View Full Version : I don't believe Global Warming is problem, because...
Ah, ok, second attempt at this. Wanted to add some positives to the poll. :)
So. What thinks yous?
(It's a multiple choice poll btw, so stab away)
HEY, there's no "Because my tin foil hat tells me so" no fair ;)
My pristine sociological endeavour can't compute sarcasm, damn you!
(but thanks for voting liberally - makes it look more populated ;))
I so shoulda clicked the 'display who voted what' option to make the whole thing make any sense tho.
So...
Own up! Who plumped for 'the outcomes won't be severe'? I wana talk turkey. And possibly fish. (;))
I think Drew Carey said it best, when he said . . . "Global warming, my ass!" and continued to spray two aerosol cans, out the door, into the blizzard. :p
Why was there one vote in each section, already? It says 7 total votes.
Still cold over here. I will eat any turkey that pops up.
Why was there one vote in each section, already? It says 7 total votes.
Othello took a protest poop in all the boxes - coz there's no 'Other' option. (I think - And if so, fair play :))
As for Jim Carey, he can blow it out his ass ;)
Still cold over here. I will eat any turkey that pops up.
You'll need a toaster if you want turkey-flavoured pop tarts meladdyo
(Eww. I so hope no one ever invents those ;))
Othello took a protest poop in all the boxes - coz there's no 'Other' option. (I think - And if so, fair play :))
As for Jim Carey, he can blow it out his ass ;)
Jim Carrey didn't say it. Drew Carey did. :D
Sir Toose
11-21-06, 09:26 AM
Because anything that Al Gore backs so fervently and orates upon so feverishly simply has to be bull****.
:D
Ah, the Gore Phenomenon. I hadn't factored that in when I did my origiinal calculations. My cat is clearly working with Gore. They seem to possess the same intellect.
So... Let's se here..... ok... carry the 1...
I predict Al Gore will crap on my kitchen floor within three days. Hope he likes Fancy Feast.
Because anything that Al Gore backs so fervently and orates upon so feverishly simply has to be bull****.
:D
Ooo, Tooselation. Excellente! :)
This is Gore being feverish? Dyamn, i'd hate to hear him talk when he's laid low by a cold ;)
Not to worry. I'm sure a republican blog somewhere has already proved that he's actually an animated piltdown skeleton, and so doesn't even exist ;)
I predict Al Gore will crap on my kitchen floor within three days.
:rotfl:
Sir Toose
11-21-06, 07:12 PM
Ooo, Tooselation. Excellente! :)
Not to worry. I'm sure a republican blog somewhere has already proved that he's actually an animated piltdown skeleton, and so doesn't even exist ;)
Piltdown is a little close to us on the timeline. :D
Seriously, I do think he's real. In a cartoon balloon sort of way.
I see him more as a woodcut ;)
Haven't seen his filmic popularity bid, but i hear most of his powerpoint science is pretty tight. I also hear he's tied the hurricane increase in as a definite CC consequence tho, which is still pretty controversial.
But dammit, why won't someone make a stand for the CC's-not-a-problem clan? I wanna spiel weird facts about Saturday's being rainier and the importance of spam ;)
But dammit, why won't someone make a stand for the CC's-not-a-problem clan? I wanna spiel weird facts about Saturday's being rainier and the importance of spam ;)
Are you referring to the 2 votes here . . .
The science is wrong. The outcomes won't be severe.
I was the 2nd to vote that, but if you are looking for a debate, you are wasting your time with me. I hate debating. I have my opinion, you have your's, and life goes on. I prefer bull-****ting, everyday chat . . .
So, how's the weather out there? It's freakin' freezing here.
:D
adidasss
11-21-06, 08:39 PM
i have no idea what you just said...edit: damnit! that was meant to follow golgotygolgots post! *sulks*
i have no idea what you just said...edit: damnit! that was meant to follow golgotygolgots post! *sulks*
Who?
OK, that was funny! Your edit some how appeared in my post anyways. I blame global warming.:D
adidasss
11-21-06, 08:42 PM
what?
This is simple. Global Warming is caused by aliens who are heating up our atmosphere in preparing them to annihilate the human race so that our beloved earth will host them instead of us. So if we are to fix this problem, we must rid ourselves of these monsters. Just go watch The Arrival with Charlie Sheen and all will be explained. Yes, I mean go now, right this minute. Humanity is counting on you all. :yup:
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6581/thearrivaloi8.jpg
This is simple. Global Warming is caused by aliens who are heating up our atmosphere in preparing them to annihilate the human race
I've already heard the good news... ;)
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/authors/david-icke/david_icke_turquoise.jpg (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/authors/david-icke/)
^^^click - if you can take the terrible turquoise truth^^^
I was the 2nd to vote that, but if you are looking for a debate, you are wasting your time with me. I hate debating. I have my opinion, you have your's, and life goes on. I prefer bull-****ting, everyday chat . . .
