Is global warming really caused by humans?

[repiV]

There was such a hysteria? Anyway, your rationale for this global warming "scam" is also a bunch of bull, namely that they can tax you more. Except that I believe the total cost of fighting global warming would amount to 9 trillion or somewhere around that. Doesn't sound too profitable to me, spending billions on stuff like reinforcing the coast-line and so you can tax people more for a toaster.

WTF does "fighting global warming" even mean? Nobody even knows exactly what is causing global warming, or whether it's anything more than a temporary thing. How can you possibly spew a number (9 trillion) out of your arse?
I'll tell you the cost of "fighting global warming" - the self-destruction of our economy and freedom in the name of the Church of Environmentalism.

But I think a better description of you would be: "the government is out to get me" anarchist.

I'm not an anarchist, but the government is out to get me. Force people out of their private vehicles with extortionate taxes and charges (thus also widening the rich-poor divide), and by deliberately making using the roads a frustrating and miserable experience.
And if you shout "global warming", it's an instant get-out clause. Even when a London bus which can carry a maximum of 70 people causes 128 times as much pollution as the average car. You do the math.

 

[Grandmaontoast]

If you look back in history the earth has been through many different phases through its life some very hot some very cold. I believe that the Earth is jut going through another phase. Humans are just speeding it up!


Also heard that cow flatuelants are a huge cause as methane is a stronger greenhouse gas thatn co2.

 

[KagePrototype]

Personally, I'm willing to believe the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that we're the cause. If anyone can prove them wrong, I'm willing to listen.

 

[Nemesis6]

The IPCC was threatened with a lawsuit by a scientist whose research they used to draw their own conclusion. He said he didn't want his research in it because they essentially picked and choosed from what he had to say. It took a lawsuit against them to stop them from putting his name on the list of contributors. Another thing: The IPCC themselves concluded that there was no conclusive evidence to support man-made global warming. But that paragraph was later taken out. The IPCC really aren't the supreme authority on this matter.

EDIT: See Penn & Teller's perspective on global warming - http://video.google.com/url?docid=-...ndex=0&usg=AL29H23749sWtGOhwDAQvepA_eWEIsbFZQ -- They suggest, like I do, that we don't really have any real evidence to support it.

 

[-Psy-]

If the Earth begins to cool down anyway, it'll be a huge slap in the face for everyone. (Al Gore)

 

[Gray Fox]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4boaEbtjByU[/youtube]

I don't know what to believe. D:

That is from a documentary that is called "the great global warming swindle", it contains a lot of falsehoods. The maker was even sued by the MIT scientist that appeared in it.

Wunsch wrote in a letter dated March 15, 2007 that he believes climate change is "real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component". He also says he had thought he was contributing to a programme which sought to counterbalance "over-dramatisation and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts". He raised objections as to how his interview material was used:

"In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous - because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important?diametrically opposite to the point I was making?which is that global warming is both real and threatening."[4]

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

 

[Solaris]

Hate to be blunt and rude but: We are not qualified Climatologists, we are not educated well enough to be able to judge for ourselves if mankind is a factor in global warming. The fact is, the people who are educated enough and telling us that we are the biggest factor and if we don't act the world will end as we know it. Anyone who disagree's with this, you ask to see their PHD Thesis on climatology, what's that, you don't have one? Then shut the **** up.

 

[Pulse]

Hate to be blunt and rude but: We are not qualified Climatologists, we are not educated well enough to be able to judge for ourselves if mankind is a factor in global warming. The fact is, the people who are educated enough and telling us that we are the biggest factor and if we don't act the world will end as we know it. Anyone who disagree's with this, you ask to see their PHD Thesis on climatology, what's that, you don't have one? Then shut the **** up.

Is anyone a member of parliament here or a politician for that matter? No? Then why are we discussing politics?

 

[Solaris]

Is anyone a member of parliament here or a politician for that matter? No? Then why are we discussing politics?

I'm an elected member of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament. So there.

And besides, being a politician doesn't really make you anymore qualified to understand issues, politics is accessible and debatable by the layman, Science is not.

