The earth has been here for BILLIONS of years. Six major evolutionary extinction events have happened since life began, mostly due to an a drastic alteration in climate. How are human beings actually self centered enough to think that we actually have an effect on the planet's natural cycles? If anything, we've merely sped up the change by inputting more carbon dioxide. But we did not cause it, and the fact is that there are forest fires, methane gas bubbles from the ocean (which release only methane, another greenhouse gas), and volcanic eruptions among various other assorted events that release massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Does anyone here remember the "new ice age" in the 70s? The theory is founded upon and perpetuated by arrogance.
A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics
- Thread starter TheRealCJ
- Start date
That.Rosetta said:
Any of you can look up researches that been made by checking the climate in hundreds and thousands of years ago and it changed drastically both warmer and cooler. Humans don't and won't change global warming.
OP:
'Your' global warming is made by fear mongers.
I was being a dick i had a long drawn out response to that but realized that i didn't want to type it so i figure "yes" would get a rise out of peopleHankMan said:
Everyone needs to watch "an inconvenient truth" to at least get a basic understanding on climate change before commenting on climate change.
In short:
Climate change is normal.
Humans have evolved technologically so fast that our technology and it's power source is inefficient at sustaining itself.
Due to the inefficiency of our tech we are causing more harm than good to the planet, which in turn speeds up the climate change process.
In short:
Climate change is normal.
Humans have evolved technologically so fast that our technology and it's power source is inefficient at sustaining itself.
Due to the inefficiency of our tech we are causing more harm than good to the planet, which in turn speeds up the climate change process.
I think that all the recent extreme weather is the climate patterns realigning them selves to find where they will be for a while.
This is from an area that has just had the biggest tornado outbreak ever in April last sunday, then one of the biggest snowstorms yesterday, still snowing today, and 3 out of the last 5 snowiest winters happen in the last 4 years. Oh and next week it is suppose to be 70F degrees and/or 21C degrees.
This is from an area that has just had the biggest tornado outbreak ever in April last sunday, then one of the biggest snowstorms yesterday, still snowing today, and 3 out of the last 5 snowiest winters happen in the last 4 years. Oh and next week it is suppose to be 70F degrees and/or 21C degrees.
I don't believe in man made global climate change - I've read too much of the science which proves otherwise - one thing I have noted is that a lot of the proponents of the idea aren't scientists but claim "the science" (like it's the word of god) backs them up - when really it's a crappy biased study which should hardly be referred to as science and the real science which is properly carried out* disproves it.
I think the biggest thing here Richard Attenborough - yeah Richard fucking Attenborough, the man's the shit when it comes to nature and when recently interviewed on the BBC (who have a big green bee in their bonnet) was asked what he thought of climate change, his response "I'm not overly convinced" (like a fucking boss) and the host was "and quickly moving on". I'd love to have been taping that when I saw it to roll it out.
Now I'm not saying it's the be all and end all, just a great example.
So why am I against "a stitch in time" and all - because it costs me a lot of fucking money. Electrikery prices in the UK have soared as companies are obliged to pay ridiculous feed-in tarrifs to "green initiatives" such as windfarms - such as the one in the south east which used more electricity than it generated in Q4 last year due to de-icing and has produced some 12% of the total capacity it was rated at on it's best day. Windfarms that use more CO2 to produce than they offset in generation over an expected lifecycle. Windfarms which have proven to destroy wildlife such as birds and bats increasing pest problems of farmers and the use of pesticides.
All of this will have no effect on an issue that doesn't exist so the new world puritans can not only flagellate themselves but the rest of us too.
I have no issue with your beliefs and feel you should be free to believe whatever makes you happy - unless it affects me then you can straight get the fuck out.
I think the biggest thing here Richard Attenborough - yeah Richard fucking Attenborough, the man's the shit when it comes to nature and when recently interviewed on the BBC (who have a big green bee in their bonnet) was asked what he thought of climate change, his response "I'm not overly convinced" (like a fucking boss) and the host was "and quickly moving on". I'd love to have been taping that when I saw it to roll it out.
Now I'm not saying it's the be all and end all, just a great example.
So why am I against "a stitch in time" and all - because it costs me a lot of fucking money. Electrikery prices in the UK have soared as companies are obliged to pay ridiculous feed-in tarrifs to "green initiatives" such as windfarms - such as the one in the south east which used more electricity than it generated in Q4 last year due to de-icing and has produced some 12% of the total capacity it was rated at on it's best day. Windfarms that use more CO2 to produce than they offset in generation over an expected lifecycle. Windfarms which have proven to destroy wildlife such as birds and bats increasing pest problems of farmers and the use of pesticides.
All of this will have no effect on an issue that doesn't exist so the new world puritans can not only flagellate themselves but the rest of us too.
I have no issue with your beliefs and feel you should be free to believe whatever makes you happy - unless it affects me then you can straight get the fuck out.