It wouldn't have to be a debate. You could just give an everyday chatty summary of why you think what you think. (And then i could ask chatty questions, or bring up chatty facts, and it could degenerate into a debate ;))
i have no idea what you just said...edit: damnit! that was meant to follow golgotygolgots post! *sulks*
Which bits? If it was the last bit, i was making obscure references to a phenomenon called 'the weekend effect', and the role of resources in wars and strife and all that.
If it was the other stuff, that was just me n Toose burning effigies for fun :)
(Don't worry - even i don't know if that last bit made sense ;))
I've already heard the good news... ;)
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/authors/david-icke/david_icke_turquoise.jpg (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/authors/david-icke/)
^^^click - if you can take the terrible turquoise truth^^^
"composed of fourth-dimensional reptilian humanoid extraterrestrials"
That guy is a NUT. :eek: At least my ET's were 3rd dimensional. Some people out there...... :rolleyes:
It wouldn't have to be a debate. You could just give an everyday chatty summary of why you think what you think. (And then i could ask chatty questions, or bring up chatty facts, and it could degenerate into a debate ;))
:p
It wouldn't have to be a debate. You could just give an everyday chatty summary of why you think what you think. (And then i could ask chatty questions, or bring up chatty facts, and it could degenerate into a debate ;))
I would, but my name's not Cathy. :D
http://i4.ebayimg.com/05/i/08/f2/60/cd_1.JPG
adidasss
11-22-06, 05:48 AM
ok OT, i think it's a problem, but it's one of those things that i'm aware of but don't trouble my pretty little head about too much....like death, you know it's there, it's gonna happen, but everyday life takes precedant...
i see changes in the climate, Europe has seen some pretty strange summers lately, as i'm sure the rest of the world has, but i'm not so convinced we managed to screw up the planet to that extent in so little time ( so i'm leaving a "this could just be nature having a spazm" option )
i recycle because mounting garbage troubles me, emition gas doesn't ( and/or i can't do anything about it so it's best not to, you know, worry my pretty little head about it ;) )
Sir Toose
11-22-06, 10:27 AM
I see him more as a woodcut ;)
Haven't seen his filmic popularity bid, but i hear most of his powerpoint science is pretty tight. I also hear he's tied the hurricane increase in as a definite CC consequence tho, which is still pretty controversial.
But dammit, why won't someone make a stand for the CC's-not-a-problem clan? I wanna spiel weird facts about Saturday's being rainier and the importance of spam ;)
I'm admittedly not up to speed on the science. The dissenting point(s) regarding the science that I have heard, that make sense to me, are that we haven't been studying this stuff long enough to make any real hypotheses and that the evidence is still lacking in the context of where and how it all fits together.
There are some scientists who say global warming is a natural cycle and that its effects are evident in the fossil record.
I'm certainly not dismissive of the idea that we are screwing things up. I'm not buying into, nor am I acting upon, any half-baked scientific theories either.
I suppose you may refer to me as ever the pragmatist on this topic. I'll look at the evidence as it comes, but I'm certainly not ready to throw my weight behind any specific school of thought at this time.
The irony of that is that my house sits exactly 31' above sea level on the Texas Gulf Coast. If it's all true I'll be one of the first to know. If I survive it I'll let you know how it was.
PS, hurricane season this past year was very mild.
I thought i'd try and group my responses under topics... :D
Climate Science contains many uncertainties, but there are reasons to heed its general predictions:
The dissenting point(s) regarding the science that I have heard, that make sense to me, are that we haven't been studying this stuff long enough to make any real hypotheses and that the evidence is still lacking in the context of where and how it all fits together.
The problem with most of this stuff is that it's so complex (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/), and frequently unintuitive, that the explanations that make sense to us laymen frequently ain't much use.
Climate scientists say "global mean surface temperatures at decadal and longer timescales are a reasonably linear function of the global mean radiative forcings".
We say "tomato".
All i can say (briefly ;)) is that, despite not understanding the wealth of detail involved, i've got an 'educated gut instinct' that climate scientists are probably righter than most of us - because most of us are mainly guessing.