 

[99.vikram]

No, I'm one of them "**** off and stop justifying your authoritarian ideas with your global warming shite you don't even understand" people.
Global warming hysteria is almost as ridiculous as the aliens-are-invading hysteria of 1930s America. ONLY TEN YEARS LEFT TO SAVE THE PLANET!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

Whom do we trust - RepiV or the large majority of the world's qualified geologists and climatologists?

 

[repiV]

I'm an elected member of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament. So there.

Which is about as relevant as being the milk monitor...

 

[repiV]

Whom do we trust - RepiV or the large majority of the world's qualified geologists and climatologists?

Yes, because the vast majority of the world's qualified geologists and climatologists are predicting imminent extermination of life as we know it. Pack your bags and hide your children underground.

 

[Solaris]

Which is about as relevant as being the milk monitor...

Not in the context of the quote I quoted. I admit the UKYP is a complete joke, but Gordon Brown mentioned it and praised it in a big speech in the house of commons the other day when he talked about changing the government and the like.

 

[repiV]

Not in the context of the quote I quoted. I admit the UKYP is a complete joke, but Gordon Brown mentioned it and praised it in a big speech in the house of commons the other day when he talked about changing the government and the like.

So?
The very concept of children having a position in government is laughable at best and insulting at worst. And it doesn't mean shit as far as your political credentials are concerned (which are next to zero).

 

[Solaris]

So?
The very concept of children having a position in government is laughable at best and insulting at worst. And it doesn't mean shit as far as your political credentials are concerned (which are next to zero).

Young people should be consulted at some level in government affairs.

And actually being a Member of Youth Parliament has massively boosted my "political credentials", I have been invited to give speeches, and have given them at local conferences, including one about the launching of a government report about how Burnley has progressed since the race riots. I also took part in a BBC world service radio debate. I'm not saying I'm important, I'm not, I don't even go to meetings anymore, the whole organization is a ****ing joke but to other people who don't know that, it's moderately impressive.

 

[repiV]

Young people should be consulted at some level in government affairs.

No they shouldn't.

And actually being a Member of Youth Parliament has massively boosted my "political credentials", I have been invited to give speeches, and have given them at local conferences, including one about the launching of a government report about how Burnley has progressed since the race riots. I also took part in a BBC world service radio debate. I'm not saying I'm important, I'm not, I don't even go to meetings anymore, the whole organization is a ****ing joke but to other people who don't know that, it's moderately impressive.

Maybe it is moderately impressive, and maybe what you have done is also moderately impressive, but in the real world it doesn't mean shit. You're 16 years old ferchrissake, why can't you just admit for once that you don't know shit about the world instead of turning every other discussion into socialist/moronist propaganda?

 

[Solaris]

Maybe it is moderately impressive, and maybe what you have done is also moderately impressive, but in the real world it doesn't mean shit. You're 16 years old ferchrissake, why can't you just admit for once that you don't know shit about the world instead of turning every other discussion into socialist/moronist propaganda?

It doesn't? I've been told it would be very helpful on my university application, especially with the radio debate stuff. I'm 17 and I don't give a **** if you think I don't know shit: I bet I can speak French and German better than you can, know more about mathematics and physics, know more history than you do, can swim faster than you and have more qualifications than you do already.

REPRIV I AM BETTER THAN YOU

/arrogance

 

[repiV]

It doesn't? I've been told it would be very helpful on my university application, especially with the radio debate stuff. I'm 17 and I don't give a **** if you think I don't know shit: I bet I can speak French and German better than you can, know more about mathematics and physics, know more history than you do, can swim faster than you and have more qualifications than you do already.

REPRIV I AM BETTER THAN YOU

/arrogance

So? It doesn't mean you have a clue.

 

[Llama]

This coming from the man ignoring the majority of established scientific opinion?

 

[repiV]

This coming from the man ignoring the majority of established scientific opinion?

Yes, because the majority of established scientific opinion clearly says that doomsday is upon us.

 

[Baal]

I've flipped-flopped on this topic so much in last year or so, that I just can't decide anymore.

Currently, I don't believe CO2 emissions from humans are contributing to global warming. However, I am easily convinced otherwise if I am presented with the correct facts, but I just don't feel like I can trust anyone anymore. I can't trust Al Gore, I can't trust the UN Scientists, I can't trust the media, I can't even trust documentaries about the subject anymore. Who do I listen to? How can scientist's opinions vary so widely on a scientific subject that should really only have one outcome? This isn't 100% speculation, we do have data to support theories of climate change - why can't there be one definitive answer?

