Government Guide to Global Warming

Is it safe to assume that this article tells me "Global warming is not occurring at the high pace we previously hypothesized, therefore we can safely continue polluting the planet"?
 
Okay, so there are a few scientists who claim global warming does not exist/ won't cause climate problems....

There is always dissent in science, that is one of the major features of science itself.

However, if you take the time to read scientific journals you will realize that the vast majority of climatologists now agree that global warming is certainly happening, and it is either caused or being acellerated rapidly by human involvement, and that if the trend continues, temperature change will reach catastrophic levels relatively soon, within a century or two.

The government's report is about one thing and one thing only: money.

It costs lots and lots of money to reduce Co2 levels to acceptable rates (in fact it would take at least 1-5 percent of the global GDP per year to lower carbon rates to equilibrium levels by 2050), and many of the companies that lobby for and line the pockets of our congressmen will take massive hits to their profits if action is taken.

What exactley would scientists, vice presidents and "hollywood liberals" (as this report claims) have to gain from wasting billions or even trillions of federal dollars on something that did not exist?

The evidence for global warming is obvious, its measurable, predictable and you don't have to look far to find its source.
 
Instead of spending billions on combating co2 emissions why don't we spend billions in researching climate control technologies.

Giant space shields (Or photonic resistors if you will) that would shield planet Earth against the sun and help keep it cool. This would possibly cause great disruption to the ecosphere, but at least it won't be flooded and we'll be free from Kevin Costner mutant fish men sailing the world in mad max like adventures.
 
Mr-Fusion said:
Instead of spending billions on combating co2 emissions why don't we spend billions in researching climate control technologies.

Giant space shields (Or photonic resistors if you will) that would shield planet Earth against the sun and help keep it cool. This would possibly cause great disruption to the ecosphere, but at least it won't be flooded and we'll be free from Kevin Costner mutant fish men sailing the world in mad max like adventures.
Click to expand...

I fully endorse this product and/or event. Best idea ever.

"Gaia Project"
 
It's the 9:th of Dec and we still got temperatures 8-10 here. That's not normal! I need snow!

Stop global warming and give me some snow :)
 
Majestic XII said:
It's the 9:th of Dec and we still got temperatures 8-10 here. That's not normal! I need snow!

Stop global warming and give me some snow :)
Click to expand...

Um I don't know about you but it's been absolutely frigid here.. global warming is not responsible for higher temperatures (maybe about 1 degree F over the last 100 years)
 
Simple solution: Nukes. Set off a few nukes, creates nuclear winter, earth cools again. Problem solved.
 
oh a republican defending the energy industry ..that's unpossible!!!

Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2004 election cycle. [15] The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.
Click to expand...


is a strong critic of the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring as a result of human activities. In a July 28, 2003 Senate speech, he said that he had "offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists." He cited as support for this the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal and the Oregon Petition (1999), as well the opinions of numerous individual scientists that he named (although most climate scientists, as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), now believe that climate change is an existing phenomenon). In his speech, Inhofe also claimed that, "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century."[9] However the satellite temperature record corroborates the well-documented warming trend noted in surface temperature measurements.[10] Also, the satellite record begins in 1979 and the balloon record effectively in 1958, so it is unclear what Inhofe means by "last century".
Click to expand...



oh and he's also an idiot to the nth degree

In doing so, they're paving the way for illegal protection of such practices as homosexual marriage, unrestricted sexual conduct between adults and children, group marriage, incest, and, you know, if it feels good, do it."[17]
Click to expand...

ad hominon attack but meh I'm tired of these self serving ****s ..we should just get this republican back in office


"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming [of jesus] is at hand."

- James Watt, Secretary of the Interior in the Reagan Admin. Responsible for National Policy regarding the Environment


at least he doesnt hide behind psuedo science
 
You're a ****ing moron if you think Global Warming isn't fact.

But if you think only humans are the only causes of Global Warming, then you're also a moron.
 
theotherguy said:
Okay, so there are a few scientists who claim global warming does not exist/ won't cause climate problems....

There is always dissent in science, that is one of the major features of science itself.
Click to expand...
There's also corporate involvment or "sponsorship" (to give it its euphemistic title) from companies directly involved with and profiting from creating vast amounts of pollution who also stand to incur significant losses, should certain governments actually decide that this planet is worth a damn.

I find it incredibly hard to trust any research done by scientists involved with said companies, because there's no way that it's ever ever going to say:
"Yep, there's a huge problem and the people responsible are the exact same perople who gave me the money to do this research. Bad luck boys."


