Global Warming

[speed]

Apparently Global Warming is much worse than previously thought. This ap story, quotes a new official british government report that states temperatures will rise from 2.5-10.5 degrees this century, and that the Antarctic ice shelfs are already beginning to disintegrate. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060130/ap_on_re_eu/britain_climate_change

Its been 60 degrees for most of Jan in Cincy. According to the local weatherman, thus far, this has been the warmest winter in recorded history. I dont know what it has been like elsewhere, but I suspect there is a similar pattern.

Is anyone else getting worried? The effects of global warming seem to be getting obvious. Hell, the flowers are already coming up in Jan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060130/ap_on_re_eu/britain_climate_change

 

[swizzlenuts]

I watched a show in this on the weather channel and some of the weather people were saying, that the earth goes through cycles of heat and then through an extreme cold to correct itself, I myself haven't came up with a conclusion, but both are decent arguments and I haven't decided which is which. My girl friend is all set that global warming shit, but some of the other observations makes sence, but why not try to cut down on some of the stuff like CO2 and stuff like that. I don't think it would hurt....

 

[Susperia]

It's because no one gives a shit, very few people are worried about the earth and the long term effects we're having on it. When you do say you care about the earth, people label you as a hippy. We are a great species, huh?

I'm actually starting to believe that people are more like parasites than like animals. We take what isn't ours, cause harm to our "host" (the earth) and it's very obvious this day in age that the earth would be better off without us. There's a lot of evidence to support that we're not necessary to chain of events here on earth, and that we are actually hindering them.

It's really sad because things didn't have to turn out this way, except it's probably too late to go back to how it used to be. Does anyone else have knowledge of what I'm saying here? I've been reading books on global warming, GMO's, the destruction of rain forests, etc since high school but I feel like no one else notices these things.

 

[NietjeTuck]

Humanity as it stands does not deserve to live among the other animals of this world. People, as Susperia rightly said, don't give a shit. We are, of course, parasites.

I'm a survivalist, if I had the choice I'd be living in the French countryside or something, but I'd be taxed et cetera...

 

[Norsemaiden]

Times review of "The Reveng of Gaia" book by James Lovelock

"But the impending storm is the book's crux. What affects Lovelock profoundly is evidence that we may be approaching "tipping points", when heating suddenly escalates because of feedback. At the current rate, global temperatures will rise by nearly three degrees in the next 50 years. At this point, the rainforests begin to die, releasing vast new amounts of carbon dioxide. Algae fail in the ocean and stop generating cooling clouds and absorbing carbon. The Greenland glacier goes into meltdown, releasing enough water to flood many of the world's cities. Crop failures, human migrations,the emergence of 'brutal war lords' follow. We know the story, but not in our 'real world' minds. Global heating is not yet part of our collective unconscious in the way the bomb was."

It is thought that the planet Venus had an atmosphere that was burned off in a runaway greenhouse effect, 3 to 4 billion years ago such as Earth may be heading for.

 

[ARC150]

The question, to my mind: Do we need to curtail harmful technological advancement so that technology's underminig of the enviroment is kept in check...or do we need to let that tech grow (possibly unimpeded) so that it can allow solutions to our eco problems?

 

[Kenneth R.]

Global Warming, at least the human-caused version, is a rapid acceleration in heating due to (i'm sure you've heard all this before), but the key word is rapid. We are actually in a natural cooling swing of the Earth's climate cycles. So the gradual cooling is countered by our recent industrialization and we have had as a result stable temperatures. The question then remains: will the gradual cooling overcome our progress and enter us into ice age? Or will we outdamage it and see a sudden rise in temperatures as our output overcomes nature? I bet on the latter, and a catastrophic panic when it happens.

As some have said, humanity is destroying its only home. We have 2 options, (discounting eradicating ourselves): Repair the damage done, or seek alternate homes. Even should we manage to control our environmental damage, overpopulation will ensure that our only final option is to colonize other worlds, when this one has been saturated by human influence.

ARC150: I think that technology has been allowed to grow relatively unimpeded as the major cause of this issue. We do not invest much in alternative fuel because it is not profitable. Humanity must learn that profit is less valuable than survival.