Many CC theories have been going for 50 years plus - and they, along with their more modern counterparts, are often built upon very-tried-and-tested theories.
That doesn't mean these theories are inevitably right. It just means they've gotta better chance of evaluating the complex interactions of the world, and guessing the outcomes, than the rest of us do with what knowledge we've got.
---
On the contextual/prediction stuff tho, you're right ;). And what's fun is, that CC scientists agree. They say it's all too complex to make sure-fire predictions. They're sure the climate is going to keep changing. They're sure humans are affecting it. They're sure C02 has a long-term role. But they can't yet say what will happen when. Which is why...
[B]
Should we worry our pretty little heads?
i recycle because mounting garbage troubles me, emition gas doesn't ( and/or i can't do anything about it so it's best not to, you know, worry my pretty little head about it )
The way i see it is...
Help (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/) the scientists try and predict the future. It doesn't matter whether you believe in human-assisted CC or not. It'd be good to know in advance if a big wave was gonna knock down your door. Etc.
Live efficiently coz it saves you money. [Soft-glow energy-efficient bulbs are good. Mmmm :)]
And hey, if you can support systems that are moving away from carbon-fuels and towards sustainable ones - think of it as:
(a) Giving the bird the Middle East and/or Russia.
(b) Stopping future resource wars from screwing over primarily the poor and defenceless.
(Delete/retain as appropriate ;))
PS, hurricane season this past year was very mild.
Yup, but, within the understood trends, the number of category 5's has escalated beyond historical norms - so i'm told.
And hey, that history stretches back a fair way...
purloined layman's science image (http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2559/25551301tm4.jpg)
;)
Othello took a protest poop in all the boxes - coz there's no 'Other' option. (I think - And if so, fair play :))
As for Jim Carey, he can blow it out his ass ;)
You'll need a toaster if you want turkey-flavoured pop tarts meladdyo
(Eww. I so hope no one ever invents those ;))
Pfft your sarcasm is computing just fine :)
My "poop" was more indecision and an inability to do basic English comprehension than any real "protest" vote (or lack thereof) But thanks for assuming I am far more clever than I actually am :)
There are some scientists who say global warming is a natural cycle and that its effects are evident in the fossil record.
They all say that man. (Hey, even the guys who only believe in a one-off flood say that ;))
The majority of them just go on to say that human-instigated emissions, altho comparatively small, have certain unfortunate side-effects. Namely that they push certain factors over certain thresholds - and once those thresholds are breached several 'positive feedbacks' get up and running and start instigating the larger changes that CC scientists are really worried about. The sort of massive historical changes we're talking about. The kind of thing you don't really want to try and live through. (And we won't have to. Nothing compared to that anyway. It's our descendents who look likely to be facing an earlier-than-natural major climate shift).
So yes. We're just a small part of a pre-existing system. And once it really starts rolling, we can't stop it. Want an example? The carbon emissions which we're adding to (significantly) can only be 'fixed' back into a non-influential state by massive processes like - well - the ocean going about its business. But it takes a hell of a long time to do it. So once that CO2's out there - it's out there for the long ride.
That's why everyone's talking about '10-20 years to limit carbon emissions' etc. Not because anything massively disastrous is going to happen then - but because by around that point we'll probably have set the big-wheels irreversibly in motion. And our close-descendants will have try not to get ground up as the climate machine shifts gears.
Anyways, yes, in summary - don't make silly statements and i won't have to rant at you ;)
But thanks for assuming I am far more clever than I actually am :)
I assume that of everyone except Toose ;)
Altho he is smarter than Cathy the 'debating doll'. (And he could bite her head off too. Damn, why am i baiting the man? :D)
PimpDaShizzle V2.0
11-23-06, 04:19 PM
We'll see consequences affecting the environment that industrialization caused. That's especially true now that 3rd world countries are being pushed to develop in the same way with fewer regulations.
Something is happening here :yup: we are haveing the worst drought in history, there are 66 bush fires burning here, one has been burning for 12 days now :eek:
That sounds familiar. When we lived in Florida we went for a long period last year without any rain. The brushfires were insane all over central Florida. We had several just down the street from us, up close and personal. I had experienced fires during hot summers in Ct but they were nothing like the ones in Florida.
Sir Toose
11-27-06, 06:59 PM
Anyways, yes, in summary - don't make silly statements and i won't have to rant at you ;)
NOW, you're going to try to piss me off. Did I not preface my statement with a caveat to the effect that I don't spend my waking hours beating off to Al Gore's pseudo science? I thought so.
