization that's been going on. "We need to worry about Global Warming."

What about the destruction of wetlands? Hmm. Mountaintop removal mining? No wanton capitalization there. Hydrofracking? Oil spills? Overfishing? Whaling? Deforestation? Anthropogenic extinction? The sensationalization of environmentalism?


...Puppy mills?
 

Duffeknol

New member
Aug 28, 2010
897
0
0
You know what's so funny about this subject? The believers don't see that their own opinion is literally being sold right back at them by the people they usually protest against. Allow me to explain:

In this world, there is a huge group of people that will always blame the government and large multinational corporations for just about anything. 9/11 was an inside job, the war on terror is just a bonus for the arms industry, etc etc, you get the idea. It doesn't matter what is true or not, these people have already made up their minds.

Now, the people they hate (governments and multinationals) did the smartest thing possible. They came up with something (global warming) that would A) make them a shitload of money and B) would STILL make them appear as the bad guys. That way, the people that would never ever side with them, are now siding with them without even knowing who is actually benefiting from it.

Since the global warming scam, energy companies have made huge amounts of money by simply coming up with 'green' solutions. Climate scientists have seen an incredible surge in funding. But, worst of all, governments are actually overriding democratic processes in order to push the green agenda. Signing treaties that cannot be reverted by national governments after a new one is installed (such as the Kyoto or (attempted) Kopenhagen agreements), are absolutely undemocratic and go against the very foundations upon which a lot of countries have based their constitutions. Call me paranoid, but things like this are the first small steps on the way to a world government.

The people that usually protest such dictatorial decisions are now silent, because apparently everything is allowed in the name of 'green'.

As lord Monckton once put it:

They call themselves green,
because they're too yellow
to admit they're reds.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
We had the same shit over the ozone layer 20 years ago.

but it's way easier to ban a new chemical group like CFCs than cut back on using a very old chemical group known as "fossil fuels".
 

artanis_neravar

New member
Apr 18, 2011
2,560
0
0
It's funny that the people arguing for global warming are the ones who have no idea that it will cause the next Ice Age even though all science points that way, all they seem to be using for their "facts are what the extremely rating biased news outlets say
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
Lilani said:
TheRealCJ said:
As indicated, I'm hardly an eco-warrior. But I do believe that we should be doing more than we are now.

Things like Hybrid cars are barely a step up from what we are doing now. It's still old-tech, just used in new ways. Science needs to spend more time actually doing cutting-edge research than worrying about what looks good at this very moment.

As I said earlier, what we need is not a stop-gap measure to make it appear as if we're doing the right thing, but a massive shift in our fundamental beliefs and habits. It's happened numerous times over the course of Human history, why can't it happen again?
And I agree, we do need to do more, and I think that shift is already occurring. Those who were pretty moderate about the environment (like me) are taking those little steps, and as the old generation falls away and we have our kids it will permeate society that much more.

What people are the most worried about is that the changeover will negatively affect them. That it will hinder what they do now, whether personally, financially, or both. Some people like their big trucks, and MILLIONS of people rely on oil for their livelihood, and for many it's been that way for generations. The thought of oil being gone in the near future scares the shit out of them, and the the fact that there are people out there who are shouting and demanding that it be gone even sooner scares them even more.

What we really need is for people to be for the benefits of both sides, not just against the negatives of one side. Both sides need to understand that neither is completely wrong, and that both will have to give in order to receive. They're going to have to open up to the possibility of settling the dispute rather than "winning" it.
I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't agree with those people who love their big trucks. 4WDing is my main hobby outside of games, and it's pretty destructive.

But at the same time, there are ways of completely negating the effects of a big Diesel engine (already more clean than a petrol engine) on the environment. For example, a mate and I filled up an old Landcruiser with carbonised vegetable oil. Ran like a dog, but it still ran. Had to flush the engine afterwards as well, but considering it was a 1985-built big-block engine, I think it did pretty well without any modifications or even tweaking.

Now, if scientists could spend more time working on that, making vegetable oils or even things like ethyl alcohols more efficient, and designing engines that run them natively, we've pretty much just solved the energy crisis. Hell, make it something like Hydrogen and you've just solved the car-emissions crisis too.

But no, they're spending all their time finding new ways to stick another big lump of toxic metals into your car.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
G1eet said:
I'm concerned with all the capitalization that's been going on. "We need to worry about Global Warming."

What about the destruction of wetlands? Hmm. Mountaintop removal mining? No wanton capitalization there. Hydrofracking? Oil spills? Overfishing? Whaling? Deforestation? Anthropogenic extinction? The sensationalization of environmentalism?