Right now the earth is heating up but it is due to an event called the roman warming period it has happened throughout time and will probably continue happening. As far as the future is concerned right now the alternative energy sources are not yielding adequate amounts of power, with some more work they may begin to but for now we need fossil fuels, and we (america) could supply the energy we need for ourselves and focus our money being spent buying oil from other countries and move it to R and D for renewable resources but we don't.
Some people like to complain about the "Re-branding" of the subject. The term climate change is more popular and useful to academia because global warming is somewhat of a misnomer. While the obvious conclusion that CO2 absorbs and insulates more heat is true, this increase can roll into other effects that do not include a rise in temperature. Among predicted problems are: drought, increased hurricane activity, collapse of numerous ecosystems, an extremely less dramatic stoppage of the North Atlantic current than what was seen in "The Day After Tomorrow", along with many other predicted problems.
This is probably the most frustrating debate on earth right now. It's not a social cause, it's not about a the philosophy of right or wrong or anything even remotely opinion based, it's about science. There is a right and a wrong answer, why the hell haven't we made up our mind on it yet?!
- Golbal warming is caused by man! Science says so!
- It's totally not! Your science is phony, real science says it's just a phase!
- No, your science is wrong!
People keep referring to studies and scientists, but I never see any sources, never any explanations. Do people even know what they're talking about when they refer to studies and science or do they just believe what they want and points to whatever they find that supports it?
- Golbal warming is caused by man! Science says so!
- It's totally not! Your science is phony, real science says it's just a phase!
- No, your science is wrong!
People keep referring to studies and scientists, but I never see any sources, never any explanations. Do people even know what they're talking about when they refer to studies and science or do they just believe what they want and points to whatever they find that supports it?
I'm firmly part of the 'natural cycle' camp when it comes to climate change. Is it possible humans are helping it along? Sure, but our activities as a species are just a small number of factors among the many that affect Earth's climate.
Now, the OP wanted to know about our thoughts on preventative measures, what's wrong with taking steps, etc? In short, if the motives are pure there's nothing wrong with it. Renewable energy sources and cleaner air is a win for everyone. Unfortunately advocates for these measures in our governments in particular the United States government are not actually interested in 'saving the planet'. They're interested in the things most politicians covet: Money, power in perpetuity, and generally tossing out slogans and catch phrases to keep citizens unsure and fearful.
I'll give an example, our power grid in the US is deteriorating and needs a major overhaul. Now, if someone, tomorrow, invented a solar panel/generator combination that was cheap to produce and efficient enough to power the average home or business by itself, do you think our government would rejoice? No, I can virtually guarantee it would be quickly and quietly killed as a project and never be allowed on the free market. Independance is the opposite of what most of our leaders want for us.
That's my issue with all of this, and while you may or may not agree with my examples I doubt many of you can honestly say you believe politicians really want to save the planet. This is just another way of milking taxpayers for funds and expanding government power. It's convenient because climate change is in the news often, so people tend to remember it. I'm all for doing little things that we can all do to reduce our environmental impact, but our leaders only care about it as long as there's money in it for them.
Now, the OP wanted to know about our thoughts on preventative measures, what's wrong with taking steps, etc? In short, if the motives are pure there's nothing wrong with it. Renewable energy sources and cleaner air is a win for everyone. Unfortunately advocates for these measures in our governments in particular the United States government are not actually interested in 'saving the planet'. They're interested in the things most politicians covet: Money, power in perpetuity, and generally tossing out slogans and catch phrases to keep citizens unsure and fearful.
I'll give an example, our power grid in the US is deteriorating and needs a major overhaul. Now, if someone, tomorrow, invented a solar panel/generator combination that was cheap to produce and efficient enough to power the average home or business by itself, do you think our government would rejoice? No, I can virtually guarantee it would be quickly and quietly killed as a project and never be allowed on the free market. Independance is the opposite of what most of our leaders want for us.
That's my issue with all of this, and while you may or may not agree with my examples I doubt many of you can honestly say you believe politicians really want to save the planet. This is just another way of milking taxpayers for funds and expanding government power. It's convenient because climate change is in the news often, so people tend to remember it. I'm all for doing little things that we can all do to reduce our environmental impact, but our leaders only care about it as long as there's money in it for them.
I'm not against it, I find them... Useless. Ice ages occur at various cycles in the earth's "Life". Ice ages basically are the Earth's hibernation. They occur every couple thousand years.TheRealCJ said:
Now the last one is estimated at a couple thousand years ago, and I think the next one is estimated in the next 300-500 years. I don't have exact figures. I find that global warming scientists arte sitting there saying that we're the ones causing this, and yet they ignore that we are not CAUSING it, we're accelerating it...
Now that said, we're allegedly accelerating it by about 100-200 years... so in the next 100-400 years... We'll be getting one.
Sure, we're speeding it up, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a natural earth process. I'm all for going green if you want to, but making a HUGE active effort is more of a "make our world cleaner while we have to live in it" than a "prevent the apocalypse" thing