 

[ARC150]

ARC150: I think that technology has been allowed to grow relatively unimpeded as the major cause of this issue. We do not invest much in alternative fuel because it is not profitable. Humanity must learn that profit is less valuable than survival.

Dig.

Anyone ever read Lucifer's Hammer?

 

[Kenneth R.]

If it ever came to the choice of living the "natural" life or at least, one free from man-made luxuries as to alleviate the so-called "burden of man on nature", how many hypocrites in this thread do you think would be exposed?

A couple points:

1. Nature is harsh, unforgiving; the ultimate killing machine.
2. Man is arrogant, especially to think he has any real power to have caused "global warming".

Man is arrogant, especially to think he has the power to maintain natural order while industrializing and polluting.
Nature's fury returns stability, Man's fury destroys it.

 

[speed]

The question, to my mind: Do we need to curtail harmful technological advancement so that technology's underminig of the enviroment is kept in check...or do we need to let that tech grow (possibly unimpeded) so that it can allow solutions to our eco problems?

The human race, based on history and personal intuition, will not change its ways until there is imminent disaster. We are just now starting to see many problems due to global warming; but it will take alot more serious ones, before anything changes. And as Ive stated before, this is the same problem we face in science. Scientists rarely think of the bigger picture when creating, and only think of the drawbacks to what they've created after the fact.

 

[Kenneth R.]

"Natural order" is a joke. You make it sound like Nature functioned as a well-oiled machine prior to mans arrival.

Man has made our lives more stable .. nature, is the cause of unstability. You have it reversed.

I'm sorry but YOU have it reversed.

Before mankind exerted his influence, nature functioned in cyclic perfection. That which was not adaptive was removed. That which adapted survived, to the improvement of all species. Weather cooled and ice carved valleys. The Sun then reflected off these white ice sheets and melted them, creating lakes where the glaciers receded. This process repeated several times. In addition, there were not issues with pollution, overpopulation (since predators would maintain a population or overcrowding would cause a species to die out), or hunger, poverty. Mankind introduced all of these with his consciousness.

Mankind is the one polluting the waters, felling the forests, and stripping the ozone. Mankind is the one detonating nuclear weapons, consuming natural resources, and causing an increase in extinctions.

 

[Kenneth R.]

1. Have you never heard of Fibonacci? You claim no order in nature? On what grounds Does the sun not rise every day? Do leaves fall every season? Things are born, they grow, they die.
2. I did not say killing, death, or starvation and pain. I said (if you scroll up just a bit ) polluting the waters, felling the forests, and stripping the ozone. You don't see animals usinc CO2 cans do you? Or paving highways, setting off bombs, or destroying entire rainforests for paper products that become yet more waste to be shoved in a landfill?

Mankind introduced all sorts of terrors that the world previously was oblivious to.

 

[speed]

There is no order in nature, only seasons of chaos. Pole shifts, ice ages, volcanic eruptions, mass extinctions due to disease and other calamities ..I mean, they don't call these "natural disasters" just for the hell of it. All of these things have happened and will continue to whether or not uncle bob drives his SUV to work on Tuesday.

Evolution, the heart of nature, is an utterly blind process. I think you'd agree at least to the point that evolution is responsible for shaping mankind into the "evil" creature you consider him to be today. He is the product of nature, and our technology and the way we use it is very much an expression of this nature .. so your first mistake is to assume we are somehow removed.

Killing, death, starvation, pain are not things introduced by man. They were always here. Even bacteria create chemical and biological weapons to kill off millions of its "enemies". Any animal with the intellectual capability to create a weapon of mass destruction, would.

The problem you have is with nature, not man. You're so far off the mark it's funny.

I think 99% of the non-republican or corporate endorsed scientific community is against you on this one. Maybe ten years ago, this concept could still be believed, but the evidence for manmade global warming is becoming overwhelming.

 

[speed]

Actually, it's very divided. Many experts believe global warming is caused entirely by erupting underwater volcanos ..and is a precursor to an ice age. And we all know ice ages are not man made.

99% my hairy ass, ..it goes to show you're out to lunch.

Yes, I enjoy going out for lunch.

Still, its a very small percentage, and Ive never heard of this underwater volcano theory.

