Jump to content

Global Warming


Global Warming  

81 members have voted

  1. 1. In your opinion, is Global Warming happening (ie, is the global temperature rising)

    • Yes
      66
    • No
      15
  2. 2. Can we stop Global Warming?

    • Yes
      36
    • No
      45
  3. 3. Are we causing global warming as a whole, or merely exacerbating it

    • We are the only cause of it
      23
    • We are not responsible at all
      18
    • We are exacerbating it, but not the only cause
      40


164 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Nice round about answer, which basically says there will be a "new cancer" to get rid of.

 

The whole point is that there is always something new that we have to reduce in order to save the planet. You'd think that after doing this for at least a decade, we'd have things reduced to where they need to be. Of course we don't and thus have "new cancers" that we need to get rid of to save the environment.

 

While I agree that we don't want the global temperature to rise, where I disagree is with this "reduce X" thinking, because there is always a new X, even after a decade of reducing X. Give us all the information we know about global climate change and do a whole approach instead of just poking around one item at a time.

 

Maybe not always, but for a while, you are probably right. When a species becomes industrialized they begin manufacturing/releasing a lot of things that have never been made/released before (CFCs), and/or in unprecedented levels (CO2). We are now seeing the results of this. Also, as our technological knowledge increases, we will discover "new things" that we have been releasing all along that are actually quite bad.

 

So if something is causing the global temperature to rise (and you seem to think CO2 doesn't, despite scientific fact), we shouldn't necessarily try to reduce it?

 

We are "poking around one item at a time" because CO2 is the main factor, and the main thing that we release, and the easiest thing to fix. While there are other greenhouse gases, this is the main one, and the one that we need to fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe global warming exists, but if it does, it's our vault _only_ and we can fix it. That is, if we all try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Ice ages occur approx. every 40K and 100K years. Written language, about 7000 yrs old. The study of weather as a true science, about 170 years. Computer analysis and weather tracking (with todays computers) about 10-15 years. How much CAN we truly know? Remember 30 years ago it was the ice age coming. 1930s it was global warming also. This whole global warming is just a scam, everyone is on the bandwagon, notice how all the graphs only show the last 200 years? the earth is much older than that, its the natural carbon cycle doing its work, things get hot, things get cold, they get hot again. How simple can it be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Ice ages occur approx. every 40K and 100K years. Written language, about 7000 yrs old. The study of weather as a true science, about 170 years. Computer analysis and weather tracking (with todays computers) about 10-15 years. How much CAN we truly know? Remember 30 years ago it was the ice age coming. 1930s it was global warming also. This whole global warming is just a scam, everyone is on the bandwagon, notice how all the graphs only show the last 200 years? the earth is much older than that, its the natural carbon cycle doing its work, things get hot, things get cold, they get hot again. How simple can it be?

 

*cough* ice cores *cough*

 

So the massive spike in carbon is all natural?

 

Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

ok thanks kiko for proving science wrong.

 

btw, that graph included the last 400 thousand years. not the last 200.

 

You are right in that we have been wrong before. However, that is no excuse to sit on our butts and do nothing while we run an uncontrolled atmospheric experiment. We must act on the data we have, and at this point, that data is pretty good (read: reliable).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carbon Dioxide absorbes and reflects infrared radiation (read: heat). The more there is, the more heat emanating from the planet (either from the core, power plants, or sunlight being converted into heat) is retained. Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere any time there is a difference in ratio between release of carbon dioxide and carbon sequestration. Thus global warming. It happens all the time, true. But this time it is happening because human beings are causing it. To resolve the problem, we need only cut back on carbon dioxide release(stop burning fossil fuels) and increase carbon sequestration (stop killing trees and promote their growth). Human beings also respirate a significant portion of the carbon dioxide increase. However much killing half of the world's population would fix the problem, I don't advocate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol socal swimmer, i sense a bit of hostility there, i wonder why...