...Puppy mills?

Like I edited in my OP, I just really used Global Warming as my main example because there are the largest number of ignorant skeptics in that particular debate.
 
Jul 13, 2010
504
0
0
Jedihunter4 said:
This is rubbish, I'll ask you this, why?

Seriously Going by the science of Thermo-fluids, I've tried to rationalise this and the only way I can conceive of flow becoming so turbulent due to an decrease in density is if there was a truly massive decrease of density.

But then taking into account the difference in density of water and sea water is only 2.5%, okay so 2.5% would probably not be enough of a decrease in density to increase flow and make the flow turbulent and dissipate , but I'll enteratian the idea that it would. The proportion of how much water is in the ice caps would have to be a large percentage of the water on earth compared to how much is stored in the seas.

Then you see this http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html only 1.715% of all water if stored in all glaciers and ice caps. where as 96.5% is in the sea, so no the ice caps melting will not cause the currents to stop flowing.

This is the exact sort of sudo science you see trying to justify this ridiculous idea of extreme changes to the world, to try and scare people into doing what they want simply because they do not understand, and it sounds plausible if you know nothing about the subject.

Edit: did not quote enough by accident
I'll admit it is unknown how much fresh water would be needed to disrupt the belt, but it has been disrupted before as a result of an increase of fresh-water. Here is a NASA article that can explain the concept far better that I can

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/

Edit: another article that I found interesting: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/paleoclimatology_evidence_2.php

Rosetta said:
uro vii said:
Yes, because it is not anywhere near hot enough without also having the heat brought up from the Oceanic belts.
The belts warmed by the atmosphere.

XD
Okay, reread what I have posted then reply once you are actually able to grasp the concept.

Jedihunter4 said:
Yer this guy may be saying total rubbish as it why does not make sense, which do no favours to those who are informed and disagree.

Also quoting scientific studies does not make you right on this subject, as the scientific is very much still in debate, but as rightly pointed out, the reason it has been allowed to be pushed as total truth by many government's is because it suits political agenda's.
You are certainly right, I was simply pointing out his hypocrisy at claiming 'The science is right' and then refusing to believe actual scientific studies, or provide any 'science' of his own
 

Plurralbles

New member
Jan 12, 2010
4,611
0
0
I've never been against things that lower harmful affects to the environment...

it doesn't matter if it's bullshit or not, less damage is always better, no matter how hte dmage manifests itself(which is: changing, not warming... or cooling... simply, changing)
 

Your once and future Fanboy

The Norwegian One
Feb 11, 2009
573
0
0
I do belive that there are some climate changes, but this is natural and we have seen it before.
Go back to 1974, we had the excact same idea as now, we belived we had fucked our enviroment so bad that it would end with disaster.
Im not saying it could never happen, but for those of us that have done more than just listen to fear propaganda and swallow whole the bullshit of Al Gore without checking other sources, have seen that this is a natural occurence and that the weather and climate goes through cycles where it seems like its to become un-naturally hot or cold, and then changes back again like a constant wave. But I'm for trying to better the release of the potetial harmful gasses.

The current view on how we should fight these climate changes are wrong IMO.

We should be properly awarding people for doing the right thing, not just punishing everybody.
Of course people will dislike and rebel against rules and taxation that just costs them money.
 

Susurrus

New member
Nov 7, 2008
603
0
0
TheRealCJ said:
Global warming may be happening. Personally, I'm skeptical, at least on the causes and on the speed. For a number of reasons:
i) Models have consistently been shown to take account of far too few factors to draw any proper scientific conclusions.
ii) In the UK, one of the most prominent environmental research facilities, the University of East Anglia, was engaged in some extremely unscrupulous practice with their data, yet the only inquiry into it was an internal university one, which exonerated everyone involved.
iii) The Media often exaggerates things. Ten years ago, the hole in the Ozone layer was going to kill us all. When was the last time you heard about it?
iv) The timescale the data is based on is too small in a geological time-frame to be relevant.
v) Climate-change scientists often ignore pertinent evidence, exaggerating the possibilities. For example, did you know that one increasingly-accepted historical reason for the explosion of growth of population of Europe in the Middle Ages was a several degree temperature rise, allowing increasing amounts of crops to be grown by fewer people (leading to towns...). If that's the case, how can a 2 degree rise have the potential consequences that have been suggested, and why is this evidence never addressed?