They all say that man. (Hey, even the guys who only believe in a one-off flood say that ;))
Just establishing a baseline.
The majority of them just go on to say that human-instigated emissions, altho comparatively small, have certain unfortunate side-effects.
This is where the rubber just starts touching the road. There is no solid evidence that anything we (humankind) are doing is having any sort of long range detrimental side effect. This discussion needs to be framed as a hypothetical one.
Namely that they push certain factors over certain thresholds -
Want to get more specific?
and once those thresholds are breached several 'positive feedbacks' get up and running and start instigating the larger changes that CC scientists are really worried about. The sort of massive historical changes we're talking about.
Whoa horsey, you're getting carried away again in speaking as if Gore's wet dream has already started coming (excuse the pun) to pass. Again, there isn't enough out there to start making bold assertions against what the future might or might not hold based upon 'evidence' that we might or might not have.
The kind of thing you don't really want to try and live through.
I get turned just thinking about it. :rolleyes:
(And we won't have to. Nothing compared to that anyway. It's our descendents who look likely to be facing an earlier-than-natural major climate shift).
Oh good you said 'likely' and stopped typing in definitive terms.
So yes. We're just a small part of a pre-existing system.
Me understand.
And once it really starts rolling, we can't stop it.
Back to Doomsday
Want an example? The carbon emissions which we're adding to (significantly) can only be 'fixed' back into a non-influential state by massive processes like - well - the ocean going about its business. But it takes a hell of a long time to do it. So once that CO2's out there - it's out there for the long ride.
Okay, so we're discussing the fossil record here and its relationship to current events. Remember, this is the part where you indicated your opinion of my intelligence. Let me pose some questions to you. 1). If humankind has only had an effect (purportedly) on the environment for MAYBE 70 years (and I'm being generous) and we've known about this carbon emission 'science' for less than that, then how do we know a natural 'healing' process, as the one you've mentioned above, can take place?
2). Was there some sort of emission hiatus that the world took part in to watch the ocean heal the earth?
3). What caused previous events where 'global warming' occurred (according to the fossil record that I so un-intelligently pointed out).
4). Since China, for example, has become a manufacturing superpower and has, as would be natural, increased exponentially in fuel use and emission can we see a trend of worsening damage proportional to the amount of emissions? In what study is that information available?
That's why everyone's talking about '10-20 years to limit carbon emissions' etc. Not because anything massively disastrous is going to happen then - but because by around that point we'll probably have set the big-wheels irreversibly in motion. And our close-descendants will have try not to get ground up as the climate machine shifts gears.
Speculation at best with possible scientific indicators. FAR from fact at this point.
I'm not discarding any of this as a waste of time. I'd hate to say that we aren't having an effect on the environment, that may be causing bad things to happen, and then be wrong. Nothing that relates to any of this is factually proven however so don't act like it is.
Also, if I'm as smart as a debating doll then I'd have to equate you with a parrot who happens to be caged within a real scientists lab.
Rawwwk! Bad for the environment! Rawwwk!
Yay, you bit :)
NOW, you're going to try to piss me off. Did I not preface my statement with a caveat to the effect that I don't spend my waking hours beating off to Al Gore's pseudo science? I thought so.
Yep, you stated you didn't know much about the science involved. Then you happily concluded that the science is 'half baked'. How does that work?
(Incidentally, Gore's little powerpoint presentation is apparently considered surprisingly accurate on most of the key points, according to climate change scientists who've seen it, so the 'pseudo science' tag does seem pretty sweeping :p)
Just establishing a baseline.
Yeah, i know. I just thought it was kinda ironic that it wasn't very accurate, given your general "the science probably isn't accurate" stance ;)
There is no solid evidence that anything we (humankind) are doing is having any sort of long range detrimental side effect. This discussion needs to be framed as a hypothetical one.
First off, according to the IPCC et al, there is very solid evidence that humans are affecting climate change. So on what grounds are you casting that aspect into the 'hypothetical' realm?
Certainly predicting the future is a much more hypothetical practice, and gauging 'detriment' doubly so. It's worth looking at the general grounds on which the scientist's are making their predictions tho...
Want to get more specific?
Sure. I imagine you're aware of most of this... but anyways...
A major one which worries CC scientists is the 400ppm (parts per million) 'threshold' for C02 concentration in the atmosphere - as it is considered 'highly likely' that we will reach a global temp of 2 degrees C above the pre-industrial period under such conditions.
The reason for that being a worrying 'threshold' in itself is that a 2C rise seems likely to set certain 'tipping points' into a phase-change in earnest.
