How Credible is This "Global Warming?"

[Vexx]

At this point, its getting rather like the 'earth-centered solar system' defenders versus the Copernicans....

[diabolistic]

Well.. as long as we're on this topic...
What can we do to help make the world cleaner? People are so gung-ho about rallies and joining an organization that they lose track of their goal, which is a cleaner world for everyone, and to sustain the environment for the next generation. What can we do about it? Rather than tackling deforestation in South America or protesting the three gorges dam, we can conserve our own immediate surroundings. If everyone did that, there wouldn't be an environmental problem to begin with.

As cheesy as it sounds, every individual has the ability to change their environment for the better or for the worse. The attitude of "well, it doesn't matter what I do, since it makes so little difference on the global scale" is precisely what exacerbates the problem.

There was a program on Nova that talked about the effects after 911, when there were no flights across the United States,

You may already know that the earth's temperature has increased by .6 to .8 degrees Celsius. Well, that’s only part of the story, which NOVA recounted by beginning with September 12, 2001, when a climate scientist named David Travis noticed that the Wisconsin sky was unusually clear. This meant something special to him, since he had been studying airplane “contrails“ for several years. After 9/11, almost all airplanes in the US were grounded, so there were no contrails, though the atmospheric conditions were ideal for creating them.

[Vexx]

Aye.. it really boils down to a simple tenet: When you make a mess, pick up after yourself. When you leave an area, leave it cleaner than you found it.

Apparently, a lot of mothers failed to teach their children these basic sandbox rules for living -- then those children grew up to be the sort of jerks that don't clean their table, leave a mess in the park, don't clean up their mining operation, don't process their trash output properly, blow smoky shit into the air, etc. Those same former children then go and make it extra difficult for anyone that *wants* to try to follow those rules.

[Kinny Riddle]

Again, people think this is nothing but a "tree-hugger" conspiracy to get people to lose their present lifestyle. "Tree-huggers" don't need to start a conspiracy to get people to "go green", the air in some cities is already suffocating enough to get people to do something about it by themselves.

Decades of research data speaks for itself, and people still decide that all they care is whether they can show off their latest gas-guzzling SUVs.

Like I've said in a previous post, going "environmental" is really all about slightly adjusting your lifestyle so that the world you live in can last just that longer. Nobody is asking you to return to living a Medieval lifestyle.

Originally Posted by diabolistic

There was a program on Nova that talked about the effects after 911, when there were no flights across the United States,

You may already know that the earth's temperature has increased by .6 to .8 degrees Celsius. Well, that’s only part of the story, which NOVA recounted by beginning with September 12, 2001, when a climate scientist named David Travis noticed that the Wisconsin sky was unusually clear. This meant something special to him, since he had been studying airplane “contrails“ for several years. After 9/11, almost all airplanes in the US were grounded, so there were no contrails, though the atmospheric conditions were ideal for creating them.

I believe this was shown in the BBC some years ago. It's something called Global Dimming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

[SolarNova]

As much as i would like to think we could do somthing about global warming it requires a world wide effort and more importantly the governemnts of the world have to put the effort into it, and come on, do you really think the whole world or atleast the contries that cause most of the problems are gunna unite to that kinda level and even then, want to put the effort and money into chainging.

Its a nice fantasy but nothing more, this planet is on a 1 way trip straight to hell ( its already a kinda hell anyway so atleast some of us will be ready for it), better get used to that idea becouse most of us here will likely be alive when it does, specialy if current findings in this topic are true. ( The rate in which climate change is progressing is faster than scientist predicted ) This was in the news reccently.

The point of no return in climate change is fast approaching and i dont think ( in mho ) its enough time for the worlds governments to put any serious plan into action.

[Sides]

Originally Posted by JustInn14

My complaint about gwoble wuurming, is that there's not a thing you or I can do about it. I mean something BIG not " Pl3ase don't crap on the grass" or "p!eese pick up after your kids", I mean something BIG! Like blowing down all of the polluting factories!

