Why the leaked global warming data will be a major hit to the environment

[lame-o]

Thanks for the citation + statistical detail there bubs.

Here's an article about it then LINK

The documentary I watched went into more detail and interviewed some families living in rural towns around Africa.

Africans CAN be energy rich in both renewable and fossil energy, but it's the supposed "green peace love" donors and dictators who force them to fend for energy on a less than industrial level (so only communal or individual), which costs too much money and is too inefficient. Of course people can do something to change this, but we could also end world hunger with less than 1% of the world's combined GDP. So, have fun.

Consider how far science and technology has come from 1979 to 2009, and now reconsider whether or not its wise to standby your original statement.

Lame-O's argument is akin to arguing that there is no need to call the fire brigade if your house is full of smoke. Just use a gas mask and adapt to the conditions, as it is unrealistic to believe that any form of human intervention can stop a possible fire from burning down your house.

Wish they taught that in schools.

No my argument is akin to arguing that there is no need to try to fix a 300 year old wooden house when it's crumbling around you. Just let it fall (because it will anyways) and build a new, better one. That's if my argument is akin to anything like that though, which it is on SOME LEVELS, but mostly I'm just arguing that many of the actions being done in the name of stopping Global Warming are total bullshit.

 

[bbson john]

No my argument is akin to arguing that there is no need to try to fix a 300 year old wooden house when it's crumbling around you. Just let it fall (because it will anyways) and build a new, better one. That's if my argument is akin to anything like that though, which it is on SOME LEVELS, but mostly I'm just arguing that many of the actions being done in the name of stopping Global Warming are total bullshit.

I guess you missed the point... It is that most people will die and civilisation will collapse during intense global warming, because we are so dependent on natural resources. It is like that you are in a rotten wood house. You want to build a new house. So you just let the old broken house crumbles despite the fact that you are still within the house. You get yourself killed before you have the chance to build a new one.

 

[lame-o]

I highly doubt "most people will die" and "civilization will collapse". Where are you getting these ideas from? This will all occur over hundreds of years, this is nothing like The Day After Tomorrow.

 

[bbson john]

I highly doubt "most people will die" and "civilization will collapse". Where are you getting these ideas from? This will all occur over hundreds of years, this is nothing like The Day After Tomorrow.

Not really. Consider the impact of global warming on agricultural activities. We would have been fine if our food is produced by machines, as most of you might have though. The fact is that most food resources depend on farms all over the world. The climate changes have already shown impact on the developing countries. Prices of rice began to rise. If global warming intensifies, the food supplies of both developed countries and 3rd world will be jeopardised. And don't forget that the population still rises as this happens. i.e. The food demand will skyrocket despite the food supply drops continuous.

I would say the most devastating effects of global warming are not the floods, the snow storms, hurricanes or any of the fancy CG in the Day After Tomorrow; but the ongoing shortage of food and clean water supply around the global. Literally no one can escape from the shortage disaster. This is inevitable if global warming keeps on.

 

[Sparta]

I would say the most devastating effects of global warming are not the floods, the snow storms, hurricanes or any of the fancy CG in the Day After Tomorrow; but the ongoing shortage of food and clean water supply around the global. Literally no one can escape from the shortage disaster. This is inevitable if global warming keeps on.

And that's not mentioning how much life will change for those areas that are unaffected by climate change. Think about all the people who are forced to migrate and relocate their lives.

It's gotten to the stage where the Pentagon and CIA believe it's a threat to the national security of the U.S.. Inaction because you believe it to be futile would be one of the worst things you could do for it.

 

[unozero]

stop pooring money in to Africa that solves the over population problem within a year.
enforce weathering upgrades on all houses etc....

 

[Kadayi]

Let me start by saying that i don't give a **** about CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases (for the time being), as you all probably know since i've had this position for years.

:dozey:

 

[SIGbastard]

I have to say that anyone who really hardcore believes in man made global warming is intellectually retarded in my opinion. It's just the way it is.

Pollution is real and a growing problem. C02 emmissions though really can't be accurately correlated with squat. We impact the temperature in our environment to the level of jack shit.

That's my take as a red neck dentist who has nothing better to do right now. ****ing no showing time wasting patients.

 

[Sparta]

C02 emmissions though really can't be accurately correlated with squat.

Yes they can actually. The rise in Co2 emissions can be pretty accurately correlated to global warming.

CO2 is produced by fossil fuel burning and other activities such as cement production and tropical deforestation.[16] Measurements of CO2 from the Mauna Loa observatory show that concentrations have increased from about 313 ppm [17] in 1960 to about 383 ppm in 2009. The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data.[18] The effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on the global climate, a special case of the greenhouse effect first described in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius, has also been called the Callendar effect.

Because it is a greenhouse gas, elevated CO2 levels contribute to additional absorption and emission of thermal infrared in the atmosphere, which could contribute to net warming. In fact, according to Assessment Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".[19]

Go on and check the citations if you want to.

The problem with skeptics is that always cite the same names and articles that have been discredited time and time and time again. You always see articles by guys like Christopher Monkton, Willie Soon, David Bellamy, Ian Plimer etc etc and they all bring up arguments saying "the globe isn't warming" or "it is warming but it's not Co2 emissions, it's the sun/cosmic rays/volcanic activity/less clouds" or even the most outrageous claim that "warming is a good thing".

All of these ridiculous claims that are proven wrong a hundred times over get peddled around as the "truth" about climate change while they ignore the massive scientific consensus and claim there is global conspiracy of scientists saying AGW is real in order to get research grants. Because everyone in the world knows that the big money lies in scientific research grants for climate research. It's silly.

It's like when people say "If Global warming is real, why is it cold in winter?"

and ignore all the evidence that says it's because the slightly warmer Arctic/Antarctic air is travelling further than it does when it's colder, resulting in blizzards across the east coast of the U.S. and recording breaking lows in places that usually aren't that cold.

By the way, none of that was directed at you (besides the greenhouse quote), SIGbastard.