Global Warming

Post by **Scourge** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:08 am

7zark7 wrote:It is the hight of human arrogance to think we are destroying the earth. We are simply killing ourselves, making the planet inhabitable to ourselves. Bacteria are the only significant life on earth.
As far as the earth is concerned we're most likely in the midst of another ice-age. The only thing you can count on on this planet is mass extinction...and we're well over due for another one.

Agreed, she'll just sweep out the trash and go on after we're done fucking around.

Post by **Nightshade** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:16 am

The Larsen B ice shelf dropping off Antarctica should make anyone stand up and take notice.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:32 am

Nightshade wrote:The Larsen B ice shelf dropping off Antarctica should make anyone stand up and take notice.

not to mention the thousands of other effects climate change has brought

Post by **shadd_** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:40 am

global warming can be seen in canadas north. perma frost areas are shrinking and pack ice also.

Post by **mjrpes** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:47 am

I'm not really worried about global warming. I live 132 above sea level. I am kind of worried that the cheap socks I buy from Wal*Mart will get more expensive if all those factories on the coast of China go underwater. That would be a tragedy.

Post by **mjrpes** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:48 am

shadd_ wrote:global warming can be seen in canadas north. perma frost areas are shrinking and pack ice also.

But it makes it so much easier to drill for oil.

Post by **shadd_** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:51 am

actually it's easier when the ground is frozen. don't need to build roads, less mud etc..

Post by **shiznit** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:53 am

mjrpes wrote:I'm not really worried about global warming. I live 132 above sea level. I am kind of worried that the cheap socks I buy from Wal*Mart will get more expensive if all those factories on the coast of China go underwater. That would be a tragedy.

That would be a real bummer.

But on a serious note, if you really believe that global warming is so bad that if in the next 25 years we don't cut our CO2 emissions then we will all die, then I feel sorry for you.

BTW it's expected CO2 emissions will double by about 2025.

Post by **shiznit** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:54 am

And don't forget the global cooling theories of the past.

Post by **mjrpes** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:56 am

I bet there's a ton of oil right in the middle of Antarctica. I bet there's enough to last for centuries. There has to be. The only way to get there is for that big ice cap to melt.

Post by **tnf** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:11 am

shiznit wrote:
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
shiznit wrote: I bet you also think we are cutting down all our forests.
look the world's scientific community disagrees with you including the climatologists etc.

if you want to present some evidence backing up your position it would be greatly appreciated
I can tell you haven't read much about global warming because the world's scientific community does agree with me. The evidence you probally looked at is not very scientific at all and exaggerates the cause and outcome. How about you provide me with evidence that there is an immediate danger from global warming.

By immediate I mean in the next 100 years or so.

Show me where the world's scientific community agrees with you. As a former (and sort of still current) part of it, I'd be interested to see what we all agree with.

Post by **tnf** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:12 am

I teach stuff about global warming and climate change, so I'd be real interested to hear what we think...

Post by **shiznit** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:14 am

tnf wrote:
shiznit wrote:
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: look the world's scientific community disagrees with you including the climatologists etc.

if you want to present some evidence backing up your position it would be greatly appreciated
I can tell you haven't read much about global warming because the world's scientific community does agree with me. The evidence you probally looked at is not very scientific at all and exaggerates the cause and outcome. How about you provide me with evidence that there is an immediate danger from global warming.

By immediate I mean in the next 100 years or so.
Show me where the world's scientific community agrees with you. As a former (and sort of still current) part of it, I'd be interested to see what we all agree with.

Sorry it's not my job to provide you with teaching material, I suggest you do some research yourself.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:15 am

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050425fa_fact3

I haven't read part II or III yet, but this one definitely opened my eyes.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:20 am

shiznit wrote:There is not enough evidence to completely support global warming, even the obvious evidence that we have is hard to interpret, despite what you might think. Most scientists agree that humans are having some effect on the climate but none of them can accurately calculate how much impact we are having. Some say it’s less than 1%, which is quite insignificant if you really consider how much the natural cycles create, other say it’s slightly more. I say it’s in between and that the people proclaiming global warming as a big threat are only doing it to bring attention to the issue.

Just to note I’m not a crazy republican or anything, I used to believe that there was a huge problem with global warming but then I did research on my own and came to this conclusion. There is definitely a rise in temperature over the last hundred years, but it’s not necessarily global warming.

shiznit wrote:
I can tell you haven't read much about global warming because the world's scientific community does agree with me. The evidence you probally looked at is not very scientific at all and exaggerates the cause and outcome. How about you provide me with evidence that there is an immediate danger from global warming.

By immediate I mean in the next 100 years or so.

Okay so according to you, the international scientific community thinks there is not enough evidence to support global warming? I agree they don't have complete agreement on the rate of change but characterizing the lower range climate change estimates as insignificant is definitely not in accord with world scientific opinion.

Evidence to support my contention...

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004 ... 21489.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environmen ... ?pageID=27

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp

http://www.panda.org/downloads/climate_ ... t_ut3s.pdf

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarmi ... pacts.html

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/rel ... 3/pr91/en/

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Impacts/

http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/onetonne ... mpacts.asp

Post by **tnf** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:20 am

shiznit wrote:
tnf wrote:
shiznit wrote: I can tell you haven't read much about global warming because the world's scientific community does agree with me. The evidence you probally looked at is not very scientific at all and exaggerates the cause and outcome. How about you provide me with evidence that there is an immediate danger from global warming.

By immediate I mean in the next 100 years or so.
Show me where the world's scientific community agrees with you. As a former (and sort of still current) part of it, I'd be interested to see what we all agree with.
Sorry it's not my job to provide you with teaching material, I suggest you do some research yourself.

I've got plenty of teaching material champ. But if you are going to spout shit about the entire 'scientific community' backing you up, you should be ready to show us your sources.

The majority of the scientific community disagrees with you. Do some research and find out why.

Post by **tnf** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:21 am

Don't waste too much time puff. This is really no different than trying to convince a biblical literalist that the earth wasn't created in 6 days 6000 years ago.

Post by **plained** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:23 am

imo change is a gradual mult-generational deal.

look at me for example, im down yo

Post by **tnf** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:24 am

nobody argues that there are natural fluctuations in the climate - but there is not much argument that humans are making some dramatic impacts on these cycles.

Nature has all sorts of checks and balances built in. Humans are great at messing up the balance.

Post by **shiznit** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:29 am

tnf wrote:As a former (and sort of still current) part of it

Yeah because teaching a bunch of 13 year olds basic science qualifies you as being part of the scientific community, please spare yourself the ridicule.

Post by **tnf** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:31 am

Right, having been a cancer researcher beforehand and writing for college biology textbooks doesn't mean shit does it?

Post by **shiznit** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:32 am

We are not arguing biblical beliefs over science here; you are basing your opinion on some naturalist hysteria and a couple of scientists that think we can correctly model our future climate based on computer models. We can’t, we can’t even predict the eruption of volcanoes.

Post by **Dave** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:32 am

yeah tnf, you science n00b. Stop researching cancer, writing books and teaching classes

Post by **tnf** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:33 am

..couple scientists... :lol:

Post by **shiznit** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:33 am

tnf wrote:Right, having been a cancer researcher beforehand and writing for college biology textbooks doesn't mean shit does it?

No not really, when we are talking about environmental changes not cancer.