 

are you saying that a 10% sample is enough? Im not saying we arent causing some it, but merely saying that the media has exploded this into huge proportions and treating this like it is a whole new thing. Which is obviously isnt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not saying we arent causing some it, but merely saying that the media has exploded this into huge proportions and treating this like it is a whole new thing. Which is obviously isnt.

I believe in Global Warming, and I do believe that CO2 that's being produced by us is making this worse. However: the media is making this into a way bigger deal than it actually is. They're just trying to capitilize and lobby off of this. What we need is long term plans, i.e. 'By 2015 we will have reduced x, y and z emissions by a%. We will also have replaced all government vehicles with hybrids by 2020. Tax rebates to owners of hybrids will increase by b% by 2012."

Something like that is both productive and reachable, this transition can't be 'instant' or a lot of people and companies will suffer. Even if you dispute Global Warming and whether or not we are causing it, helping the environment is nothing but good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in Global Warming, and I do believe that CO2 that's being produced by us is making this worse. However: the media is making this into a way bigger deal than it actually is. They're just trying to capitilize and lobby off of this. What we need is long term plans, i.e. 'By 2015 we will have reduced x, y and z emissions by a%. We will also have replaced all government vehicles with hybrids by 2020. Tax rebates to owners of hybrids will increase by b% by 2012."

Something like that is both productive and reachable, this transition can't be 'instant' or a lot of people and companies will suffer. Even if you dispute Global Warming and whether or not we are causing it, helping the environment is nothing but good.

 

I agree. The media should stop obsessing, and we should start doing something about it. Something with definite goals. Hopefully, the upcoming treaties should do this.

 

However, I ask you this: If the media did not obsess, would we do anything? Politicians generally don't do stuff just to be good people...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I ask you this: If the media did not obsess, would we do anything? Politicians generally don't do stuff just to be good people...

 

Probably not, good point. That being said, I wish they media would obssess over the deficit and economy. That's a lot more important than global warming in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(and you seem to think CO2 doesn't, despite scientific fact)

 

Can you show me explicitly where I said this?

 

And no, the correlation comment doesn't count, since it forced you to explain the causal relationship rather than just say "It's happening." Up to this point, you were only showing correlational information without explaining why. So now the why has been explained and I thank you very much for doing something that should have been done with the first post to ensure the last page didn't happen in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I thank you very much for doing something that should have been done with the first post to ensure the last page didn't happen in the first place.

 

lol that was roundabout.

 

on a more serious note:

 

I understand what you are saying. I'm sorry I (or others) didn't explain that earlier. tbh, I thought that was widely known. Every basic documentary of global warming that I have ever seen explains this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since we're going along with honesty...

 

People in general will just scream "REDUCE CO2." When I've asked them why, they point to global warming. So I ask them to explain the concept and they just can't. So we're not doing a good job in educating.

 

On a similar tangent, it happened right here in this topic. All anyone said before I challenged it was "Look at this graph as it clearly shows CO2 is causing global warming." It really didn't; it's just a graph. Just like the decline of pirates, a graph can only show correlation. Science is based on theory proven by research, not by correlation shown on a graph (but it gives us a place to start). The current theory is that CO2 is trapping the sunlight, thus warming the planet.

 

If we're going to solve it, we need to dump Al Gore's approach (since it's a "blame the US" policy with these stupid carbon taxes) and work on an actual feasible approach. It will have to be global if we want to reduce CO2, and this will have to include China (who will surpass the US in emissions sometime very soon).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going to solve it, we need to dump Al Gore's approach (since it's a "blame the US" policy with these stupid carbon taxes) and work on an actual feasible approach. It will have to be global if we want to reduce CO2, and this will have to include China (who will surpass the US in emissions sometime very soon).

 

Actually, Al Gore's approach is by far the best.

Here, we pay about £1 a litre for petrol. Converted through the gallons and the currency, Americans pay about 60p per litre.

Seriously? You guys are complaining? Our petrol will be costing twice as much as yours soon.