However, pollution is still a practical problem. Finding alternative fuels is crucial, not least because oil is limited in supply. Having said that, most current green fuels are both unworkable on a large scale, and inappropriate. Did you know that a battery for an electric car takes more to make in terms of carbon emissions than it can possibly recoup in its lifetime, and that its effect upon the environment is WORSE, in terms of fossil fuels used, than a diesel engine? Positing fake solutions is not the way to address it - real research is needed, and someone needs to fund it, and that someone ought to be government and industry.

I also think its very difficult for a lay person to get any idea of how real the threat is. Government and media manipulation of the issues is so strong, that getting any real idea is impossible. Things like the UEA fiasco don't really help.

I'm all for alternative fuels, but I want one that works, not some stupid concession which doesn't actually help. And if a government really wants to do something about it, let it start making laws that actually help. Make businesses turn lights off at night. Take away standby modes on electronic goods. Require increased efficiency. Don't claim motorists are the evil responsible.
 

TheEndlessSleep

New member
Sep 1, 2010
469
0
0
Global warming is just the oppposite to an ice age: It is part of nature. We shouldn't be trying to stop it, we should just prepare for it's arrival.

It will happen, then it will go away, then the world will cool down for a few more million years and then there will be another ice age... and so on and so forth until the sun explodes and kills us all :)
 

teebeeohh

New member
Jun 17, 2009
2,896
0
0
because admitting you are fat and don't like it would force you to change your eating habits and who wants to do that? Oh wrong topic... still a valid point
 

G1eet

New member
Mar 25, 2009
2,090
0
0
TheRealCJ said:
G1eet said:
I'm concerned with all the capitalization that's been going on. "We need to worry about Global Warming."

What about the destruction of wetlands? Hmm. Mountaintop removal mining? No wanton capitalization there. Hydrofracking? Oil spills? Overfishing? Whaling? Deforestation? Anthropogenic extinction? The sensationalization of environmentalism?


...Puppy mills?

Like I edited in my OP, I just really used Global Warming as my main example because there are the largest number of ignorant skeptics in that particular debate.
Tread carefully; there's ignorance to be had on both sides. There's nothing better than having a debate about the possibility of anthropogenic climate change when your opponent quotes The Day After Tomorrow.

And OP, if you just wanted to talk about preventing pollution, why didn't you just say so? It's certainly less of a hot button topic than global warming/cooling. Rosetta might've even been able to continue posting.
 
Jul 13, 2010
504
0
0
Rosetta said:
uro vii said:
At first I admired your determination, but your inability to see how heat enough to melt the polar caps would, you know, melt any other ice is... too far gone.
Wow, I'm almost ready to decide this is beyond your grasp and call you a lost cause, but I'll try one last time. Before Global Warming there was warm water being moved by the belt towards the poles. It was not enough to melt all the ice but it regulated the melting. The atmosphere is now warming and increasing the amount of ice that is melting, but the heat of the atmosphere is not as much as the heat from the belts. Once the belts stop it will actually cool to temperatures bellow those that were around before Global Warming as the majority of the heat that moved towards the caps was as a result of the belt. See, that wasn't so hard.
 

Assassin Xaero

New member
Jul 23, 2008
5,393
0
0
With the ice caps on Mars melting at the same rate at those on the Earth (or so I've heard), I find it hard to believe anything about humans causing all this.
 

Timotheus

New member
Oct 12, 2009
51
0
0
Antropogenic global warming? Humbug!
Based on my poor understanding of science I will just say something like "There has always been co² in the air and it doesn't make a difference" or "last winter was pretty cold, where is this so called global warming?!" "we tiny humans make no difference, it's not like our atmosphare is also tiny compared to the size of the whole planet and its the only area in our solar system where we can live" "if we stop global warming, we all gonna freeze!" or plain old "co² is no poison, it's vital for plants!"

Then I will conclude with abusing the word science, drag our so called "scientists" into the mud, declaring myself a genius. I will not accept that humanity has blown so much carbon into our atmosphere, that we risk positive feedback, when the ice melts and won't reflect so many sunrays and the warming oceans will release stored carbon, too.

In the end, I might even say, that there is some evil agenda of environmentalists, just because it will make me sound like the real good guy, who looks through these conspiracies. It's not like we will eventually have to use renewable ressources and a fast structural change will cost a lot of money and give the people with the technology a real chance to put pressure on us in order to earn a lot of money. Also it's not like we could have used the cheap oil for chemical production and not for energy which we can get from other sources.

Edit: Also someone said it, whom I will not call by name, who has really credible sources, which I will also not tell. At least that's what I heard.