Moreover, even if there ISN'T a problem, it's incredibly stupid to decide we don't have to change our ways. If we don't start to use alternatives to fossil fuels we'll be severely f*cked within our lifetimes, as they will be nearly all gone or, if we're REALLY clever, completely gone, thus leaving us all but stranded, so to speak.
If that's not a good reason to conserve fossil fuels and increase using alternative solutions I can't think of one.

Oh wait, I can - global warming. That's also another good reason to conserve fossil fuels and increase using alternative solutions.

It's obscene (although depressingly unsurprising) that companies, politicians and even scientists would trade the continued well-being and survival of this planet and indeed our own species for some more profits and some more money in their already swelling bank balances.

They're atrocious, amoral individuals.

CptStern said:
"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming [of jesus] is at hand."

- James Watt, Secretary of the Interior in the Reagan Admin. Responsible for National Policy regarding the Environment
Click to expand...
I do my best not to be an anti-theist, and then sub-human c*nts like this come along.
I remember watching The Doomsday Code, which was about people like that and it was the most angry I'd been in a very long time. It makes me despair, it really does.
 
who says the the corporations cant be right? because all the refutations of the people who say there isnt significant global warming always refute them by saying they are doing it for a profit but neglect to argue the arguments they bring up. so if anyone can show me a a website that logically refutes these corporations ill be happy.
 
If there was some research that concluded that global warming was indeed a massive problem and this research project was backed by an international corporation that manafactured solar panals, electric wind farms, electric cars, etc. and thus stood to make vasst, vast amounts of money from this conclusion, would you accept it?
Wouldn't you rather the research came from a source that would be more unbiased?
 
I was talking more about it naturally getting hotter actually.

Obviously, humans have contributed far more to global warming than any actual "warming period." But can't just keep out the other stuff.
 
Actually I think we're in a relatively cool part of the natural cycle with solar activity at a minimum, so that will delay the effects of global warming. But then they'll be worse later on D:
 
Even if we did stop global warming, then we gotta worry about global cooling D:
 
Global warming is not happing here, it's f*cking freezing here in new york, Long Island....10 degree's & the heat isn't working!!! D:
 
KaMaKaZi-BLiTz said:
Global warming is not happing here, it's f*cking freezing here in new york, Long Island....10 degree's & the heat isn't working!!! D:
Click to expand...
Global warming isn't simply "every weather phenomenon going up by 2 degrees". It increases the average temperature, but also makes the "extremes" more extreme and makes weather overall more erratic.

Here in London, we got over three feet of snow in under 12 hours, and now the sun is shining and the snow is melting. Sure, we've rarely ever had that much snow at once, but the weather is a lot more unpredictable than it should be.
 
lol @ global warming isn't happening "here".

It's not a rise in local temperatures, it's a rise in global temperatures (although global is the sum of all the locals, it doesn't go to say that ALL locals must follow the global trend), hence the term "global" warming. Indeed some places may find their average temperature dropping.

The same goes to people say "Wow it's really hot today, damn you global warming!"
 
Because global warming is measurable from a single point on the Earth's surface.
 
magine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.

One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.

In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.

The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale. We have killed thousands of our fellow human beings because we believed they had signed a contract with the devil, and had become witches. We still kill more than a thousand people each year for witchcraft. In my view, there is only one hope for humankind to emerge from what Carl Sagan called "the demon-haunted world" of our past. That hope is science.

But as Alston Chase put it, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power."

That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.
Click to expand...


Source:
Crichton, Micheal. State of Fear.
 
ayn rand wouldnt approve of Crichton, Howard: too conformist
 
Hypothetical Situation Time!

2 situations
Situation (1): Global warming does NOT exist. The observed rises in global temperature are all based on non-human events. Human addition to the warming is negligible. Whatever we do, the globe isn't getting hotter on OUR account. But the human race doesn't know this for sure.

Situation (2): Global warming DOES exist. The combined buildup of cars, air conditioners, power plants, and cows has created a situation where the global temperature is rising dangerously. Human activity is a significant factor in the recent changes in climate. But the human race doesn't "know" this for sure.

2 choices
(a): We begin to decrease emissions etc.
(b): We don't do anything to decrease emissions etc.

4 possible results!

(1a): Global temperature still rises for whatever non-human reasons, until said reasons peter out. New Jersey citizens witness first sighting of the entire Cancer constellation in two centuries. Oil company forced to cancel the Congressman/Lobbyist yacht cruise.