Secondly, China passed America as the no. 1 polluter 6 months ago.

Which is suprising, because China has four times as many people.

 

Have a look at this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ions_per_capita

 

America is tenth, the UK is a respectable 37th, whereas China "the world's enemy" is a surprising 91st

 

America needs to stop pointing the finger and take some action - which is at least what most countries are starting to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

emissions per capita doesn't matter, unless you're going to divide it by the entire world's population. People need to stop blaming other countries and work together to solve the problem.

 

Gore's approach is to blame the US while allowing China to go about its normal business. How is that going to help the problem? You'd be allowing China to destroy the environment just to satisfy those that hate the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what you're saying is that China should be restricted to a bicycle/agrarian economy, and the US should use their share of wood, oil and coal. Makes sense.

 

The average American has a carbon footprint 10 times larger than the average Chinese person.

 

The US is mostly to blame. Should we go back to the 18th century so everyone else can advance? Of course not. That's the argument disingenuous people make against the Kyoto accords, that being forced to cap emissions would destroy the US economy. We should figure out a way to get the same goods and services without destroying the world. Obviously. Why to we burn coal (which produces CO2, unless you sequester it) when our energy needs can come from something that doesn't give off CO2? Waste Management (the company that deals with my garbage) has turned landfills into power plants by capturing Methane (a far worse greenhouse gas) and using it to generate power. Companies should be encouraged to figure out ways to fix the problem, instead of pretending it doesn't exist until the world is unlivable.

 

Global warming is happening, it's probably being enhanced by humans, and we might be able to do something about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the stuff about "going environmentally friendly will ruin the economy" is complete BS.

 

The economy, as it stands, is hugely dependent on oil.

 

If we don't get rid of our dependencies on oil by investing serious amounts money on alternative energies and materials.

What I suggest would be to seize half the wealth of all the major oil companies - it's not as if the world will need them in 100 years time :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going to solve it, we need to dump Al Gore's approach (since it's a "blame the US" policy with these stupid carbon taxes) and work on an actual feasible approach. It will have to be global if we want to reduce CO2, and this will have to include China (who will surpass the US in emissions sometime very soon).

 

you are saying that we must get china to reduce their emissions as well. however, if china is forced to stay at or below their current emmisions, then they will be forced to remain in a lower quality-of-life than the USA.

 

For example, if all countries decided to remain at their current emissions levels, then the chinese would be much worse off because each chinese citizen has much less emissions then each american citizen. Less emissions/ person ~ lower quality of life. Now I suppose you could argue that they could increase their quality of life without increasing their emissions, but at this point the average chinese citizen does not have anywhere enough money to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are saying that we must get china to reduce their emissions as well. however, if china is forced to stay at or below their current emmisions, then they will be forced to remain in a lower quality-of-life than the USA.

Exactly, it's the old catch-22.

 

The west is already established and has benefited from hurting the environment but now we want to tell other countries you can't do the same. (whether pollution, rain forests, etc.)

Sure in the grand scheme of things it's better for the planet, but it's not gonna fly with people that clearly live below the standards of most North American people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are saying that we must get china to reduce their emissions as well. however, if china is forced to stay at or below their current emmisions, then they will be forced to remain in a lower quality-of-life than the USA.

 

For example, if all countries decided to remain at their current emissions levels, then the chinese would be much worse off because each chinese citizen has much less emissions then each american citizen. Less emissions/ person ~ lower quality of life. Now I suppose you could argue that they could increase their quality of life without increasing their emissions, but at this point the average chinese citizen does not have anywhere enough money to do so.

 

So by your reasoning, the quality of life in Saudi Arabia (no. 18) is much better than that of Switzerland (no. 69)?

 

Let's see if your claims are true by taking a look at the Human Development Index (HDI)

Switzerland is 7th and Saudi Arabia is 61st!

 

It seems your claim of CO2 emissions per capita being proportional to development is complete nonsense.

 

Money doesn't give off CO2 :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...