It's just so frustrating. But I'm not completely against conservation either, but I don't want to take it to the extremes where it actually prevents us from living the lives we want to live, or preventing developing countries from developing.

I see no reason why we can't shut our lights off during the day, and why we can't conserve important natural resources such as water. Also, we need to continue researching other, more sustainable forms of power. I am all for this, as well as a cleaner environment. But everyone is freaking out like it is the end of the World - and it could be. But I believe if it truly is to that point where the World as we know it is coming to an end, I think there's a very good chance we are not the cause.

 

[repiV]

I've flipped-flopped on this topic so much in last year or so, that I just can't decide anymore.

Currently, I don't believe CO2 emissions from humans are contributing to global warming. However, I am easily convinced otherwise if I am presented with the correct facts, but I just don't feel like I can trust anyone anymore. I can't trust Al Gore, I can't trust the UN Scientists, I can't trust the media, I can't even trust documentaries about the subject anymore. Who do I listen to? How can scientist's opinions vary so widely on a scientific subject that should really only have one outcome? This isn't 100% speculation, we do have data to support theories of climate change - why can't there be one definitive answer?

It's just so frustrating. But I'm not completely against conservation either, but I don't want to take it to the extremes where it actually prevents us from living the lives we want to live, or preventing developing countries from developing.

I see no reason why we can't shut our lights off during the day, and why we can't conserve important natural resources such as water. Also, we need to continue researching other, more sustainable forms of power. I am all for this, as well as a cleaner environment. But everyone is freaking out like it is the end of the World - and it could be. But I believe if it truly is to that point where the World as we know it is coming to an end, I think there's a very good chance we are not the cause.

Well said. It's the sheer hysteria that pisses me off. And the way half-truths are accepted as facts (in this and many other topical issues of the day), steamroll in the legislation and annihilate any dissenters.

 

[Baal]

My belief is that we need not to be so sensationalist in regards to living a greener life. I make a "green" choice 5 days a week when I go to work; I take the bus. Not because I necessarily am so concerned about the environment and the amount of CO2 my car emits on the drive to and from work, but it's because driving in the city sucks, and paying for gas sucks. I could drive to work nearly everyday if I wanted, but sometimes the green choice is the right choice, and can improve our quality of life.

 

[repiV]

I'm just not interested in the global warming/political correctness/multiculturalism borg cube. Whether or not there is any truth to it is largely irrelevant, it's the suppression of free debate and "join us or die" mentality that concerns me. We must all submit without question. And pay the requisite tax hikes too.

 

[Llama]

I can't understand why people stick their heads in their asses (Guess who I'm looking at) and refuse to just think.

What gases cause the greenhouse effect? Primarily, CO2 and Methane.

What do humans produce a lot of? C02, and Methane (Before you jump on that, a shit load of methane comes from cattle, which humans wear.)

Why is this so hard to understand? It's going to have an effect, no matter what tin pot BP-funded researcher says. It's basic cause and effect. You cut down trees and pump out C02, C02 levels rise faster than they would naturally.

+ Yes Repiv, just because you manage to filter out 90% of the content in your little world, does not mean that no believes the opposite of what you claim is correct.
Unless you cause you don't count these:

'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Joint science academies
U.S. National Research Council American
Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
Federal Climate Change Science Program
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy
Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America

 

[repiV]

+ Yes Repiv, just because you manage to filter out 90% of the content in your little world, does not mean that no believes the opposite of what you claim is correct.

Hold on a minute...what do I claim, exactly?

I haven't claimed anything, except that I'm sick of global warming hysteria and liberal groupthink. So get off your morally superior, "I'm so right!!" high horse and STFU.

You can also sit there and tout "facts" about "greenhouse gases" as much as you like, but your opinion is nothing more than the result of some stuff you read and chose to believe.

 

[Asknoone]

can swim faster than you

Wow, repIV has totally lost the argument now. I concede, I concede! You swim much faster than me!

 

[Llama]

Hold on a minute...what do I claim, exactly?