Here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,,1326273,00.html)'s a good overview of 12 reasonably-well-understood 'positive feedback' systems that could change state with 'speed', and in some cases further add to the overall global shift.
And Here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/)'s an interesting breakdown (and ensuing discussion) of the idea of 'tipping point' phenomenon.
Whoa horsey, you're getting carried away again in speaking as if Gore's wet dream has already started coming (excuse the pun) to pass. Again, there isn't enough out there to start making bold assertions against what the future might or might not hold based upon 'evidence' that we might or might not have.
Hardly anyone is making bold assertions of what exactly is going to happen. Especially amongst the CC scientists. And yet you seem to want to throw the evidence that does exist into the 'might not exist' category, which is daft.
For example, there do seem to be changes going on now. There is pretty strong evidence of significant melt in the Antarctic (with contingent flooding risks for the future) and of permafrost melting too (with potential for mass methane-emission). There are signs of some slow-down in the European-end of the 'Gulf Stream' etc (which could, in extreme circumstances, cause flooding and society-battering temperature drops in the NW areas). IE several of the 'tipping points' seem to be undergoing predicted change, most probably due to the raised global surface temperature (and contingent factors etc).
Are those things worth keeping and eye on? Or not?
Oh good you said 'likely' and stopped typing in definitive terms.
I'm totally streamlining my conclusions etc for brevities sake (honest :)). I've dumped a lot of caveats just to get the conversation started too ;). But for all that, i reckon i still highlighted the main areas of scientific uncertainty/certainty as i went (even in ways that don't necessarily reflect my own views). So :p
Back to Doomsday
Not really. Just asserting the idea that climate change is probably inevitable in some form or another (given the fossil record of past examples etc). Would you prefer i was dreaming of a human-built thermostat where we could switch certain aspects of the climate on and off? (Coz hey, there are 'geoengineers' who want to do the equivilant - with giant sun-blocking shields or induced permanent cloud formations etc).
Nah man - i'm on a positive track :):p
Okay, so we're discussing the fossil record here and its relationship to current events. Remember, this is the part where you indicated your opinion of my intelligence.
Dyamn man, i was joking! Since when did the Devil have thin skin? ;)
(Altho i was laying things on with a trowel, admittedly, given your past signs of apparent-contempt for archaeology/geology ;))
1). If humankind has only had an effect (purportedly) on the environment for MAYBE 70 years (and I'm being generous) and we've known about this carbon emission 'science' for less than that, then how do we know a natural 'healing' process, as the one you've mentioned above, can take place?
Because:
(a) We can observe it happening now (But neither it, nor mainland 'carbon fixing', captures all of the gases, of course. [And the efficacy of the ocean process are expected to drop as temperatures rise - based on observations of the ways the flora and fauna involved react to changes in temperature and other factors etc. But you probably don't wanna hear that ;)])
(b) We can draw general conclusions about its past 'behaviour', under various conditions, thanks to the geological record etc.
2). Was there some sort of emission hiatus that the world took part in to watch the ocean heal the earth?
Heh, i doubt hiatus, but i've no idea what the offical lines are on this. It seems that all the major elements involved are always around to one degree or another tho. Seems it's all a question of degrees really. (Pun not intended, but i'll leave it ;)) .
(Not sure 'heal' is the right word either - but i quite like the Gaia hypothesis, so i'll roll with it ;))
3). What caused previous events where 'global warming' occurred
Again, i've never read anything specifically on that subject. I believe that elevated green-house gas levels (plus water vapour etc), along with many other factors which bear comparison with today (not least of which being the sun's role) have been tied in with transitions to periods of greater warmth. I know they've learnt a lot from 'minor' temporary shifts as well, such as the 'mini' ice ages for example.
4). Since China, for example, has become a manufacturing superpower and has, as would be natural, increased exponentially in fuel use and emission can we see a trend of worsening damage proportional to the amount of emissions? In what study is that information available?
Well, i don't know of a specific study, but i do know that systems are being set up with an aim to measuring the specific output of various regions via satellite etc [currently it's mainly done on 'declared emissions' etc] - so it's possible that future studies will be able to display a reasonably accurate correlation between national output and local-and-global trends.
As a rule, yeah, China's expected to undo most of the good work any of the fully-industrialised nations care to undertake - especially as they're sitting on some very convenient coal resources. They do also have 'green-leanings' tho - along with every country really - and can be expected to be interested in any future tech which lowers emissions while securing energy efficiency and autonomy. [They're also already struggling a bit with water resource issues - so, would probably take extra interest if predictions suggested exacerbated drought conditions in their region]
Speculation at best with possible scientific indicators. FAR from fact at this point.