But the real question is why are you afraid to admit man is causing global warming? Why do you disagree with the majority of the scientific community?

 

[speed]

"Afraid to admit" man is causing global warming? Are you serious? Do you say the same line to everyone who disagrees with you?

I also find it humorous how it dropped from 99%, to 50%+ of the scientific community.

Do a little research, take a course in critical thinking ..and we'll discuss this in detail someday.

Judas, your tone is consistent with mine in the Freedom thread (which I apologize for). You are obviously unable to even consider opinions other than yours, and you are insulting and degrading other posters--including me-- with few if any facts, other than your own unsupported opinion. Someone has been watching a little too much O'Reilly Factor.

I never said 50%, I said majority. There are only a few conservative thinktanks that support your claims. Please, if you are going to continue with this line of nonsense, at least post something that validates your theories and ideas.

 

[speed]

The term "majority" is a vague term representing 50%+ (notice the plus sign) of a given community.

A good friend of mine has a Masters in geology and understands the geologic process like the back of his hand. He is currently working on his PhD, and I speak with him often about these and relating matters.

Explination:
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
Evidence:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm

There's so much more, but this should get you going ..

Apart from this semantic nonsense about your defining majority as somewhere right over 50%, wasnt it much easier to actually provide informaiton to back up your claims? Now, I know you arent making this stuff up--as the underground volcano seemed a bit fishy.

Still I am laughing at how naive you are. You are believing the findings of a select few--including this geologist with his own little website. Here is a article from the conservative Washington Post, that states the majority of scientists believe in a global warming, including W Bush's own science advisior: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801021.html

If I could find the article, well, I cant, but last week there was a news report about a conference between the last 6 chairmen of the EPA. Four out of the six were republicans, and every single one of them were complaining global warming is a very very serious problem we have failed to address, and one that was due to manmade chemicals and emisions.

I still just dont understand your contrarian opinion on this subject? Why does it shock you mankind is poisining the environment? Do you love people that much, or, are you just naive?

 

[derek]

I have an interestinga article from new scientist I wish you all to read on this topic, if i can find it.

In basic terms it shows that 95% of the Bush administrations scientific advisors have no scientific qualifications and or are heavily funded by oil companies.

edit: alas, I cannot post the article without a subscription! Here is an interesting article on politics and science nonetheless:

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/example_global_warming.htm

 

[Akirahito]

I'm actually starting to believe that people are more like parasites than like animals. We take what isn't ours, cause harm to our "host" (the earth) and it's very obvious this day in age that the earth would be better off without us. There's a lot of evidence to support that we're not necessary to chain of events here on earth, and that we are actually hindering them.

Hell yes we are more like parasites. We consume and waste in mass quantities. And we find ways to do this to the extreme. Look at G8 and the World Bank. Taking over countries and their resources, and ruining the environment in the process.

 

[speed]

You don't get it, and I thought I already answered this?

I don't believe what I believe because I am somehow "defending mans actions" or "shocked" or "afraid" or any such thing. By your logic, it must follow that Atheists for example, deny God only because they're afraid of the Truth, afraid to think that they are accountable for their actions and not because they have any good reason to.

Surely industry is responsible for a lot of pollution on this planet, no one is saying any different. I approach an issue based on the evidence to support it, while it appears you approach it from the angle of the politlcal majority and public opinion.

Yes, I was attempting to gauge why you are so suspicious of an overwhelming majority, to follow a lone geologist on this. I wanted to know your motive. (and apparently you really believe this underground volcano stuff as the lone cause)

Those that believe in Global warming are those that are following the majority of evidence.

 

[MasterOLightning]

No one ever wants to hear the side that argues against global warming. It's next to impossible to find unbiased info on the subject.

In spite of x acres of rainforest being destroyed each day, less than 1% of the rainforest has been destroyed.

People talk about the icecaps melting, but we probably only have records of the icecaps since we've developed satellite imagery. Maybe I'm overlooking some other method, but I can't imagine we've been able to calculate that for more than 50 years. Perhaps ice levels do fluctuate a bit.

Most of the things you read about GW are written by people with some sort of extreme agenda. The evidence for GW is still rather sketchy and tends to fail to look at climate outside of the box of the last 30 years.