I haven't claimed anything, except that I'm sick of global warming hysteria and liberal groupthink. So get off your morally superior, "I'm so right!!" high horse and STFU.

You can also sit there and tout "facts" about "greenhouse gases" as much as you like, but your opinion is nothing more than the result of some stuff you read and chose to believe.

As opposed to your opinion, which is based on...oh, yeah, nothing.

Which makes my opinion more valid then yours.

Sucks, doesn't it?

 

[repiV]

As opposed to your opinion, which is based on...oh, yeah, nothing.

Which makes my opinion more valid then yours.

Sucks, doesn't it?

What opinion? I haven't expressed one either way, as I don't really have one.
Again, you're projecting. I said I can't stand global warming hysteria propagated by idiots, I didn't actually say anything about global warming itself.
Yes, your powers of perception do suck.

 

[Llama]

What opinion? I haven't expressed one either way,

BULLSHIT!
"Global warming is a politically expedient excuse to tax people to death and control them, little more."
Opinion.

as I don't really have one.
Again, you're projecting.

Whoops!

I said I can't stand global warming hysteria propagated by idiots, I didn't actually say anything about global warming itself.

There you go again.

Yes, your powers of perception do suck.

Bravo, proving me wrong...oh wait

Oh, you haven't actually proved me wrong yet either. I'm waiting.

 

[repiV]

Yes, I said "little more", indicating that it's hyped out of all proportion and the hype far exceeds any kind of reality. The one thing I am sure of is that the world is not going to end unless we revert to a tribal society in the next decade.

So, what's your point?

 

[clarky003]

Hate to be blunt and rude but: We are not qualified Climatologists, we are not educated well enough to be able to judge for ourselves if mankind is a factor in global warming. The fact is, the people who are educated enough and telling us that we are the biggest factor and if we don't act the world will end as we know it. Anyone who disagree's with this, you ask to see their PHD Thesis on climatology, what's that, you don't have one? Then shut the **** up.

I think we can all agree we are most likely contributing to accelerating it, and probably not as much as we think with alot being down to a natural process. I tend to think encouraging a green lifestyle is a good thing, but at the moment the kindof encouragement we are getting is nothing more than a capitalist driven wankfest.

Rich influencial people who own large fractions of the worlds wealth can realistically make more of a difference in a short period of time if they choose to do something major about it. Large groups of people who are sub ordinates of the control mechanisims in the system can make a change but it is usually a very slow and gradual one.

Realisitcally I can't see why people don't just say it how it is. The whole system isn't able to support critical changes like this, certain people have too many vested interests in the way it works now and any significant change would upset the status quo, which is undesirable to them, and hence the massive resistance by governments and major banks (who fund governments in the first place) to fund, develop or support any 'drastic' action.

 

[SAJ]

If you look back in history the earth has been through many different phases through its life some very hot some very cold. I believe that the Earth is jut going through another phase. Humans are just speeding it up!

Amazing! In amongst this shitstorm of ignorance, someone managed to hit the nail on the head.


All the co2 that is going into the atmosphere via hydrocarbons was once part of the ecosystem, albeit a very long time ago. Millions of years ago the worlds climate was much more prone to huge variations in (average global) temperature, over time the earths climate became more stable.
By an amazing coincidence much of the worlds co2 was being locked away by physical and chemical processes resulting in increasing reserves of hydrocarbons in the form of gas, coal and oil.

Fast forward tens of millions of years and what do we find? Humans excavating gigaton upon gigaton of securely locked up carbon. Thoughtfully liberating it to go about its natural god-given purpose ; global warming (or rather, a major factor thereof).

So Mr Toast is right, the earth has been here before, the real problem is in the speed of change. So far we have put into play more carbon dioxide in two centuries than the planet was able to sequester(look it up) in over three million years. Humans are the most adaptable species to have ever graced the earth, we can cope with change. The rest of the worlds species will not do so well, not a huge problem when its a species of frog here, or a breed of Elk there.
No, it becomes a problem if and when mass extinctions happen at bacterial and phytoplankton level, the real workhorses of the entire ecosystem, then its game over.