(1b): Global temperature keeps rising until non-human forces stop messing us up. Global warming doesn't eliminate the entire human race, which isn't to say unchecked air pollution is not doing its part. Congressman uses lobbyist donation to buy another private jet.

(2a): Global temperature rise slows down, perhaps stops. Possible stabilization of climate. Amatuer astronomers in Los Angeles suburb start wondering what that big light band across the night sky is (it's the Milky Way, kids). CEO goes without having his rear end wiped by indentured servants. The Lorax comes back.

(2b): Global temperature continues to rise, perhaps accelerating. Ice caps melt, Long Island becomes a giant reef. Bad stuff happens. Oil Conglomerates buy large, fortified bunkers and wait it out.

So, in either situation, would you choose (a) or (b)?


Simplified? No, I call it concise. Exaggerated comments and so on are poorly researched attempts at humor. I'm sure CEO's don't get their asses wiped by indentured servants. Thats what Congressmen are for.

Biggest argument I see against reducing emissions is the cost, an aformentioned 1 to 5 percent of the GDP. But, how much is that in comparison to the earnings of the major oil, gasoline, and power companies? Will it's implementation lead to economic crisis or extensive layoffs? And how much will that matter in another several decades, when the CEO's are gone but the plastic isn't?
 
DeusExMachina said:
I was talking more about it naturally getting hotter actually.

Obviously, humans have contributed far more to global warming than any actual "warming period." But can't just keep out the other stuff.
Click to expand...

Statistical analyses have shown that the changes in temperature many parts of the Earth are currently experiencing are NOT due to natural fluctuation.
 
I am of the opinion that global warming is an natural occurance but mankind has vastly accelerated its rate making it very much more danergous that it usually would be as species dont have time to adapt.

I am also still of the opinion that it could be slowed with the precise application of nuclear weapons.
 
The planet will survive. We won't. \o/

But nevermind all that - stop driving your cars so that I can experience a little snow this Christmas!
 
Remember, kids: whenever you make an appeal to authority, everyone else loves it when you don't even name the authority involved!

RESPECTABLE SOURCES ARE FOR LOSERS
 
It's nice to see people who have no idea of what they are talking about forming strong opinions.
I can safely say that no one on this forum can say for definite that global is/isn't happing or attributable to humans.

Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Fact: The human race releases lots of CO2 in to the atmosphere.

Adding these 2 facts together doesn't necessarily mean that ZOMG WE IZ CAUSIN TEH GLOBEL WARMIN LOL!!1
for example, how much CO2 is released via natural means compared to humans? I dont know where i can find unbiased, accurate figures on the internet, but i assume that humans contribute a minimal amount of CO2 into the atmosphere compared to mother nature. dont forget about the opposite of CO2 emmision. Expanding cities into the countryside and mass deforestation will reduce absorption of CO2, but to what extent?
 
neptuneuk said:
It's nice to see people who have no idea of what they are talking about forming strong opinions.
I can safely say that no one on this forum can say for definite that global is/isn't happing or attributable to humans.

Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Fact: The human race releases lots of CO2 in to the atmosphere.

Adding these 2 facts together doesn't necessarily mean that ZOMG WE IZ CAUSIN TEH GLOBEL WARMIN LOL!!1
for example, how much CO2 is released via natural means compared to humans? I dont know where i can find unbiased, accurate figures on the internet, but i assume that humans contribute a minimal amount of CO2 into the atmosphere compared to mother nature. dont forget about the opposite of CO2 emmision. Expanding cities into the countryside and mass deforestation will reduce absorption of CO2, but to what extent?
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether or not that's true, global warming isn't the only harm that pollution does to the environment. Cancer, asthma, genetic anomalies, water poisoning, acid rain, ecosystem damage, etc.

But really, it all comes down to whether or not corporations actually give a shit when it comes to giving people lung cancer in exchange for the mass production of tires.
 
Stigmata said:
But really, it all comes down to whether or not corporations actually give a shit when it comes to giving people lung cancer in exchange for the mass production of tires.
Click to expand...

I think most corporations have proven that they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt in these situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Early user interface prototypes for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
Replies
4
Views
67K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Omnomnick
Valve Releases Statement Regarding Third-Party Gambling Sites
Replies
0
Views
8K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Steam Dev Days 2016 Coming Soon! - ValveTime News Round-Up (21st June 2016)
Replies
0
Views
2K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
TF2 Arkham Knight Contest Winners Revealed
Replies
0
Views
9K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Back
Top