Did you notice the 'probably'? :p. As i've said, none of the predictions are classed as facts. But they're based on them. Within scales of probability, and still using a healthy does of scepticism, i'd still rate their prediction abilities over yours ;)
I'm not discarding any of this as a waste of time. I'd hate to say that we aren't having an effect on the environment, that may be causing bad things to happen, and then be wrong.
And i'd hate to pursue anything that was an over-reaction. (That's why i prefer 'dual use' responses :). Do stuff that makes financial and social sense whether the predictions pan out or not ;))
Nothing that relates to any of this is factually proven however so don't act like it is.
Well, the scientists say you're wrong. And, on this, again, i trust them over you matey ;). The correlation between human activity and temperature rise is a solid bit of fact-based science, it seems.
All the predictions that then follow on from this are very much more 'up in the air'. But it can't hurt to help them improve their all-purpose climate predictions with a click (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/) now can it? ;)
Also, if I'm as smart as a debating doll then I'd have to equate you with a parrot who happens to be caged within a real scientists lab.
Rawwwk! Bad for the environment! Rawwwk!
Hah. They ain't got me caged. I peer over their shoulder and **** down their back. All the while squawking 'What!? What!?' in their ear. ;):p
Piddzilla
12-01-06, 12:57 PM
Things have definitely changed, there is no doubt about it.
Here in the south of Sweden where I live July was the warmest July since 1857. August was one of the most rainy Augusts ever. And now when November's ended in southern Sweden this fall as well is officially the warmest since 1857. In some areas the average temperature in November has been above 10 degrees Celcius which is the metereological definition of summer during a time when it's supposed to be the end of autumn. Why 1857? Because that's when SMHI, the Swedish Meteorology and Hydrology Institute, sarted to make nationwide measurments of the temperature and that's as far back as the statistics reach. In other words, when we say it's the warmest fall since 1857, it might just as well be the warmest fall since 1807 or 1757, we don't know that. Then we have the fact, which Gol allready's brought up, that the permafrost up north here is melting. Permafrost, for those who do not now, is icy ground far up north, close to the North Pole, that never melts. It is melting. Another thing: we very rarely get extreme weather here in southern Sweden, meaning stuff like hurricanes. Well, in the winter-spring 2005 we had a hurricane, Gudrun.
There's been some talk about science and pseudo-science here. I don't know if Gol's allready said this but here's an interesting anecdote.
A scientist, Naomi Oreskes, ramdomly selected 928 articles from different science journals containing the word "climate change". 75% of the articles brought up the issue of man's influence on the climate and 100% of these articles meant, just like IPCC, that climate change during the last 50 years to the biggest part depends on human beings. So, the world of science, not the world of pseudo-science, has agreed: we are playing an active role in changing the climate in the world. And therefore, we are also able to stop it.
And another thing, this debate, even if it's become more and more intense as the pile of evidence of the climate changing because of us, has been going on for quite a while now, for decades actually. Isn't the examples which I've brought up here above pretty convincing of the fact they were and are right, those who said that we ARE a big contributing factor in climate change?
And those I know who know a little bit about this says Al Gore is actually quite accurate. Some even very accurate.
Kay Burton
06-03-21, 04:32 AM
ok OT, i think it's a problem, but it's one of those things that i'm aware of but don't trouble my pretty little head about too much....like death, you know it's there, it's gonna happen, but everyday life takes precedant...
i see changes in the climate, Europe has seen some pretty strange summers lately, as i'm sure the rest of the world has, but i'm not so convinced we managed to screw up the planet to that extent in so little time ( so i'm leaving a "this could just be nature having a spazm" option )
i recycle because mounting garbage troubles me, emition gas doesn't ( and/or i can't do anything about it so it's best not to, you know, worry my pretty little head about it ;) )
The problem is that as long as you are alone, you will not change anything. To change the attitude of people towards the consumption of resources on Earth, a thrifty attitude towards the planet on the part of the majority of the population is necessary. Unfortunately, only a few are unable to cope with a global problem. You need to start by sorting garbage and adequate waste disposal so that tons of plastic do not litter the seas and oceans, so that river banks and swamps are cleared of garbage. Only in this case can there be positive changes.
Thursday Next
06-03-21, 07:31 AM
And the award for most random resurrection of a 15 year old thread goes to...
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.