What the scientific community is telling you -the general public- is the observed relationship between this quantity of newly liberated c02 and a verified trend in increasing global average temerature. In turn this trend is being compared to past projections of tempreature change that were made in the last decade, and the model that fits is the one that includes more stable contributions -such as solar varience- and most importantly, increased levels of co2 in the atmosphere.
Its science and its a projection -albeit based on the best available, uncontravertable and verifiable evidence- which is why very few scientists are screaming at the top of their lungs.

So, if its so self evident that there is most likely a huge problem on the very near horizon, why is there still a debate about the existence of man-made global warming and its likely cosequences?
I'll tell you a secret, there isnt one, not atleast at policy making levels, in its place is a highly codified and mostly sublimated debate over the dominace of an interventionist standpoint versus a non-interventionist one. Read through this thread again and you can see it on small scale. The interventionists want to see pre-emptive action to prevent a potential/likely catastrophe and are most likely to support increases in public expendature to make it happen.
On the other hand, the non-interventionists favour a "wait and see approach" recognising a threat to the established social and economic order inherent in large scale pre-emptive action and the seachange necessary to see it through.

Furthermore the interventionsists are more likely to be utopian and see the problem in terms of global comunity, something we can all fix together, we share both costs and consequence, we can solve this problem before it gets out of hand.
For the non-interventionists its already too late , they only see competitors that will benefit by economicly damaging actions that are a futile and naive response to the inevitable crisis. You cant turn this boat around so you may aswell position yourself advantageously for the coming storm.

Something to consider when the next "bright spark" starts the next "global warming debate" thread.

 

[Grandmaontoast]

I got something right!!

 

[Icarusintel]

Yes, it must be real and caused by humans, right? Government-funded scientists, political entities, computer simulations, and an incredibly intimate and full knowledge of the complex system of climate must be right.

/Sarcasm

 

[Que-Ever]

No.

 

[SAJ]

Yes, it must be real and caused by humans, right? Government-funded scientists, political entities, computer simulations, and an incredibly intimate and full knowledge of the complex system of climate must be right.

/Sarcasm

Yeah, because sarcasm tags always turn meaningless drivel into a coherent and valuable contribution to a debate. /sarcasm

 

[99.vikram]

If Bush says not to take global warming seriously, I trust him.

/sarcasm

 

[SAJ]

More doom n gloom, hot off the presses ;

New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming

It has been one of the central claims of those who challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global warming. The planet's climate has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun's output and not carbon dioxide emissions.
But a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate. ...

..."The temperature record is simply not consistent with any of the solar forcings that people are talking about," said lead author Mike Lockwood at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire.

"They changed direction in 1985, the climate did not ... [the temperature] increase should be slowing down but in fact it is speeding up."

Global temperatures are going up by 0.2 degrees per decade and the top 10 warmest years on record have happened in the past 12 years.

Well I guess that ends that (non)argument.

Oh, and for the geniuses who heard from "sources" that most scientists are climate sceptics ...

Even though there is almost no argument among scientific circles about the role of human activities as the main driver of climate change, a recent poll suggested that the public still believes there is significant scientific uncertainty. Despite the efforts of government and campaigns such as Live Earth to educate the public, the Ipsos Mori poll of over 2,031 people, released this month, found 56% of people thought there was an active scientific debate into the causes of global warming.

Sauce: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2123447,00.html

Extra ketchup : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

 

[bbson john]

I'll tell you the cost of "fighting global warming" - the self-destruction of our economy and freedom in the name of the Church of Environmentalism.

Force people out of their private vehicles with extortionate taxes and charges (thus also widening the rich-poor divide)

Contradictory!

On the one hand, you said that fighting the global warming will cause the destruction of economy, which means finance of Governments is harmed. On the other hand, you said that taxes built on environmental-protection is help Government in earning family, where it is beneficial for the finance of Governments. So fighting against global warming is doing harm or benefit to the Government?

Hate to be blunt and rude but: We are not qualified Climatologists, we are not educated well enough to be able to judge for ourselves if mankind is a factor in global warming. The fact is, the people who are educated enough and telling us that we are the biggest factor and if we don't act the world will end as we know it. Anyone who disagree's with this, you ask to see their PHD Thesis on climatology, what's that, you don't have one? Then shut the **** up.

I hate to be blunt and rude but: Can't we just argue and scream like hell in an Internet debate? It is a relief. Contrariwise, you made me feel stressful.