Of course you can, but that would mean leaving your current lifestyle behind, and becoming an outsider.
But then again, GW is pretty much liked to the size of the population, so even if you demolish thousands of factories, you still have a lot of living beings and machines exhaling CO2 and other gases.

Originally Posted by aohige

...No one wants to live in a crappy Kevin Costner film.

What about Costner himself ^^

[JustInn14]

Originally Posted by Sides

Of course you can, but that would mean leaving your current lifestyle behind, and becoming an outsider.
But then again, GW is pretty much liked to the size of the population, so even if you demolish thousands of factories, you still have a lot of living beings and machines exhaling CO2 and other gases.

-----

What about Costner himself ^^

hmm, well I kind of like my current lifestyle. I guess blowing down factories is a bit .... extreme(?!)

What I do (for now) is juat pick up any trash I see, when I'm walking around the area I'm in.

Of course, I'd probably blame the SUV's for the global warming crud in the first place. Do we really need vehicles' like that?!

[Jaden]

There's no way our expansion wouldn't speed up global warming. It's a fact. The efforts to stop it aren't a complete waste, they relieve some pain, but the bomb's gonna explode inevitably. Humans need at least one big scenario of nature showing them who's boss, and perhaps after that we'll lose interest in reproducing too much and find a balance.

[Thrasher187]

Originally Posted by Thrasher187

I think Global Warming is just something used by enviromentalists to scare people into being green.

Pardon my rudeness in that post. I noticed I offended some people with this blunt remark.^

I just don't believe that global warming will cause an applocalypse in the near future, that's all. I think that GW is the earth's temporary reation to the pollution we human beings caused over the last century and it will go away eventually.

[JustInn14]

and perhaps after that we'll lose interest in reproducing too much and find a balance.

You can thank those retarded

Spoiler for this is returded!:

"pro life"

baby boomers for that.

[aohige]

Regardless of which side of that controversy you stand in, you can't blame abortion issues to be directly related to the insane population growth civilization has witnessed.
They have minimal effect for the most part. I think the only example of it actually affecting growth considerably was Romania under the rule of Nicolae Ceauşescu. That was an extreme example, and by no means the standard.

[JustInn14]

Nicolae Ceauşescu.

Yuck. He looked like he was Bat-F**K insane! O_O

[raikage]

Originally Posted by Thrasher187

Pardon my rudeness in that post. I noticed I offended some people with this blunt remark.^

I just don't believe that global warming will cause an applocalypse in the near future, that's all. I think that GW is the earth's temporary reation to the pollution we human beings caused over the last century and it will go away eventually.

Go away eventually due to...?

So you're saying if we, as humans, keep chugging along at the same pace we are (or the same pace we were a couple of years ago) our environment will somehow reverse its changing process?

[Thrasher187]

Originally Posted by raikage

Go away eventually due to...?

To answer that question, I was just saying that the earth will heal itself. Whether we keep "chugging along" or not, it doesn't matter. The earth will still do its thing. That's just nature.

That's my humble opinion anyway....

[WanderingKnight]

To answer that question, I was just saying that the earth will heal itself. Whether we keep "chugging along" or not, it doesn't matter. The earth will still do its thing. That's just nature.

That's my humble opinion anyway....

More like nature doesn't care about life or not. Of course things will go on even if humans disappear, and of course it will be nature once more, but that doesn't mean it will be "nature" as it is commonly understood.

[karasuma]

Global warming is like California fire hazard. By the time my ass is on fire, it is too late. The question you should ask is : can I afford to have global warming be real. Keep in mind, it does not even matter whether it is caused by human or not.

So, do you want to take out an insurance on this potential hazard? Hrm.... that's all depended on the price. If it is prohibited expensive, we might say to hell with it. I am going to live for the moment and forget the next generation. If not, might be we should spend some $$ and get ourselves an insurance policy.

[User65554]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

More like nature doesn't care about life or not. Of course things will go on even if humans disappear, and of course it will be nature once more, but that doesn't mean it will be "nature" as it is commonly understood.

Nature will continue, life will continue, possibly even human life will continue, but 'life as we know it', so to speak, will probably end.

[NibelungTaisa]

I say global warming is just as credible as saying the Earth is round and revolves around the sun. This example is of course an undeniable fact which no one can dispute, however, people did not believe in this way back then (not sure when and how long it was when people started believing in this). There have been overwelming evidence back then imo, however, people just didnt believe in it or didnt want to believe in it. some people actually got executed for believing in a round world orbiting the sun (Galelio i believe). i agree with vexx to saying that this is like the "center of the world" debate eons ago. to the people who still believe that the earth is flate and that the heavens revolve around earth, may your poor poor soul rest at ease
just my analogy: global warming is just like eating. you started to eat fast food more often nowadays. you notice that you gained a few weight but thinks that it is nothing. you do not change your lifestyle and keep eating what you want everyday. you do nothing until you realize that you start to lose your breath more often and get tired faster. you wanna do something right now but you keep thinking that there is nothing you can do right now, and before you know it you have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. if you were to change your habit in the begging this wouldnt have happened. unlike global warming it wont take a thousand year for a person to die and it is happening in front of our eyes. of course there are people who still believe that stuff like transfat are not harmful. i could say the same about cigarretes. which is why i do not smoke and i sort of watch what i eat. that is because i am thinking more long term then right now or in the short run. just a lil something i heard jay leno said he heard: "Mc Donald's have decided to kill off transfat from their food and menu withing four years. In four years, that transfat will already kill off the Mac's customers."

off topic but, even with evidence, who here still believe that the earth is round and is the center of the universe; that tranfat and smoking cigarettes are not harmful?

[FatPianoBoy]

Originally Posted by Boston Globe Editorial

Now with 50 percent less truth

October 29, 2007

WHEN THE top public health official of the United States addressed the Senate last Tuesday on the health impact of global warming in this country, the senators - and the public - had a right to expect Julie Gerberding's full, unvarnished thoughts on this important issue. That's not what they got. In another case of the White House censoring what the public learns about climate change, the administration cut her testimony in half.
As a result, Gerberding, who heads the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, did not tell senators, as she had planned to, that "the public health effects of climate change remain largely unaddressed." Nor did the senators learn that areas in the northern part of the country "will likely bear the brunt of increases in ground-level ozone and associated airborne pollutants. Populations in Midwestern and Northeastern cities are expected to experience more heat-related illnesses as heat waves increase in frequency, severity, and duration."

All of that information was included in the six pages stricken from Gerberding's original draft of 12 pages. The White House says it made the deletions because the information "didn't align" with a report this year from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In response, Senator Barbara Boxer of California released a comparison of the UN report and phrases stricken from the Gerberding draft. Both raise the threat of heat stress on vulnerable populations, increased respiratory diseases, and more waterborne infectious diseases.
This is not the first time the White House has muzzled government researchers who have raised concerns about global warming or pointed the way to addressing it. After NASA scientist James E. Hansen said in 2005 that greenhouse gas emissions were creating "a different planet," his superiors tried to control his appearances and limit his interviews.

In 2002, the White House made the Environmental Protection Agency drop a chapter on the risks of climate change from an annual EPA report that for six years had included such information. In 2003, the EPA did its best to bury an analysis by staff members showing that a proposal to cap carbon dioxide emissions by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman would not seriously damage the economy.

Recently, the Bush administration has been more willing to acknowledge the role of manmade emissions in the warming of the planet, while still shrinking from mandatory actions to deal with the problem. By watering down the views of a top official like Gerberding, the White House hopes to reduce pressure in the public and Congress for a carbon cap or tax that would force limits on emissions. But this is a case of what we don't know can hurt us. The Senate should bring Gerberding back to give her full testimony.

So... yeah. It's up to American citizens to clean up the earth, because the government sure as heck isn't going to help.

[JustInn14]

hmm. Like THIS?! http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:B...ithbadgers.jpg LOL!